lars ake vinberg

I just bought a couple of B+W 67mm filter to use with my 47 SAXL and

other lenses. The filters I bought where from B+W's new F-Pro line

with thin rings. It turns out that these filter will not fit the 47,

the filter surface is too close to the front lens element. Other than

that, the build quality of these filters is excellent.

From looking at a Heliopan 77mm filter, that brand has the filter

element mounted a little further from the lens, but is it enough?

Will Heliopan slimline filters be a better fit for the 47 SAXL? Any

first-hand experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Åke

Jonas,

When I started using 4x5 I found myself not needing quite as wide lens as in 35mm. Part of the reason for this is that I used the ultrawide (20mm) to get depth of field in near-far compositions. In LF this is solved using tilts and swings, so I find myself using moderate wideangle (90-120mm) more than in 35mm. Best regards, Åke

- Drove two hours to a remote location, just to realize that my tripod was still on the front porch.

- Pulled the darkslide out of the RFH, just to watch the RFH loosen and fall off the camera. I had missed to secure the lower graflok lock.

- Came back from a two-week drive around the American southwest - my first roadtrip with an LF camera, had about 50 4x5 sheets developed. Ten came back black, ten came back white - I must have made all the exposure mistakes listed above. I nearly gave up on LF then, until I examined the remaining sheets with a lupe.

- And most recently: While vacationing in Buer valley, western Norway, I went on a day-hike up across a 4000ft pass. Somewhere along the trail my tripod fell off the backpack, and because of the heavy rain at the time I did not notice until one or two hours later. I went back over the pass three times but could not find the tripod. Exhausted and soaked, I decided to continue across the pass instead of going back. On the way down I met an old farmer who asked me if I missed something - he had found my $$$ Gitzo CF tripod and put it in his cabin, was on his way to the police station to report it found. It is always a delight to meet such honest people, and I am now preparing a print for him as a thank you. Best regards, Åke

I am using the G1128 for travel/backpacking. For me the lower height is acceptable sinze I am using an angle viewer, so I often use three or two leg sections instead of four. I have also modified the leg spread for a steadier stance. Also, the camera I use with the G1128 is a lightweight 6x9. I have not had any problems with stability, but proper technique is of course essential with such a light tripod.

For 4x5 using a focusing cloth the G1128 (or G1127) is too short and possibly not rigid enough - the G1227/G1228 is much more appropriate.

Best regards, Åke

If you are willing to accept a smaller image circle then (according to specs) the Digitar 150 offers even higher resolution than Apo-Symmar and Sironar S. Plus it is possible to shoot at f5.6-f11 with confidence, if that suits your needs. I have used a Digitar 120, and for me it clearly qualifies as a "superstar" (compared to my Apo-Symmar 100 and 180).

/Åke

1) The 23S can combine front and rear shift to a maximum of 40+38=78mm shift in either direction. Consequently, max front fall is 40+25=65mm and max front rise is 50mm. The 45S has even more movements. I cannot comment on if the bellows can accomodate such extreme movements.

2) Judging from my SW23, which has a shorter but otherwise similar base, there is a good place to tape a ruler, on top of the focusing rail metal cover. In fact, it would be a nice improvement of Ebony to engrave a millimeter scale on that cover.

Åke

On Struan's comments on leveling base instead of tripod head:

The Burzynski ballhead is an interesting design for lowering the center of gravity - http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html

This head actually replaces the top plate on a Gitzo 3-series, to keep the lowest profile.

Åke

I had a chance to try out a Digitar 120 on 6x9. It is clearly the sharpest lens I have ever used, including my SAXL 47, SA 65/5.6, Apo-Symmar 100 and 180.

Wide open at 5.6 it seems significantly sharper than both Apo-Symmars stepped down. Best resolution is at f/11-f/16. Nominal image circle of 150mm is probably specified wide-open, at f/16 it illuminates 180+ mm (another poster claimed 200+ mm at f/22, but I would not go that far). There is a slight light fall-off, but not more than with the Apo-Symmars.

I would say that this lens is excellent for architecture in 6x9, and in 4x5 for landscape with more limited displacements. Where the Digitar really has an edge is in its wide-open performance. Best regards, Åke

Neal,

I did some experimenting with my Epson Perfection 1640 regarding noise and dynamic range, some notes are found here:

http://www.vinberg.nu/photography/articles/multiscan/multiscan_article.htm

My conclusion is that this scanner (specifically, my sample) is not a very good construction. The imaging unit draws power constantly and heats up, generating more and more black current noise until after an hour or two the produced images become unusable. To get good results you have to turn the scanner off overnight. The first scan in the morning is always clean.

Two-pass scanning with Vuescan does work - but unfortunately the algorithm averages between the two scans, whereas to reduce dark current noise you would have to take the minimum value for each pixel and color.

I have now given up scanning dark transparencies with this scanner, but for well-exposed transparencies the results are quite decent.

Best regards,

Åke

Jason,

<p>

I did not quite understand your posting here - if the bellows is only

supported by the front and rear standard then what is the difference

in shifting the front standard one way or the rear standard the other

way? (except for changing the lens position of course)

None of my field cameras has rear swing. So when using front swing,

shift becomes valuable - especially for lenses with smaller image

circles.

Photos here:

<p>

http://www.shen-hao.com/11.htm

<p>

/Åke

Ask someone in Europe to buy you a Philips HR2388 electronic kitchen

scales. they are about US$40, resolve down to one gram.

<p>

Or try this page:

<p>

http://www.fernsnutrition.com/hmscale.html

<p>

/Åke

Thanks, everyone.

<p>

Miles,

<p>

Thanks! You were actually not that far off - "gutt" means boy in

Norwegian!

<p>

Michael,

<p>

I am planning to take three or four weeks off sometime in September.

<p>

Mining towns, sure! I've been to Bodie in California and Humberstone

near Iquique in northern Chile. But there seems to be so much more.

Sand dunes for sure, ship wrecks on the Skeleton coast, landscape and

nature in general. I hear the the light in Namibia is great that time

of the year, with low sun and everchanging colors. (We do have great

light and low sun up here in Scandinavia too, but with summer sunrise

before 4am it's sometimes a bit of an inconvenience... ;-)

<p>

Åke

Didn't think of using a MacBeth chart for checking linearity - that

is of course a more challenging test. I do have one somewhere, so

I'll try it out. /Åke

I finally got around to test my Sekonic L-778 light meter this weekend.

<p>

UV: Test conditions were clear skies at noon, with and without UV filter in front of the lens, and then same test at night indoors. Ther was no measurable difference between outdoor and indoor measurements - in both cases the UV filter increased exposure by 0.1 stops.

<p>

Linearity: Using a B+W 8x ND filter, I mesasured at different light conditions from brightr sunny skies to lowest measurable light. The ND filter consistently reduced exposure by 3.0 stops.

<p>

Infrared: My kitchen stove has heaters that glow when heated. This affected exposure by 2-3 stops. My conclusion is that the meter is oversensitive to the near infrared spectrum. However, a hot but not glowing surface (such as a stove heater turned off after glowing) does not affect exposure. My conclusion is that the meter is not sensitive to the far infrared spectrum.

<p>

Beast regards, Åke

I am planning to travel to Namibia in September this year, primarily for the purpose of large-format landscape photography. Suggestions from photographers who have visited Namibia would be most appreciated.

<p>

I would also be interested in finding a travel companion with a strong interest in landscape photography.

<p>

Best regards,

<p>

Åke

Stockholm, Sweden

Howard,

<p>

The Ebony catalog states 6 mm increased flange distance for the 4x5

to 6x9 reducing adapter. You really should check out the catalog, in

PDF format on the Ebony home page. The high-resolution version has

very clear pictures. Best regards, Åke

Howard,

<p>

I think I'll write that SW23 review this weekend, I have taken notes

for two months now. I promise to put lots of photos in thew review

page.

<p>

Regarding flange focal distance, I looked up these values:

4.5/35 Apo-Grandagon 43.2 mm

5.6/38 Super Angulon XL 52.1 mm

5.6/47 Super Angulon XL 59.1 mm

<p>

I have the 47 SAXL, and there is plenty of room for the 20 degree

tilt that this camera is limited to. The corresponding swing works

fine too. 30mm rise & shift should be OK - after that the bellows

gets in the way.

<p>

The 38 SAXL on a 7mm recessed board should work fine. I'm not sure

about the 35 Grandagon, since its flange focal distance is so short.

<p>

Max extension with two tophats and extender back is 157 + 90 + 34 +

34 = 315 mm. To allow some focusing, 80% of that is 252 mm, so a 240

should work. BUT: It better not be heavy! My 180 Apo-Symmar weighs

about 410 grams, and with that one on two top hat tubes and the front

standard focusing fully extended there is a lot of weight very much

off-center, and very little focusing rail holding the front standard.

<p>

I normally use the 180 with one tophat and no extender back. This

works great. The Nikkor-M 200 would probably be a great light-weight

lens for this setup, but then two tubes or the extender back would be

required. This camera really is made for wideangle lenses.

<p>

I think that if you want longer lenses than 200mm then you should

really look at the SW45 with a reducing back. Not much more weight

and size, plus the focusing bed is a little longer so it's more

stable and has 30mm more maximum extension without compromising the

minimum extension.

<p>

The extender back weighs in at 412 grams, the SW23 body at 1311 grams.

<p>

Best regards,

<p>

Åke

I have two 35mm tophat extensions. I use a 180mm Apo-Symmar with one

extension, the rear element is almost flush with the lens board. A

240 should not have any problem, unless it covers something like

11x14 and you actually need to use that kind of movements on a 4x5.

In the case fo the 180, I think that one 35mm extension is OK but

two extensions moves the lens weight so much in front of the front

standard that the whole assembly gets a little wobbly. The RW45 is

probably a little more steady at full extension than my SW23, so it

might actually work very well with 70mm extension.

<p>

Mail me privately and I'll send you some digicam pics of the

tophat. /Åke

BTW, the Horseman viewer weighs in at 319 grams, the 6x9 RFH at 423

grams. /Åke

Chris,

<p>

Comments from an SW23 user:

<p>

The Ebony online catalog (the PDF on the home page) has a photo of a

23S or SW23 with a Mamiya RFH mounted.

<p>

I have a 22551 Horseman monocular angle viewer, it is not binocular

but otherwise very useful and a good fit. It is even better to ask

Ebony to supply the viewer custom-fitted for your camera, hinged the

way the GG back is. It might cost some, but Ebony can probably get

the viewer cheaper than you can so it might not be that much of an

extra cost.

<p>

Resolution becomes more important with a smaller format, so you do

have to pay more attention to lens quality.

<p>

A cool thing with the 23S is that you can use the rear shift to

stitch a 56x160mm format in Photoshop. It's a little more awkward

with the SW23 which misses rear shift, I have to first shift the

front standard and then shift the camera the opposite direction to

keep the lens position fixed.

<p>

I picked up an extra Horseman 6x9 RFH for USD$180 brand new from a

dealer here in Stockholm and he does have one more for that price,

but perhaps Stockholm is a little far from you. Best regards, Åke

Robin,

<p>

I have an SW23 and the smaller 692 extender for the 6x9 Ebony. I also

have a top hat panel.

<p>

The top hat panel is light and compact, but the camera balances

better when the extender back is used.

<p>

The Ebony website specifies that the 452 fits the 45S and SW45

models. You really should ask a retailer if you intend to use the

extender on another camera. Best regards, Åke