james_chow4

The problem with old Arca's is that the current accessories are

unlikely to fit. For soft focus, I think Rodenstock offers a special

soft focus lens that allows one to adjust the amount of softness,

something you can't do w/ a softar filter, as they only come as

softar I or II. I can't think of anything like this in MF or 35mm.

Really Right Stuff offers their own line of improved knobs for the

B1. Check their webpage.

On the first point, I agree w/ Robert. You'll end up w/ out of focus

tree tops. If you use tilt, I think you have to put the J point

either deep underground or high in the air using a small amount of

tilt. You can play tricks w/ the standards to move the J point behind

the camera and in the air or below ground, but it certainly

complicates the shot.

 

<p>

 

On point two, theoretically, both 35mm and 4x5 lenses w/ the same

focal length and CoC should have the same DOF, BUT in a Dec 20,1999

post (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000hMf) on

the medium format digest by Kornelius Fleischer of Carl Zeiss says,

"In general the Biogon is less prone to resolution drop with

defocussing compared to typical SLR lenses of similar focal length.

This means: it has more depth of field than other lenses of different

optical design. (It is not widely known amongst photographers, that

lenses with the same focal length can have different depths of field.

Cinematographers have been aware of this fact for more than half a

century. The realties of optics are far more complex than the simple

equations used for calculating depth of field scales and tables.

Those are just funny toys or rough "guesstimates" with little

accuracy and meaning in the real world.)." So I guess the conclusion

on the second point is 'maybe.' :-)

My conclusion after trying 8x10 (vs. 4x5) is that it's cumbersome,

slow, and expensive compared to 4x5, and it's really only necessary

if you want to make contact prints or for shots containing lots of

small details. One thing you might consider if you decide to go w/

4x5 is to get some lenses that cover 8x10 (e.g., Schneider 150XL

works great as a superwide) and have them mounted in a universal

board (e.g., Linhof), so if you decide to rent a 8x10, the brand of

rental camera will likely have a Linhof adapter.

If it's something simple, like a staircase that rises from the ground

D ft away up at some angle A, then the amount beneath the ground is

just D*tan(A). Otherwise, you guess. :-)

Now that we're on the topic, would anyone know how much coverage a

75mm biogon has?

I know someone who wrote to Fujifilm in Tokyo asking the same

question. The response was that they were still developing the film

and it wasn't ready for market yet. That certainly doesn't explain

why I just bought 120 and 4x5 RDPIII from B&H and on the back of the

box, it says 'made in Tokyo by Fujifilm'. :-) My guess is that

there's no intention of marketing it here, or they're trying to

modify the film's characteristics to be more suitable to Japanese

tastes. Instead, there's a new Fujichrome Trebi available only in 135

format.

The 110XL should easily mount to the TK, as the rear element is small

as others have mentioned. Where you run into problems is w/ the

90XL, as I mentioned yesterday in another post. The total outer

dimensions of the rear element and aluminum ring is large enough that

you can't fit it into the hole on the Linhof without unscrewing the

aluminum ring (which is why schneider designed it to be unscrewed).

It just means that everytime you mount the lens, you have to unscrew

that ring and when you change lenses, you have to reattach that ring,

as the rear lens cap slips onto it. Still, this is one of my most

used lenses. For architecture, I find that I sometimes would prefer a

110XL, as the 90XL is occasionally too wide, but I just crop the

final image (instead of shelling out the $$$ to buy [and carry] yet

another lens).

I have this lens. It's a great lens. For shots that require lots of

rise, you can notice some slight softening as you approach the edge

of the image circle, but this is expected. My only complaints are

that the lens is big...95mm filter size for the front element, the

rear element is so large you need to unscrew the ring that the rear

cap slips over to fit it into a Technika board, and the center filter

is a large 95mm to 110mm Schneider IVa (expensive!), which touches

the bottom of the front frame of the compendium shade, making it a

little more difficult to position. I have used a 95mm circ PL on the

lens with the center filter stacked on it (although not recommended,

as it might vignette the image circle) w/ no problems. I haven't used

the non-XL version.

I don't use the skirt on my loupe. The reason why is that with

movements, especially with wide lenses, if you view the GG from the

angle at which the rays of light are exiting the lens, the image is

much brighter. You can only do this without a skirt (otherwise, the

image looks too dark at the edges). Next time you have lots of

movement dialed in, try looking at the GG from an angle...you'll be

surprised at how much brighter the image is compared to placing the

skirt flat against the GG everytime (bright enough so I can use a

lightweight, navy windbreaker as the darkcloth rather than buy/carry

a dedicated one..not as hot under the sun, plus you can wear it,

too).

There was a Japanese photography magazine that performed a test of

300/4's from leading manufacturers about 2 yrs ago (Zeiss, Pentax,

Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Sigma). In the photos shown, you could clearly

see color casts from different brands of lenses. Even recently, there

was a test between the Contax 645 and Pentax 645N for portrait

lenses, and then a test between all three leading AF 645 lenses

(Contax lenses were definitely the warmest in color). You can clearly

see differences in color (sharpness in some cases, and definitely

bokeh). That said, I own 8 schneider lenses (MF/LF), a few zeiss, and

1 nikkor LF lens and have to say that I'm convinced the Schneider

MF/LF glass is warmer this single Nikkor sample. I'm even considering

permanently attaching a 1A filter to the Nikkor to compensate. I

don't believe the warmth/coolness is characteristic of a country's

optical glass, but rather that of a particular brand.

If I can fit it in the bag, my rollfilm goes in there, too. First priority is holders (both exposed/unexposed, partially because the bag is good protection from light), then exposed quickloads, then rollfilm. In most places in Asia and the US, you can get handchecks. In Europe, no way. All machine operators I've encountered point to the filmsafe sign and make you run your film through it. So if I travel to Europe, my goal is to minimize the number of times the film gets zapped. One method is to choose non-stop segments rather than connections. I'm not sure how well the lead foil bags work. The manufacturer (Kenko) claims iso 800, but the machine can obviously read through the bag since they don't perform a hand inspection (they would if they couldn't see what was in the bag). One possibility I've considered was to insert a sheet of aluminum between the outer pocket of my photopack (where the film is) and the Xray machine sensors. The machine won't read through sufficiently thick metal.

Just put the loaded holders in a ziplock bag, squeeze out the excess

air, toss in a small pack of dessicant, and into the fridge. I put

the ziplock bags in quickload boxes. While on the topic of cold and

holders, has anyone had any problems using holders (or quickloads) in

sub zero temps?

I've been flying about 60K miles/yr for the past few yrs, virtually

all internationally and for photography (Europe, Asia, N. America)

and have not lost a single frame to Xray machines (I use 120, Fuji

quickloads, and Toyo holders). In most places in Europe (UK,

Germany), they absolutely will not hand check anything. I carry all

of my film onboard (as well as photo equipment...it pushes the

limits, but international flights are usually more generous w/ bags,

it seems). Exposed film is usually lead bagged in a iso 800 bag. Of

course, I request a hand check wherever possible, as Xray effects are

additive. Four time is okay, but who knows about 25 times? BTW, if

any film is Xrayed, I make it a point to shoot that film locally; I

only bring new, un-Xrayed film for overseas shooting.

Isn't that bellows company associated w/ Lee filters? I remember receiving a full packet of literature from Lee and it included a brochure on getting custom-made bellows.

To remove the film from the holder, you push down the button in the

back and pull the quickload sheet out. Pushing this button down

refastens the metal clip to the bottom of the quickload.

 

<p>

 

Yeah, in Japan, the premium on Velvia quickload is 70%! Two 10-sheet

boxes of RVP run about 4600 yen while a 20 pack of quickloads is 7800

yen. That's why I buy my quickload film, Kodak E100 and Fuji Astia

sheet films from B&H whenever I'm back in the States (I've found

Fuji 4x5 emulsions to be about 1/2 yr fresher in Japan, though). If

you get quickloads from B&H, the premium is only about $0.50/sheet! I

agree, it is too bad that Kodak and Ilford emulsions don't use

quickload packages. :-)

Although I primarily shoot landscapes, I do shoot some architecture, particularly when travelling in Europe. For this reason, I went with the 90 XL Super-Angulon. Sure, there are times when a 110 might work a little better, but I can always crop a little of the image. The big drawbacks to the 90XL are its size and that the center filter requires 2 stops of compensation. For landscapes, you probably won't need extreme movements or angle of view, but there have been cases when I've been shooting landscapes in tight spots and the 90XL was barely wide enough. I use a three lens system (90, 210, 300) and will soon add a 150XL, which, incidentally, I heard was the sharpest LF lens. I have a few shots taken w/ a borrowed 110XL and 150XL...both look plenty sharp to me. :-) BTW, as an aside if anyone wants to know, if you use the 150XL for 8x10, it takes the same center filter as the 90XL (Schneider IVa), but you give it 1 1/3 stops compensation instead. Also, although there is a dedicated center filter for the 72XL, I have spoken to one person who uses the 90XL's center filter on his 72XL with good results. Something to consider, especially when the center filter is $500!

Someone once told me that Fuji once made some Grafmatics holders.

Anyways, although I can buy either the quickloads or quickchange

here, I prefer the quickloads, as it simplifies submitting individual

sheets for custom processing. With quickchange, you still have to buy

a dedicated quickchange holder for 20,000 yen or so and then the

quickchange cartridges. You can reload them yourself (a little

tricky). There's a frame that fits around 3 sides of each sheet of

film. The sheets merely lay on top of each other in the cartridge.

I've heard the opposite, that 120 film is flatter than 220, though

I've never seen any conclusive evidence. Two factors that are in

favor of 120 is that there are more emulsions available and the paper

backing helps protect the film from light leaks when

loading/unloading outdoors.

The second culprit is making sure the film is fully in the holder and

doesn't slide a bit and become forced into the flap. I always perform

a double check of each holder loaded, using my index finger to make

sure the film is in as far as possible. I've yet to have a problem. I

use Toyo holders, and everything is done in a changing bag.

I have the Toyo 6x7 back. I don't think it's important that the paper

will unwind a little from the pressure plate pressing against the

paper once you close the back. There should be enough extra length in

120 rollfilm to accommodate this (I'm sure the back at least

partially compensates for it in the amount that you rachet to the

first frame). Frame spacing on my 6x7 back is somewhat close but very

even, but I've had no problems with misaligned first frames thus far.

Metering is the same, but don't forget that positive transparency

film has much less latitude as compared to color neg or B&W film,

especially velvia.

I also have the 300/9 M Nikkor. It's a decent lens, though not as sharp as my Schneider 210/5.6 AS or 90/5.6 SA XL and a little on the cold side (I'm thinking about using a 1A filter with it all the time). If weight/cost are no object (just sharpness), you can go with the Schneider 300/5.6 apo symmar or Rodenstock apo sironar S and just use the center of their image circles. These lenses are big weigh a ton (like 3+ lbs vs 1/2 lb for the 300/9M). Unfortunately, there really is no lightweight alternative for a 300mm other than Fuji (don't know how it compares to the Nikkor). BTW, would anyone have the MTF's for the 300/9M? Maybe we could compare them to the plasmats.

The Fujifilm website at http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/pindex/index.html

lists the image circle at 309mm. All the LF emulsions are also listed

on the film page (velvia,provia,astia are made in 5x7, 8x10, 11x14,

several different Neopan emulsions, NS/NC/NL 160 color neg

emulsions). BTW, to view this page, your computer probably needs

Japanese fonts to display the katakana.

What I do to select the proper lens is first set up the tripod from

where I'd like to shoot (no camera mounted yet). Then using the pan

bed degree markings, I sight along the quick release plate to the left

hand boundary, do the same for the right hand boundary, and then

figure out how many degrees in the horizontal field there is. Knowing

the angular field of each lens (I normally use this for 6x6 so

vertical=horizontal, but it'll still get you close). For example, if

the angular field is about 30 degrees and I want a horizontal framing,

I know the 210mm is the right choice.