stefan_geysen1

With all the digital hype, people are sometimes willing to let go off

their LF stuff for throwaway prices to get into digital. <p>

I got back into LF earlier this year when I was offered a deal I

couldn't resist: Cambo Legend 4x5 with Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N

240mm, 9 Fidelity holders, Polaroid 545i holder and Bogen 3051 tripod

with 3039 head, all in 100% mint condition, for a bit over $900..

Jean, IMHO means "in my humble opinion"

This problem is, IMHO, the Achilles heel of all rigid 6x7 cameras. On

the one hand, you have fairly long focal lengths with restricted DOF,

and on the other hand, no movements to counteract this. You're

correct about the near-far landscape shots: focus on infinity and

forget about hyperfocal. Even with the 75mm, I never got 100%

satisfactory sharpness all over using the DOF scale.

 

<p>

 

No more problems after switching to LF though ;-)

Photographing Plants & Gardens by Clive Nichols, ISBN 0715307150.

He uses an Olympus SLR system, Bronica SQ-A and Pentax 67 (the latter

with 55mm and 135mm lenses). Plenty of P67 shots, all on Velvia

(technical details are provided with each picture).

Dave,

 

<p>

 

The Symmar 300mm is the 300/500mm convertible. Apparently, most, if

not all lenses named Symmar are convertible (I now the 150, 180,

210 ,240, 300 and 360mm are). Schneider later recalculated these

lenses so they were no longer convertible, to give better performance

(the Symmar-S series).

Check www.schneideroptics.com (knowledge : vintage lens data : large

format lenses : symmar).

Linhof offered something similar.

The Linhof Praxis book (1958) shows some accessories which turn a

Technika into an enlarger. It consisted of a cold light adapter and a

baseboard with column. The book further states that it was available

for Technikas in 6x9cm, 4x5" and 5x7".

Olli, yes, your assumption is correct. I had the Sinaron SE 150mm

myself (before I foolishly sold my LF kit,being under the illusion I

would be better of with medium format; switched back to LF a couple

of weeks ago). It's an excellent lens! Buy it before someone else

does, I'd say.

Sinar's designation is a bit confusing: Sinaron S is the same as

Rodenstock's Apo Sironar N, and Sinaron SE is the same as

Rodenstock's Apo Sironar S.

Yes, the weight surprised me too. But that's what it says: 13

kilograms,not 13 pounds. And I thought my Cambo Legend 4x5" (6

kilograms) was heavy!

In the Linhof books I've seen,these cameras are mostly mounted on

those incredibly massive Linhof studio tripods that look like they

were made out of a barrel of a battleship, so it could be true.

Another vote for the long side of the format as a reference. A 150mm

is like a 45mm when you compare it this way. If you take the sort

side of the format,it's like a 40mm.<p>

In 35mm, I'm not too fond of the 50mm either; in many situations,it's

either too long or too short for me. With the 150mm on 4x5", I don't

have this problem; it definitely feels wider than a 50mm in the small

format.

The Linhof Praxis book (1958) gives the following data on the Kardan

Color 8x10: weight 13 kilograms, maximum extension 555mm, minimum

extension 50mm, rise 80mm, fall 40mm (both standards); shift: 43mm

L/R on front standard and 51mm L/R on the rear standard. Tilt and

swing on both standards is limited by the bellows only. Dimensions:

they give the following dimensions for the <b>case</b>: 750 x 200 x

500mm (29.5 x 7.9 x 19.7")<p>

This camera is a fine example of German (over-)engineering. Keep in

mind that modern Linhof accessories like bellows, lensboards and

backs won't fit.

I agree about the vulnerability-when-under-a-darkloth. A couple of

years ago, when I was taking a picture of a building in the centre of

Antwerp, someone stole my 5° Minolta meter attachment out of my case

while I was under the darkcloth. On another occasion,some drunks

stood several minutes in front of my camera,shouting and chanting,

thinking it was a video camera!<p>

Why so few women in the forum? Maybe because being a techhead is

mostly a male thing :-) Back in photo school,where the majority of my

class was female, there wasn't anyone even remotely interested in

using the view camera. Even a medium format camera was looked upon as

a "studio only" camera...<p>

Anyway, welcome aboard and happy shooting!

There are probably enough people who want all their lenses to be from

the same brand or country, so they will choose one of the other slow

90's. Also, Nikon doesn't bother to advertise their lenses,

especially here in Europe,where everyone seems to buy Schneider or

Rodenstock.

I asked and got a Nikon LF lens brochure from the Belgian importer,

but that's all the advertising I've ever seen over here. It's a good

start to have an excellent product,but if people don't know about it,

it isn't going to sell much.

Ha ha ha! I bought the 1958 edition,in decent condition, for about 10

US $ a couple of weeks ago!

Bidding closed at 250 $... LOL

Some more info:

Hailu, you're right about the driving instead of hiking to the

location. I recently bought a Cambo Legend,which,as I explained in my

previous post, isn't that much different from the SCX. I did some

research about the feasability of using it outdoors. First, you need

a fairly big and sturdy tripod to support it (I have a Bogen 3051

with 3039 head which is a wonderful combination, but it's also tall

and heavy). Next, you need a big case to transport it; you'll

probably have to buy the two-piece detachable monorail to keep the

bulk down. So cameras like the SCX and Legend can be used in the

field, but mostly close to your car.

On the other hand, you could buy an old bicycle,load all the stuff on

it, and use it as a hand cart, like the Viet Cong did when they

transported supplies over the Ho Chi Minh trail ;-)

The Cambo SCX can be considered either as a 45NX with geared shift

and a much more solid monorail,or as a Cambo Legend without the

geared rise mechanism. The weight should be somewhere between these

two cameras (45NX: 9 pounds,Legend: 13.5 pounds). I think the Legend

replaced the SCX in the Cambo model range around 1989.

Aaron, thank you very much for the suggestion. I tried it myself

today (one sheet of TMX 100 in Rodinal 1+50), and it came out perfect!

The Sinar F models I've seen lack the angle calculator of the F1/F2.

They do have the depth-of-field calculator. The difference between

the F and the F1 is mainly cosmetic, like the difference between the

P and the P2.

I've worked with the F2 for about 2.5 years, and compared to cameras

like the Horseman LE, Linhof Kardan E or my current camera (Cambo

Legend) the F1/F2 is more refined feature-wise (yaw-free, angle

calculator), but also more delicate.

Thanks everyone for contributing an answer. I've come across a couple

of books about studio photography that recommend the 240mm too.

Today, I bought the camera, and it seems I've scored an amazing deal:

the camera and all that came with it looks and functions like new,

but I only paid 1/4 of what it would cost new!

I too experienced the XTol failure (1 litre package,was caked, but I

didn't knew about the consequeces of that at the time). I find myself

using the "ancient" stuff more and more, not only developers

(Rodinal, D76), but films too (Plus-X,FP4,HP5,Tri-X). When you're

shooting LF, you can enjoy the wonderful tonality and processing

tolerance these products offer,without noticing the larger grain.

I am being offered a LF kit consisting of the following items: Cambo Legend 2 with Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N 240mm, Manfrotto TriAut tripod with Super Pro head, 545 polaroid holder and 10 Fidelity holders. All this,in mint condition, for only 875 US $.

 

<p>

 

My question: is the 240 a good choice for general studio photography?

I guess the standard choice is a 210, but a 240 doesn't seem to be that much different.

The HP Marketing website announced the "new Linhof Kardan M" in november 1999 ; when I compared the specs and especially the picture on the website, it appeared to be a Kardan E under a new name(http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/cgi-bin/news?recno=13).

 

<p>

 

But nowadays, B&H photo sells them both; the E model at a substantially higher price. What's going on here? Linhof's own website doesn't even list the model M.

I don't own the 75mm shift but I've noticed the same limited depth of

field with my normal 75mm. The DOF scale on my Hasselblad CF 80mm

seems to be more accurate.

From Robert Monaghans' medium format site, Pentax 67 section:

 

<p>

 

"Check out

http://www.research.att.com/~ark/pictures/norway/overview.html

 

<p>

 

I took those pictures with a Pentax 67. I'd like to continue

traveling with it -- I've made 24x30 prints from some of those

negatives.

 

<p>

 

Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com)"

I'm having a hard time trying to decide between the 45mm and the 55mm,since their price and quality is so similar. I currently have the SMC 75mm f4.5 and I'm very pleased with it,using it as a "wide standard" lens for my landscape photography. Which wideangle would you choose as a companion for the 75mm?