joe_hunt1

Even though you mention wanting a bag to hold some other kit as well. I thought I'd mention the Lowepro Street & field Specialist 80 AW, 85 AW, and the Lowepro Pro Mag 2 AW. They are tall (10-10.5") compact bags ideal for holding a folding 4x5, or in my case Cambo Wide with finder, when you want to carry the minimum bulk. Check out dimensions on www.lowepro.com but don't trust the figures totally - bags seem to vary a bit! These AW bags also have a fold-out raincover and the Specialist bags (& maybe the Pro Mag 2) take a shoulder harness.

 

I use a Manfrotto (or Bogen) 190AT to keep weight down, It's a nice green colour and has foam sleeve grips on the leg tops - handy in cold weather - and a M'frotto Standard 3D P&T head with a well screwed down Q/R top which accepts the rectangular dovetail wedge(Arca style?) foot on my camera. I returned to the P&T after using a ball head.

Oops - cancel that post from me above. I think I've got it wrong way round.

Would the 135mm have less - too little - coverage for small enlargements, when the lens is further from the negative?

If you aren't looking for a Koni Omega finder specifically, and if the camera has a standard accessory shoe, why not consider the new W/A finder - Calumet or RW - for the Cambo Wide DS? It's seems very well made, has integral bubble level, clear image and mask edges, and has optional masks for different formats and most wide focal lengths (even 38mm 4x5)as well as for 58mm.

Richard

If you go to my slim portfolio in the gallery on photo.net I've got a photo self portrait taken with a paper neg. Some details are there - Ilford MG4 exposed at ISO 3 - about 1sec at f/16. Don't forget to print the neg face down, otherwise the light goes through the paper fibres after going through the image - not good!

 

p.s. I just realised I could upload the image here - so, hopefully, here it is.<div></div>

I don't know about a #2 tube, but the general formula for this is:

 

X Exposure factor = (length of extension tube + focal length) squared, divided by (focal length) squared.

 

For example:

 

with an extension tube 40mm (4cm) long and your 80mm (8cm) lens,

 

then 144 divided by 64 = X 2.25 exposure factor.

Bokeh - is it an acronym or a nursery nonsense word like quarks?

Jeff - regarding the Hasselblad dark band (I didn't check your image), there might be a couple of causes I can think of:

 

1 - uneven dev tank agitation or temperature gradient from top to bottom of dev tank. This would show as a vertical band on Hassy (assuming it transports film vertically), rather than the much less noticable horizontal band resulting with film transported in camera from left to right.

 

2 - Light entry at safety slide - the dark area might be the unaffected part of film, with the rest having slight fogging! If the dark area on print is on same side as safety slide this would put it away from slide in the camera.

 

I've suspected both sources at different times with my photos. I make every effort to ensure even processing, and use a false short safety slide to close the slit in my 6x12 RFH, extra important in bright sun.

David I like the photo - but where do you get the 140 degrees from? The image circle diameter of 72mm XL is supposed to be 115 degrees independent of the format.

 

It seems to me the your 4"x10" is using more of this horizontally, but not all of it, and you must be focussing closer than infinity to throw that 226mm image circle (at infinity) over the bigger sheet of film. That surely just means that 115 degrees is covering more film than at the worst case infinity setting?

All I ever hear is Epson 2450 - doesn't anyone else out there have a Canoscan D2400UF? It's similar spec, taking 35mm to 5x4.

 

Do the rest of you know something about the Canoscan that I don't? I innocently laid down my money for the Canoscan - somebody tell me it's just as good.

Chuck

 

Glad you have your working projector (and some GePe slide mounts) - "small button on the right side" is lamp economy switch increasing useful life of the lamp (without much reduction in brightness)

"Mine only advances in reverse - are you sure?"

 

Bob - I thought you'd cracked it and immediately dragged out the projector wondering why I started to get it wrong if I used to get it right once.

 

No such luck - there are separate advance and reverse buttons on the remote (as well as on the projector), and the advance button leaves the changer hanging outside the magazine.

 

Thanks anyway

Chuck

 

I have the 600A, rather than your manual 600M projector (mine only advances slides in reverse!)along with operating instructions. Lamp is 24V /250W Halogen - order no. 310 05 2200, but it's generic I'm sure.

 

I mounted slides from filmstrip using GePe 60x60 3mm with glasses slide mounts art.2601.

 

It runs pretty hot so don't let your precious slides hang around too long.

 

If you have other specific queries email me and I'll try to answer them.

Darick

 

I have GW690 with 90mm (not 65mm) and later got Mamiya 7II with both 80mm and 43mm. I quickly sold the two lenses without too much loss and got a 65mm. I can't say I really warmed to the Mamiya and felt guilty about retiring the GW690. Am now thinking of selling the Mamiya and getting out the GW690 (I also use a Cambo Wide with 65mm and 612RFH).

 

You could get some idea of coverage comparisons by drawing to scale format rectangles of 56x70 and 56x82.5. Then reduce the 56x82.5 dimensions in the ratio of 43/65. That would give an idea of how 65 on 6x9 compares with 43 on 6x7.

 

I was interested in similar, and should be able to dig out photos of same subject taken with 43mm and 65mm on 6x7 (as well as 90mm on 6x9). The 65mm image could be printed and border extended to show extra field of view at 6x9.

 

If you're interested you could email me, and I'll scan them and attach to reply.

Mike

Looking through the responses I'm not sure if reference to distance scales covers just viewfinder parallax, or this particular point:

The angle of view of the lens recorded on film is much greater at infinity than it is when focussed closer. This is why lens coverage is quoted at infinity. When focussed on nearer subjects the lens is further from the film, the image circle (and range of possible movements) are greater, and the image is made from a smaller percentage of the total image circle.

So an optical viewfinder will show too little at infinity (as you have found) and too much at close distances (or a compromise of the two).

PS - As I have no experience of the Linhof finder I don't know if it zooms in and out for distance setting - if so apologies for the attempted explanation!

David

 

The Cambo Wide has +/- 20mm lens shift each way vertical or horizontal. To switch from vertical to horizontal the lens has to be remounted. On my one the tripod mounting foot impedes vertical shift downwards, limiting that shift to under 10mm. Correcting converging verticals would call for an upward shift. The tripod foot (which is very usefully matched to some Q/R tripod heads) can be unscrewed and reversed but then sticks out behind the camera body somewhat. Other models of this camera seem to have a different (not Q/R) foot which may not obstruct. In any case I can't recall wanting to use down shift.

 

The new Cambo Wide DS has the shifts built in to the body so both vertical and horizontal can be used without remounting the lens panel.

It also has 40mm upward shift (useful for converging verticals), 20mm in other directions.

 

Amount of shift is dependant on the coverage of the lens fitted - these cameras have each of their lenses expensively mounted in a helical focus mount, so it's unlikely that one has a selection of lenses to call on. The camera suits the superwides and you need to check the image circle for the format you use.

 

The Cambo Wides are rigid bodies - more accurate with short focal length lenses where depth of focus is critical - so have no tilts or swings.

Hi Geoffrey and Renee

 

Thanks for getting back and for your advice.

 

Renee - Yes I like the camera a lot, it's no fuss and handholdable. Would love to see some XL 47mm photos. If they look verrry much wider than mine with 65mm then that might make me think twice over getting the XL 38mm. The 38mm is the one though - is it just too wide??

I use a Cambo Wide with 65mm SA in helical focus mount for 6x12cm

with RFH, and 5x4.

I want to see examples of photos (6x12cm and/or 5x4) taken with super

wides such as Rodenstock 35mm, or Schneider Super Angulon XL

38mm,47mm. I'm tempted to get a Cambo Wide DS with 38mm SA XL but

really need to see some example photos - anyone know of online

gallery or care to e-mail some? Thanks!