david_caldwell

I feel like a prairie dog who exits his hole, stands erect, scans the sky, then makes a dash for another hole, hoping BIG BOB won't sweep down and plunge his talons into the hapless prey.

 

Bob is correct. Those studio cameras that he mentions never came to mind. When I hear Linhof, I typically visualize only the MT 2000 (and its predecessors) and the TKS 45, both well suited for landscape photography.

 

The local camera store has the Linhof 8 x 10 GTL on display. I have never seen the 4 x 5 model. The 8 x 10 GTL is an awesome camera, well built to provide the stability for long exposures or multiple exposures during studio photography. Like the Sinar and Arca Swiss 8 x 10 cameras, it features micro-geared movements and very large lens boards and can accept 5 lb lenses with 135 mm front elements and oversize rear elements. Its weight and the that of the lens, mount, and heavy duty tripod, render it totally unsuitable for back packing by people who do not own llamas.

 

It would be appreciated if any one who uses the 4 x 5 Linhof GTL would comment on its relative suitability for field work, cmpared to the MT 2000 or TK45S. In publications on landscape and architectural photography, Sinar promotes some of its 4 x 5 studio cameras as the only ones suitable for long focal length lenses in the range of 600 to 1200 mm. I would assume that is the only range of focal length where the Linhof GTL would be advantageous to the MT 2000 or TK45S. I understand that the GTL is yaw free, whereas the MT 2000 and TKS 45S are not (at least in standard set up). I doubt any landscape photographer has a need for yaw free movements. I do not know whether changing bellows is as simple for the GTL as it is for the MT 2000 or TK45S.

I wrote of John Schaeffer but I should have said John Sexton. As to Linhof 96 x 99 mm lens board being a limiting factor in lens seelction, I do not regard my comment being substantively different from that of Bob Salomon. The tapered bellows and front standard are sized to fit the smaller lens board (or vice versa), and the consequence is that the Linhof 4 x 5 cameras cannot accept certain bulky lenses whose rear element has an outer diameter significantly exceeding 80 mm. I was not aware that the 90 XL is one of these, and I appreciate mention that there are 90 mm focal length lenses with slightly less maximum aperture that fit the Linhof. I have not seen the MT 2000 in quite a while and was surprised to read that it is much more compact than the TK45S. The weight difference between the TK45S and MT 2000 appears negligible, but the relative compactness of the MT2000 vs TK45S is stupendous. Nonetheless I would prefer the TK45S because of its flexibilty, from closeup 1:1 photography with long bellows and 210/300 lens, to wide angle work with substantial rise available for the lens. I am too far out of shape to ever consider day hikes, much less overnight back packing trips, so I do not particularly value the compactness offered by the MT 2000. The landscape that is available to me typically has lots of vertical structures where lens rise is quite helpful, for which the TK45S is well adapted. While I admire much of the work of Fielder, Muench and Dykinga, they rarely have images that require any rise of the lens. I can understand why they do not use the TK45S. By now my chief point is obvious. We need to select the camera that best serves photographing the subject matter or range of subject matter of primary interest to us.

I suspect a more likely explanation is that you have a maladjusted loupe. With macrofocusing, your depth of field is so narrow that any slight misadjustment of the loupe will be evident in the images you take. This can occur if you have adjusted the loupe to view transparencies lying on a light table, and then proceed to use the loupe for ground glass focusing without further adjustment. Bon-vivant, raconteur and world traveler Bob Salomon posted here about a year or two ago the notion of setting up the camera without any lens, and then adjusting the loupe that has been pushed up againsg the outward facing surface of the ground glass so that you are focused on the granular structure that lies on the inward-facing side of the ground glass. In effect, you are focusing to accommodate the thickness of the ground glass. This technique ensures that when you insert your lens, your bellows extension will then be the correct one for focusing.

Eliasi: I concur that the Sironar is a great lens, but I cannot accept your allegation that the Nikkor is an unsharp lens. The 135 mm lenses of allo the lens manufacturers are among the simplest to manufacture and are known for their superior sharpness. I cannot recall any one else tracking mud over their reputation. Have you ruled oput alternate possibilities? You would be focussing wrong, if you have adjusted your loupe for sharp viewing of transparencies. When you use the loupe for camera focussing, you need to adjust the loupe so that the grain on the ground glass comes into sharpest focus. [source: Bob Salomon] This is a different setting from that used for focussing on the film transparencies. If you have corrective lenses for your eyes, you need to keep them on when using the loupe. When did you last have your prescription tested? Maybe you have early onset diabetes or changes associated with aging that is affecting your vision.

Few of Dykinga's images are taken with the camefra mounted within 3 feet of the horizontal plane. The lower the camera to the ground, the greater the need for lens tilt to bring both the foreground and distant landscape into focus. This is all predictable from the Scheimflug (sp?) principle.

I agree totally with Scott Fleming's main point that none of the other large format lens manufacturers have anything comparable and as useful as Schneider Optic's website. You have to look up Paul Butzi to download Rodenstock's MTF curves. Thallman has posted some MTF curves for a few of the Nikon lenses but nothing comprehensive. I think Fleming's decision to buy only Schneider is OK for the reasons he gave although I would not be so loyal. I can say that I favorably impressed by Schneider's webpage. It exudes professionalism to a high degree. Fleming's critics should switch to decaf. I think each of the other lens manufacturers has something unique to offer that they do not advertise, or do not advertise well. I particularly dislike the Rodenstock distributor advertisements as artistically and graphically dull but I love their products. How could they possibly select an image of a broken chain that lacks high resolution to emphasize the quality of their lenses?

 

I am curious as to why the other lens manufacturers have not improved their webpages and advertising. Perhaps the market is too small to warrant the expense. Maybe a particular lens manufacturer is already at near capacity and could not produce more lenses without undergoing costly environmental changes to their manufacturing facility. I have never seen any indication on the web as to whether Schneider large format lens advertisements and website have led to expanding market share or product sales.

 

What bothers me about the Schneider Optics webpage is my lack of ability to understand the MTF graphs. I suspect these might not be representative of 19/20 of the lenses made, but reflect merely the theoretical best attainable. I wonder whether the vast majority of lenses underperform these graphs. At one time Bob Solamon posted a statement that Rodenstock lense may underperform the MTF graph by - [minus]10%. It was not clarified by him whether this meant a drop from 40 to 36 in resolution, or from 40 to 30. Perhaps none of this may be meaningful in the real world, if any shortcoming in lens resolution is easily offset by decreasing magnfication in making a final print or by selecting a larger size film format that can be covered by the lens. You get more bang for the buck going from 4 x 5 to 5 x 7 than by choosing a more expensive lens simply because of slightly elevated MTF curves compared to a competitor's lens.

These lenses are optimized for middle to far distances (1:10 to infinity). They do not have to be closed as much as their process lens counterparts (e.g., Schneider G-Claron or Apo Ronar) to attain maximum sharpness and contrast. In contrast, the process lenses are optimized for 1:1 magnification. For portraits (often taken in diffuse lighting), I suspect you will find the f5.6 aperture of the Apo Symmar or Apo-Sironar preferable for easier focussing. Some of the older lenses of the 20's and 30's might even be preferred by you for portraits because of their softness--see any album of portraits by Steiglitz (SP?).

Take a look at the Arca Swiss Metric with Orbix, with asymmetrical focusing. I regard it preferable to the Ebony, because its all metal frame is more durable. It might be more stable than the TK45S because it has standards on both sides, rather than L-shaped standards. I do not have a problem with camera stability or shake, so I do not regard this as a serious or recurring problem with the TK45S, at least when tripod is solid, wind is minimal (light breeze), or exposures short (a fraction of a second). In a strong breeze, any 4 x 5 camera will shake nmore than a medium format camera. Unlike the Arca Swiss, the Ebony requires only one bellows for wide angles and long focal length--a savings of about $400-500, and a saving of space in the camera bag. Wood can crack or split if the camera is dropped. The asymmetrical focusing eliminates a lot of the hassle of focusing so that you can readily capture near and far. Take a look at any largew format photography book by David Muench (available in most bookstores)and you weill see how wel he sues near and far clompositions with wide angle lenses. You said weight and cost were not a factor of importance. The Ebony costs 2-3x the Arca Swiss F Compact, without Orbix, depending upon configuration, and about 1.5x the AC Metric with Orbix. Get the non-standard Arca Swiss 40 cm rail. You can carry the camera in a Lowe Trek AW camera backpack with the rail fully extended. That means all you have to do is mount the camera on the tripod and you are ready to focus--no unfolding of the camera. The standard Arca Swiss lens board is humongous so get the TK lensboard adapter and have your lenses mounted in the much smaller TK 45 lensboard (which eases storage of the lenses in your camara bag or pack). The knobs on all on the right side and can be tightened or finely adjusted even while wearing gloves. If weight and cost were a factor, I think the TK45S is a better value. The camera center axis lens tilt makes focusing for near and far much easier than base tilt. The TK45S has rear tilt (I am unsure about the Arca Swiss). The available lens rise is tremendous -- all you will ever need. Independent levers on T45S control lens tilt and lens rise-- a very convenient feature. I do not know whether the Arca Swiss adjustments are independent. The TK45S is favored for architectural photography as well as landscape work. For price comparison, check Badger Graphic Sales (Wisconsin), BH PHoto, and Robert White (UK). With press view cameras, like yours, the bed has to be tilted downwards to avoid vignetting of the imaging. Monorail cameras like the TK45S and Arca Swiss ease use of wide angle lenses. They permit longer extensions than cameras like yours. Their main disadvantage is the bellows lacls a clam shell to protect the bellows from abrasion. Your camera can close up into a clam shell configuration, protecting the bellows. Yoru camera does not require a bag bellows, but its estension is limited to 360 mm.