dave schlick

i dont want to lug the mamia 330 very far as im getting older.. the

rolliecord looks like a prettty nice light camera.. will i be

dissapointed if i just want to shoot some good photos with the

rolliecord? what lenses are ok? i found a schnieder planar at a

camera shop but its over 200 dollars.. (239) its gaurenteed, so so

condition.. shutter is in good condition and has timing paper. its

not sticky and is on time within factory limits. i see lots of other

lenses on this camera on ebay, would a xenar be a step down?.. what

camera in the weight class of the rolliecord would you suggest, for

me not dropping a bundle for the few shots that i have left in my

life. thanks dave..

some guys use canned air to clean dust of lenses.. if a piece of quartz dust gets in the tube and you spray the lens its like shooting it with a gun.. i know becouse ive done it.. it wont affect the final product, mutlicoating as i understand it enhanses light pennetration of the lens, so a tiny spot on the print with slightly less light wont noticibley decrease quality. i had a bubble in a lens that i had bought from canon.. i paid a whole lot for it and was upset so i called canon.. they said to take a photo and circle the problem on the print and they would probably replace the lense.. that was the end of that, could never find anything.... dave...

positives, huge negs, bigger prints,less grain,,.. negatives, depth of field loss with portrait length lenses( in closeups i can have the ears out of foucus, with groups its tough to get two rows focused together with 100 film, may be rectified with faster film).. , lots of setup time, cant think of alot more right now.. i would go with rediloads unless you have a lab that can touch up dust spots.. its almost impossible to not get dust when changing negs in holders in dry climates.. ive known guys who wet the floor down arund here to increase humidiy and keep dust down when reloading and developing.. dave..

stiff cardboard will work in a pinch, you can stiffin it with another layer of cardboard inside glued (sandwitched) to the surface of the outer cardboard, but sized under the width x height of the lens board holder.. dave

here is a page with some 90 and 100 mm lenses with weights and sharness tests. http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html . notice as the weight and price goes up so does the sharpness.. so there are tradeoffs.. im very happy with my super angelon 90 f8, it is not heavy, and sharp enough for what ive done.. i would not say it has alot of movement tho.. id prefer the extra light for focussing of the f 5.6 but price and weight keeps me from going for it.. dave..

another point.. im an ameture and i made a family shot with my mamiya 6x6.. when i looked at the slide i noticed it was discolored (probably from being old), and not a very good exposure toboot.. i had a 8x10 made of the family shot and it came out fine.. i talked to the printer about it and she said if it was 35mm i would have been in trouble, but the medium formant had enough density to give us a decent print.. so a larger format can be better in more ways than one would think.. 21/4x21/4 is 5 square inches, 4x5 is 20 sqsuare inches, 4 times the density. the printer has 4 times as much to work with, especially needed if something goes wrong .. dave.

im an ameture but here is my view.. the black tux and thewhite dress will not give good detail with films other than black and white.. id shoot the 4x5 with black and white letting the 7 stop coverage keep the white highlites and black shadows from washing out. be sure to do it all silver process , (Prints also) explaining that long after the color film, color prints, digital prints are faded and gone, the black and white photos will live on for 100s of years for thier children and thier grandchildren.. ... just another way of looking at it.. dave.

use your 6x6 for candid portrait work, you loose too much speed with the film normally encountered with 4x5's slower lenses.. , thus making any camera movement giveing you a blurred shot.. in my oppinion the slowness of the crown will give you less shots, and less opportunity for a good candid.. sorry i cant put it better. all the original type lenses that came with my crown would trip a regular flash, you may need to make a bracket to hold the flash.. that is it fits into the tripod hole and has a flash mount on the other end of apiece of flat stock.. .. i use a cord from the lens going into the flash on a tripod close to the camera and then slaves on the other flashes that will trip them when the closer connected camera flash goes off.. wire in lampcord ends between the lens and flash so you can use a regular extension cord on your flash.. you can also trip multiple flashes with a mutliple outlet end.. for heavens sake dont let anyone plug it into a house outlet...

there is a shutter tripping device on the right side of the crown if it hasnt been disabled.. ..

some plusses of the crown.. you can get a polaroid back, and they are fun, you can hand out the shots as you take them, you may get more willing subjects this way.. give them a polaroid, this will comfirm your focus, exposure, flash position crooked tie etc, and then take your own shot.. works for me.. another plus is a 6x9 back, shooting 120 film, withlots of room for movement. you can get this film in faster varieties than 4x5... i got a new 135 rodenstock sironar s (?) ,now years ago.. it closes in the camera, and its a fantastic camera for vacations,scenics, packing around, etc.. its relativly light, and easy to use.. a good meter will probably cost more than your camera, and in my opinion be needed to be able to get the full use of the camera so you can get perfect exposure to make large prints.. my opinion only. dave..

given the expense of the film, and the camera, and flash setups and time spent trying to get an image that will produce over 20x30 prints, the best way to do flash work with large format is with a flash meter.. if your guessing you might as well use a smaller/ cheaper format as the final product will probably be just as good unless your using a polaroid back or can leave the camera setup indoors while developing black and white prints to make adjustments..especially with closeups.. a good flash meter can give you proper exposures with up to 10 pops on the flash to increase depth of field.. ..my opinion only.. dave..

take a magnifying glass and look down the lines on a sheet of ruled paper.. youl notice when you tilt the magnifying glass that the lines will not stay parralel.. when you look at a long building the top and botom of the building converges as they approach infinity.. when you tilt the lens this can reverse the converging of the building and make it appear square on film.. if you want to correct two converging lines such as horizontal and verticle the lens must be twisted so both these conditions are met.. this is oversimplification and probably not actually correct, but it gives you an idea of why the lens is twisted as you say.. i think you will like lf photography, if you can afford it,, id not spend a whole lot of money to start off to see if it suits you. but youll get all the freindly help youll need here.. and do go to the lybrary and check out some ansil adams books and other photography books on the subject.. dont rush into choosing equipment until you do understand what you really want.. good luck dave

this would be for me, if i was going to go medium format via 4x5 i would have someone that is fairly competent taking photos with flash on camera in 35mm using some of the new fast film.. the bride will want the cake, the garter, the dance, the minister etc etc.. you will be left in the dust trying to catch up just takeing light readings and setting up flashes.. unless its what the bride wants and she makes everyone wait while yo set up, you will get only a few shots of the wedding.. some huge churches like our cathadreal will give you a black background without a big backlite equipment.. im an ameture and if the bride is going to save money your better off using the 35 and get three rolls of 36 shots and some will come out fine.. you could get a couple in the church with large formant but those id use full 4x5 and back up with 35 mm.. unless the bride is going to go over 8x10 there will not be much of a reason to use over 35mm..what ive seen is usually thelarge print made is of thebride andgroom at the alter.. this you should have the time you need for.. im sure there are d0zens wedding photographers here that will have better advice than i can give so wait for thier input..very important shots like weddings shouldhave a backup cameral shots anyway.. good luck, dave

yes paul you got me thinking and i have a 90mm.. i wanted a wide angle for 6x9 lynhoff back i have for the crown.... thats how little i shoot any more.. a 65mm would be a little wider on a 6x9 than a 55mm would be on a 6x6.. so that is what i want.. im not very excited about the quality of the 55mm mamia twin lens' resolution so i was going to put my money into the 65mm schnieder and kill two birds with one stone.. dave..

yikes! the 72 xl is over 1500.00. anyway here are the flange distances i come up with on my crown.. .. all the way in with bed down shortest- flang distance on the crown is about 53mm to the fresnell..... perched on the very outside of the inner rails not completly on the inner rails but pretty solid and with maximum extention is 108mm flange distance to fresnell.. with the bed down and the lens board on the rails and the slide all the way in- the lens starts hitting the inner rails at 117mm.. in this mode the lens board raised is all the way up to be level with the center of the fresnell. so there is no upper movements with bed down and lens on outer rails.... on the inner rail i can raise the lensboard one inch if it is 82 mm from the lensboard.. .. it would seem to me in my ameture way of thinking that this camera is best suited to the 58 to 65 mm lens best........ The 58xl flange distance at infinity and f22 is 69mm, the 65mm is 72.5, the 72 xl is 82.2.. to use the movements on the 72 xl i could only be focused at infinity, and i douubt i could move it much becouse it would start to hit the bellows inside the camera.. the rear element size on a 72 xl is 75 mm, quite a bit larger than the 65mm which is 57mm.. i could raise the 65m one inch but would loose 1/2 inch on the negative.. at infinity i could also use an ofsett lensboard to get 1/2-3/4 inch rise inside the box.. about if i need the height i dont see a problem with this as the bottom 1/2 inch could be cropped.. i would be very curios to find out what focus range the 65mm 5.6 is in the 108mm to 117mm void that i will have on the crown.. actually i could do this area with the bed up and have some movements, and crop off the lensboard that is in the shot.. giving me somewhere in the range of a 3x5 or so.. which is not the end of the world to me.. i also just looked at the maximum rise with my 135 rodenstock symar s set at 82 mm flange distance to fresnell,, and 3/4 nch rise is all can get until the rear cap hits the bellows.. the rodenstockwith rear cap on is 57 mm the same as the rear of the 65mm 5.6 lens.. i know this is very hard reading but maybe some of you can figgure out with me if the 65mm is my best choice in this situation. dave..

to me the movements that the 72 has is just marginally over the image size of the 65mm sa 5.6 if any over at all.. why not just take the photo with the 65mm and crop to the part of the photo you want and skip the time setting up for the shift? also the crown will probably just focus at a little under infinity with the longer lens.. where the 65mm will fit in the box on the inner rails and give me some closer than infinity latitude with the bed down.. when in the crown box their can be no movements to speak of becouse lensboard is captivatated inside that box. 12 mm is about right.. out side the box very far i would be on the exterior rails and couldnt drop the bed.. and it would be in the wide angle photo. so its a catch 22. iv had a big camera and do not wish to go that rout as i cant get the gear and family in the car when on vacation, the main reason for the 4x5 for me. did any one say glacier, or yellowsotne park??.. even with a truck for that matter noone will ride in back for several hundred miles.. but i do appreciate your input and would like to discuss the probabliliteds of the 72 xl on the crown and if it would be feasable.. ive asked this before, but has anyone used the 72 xl on the crown?.. cost as mentioned above would be more yet im guessing than the 58xl. dave..

ill be using the lens for 4x5 scenics, and around town building

shots and etc.. ill also be using it for a standard lenght 6x9

roll back lens on the crown for whatever comes up.. my choices seem

to be point to a 65mmx 5.6 single coated schneider for about 550-

600. a mutlicoated version of the same lens for aprox 700 or little

more.... or a new 58mm xl for about 1100 bucks.. i dont shoot

much any more , so dont want to pay alot of money but 700 seems an

alot of money for a used lens when i can buy a new xl for 1100.. the

problem is that- is a 58 xl going to be a good lens for my purpous

(sp)? your input will be apreciated...thanks in advance, dave..

as to putting the lens fixed on infinity in the closed camera: i dont belive so, for the 65 to work it has to be a ways out on the inner rail, and this would have to be put all the way in to close... it also may not close if the lens is too big.. . the 72 does not look like it would work as well as the 65 as it may have to be on the outer rails for closer than infinity,im not sure tho. this may put the bed in view of the neg.. i dont think this would be the end of the world as one would have movements.. that would alow one to raise the lens some and this would help me out as i like catching tall buildings, and foreground in this is not that important.. if i want fore ground i can turn the crown on edge and center the lens to the part of the neg that would be out of the beds view.. kind of a 3x5 i guess.. i personally dont see a problem with this, but some may not care for it.. dave.

im comming up with the bed down i can set the 65mm on the rear rails, and slide the lens mounting board back and fourth to give me a total of about 1 1/4 inch of adjustment...it will take some trial and errer., but now i see also that there is very little movement to get down to 35 feet focus.. and the camera slide on the lower bed can adjust that much easily if im in a proper position on the rear rails, and the bed down.. so Mike thanks for pointing out that the movement is actually small, and John for makeing me realize that i had to put it on the rear rails, i felt this was the case but i was afraid i couldnt extend the lens enough for closer shots.. .. the biggest problem is that the rear rails are not very solid on my camera, but that can be fixed with a wedge gently put between the board and the side of the camera applying only enough pressure to hold the rails in a more solid position.. the next problem is getting the lensboard square with the fresnell, as i am used to the stops taking care of this.. the 65 appears to get more movement from infinity towards a closer focus than the 72mm xl with the bed down, as the rear bed extension is limited, and the board can only be moved so far out on it into the air.... im going to send this in triplicate to reach the different posts and emails that i have sent.. thanks to you all, and ill try a 65 and post results.. as John has said he uses a 65mm on a speed graphic, so ill bet ill be fine with it.. i just needed a little encuragement to put the 600 dollars plus out for a super wide angle lens... thanks dave...

im comming up with the bed down i can set the 65mm on the rear rails, and slide the lens mounting board back and fourth to give me a total of about 1 1/4 inch of adjustment...it will take some trial and errer., but now i see also that there is very little movement to get down to 35 feet focus.. and the camera can adjust that much easily if im in a proper position on the rear rails, and the bed down.. so Mike thanks for pointing out that the movement is actually small, and John for makeing me realize that i had to put it on the rear rails, i felt this was the case but i was afraid i couldnt extend the lens enough for closer shots.. .. the biggest problem is that the rear rails are not very solid on my camera, but that can be fixed with a wedge gently put between the board and the side of the camera applying only enough pressure to hold the rails in a more solid position.. the next problem is getting the lensboard square with the fresnell, as i am used to the stops taking care of this.. the 65 appears to get more movement from infinity towards a closer focus than the 72mm xl with the bed down, as the rear bed extension is limited, and the board can only be moved so far out on it into the air.... im going to send this in triplicate to reach the different posts and emails that i have sent.. thanks to you all, and ill try a 65 and post results.. as John has said he uses a 65mm on a speed graphic, so ill bet ill be fine with it.. i just needed a little encuragement to put the 600 dollars plus out for a super wide angle lens... thanks dave...

how does the 65mm schneider f 5.6 work on the crown graphic? how

about any one trying the 72 xl on the crown?? thanks dave.

that sounds much more correct Mike.. the first post said a 5mm difference for three feet,if im reading it right, which i may not be.. your second post said a 65mm difference for 1 to 1. that would mean to me that 3 foot would be closer to 20-30mm movement give or take.. i may not be reading it right of course.. ... im going to restart this post looking for those that have shot the 65mm on the crown and see how they came out.. thanks dave.

im sure your math is right.. but the infinity distance focus is not 65mm with a 65mm lens.. doesnt this throw the proverbial wrench into the calculations?.. the reason im saying this is 5mm bellows extention from infinity to 3 feet just doesnt seem to make sence.. my 135 lens is about 120mm at infinity, roughly.. there is about a one inch belows extention to 6 feet on the scale, from memory, im not being tecknical here.. one would think that there would have to be around one half inch (12mm )to 35 mm extenion to focus at three feet with a 65mm lens.. math can be real squirrely, and im not doubting your calculations, it looks like something else is comming into play here.. can any 65mm lovers confirm or deny the calculations?? by measreing the actual infinity focus distance to around three feet focus difference?? dave..

the super angulon 65/5.6 has a flange distance of aprox 72mm.. am

i correct in assuming that this is the lensboard to the ground glass

at infinity?.. what would the distance from lens board to ground

glass be for focus at three feet?. is it similar to the 135mm i have

setup on the scale of the bed of my crown?.. im trying to figure out

what would happen if i put a 65/5.6 or a 72mm xl on my crown

graphic?.. the 72 xl would have a 82mm distance from gg to lens board

if im correct?.. this is far enough out to rise, (as the board would

not hit the box) using the generous movement of the 72 xl.. but i

cant drop the bed as this makes the lens board jump to about

114mm.. has anyone had 72xl problems on the crown..??? that is the

bed showing on the bottom of the exposure?? if i can shoot at ininity

and closeups with the lens board up id be vary happy whith that..

thanks dave...

so far i am totally impressed with all the photos ive looked at.. i would say my fears are unfounded, and will try to buy a super wide this summer...yes light falloff is a slight problem without a 350 dollar centerfilter in some situations but all the photos i get back are not pefect awith the 90 and 135. .. when i need to cover a shot i want a wide angle, not for daily use.. im very interested in seeing any photos from the new rodenstock 55, and yes ill look at pricing for the nikon 65, but i havnt seen one "used" yet, i did not know it exsited.. dave.

i am looking for images of photos made with rodenstock 55mm, and 65

and 75 mm lenses, and schneider 65mm and 75mm.. i would like to see

a few of each with these lenses, and be directed how to find them..

im surprised i didnt take this avenue before.. ive been pussyfooting

around being afraid of buying a super wide angle, single or older

multicoated lens, becouse of the tremendous light falloff, and

distortion.. but my fears may be at least partually unfounded

looking at felixes post and pictures directing me to david kennedys

web site.. i do not need to see alot of pictures of all of these

lenses but a few of them.. i would like to see the new 55mm

rodenstock becouse it is supposed to be really sharp.. any comments

welcome. thanks.. dave..

well i get an F for not reading the post above mine, my question is can the rear swing completely bring this problem out?? the perspective of shrinking off to the left is still there after it was to be corrected? but the virticle lines do look much better.. now you guys have me wondering.. dave.