friedemann_pistorius

Q.G.,

<p>thanks for the Wiki link - I believe it's a typo there. The Bavarian word for push is "schiem" (from the German word "schieben", not "scheim" (from the German word "scheiben" = slices).

<br>But, of course, I didn't invent the Bavarian dialect, so in a remote area in the woods and mountains some words may have survived without my knowledge :-)

Being a German and living in the very heart of Bavaria I can assure you that "Scheim-" (pronounced "shime") has nothing to do with pushing. The German word for push is "Schieben" (pronounced: sheeben), short Bavarian version is "schiem" (sheem).

<p>To my knowledge, "Scheim" has no special meaning in the German language. If it would be "Schleim" (pron. shlime) than the English word was "slime".

<br>"Schein" means shine (pronounced identical).

<p>However, even if Schein, Scheim and Schleim look and sound similar, these words have nothing in common (in terms of meaning).

<p>"Pflug" (pron. pfloog) means plough, as someone mentioned.

<p>Another option would be the German plural word for "slice", which is "Scheiben" (pron. shiben), short Bavarian version "Scheim" (shime).

<p>But, as most readers will hopefully agree, cutting something shining into slimy slices (or vive versa) by using a plough doesn't make too much sense, so even for real Bavarians it remains unclear, how the name was developed and what the real meaning was :-)

<p>To break the topic: what does "Rumsfeld" mean? Feld is the German word for field, Rums is no real German word, but in the German "cartoon" language it means the sound of a big explosion. Now... this name was chosen very well :-)

<p>Many German words are puzzled together without leaving an obvious sense. That doesn't mean there was no sense, but we simply sometimes do not know, what our ancestors ment with these names or combination of words.

<br>The common (German!) word "Kindergarten" is easy to explain: Kinder = children, garten = garden.

<br>The word Scheimpflug doesn't comfort us with this easiness of explanation.

<p>Theodor Scheimpflug was an Officer in the <i>Austrian</i> Army, by the way.

<br>Maybe a real Austrian here could add something a real Bavarian didn't know?

Mark,

<p>should you ever run across something called Norway or so, don't forget your Hasselblad - that lumpy rock is one of the most spectacular, most beautiful and most breathtaking places on earth.

<p>All the best to you, keep safe!

I started into LF with a 4x5 Shen-Hao and 90, 180 and 300 lenses and was very satified with the results.

<br>The Shen-Hao is heavier than the Tachihara, but sturdier.

<p>Lens sets like

<br>90-150-240

<br>90-180-270(300)

<br>80-135-200(210)-300

<p>or so will all serve you very well.

<p>Landscape photography involves some hiking, so you might want to take size and weight of your lenses into consideration (I own and use 47-80-150-300-450 lenses and an Ebony camera now, the 47 is my "heaviest" lens at 310 gramms).

I live in Europe too. I buy my Quickload film mainly from Badger/USA and occasionally from Robert White/UK (he offers specials from time to time).

<p>B&H in New York also carry Astia Quickload film, at slightly higher prices than Badger.

<p>I've never ever had any problems with my films. Ordering the film from America saves me some money, even with shipping and import/tax costs.

Both B&H and Midwest Photo Exchange sell a "Bulldog 4x5 self assembly camera kit".

<br>www.bhphotovideo.com: $328

<br>www.mpex.com: $319

<p>Just an idea. Might be worth a look.

I have a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 150 as my normal lens and a Super-Symmar 80XL as my wide angle lens.

<br>They make a nice combination in terms of size and weight. At f/11 and smaller apertures the SS-80XL produces stunningly sharp images, comparable to the 150mm lens, which is one of the sharpest lenses around.

<p>For landscape and some architecture the image circle of the 80mm lens is more than enough. If you don't need the large image circle of the other lenses and/or if you want to go light, I'd suggest the Schneider lens (for which you'd need a Schneider IIIB center filter).

I can't comment on the Toyo screen.

<br>I replaced my Ebony fresnel by a Maxwell HILUX screen (one piece of plastic, combination of matte and fresnel), which is at least 1 stop brighter than the original Ebony fresnel screen. The Maxwell screen provides even illumination from wide angle to long lenses (80 to 450, in my case), but it has to be said, that with both fresnel screens, fine-focusing wide angle lenses in the very corners is difficult (at least for me).

<p>You might want to have a look at "Beattie Intenscreens" (http://www.display-optics.com/products_bettie-intenscreen.htm) or "Brightscreens" (www.brightscreens.com).

<br>I have to leave it to others to comment on these screens.

Tony,

<p>I pointed you towards the dofmaster.com site only to show you a simple way to compare the depth of field for different formats and focal lengths by yourself.

<br>For example:

<br>90mm lens, 6x7 format, f/11, focus point 40 ft. away: sharp from 19.9 ft. to infinity.

<br>To obtain the same depth of field <i>at the same angle of view</i> with 4x5 format, you need a 150mm lens, focus point again at 40 ft., and you'll read f/22.)

<p>That's what the tables shows.

<br>Of course you may print the tables out for each of your lenses, but as you see, that's not necessary, having in mind what Michael and Pete said.

<p>My easy rule is this:

<br>To get the same dof with different formats, I divide the focal lengths to get the ratio, then multiply a chosen f/stop with this ratio.

<p>But, this method doesn't take the angle of view into consideration, so if I want <i>the same dof with the same angle of view</i>, the ratios between the lenses <b>and</b> the formats should be equal.

<p>In the example mentioned above:

<p>4x5": 120x96mm

<br>6x7cm: 70x56mm

<br>Divide 120 by 70 (long sides) or 96 by 56 (short sides) = 1.7 ratio (1.7142857)

<p>90mm lens x 1.7 = 150mm lens

<br>f/11 x 1.7 = ca. f/18.5 (round up to f/22)

Tony,

<p>try www.dofmaster.com (dof = depth of field), then click "On-line

Depth of Field Table". After entering format and focal length the table shows you the appropriate DOF for every f-stop.

<p>However, Michael's advice is easier and quicker :)

Larry,

<p>Dan wants to say that f16, for example, will always remains f16, no matter which focal length you're using.

<p>Loss of light has always to do with increasing bellows extension.

If you want to do macro work (as the lens you mentioned suggests) try to get a little calculator like the "QuickDisc", which you can download at no charge, just do a google search). It will help you to modify your exposure data at a given bellows extension.

<p>If you want to transform your 100mm macro lens into LF, then maybe the Nikkor-AM ED 120 lens is not the right choice for you (to convert 35mm lenses into 4x5" lenses, roughly multiply by 3).

50, 80 and 150 will cover almost every situation you ever might run into (living in Europe I think I know what I'm talking about).

<br>I would not leave the 80 at home. It is by far my most used lens.

<p>Good luck, and have a safe trip!

Hi all,

<p>some time ago I saw this pictures (on a well known auction site) and was

wondering which wood was used for this camera. Rosewood (as the color would

imply) or cherry wood (as it was described), maybe with false color rendition? I

can't read from the grain - however, the color looks nice to me...

<p>Thanks!

<p>Friedemann

In general, to avoid distorted lines you have to keep the camera back parallel to the lines.

<p>For vertical lines, keep the camera back absolutely vertical and use up/down shift movements on front or back, depending on your camera's capabilities.

<p>For horizontal lines (not the horizon itself, as I understand your question, but on/in buildings, for example), keep your camera back again PARALLEL TO THIS LINE. This means you'll probably have to use lateral shift movements (direct or indirect method, depending on your camera's capabilities).

<p>In architecture photography, people often combine vertical and lateral shift movements to keep vertical/horizontal lines vertical/horizontal.

<p>If I misunderstood something, please correct me.

No Walker - it's a Gandolfi Variant 2:

<br>It has no back rise (like the Var. 3), but it has back center tilt (unlike the Var. 1).

<p>Or it's a damned good copy :)

Tony,

<p>I second Michael's advice to take a strong look into the Nikkor tele lenses.

<br>Their 600 tele has Copal 3 shutter and weighs 1650 gr, whereas their 720 tele has copal 1 shutter and weighs 780 gr, only little more than the Fuji non-tele 600 you're looking for (which is 575 gr).

<br>Ebony (SV series), Canham, Gandolfi, Lotus View make folding 4x5 cameras with bellows long enough to use these lenses.

<p>Lotus in Austria (www.lotusviewcamera.at) makes a fine 4x5 camera with 600mm bellows extension, which would allow you to focus roughly to infinity only (with a 600mm non-tele lens), maybe the use of base and axis tilts on both standards can add a few inches (if you're interested, check with them if their max. bellows specification includes or excludes tilts). They also make a 5x7 with 680mm bellows extension, btw.

<p>If you have more than enough money, take a look at the Layton L-45A camera, which has 617mm bellows extension (including tilts). But again, you're limited to infinity focus only with a 600mm non telephoto lens.

<p>I hope this helps a little.

Arthur,

<p>I can't speak for Arca Swiss or Canham cameras, but I own and use an Ebony SV45Ti with Universal bellows for almost two years now, along with lenses from 47 to 450mm (non-telephoto).

<p>On the wide side, I used to use 90 and 65mm lenses and replaced them by 80 and 47mm. A modern 65mm lens, for example, can perform shifts of 10mm or so, which is definitely no problem with the Universal bellows.

<p>I love the folding design. To me, the set-up and folding procedures are quick and simple. Others might have different opinions, though.

<p>Portability, ease of set-up and use, light weight, one bellows for your lens selection - everything included in this camera.