alex_z

Hi Brian.

Have sent you an email thruogh your site.

Regards, Alex

Thanks Michael, that helped indeed to draw a general picture.

regards, Alex

What backs are preferarble to use on 4x5 camera (Graflock compatable,

of course) ? I'm making my way into LF (4x5), however wil be willing

to be able to shot roll-film aside of 4x5 sheets.

I noticed two roll-film backs types are available - by Horseman and

Super-Rolex (presumably by Linhof ?).

I'l be set with either, 6x7 or 6x9 version, so aside of particular

format (6x7 or 6x9) which brand would be prefferable and why ?

Thanks in advance, Alex

Steve, one additional issue just went through my mind:

I guess Color Kardan 45s uses standard Graflock type holders, right ?

If this is the case, can it use a roll-film backs ? (for instance by Horseman 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 backs or Rolex backs )

I'm just evaluating the possibility of selling my 6x7 setup if I'll find my way into LF (4x5 by this camera, for instance).

If the camera allows roll-film backs to be attached for 6x7-6x9-6x12 formats, I guess I will only have to account for different viewing angle by given lens (say, 150mm/5.6 lens in 4x5 will produce angle of coverage similar to about 100mm in 6x7), am I wrong ?

What I mean to say is that in such way I obtain MF (albeit large one) format with movements of LF. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

regards, Alex

Thank you very much Steve, that clarifies the situation.

Will be glad to conatct you by email if any further assistance will be needed regarding this setup.

Regards, Alex

Oh, this is one simple matter: mine is Bronica GS-1 system

The reason for one to be my best MF ? Just because this is the only one I have had cance to own and still have it. :-)

I think the best gear is the one you actually have and use, unless you're fortunate enough to be able to swing through several setup for new experiences.

Alex

Thanks a lot Steve.

I usually strive to stay within more or less standard focal lengthes once at the beginning stage of establishing my way into new (for me) format. This is how I went initially with MF (6x7 - started off with a standard 100mm lens which I find the most useful for me), and this is how I see my way into LF. The entire range I mostly use in 35mm for landscapes is usually 28-70mm while at a time find longer (up to 200mm) be useful (albeit quite seldom). In 6x7 however I'm set with 65mm, 100mm and 200mm (equivalent to about 30mm, 50mm and 100mm in 35mm format) and so far happy with that.

In general, I think the entire range that will satisfy me will fit within 28-30mm to 90-100mm (as equivalents to 35mm format), but will limit myself to a single 150mm lens in 4x5 until getting in LF more seriously. Bearing that in mind, I thought perhaps 90mm lens in 4x5 may fit my wide-angle needs (isn't is 28-30mm equivalent in 35mm format ?) and 250mm-300mm in 4x5 will be long enough for me (for landscapes and also serving as occasional portraiture lens)

Do you think I can get safely with standard bellows on Color Kardan (or similar) within these focal ranges ? Until I'll get a bit more accmplished in LF, I wouldn't want to fork additional cash on quite expensive accessories (such as wide-angle bellows, for instance).

I happy news for me is your experience with your Kardan (which apparently is even a bit larger/heavier that Color 45s as you stated) as field camera, sounds convincing. I'm just trying to realize what kind of bag it can fit in, i.e. how deeply the setup can be disassabled for backpacking (i.e. taking off the rail, bellows folded down still attached to side rails, ..)...

Thank you guys.

I suspect somehow I didn't get myself clear while inquiring about Colro Kardan 45s: in fact, my most concern isn't the usage of super-wide angle lenses, but rather the usability of the setup for field/outdoors use as opposite to studio work (I would call this luggability). I realize monorails are mostly considered for studio, but my intention are outdoors (landscape) and some external architecture usage. I wouldn't be very upset if I'll find the camera I will use to be limited by super-wide coverage, if 90mm lenses will the the most wide it will accept (without special tools such as wide-angle bellows) bearing movements ability, it still will be fine for me (I used to widest of 28mm in 35mm format). However, if I find the camera to be super-capable in technical performance but pretty much limiting me in carrying it outdoors due to weight/external dimensions restrictions - that would be my major concern.

(I'm not disabled and actually physical performance isn't something I'm suffering from, but still, very heavy and large setup + heavy tripod may impose serious restrictions on outing in real life).

Today I spent a hour for a stroll along out local few used photo shops to spot for an LF gear for sale. As expected, extremely limited presence of LF at all, no field folders at all, but figured few used monorail setup (few old Cambo and Calumet models) - WOW, a real monsters filed usage-wise. This kind of camera indeed looks good in studio, but can hardly imagine lugging it on my back together with heavy tripod and accessories for farther then few hundred meters away of my car.

So, now we got to the point, what do you think, is Color Kardan 45s manageable in this respect ? Is it really more compact that the standard Cambo/Calumet monorails (as I was advised on some LF forums) and taking it outdoors isn't such a burden as it may feel with standard monorail ?

Also, I don't seem to be able to figure whether it accept standard Graflock revolving film holders or likely to use Linhof propriatary type ?

Thanks, Alex

So, what do you think, can this

How would you rate this camera ? I'm novice to LF, considered this one

if the price is right. It's monorail, does that mean its too

heavy/bulky for outdoor use (local landscapes, some external

architecture) ?

Does it have rotating back ? (Graflex ?)

Ae front and rear movements ample enough for regular

landscape/architectural work (no superwide is considered - as wide as

up to about 75mm lens is enough, probably even 90mm) ?

Any info and personal experiences are welcome.

Thanks in advance, Alex

Thank you Michael, that a bit clarifies the issue.

BTW, I was told also that Fuji is often overoptimistic regarding, for instance declared angle of coverage by particular lens.

For instance, the NWS 150/5.6 claims it to be 76 degrees, however I heard opinions that the actual angle of coverage is smaller - roughly 73 degrees. Can it be truth ?

Wow, thanks, quite a confusing indeed.

What I know for sertain is that this is 150/5.6, 52mm front element (filter thread), 224mm circle and is EBC (multicoated).

Gaghering all that, according to one source this hints for NW lens:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/literatu.htm

Other suggests for NWS:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/ws-nws.htm

A third source claims for W:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm

Go figure.. apparently the most confusing manufacturer among LF optics vendors information-wise.

I have serial number of the particular lens: it starts with 531...which isn't listed at all in latter link (third one above)...

Go figure...

Thanks, a worthy link to bookmark.

Regards, Alex

Thank you guys, you just strengthen by desire to go for this lens.

The only what a bit bothers me is a kind of mismatches in SW/NSW/W Fujinon series among Fujinon non-official online resources.

According to some of these, the particular lens is likely to be SW, the others claim this is likely to be NSW..go figure

In any case I noticed a very positive consensus as regarding its performance, this is reassuring indeed.

BTW, can I astimate the 150mm lens in 4x5 to be rough equivalent of 50mm focal length (and thus viewing angle) in 35mm format ?

Chances I'll have an oportunity to acquire this lens for 250$ (mint cond.)

Lens specifications I found here:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/ws-nws.htm

On some other LF forum I was advised that this lens is 72 degress

coverage rather then advertised 76 (see link above). Can it be that

the actual angle of coverage of given lens is narrower then the

advertised by manufacturer ? (4 degrees sound as quite a lot)

Also, I was told the lens suits fine as a standart lens on 4x5 with

ample movements however not enough for architecture (interiors or

external architecture bearing 150mm focal length ?) Is this indee the

case ? Besides, though it is advertised for 5x7 format, I was told is

isn't really useful for that due to insufficient coverage (224mm circle).

Any help wit clarifications ? (prferrably by your experience)

Thank you guys.

Do I understand correctly that GW690III isn't featured by cable release ability ? If so, what about shooting off tripod at less then fastest shutter speeds ?

Hi.

I just came across an ad in our local photo forums selling all four

cams: GW67II, GW67III, GW69II and GW69III.

The following information has been fetched out of the seller:

Most of the cams are in very good condition, very clean except of 67II

(or was it III ?) that has flash shoe replaced. All are equipped with

90mm/3.5 lens of course. The GW67II appears to have the largest number

appearing on its counter (arround 500), the 69III appears to have the

least leap (counters show about 100).

I'm not familiar personally with these cameras, although have read

through lots of online reviews on these and mostly the opinion is held

up for all of these, particularily for 69II and 69III models. Optics

is reprotedly top-notch except of their bokeh loosing to Zeiss

counterparts.

I would be glad to read personal opinions about these cameras, such as

hands-on experiences, what is good and what is bad...

I'm aware about the system specifications (rangefinder, no switchable

film backs, of course, fixed, although leaf shutter lens, purely

mechanical (no powering is necessary, however no metering is available

either). What is the number shown on the camera's counter ? Is that

amount of frames (i.e. shutter actuations) done so far or amount of

film rolls through the camera ? What are the average life span of GW

67II/III and GW69II/III shutters ?

To put the things into proportions I must tell that I'm MF SLR user,

shooting with Bronica GS-1 (6x7) system right know, however thinking

of adding a kind of rangefinder for hikes and when weight/size are a

considerable issues.

The prices as asked by seller ranging from 550$ for 67II to 800$ for

69III. Are they fair prices for these models bearing the condition

described above ?

Any additional help is highly appreciated.

Regards, Alex

John, aside of "buer vs. user" assesement, I would throw my 2 cents regarding your note dealing with an "akward" zooming behavior of Canon's 24-70 vs. Nikon's counterpart.

I have a ancestor of 24-70 - 28-70/2.8L lens which I believe is similarly constructed (aside of to be a bit shorter physically then the 24-70 and les protruding while zooming) as the new 24-70/2.8L.

Complaining about the lens expanding backwards durign zooming realtively to the most common way (such as Nikon and most of others do), you failed into most common pit as most fo other newcomers to 24/28-70L do, even those who use this lens as have't yet realized the issue.

In fact, by such design Canon created a perfect hood, something the lack of which suffers most zooms from. This way, Canon provided the most effective (pay attention how unusually big/long is the hood of your 24-70) hood that precisely works on any given focal length within

the range, which is clearly not the case with conventional zoom design.

Once at the wide setting, the front element protrudes forward, so that the hood is efefctively shortened just enough to provide the necessary angle of view. Once zooming out, the front element is retracted back lengthening the effective hood. i.e. achieving perfect match between the actual focal length and the optimal hood length.

This is very powerful tool to cut-off undesirable side rays that are the most prominent reason for the flare and the most hard to fight flare types.

Conventional zoom designs forces a hood that is only effective at zoom's widest setting, quickly loosing its efefctivenes as soon as one start to zoom in.

Alex

Well, MF scanning is a tough call indeed.

I went through lots of headaches once begun shooting MF (6x7) and trying to establish my way into quality scanning I used to with my 35mm stuff (done by home-based Nikon film scanners).

The bottom line, my conclusion that if high quality MF scanning is desired (for printout, web job is toatlly different altogether), there is no way to avoid considerable $$ investment (best for home-based quality scanner such as Nikon LS9000, Imacon if pockets are deep enough, or even a good used Leaf 45).

Not a while ago I let myself be persuaded to try out the reprotedly high-end flatbed from Heidelberg which supposed to be a different league from Epson/Canon and alike machines. I just used to appreciate Heidelberg drum quality, so automatically assumed their flatbed will be up to the task (perhaps not as great as drum can be, but still very good). Well, at the end I've got a huge file (almost 300 MB for 8 bit per channel, for 24"x28" @ 300 dpi) at the price twice as cheaper then of professional lab drum/Scitex/Imacom scanning. After I managed to open it in Photoshop (my poor PC almost cried), even at 50% of the actual size I already saw this file deserves to be trashed only. Blown

highlight, apparently oversharpened details (even though they didn't touch it in Photoshop - for sure), lot=s of very coarse grain.

At the end I threw it right into Trash Bin and invested another 30$ for Scitex scan (the only bearable flatbed scanners - very high quality indeed (scanner cosst 30-50k$)), even though there is still noticeable grain, but the file has its real size of about 170 MB, and the quality was adequate for further Photoshop processing.

Now, nobody can convince me any flatbed (except of Scitex or similar, of course) can do any right job out of your fine MF transparancies.

So the only route (at least for me) is to safe $$ for Nikon LS9000

(or probably Leaf 45).

Hi.

I've used to work with this bracket including numerous events.

Just contributed to the related thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CeqG

In a nutshell, no problem fitting it with as large setup as EOS-3+PB-E2

and thick lenses such as 28-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L.

Regards, Alex

I work with this bracket for over 4 years (or even 5 ?) already, almost always with my EOS-3 fitted with PB-E2. Though the body + booster makes quite large and high outfit, the bracket still fits including 28-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L lenses, albeit at its (of bracket) largest extension.

Did two weddings and several social outings. Like it for its compactness

and the fact that it holds the head constantly in up right postion (horizontally over the lens axis), even though logically for portrait orientation vertical flash head position should serve better (due to more suitable light spread).

The bracket indeed makes the whole system less balanced making it front-heavy, so additional hand force may be necessary to keep it right until getting used to.

Regards, Alex

Chris, the GS-1 release is also electromagnetic, apparently just like

SQ-Ai. This is the reason I menitoned the 1/500 emergency mode - with non-operational batteries it can keep 1/500 shutter speeds mechanically and this is the only shutter speed available in such case.

Perhaps there is some issue with power supply ? (if battery and external contacts are fine, perhaps there is some kind of internal disconnections).

If you have metering prism, you can also check whether the prism metering works upon pressing shutter release button. If it does - it proves at least that power supply of OK.

Chris, I don't own SQ-Ai, but GS-1 (6x7). Apparently operation-wise both systems are quite similar, so I'd throw my 2 cents:

according to the manual, the camera will only fire at 1/500 on permanent manner if the batteries are dead, no matter to which speed it has been set. Make sure you have no problem with power supply (even though you mentioned you have a fresh set).

I think there are plenty of SQ owners here to help you out...

Inquiring about Bronica GS-1 bellows hood (pro hood) I was kindly

advised by Mr. Jukka where he mentioned the 75mm filters (glass and

wratten) to be sued with this type of hoods to be inserted into rear

of the hood.

So far I have no experiences with thiskind of filters. What are these

75mm filters ? Are they just Cikin/Lee square filters but sized at

75mm instead of standard 100mm ?

Thanks a lot Jukka, appreciate your help.

So at the rear of the hood (or in front of the lens) there is a slot for 75mm glass or wratten filters, did I get your point ?

What about 200mm/4 lens ? It has 82mm front size - aren't 75mm filters too small to cover this lens view ?

Regards, Alex