george_hart1

Admittedly I have used them only for LF trannies, but Bayeux in Newman St provide

excellent service. www.bayeux.co.uk

Michael, I've used the 72XL and more often, the 75SA, and I have never had a problem with

the f/5.6 max aperture. In practical use, I doubt that the larger aperture of the 65/4.5 would

make a critical difference very often. I have other Rodenstock WA lenses but not the 65, and

they, like the Schneiders, are excellent optically. I would say that the 72XL feels like a big

lens, and if your focal length preference is for the 65, bearing in mind the humping around

involved in landscape work, filter considerations etc, then go for it.

For landscape/cityscape work I got rid of my Mamiya 6MF and bought an Ebony 45S. Fast to

set up, light, immensely flexible, no more unsharp foregrounds, etc. To me the Linhof MT is

heavy, difficult and old-fashioned. The Arca system is worth a look, though.

Try here http://www.spirit-levels.co.uk/.

He's not moved very far, to the bit of Wales that encroaches on the Wirral peninsula. He can

be found on +44 1244 881755, or via http://www.walkercameras.com/.

Others' mileage may vary of course, but I think that the Billingham bags are just superb!

And I have no connection with the company etc. even though I am a Brit, just like the bags!

I have 3 of them, and I've no complaints at all. 2 black, 1 khaki. Leica stuff goes in the

Leica bag, which being black seems to attract no attention on the street. Rollei TLR in an

S3, which as Andy said is extremely secure: you can even put a small padlock through the

top zip fasteners. This bag has taken a dip in Derwent Water mud. The contents were

looked after perfectly. The outside got brushed down and sponged and looks a bit

weathered now, but better for it. Large format stuff is in a khaki 554, which takes my 5x7

kit just fine. The newer pull-on fasteners mature with use, as do the bags themselves,

which are rugged and a pleasure to handle. I'm such a satisfied customer that I even use

their freebie keyfob for my main key bundle!

My Rolleiflex 2.8 GX, dated 1989, needs a bit of adjustment to correct its focus at short distances. Is this

something that it's easy to do oneself? If so, please point me to some instructions! The camera is

otherwise functioning well, including the shutter, so I would rather not consider a full service/CLA just yet.

Many thanks for your help.

Sounds very odd. Can I suggest that you email Ebony's international rep, Ian Wilson, who is at

igbwilson@yahoo.com. I'm sure that he would be able to investigate and help.

From another UK resident, it's uplifting to see it! But why was he using so much forward tilt

of the front standard, in a built-up area??!! Pity his camera has only base tilt, it seems?

Indeed, although Clare wasn't my college, it makes me nostalgic for the place!

No-one has said it perhaps because you used the word "inexpensive", but a non-folder may

be what you really want. I'm an enthusiastic adherent to the 6x9 format and I use an Ebony

45S. This camera would easily accommodate a 65 mm lens, with lots of movements front and

rear, and it is very easy to set up and use. The excellent Walker Titan XL would also handle

this lens very well; it has a fixed back. It's best to define your range of focal lengths first,

then the movements you will need. This will help you choose in what could otherwise be a

bewildering array of new and second-hand cameras.

Barry, others have explained this better than me, and a good starting point is Steve

Simmons' book Using the View Camera. It's all to do with the fact that on any camera the 3

planes are not independent. But the monorail has the advantage that the tilt plane axis is

situated beneath the others, and so can act as the primary movement, independent of

swing and shift. If you are happy to use a flatbed camera that has been levelled in 2

planes, then these considerations seem not to matter. But of course levelling a camera

imposes a restriction that many find unacceptable.

 

I note that others have recommended the Ebony 23S. While this is a fine camera, please be

aware that the Ebony catalogue implies that a 38 mm lens is not useable. Its minimum

extension is longer than that of the 45S, and of course also of the SW23S. Also note that

the S cameras, except the SW23S, have a deeper "box" on the rear standard, which limits

the extent to which you may apply rise with some wide lenses. For example, when using

the 55 mm Apo-Grandagon lens with the 23S, you cannot outrise its image circle, because

the rear element hits the top of the box (actually the bellows first). That's one reason that I

went for the bigger 45S.

 

Hope that this helps.

Barry, I use an Ebony 45S for 6x9 work, and I use the bigger format camera principally

because it carries the range of focal lengths that I use better than the equivalent 6x9

camera. I looked at the Arca but decided against it because of portability and other issues.

However, the most important decision between the 2 ranges you have chosen to look at

concerns whether you would be better served by a monorail or a flatbed camera. If you are

the sort of photographer who levels the camera more often than not, then a flatbed should

be fine. If you want to use the camera off horizontal, then you may be better served by a

monorail system. There are advocates of both systems: professional examples might

include Joe Cornish, who uses Ebonies, and Jack Dykinga, who uses Arca-Swiss.

 

In answer to your specific questions, the lenses you describe would range from

approximately 38 mm (eg Schneider SA XL) to nearly 240 mm (eg Fujinon A). It's possible

that with its long rail and interchangeable bellows, the Arca would serve you best if you

wanted to use a dedicated 6x9 camera with a range as wide as this. Others have

commented on the Ebony range and I guess that the SW23S (custom camera) may

theoretically fit the bill, but no camera works best at the very limits of its range, which

would be the case for this one.

 

Focusing would theoretically be no easier on a 4x5 than a 6x9 camera, but I prefer using a

4x5 because I can see outside the 6x9 framelines on the gg, which helps composition a

lot. I never use rear tilt because of the perspective distortion that it causes, but others of

course do, and some who use a flatbed camera swear by those that have asymmetrical

back tilt! Apart from the swinging gg back of the 6x9 Ebonies, using a RFH is essentially

the same on 6x9 or 4x5. I use the Horseman variety whose aperture dimensions are 82 x

56 mm.

 

Happy choosing. There is no substitute for hands-on experience with the specific units

before you put down the cash.

Fotoman have recently canvassed opinion with a view to bringing out a dedicated 6x9

camera. My hope is that it will be a simple design without shift capability or other frills, in

order to keep the cost and weight down. As with their other panoramic cameras like the 6x12

you refer to, it should be possible to use a wide range of lenses. I cannot recall seeing

confirmation that they are definitely going ahead with this project, let alone a projected issue

date. But it would be excellent if they did!

Seb, I wanted a low-profile look and I went for the black paint finish with black saddle

leather, no Leica engraving on the top, and traditional MP accoutrements. I have had it for ~6

months and I would not change it now, even if I could. IMO black paint looks and wears

better than black chrome, and the overall effect is classy and understated. YMMV, as they say!

As I answered on the other forum, I have not (yet) found a need to use a centre filter (CF) with this lens, on 6x9 format. I would however question the last contributor's assertion that the same filter can be used for this lens, as for the others that he mentions. Linos literature states that the CF for the 55 mm Apo-Grandagon requires an exposure correction of 2.5 F-stops, whereas the Schneider 80 mm and 110 mm XL lenses require a correction of 1.5 F-stops. I know of no published data in respect of CF for the Nikkor 90 mm f/8 lens.

Katherine, I print full-frame leaving a wide border around the edges. After a final rinse in Ilfotol (more dilute than recommended), I lay the print on a 1/4 inch thick piece of glass, and attach it to the glass using wide gummed tape all round the edges. 24 hours later the print can be lifted and the tape cut off, leaving a perfectly flat print. Watercolour artists use this technique to stretch and flatten their paper.

Andrew, I have this camera and RRS recommended the B22 plate which works fine with it. I used this plate with its long axis in the side-to-side plane, so the knob which tightens the clamp sticks out backwards, ie towards you. Since then, however, I have bought the Linhof 3-way levelling head which doesn't need a separate plate because it screws directly into the camera. The ability to set each plane separately I find to be an advantage over wobbly ball-heads!

Joel: I think you're referring to the little doo-dah that prints a red mark on the paper casing of the film holder. I judged that it was included so you that could easily make a mark to indicate that the film had been exposed. Any other ideas, folks???

Shawn, you may have discounted them already, but perhaps a more important question than the one you posed is whether you would be better off using a non-folding camera if you are mainly into landscape. Depends on your choice of lenses, but if you spend a lot of time using focal lengths of 120 mm or less, a non-folder is much easier to use and gives much more freedom of movement. I write as a satisfied owner of an Ebony 45S!

I screw them together loosely, and put a metal screw-on cap, obtained from SRB (www.srbfilm.co.uk), on each end. So they are stored as a filter "block". I found that plastic sleeves/boxes caused a film to appear on the glass that had to be wiped off. No problem since storing them as a block.

Mark: I shoot mainly 6x9 on your camera's bigger brother, the 45S. I have the 110XL but it's overkill for 6x9. I have replaced this as my "normal" lens for 6x9 work with the combination of 135/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S and 90/8 Nikkor-SW. These are a "long" and a "short" normal, equivalent to approx 40 mm & 61 mm in small format. Depends on how you "see" as to what you are happy with.

 

As to performance at small apertures, I think you'll find that once you get to f/22 and smaller, there is nothing to choose between most LF lenses.

 

Re: centre filters -- using rollfilm, I find that I don't need a centre filter even with my 55/4.5 Apo-Grandagon and transparency film. That's in contrast to 4x5 film, where I need a CF most of the time with my 75 mm lens.

The Wirral peninsula, England. Cheshire countryside, between the cities of Chester and Liverpool.

I'm a bit late coming to this thread but I'd just like to know how easy it is to use the magnifier if you wear specs. I guess that in order to see the whole of the gg, it's necessary to take your specs off and put your eye up close to the lens?

Gabriel, my 2-pennorth' is that it's not worth the effort of hunting for discontinued film such as VP or APX25. The tonality of VP could be superb (at the expense of grain), and similar if not identical "old-style" tonality is obtainable by pulling other films, eg FP4 Plus rated at 64 and dev'd in Perceptol 1+1. Presently I prefer the overall tonality of Delta 400 rated at 200 and dev'd in ID-11 1+1 for 6.5 min at 20C. Bear in mind that plenty of exposure is required: to place the shadows on zone 3 using a spotmeter I end up giving 1-3 stops more exposure than I would using an averaging meter.

 

Hope this helps.