kcrisp

Ted: I purchased one of these maybe 9 months ago. It is my first "real" ballhead. (Meaning heavier duty than the 35 mm ones I had tried.) I use it on a Gitzo 1325. I can't compare it from personal experience to the alternatives, but as a newcomer to using ballheads for LF I can give you my thoughts. I have used it for a Deardorff Special, and Canham MQC and the new lighter Canham 8X10 camera. Pluses: Price, weight, exceptionally well made, nifty design, locks solid with any of these cameras even with 3 lb lenses mounted on them, good customer service when ordering plates. If I push on the camera when it is locked down, the flex isn't in the head. The quick release is what I believe is the standard arca plate and it works fine and locks up very, very tight. Minuses...it takes slightly longer to get the camera leveled versus something like a 3 way head. (True of any ball head, I am sure. This is the trade off for having something so light.) My only complaint is that the knob for panning is a little small. When inserting a film holder into the 8X10 there is quite a bit of leverage available for accidentally shifting the camera laterally, and the small knob has to be really tight or it will shift. This is not an issue with 5X7 and smaller cameras, and once you become aware of it and make a point of really setting the knob and inserting the holder carefully, it is not an issue with the 8X10. I mention it only because it is the only point of the product which has bothered me on occasion. In general, I am very happy with it and I have started using it in the field even when I'm not hiking far and weight really isn't an issue.

Stan: If the images are important, and it sounds like they are, don't guess and experiment. Take a sheet or two of HP5 (it doesn't have to be 12X20, to save some money) and expose it with the same meter error under similar lighting conditions (i.e. sunny, overcase, etc.) and experiment with that. When you get the results you want with those tests, then start on the real images. If you have a densitometer, this can be more scientific. Place a Zone VIII where it should go with the wrong meter setting and develop the film until your test Zone VIII is the density you get when you normally expose and process film.

I'm not sure I entirely understand the last add-on question. You can use a 90 mm or a 300 with the standard bellows. But the 90mm will give you virtually no movements on the front standard unless you switch to the bag bellows. Could you replace the standard bellows with something more flexible which would work better with shorter lenses? Something like the bellows on a Canham? You probably could get some movement with the 90 mm lens if you put on a custom bellows. But unlike a Canham, the bellows on the Zone VI might still be so compressed (the front and rear standards just won't get any closer) that movements would be difficult. I guess you won't know exactly how well this will work until you spend the money to do it. Given the relatively light weight of the bag bellows, which you say you already have, I don't know that I would go to the expense of trying a custom more flexible bellows on this camera. If you do go this route, please let us know what improvement you obtain.

Elaine: Jim and Robert are exactly right. Full compression of the front and rear standards gets you right to 90 mm, at least on mine. I believe a 75mm would require a recessed board. With the front and rear standards together with the standard bellows it is so compressed and so stiff anything more than a very forced mm or 2 of movement isn't possible, and even then you'll likely start pushing the standards out of plumb. I do believe that with the bag bellows in place the 135 could be used though, along with the 90 mm. Some have said they can fold the bag bellows up in the camera but I haven't tried that either. Seems like cutting it accidentally would be easy.

Joel: This is a fine lens and will cover 8X10 with a ton of movement. The proverbial advice (also given by Schneider) is to stop it down to at least f:22 if you are not using it for close ups, though in my experience that doesn't seem to be the case.

Matt: A nice outfit would be a Crown Graphic with the side mounted Kalart rangefinder (I'd avoid the top mounted or Hugo Meyer side mount rangefinders -- both work, but instructions for fixing the top mounted ones are hard to come by and the cam has to be the right one to the mm; instructions for adjusting the Kalart are readily available and they are really accurate with proper set up) with a Schneider 135 and 90 mm lens. Some of the Optar lenses are also quite good. Make sure the Kalart is showing a clear second image. If it isn't, you will have to break out and reglue a small piece of beamsplitter glass into the rangefinder which is doable but a real nuisance. This is very much a standard outfit in its day and does show up for sale in the vulcanite case, complete with proper bed distance scales for these two lenses, sometimes you even get the slide in wide angle gizmo which makes the optical finder work with the wide angle. As a set the outfits seem to sell for less than the items sold separately, and it saves you the trouble of reassembling what time has dispersed. The graflok back is a plus. With Tri-X or similar speed film, handheld work at 1/125th or 1/250th with considerable depth of field is not difficult. The wire hoop finder works as is with both lenses if you can't find the optical viewfinder adapter for the wide angle. If you must have a more modern lens, something like a Schneider-S (late) multicoated could be used, though the old Schneider press lenses are very good performers when centered on the film. What makes this ancient obsolete camera surprisingly effective is a "grafmatic" readily available for $45 to $80. This device is preloaded in the dark with six sheets of film held in metal "septums" and positioned like a regular cut film holder. (To save weight you can clamp it on the back with the graflok slides and take the ground glass/fresnel/viewing hood off the camera entirely.) On the camera, a push pull action brings the next shot to the front of the holder. It is not difficult to shoot 6 sheets per minute if you want to go that fast, but the main advantage is that you avoid having to hold the camera in one hand and muscle the regular holder into position. The graflok springs really hold the back firmly and holding the camera and getting the film holder in and out isn't nearly as easy as using a camera on a tripod. With a grafmatic on the back a Crown graphic can, with practice, become surprisingly handy to shoot. With two lenses, a meter, and a grafmatic, you can fit the outfit in a number of camera bags made for 35 mm. And if you pursue all or any of the suggestions you're getting, and still decide you don't like it, you can sell the camera very easily on Ebay. Good luck.

Robin: I've used both of these. The rotating back on the B&J leaked light at certain angles and I had to tape it up with gaffers' tape. In general the quality of construction of the B&J is not in the ballpark of that on the Busch. The B&J is a fairly crude camera, almost DIY in design and construction. The Busch is very nicely made, perhaps even nicer than my Crown which is what I settled on. The busch makes a decent field camera, though others are lighter, and it has front rise and tilt. (And, if memory serves, geared front shift if you can believe that.) The space for the rear element of the lenses is cramped on the Busch. I don't believe a 210 Symmar, for example, will fit. With appropriate lens choices you can work around that. I suspect the Busch is heavier than the B&J, but with both gone I can't weigh them for you. The Busch is a very solid package, though beyond taking off the Kalart rangefinder, there isn't much to strip on it. A working rangefinder is a handy thing though, and shooting handheld 4X5's can be very rewarding, I think people are sometimes too quick to "strip" the press cameras as though all those parts are obsolete. I could be more helpful if I could remember the details of the front movements on the B&J, but other than rise I'm drawing a blank. Good luck.

OK, OK, maybe it was only 80% improvement.

After reading the posts on this subject I tried it on my only "radioactive lens," a SMC Takumar 50mm. One of the elements had turned rather brown/yellow, enough so you felt like you had a filter on it when looking through the viewfinder. I got a compact UV tube ($9, looks like a typical compact florescent bulb) and put it in a polished reflector at close range, since the tube puts out very little heat. I put foil around it to concentrate the light on the glass. Every couple days I'd flip the lens over so the light went in both ends over time. The improvement is subtle at first because it takes so long (3 weeks or so, and of course at first you want to check it right away to see if it works...) but when I was done the change was a 95% improvement, maybe more. At least for me, on the lens I used, it worked quite well. I was extremely doubtful this would work, but the lens is a great one for 35mm and the UV lamp was only $9 so I figured why not try it. Others have recommended a tube-style lamp from Wal-Mart, but that isn't what I used. What I used is sold in electronics stores as a black light "party" lamp, which screws into a normal round socket.

"Your results may vary somewhat but should be fairly close."

 

Well, not really. Or should I say: maybe. They could be quite different which is why I suggested the sharing of this information is not productive. For example, Steve, if I translated the suggested numbers to my equipment (still using HC110 dil. "B" and Tri-X) I know from my testing I would be overexposing the film by 2 1/2 stops and overdeveloping it as well. Why? Using my Zone VI modified Pentax meter (calibration checked by Calumet and then by Mr. Ritter, who tweaked Calument's setting by just a third of a stop) I get a much higher film speed rating than the mfg's rating. Why I don't know...but if both Ritter and Calumet want to calibrate it that way I'm running out of options to pursue a number which is just a number. Using the test results I get and setting the meter where the test says I should, Zone I is right where it should be on the calibrated densitometer, time after time, and where it should be in the contact print. The exposure is right; it just happens to be a number different from what most people use. I get a development time test time which is less, but not by a huge amount, which can be easily explained by agitation technique or any other number of things. (If I use a recently recalibrated Weston Master V to place the Zone I exposure, I get a much lower film speed which happens to agree with what Kodak suggests, so I am sure that my particular spot meter's readings do happen to explain the unusually high film speed I use.) But these are just numbers -- it makes no pratical difference as long as the meter is not erratic. Do your test, do it carefully (there are so many ways to make a mistake on the test...), and use your numbers. If you instead substitute what anyone else suggests, or cut corners and don't do the development time test, then you invite error. So many people expose the film properly, then overdevelop it, then have to print through bulletproof highlights and in the process drive the detail in the shadows into pure black. Since the negatives appear too dense, they assume they overexposed and they cut exposure and round and round they go. Use the test as a starting place, then fine tune based on your experiences printing the negatives.

Steve: The only densities which matter are YOURS. Somebody else using a different meter, different lens, different shutter, different film processing technique, etc. will or may get different numbers which are right for them. Most people end up with a film speed which is less than 320, but a higher film speed which results from proper testing is right for the techniques tested.

Mark: I thought this was one of the more interesting threads I'd read in some time. When it degenerates into sneering name-calling, then I think time is being wasted.

Ken: If you're only going to use the 135mm Optar, then you might as well not worry about movements other than rear tilt or swing. The 135mm press lenses (Optar, the Schneider, etc.) have really tight image circles. If you're going to put something like a Symmar 135 on there then you've got some definition left over to work with.

Stephen: I've never used a g claron where the focus shifts when stopped down. So focus at f:9, adjust movements for desired depth of field, stop down to f:22 or below as necessary. If you have critical elements of the composition you have doubts about being in the desired focus when stopped down (not enough depth of field from the movements plus stopping down) then, of course, check those stopped down, stop down further if necessary, and take the picture. I can't think of an advantage to stopping down to f:22 for the basic focus function. Some older lenses just don't look sharp wide open, or shift focus when stopped down, but these are not concerns in my experience with this lens line.

Michael: A little bit of fogging on the edges, outside the image area, is normal for many, many holders. Take the worst holder or two of your test with paper, load them with film for a real test, and give them some sun, from several angles, then put them on a camera, pull the dark slide out, spin it around (don't take a picture, though there's no harm in that, you're testing whether they are light tight when the slide isn't there filling up a potential gap in the felt) then put the dark slide in and develop. If they are ok, go take pictures. Many prior posts recommend shielding the holder to the extent possible during real use, which I agree with, so the above is a tough test to pass for a holder with a problem. Good luck.

Mike: Ditto the comments about size and weight. It is a fine lens, but it will overwhelm many field cameras. I tried fitting one to a Zone VI (the larger Wisner designed one) and it was impractical and just too much for the camera. The 240 g claron would be a good alternative.

Ron: Ditto on the Verbalab. It isn't cheap and I resisted buying one for a long time, but it really made a difference and the time savings when using it is huge. The hours I wasted with sheets of glass and levels and sticks....

What continues to puzzle me is that when this question comes up most if not all the responses don't go beyond what else people like or what they thought "playing" with the lightweight once in a store. If you check Calumet's website, it often suggests that the lightweight 4X5, in particular, is showing strong sales. Somebody is apparently buying these camera in significant numbers, and yet a comment by anyone who has owned and used one for several years is almost impossible to come by. Perhaps sales are largely to first time users who don't use this forum, or don't stick with LF? Maybe, but then there should be a number of them on the used market and they are pretty rare there too.

Ric: I also wonder why this is happening and prevention may be the best cure. I have never, ever, had a static mark with LF. With roll film when I was in a hurry and handling it too fast, yes, but never with LF. And I live in So. Cal. and go to the desert a lot. So I suggest you eliminate this before it happens rather than live with it and try to fix it after the fact. Try treating the dark slides with the Ilford anti static cloth and pull the slides slowly. This keeps dust down too, because the static charge causes the film to vacuum the dust out of your camera for you. If you aren't seeing or hearing static when loading or unloading the film holders (and increasing the humidity in the room you are loading in should help) then it must be a problem with generating static when pulling the slide. Are you sure that none of what you are seeing is checked baggage xray lines?

Christopher: If you're talking about color transparency film, I don't think there is any chance it will perform normally. If you just want to see what kind of weird orange or pink image you might get, then take one picture with it at normal exposure and you'll know. B&W if kept very cold might still be acceptable for some uses, if you can live with elevated b+f which is inevitable, but my experience with color even if kept refrigerated after about 12 mos. over the expiration date has not been good. Good luck.

Lexan is a very good material for this, and very inexpensive too. An 8X10 can be a $5 project. Buy clear, scuff it up with #400 wet or dry sandpaper, then 600, polish it to taste with valve grinding compound (auto parts store) and there you go. Lines can be added with a straight edge and the tip of a box cutter blade. If this sounds too complicated, it takes only 15 minutes or so. Obviously the scuffed surface of the Lexan must be installed in the same plane as the ground surface of the ground glass. Illumination is surprisingly even, certainly much better than plain ground glass. It is light, it is essentially unbreakable, it is cheap and it works. At the very least, you can have a lightweight unbreakable spare on hand which can save a trip.

Don: This seems like a lens which should be in the $285-$345 range (USD). If Schneideritis is just the white spots on the black around the edge between elements I don't think it makes any difference at all. A symptom of Schneideritis can also be a fogging of the internal glass surfaces, which can cut contrast and costs some $$ to have cleaned out. If the rims on any of the elements have significant dents or added paint (making it hard to unscrew the retaining ring to clean the glass) then this is more of a bother. For the price you mention, can't you get an APO Schneider?

Rainer: You could spend hours reading all the comments on this board about the G Clarons. (Almost all of it favorable, at least from the people who use them.) Stopped down to f:22 they are excellent lenses for shooting at infinity. A barrel lens should screw right in to a Copal 1 or same sized Compur shutter. Check the spacing of the elements to be sure, but this should work without any difficulty. If the price is right, considering the price of the shutter and an f stop scale, I think you'll be pleased with the performance of the lens.

Vinny: If your negatives look sharp with a 10 power loupe...then the negatives are sharp. If they don't look sharp in a mere 8X10 print, then you have something else going on which is spoiling what you can get from your sharp negatives. If you use a grain focus aid on your baseboard (shimmed with a sheet of paper) does the grain edge look very, very sharp stopped down more than 2 stops? If not then you have something wrong with how the enlarger is handling your negatives (condensors put together wrong?) or something wrong with your enlarging lens (correct mount? lens spacing correct?) or something else outside the enlarger itself like vibration from an A/C unit or fan? I'd look to enlarger or enlarger lens issues if the negatives look sharp under a loupe. It can be more difficult to properly focus a LF negative with the naked eye since the big grain you use for guidance on 35 mm, etc. isn't there. Some of the Schneider's develop internal fog which can diffuse the image a bit. Good luck.

Curtis: I've been happy with these folks. Measure carefully, if in doubt go one mm higher.

 

Kevin

 

http://www.heliopan.com/hoods.htm