audidudi

What sort of subject matter do you wish to photograph? I live in the area and can direct you to all manner of places depending upon what you want to shoot...

I did exactly what you suggest, picking up the various bits on eBay over time for what I thought were very reasonable prices (i.e., NOS bag bellows - $126; rear standard - $120; Rail clamp - $15). I also purchased a complete 810G last summer for just $400 (albeit in somewhat scruffy condition), so good deals on those can be found, too.

I'm sorry if you took offense, Jean-Louis, as it was not my intention to offend you nor anyone else holding the same opinion (scroll up a bit and check similar threads archived on photo.net, and you'll see that you are not alone in yours). :^)

Don't let the naysayers discourage you from using a monorail design in the field, as I've been doing so for several years without any regrets. While I'm sure that I'd eventually master using indirect movements and base tilt, the ability to dial-in exactly what I want, with geared movements, is (IMO) well worth the drawbacks of carrying a few extra pounds and spending an extra minute or two setting up the camera. (And if you're able to hike with the camera fully assembled, as I often did, the difference in setup time between the two designs actually favors the monorail.)

 

That said, there's no point in recommending my particular setup to you, as the odds of yout being able to duplicate it (a modified Toyo 23G/45G combo that weighs just 8lbs) are remote ... unless you buy mine, of course. ;^)

 

FWIW, I'm presently using a Toyo 810G monorail design now (lightened to around 15lbs with a few mods and some minor machine work) and while I wouldn't want to (and generally don't) carry it very far, I have successfully taken it on short 2-3 mile hikes ... when shooting 8x10, though, it isn't the weight of the camera that's a problem so much as the weight of the film holders. My supplies bag (7 holders, meter, dark cloth, bottle of water, etc.) weighs almost 10lbs more than my camera does!

 

BTW, one thing I've noticed over the years, is that as I switch to larger formats, the angle of view of my favorite lenses keeps getting wider. My favorite 35mm lens was 85mm; with medium-format, it was 75mm; with 4x5, 127mm, and now with 8x10, it's 210mm. In fact, I'm likely going to sell my two other 8x10 lenses (300mm, 450mm) because it's literally been months since I last used them. I don't know if this quirk is true just of me, but keep it in mind when you're buying lenses for whatever 4x5 you ultimately choose.

When I first corresponded with Scott maybe six years ago, we were both happily shooting with 35mm Minolta SLRs and he generously gave a few uneeded (but still somewhat valuable) lenses to my daughter, who was then just getting started in photography. (Alas, she's pretty much abandoned it now, having decided that pencil drawing is her medium of choice.)

 

When we touched based again a few years later, I'd given up my brace of now-dead Minolta XKs in favor of a Bronica SQ-Ai and a few TLRs, and I was also starting to get my feet wet with a view camera by shooting medium-format with a rollfilm back.

 

The last time we communicated, perhaps a little over a year ago (or so it seems), Scott said he was considering adding a medium-format camera to his kit and I had pretty much given up shooting any format smaller than 4x5.

 

With that background in mind, it should come as no suprise then that with my having made the decision last fall to shoot 8x10 until I can no longer buy film for it, Scott continues to follow in my footsteps by moving up to 4x5!

 

Do you suppose that if I move up to a still larger format, say, 11x14, he'll give up 4x5 and switch to 8x10? Hmmm...

Actually, Ralph, the Toyo CX -- yet another Toyo monorail camera -- also uses the field camera's 110mm x 110mm lensboards, as does the (very scarce) 23G 2x3 monorail.

 

As for the 45C, I'm sure it can be lightened a bit. By various means, I've reduced the weight of my Toyo 45G from just over 12 lbs to 8 lbs and not given up any functionality whatsoever (well, at least so long as I'm using lenses no longer than 180mm or so, which was most of the time). How much of what I've done will also apply to the 45C I don't know, but if you want the details, feel free to contact me privately.

Depending upon the shutter speed, the vibration of some shutters can visibly reduce image sharpness. For longer exposures, though, there should be little difference between the two.

If you're shooting 2x3, you might consider a Galvin. It's small, light and the groundglass assembly is designed such that most rollfilm backs (i.e., Graflex, Horseman, and Mamiya RB) will slide underneath. Galvin also made a 4x5 version but they're fairly rare and hard to find these days.

 

If you're shooting 2x3 but want to leave your options open by using a 4x5 camera instead of a 2x3 camera, there are several rollfilm backs that have adapter plates which allow them to be used with a 4x5 ... Toyo, Horseman and Calumet are the first ones that come to mind but there are many others. Jim Galvin can also make adapter plates (and even a replacement back) for those rollfilm backs that don't have them available.

I've contacted Eugene privately about some 810G bits I have that I'm willing to sell, but since other 810G owners might be reading this post as well, I thought I'd point out that Horseman's 4x5 reducing back for its 8x10 will also fit the 810G.

 

Whether used Horseman reducing backs are any less expensive than Toyo reducing backs, though, is another matter altogether...

As I recall -- I sold my 75mm Tominon a while ago -- it won't cover 4x5 at infinity but will cover for close-up work. Resolution-wise, this isn't best choice for use with a 6x9 unless your version performs a whole lot better than mine did (always a possibilty when dealing with used equipment) or you're on a very tight budget. The problem with mine was that images captured with it became soft quite quickly as they were enlarged ... about 10x10 was as large as I was happy with whereas with my modified Polaroid 600se 75mm lens, I can generally print up to 16x16 or even 20x20 from just about any 120 original.

 

Still, for the money... :^)

Well, it's been over a year now ... any progress, Witold?

Although they're not currently in production, I seem to recall that, way back when, Mamiya offered a 6x6 back for its RB-67. While they aren't so easy to find these days, I think that any competent photo-machinist should be able to modify one to work on a 4x5 without too much difficulty or expense.

 

On the other hand, if you're willing to crop your film slightly and prefer something off-the-shelf instead of a custom project, you might want to consider Toyo's 6x7 back. I own four of these and in my experience, they slightly outperform the Horseman backs that I used previously. While I've heard that the version designed for the "baby" Graflok back -- i.e., most 2x3 cameras -- has been discontinued, I understand that the 4x5 version is (apparently) still available. Second-hand units aren't too hard to locate, either ... in fact, there's one on eBay as I write this, with a UK seller to boot!

Re: the above comments, David Fokos sells B&W Lightjet prints for a decent sum -- the last time I checked, his 16"x16" prints started around $600 and his 36"x36" prints were something like $3600 -- but he prints them using a color process instead of B&W.

If you can live with 6x6 or 6x7 images, then you should be able to accomplish this with a proper view camera (no offense intended, Graflex fans) for under $500. With a bit of luck and some patience and time, you should eventually be able to find a Galvin view camera for $250; a late-version Graflex 6x7 back for $75, and a 55mm Mamiya TLR lens for $125-150.

 

Of course, you'll need to remove the lens from the Mamiya TLR mount and then figure out a way to adapt the shutter so it'll work with a cable release (the cheapest, easiest way is to reinstall the elements in another Copal 0 shutter which, with luck, you can find attached to a Tominon 105mm lens from a Polaroid copy camera for $30 or so) but it will cover 6x7 with just a hint of darkening in the corners. If you can live with 6x6, it won't be as wide as it is with 6x7, but you'll cover the format completely and gain a few mm of rise/fall in return.

 

Another source of good quality lenses for medium-format view cameras are the Mamiya Press/Universal and Polaroid 600SE lenses. You'll have to remove them from their helical focusing mounts and then adapt the factory shutter release linkage so it still works (which isn't hard, but does require some mechanical ability and access to tools), but the end results are quite cost-effective. I assembled a four-lens outfit -- 50mm/f6.3, 75mm/f5.6, 127mm/f4.7, and 150mm/f5.6 -- via eBay over the course of a year for around $650 (nearly half of which was for the 50mm lens) and for the money, these lenses are remarkable performers. Plenty of movement for 6x9, although the 50mm will run out of rise/fall after 5-7mm (which isn't a problem for me, though, as I shoot 6x6 and it has plenty of rise/fall for this format), but for the money...

 

If you're going to shoot only 120, be wary of budget-priced 4x5 lenses as their shortcomings may be more visible due to the greater degree of englargement your prints will need; on the other hand, you'll also be using only the center portion of the lens, which may compensate for the difference in englargement and then some.

 

The bottom-line is that, Yes, you can do what you propose and IMO, this is a good way to get started with a view camera, especially if you shoot color.

This is just a guess but how about the Polaroid back from a Cambo Passportrait? I'm using one (slightly modified to adjust the position of the film plane relative to the groundglass) on my Toyo 23G...

It looks like a Toyo D45A to me ... in fact, there's one on eBay right now so you can make the comparison yourself. Assuming that it is a D45A, it should use the same lens boards as the current Toyo 4x5 studio cameras.

WRT to the above comments, the "reviews" of the Sprintscan 45 Ultra that appeared in View Camera and Camera Arts really tell you very little about the scanner's performance. I read all of the articles, but in the end, they did very little to influence my decision to buy one of these scanners (the factor that influenced me the most was the price -- as low as $600 just a few weeks ago -- and after that, the facts that there is/was an optional glass film holder available for it, and it's supported by Vuescan).

Vuescan does indeed support this scanner (www.hamrick.com is the URL for it) and given the frequency with which Ed Hamrick keeps updating it, I'm confident that this will continue to be the case for as long as lightbulbs are still available for the scanner.

The lever-type Horseman backs that I owned were indeed of the Hasselblad reverse-curl design (as were the backs for my Bronica SQ-Ai). I did eventually switch over to the Toyo 6x7 and 6x9 backs, which have a film path that's essentially straight-through and, in my experience, do a slightly better job of holding the film flat. The downside, of course, is that the Toyo backs are both larger and heavier than the Horseman backs, as well we more expensive ... I believe they've also been discontinued recently, too.

RE: 1) Modern shutters should operate properly when oriented in any direction. If having the controls on the side instead of on top works best for you and your camera, then so be it. 2) This is just part of the deal with LF. If this really proves to be a problem for you, then Horseman makes an exposure meter that will slip under the ground-glass and you can use this to precisely bracket your shots by watching the meter readout while you adjust your f-stop. While they are costly new, used ones turn up on eBay fairly regularly (although you need to be careful to buy the more recent version as the older ones use obsolete batteries that are difficult, if not impossible, to find these days).

If you don't have access to a drill press and the material you're drilling isn't too thick, then you might consider a Uni-Bit. They're not inexpensive but they do drill very nice round holes in thin stock...

Well, after reading the above post, I finally gave up on the idea of buying a glass film holder for less than retail and called Polaroid's customer service department today. They transferred me to Jay in the Commercial Digital department and he confirmed that they have just a few of these left ("Five, I think") and further confirmed Polaroid has no plans to order any more once they're gone. The direct-from-Polaroid price was $269.95 plus shipping and tax -- a little over $294.00 total for me here in Arizona -- but as this is probably the last chance I'll ever have to buy one, I decided to "bite the bullet" and order one. Anybody else who's interested in one probably ought to do the same, and do it quickly...

You can also use all three of the Sprintscan 45 series of scanners with Vuescan, which works fine with XP. Best of all, it's still a currently available product, which means it will be updated as new OS are released, whereas I'll be surprised if Polaroid invests the effort in updating its software for these scanners, what with them being discontinued and all.

I wonder if the inspectors would be willing to inspect the film boxes by feel while inside a changing tent? They wouldn't be able to see anything, of course, but they could certainly tell by feel that the contents aren't explosive or pointy-sharp. On second thought, though, they probably wouldn't be all that enthusiastic about sticking their hands inside of a box that could contain anything from a poisonous snake to hypodermic needles...

Daniel: I've searched all over for someone with a glass film holder in stock but have come up empty so far. If you track one down -- or rather, _two_ down, since I presume you'll take the first one -- then please let me know.

 

David: The Sprintscan 45 was the first generation version of this scanner and is generally regarded by most people as something of a "dog," performance-wise. The Sprintscan 45i was the second generation version and was much improved compared to the Sprintscan 45 but, IMO, still somewhat less than a stellar performer (specifically, too much noise in the shadows, which is manifested as multi-colored banding ... at least, this is the case with my sample). The third and final version is the Sprintscan 45 Ultra, which was the original subject of this thread. Not only does it scan at 2500ppi versus 2000ppi, its electronics are 14-bit instead of 12-bit (which means there's less padding in the 16-bit files it outputs) and based upon my limited experience with it so far, its performance is head-and-shoulders above the Sprintscan 45i it replaced.

 

As far as pricing goes, $500 for the original Sprintscan 45 strikes me as too much. I know of one that sold locally within the past year for just $125 and I paid only $250 for my Sprintscan 45i a few months ago. In other words, if circumstances limit you to the original 45, then you should try to negotiate a better price with the seller; if you have more flexibility, then you should probably look for a 45i instead of a 45, or ideally, buy my 45i before it turns up on eBay in the next few days/weeks!