bohdan_pryszlak

Nathan, you have some gorgeous shots on

your website. To answer your question, I

had a 50mm Summicron R lens on the XPro1

which acted as a mild telephoto (75mm). It

was bright out and I stopped down to f11

and prefocused at 25 feet. DOF was huge

and the images were sharp. I also shot a few frames with the Fujinon 35mm.

<p>I don't own this lens. I haven't decided if I really need it as I have a 50mm Summicron which acts as my medium telephoto for now. As far as all of the focus criticisms levied at this camera I have a couple of thoughts: I think a lot of us have gotten spoiled with technology in the last 20 years - sophisticated "out-of-the-box" bodies with lightning fast AF lenses that require little more than a "point and shoot" mentality. This camera is fine if you take the time<strong> to learn</strong> <strong>how to shoot</strong> it (like in the old days). And of course, there will be situations where the camera just isn't meant for the situation at hand - I don't shoot sports with my Linhof (but I could probably figure out how to and burn through a lot of film). Yesterday, I shot an outdoor hockey tournament with the X-Pro 1. Let's just say that I ended up with more winners than losers. And a lot of them were with a manual focus "legacy lens"! That's right, sports without auto-focus! Learn to shoot guys. It's a skill that mere mortals were never intended to be able to master with minimal effort. Practice more and complain less.</p>

<p>Here's the link for the above post. <br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16802297</p>

<p>Well, I'm not selling my X-PRO 1 anytime soon. For the first time in years, I am carrying a camera around again and the lenses are great. I can even shoot my older "legacy" Leica R lenses with an adapter - something I have been wanting to do. The images are beautiful. Is it the "perfect camera"? Ha! That's the Holy Grail. You'll never find it. Here's a print I made into a 20X30 enlargement yesterday (I wanted to test out W***mart's online poster service for the hell of it).<br /> Hand held, Point LobosCalifornia. Perfect? No way. Acceptable? More than that! I haven't printed other tri-pod mounted shots yet but I can only expect them to be better.<br /> <img src="/photo/16802297" alt="" /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I'll agree with Rodeo Joe above. If you can get get one with a cold light head then that's the way to go. And if you can't then budget for a cold light in the near future. One problem you haven't had the "pleasure" of dealing with yet is "negative popping" with 4x5. Most enlargers (condenser especially) generate heat that will flex that big neg in the holder and throw your focus out. You'll be wondering why the prints aren't sharp until you figure it out. Been there, trust me.</p>

<p>Thanks. I asked the question because prior to getting the sodium sulfite, I used Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent (and could only guess how long to leave it in). Then, because I was busy and didn't really care about the neg (bad shot) I left a neg in a cup of plain tap water for around two weeks. When I got around to checking it, the image had completely dissolved. Imagine that!</p>

<p>I just received a pound of powdered sodium sulfite. Two questions: 1. What proportion of chemical do I use with water to make a clearing solution. 2. How much time is needed to clear the Type 55 negs?</p>

<p>The Linhof is a Tech V. And let me qualify what I meant by "stupid money": A monetary amount affixed to a simple device (such as a mechanical interface between tripod and camera) that doesn't cost an arm and a leg because of an exhorbitant"caché" value of the company name. And no, I am not looking for a "Chinese knock-off". I am well aware of these already. The intent of my original post was to see if there was a head similar to a Manfrotto 410 (good quality imho) at about the same price-point of which I may be unaware. Some suggestions such as the Arca have caught my interest. I didn't know of that one. Are there any others out there?</p>

 

<p>The Linhof looks nice Bob. Your input is always respected but in this case, the Linhof head is about $600 over my budget. How much does the Arca ballhead cost d.g. and where can I buy one?</p>

<p>Hi everyone. I hat my ballhead for use with my 4X5 Linhof. Last year I borrowed my brother's Manfrotto 410 Geared Head and liked it. ALOT! My legs are either Manfrotto 055 or Ries (can't recall the model - the smaller legs). Is there anything as good but cheaper? Anything better that doesn't cost stupid money. Should I just by my own 410 and stop searching or what? Suggestions appreciated.</p>

<p>Am I missing something here? I'm not a pro but I can't help but notice some very obvious issues of technique in Missy's original post. First of all, I think Missy has all but admitted that she isn't using a tripod when she asks, "Maybe I should start using a monopod?". Second, Canon equipment is top notch, but, I'm sorry, there's no way it's going to be sharp at f2 or below, hand held, set for low ISO ("I shoot with a 5d and try to keep the ISO low to avoid noise".) Next, I don't see any evidence of any fill flash (which could help perceived "sharpness". ) Finally, subject movement and depth of field will rob any perceived sharpness coupled with the above. You can throw all the computer technology at this problem you like but unless the above technical issues are taken care of - you can kiss sharpness goodbye imho.</p>

<p>My rookie mistakes:<br>

1. Using too many movements - you'll be surprised how little you actually need to tilt or swivel to achieve sharp focus.<br>

2. Remembering to close the lens iris after focussing (just before inserting a film holder for "the shot") - you'll do this once or twice and then you'll learn not to. How will you know you've done it? Film will be way over-exposed.<br>

3. Remembering which side of the double-sided film holder you have exposed already. Label everything and keep a small "exposure record"/notebook to minimize this. A few doulble exposed shots and you'll learn not to do this (so much).<br>

Good luck. ˙sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝs ǝʍ ʎɐʍ ǝɥʇ oʇ ǝɯoɔןǝʍ</p>

<p>David:<br>

To use the 90mm lens you need to press the rail release and slide it back toward the body until it clicks. Your arrow will subsequently line up. Where is the release? Hold the camera as if to shoot it and look at the far right hand corner where you will see a circular button on a small lever that releases the rail. This lever allows you to either extend the bed for long lenses or to pull it back for the 90.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</a></p>

<p>FWIW: I read somewhere that, were it not for the lenses in our eyes, our brains would see things upside down much in the way that a large format image appears on the ground glass. In light of this, it seems to take very little time to adjust to seeing images upside down on the ground glass. In fact, while under the dark cloth, I never catch myself thinking "damn, I wish this was right side up." It just doesn't seem to matter. Funny how the brain adapts. And by the way, welcome to 4X5. I have done it for only two years (like you, I shot a lot of 35mm and medium format. I still have my Leicaflex and a few lenses and have no intention of selling that equipment - beautiful photos.) I sold my Mamiya C330f to offset the cost of my foray into 4X5. No real regrets as I have a roll film back for the Linhof. Mind you, the Mamiya took beautiful pictures and was hand holdable and sharp at 1/15 of a second. When I need to, I can always borrow my brothers Hasselblad. It sure is a lot of fun isn't it. Wait until you see the size of the negs and chromes. Man!</p>

<p>Currently using the Manfrotto 410. Small and sturdy as hell. Love it.</p>

<p>¿ʇɐɥʍ op</p>

<p>¡ʎdɐɹƃoʇoɥd lɐəɹ ˙ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ sƃuıɥʇ əʞıl oʇ puəʇ əʍ ˙plɹoʍ əɥʇ əəs əʍ ʎɐʍ əɥʇ oʇ əɯoɔləʍ</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have never tried out Rodenstock Rodagons let alone the Apo version so it's interesting to hear Steve says they're better than the Schneiders or Nikkors. Maybe he can elaborate on excactly what qualities make them better - I'd be interested to hear. Insofar as a Componon S versus the regular Componon, Arlen is correct - the "S" should be better (better coatings) and a handy backlit f-Stop ring allowing you to see the aperature size in the darkroom. I bought an older 80mm Componon with a silver barrel from a friend who "upgraded" to a Componon S. We compared prints from the two lenses and couldn't see any real improvement in the Componon S - in fact, my friend generally felt that the older silver-barrelled lens seemed to make sharper b&w prints. I don't really know. Good glass is good glass. Compared to your Voss and Spiratone, any of these choices would be a visible improvement - anyone would be able to spot the difference.</p>

<p>Your measurement of 1.5 inches = 38.1 mm so I am guessing if you really measured more carefully you could safely say you have a 39mm thread size. You can buy enlarger lenses quite cheaply these days on the auction site (ebay) or elsewhere. The best and sharpest lenses are Schneider Componon and Nikkor lenses and I wouldn't settle for anything less. Throw the two lenses you have in the trash where they belong. You can get a manual from this site for $10 which will help you determine if you have the appropriate lens boards in which to mount each lens. I have a D2 which I only have set up for 4X5 but probably, if I wanted to do other negative sizes, I would need other lens boards. Why, you might ask? I'm not sure for what lens/negative combination, but you can run into problems of running out of bellows extension while trying to focus unless you have the right board with the right amount of extension built into it. Here's the link: <a href="http://www.classic-enlargers.com/omega_manuals.htm">http://www.classic-enlargers.com/omega_manuals.htm</a></p>

<p>I wouldn't panic about that Arthur. Barry (above) seems to regard the build quality highly and from what I can from the images of their products, the fit and finish seem first rate. Anyhow, I'd gamble on a Chamonix before I plunked down the money on an early Zone VI - from what I heard they weren't well-built at all but you can surely spend top dollar for one.</p>

<p>Jeez, everytime I read a similar thread, I wonder if I'm the last guy on the planet using Kodak rubber tanks and stainless steel hangers. My results are always excellent, never scratched, I can do 8 negs at a time easily, and I just can't see why anyone would spend hundreds of dollars for expensive (and leaky?) Jobo systems just to be able to save a few pennies on chemicals. Any thoughts out there?</p>

<p>Ansel Adams used his hat. I use a cheapo rubber hood on my 90mm. The Chamonix website has that cool lens shade on a flexible wire but they're out of stock right now.</p>

<p>I haven't had any done yet but according to their websites these guys do it. If anyone knows of any others please let us know.<br>

<a href="http://www.silvanoimaging.com/E6.html">http://www.silvanoimaging.com/E6.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.torontoimageworks.com/film_processing.html">http://www.torontoimageworks.com/film_processing.html</a></p>

<p>Jeez, I have a Linhof Tech V but that Chamonix looks really nice! Had I known about it a few years back when I was starting out I may just have bought it. It looks as cool (if not cooler)than Ebony and definitely cheaper. The price is definitely attractive and it seems like their philosophy is right. Excellent recommendation Barry - only, how do you mount it to a tripod and which head/tripod comination are you using?</p>