bohdan_pryszlak

<p>Maybe a Multi-Finder 45 has a steep price tag but have you considered buying an older used Linhof finder? They come up regularly on the auction site and rarely sell for more than $200. And yes, they will fit your Tech III.</p>

<p>I've always wanted to do this buy as of yet haven't tried it myself, but from I what I remember reading in Ansel Adams <em>The Negative</em>, the most effective way is to shoot infrared film. Essentially, the film records heat and not light so blue light haze vanishes. Maybe someone with some experience shooting the stuff can comment at this point.</p>

<p>When you find out, let me know which one you don't want and I might think about taking it off your hands.</p>

<p>Jakob: The general rule for enlargers is this. A 4x5 enlarger (e.g. Omega D-series or Besseler MX45) will cover (i.e. be able to illuminate with light the entire negative, corner to corner) a 4x5 negative and <strong>any smaller negative</strong>. All you need to do is have the appropriate negative carrier and lens to do each smaller format. So buy the biggest enlarger you can and then you'll be able to print anything you want.</p>

<p>I had a few days with a Technika 23 once and I found it a nice roll film camera. However, the moment I tried to use the ground glass I found it frustratingly dim and small to use. I ended up buying a 4x5 and have never looked back. I suspect that you'll end up using sheet film most of the time and for the few instances when you want to shoot roll film, simply load up a back. They're plentiful and cheap these days and you can get them in a number of aspects: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 for example.</p>

<p>I dropped mine last week while carrying it in my tripod case. Same problem - couldn't turn one of the gears. "Great" I thought and began to imagine how much it would cost me to repair the thing (let alone how I was going to get the picture I was about to set up for). Then, in a desperate move, I pulled back on the larger spring-loaded release knob and to my surprise I got it to release. It did take some power however and I was relieved to see that the fine adjuster just spun backward and released more and more tension as I backed it off. So basically, Tim and I may be on to the solution. If this doesn't work or if you end up snapping something, you'll have to send it in for repairs anyway. I'd give it a try first - Manfrotto proucts are pretty rugged. Good luck and let us know if you succeed in freeing it up.</p>

<p>Thank you to all who attempted to answer the questions of the original post. I watched this thread with great interest for a couple of days and finally, after an initially puzzling series of posts, we finally got somewhere.</p>

<p>Stephanie,<br>

I live in the Halton Hills area. There is lots to shoot around here. Email me and we can discuss this further.</p><div></div>

<p>Hurol,<br>

By your own words, your friend is a PRO photographer - don't forget this. Don't confuse what you saw <em>at the screen of his laptop during the photography</em> as a reflection of the equipment. He is a PRO and what you were seeing was mostly <em>him</em>. Surely, the gear is really cool but he could impress you with just about any camera in his hands - even a 40D! As an amateur 4x5 photographer I can only recommend that you do <em>spend for a large format camera and equipment - </em>It's a very deliberately slow and relaxing (and frustrating) type of photography - almost like a ritual. I don't know how long you have been learning photography but I have been at it most of my life - badly. Eventually, I'll get better but it's the doing of photography that appeals to me as much as the gear and/or the final picture. Have fun as an amateur and life-long learner of this wonderful craft. A professional friend of mine once told me that before he became a pro he really liked photography and all the stuff about it. Not so much anymore. All to often, the best way to kill a passion is turn it into a job. Enjoy! </p>

<p>I don't have a Jobo drum spinner super deluxe whatever - seems like an awfully complicated way to develop film when simpler methods are available. Get a hold of some Kodak hard rubber tanks and hangers (cheap and dependable). Start with D-76 or HC-110 and master their use. (TMax developer is not recommended for deep tanks but I have used it with success). Read the instructions, keep an eye on the temperature-time relationship and you're in business.</p>

Get by? Probably. But eventually you will want to get a heavier duty (and more sturdy) tripod like the Manfrotto 055 series if you want to stay with that maker (and there is certainly no reason not to - Manfrotto make great products). Check their website. They have an equipment configuring page that lets you put in the weight of your camera and then it suggests equipment to match it.

http://configurator.manfrotto.com/manfrotto.html?a=b&matrix=7373

If it really bothers you then sell the lens and get a more perfect one. Flawless lenses command higher prices on the used marked but scratched lenses don't exactly sell for peanuts. To a collector, pristine glass matters. To many photographers, a few minor scratches is hardly anything to worry about - you'd be surprised how many really great photos have been taken with really crappy looking and beat up lenses. Psychologically though, some guys take a great picture and then obsess over it - wondering if it would have been even better if the glass was absolutely perfect! Maybe yes? But probably not. I think Michael Hendrickson wishes he still had that Dagor. Rest assured, whoever has it now probably likes it. And if he doesn't, hey maybe it'll eventually come to me. On that note, if anyone has any slightly scratched Leitz or Dagor lenses, let me know.

Along with the cleaning marks, you will remove any coating on the lens. Think long and hard before you do this.

If you are thinking of just getting going with one lens then start with a 150mm. I have a 90 and a 210 but tend to use the 150 75% of the time.

A photo like that is in a book called LEGENDS by Terry O'Neill:

I use a Nikon SW 90 f8 as well. I paid around $500 or so but I would have paid up to $750 at the time. Nice lens. Really sharp. See this link to help you decide:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

You need to check the zones. Meter the shadow area in which you absolutely need to preserve some detail and "place" it on Zone III. Then check your highlight area and see where it "falls". (See Ansel Adams' book: The Negative). I suspect your important highlight may land around zone 9 or 10 in which case you'll need to pull the negative out of the developer early (i.e. minus development) in order to prevent the hot spots on the negative from becoming too dense. At any rate, when printing this negative, I can see your needing to "burn in" the lighter regions of the mountain. Any other approach (e.g. metering the brightly lit mountain first and basing your exposure on this information only) will achieve a negative with not enough density in the shadow areas (they'll be very underexposed).

Some years ago, I made a board from .063 aluminium sheet for my Technika III. Essentially, it is a rectangle with a hole and a circular channel around the hole into which the felt light seal from the Tech III body's front standard fits. I was unable to mill this channel and settled with a completely flat board (properly sized of course but without this channel cut). It worked fine. Keith, you will not be able to make a lens board for any Tech IV or later. They are far more complicated and unless you are a machinist or tool and die maker, you won't have the hardware to do it. Just buy one. I have bought them on the auction site in excellent shape (sometimes mint) for $35. It really ain't worth the trouble.

As long as you have a mount for it on top of your horseman it should work fine. Mine works great on my Linhof. But I don't use it mounted on the camera that much. I usually take it out of my bag briefly to determine which lens to mount on the camera and then I put it away. It's a neat tool to have and used ones can be bought for around $150 so even if you don't like it there is always a resale market for these items.

Ian! Nice to see someone else jumping into 4X5 with a Tech V. I started out with a Tech III and have had a Tech V for about 2 years now - great camera with its idiosycracies as mentioned by the others above. In all your excitement I wonder if you are straight on a few things. First of all, the camera will work WITHOUT the cam inserted - you only need one if you plan on using the rangefinder for focusing (forgiving me if I am stating the obvious here and you already know this). In other words, if you plan on using it handheld like a big old press camera then you will need to have cams with your lenses since you will be focusing using the prism in the rangefinder. I focus onto the ground glass with the camera tripod-mounted - no need for cams of any sort. Secondly, if you are going to focus using the rangefinder and need to have cams made to match your lense(s), and if I am not mistaken (Bob Solomon or others can clear this up) any Linhof Technika from the Tech V up to the present only needs to have the lens matched to the cam. So I would think that you don't need to send in the body. The earlier Technikas (like the Technika III that I used to have) required that the lens and cam AND THE BODY match up as a set. In other words, an earlier lens + cam combination was dedicated to a particular body and not interchangeable with another. One major advantage of the Tech V (and newer) is that this is no longer a requirement. So if you don't need to use the rangefinder, save your money or put it toward a nice lens.

Melissa,

I hope I am not too late. First of all, in your original post you mention that you want a MF camera and you shoot mainly landscapes/nature. If this is so then seriously consider getting an SLR like a nice used Hasselblad 500C or 500CM. You will need to increase your budget - that's what credit cards are for! I had a C330 and liked it a lot - sharp lenses, great solid build quality, leaf shutters, hand holdable at pretty low speeds, nice portrait camera. But where I felt it was serious limited was in landscapes and this is where an SLR becomes the logical choice. Why? 1. The 55mm lens was decent but not anything close to say, a 50mm Distagon. Sorry, it just isn't. 2. Using a polarizer on a TLR is, to put it mildly, imprecise. An SLR lets you see how much polarization you've dialed in but with my C330 it was a "crapshoot". 3. Setting lenses (like the the 55mm wide angle) to their hyperfocal distance (something you tend to need to be aware of in landscape photography) was never easy since the distance scales are not known to be particularly accurate on Mamiya TLR's (and in some cases, altogether missing). As far as the suggestion to get for example a MF rangefinder, like the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7? Well, sure . . . go ahead. Great cameras with unbelievable optics (though like the TLR's you can't see what the lens sees since you are not looking through it!) Expect the same problems with attempting to use a polarizer). And they are definitely not cheap! It seems like film camera prices "tanked" over the last few years right across the board - except for MF rangefinders like the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7. Let us know what you ended up with. Good luck!

Thanks everyone.

Does anyone know how I can buy these for my Tech V? They appeared once on the big aution site last year and

sold for a stupid price so I didn't win them. I figured I could get them from Marflex but I can't seem to find the contact

info for Marflex anywhere - in fact, all I could find was a website for "KRIMAR" and a notation that Marflex had

liquidated. And there was no mention of Linhof parts or service at KRIMAR, only Rollei stuff. Did I just not find them

or what?

There is NO FRONT TILT on the Technika III and any used ones are going to be quite old. There are nice ones (and crappy ones) around but if you're patient you can get one for a reasonable price.

I have a Fujinon 210 f5.6, Schneider Symmar 150 f5.6, and a Nikkor 90 f8. I use the 90mm a lot. Perhaps 50% of the time unless since I shoot mainly scenics. I really, really, really, really like my 90mm and you probably will too. At f8 it is a little harder to see on the ground glass but it was a lot cheaper to buy than an f5.6 and is very, very sharp.