frankz

<p>Just offering an opinion, as I haven't any suspicion what this particular lens might be.<br>

We, as photogs, went out of our way for many years to increase the detail of our photographs but eventually noticed that these sharp lenses we demanded tore the hell out of people. This required a bunch of retouching and in some cases apologies for one's equipment/technique/whatever. We, as a group, began to gravitate back to stuff like the Imagon series by Rodenstock, buying the set of Softars for our Hassyblads, and using stuff like the soft-focus 150 sillymeter lens Mamiya made for their RB series cameras.<br>

My approach was a bit different. Retired now (but 40 years as a Tool & Die Maker - I'm basically my own S. K. Grimes), I dabbled with cameras also and prefer large format due to the twists one can introduce and the ease of mounting them on the boxes. I've bought demo lenses from Edmund and mounted them in a brass barrel I machined and ended up with a lens with sufficient warts to hide whatever needed hiding on the subject - usually, a dear wimmin that wanted a nice photo of herself.<br>

I say all this because these lenses are from a time where even the best of the lot were screwed up as a football bat by today's standards and have a rather high value for those who are interested in recreating the photographs of years past and the attendant whimsical appearance of the pics. I'll continue to "roll my own" but these old wonders are the next best thing for those who don't.</p>

<p>... what Steve Levine said. I've got two of the Calumet/Cambo 120/220 backs and love 'em.</p>

<p>Two things - #1, there's no reason you can't keep diddling the camera until you figure the reassembly out or finally take it to someone that knows how to effect the repair.<br /> #2 - because of their tendency to become extremely obnoxious during dismantling or assembly, springs have earned some "not-so-nice" names. Having worked in a Tool & Die shop for 40 years, I assure you I've heard many names and colorful invectives whilst dealing with the things.<br /> When one is assembling a part, something slips and the lovely spring flies across the shop at a high rate of speed, managing to relocate itself to the most inaccessible and nasty part of the shop floor one learns why they are sometimes referred to as "Jesus Springs", as that's usually the first word (on a good day) out of a crusty old die maker's mouth.<br /> Keep it up - you'll eventually get it back in place or learn to incorporate explosives into your repair technique.</p>

<p>Since everyone else is offering opinions, I'll do the same.</p>

<p>When one starts playing with a LF camera, consider you have nothing more than an adjustable length shoebox with a bellows to keep light off the film and back element of the lens. Lenses are a given so I'll not address them.<br>

Some cameras have proprietary odds and ends built in to ensure further income for the maker down the road so it's best to stick with the standard stuff like a Graflock back to attach goodies directly to the rear standard after removing the focusing screen.<br>

Next, you'll have to decide what manner of movements you want. For precision, you just can't beat the Sinar "P" or "P2" if you've got the bucks to shell out. The downside of those is that precision is a bit slow to set up. The "F" models are faster to diddle, as are the older Sinar Norma models (I have all three) and it simply depends on the mood I'm in. With the Sinars, many parts can mix and match so whatever gearpile you accumulate is universal to the three models.<br>

I also have an 8x10 Kodak 2D. I believe if it were not for its speed of setup we wouldn't have "Moonrise" today, according to Mr. Adams' account of making the exposure.<br>

Basically, I'm saying anything that's oddball will eventually result in your throwing the darling picture box as hard and far as you can (and maybe wishing for copious quantities of high explosives, also).<br>

Adapters are made to use Sinar boards on 2Ds as well as the Sinar shutter, eliminating the need for numerous shutters and allowing the use of the relatively cheap barrel lenses. Packard shutters are still available and about two years ago I spoke with the fellow that bought the patent rights for them and will custom make anything you desire if he's still in business.<br>

To summarize - minimize oddball equipment requirements. You may get a good deal on a camera but that sometimes cost much more than the savings. Cambo, Calumet, Sinar, and especially the old Kodaks are good choices. Wista and some of the other wooden cams are both works of art (or furniture) and function fine.<br>

As far as movements are concerned, that's not really needed to shoot peoples and the Tele-Xenar you spoke of, while allowing the effect at a shorter bellows draw, are slow (f8 - f11 max aperture) and allow no (or damned little) movement if you want to correct any warts you can see or something else (even if you screw it down to f22) - stick to the standard lenses. They're cheaper anyway.<br>

After 2 or 3 years, you'll find out why the old timers had a wagon to carry their stuff around in. You'll not be able to keep track of it all and will have duplicate everything.<br>

Get a 4 - 8x magnifier to focus the camera with and above all - don't get in a rush for any reason. After a year or so, the process will become ingrained on you and it'll become automatic. Don't allow yourself to be rushed as 8x10 color negative film from sheet to contact print is nearly $20 per shot - good or bad.<br>

Learn the principles of the machine and learn them well. Grow a 'stash, get a top hat, and maybe some tattered tails - what the hell.<br>

Above all, enjoy. If you don't enjoy what you're doing, it will show with LF equipment.</p>

<p>While I haven't any ideas re: the meter's attitude problem, I will say there isn't anything finer (IMHO) than the Luna Pro F. I have numerous metering devices that I drag around with my LF stuff (some digital) but I feel absolutely "neked" if the old beat up Gossen isn't with me.<br /> They are addictive and created a dependence, regardless of whatever else you've got stashed in your bag.<br>

I bought mine new in the early 1980s and had to send it in for service once. It's worked wondermousely since its return and have bought 2 more off FleaBay, just in case. Other metering goodies include a Pentax Spot (analog), a digital Sekonic spot (L358), and a Luna Pro F Digital. I tend to trust the older technology before the damnable digital.</p>

<p>Perhaps after another 40 years of comparative readings (I'm in my mid-sixties) will win me over to the new-fangled stuff but ...</p>

<p>I use an Epson 4990 for everything up to 8x10 - it does a great job on both color and b&w negative and chrome material.</p>

<p>Over the years, I've fiddled and diddled many different camera formats plus the digital mediums and camera brands. The arguments (the word being used properly here) presented are all equally valid.<br>

The question and opinions given (IMHO) basically amount t everything from "How many horsepower does a gearhead teen need in his rat rod to cruise the local Tastee Freeze" to the present argument re: the necessary megapixels needed to make a quality image. The bottom line is "How happy is the photographer with his/her work knowing the nuts and bolts of its creation?"<br>

Camera, lens, film and perhaps electronics all have their good points and warts. Matthew Brady's work was hailed, not simply because of the state of the trade at the time, but because of the story told by glass plates and (since many attempt to duplicate the processes in use at that time) the warts and monkeybumps introduced by the primitive equipment. Technical excellence only matters to the photographer - not the viewer. <br>

Those viewing either like or dislike the work. Thumbs up or down grades are seldom handed out for technical trivia even though it's an important part of the actual image production.<br>

By all means, sir - make your images in any way you see fit with any equipment you choose as that becomes your signature as much as the Deardorff and Goerz lens (and others) that was the signature of Ansel Adams. If you are happy with the result, that also is your signature.<br>

Don't ask others, in effect what your signature should be but think through your process, workflow, and do what you want to. Nobody but you can say if you'll like the result or not - you'll have to try it for yourself.</p>

<p>Large format, being the original capture device, is the ideal start. I say that because everything that's come afterwards is based on the principles set forth by one of those beasts.<br>

Everything one <strong>should be thinking about </strong>when composing and making exposures with a camera of any format (2.25, 35mm, etc. and et al), digital or film, is included in making an exposure with large format equipment.<br>

The key is the thought process of taking the picture. Burning up 200 sheets of film in a day is a major undertaking, not to mention expensive. 35mm and digital, in my mind, encourages sloppiness and laziness - the old timers had to make that one shot count. Quantity does not equate to quality.<br>

If I were to teach a photography class, everyone would start with LF because to run those big boxes teaches all the principles we take for granted with our auto-everything roll film or electronic wonders.</p>

<p>Re: the barrel lens/in shutter question:<br>

Yes, the Speed Graphic has a focal plane shutter but what I did was purchase a Sinar shutter (intended for use with DB-type lens mounts) and used it with the barrel mounts. I've manage to accumulate a fairly large collection of the barrel lenses and they work just fine with the oversized Copal leaf shutter - and I get flash sync also.<br>

The old Packard shutters work fine for this application too (if one is handy with a mill) and also allow for flash sync if you get the correct type - or add and wire in your own contacts.<br>

Disclaimer - I'm a retired Diemaker with my own garage shop and consider nothing sacred with regard to making any machine (cameras included) work as I want them to.</p>

<p>No experience with Rollei but I can offer an opinion re: the Hassyblad - they're somewhat similar so ...<br>

The Hassy has to be only of the most obnoxious things ever devised (in my opinion only), yet the blasted things seem to be part Energizer Bunny as they're hard to kill. Things work, every time without fail.<br>

The Hassy's lenses are Zeiss - the West German variety - and they make up for each and every shortfall designed into the box by Victor the Swede.<br>

I have a 501cm, a number of film backs in both 120 and 220 flavors and an older and square format Imacon digital back, somewhere around 16 mp. I wouldn't trade that rig for anything and am considering selling my 5D mk II because I prefer Miss Hassy.<br>

You'll find an equal number of people that will say we're both full of bull so - enjoy. You've got a good one.</p>

 

<p>You might want to check out Fotodiox. I bought a Hassy lens to Canon EF adapter some time ago from them - they seem to have an adapter for just about anything to anything.</p>

<p>@David Smith - There is a back and mask available for the Hassy (the A16 and associated mask) that makes a 645-type format camera out of a "V" series picture-box. I thought I needed one of those some years ago, then wondered to myself "why" the first time I tried to use it - I didn't even run the whole roll of film through it.<br>

Someone will occasionally have one for sale on FleaBay.</p>

<p>Byhaps Mr. Watson is thinking of the "H" series camera - no matter - the "V" Hassies were always 2 1/4 inch square format from their inception.</p>

<p>This could be either a complaint, a simple whine (with no cheese) or a poor attempt at humor, but ...<br>

I wanted a Hassy for many years and when the used price started getting reasonable I picked up a 500cm off of FleaBay (and numerous other goodies and gadgets for it). After fiddling and diddling it for a number of years, I found I actually like the square format, finding it simpler re: composition once I finally had some practice.</p>

<p>Since I really don't care for a camera that thinks for me, I began neglecting my 5D MkII and using the Hassy almost exclusively after I purchased a used Imacon back for it - so well, in fact, I sold the original 500cm back to KEH for $7 less than I gave for it and purchased from them a 501cm - I detest anything automatic with a passion - that's probably why I still use, on occasion, a Sinar "P" 8X10 also - just for grins and giggles.</p>

<p>When looking for the digital back, I noticed everything available for the "V" Hassy had a rectangular sensor rather than square - WHY?? It's nice not having the temptation to turn the camera sideways for a vertical shot - just take care of the square format in Photoshop and make it whatever you want. Finally found a digital back (the I-Express 96C) with a square format and 16 megapixels. It bothered me at first until I saw the 16 MP back did a better and higher quality job than the 21.2 MP Canon 5D with "L" lenses - obviously a product of Mr. Zeiss's glass. My intent is to sell the Canon eventually as it just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.</p>

<p>Back to the original whine - why in the world would a company make a digital back with a rectangular format as are the "V" series Hassies when most of the "V" users have fallen in love with the square format over the years? I like not turning a camera sideways - if nothing else, it drives the other people crazy to watch!</p>

<p>Whine over - move along - nothing to see here, folks.</p><div></div>

<p>Sounds like a rather wild project - paste a few shots up here when you get something nailed together.<br>

Typical calculation for a so-called "normal" lens is to figure the diagonal of the glass as the other fellow said - simplest method is the Pathagoren Theorem:<br>

a2 + b2 = c2, or in your case: 1296 + 576 = 1872<br>

sqrt(1872) = 43.26 inches which would translate to a 1099 sillymeter focal length. Dagor77 (seller on FleaBay) has had more than one 1000mm APO Ronar (f9 or f11) for sale over the past 2 years - maybe he's got another stashed somewhere. I believe it had a sufficient image circle to cover your spec.</p>

<p>As for your project's practicality that's entirely your problem, but that size of camera would be rather impressive, to say the very least.</p>

<p>Another vote for mahogany as material for the 'camera' body. As for the mirror, I can't really see it that well.</p>

<p>I wouldn't go so far as to call mahogany a hardwood, though. Regardless of its classification, it's a rather soft wood and easy to work with.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2363975">Tom Toolan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 31, 2008; 07:55 a.m.<br>

... snip <br />For more critical work the 45D that Frank Szabo suggests above is an excellent choice, but it is heavy and bulky, needs a strong tripod.<br />_______________________<br>

Tom:<br>

With the exception of the uprights and the monorail (and a small handfulof other parts), the 45D is allmost all plastic (and therefore, must be used gently), hardly what I'd call heavy, though. I'd guess about 12 lbs counting a Bogen 3030 tripod.</p>

<p>I'll let you call my 8X10 Sinar heavy - it is!</p>

 

<p>I would suggest an Omega 45D - they show up on FleaBay occasionally and you can find one for a reasonable price (sometimes). The problem is the gents/ladies that have them think they've got something really valueable when in reality they are a bottom line camera. It will last rather well if you don't get rough with it. I had one 25 years ago as my first LF camera.<br>

Pair it with a 150mm or 210mm lens (with shutter) and you'll have a full motion view camera you can learn about the movements with for less than $500 or so.<br>

I'd suggest not going for anything too modern until you've learned a bit about LF. I have a Sinar 4X5 and 8X10 set now and I don't think I would have appreciated it as I do if I had to learn with it, not knowing the basics.<br>

At any rate, you've made a good choice and welcome to the world of insanity that is large format fotograffy!</p>

<p>Your first shot? My best suggestion is not to worry about burning film yet.</p>

<p>You have a beast that's different from anything else you've ever gotten hold of. Learn first what you see in the glass and how it's affected by the movements. That's why they call it a "view" camera - you have a helluva view.</p>

<p>As far as a portrait goes, just zero the standards, frame with the shifts/rises/falls (no tilts/ swings), and enjoy you shot.</p>

 

<p>Teitur:<br>

Adding to the "what will fit" pile, I believe 'Dorff and 2D rears are interchangeable, as are their lensboards.</p>

Why stop at an A1? The new F1 is cheap enough and the FD lenses fit it also. There's still a lot of goodies floating

around on fleaBay, KEH and such.

Yep - got the address:

 

http://www.packardshutter.com/

 

They're still in business as the fellow said. I spoke with the owner a month or so ago and he told me he keeps little stock anymore and just builds to order.

 

He's now in California, USA.

Seeing the lens may be a secondary benefit of the clipped corners but the main reason is to not collapse the bellows upon extention.

 

A bellows is an air pump - remember?

Most of the HDR I see is overdone by far.

 

As for ruining photography, only an individual can do that and only to themselves.

What cart?

Bill Kantor , Jul 30, 2008; 11:19 p.m.

I don't get it. If you are going to use a 4x5 and want the square format, why not just shoot sheet film and crop on the ground glass? (Mask it to 4x4.) This is one of the lowest cost and highest quality solutions.

_______________

 

Bill:

 

I agree with you except I wouldn't even bother with the mask.

 

Get a tech liner and draw a 2.25 square on the GG for reference, stick a 90mm on the 4X5 and shoot away. If one just has to have a 6X6 negative later on, that's what scissors were made for.