deardorff8x10

I have the black paint 35 summicron asph, and it came with a very similar hood, and the

12585 also fits, but I have not used it. If it fits, you can put the shade on and look through

the lens at an angle to see if it would vignette. Open to f2 and if you can see it while the

light coming through the lens is still round (as opposed to cateye shaped due to the barrel),

it might vingnette, if not, it should be fine.

I have the one with a finder (rather than the frame of the null-serie) and a plaque with

barnack's face on the back. The camera is very pretty black paint with bits of chrome,

fairly small, and has a really precison artisan-made feeling. The lens is nice, sharp and

flare resistant (although it is hard to use filters with it). As I guess is the case with the null

serie, loading is a pain since you have to cut the leader, and changing the shutter speed is

a bit tricky. I don't really have an issue with the scale focusing. The body does not have

lugs, so you have to use the whole case (the front cover is not removable, but flaps down)

or hold without a strap. Fun, but more like a view camera to use than 35mm (e.g.

compose, focus, remove lens cap, expose, put on lens cap, wait for next

exposure, set speed, wind, take off lens cap, etc.). I like it a lot

I have some in the top of my portfolio:

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/Deardorff8x10">http://www.photo.net/photos/Deardorff8x10</a>

Marc Bergman , aug 02, 2006; 09:18 p.m.

 

"Michael, Care to cite a source for these dynamic range figures?"

 

Sorry for the delay as I have been traveling.

 

for BW film, Kodak's characteristic curves for 100 Tmax, for example, show exposure range for the film developed in tmax devo at about 3-3.5 log (i.e. 10^3 or 1000; 10^3.5 or 3162). This is close to 10 stops (i.e. 2^10 = 1024) or 11.6 stops (2^11.6 = 3162). I mostly use Tmax or Ilford hp4 with pyro, which seems to give a bit more range in the highlights due to tanning than tmax in regular developing.

 

Somewhere in the Ansel Adams "the Print" he talks about the relfective range of a bw print. From memory, it is about 1:100, which would be 6.6 stops, hence the need for careful film developing to compress the range and dodging and burning.

 

For the digital, I am guesstimating from a canon digicam I have. My imacon back seems better, maybe 6.5-7 stops, depends on how much noise one tolerates in the shadows. Hope that is helpful.

I have found that the main problem with digital is dynamic range. BW film (when scanned

especially, since paper has less range than a scanner in my experience) has around 10-12

stops, depending on film, developer, etc., while digital is 5-6 six stops. Color reversal film

has less than BW, but more than digital. This sort of determines my choice of capture

medium. Digital seems to have less noise, but has a linear response to brightness vs. the

curve (i.e. toe and shoulder) of film.

Not sure I understand the angle of view aspect -- DOF of a 120 degree 110mm lens on 4x5

or 5x7 film has to be the same. I would like to understand this better.

 

I get the retrofocus, non-retrofocus, etc. It must be different optical engineering that leads

to different looks, e.g. as the post above notes, flatness of field is important and I assume

overall correction of point of focus of different colors probably are important in the look of

DOF. A meniscus sure looks different to an apo lens.

I am not an optiacl engineer, but lens to film distance can be different for the same focal

lengths. Relative to focal length with fairly short focal length LF lenses, there can be

pretty different rear element to film distances. I mostly use LF and can testify that what LF

calls "film to flange distance" really does vary across lenses. This might not be the same

as the rear element, but is where the lens mounts.

 

 

I would also say that from a subjective standpoint, different types of lenses with the same

focal length (e.g. I have two different 300mm lenses for LF) certainly seem to me to have

different DOF at the same aperture, but I have no science to back this up; perhaps it is just

different quality of the out of focus areas, inaccurate f-stops, or something like that.

 

Take a look at this website (don't know how to make a direct link):

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Eidoscope_Petzval_Imagon/PeachBlossomBokeh.html

There is ususally about a 2 stop difference between shadow and non-shadow. Depending on how you aim the incident meter (towards the sun, partially in the sun, away from the sun), part of the dome may (or may not) be in shadow. Many incident meters seem to be calibrated low so that if you are aiming the dome at the sun, it will not underexpose. If metering quickly, I try to have the dome 1/2 in the sun so that I get OK exposure for the shadows. With more time, I measure full sun and full shoadow and either pick one or the other or average, depending on the scene. It is not a panacea, but I do think the incident generally works well.

 

The alternative is a spot meter, which I also use; again you need to measure several things and either average or pick your spots.

I haves used a 36x36 digital back v96c on the SWC with no light falloff. I have a couple of samples here with details:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=451107

 

I have used the Mamiya and both are nice. If you already have hassy, then get the SWC. The main advantages over the Mamiya are interchangeable backs (although the Mamiya has interchangeable lenses!) and closer minimum focus. The mamiya has a rangefinder, but I usually do not have focus problems with the SWC. I sometimes use the focusing screen on the SWC back, but not much. The SWC camera might have slightly less volume, but I am not really sure.

I have not used the Biogon ZM, but have the 21 3.4 super angulon for leica and the SWC. I

think that while both are nice lenses, the SWC makes much nicer negatives due to the larger

size. With or without a tripod, you will get less grainy negatives with the SWC, which should

allow you to print larger. The SWC has a nice close focus of 12", which I use, but not

everyone will. The 21 should have marginally greater depth of field, but I do not really find

this a contstraint with the SWC.

I already have (and really like) the lens and was considering a smaller, not so expensive second body for it. Looks like the CL will not do the job. THanks to all who responded.

Does anyone know if the 21 3.4 super angulon will fit on a CL, or will

the lens hit the meter?

I have used LTI for 8x10 and gotten very even negatives -- they are also dip and dunk. Their

work has been good to date. I could not find their website, but they are at 34 East 30th St.

212.685.6871

 

I have also used baboo, but I think LTI is a bit better at about the same price.

I mostly use the 60 also. The 38 w/digital back is about a 60 field of view, so now I am

using it a lot

more. I really have not found focus/framing an isue with the 903. However, I do notice an

odd effect -- the DOF appears a bit less with digital vs. film -- I think this is because the

digital looks sharper, so out of focus areas seem relatively "more" out of focus, though I

know this cannot be the case.

 

One thing also is that my 501 tends to get a bit of dust inside, which eventually gets on

the sensor. The 903 is sealed and there are no moving parts between lens and sensor, so

the sensor stays clean, which is nice.

One other thing is that the back on the 903 makes a relatively compact package. The back

does not extend so far off the back as to make it hard to use the finder.

I use this. The inner frames on the viewfinder for 645 (or is it superslide?) pretty much

match the V96C frame, so it is not really a problem to use the back with 903. There is no

light falloff with the lens and the digital back, and pictures look really great.

 

Pretty boring pix, but i have test sample at:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2909853

 

detail is at

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2909858

I got a digital back for the Hasselblad and did a quick comparison with Provia, but not really scientific. My feeling is that the digital back (hasselblad/imacon v96c) is much smoother than film, in that it seems to be able to capture finer gradations of color tones. Out of focus areas or the sky with large expanses of color are grain free, which does have a plastic look, but I like the smoothness. Many pictures look "too clean" which causes an unusual look coming from using film. It sort of looks like 8x10 film without the detail. I also find that apparent depth of field seems reduced (possibly because film grain masked a bit of a lack of focus?), so I find I need to stop down 1-2 stops more than film to get the same visual "sharpness". I am not really sure why, but guess that the in focus areas are "sharper" than film due to lack of grain.

 

On the other hand, really fine detail comes out differently. When there is a lot of contrast, you can get some color fringing or moire, which is not pretty, but I can usually fix it with some effort in photoshop. I think that this is an artifact of chip design and that there is a tradeoff between sharpness and moire (the latter can be reduced with stronger filters at the expense of the former). There was a pdf about this on the Kodak website once.

 

On the luminous-landscape website, the reviewer noted the differences between the high end canon and the MF backs. MF backs seem to have better dynamic range (mine definitely have more than Provia), but it is different -- if you have a really strong red light (as shown in the example above, you can blow out the red channel which become supersaturated looking). Also digital sensors seem to not have a curve, but are linear, so you get more shadow detail.

 

One final thought. It is easier to locate images on processed film and it may be safer in the long run than a digital image. I can easily find and scan through old films filed away, but it is a bit longer with digital than throwing a file sheet on a light table. Also, you need to make backups (I have computer, backup hard disk, and make 2 backup CDs) all the time in case the computer crashes!

 

Net of this is that I really like the digital back and really would only use film in harsh environments or in high contrast situations where negative film will work.

I have this back and use it with 903 and 501. It makes excellent pictures with OK dynamic range, very clean and sharp. The software it comes with is pretty good, though I always ship pictures into photoshop for more tweaking. There is a little moire and chromatic effects in high contrast thin lines like a net or barren tree against the sky, but this is not horrible. I also notice than I sometimes blow out one channel like red more easily than I think, but this is part of digital life. It has a little noise at 100 ASA, but nearly none at 50. I don't really have an issue with the tethered hard disk/battery, but some might. I have printed 12x12 on a lightjet and they looked really nice.

 

I posted a couple of sample images here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=267637

 

It shows full frame with the 903 (approx 1.5 cropping factor) and full pixel crops.

 

More pictures here, not that it tells you much:

http://homepage.mac.com/chantalcombes/PhotoAlbum24.html

 

There is a review of the Imacon Ixpress 96 (essentially the same back and imaging chip without the color screen on www.luminous-landscape.com).

I got the Imacon/Hassy v96c and below have posted images, plus 100% crops from the

SWC. The approximate 1.5 "factor" means the lens is more like a 60mm, but it seems a it

wider. The back works well with SWC; there is a bit of moire and color fringing on high

contrast lines, which I tried to show. The "superslide" finder marks are a bit bigger than

the image sensor and are OK for basic framing. One can look at the back to see exact

framing once pictures is taken.

 

I made a presentation here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=267637

I use a 19" Goerz apo-artar. It is relatively small, very sharp, but only opens to f11. Using strobes, you need a lot of power if you want much DOF! However, it is great for head and shoulders type of portraits. It has a bit less contrast than my modern lenses and a bit of a cold color cast, so you might want to look at CC filters or gels on the strobes if you do color. In B/W it is great.

 

I also recommend the 305 g-claron; great for portraits and general use. I have not had sharpness "issues" though it is a tiny bit less sharp at infinity than a modern 300 that I once used and possibly a tad less contrasty (mine is single-coated).

 

This is obviously of no help, but you can see the 305 in two photos on this page, "hudson digging" and "tree woman"

 

http://homepage.mac.com/chantalcombes/PhotoAlbum22.html

 

The rest are done with rodenstock 210 apo-sironar W, which I use most often. I have attached one using the 305; you can't see, but this is very evenly toned and very nicely resolved on the foliage:<div></div>

I would really be interested in seeing those pictures!

I took an M body cap, drilled a hole, and attached the meniscus lens and aperature (about f8) from a disposable (I got it free at a lab) behind the hole. The lens is about 35mm, and that was just about the distance from the film to the back of the body cap (it is really a bit longer, but that allows for "focus" at about 6 feeet). The result is Holga-like images, but with shutter speeds on 35mm, plus, I can switch to regular M lenses.

I used a nikon cord (I think SB-17 -- it is spiral like a telephone cord) with the 54 mz3 and either hand held or used a bracket attached to the camera. While handholding is a pain, you can easily & quickly move the head around to get the right angle.

I use a small Pelican, where I cut out foam for the body, another back, light meter, and the finder (taken off camera). This is not really gret for carrying around town (I usually just carry it around my neck on a strap), but is very good for travelling.

Bic Camera near Tokyo Station/Ginza had them last week when I was there. Prices weemed higher than in the US, though. Their website is www.bicbic.com.

 

There are many camera stores in Shinjuku, but not sure if they have what you want.