ashton_lee3

I should add that with the various adapters you can now use the lenses for any of these on either the digital Leicas or the Sony A7 series. I particularly love using the Sonnar 1.5 50mm and Nikkor 1.4 50mm on the newer cameras.

 

If you look at the cost of a top modern lens, you can easily see that an older rangefinder bought with lens can cost far less then the alternative modern lens. And you get both a superior lens and "free" camera.

 

My pictures using classic glass are much higher quality than using the too wall-to-wall sharp "video" looking modern lenses. The classic lenses feature your composition in the way they soften the borders and add dimension.

I own 'em all and love 'em all. The Leicas are plenty compact and thoroughly nice. Their rangefinders are the best. The Canon's are a bit bigger, but the 7's have a meter and the VI's are the best built of any. The Nikons (particularly the SP) just beg to be used. They have too many dials and levers protruding from the body but have an aura. I take my best pictures with them. And they handle 28mm better than any. The Contax's are earlier, better built but have fewer features. The lenses for each of these are beyond spectacular. Not until we had modern sensors such as on the Sony's or digital Leicas did we have any way of knowing just how good the old Sonnars, Canons, Nikkors or Summicrons were.

<p>I use 4x5's, several medium format cameras, film Leicas, film Nikons and a Nikon D-300.</p>

<p>Getting affordable scans that get the most out of 4x5 color is impossible. So while a 4x5 original has more information than a digital original, without $150 scans it won't do you any good. So I use the 4x5's just for B&W.</p>

<p>Medium format is easier to scan... either with a Nikon scanner (which I don't have) or with a good "Develop and Scan" processor (which is surely the way to start since it is quite affordable). Check out <a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/">http://www.northcoastphoto.com/</a> Medium format negative film can give you quality at least as good as digital. Medium format transparency film can be awfully fussy since it has much less range, and often gets difficult when using longer exposures (reciprocity failure). Its really easy to get blown out highlights or dead black shadows with trannies. So if you will be scanning I definately recommend negative film. I only print to 13x19 but I don't find that MF negative film really beats my digital work from the D-300. And your digital camera should be better than mine.</p>

<p>In the end then, I find that you use fim cameras because its fun, and because the results can be wonderful... but not because the results are superior to those a good digital can deliver. If I were shooting to sell my work to any but the most demanding professional clients I'd shoot digital... where I could be sure I had the shot I wanted then and there.<br>

But hey, half the fun is experimenting and deciding for yourself. So why not buy a used MF camera (RB 67, Rolleiflex, Mamiya Press etc) and shoot a couple of rolls and send them out for develop and scan. Use your Canon to do the metering and to be able to shoot side by side for later comparisons. Then you'll know what feels right to you. The wonderful thing about used MF gear these days is if you don't like it you can easily sell it for what you paid for it. Both Ebay and Craigslist have lots of medium format gear. Plenty of great MF cameras are available for under $400, so its just not that big an investment. Most landscape shooters would prefer 6x7 or 6x9 to the smaller sizes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is an old thread, and the original poster has long ago found a camera.</p>

<p>But I thought I'd add my thoughts for others in a similar situation.</p>

<p>Now that digital has swept the world, the finest professional cameras of the 1960's-90's are available at fractions of their true worth. if you are getting into film photography, why not buy the best of the best.</p>

<p>Any film Leica rangefinder is a treasure. You need to be sure that you don't however want to use really short or long lenses or shoot ultra close-ups. And many of the older Leicas are unmetered. Rarely will a leica (say an M2 and a couple of lenses) seem affordable to a newcomer to film. They may be a better step up at some future time.</p>

<p>Nikons have always been professional workhorses, and the lenses are near Leica-like in quality. However both the original F and later F2 had awkward add-on meters. Either find a plain prism (unmetered) version, or look for the much more compact metered F3 ( a personal favorite). Alternatively the Nikkormat will give you near Nikon F quality with much sleeker design/dimensions than an F/F2 with a meter.</p>

<p>The Olympus OM cameras were tiny, had fabulous lenses, and were hugely successful with pros. They may not be aging as well as Leicas or Nikons however. I'm not sure... I've run across some fussy old Olympus electronics. In their day they were certainly equals.</p>

<p>Other pro cameras from the age would be Canon F1's and LeicaFlexes.</p>

<p>With any of the above you will have a camera good for the next 100 years, plenty of used lenses to pick from, and in the case of Nikons and Leicas the chance to upgrade to the latest technology and still use you older lenses.</p>

<p>For most beginning film photographers wanting a serious camera I'd suggest a Nikkormat, with 35, 50 and 105mm lenses. I could easily see the arguement for a 24 or 28mm lens as an addition to or alternative to the 35mm... but here we get into areas of style. Most old cameras will need a new light seal kit (replacement foam rubber) which can be bought on E-Bay for about $10 and can easily be installed yourself. If you have a bit more to spend look for the F3.</p>

<p>The best camera is the one that takes the best pictures... remember, that's what they are for.<br>

And hands down more great, and historically important, pictures came from the Nikon F than any other SLR. Just try to wear one out.<br>

Runner up would, I imagine, be the F3... but not fully manual.<br>

As far as incredible design, the Olympus OM1 has to win. Leica-like size and bright viewing... Nikon-like lens quality and economy.<br>

Other greats... Canon F1... Nikkormat FTn... Leicaflex SL... Hasselblad 501C<br>

At today's prices you'ld be crazy not to have a few of each.</p>

<p>The easiest way to start may be by using Fuji Quick Loads... these are cardboard "holders" which contain a single sheet of film, and are held in a Polaroid back to be exposed. Simply shoot, and send in for processing. Polaroid backs are very common, and cheap.<br>

It seems likely these will be discontinued at some point, but they are still available today.<br>

The alternative is putting your film back in boxes as notes above, but this gets complicated when you only want to send in 3 or 4 sheets for developing.<br>

A lot of people only shoot B&W and I suspect part of this is due to being able to do your own processing at home.<br>

Shooting 6x9 or 6x12 rollfilm in a view camera is another option for convenience. If the Quick Loads are actually discontinued I think that's what I'll do for color.</p>

<p>Leica 35mm and 50mm Sumicrons<br>

75mm Xenotar in a Rollei 3.5E2<br>

Hasselblad 80mm Planar<br>

Nikon 105mm 2.5 (I see lots of people mentioning that one)<br>

Fuji 80mm lens in the Texas Leica<br>

Nikor 50mm 2.8 enlarger lens</p>

<p>Everyone above is correct as to the highest quality way to create the hole, I am sure.</p>

<p>But what I have done is to get a board either undrilled, or drilled for the smaller sized modern shutters. Then I use a scroll saw to cut out a larger circle just barely smaller than I will need for the older lens... and file the board the last bit of the way for a perfect fit. I have once drilled in holes to mount the flange as intended (mounted to the outside of the board), but generally have been able to use it as a retaining ring (securing the lens from the back of the board).<br>

It is, of course, easier to mount "flange style lenses" on wooden lens boards (for which they were designed) than on metal lens boards... but if you fuss with it you can ususally find a way.</p>

There is an issue with the combination both you and I have... a brand new MAC running Leopard, CS3 and Epson printers (I have the R2400). For whatever reason having Photoshop manage color, and using paper profiles (while technically the correct approach) produces output that is distinctly inferior to letting the printer manage the color. With previous operating systems letting Photoshop manage color always proved best... but for now it isn't working.

 

I'd bet that within a few months at the most there is a fix for this.

With a brand new Mac (Leopard) Photoshop CS3 and a 2400 you may have a bit of trouble... at least I do. In the past I have chosen to let Photoshop manage color in printing (technically the correct and high control approach). But with my current combination that doesn't work at all well (produces very washed out prints), and I am forced to let the printer manage the color (and not use paper profiles). Many other people have had the same problem... apparently there is an unresolved conflict in the combination of Leopard, CS3 and the 2400. Given how common this combination should become I expect there will be an eventual resolution.

 

I agree with others that calibrating your monitor is a must for high control of color. Use the Spyder.

 

My 2400 predates my new computer by several years, and the manual is written for a much earlier driver. So the manual is pretty useless in describing control of the printing process. It's really best to find someone else who is saavy with digital printing and get them to spend half an hour getting you into the groove.

All the Leica gear is gone, except a Digilux. When I shoot film now it is with various 4x5's... but to be honest that is for the experience of working slowly. The Nikon D-300 gives me better prints than even the 4x5s.

 

When Leica can make a full frame body I may be back.

All the rangefinder cameras are dependent on 1) You having the proper cams to link the lens to the rangefinder, and 2) Having the lens stops in exactly the right place. You can't just use any lens, without having the cams and stops made/adjusted. So unless you buy a technika set this will probably turn into a big bother... just use the Mamiya. For 4x5 I'd buy the best wooden field camera you can which will use the technika lens boards. They you can mount your lenses in these and also use them with an adaptor on the Sinars you have. If you can afford it get an Ebony... or if price is an issue pick a less expensive camera (Tachihara, Shen Hao, Chamonix, Wista etc). If you buy used/online auction you can always sell it for what you paid if you don't love it. All these cameras will take the same picture... the more expensive wooden cameras are just a bit more precise, or light, or flexible. In reality the differences are small. I have 6 4x5's and still don't know which one I prefer.

Much as I love my LF cameras and the whole LF ethos, you may find it easier to use your Hasselblad and then use photoshop for perspective corrections...

I too would steer you toward the 14-inch Ektar... a wonderful lens and at F6.8 much easier to focus than a F9.0 lens

I wouldn't be in a hurry to buy that package. The camera sounds tired, and the lens isn't exactly a classic.

 

Keep an eye on E-Bay for a few weeks... if you want a monorail you can probably find a Sinar F1 or Horseman package for about the same money. And if you can make do with a field camera you can find a Tachihara or Shen Hao for just a bit more. For great bargains look in the vintage camera section and scan for "4x5"... often times you can find reasonably current equipment being sold by sellers who think it is "outdated/antique/just a curiousity". Cameras with lenses often go for well under $200 that way. Just make sure that if you buy anything pretty old that the lenses have flash sync.

 

If you will have access to school lenses give some good thought as to what lens boards they use. Sinar/Horseman is certainly one common "pro standard". Many of us amateurs/field camera users use the Linhof Technika as a standard lens mount. The smaller Linhof board is easily adapted to fit the larger Sinar when we use our lenses on a monorail.

 

I find that packages sell on E-Bay for considerably less than the value of the individual pieces... because most buyers don't need everything in the package. In your case, you may well.

 

Lots of the older packages come with Schneider Symmar or Kodak Ektar lenses. The Symmars are fine for most uses. The Commercial Ektars and Wide Field Ektars are in many ways better than lots of today's lenses. Just stay clear of "Press" lenses (127 Ektar, Optars, Angulons) which don't give you movements. If you are doing mostly studio work look for a 210mm or 8&1/2 inch lens. If you will be doing field work you may want to go a bit shorter (150mm ???)

 

I work in the financial markets, and as one of my colleagues is fond of saying, "There is no perfectly efficient market in the real world... except for E-Bay".

If you are seeking to do very tight face shots, I'd stick with a RB67 or Hasselblad. If you want to do more environmental portraits, then a 4x5 or larger is going to work fine... especially if you use lighting because you'll gain a bit of depth of focus there. Consider Avedon's cowboy shots as perfect examples... those may have even been done with an 8x10. And Yosef Karsh managed to get in a few good shots with LF as well.

 

I don't agree that graphlex view finders need to be at all inaccurate... they can be adjusted to perfection. And the wire frame view finders can be pretty handy too.

I lean toward either bad hinge tape, or a warped holder, probably the latter.

 

The side of the film you have fogged is opposite from the side with the dark slide slot, so it isn't a problem with that seal.

 

The fog is at the upper left corner of your camera when the holder is in the camera (viewed from the back). The ideally tight fit of the holder to the camera seems to be compromised. Maybe you can put the holder in the camera and see if you can detect a reason for the light leak... is the holder warped? Does it have a bump which keeps it away from being up tight flat against the camera.? Or even, is there a crack in the side of the holder lettting light in.

 

If you are sure that the problem has ocurred with the same holder twice, the answers are somewhat academic... just throw it out.

The problem you describe would probably leave both sheets of each subject unexposed. My guess is that you forgot to cock the shutter between exposures. Or possibly you are using one of those cable releases that stays down after firing which will cause you to try to cock the shutter but it won't stay cocked.

 

Dry firing the lens and trying to duplicate the problem should help you chase down the issue. I always cock my shutters after closing the preview... even if they may have been cocked before. I have bunches of lenses and each has their own pecular way of previewing. Some "use up" the cock, others don't.

I agree that you can get wonderous results from the Hasselblad. But for environmental portraits, a 4x5 can give you an even richer look... for the best example see if you can find a copy of Ansel Adam's portrait of Edward Weston under a tree.

 

You won't be using a lot of movements for this sort of work, so you don't need either a camera or lenses with huge movement capacity. The Toyo CF (I have one) has only modest movements, but is very light and handy. It is, essentially, a simplified Crown Graphic (which would be another option). I'd say a 135, 150 and 210 would be a nice lens selection. You'll use the 210 a lot. I wouldn't even think of new equipment for what you want... the world (E-Bay) is full of equipment that will work just fine for you at 1/3 the new prices.

 

If you want to try out LF on the cheap, just find a Crown Graphic with a 135mm Optar. Having a rangefinder and viewfinder may not be a bad thing at all for what you want to be doing. I adore the "bokeh" of a large format lens used in place of a 35mm or MF lens for the same shot.

 

The big challenge will be to learn how to deal with loading and processing sheet film. If you find that you can handle that, everything else is easy. Life was a lot easier for beginners when Polaroid Type 55 was an option.

You may not have a lot of large format photo shops in Italy... but you have something much more important... an unbelievable wealth of Large Format subjects. Italy is such a visually interesting country with such wonderful light and such interesting interplay of ancient and modern.

 

Make sure you have a look at Joel Meyerowitz's book Campagnia Romana. Also the German photographer Herbert List has done some very nice LF work in Italy in the 1950's and 1960's. I bought my copies of both books in Milano so I know they are available in Italia. I can't remember who did it, but I've also seen fabulous LF studies on the marble quaries near Pisa. Jock Sturges did his best work on the beaches of the Mediteranian Sea. ....

I agree that a 360mm f5.6 will huge, and probably too much for most 4x5 field cameras.

 

I'd go shopping on E-Bay... find a nice used 90 (say a Caltar, Ilex, Nikon) for about $300. Or my favoite, if you can find one, a 100mm Wide Field Ektar.

 

On the long side look for a 300-305mm f 8.5 or 9.0 (Fuji, G-claron, or Nikkor). If you really want to keep the budget tight look for a convertable Symmar such as the 180/315. Stopped down these are pretty dedcent when converted... though technically you should refocus once stopped down as I believe they have some focus shift when converted.

 

For the 135mm figure out what lens has the most image circle. That's the one reason to spend real money. Essentially any 210mm you can buy will be a fine lens and have plenty of movement.

 

Lots of people will know more than I about colour quality, since I shoot 90% B&W, but my impression is that the Nikkor/Nikon lenses (discontinued just a few years ago) offer the most intensified (Velvia type) colour, which may suit the look you are seeking.

The Crown is the standard Graphic. It is the lightest. And certainly after about 1945 would have been the most popular.

 

The Speed Graphic adds a focal plane shutter. They can still use lens mounted leaf shutters just fine, by leaving the focal plane shutter open. "Speeds" tend to be older... dating from when barrel lenses were common (though there are also newer Speeds). They weigh a bit more and most people don't use the focal plane shutter (which is so big as to induce shake on a tripod).

 

I've never used the Super... but it has a different, larger lens board. This allows it to take lenses with larger rear cells (like a modern 90mm). I perceive it to be more of a competitor for the Linhof Technika (typically used on a tripod).

 

If you want to shoot 4x5 hand held, I'd recommend a later, top rangefinder Crown. If you want a tripod mounted camera, you might be more comfortable with a modern field camera, although the Graphics are fine for lenses from 90mm through 270 Teles, and can give you modest front rise, tilt and shift. One advantage of the later Graphics, with Graflock backs, is that they have some of the best folding viewing hoods ever made.

 

I don't know about the Super, but the Crown and Speed Graphic don't have rotatable backs, so for a vertical composition you have to put the camera on it's side, which makes the movements and tripod mounting even more problematic. You can almost always get the shot, but it isn't necessarily going to be the easy way.

 

All of these cameras were highest quality professional tools from the era when US made meant the finest available. You will never be disappointed with the quality or design of a Graphlex.

There is a technique described in the latest Lenswork... meter the scene... shoot two images: one 5 stops over exposed, and one 5 stops under... then combine them digitally. One shot picks up all the shadow detail, the other all the highlight detail. I have no experience in the digital manipulation, but the pictures (industrial in this case) were absolutely striking.

My guess is that pictures 1&3 were taken with "normal lenses" (135-180 in 4x5 terms) and #2 with a 90 or wider. #1 was taken from at least a 15 storey view point (you can tell by asking what storey in the distance the camera is level with... you can see one roof top).

 

It is much easier to pack a frame with graphic elements with a longer lens. A wide angle, even when properly adjusted with movements, favors the near over far, and exadurates the narrowing of objects to the sides of the frame. It exadurates foregrounds, and exadurates objects in the center of frame.

 

Ask any table top photographer... for maximum realism... back off and use the longest lens you can in an instance. In practical reality, outside the studio the issue is that you can often only back off so far without getting something in the way of your composition.

 

If wide angles didn't add so much near/far and center/side distortion you would see people getting up close and using wide angles for portraits. Rather, when you want to have everything about a scene appear "right" you use the longest practical lens.

 

My overall thought is that wide angle shots frequently risk being "empty" of subject, while longer length lenses tend to pack subjects in... sometimes too much. Shorter lenses look more "three dimensional" and longer lenses look more "graphic" and two dimensional.

 

Anyway, I'd much rather have a quiver of good lenses than a single great lens. And if I could have only one lens it would probably be a 150.

Scan 'em and get a digital print. Today's printers can generally rival darkroom prints... particularly darkroom prints from copy negs. Today lots of us routinely scan our negs and go from there in a digital darkroom.

 

Try duotone printing if you want a more classic look.