alpshiker

I don't know if it is distributed in the states, but there is an interesting scanner with a 125% or 150% hardware lighting capability for dense or underexposed transparencies and a 48 bits colour , 4,2D and 1200 x 2400 dpi made by japanese PFU and sold by Quato (Germany). It claims to be the best of its size and price. Info under www.x-finity.com or www.Quato.ded

Hi Mark, Nine years ago I bought a Linhof and had two lenses coupled. But I soon realized I was in a dead

end road with this technique. I speak of outdoor photography. Unless you have a long experience in the

subjects you want to work on, I would suggest the use of a hand held medium format camera for subjects in

motion. Also for portraits, focus is too critical and attitudes you want to seize too short lived to

accomodate with this beggining of the century technique. (People I photographed in large format seem

frozen to death compared to the live expressions caught with medium format. Current films are so sharp you

wont be desappointed. For static landscape, the Horseman is lighter but the Linhof takes long focals up to

360mm.

I use one with a 150 Apo-Symmar. It is relatively sharp for a converter, but not as sharp as a Nikkor M

300 would be. The coverage is enough for 4x5. The colour rendition is good, and illumination is even when

movements are reasonable. The T opening of f11 is difficult to do with in low light conditions. It weighs

only 170g!and is a good tool to forget in the bottom of the bag, just in case. Now, for 200$ more, I would

certainly buy the Nikkor M 9/300 instead and get the quintessence of large format photography.

Hello Ross and you all,

This is an interesting and somewhat amusing discussion and I'd like to join in.

As many, I also think there is not a universal kit. It depends on how long the trip, flat or uphill, subjects and expectancies. If I had both a winning lotery ticket and a plane ticket for the Rockies, but could not take more gear than I can carry on my back for several days, I suppose this would be in my backpack: A Linhof Technika 2000 (for it's aptitude to accomodate a broad range of lenses, especially wide angles) with Bosscreen, SuperAngulon XL 47 with centerfilter, XL 90, SuperSymmar 120, Xenar 210 (or Nikkor M 200) and Nikkor M 300. (I would have an agonizing time to decide not to take the Nikkor SW 65 and the ApoSymmar 150). A Horseman 6x lupe, Fuji QuickLoad with much Velvia and some Astia for the sunshine, a Sinar Zoom rollfilm back (remember, I'm dreaming) and 220 films (for better flatness when full width is used). Lenses with Cokin rings, caps, shades, polarizer and grey G1( both to be used wisely). I would choose a Gitzo mountaineer with a Manfrotto 168 quick release ball head. A friend of mine uses a Wista metal folding camera and is very pleased with it.

In the real, I have an outfit that I have aquired over years from used and new gear. A 25 years old Technika V 4x5, very smooth yet sturdy camera, the more I use, the more I love it, but Master or 2000 are better with wide angles (and are outpriced new). I have lenses from SA 47 XL, NiSW4/65 (both very useful for 6x9 and 6x12), SA5,6/90 and 8/121, ApoSymmar 5,6/150, 2X converter for 150 from Horseman, Xenar 6,8/210 and up to an Apo-Ronar 9/360. I use Fuji QuickLoads and a Cambo 6x12 with 220 films (120 are not flat). The Cambo is fragile and needs to be greased regularly. The 6x9 back from Wista is a wonder. But since I am used to the"slide in" Cambo, I'm getting lazy with other backs that demands the spring back to be dismantled. This is why I might get an other Cambo 6x9, despite of it's fragility. (If I where rich I might turn to a Sinar Zoom). I recently adapted a folding binocular reflex viewer from Horseman on my Tech. This required some mechanical work. I appreciate the new comfort this viewer offers. It can be used for both vertical and horizontal takings (although the rotating fixation device has to be modified to be safe) and can be placed above head, looking upward also. I pack my gear in a Tenba PBA. In the upper part of the bag, I can place the Tech open with lens, and the binocular folded stays on the camera (I definitly tend to get lazy, getting older). If I have to carry a tent and sleeping bag, I use the Tenba PBH non Kelti. (Having it on my back reminds me of my military time for both comfort and weariness!)

If I was part of a group whose interest was not in large format photography (family, tour), I would rather take my Pentax 67 with 45, 90, 135, 200 and X1,4 (again, it would be hard to decide not to take the 55 and 75, both heavy, or again if money was not a problem, I would get the zoom 55-100). I might consider an Outpack from Domke. The production, especially when travelling fast is far more effective and less frustrating with medium format. Also when I travel with a van, I always have both.

Every time I can, I use the Linhof, making small adjustments and correcting perspectives. But how many pictures I missed over the years because when I was ready the light had turned dull! With the Pentax, such special lights are much easier to catch. Composition is also easier to achieve. And when enlarged, even to 40x50cm, there is plenty of sharpness. But sorry, this is a LF forum! The tripods I use are a Gitzo 3,2/150cm and Manfrotto 168 quick release ball head for hiking (Montaineers where not available when I bought it) and a Gitzo G 411 4,1/201cm with center column, equipped with a Linhof Pro 2 ball head and Manfrotto quick release, for (working) near the car.

That's my experience. Happy to read about yours!

b��

I recently bought an old Apo-Ronar f9/360. I am amazed with the sharpness it delivers, despite being

designed for repro work at first. Of course it requires a 40 cm extension bellow.

Johan,

I have also been confronted with the problem of dust from the film holders. What has been said before on

runnig a hot shower for a while in the bath tub helps. But you may consider the preloaded 4x5 QuickLoad

from Fuji or ReadyLoad from Kodak. I found it is the only way to get rid of the dust. The sheets will cost

a little more, but on my experience it is worthwile. Kodak has T-Max 100, a couple of color negatives and

slides as well. Fuji has only slides. The first Kodak QuickLoad back was a nut.I had flatness problems

with it all the time.But I have seen reports that the new version has improved. Someone to confirm?

The QuickLoad back from Fuji is fantastic. I have used one for years, shooting hundreds of slides... and

forgetting all about dust problems. Unfortunately, it is not well suited for the Kodak ReadyLoad (although

you may use it but too tight). Then you have the option of a Polaroid back for both brands of

film.(Personnaly I dislike it. It is thick and heavy to carry around and I am not sure of it's flatness).

The Kodak ReadyLoad stand by two in one envelope.They require a little exercise to handle well. The Fuji

QuickLoad are by one and should'nt be a problem as long as one will not insert them back to front.

The only problems I had a couple of times was by freezing weather when the envelope stuck to the holder.

But all this is just half of the problem. Dust in the laboratory is an other battle! You are fortunate to

own a diffuse light enlarger. I am not keen on black and white but I worked on Ilfochrome, making a set of

contrast masking negatives and exposing the sandwich...That was four faces to clean from dust! Im so happy

the digital era has come!

Have your pleasure.

Well, after lots of hesitating, I purchased this Super-Angulon 47 XL with it's center filter.

I went for a trip in the Alps and was pleased to see the results on 6x9 and 6x12 films. Although the focusing is awkward, the

slides are perfectly sharp. I used the pulling back of the Technika to achieve perspective control. In 6x12, the stretching of any

object in the area beyond the 6x9 format is quite unbearable, not to speak of what it would be in the corners of a 4x5"! The light

fall on the fresnel is drastic! I hardly see anything beyond a 9x9cm sqare from the center. Nevertheless, I am very satisfied with

this lens. It makes very dynamic 6x9 or 6x12, where foreground and sky are involved. Perhaps even 4x5's with subjects that can

bear lots of stretching. I would'nt recommend it for architecture on it's full coverage. A square becomes rapidly twice as wide.

Unless, as someone suggested, one would look at the picture at a distance that may reproduce the angle of the taking.

Another hindrance (not to speak of the price!) are the two f stops needed for the center filter. I found myself with pauses of a

second in the sunshine! This makes it hard to catch vegetation in the foreground in the almost always windy conditions of a light

changing day!

I have a 25 years old Super-Angulon F8/121 Linhof and a 7 years old 5,6/90 non-Linhof. Altough the first is good, the second is

sharper. These two together weigh nearly as much as the rest of my glasses. I also have an Apo-Symmar 5,6/150 and a Xenar 6,8/210

and some more extreme lenses. These two are small, light-weight and have plenty of coverage for 4x5. In addition, they are sharp

and are the least expensives. If I had to equip myself new, I would maybe get a Super-Symmar 5,6/120 instead of the Super-Angulon

120.

My comment would be: For colour, a more recent non-Linhof might be better than an older Linhof lens (but that's no secret).

Bob,

 

<p>

 

You are right!

This would be a lame couple. Never mind the wide landscapes!

Thanks for your advice!

Thanks Bob,

Yes, infinity is important. My primary intent for this lens is landscapes on 6x9 and 6x12 rollfilms. Though I have measured the

minimum space between the lensboard and the groundglass and it is far less than the focal distance given for this lens. In your

answer (45-47mm lenses not suited for infinity) have you taken into account the special lensboard with bellows and focussing screw

designed for short focal lenses ? I was going to set it aside and use a normal lensboard, focussing by pulling the chariot on the

rails (this is awkward but I have done it with a 65mm lens).Should it work? Thank you for your advice.

Regards

 

<p>

 

Paul

Having the same question in mind, I have seen on Schneider's site that the G-Claron are good for infinity as long as they are

stopped to f22 or smaller.

 

Paul

Although Linhof does not consider this to be adequate, I wonder if a 47mm S-Angulon XL could be used on my Super Technika V 4x5", with some difficulties for focussing, but with adequate shift possibilities.

Any experience ?

Hello,

Does anyone know about these process lenses called APO-GEROGON from Rodenstock? (150/240 f9, 270 f11)

Is it possible to mount them on a shutter and use them for general and landscape photography? Would they be sharp in the distant and cover the film format?