mike_rosenlof

What format? If you're shooting 4x5, you've got tons of coverage with the N version. I believe the N version covers 5x7, a bit more from the S. I have the Sinar labeled N, and it's been very nice. Coverage has never been a concern for landscape, portrait, and still life.

Compared to your 210, a 90 will certainly give you a lot more options for interiors. But Schneider makes that 47mm Super Angulon XL, and I would guess it was designed primarily for interior/architectural photographers.

 

<p>

 

You will always find situations where what you've got is not wide enough, or doesn't have enough coverage for the movements you want.

 

<p>

 

90mm is kind of the 'standard' wide angle lens in 4x5 photography. I have a 125 and a 210 and they make a nice pair for the kind of work I do.

I use 1.5 inch ABS plastic pipe to develop 4x5 film. Cut the pipe about 5.5 to 7 inches long and smooth the rough cut ends with fine sandpaper. Curl the film emulsion side inward and stuff one film into one tube. Fill up an 8x10 tray with about 800cc of developer - I use developers fairly dilute, one shot - and spin the tubes in the tray in total darkness. Another 8x10 tray for stop and first fix, then I put the films into individual rubbermaid type sandwich trays for the second fix.

 

<p>

 

The system works well, but only for small quantities of film. I can really develop max 5 sheets at one time. I have three different lengths of tube, so I can distinguish different tubes for different developing times in the dark. I tune a shortwave radio to WWV for an audio clock in the dark.

 

<p>

 

I've never scratched a film, but I did have problems with TMax 100 and 400 films. With the film stuck against the tube wall, the antihalation backing was not removed completely. I do not have this problem with Ilford films, and a 2% sodium carbonate bath after the fix for a couple of minutes removed this mark from TMX and TMY also.

I've got a 690 III. I rented a II before I bought. Differences were pretty minor. There's that sculpted hand grip on the III, the mechanism that holds the film spools is different. There might not be a lock on the switch for number of exposures on the II. Might not be a cover over the flash sync socket on the II, both of the latter are present on the III model. Lens and shutter are identical.

Really nice lens. Strange placement of shutter/aperture controls. No 'B' setting, and at 'T', you have to advance the film or turn the shutter speed ring to close the shutter - rather odd, but fairly easy to manage. I have the 6x9 model III, the lens obscures the lower right corner of the viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

There is a frame counter on the bottom! The number is a count of the times the shutter has been released times 0.1 this can give you some idea of how much use the thing has seen. Fuji recomends service on the shutter when it hits 500 and a rebuild when it turns over at 1000.

Those old Hollywood glamour portraits were nearly all made with large format cameras, usually 8x10, lit with fresnel spots, and heavily retouched. The subjects were pretty heavily made up. The film was very likely orthocromatic.

 

<p>

 

There was an article about the style in a recent View Camera magazine. I would guess it was the Jan/Feb issue this yearEAbut I'm not certain.

 

<p>

 

Reproduce on smaller formats? Maybe. The big negative makes a big difference.

To answer more of your questions...

 

<p>

 

Mamiya still supports at least the 330-F and S models. It would surprise me if they don't support the 220F also. Don't know about earlier models. They also still support the black lenses. Older lenses have a chrome ring around the shutter. Other service people can work on them, but parts may be hard or impossible to find. I think Mamiya can remount older lenses in new shutters, but that's not cheap.

 

<p>

 

I had a 135 and a 65mm combo for years and was pretty happy. The 135 is a very sharp lens. The 65 is sharp, but less so. I have 11x14 prints from each in front of me now that look good. I'm fussy about what I consider a sharp print.

 

<p>

 

I recently got an 80mm, and it too could pair well with the 135 for a two lens kit. Having a f/2.8 lens is nice. It really depends what kind of use you have in mind. If you plan on doing lots of indoor groups of people, you'll want something wide - the 65 or 55.

 

<p>

 

Shutterbug magazine has many used camera dealers' ads and can give a good idea of prices. You can usually do better buying from an individual directly, but sometimes finding the individual is harder...

 

<p>

 

Kiev? Hard to say. It sounds like there are gems and junk from Kiev. Get a 330 in good condition and it's unlikely that you'll have junk.

 

<p>

 

My user tip after 16 year of experience with this system is get and use lens hoods. For the 65 or 55 mm lenses you need to get the mamiya hoods. Others vignette with the lens wide open. For (at least) the 80 and 135, a tiffen 49mm metal hood with a 46->49mm step up ring works very well.

There are often ads for Mamiya TLR equipment on rec.photo.marketplace, I recently bought a (second) C-330F there at what I consider a good price. The Ebay (www.ebay.com) auctions seem to have them continuously. KEH (www.keh.com) is a reputable used camera dealer. There are others too.

 

<p>

 

I (respectfully) disagree with the previous comment to avoid the 65mm lens. I've had one for years, and it was a good pair with the 135mm. I didn't have an 80 until recently. Wider is not always better - as many wide angle outdoor landscape photos can attest. As with all lenses, you will find that sometimes the 65mm is too short, sometimes too long, and sometimes it works perfectly.

I know one person who feels TMX and Rodinal is the "most elegant film/dev combination" around. Don't know the specifics, but I've had pretty good luck with the recomendation on the Rodinal box.

 

<p>

 

Lloyd Erlick www.heylloyd.com has praise for D-76 1:1.

 

<p>

 

A lot of people are using XTOL.

oops, rated at e.i. 200 in both developer cases.

120 HP5+ works well for me. I've usually used XTOL 1:3; 18 min; 20 deg; agitate 5 sec every 30 sec. I don't use a presoak. Ilford doesn't seem to think it's necessary.

 

<p>

 

I've also had nice results from Ilfosol-S 1:14. The 9.5 minutes recommended by Ilford was slightly flat with MG-IV paper and a 4x5 Saunders colorhead. I've tried a couple of rolls at 12 minutes, and the one frame I've printed so far has been pretty good on grade 2 (no filter actually).

 

<p>

 

I don't think the differences between these two developers are huge. I've used XTOL for over a year now and want to give Ilfosol a try.

http://www.kodak.com/ppiHome/kodakProfessional/productsSupport/prodSupportIndex.shtml

 

<p>

 

Has a bunch of info on Kodak films. They suggest adding 60% to developing times for a two stop push of Tri-X in D-76. They also listed something for Microdol-X which surprised me since that's usually a developer that results in some loss of film speed.

Abilities to tilt (and shift, I believe) may be limited, but they're more than most medium format cameras. Really, you might be surprised how much of a difference a little bit of tilt or swing makes.

 

<p>

 

The view camera manufacturers reinforce the idea that extreme camera movements are necessary. Look at the cameras in ads. They twist cameras into pretzels. But in my experience with 4x5, just a few degrees of tilt or swing has been all I've needed in nearly every case. Add to that the smaller magnification of medium format, and your tilt requirements become even smaller because depth of field can pick up more of the focus correction needed. I *do* use shifts (including rise/fall) more often, more for the precise final framing than actual image correction.

 

<p>

 

I think this Fuji would be an interesting camera to use. Some of the advantages of a view camera, but the ability to look at the ground glass right up to the moment of exposure. Kind of a small view camera that you could actually track a moving subject.

There really is no 'best' developer for theser films, or any other. I've found the differences between popular general purpose developers to be very subtle, at least for 'normal' photography, not pushing to higher film speed.

 

<p>

 

FWIW, Ilford has a table in their film data sheets that recomends a developers based on if you're trying to get best overall quality, finest grain, sharpest image, maximum film speed, cheapest developing, and so on. It's too much to type in here, but start at www.ilford.com and search on down for film product information, and you'll find a PDF file of film data which contains this table.

 

<p>

 

Also FWIW, I use Xtol 1:3 to develop HP5+ in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 formats. It works well for me esposing at ei 200. 18 minutes in small tanks, 12.25 minutes for 4x5 sheets in spinning tubes. The smallest quantity of solution I ever use is 450ml at working strength.

I've never used an RB, but I do have a 6x9 Fuji with the 90mm lens, and it is excellent. I bought the Fuji after many years of using a Mamiya twinlens. Not because of problems with the Mamiya, but for the totally different style of shooting, and the slightly larger neg the rangefinder offers.

 

<p>

 

If you want to work slowly and carefully, I think waist level viewing on ground glass lends itself better to that approach. On the other hand, you can follow moving objects much more easily with the rangefinder.

 

<p>

 

Since these are very different cameras, I would expect them to complement each other more than one would replace the other.

I've been using XTOL almost exclusively for over a year now. My film is almost exclusively Ilford HP5+. For 4x5, I develop in open ABS tubes, spinning them in trays of liquid. This combination works well for me to develop 5 or less sheets at a time.

 

<p>

 

I did a very informal comparison between XTOL and Rodinal for HP5+, and found the results to be very similar. I never make prints larger than 11x14, even from 4x5 negs, so that's the size I used for print comparison. The negs under a loupe also looked almost identical.

 

<p>

 

Based on this very subjective test, I've chosen developer more based on cost and convenience than anything else. XTOL is my choice mostly because its shelf life is supposed to be very good.