scott___1

like ted, i prefer hiking packs to any photo pack i've ever owned or tried on. the best ones going now, IMHO, are arcteryx, dana designs, and osprey - in that order. i have a top-loading dana which carries wonderfully. i have a panel-loading opsrey which is easier to get in and out of, but doesn't carry as well as the dana bag. when you order a dana bag, you can specify the pack size and the belt size, making a real custom fit. not so with any other mass produced pack... my osprey pack is great, but the belt is a little too big.

 

scott

i too can not dlete my old ads from the classified section.

Roux... i have owned many, many 4x5 cameras looking for the perfect one to backpack with. rather that go into an exhaustive disortation on the mertis of each, i will simply say that i started with a linhof technika IV, sold it and went through many cameras thereafter. i recently corrected that early error by buying a Master Technika 2000. i will use the MT2000 as a suppliment to my Arca Swiss F-Line, when i need something a little more portable. for me, there is simply no finer camera than the Arca, but for VERY long hikes, the MT2000 is the finest portable field camera ever made. if this is your first view camera, i would strongly advise you against the DLC. it's a very versitle camera, but i think not well-suited to individuals new to large format photography. if you have more questions, especially about the DLC, Canham Traditional, Ebony, Technika, Technikardan, or Arca Swiss, feel free to email me at scott@srosenberg.com.

 

good luck,

scott

hi mike... i doubt the toyo would fit, though possibly. my arca swiss viewer definately does not work!

good day...

 

just wondering if there is a binocular reflex viewer that can be used

with a Linhof Master Technika 2000. the linhof right angle finder

would be difficult to use when the camera is at or near eye-level.

the contraption that looks like a loupe in a bag is a moncular viewer,

and ideally i'd like to find a bino.

 

has anyone dealt with these folks:

http://www.phootos.com/candypress/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=402

 

looks like they adapted a horsman folding viewer to the technika.

 

i enjoy composing right-side-up very much and have gotten quite used

to not needing a darkcloth.

 

thanks,

scott

marc...

 

thanks so much for the great response. i appreciate the feedback from an actual user. i've finally learned that the max bellows on the MT2000 is around 360mm, which is a bit short for me. the wista sp is a folding metal camera, in the same vein as the linhof, but not as well regarded it seems. plus, it's maxed out at around 300mm.

 

scott...

the layton camera looks very nice, and kerry thanlman's review of it in view camera magazina was certianly positive. however, the price is a bit high for me, as i'm told they are going to run around $5,500.

good day...<br><br>

 

I am looking for a metal field camera to take backpacking. once upon a

time I owned a technika, and found it great for packing, though the

rear movements caused me to ultimately sell it. I?ve owned an ebony,

and am not interested in a wooden camera. as such, I am trying to find

a camera like the technika, but with rear movements more like a

traditional field camera, at least rear tilt.<br><br>

 

the Wista SP seems to be about the closest thing I can find. it folds

up into a protective little box like the technika, but, from what I

can find on the net, has better rear movements.<br>

1. Can some Wista SP users confirm that for me?<br>

2. Furthermore, what is the longest lens that can be used with the

Wista? I own lenses from 75 - 450, but shoot 85% in the 75 - 150

range.<br>

3. I use rear tilts to ensure that the film plane is plum... is this

easily and accurately determined with the Wista SP? this was the one

thing that really caused me to sell my technika... the film plane

tilted independently of the body, and the only level on the camera was

on the body, so it was therefore difficult to see when the rear was

straight up-and-down.<br><br>

 

if the Wista is not any better than the technika with respect to rear

tilt, than I will simply buy a Master Technika 2000.<br>

1. could someone please confirm the usable range of lenses with the MT

2000?<br>

2. furthermore, what methods have you devised to determine when the

film plane is plum? is it possible to mount a small vial level on the

rear of the MT 2000?<br><br>

 

the obvious alternative to both of these cameras is the Canham dlc,

which I?ve used, and is a fine camera with a long range of lenses.

however, it does not fold into a little box, which I like very

much.<br><br>

 

thanks for any inputs, <br>scott

shen ho or wisner... i'd vote for a canham

i shot my engagment photos with my 4x5 rig. my father-in-law was there to trip the shutter, of course. i didn't find depth of field to be a problem at all. most were shot with a 150 or 240 lens. the main problem, unless you're very good, is going to be timing. unlike smaller format cameras, you can't see the composition as you make the exposure. once you get everything just so, you've got to block the gg with a film holder.

i've had the best luck with Jim at midwest photo exchange (www.mpex.com). great prices and the service is without compare - before and after the sale.

Why would I need to be able to "change components"? Why would I need to know "what's running in the box"? The thing WORKS from the start.

 

because newer, more capable technology is constantly coming out... take for instance the newest offerings in video cards from ATI and NVIDIA. they are far more capable than those offered just months ago.

kelly, i appreciate the inputs. however, the p4 based system has only 512 mb of ram, whilst the xeon system has 2gb; both are using identical 7200 rpm ata drives. if ram was the limiting agent, would not the P4 have been slower than the xeon system, as it has 1/4 the amout of memory? the p4 system has less ram but a faster single processor. the xeon box has 4x the memory and dual processors albeit slower at 2.4 versus 3.0 on the pentium.

 

it would seem that the dual processors and extra ram are not enough to compensate for the extra processor speed and faster video card on the pentium system. in this case, it seems as though the processor speed and video card make more difference than dual processors and more ram.

 

it looks like the ultimate system would be a screaming fast single core system (Athlon FX 57 is probably the fastest processor available) with a first rate video card (NVidia 7800 GTX).

have you guys seen this aticle:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=5

 

it seems to indicate that athlon based systems are quicker in photoshop.

thanks for the inputs, fellas. the file i was using was a 1 gig drum scan from a 4x5 transparancy. i had no other applications running and ran the tests allocating different amounts of memory to photoshop... 45% up to 95% in 10% increments. in every case, the xeon system opened the file much faster, but photoshop completed tasks much faster.

i recently pieced together a little server with dual 2.4 ghz xeon

processors, 2 gigs or ram, and a nvidia quatro pro graphics card. i

ran it against my other system with 3ghz P4, 512 mb of ram, and a

basic 128 mb nvidia agp video card.

 

now, i fully expected the server to trounce the p4 based system, as

photoshop is one of the few apps that actually can utilize

multi-processor system. using a 1 gb file in photoshop 7.0, the P4

system ran all over the xeon box. the server opened the file quicker,

but when performing intensive tasks like a crop/resize, resize,

building histograms, etc, the P4 system won the day quite handedly. i

even allocated up to 95% of the 2 gigs of ram in the xeon system to

photoshop.

 

was i wrong in my assumption that photoshop 7.0 can utilize

dual-processors?

 

what is the best set-up these days for photoshop? the newer P4's with

800 mHz FSB or the newer athlon 64 based systems (64 3500+ or X2 4000+)?

 

is pci express a better video card solution than agp?

 

thanks,

scott

another vote for selenium the type 55... 1:10 dilution.

development time is not that critical for the negs, as there's a fixer in the soup, so in a way, it's self limiting. let it got for a minute and you'll be fine. let it got for two, and you'll be fine.

 

love those polariod edges.

i'm too lazy to retype what i posted on the other forum, but will paste a link:

 

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502507.html

 

type 55 for neg: iso 25

type 55 for positive: iso 50

 

if you're shooting for positives, you're better off using type 54

that's promising... maybe if we all contact canham, keith will make one!

 

480.964.8624

i use a rollei also. i was considering a mamiya as a replacement as it is lighter and makes a larger negative. however, my 4x5 is best, but not always practical to shoot with.

jeff, excellent suggestion re: 4x5. i shoot mainly with a 4x5. however, there are times when i can not get a shot with my view camera. in these times, i use my rollei, but have found lately that the square format means i throw away lots of area from my negs. hoping the mamiya will enable me to use more of those already small negs without loosing too much quality in the camera or lenses... the schneider lenses for my 6008i set the bar pretty high, but here:

 

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

 

shows the mamyia lenses have greater resolution.

yes it's huge, and yes if you're planning on carrying all that stuff, you're gonna need it.

if you have the means, try a microtek 1800f

i used a nikkor 300-m, fuji 300-c, and schneider 305 g-claron.

 

the lens i kept and am still using today is the 305 g-claron. it has the most coverage if i ever decide to jump to 8x10, performs better close-up then the others, and a f/22 or better, equals them at infinity. it's one of chris perez's favorites:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/nice_lenses.html

 

i found no difference whatsoever between the nikon and fuji in performance or ease of use (f/9 and f/8.5 look the same on the gg).

dr smith... i recently went through this very exercise. i convinced myself that a used 75/4.5 Grandagon-N was the lens for me. well, i got tired of waiting to find one and a good deal on a used 75/4.5 Nikkor SW came my way and i jumped on it. the performance of the lens is wonderful, and the field of view is amazing. buy whichever modern, multicoated 75 you find a good deal on first, as the differences between the offerings from Nikon, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Schneider are negligible.