During the last months i've been grinding my skills with film photography using a 6x6 Mamiya TLR and recently a Nikon N90s to be able to practice the exposure when grad filters are involved.
So finally i feel ready to step up to a grad-friendly MF film camera (my TLR is perfect and a good shooter but tricky to use with my 4x5 grads).
I'll be scanning the slides with a flatbed for web previews and drum scanning the so called "money shots". As i'm not interested in a digital expansion, right now i'm thinking about the following cameras:
1). Mamiya RB67- it's a 6x7, the negative is huge, it's all mechanical and the lenses can be found easily in keh and ebay
2). Mamiya RZ67- 6x7 also, same price as the Rb67, but it looks a bit more fragile for mountain trails.
3). Mamiya 645 AF-i'm tempted by all the electronic bells and whistles and the compact size comparable to an 35 SLR with grip and 16 shots per roll, but the negative size seems too small after using the 6x6 for a while and don't think it can compete well against an equivalent digital back or last generation of 35mm DSLR.
4). Pentax 67- i like it a lot, and i've tried it, but it so HUGE, it feels like carrying around Darth Vader's head.
5). Pentax 645AF- just like the Mamiya, but costs less and can't be equipped with a digital back (not a concern really, but a curious detail)
And in the lens department, i need a WA and a short tele for compact scapes.
Any ideas? Suggestions? Thoughts? I'll be using it for several years so want to buy a rugged and dependable piece of equipment.
Thanks in advance!
Nicolas, you have listed quite a few products which IMO are all good items in various ways. That is of course if weight is not a factor. Not sure about the Pentax 645AF in that department, where as the Mamiya counterpart 645AF is lighter then the list of 6x7 units.
I have a full compliment of Mamiya RB67 ProSD hardware, and will not part with it although I have moved to using a Wista 4x5 primarily now. Both the RB & Wista do not have to be rotated from horizontal to vertical when shooting. The RB's back revolves and the Wista like most all 4x5's ground glass is rotated. A feature I like in both the MF & LF usage.
Another thing I like about both setups is they are all manual. I've never had a field failure with any of it. But again, if weight is any issue at all, look out this stuff will surely bend your knees carrying it.
Thanks Paul, actually the revolving back option is a very usefull feature and i've been considering it. The weight is important, but in order to get the ultimate MF quality, i'm willing to sacrifice some space in my backpack.
I'll second Paul's endorsement of the RB. It's built like a tank, simple to operate, and has first rate lenses available. Best of all, there are some real buys in the used lens market. We used a full spread of Mamiya 645s in the studio for many years before moving on to digital, but always found the 645 kind of "clunky" for field use somehow, largely due to the lack of a rotating back. We had motor drive grips and viewfinders on all of those, but with or without them, I really did not like rotating the body back and forth on the tripod. And meanwhile the RB yielded a larger chrome.
Another funny coincidence: Our pick of field cameras is also the Wista. It could really use bag bellows for anything shorter than 75mm and if you want to go as long as 360, it's probably worth looking into the Nikkor T series lenses. But within that range it has plenty of secure movement. And it's comparatively light. We've boiled our 4x5 gear down to a couple of Wistas, a Linhoff monorail, and 10 or so lenses. But in truth we unpack the monorail only as a last resort.
Our 4x5 gear still gets used as movements are needed, but we haven't pulled any of the 645 gear out of the safe since we first moved to digital nearly 10 years ago. There's just no quality advantage of 645 over digital in our uses. If I was going back to MF, I'd replace my much lamented RB's in a heartbeat, rather than using any of our long line of 645 gear. In my eyes the RB holds such great advantage over a 645, I'm more inclined to purchase another rather than simply unpacking the 645's.
I totally agree Hank on all your points listed.
Although I've shot 4x5 for about 5 years now, I've had my RB67 gear for over 15 at least. Originally I had the Pro unit and several years back updated to the ProSD. At the same time I bought the collars to add to all my standard RB lenses. Which is a point to keep in mind Nicolas, there are three RB bodies. The Pro, ProS, and ProSD. If looking for used I would look for a ProSD, it will run any of the later RB style lenses as well as the 75 shift/tilt and the 500mm. However, you will need to buy the collars that are slipped on to the earlier lenses that are essentially spacers if you will to make a snug fit on the larger lens receiver on the ProSD unit. The ProSD lens receiver was made larger later in the years to accept the75mm S/T and the 500 lenses. Overall, all three bodies operate the same otherwise and most all items as I recall are totally interchangeable amongst the three units.To date the RB67 ProSD can still be bought new at B&H the last time I looked. Although as Hank pointed out, the stuff is easily bought used in very good condition. All of my MF & LF gear was bought used, most through ebay and keh.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on September 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I am going to ask a further question from Hank's and Paul's. Why are you considering a 6x7 system rather than jump straight to a 4x5 or larger system? There are a lot of good arguments for either choice and that might help narrow our recommendations a bit. Speed, flexibility, prints, close-ups, landscapes, portability, etc. There may also be particular camera features better suited to your end use.
I looked at the MF route a few years ago (before equipment prices REALLY tanked) and decided that movements and what I thought was going to be MF quality from 35 based digital was enough to pick the LF route. On the other hand, it is a slow method of working and macro with the LF is a nightmare.
Anyway, the point of the question is what do you need the system to do photographicly?
Hank: thanks a lot for your opinion, i think that a 645 format camera today only make sense as a digital platform. It makes more sense to use a bigger format to justify all the troubles inolved in film procesing.
Paul: thanks a lot for the info, i've been doing some research and found several Pro SD bodies. Was not aware about the lens compatibility issues.
Dan: very good question. I need a portable landscape system well prepared for grads and WA work. I'm only interested in landscapes, so the speed of operation is not a serious issue, although i'd appreciate to be able to set up the camera and have it ready for the shot in less than 5 minutes. This system must produce (if i do my part) a negative large enough to be digitally printed for big gallery exhibitions. I live in a patagonian national park, so i do a lot of mountain trails and usually prefer to scout an interesting place and than run there with my cameras in a bag and my tripod in hand if i feel i might have some great light. I do intend to spend some time up in the mountains from time to time with a tent and a sleeping bag. I don't carry a lot of personal stuff so don't mind to carry some extra weight.
A 4x5 is a really interesting route, i've just read The Camera and The Negative by Adams and Using the View Camera by Simmons and the quality of these systems is just beyond anything i've ever seen. I'm not considering it right now, beacuse have no way to locally process sheet color negatives and slides. I can work with BW but would have to buy a jobo processor and do it at home. The BW only option would really limit my work.
That's why i'm thinking about a 6x7- i can easily process 120 film locally and have not seen a lot of widely available 6x9 systems.
Thanks again, you are really helping me to make a decision.
Nicolas, I dont know much about medium format but large format can offer you some advantages if you can find a way to get the film developed. You can always mail it for developing. I live in New York where there are plenty of labs, but I still mail my negatives to save myself time going back and forth. Also, in terms of weight, you can probably find a 4x5 that is similar in weight to a medium format outfit. I have a Chamonix 45N which weighs 3 lbs. My entire 4x5 outfit with 3 lenses, 20 quickloads, light meter, etc... weighs in at 12lbs. Its a great format if you are looking for large gallery exhibitions. Anyway, I was in the same position as you recently where I was considering medium format but eventually decided on a 4x5 because of its advantages.
On another note, I will be in Patagonia in April for two weeks. Email me if you are interested in getting together.
Posted by Anil Rao on September 8, 2009 at 9:17 PM
> 4). Pentax 67- i like it a lot, and i've tried it, but it so HUGE, it feels like carrying around Darth Vader's head.
I have been using the Pentax 67ii for six years but never thought of it as carrying around Darth Vader's head. However, the analogy seems perfect.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on September 8, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Okay, the restrictions for local processing of color film, especially slide film, makes the 120 cameras a more sensible choice. Color slide film is pretty touchy on processing, especially at home.
I can't help on the 6x7 options since it was a while ago but your choices are all good systems. Good luck and post a few here.
I own and use both the Pentax 645 and Pentax 67II for landscape photography, both near the car and far down the trail. For whatever its worth, I can give my endorsement to both.
Just as a possibly contrary data point, I have to say that I find differences in image quality between the 2 systems to be minor - in fact, negligible up to somewhere between 16x20 and 20x24 inch drum-scanned/LightJet-output prints. The difference in image quality is hardly like the difference between either one of them and 35mm on the one side, or 4x5 on the other. By the time you have enlarged 645 to the point where it breaks down, in my experience you are only about one paper size away from watching 6x7 do the same. Put another way, while today's ~20 megapixel DSLR's roughly match the 645 output and so are slightly "beaten" by the 6x7 output (just IMHO - this is a subjective matter), it will only take one more high-end DSLR generation to close that 6x7 advantage.
I prefer the larger 6x7 system as it gives me greater freedom to crop and is a little more imposing on the light table, but that's about it. I believe one should make their choice between 645 and 6x7 based on other factors than final image quality vis-a-vis print size or digital equivalence; the two film formats are just too close in physical size. (Also consider the 1-stop loss of DOF between 6x7 and 645 - another minor delta between the two formats but which may make the difference for certain compositions.)
Difference in weight and bulk between the two systems is also not as significant as some people may find, in my opinion. I find there to be about 2-3 pounds difference between the systems, counting the cameras, backs/finders and a couple of zoom lenses each. The exception is that the Pentax 67II has a quite slap-happy shutter (not just mirror, but shutter as well) and so requires double the tripod mass the Pentax 645 does. This makes the Pentax 645 more portable overall; but still I have taken the 67II system, including its heavy tripod, backpacking here in the Sierra Nevada of California and done OK. Again, both systems are much closer to one another in portability than either one is to a 35mm system on the one side, or a 4x5 system with assortment of prime lenses on the other.
First of all, i would like to thank you all for the time and the wisdom shared. It's great to have a sound advice from an experienced photographer.
My original question has got an interesting turn as you posted. Now i'm REALLY tempted with the 4x5 option. I've read in several posts, that a 4x5 is a no return journey.
The film development is still an issue, but i thought that maybe it's possible to use a 6x9 back for color (i can commercially process it here) and 4x5 for BW and develop it at home. It sounds like a complete set up for me- the best of two worlds in one camera.
Now in the 4x5 department, is it absolutely vital to look for a Field camera? I've seen a lot of Sinars in ebay lately and they look very dependable, a bit cumbersome but tough. I've read a lot about the troubles of setting up a monorail camera in the mountains, is it really that hard?
Thanks again!
Nicolas, I am not familiar with the Sinars. I currently have a Wista SP and a Chamonix 45N. Both are field cameras. The Wista is all metal weighing approximately 6.5 lbs. The Chamonix is wood and carbon fiber and weighs 3lbs. Because of the weight I have started using the Chamonix almost exclusively. I havent used a studio LF camera so I dont know how difficult a monorail is to set up, but I would imagine they weigh more than a field camera (if that is a concern). Another good manufacturers of LF cameras, if weight is an issue, is Canham. I'm sure there are others, but I am not familiar with them so I can't comment.
One person that helped me transition into large format is Michael Gordon. You can email him directly at info@michael-gordon.com. He can provide you with far more information that I can.
Posted by Dan Baumbach on September 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Photographers use of field cameras in the field is because of their lighter weight and their ability to fold very small for carrying. Ask 10 different LF photographers and you'll get 10 different answers about what camera you should use. I use a Canham 45 DLC. It's pretty light weight (5 lbs), folds very small and sets up quickly. The only movement it's missing is rear rise/fall which I don't think you'll miss, even in a studio. It has a very long bellows so you can shoot with a 450mm lens with no extenders and the front and rear standards are very thin so you can also shoot with a 58mm without a recessed lensboard or bag bellows.
The most popular lighter weight 4x5 field cameras are:
Canham
Ebony
Shen-Hao
Chamonix
Tacharia
I don't think you could go wrong with any of them.
There are a number of labs that do mail order 4x5 E-6 processing for resonable prices.
If you're using one of the lighter field cameras, you could probably use the same tripod you're using for your other cameras with it.
- Dan.
Posted by Harley Goldman on September 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM
I have used a Wista DXII Wood, an Arca Swiss F-Line classic monorail, a Toho lightweight rail and now a Chamonix. Of all of them, I much prefer the Chamonix. It is very lightweight, very rigid, easy to use and great all-around. With the extension rail, I can use a 450mm. It would be a great camera deal at twice what Chamonix charges for it. My $0.02 worth anyway.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on September 9, 2009 at 11:43 PM
There are a number of labs that do mail order 4x5 E-6 processing for reasonable prices.
The same can be said for 4X5 C-41 processing though there are fewer labs around with dip and dunk C-41 tanks. I've found shooting C-41 with color landscapes to be very liberating, allowing more focus on the composition and color contrasts than the luminance contrasts in a scene. I don't think I would like shooting color negative and wet printing, but after I got the scanning worked out, I really enjoy the digital hybrid workflow.
That said, there is one really big difference between medium format and large format. It is the cost per shot. 6X7 costs about $1-$2 per shot. 4X5 with color film can cost between $3 and $5 per shot (assuming store bought fresh film). It adds up. But I love the 4X5 format and process and I can't say the same for the RB67 I tried.
If you're going to look at the Mamiyas, I would go for the RZ67. The body is lighter and it can use both RB and RZ lenses.
Mel-
Posted by Dan Borzynski on September 9, 2009 at 11:51 PM
The 4x5 route is pretty much limited by your budget. I have only used a folding field camera enough to really comment on them.
Ebony 4x5 SU2. It is top of the line and I wouldn't be afraid to used this camera in any conditions I am willing to shoot in. But expensive and you probably won't find a used one. They don't come any better although people either love or hate them.
Zone VI, older model. I shot this camera for a couple of years and if wasn't borrowed, I probably would have thrown it into the Atlantic. Even so, I came really, really, really close to doing so. About 8-900 used. Lots of bellows draw (good for long lenses).
Shen Hao. This is a good, solid camera, although not flashy and is my landscape camera. About 360 mm of bellows draw, which includes movements. A 300 f8 is the largest lens you can use on it. The 300 f5.6 are too big for everything to be solid. You can use the Nikon 500T on it but minimum focussing distance is about 6-7 meters and it is not fun. Probably not be best choice for macro work, near 1:1. I've done it but the above two cameras are better choices. International back takes 6x7 - 6x12 roll film backs. About $650 used and occasionally available used.
Tachihara. I liked it, but had only limited exposure. 12" of bellows draw, maybe a shade more with movements. Not an international back so roll film holders are not an option.
Monorails as a class tend to be heavier than a wood folding camera.
Keeping asking questions - we'll do our best to keep you thinking until the shooting season has long since come and gone.
Martin, Dan, Harley, Mel, Dan- thanks for all the info, i'm scouting ebay and keh now for the models you all mentioned. Here in Argentina, the costs of shooting 6x7 and 4x5 are pretty similar in BW-about 90 cents per shot. In color, 6x7 is cheaper.
Based on all i've read, i'm definitely not paying attention to the Zone VI cameras, concentrating on Shen Hao, Tachi, Toyo, Chamonix and Camden.
-----------------------------------------------
The 300 f5.6 are too big for everything to be solid.
----------------------------------------------------
Dan, are you saying that a monorail is needed for long focal ranges? By the way, i'm looking for a field camera, but as side question, when you use a wide angle, a 75mm for example on a monorail with bag bellows, is the rail still visible as an obstruction?
What should i look for in a camera in order to be able to use a roll film adapter? A graflok?
Thanks again!
Posted by Mark Stahlke on September 10, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Dan, are you saying that a monorail is needed for long focal ranges?
It's not the focal length that's a problem. It's the sheer mass of the lens. For example, a Schneider APO-Symmar 300/5.6 weighs about 2.5 pounds and uses 105mm filters. That's a huge lens. Compare it with a Fujinon-C 300/8.5 that weighs about half a pound and takes 52mm filters. I wouldn't consider putting the APO-Symmar 300/5.6 on my Tachihara or Shen Hao but I use the lovely little Fuji 300/8.5 all the time.
Nicolas, you can use long focal lengths on 4x5 field cameras. The longest lens you can use will be determined, among other things, by the maximum bellows draw. For example I can use a 360mm on my Chamonix. Granted that my minimum focus will be somewhere around 15 feet away. A Canham DLX can take a longer lens without a problem because it has an even greater bellows extension. There are of course ways to use longer lenses with extension plates or the use of telephoto lenses. But at the end of the day, you are still limited. You are not going to get the same focal lengths as you would on a 35mm camera. As Dan mentioned, there are other factors to consider such as the build and stability of the camera. A 300 f5.6 is heavier than a 300f.8 and therefore might make the entire setup less stable on a camera such as the Shen Hao. (I havent used a Shen Hao but I believe that is what Dan was alluding to).
Mark, MArtin- thank you, now i get it. Really not a problem, just a matter of adjusting the composition to the focal lengths available.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on September 10, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Mark and Martin summed it up well. A 300 will work well on the Shen Hao, but because of the weight of the 5.6 lens, you'll need to use an f8-f9 instead. It is an equipment issue, not a "this lens weighs too much to hike with issue", although the latter might apply to specific people and cases.
I mentioned the Nikon 500T which *barely* is useable on the Shen Hao (and completely unusable on the Tachihari because the bellows don't extend far enough). Wieght is an issue with that lens as well - it is not a great combination to actually use in the field but if you need the focal length...
A very general rule of thumb on bellows draw is your longest focal length plus 20%. That puts a 300 mm lens plus 20% right at 360 mm, which is the limit of most of the Shen Hao models. This rule will vary by user, but it is at least a starting point.
For wide angle with the Shen Hao, (wider than a 90mm lens), I'd recommend getting the bag bellows. I've run across a couple of situations where they would have been useful with my 90. I suspect that a 75 would be a nightmare to use without the bag bellows.
Not knowing how much you know about LF lenses, there are two main types of high mm lenses - long lenses and telephotos. Long lenses, such as the 300's mentioned about, require 300mm to focus at infinity. To focus on something closer, you need to move the lens further away from the film. That is why you need more bellows length (draw) than the focal length of the lens.
The second is a telephoto design, which allows you focus at infinity with less bellows draw than the mm of the lens. In the 35 mm world, that is the way most lenses are (very, very roughly). For LF and a standard 500 mm lens, you would normally need 500 mm of bellows draw to focus. A telephoto design, such as the Nikon 500T I mentioned above, needs about 2/3 of that, or about 340 mm simply to focus at infinity, Closer that than means having more bellows draw.
I'd also try to hunt down Steve Simmons' book on LF photography as a basic reference.
Thank you Dan, i'm already reading Simmons' book and it seems to be a great reference.
You mentioned that the bag bellows are needed to work with a 75mm. What about the basic Toyo field cameras where the bellows are fixed? I've seen several models with fixed bellows and a drop bed, is it possible to use a 75mm on those? To use the WA range is far more important for me than the long and the telephoto range.
Thanks!
Posted by Dan Baumbach on September 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
With monorail cameras the rear standard moves along the monorail just like the front standard so you can easily make sure the rail isn't getting into your wide angle shots.
I easily used a 75mm on a Shen-Hao without a bag bellows.
Wide angles are difficult on 4x5 because of the very short bellows extension and their narrow coverage limits movements. Rear tilt and swing doesn't demand more coverage like front tilt and swing but you'll probably not have any room for rise.
Unlike SLRs, wide angle lenses on 4x5 are not retro-focus lenses and as you get wider than 90mm they tend to have noticable vignetting. You'll need to look into a center filter for your WA lenses.
Thank you Dan, i guess in the WA range, as the movements are limited, it's necessary to relay on small apertures for extended DOF and leave the movements for longer focals.
Thanks again
Well, while shopping around for a good used field cameras, i narrowed my search to the models discussed here and almost set up for a Shen Hao new or Wista/Toyo used.
Have just seen a Wista DXII in good condition, any thoughts about it? Is it suitable for WA work without changing the bellows? The wista web page is rather confusing.
Thanks!
Nicholas, I have the Wista DXIII as I stated earlier. I use a Schneider APO 90mm lens with the standard bellows and standard front board. Seems to work very well as is, but I'm almost sure it will not accommodate anything wider as the bellows is close to total collapse as near as I can tell. Maybe someone else knows more about that issue. I use a very small Schneider APO 120mm more often in that range, and it has no limitations at all.
Dan brings up a good point about vignetting requiring a good center filter in some cases at 90mm and wider. He also makes a comment on the limited S/T movements, which is another item to keep in mind when getting into the wider angle lenses.
Thank you Paul. I completely forgot your first post regarding the Wista. I've been offerd a Wista DXII not the DXIII, i believe it's a more simple model and googled it only to found some negative feedback regarding the build quality. Good advice on the center filter, i'll start looking for one.
By the way, it seems that the only place to get a Chamonix is the factory web site. Too bad they don't have a US dealer, it's easier to import photo equipment from the US.
Posted by Guy Tal on September 13, 2009 at 8:26 AM
A lot of good advice above but there are a couple more things you should consider if your primary goal is to use the camera for wide angle work:
1) Most flatbed (field) cameras will work with 75mm lenses but not much wider than that. The limitation is not just bellows but also the fact that these cameras focus using the front standard. This means the lens will be crunched against the rear standard and the bed will protrude into your image. Some models will allow you to drop the bed but then focusing becomes very awkward. A monorail will let you place the front standard at the front end of the rail and focus with the rear standard, which eliminates this problem.
2) Most fresnel screens (which you will want) are optimized for normal lenses and will turn very dark with wide lenses, making focusing a challenge. Some manufacturers offer replaceable fresnel screens optimized for wide lenses, at an added cost.
3) As mentioned, center filters are needed for wide lenses (75mm or less) and they can be very expensive.
If you're comfortable with 75mm being your widest lens (and it is very wide) then a flatbed would be my recommendation, but if you plan to go as wide as 58mm or 47mm, my recommendation would be a field monorail (like the Arca F or Linhof Technikardan) or a hybrid design like the Canham DLC or Ebony SV.
Guy, thank you for such a detailed post, i'm very comfortable with the 20-24mm in 35mm, and never thought of going wider, so the 75mm will be pretty much my widest lens. BY the way a friend of mine offered me a spare 75mm for a couple of months, so at least i'll be able to to spend the extra money on holders, film and dark room equipment.
Thanks again.
Discussion
30 repliesSo finally i feel ready to step up to a grad-friendly MF film camera (my TLR is perfect and a good shooter but tricky to use with my 4x5 grads).
I'll be scanning the slides with a flatbed for web previews and drum scanning the so called "money shots". As i'm not interested in a digital expansion, right now i'm thinking about the following cameras:
1). Mamiya RB67- it's a 6x7, the negative is huge, it's all mechanical and the lenses can be found easily in keh and ebay
2). Mamiya RZ67- 6x7 also, same price as the Rb67, but it looks a bit more fragile for mountain trails.
3). Mamiya 645 AF-i'm tempted by all the electronic bells and whistles and the compact size comparable to an 35 SLR with grip and 16 shots per roll, but the negative size seems too small after using the 6x6 for a while and don't think it can compete well against an equivalent digital back or last generation of 35mm DSLR.
4). Pentax 67- i like it a lot, and i've tried it, but it so HUGE, it feels like carrying around Darth Vader's head.
5). Pentax 645AF- just like the Mamiya, but costs less and can't be equipped with a digital back (not a concern really, but a curious detail)
And in the lens department, i need a WA and a short tele for compact scapes.
Any ideas? Suggestions? Thoughts? I'll be using it for several years so want to buy a rugged and dependable piece of equipment.
Thanks in advance!
I have a full compliment of Mamiya RB67 ProSD hardware, and will not part with it although I have moved to using a Wista 4x5 primarily now. Both the RB & Wista do not have to be rotated from horizontal to vertical when shooting. The RB's back revolves and the Wista like most all 4x5's ground glass is rotated. A feature I like in both the MF & LF usage.
Another thing I like about both setups is they are all manual. I've never had a field failure with any of it. But again, if weight is any issue at all, look out this stuff will surely bend your knees carrying it.
Another funny coincidence: Our pick of field cameras is also the Wista. It could really use bag bellows for anything shorter than 75mm and if you want to go as long as 360, it's probably worth looking into the Nikkor T series lenses. But within that range it has plenty of secure movement. And it's comparatively light. We've boiled our 4x5 gear down to a couple of Wistas, a Linhoff monorail, and 10 or so lenses. But in truth we unpack the monorail only as a last resort.
Our 4x5 gear still gets used as movements are needed, but we haven't pulled any of the 645 gear out of the safe since we first moved to digital nearly 10 years ago. There's just no quality advantage of 645 over digital in our uses. If I was going back to MF, I'd replace my much lamented RB's in a heartbeat, rather than using any of our long line of 645 gear. In my eyes the RB holds such great advantage over a 645, I'm more inclined to purchase another rather than simply unpacking the 645's.
Although I've shot 4x5 for about 5 years now, I've had my RB67 gear for over 15 at least. Originally I had the Pro unit and several years back updated to the ProSD. At the same time I bought the collars to add to all my standard RB lenses. Which is a point to keep in mind Nicolas, there are three RB bodies. The Pro, ProS, and ProSD. If looking for used I would look for a ProSD, it will run any of the later RB style lenses as well as the 75 shift/tilt and the 500mm. However, you will need to buy the collars that are slipped on to the earlier lenses that are essentially spacers if you will to make a snug fit on the larger lens receiver on the ProSD unit. The ProSD lens receiver was made larger later in the years to accept the75mm S/T and the 500 lenses. Overall, all three bodies operate the same otherwise and most all items as I recall are totally interchangeable amongst the three units.To date the RB67 ProSD can still be bought new at B&H the last time I looked. Although as Hank pointed out, the stuff is easily bought used in very good condition. All of my MF & LF gear was bought used, most through ebay and keh.
I looked at the MF route a few years ago (before equipment prices REALLY tanked) and decided that movements and what I thought was going to be MF quality from 35 based digital was enough to pick the LF route. On the other hand, it is a slow method of working and macro with the LF is a nightmare.
Anyway, the point of the question is what do you need the system to do photographicly?
Paul: thanks a lot for the info, i've been doing some research and found several Pro SD bodies. Was not aware about the lens compatibility issues.
Dan: very good question. I need a portable landscape system well prepared for grads and WA work. I'm only interested in landscapes, so the speed of operation is not a serious issue, although i'd appreciate to be able to set up the camera and have it ready for the shot in less than 5 minutes. This system must produce (if i do my part) a negative large enough to be digitally printed for big gallery exhibitions. I live in a patagonian national park, so i do a lot of mountain trails and usually prefer to scout an interesting place and than run there with my cameras in a bag and my tripod in hand if i feel i might have some great light. I do intend to spend some time up in the mountains from time to time with a tent and a sleeping bag. I don't carry a lot of personal stuff so don't mind to carry some extra weight.
A 4x5 is a really interesting route, i've just read The Camera and The Negative by Adams and Using the View Camera by Simmons and the quality of these systems is just beyond anything i've ever seen. I'm not considering it right now, beacuse have no way to locally process sheet color negatives and slides. I can work with BW but would have to buy a jobo processor and do it at home. The BW only option would really limit my work.
That's why i'm thinking about a 6x7- i can easily process 120 film locally and have not seen a lot of widely available 6x9 systems.
Thanks again, you are really helping me to make a decision.
On another note, I will be in Patagonia in April for two weeks. Email me if you are interested in getting together.
I have been using the Pentax 67ii for six years but never thought of it as carrying around Darth Vader's head. However, the analogy seems perfect.
I can't help on the 6x7 options since it was a while ago but your choices are all good systems. Good luck and post a few here.
Just as a possibly contrary data point, I have to say that I find differences in image quality between the 2 systems to be minor - in fact, negligible up to somewhere between 16x20 and 20x24 inch drum-scanned/LightJet-output prints. The difference in image quality is hardly like the difference between either one of them and 35mm on the one side, or 4x5 on the other. By the time you have enlarged 645 to the point where it breaks down, in my experience you are only about one paper size away from watching 6x7 do the same. Put another way, while today's ~20 megapixel DSLR's roughly match the 645 output and so are slightly "beaten" by the 6x7 output (just IMHO - this is a subjective matter), it will only take one more high-end DSLR generation to close that 6x7 advantage.
I prefer the larger 6x7 system as it gives me greater freedom to crop and is a little more imposing on the light table, but that's about it. I believe one should make their choice between 645 and 6x7 based on other factors than final image quality vis-a-vis print size or digital equivalence; the two film formats are just too close in physical size. (Also consider the 1-stop loss of DOF between 6x7 and 645 - another minor delta between the two formats but which may make the difference for certain compositions.)
Difference in weight and bulk between the two systems is also not as significant as some people may find, in my opinion. I find there to be about 2-3 pounds difference between the systems, counting the cameras, backs/finders and a couple of zoom lenses each. The exception is that the Pentax 67II has a quite slap-happy shutter (not just mirror, but shutter as well) and so requires double the tripod mass the Pentax 645 does. This makes the Pentax 645 more portable overall; but still I have taken the 67II system, including its heavy tripod, backpacking here in the Sierra Nevada of California and done OK. Again, both systems are much closer to one another in portability than either one is to a 35mm system on the one side, or a 4x5 system with assortment of prime lenses on the other.
Hope this helps - enjoy your dilemma :-)
My original question has got an interesting turn as you posted. Now i'm REALLY tempted with the 4x5 option. I've read in several posts, that a 4x5 is a no return journey.
The film development is still an issue, but i thought that maybe it's possible to use a 6x9 back for color (i can commercially process it here) and 4x5 for BW and develop it at home. It sounds like a complete set up for me- the best of two worlds in one camera.
Now in the 4x5 department, is it absolutely vital to look for a Field camera? I've seen a lot of Sinars in ebay lately and they look very dependable, a bit cumbersome but tough. I've read a lot about the troubles of setting up a monorail camera in the mountains, is it really that hard?
Thanks again!
One person that helped me transition into large format is Michael Gordon. You can email him directly at info@michael-gordon.com. He can provide you with far more information that I can.
The most popular lighter weight 4x5 field cameras are:
Canham
Ebony
Shen-Hao
Chamonix
Tacharia
I don't think you could go wrong with any of them.
There are a number of labs that do mail order 4x5 E-6 processing for resonable prices.
If you're using one of the lighter field cameras, you could probably use the same tripod you're using for your other cameras with it.
- Dan.
The same can be said for 4X5 C-41 processing though there are fewer labs around with dip and dunk C-41 tanks. I've found shooting C-41 with color landscapes to be very liberating, allowing more focus on the composition and color contrasts than the luminance contrasts in a scene. I don't think I would like shooting color negative and wet printing, but after I got the scanning worked out, I really enjoy the digital hybrid workflow.
That said, there is one really big difference between medium format and large format. It is the cost per shot. 6X7 costs about $1-$2 per shot. 4X5 with color film can cost between $3 and $5 per shot (assuming store bought fresh film). It adds up. But I love the 4X5 format and process and I can't say the same for the RB67 I tried.
If you're going to look at the Mamiyas, I would go for the RZ67. The body is lighter and it can use both RB and RZ lenses.
Mel-
Ebony 4x5 SU2. It is top of the line and I wouldn't be afraid to used this camera in any conditions I am willing to shoot in. But expensive and you probably won't find a used one. They don't come any better although people either love or hate them.
Zone VI, older model. I shot this camera for a couple of years and if wasn't borrowed, I probably would have thrown it into the Atlantic. Even so, I came really, really, really close to doing so. About 8-900 used. Lots of bellows draw (good for long lenses).
Shen Hao. This is a good, solid camera, although not flashy and is my landscape camera. About 360 mm of bellows draw, which includes movements. A 300 f8 is the largest lens you can use on it. The 300 f5.6 are too big for everything to be solid. You can use the Nikon 500T on it but minimum focussing distance is about 6-7 meters and it is not fun. Probably not be best choice for macro work, near 1:1. I've done it but the above two cameras are better choices. International back takes 6x7 - 6x12 roll film backs. About $650 used and occasionally available used.
Tachihara. I liked it, but had only limited exposure. 12" of bellows draw, maybe a shade more with movements. Not an international back so roll film holders are not an option.
Monorails as a class tend to be heavier than a wood folding camera.
Keeping asking questions - we'll do our best to keep you thinking until the shooting season has long since come and gone.
Based on all i've read, i'm definitely not paying attention to the Zone VI cameras, concentrating on Shen Hao, Tachi, Toyo, Chamonix and Camden.
-----------------------------------------------
The 300 f5.6 are too big for everything to be solid.
----------------------------------------------------
Dan, are you saying that a monorail is needed for long focal ranges? By the way, i'm looking for a field camera, but as side question, when you use a wide angle, a 75mm for example on a monorail with bag bellows, is the rail still visible as an obstruction?
What should i look for in a camera in order to be able to use a roll film adapter? A graflok?
Thanks again!
By the way, there is a ton of good information at the LFphoto.info web site.
Cheers.
I mentioned the Nikon 500T which *barely* is useable on the Shen Hao (and completely unusable on the Tachihari because the bellows don't extend far enough). Wieght is an issue with that lens as well - it is not a great combination to actually use in the field but if you need the focal length...
A very general rule of thumb on bellows draw is your longest focal length plus 20%. That puts a 300 mm lens plus 20% right at 360 mm, which is the limit of most of the Shen Hao models. This rule will vary by user, but it is at least a starting point.
For wide angle with the Shen Hao, (wider than a 90mm lens), I'd recommend getting the bag bellows. I've run across a couple of situations where they would have been useful with my 90. I suspect that a 75 would be a nightmare to use without the bag bellows.
Not knowing how much you know about LF lenses, there are two main types of high mm lenses - long lenses and telephotos. Long lenses, such as the 300's mentioned about, require 300mm to focus at infinity. To focus on something closer, you need to move the lens further away from the film. That is why you need more bellows length (draw) than the focal length of the lens.
The second is a telephoto design, which allows you focus at infinity with less bellows draw than the mm of the lens. In the 35 mm world, that is the way most lenses are (very, very roughly). For LF and a standard 500 mm lens, you would normally need 500 mm of bellows draw to focus. A telephoto design, such as the Nikon 500T I mentioned above, needs about 2/3 of that, or about 340 mm simply to focus at infinity, Closer that than means having more bellows draw.
I'd also try to hunt down Steve Simmons' book on LF photography as a basic reference.
You mentioned that the bag bellows are needed to work with a 75mm. What about the basic Toyo field cameras where the bellows are fixed? I've seen several models with fixed bellows and a drop bed, is it possible to use a 75mm on those? To use the WA range is far more important for me than the long and the telephoto range.
Thanks!
I easily used a 75mm on a Shen-Hao without a bag bellows.
Wide angles are difficult on 4x5 because of the very short bellows extension and their narrow coverage limits movements. Rear tilt and swing doesn't demand more coverage like front tilt and swing but you'll probably not have any room for rise.
Unlike SLRs, wide angle lenses on 4x5 are not retro-focus lenses and as you get wider than 90mm they tend to have noticable vignetting. You'll need to look into a center filter for your WA lenses.
- Dan.
Thanks again
Have just seen a Wista DXII in good condition, any thoughts about it? Is it suitable for WA work without changing the bellows? The wista web page is rather confusing.
Thanks!
Dan brings up a good point about vignetting requiring a good center filter in some cases at 90mm and wider. He also makes a comment on the limited S/T movements, which is another item to keep in mind when getting into the wider angle lenses.
1) Most flatbed (field) cameras will work with 75mm lenses but not much wider than that. The limitation is not just bellows but also the fact that these cameras focus using the front standard. This means the lens will be crunched against the rear standard and the bed will protrude into your image. Some models will allow you to drop the bed but then focusing becomes very awkward. A monorail will let you place the front standard at the front end of the rail and focus with the rear standard, which eliminates this problem.
2) Most fresnel screens (which you will want) are optimized for normal lenses and will turn very dark with wide lenses, making focusing a challenge. Some manufacturers offer replaceable fresnel screens optimized for wide lenses, at an added cost.
3) As mentioned, center filters are needed for wide lenses (75mm or less) and they can be very expensive.
If you're comfortable with 75mm being your widest lens (and it is very wide) then a flatbed would be my recommendation, but if you plan to go as wide as 58mm or 47mm, my recommendation would be a field monorail (like the Arca F or Linhof Technikardan) or a hybrid design like the Canham DLC or Ebony SV.
Guy
Thanks again.