Toyo FC

[ColColt]

OK, I admit I know zilch about large format cameras other than I use to want a 4x5 years ago. I do have a question about the Toyo Field Camera, however. Is this a camera you hand hold or do you need a tripod? What is considered a normal lens? Lastly, is the image viewed upside down?

Thanks

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...6Tq1scCFUkdgQod01YDeA&is=REG&m=Y&A=details&Q=

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The image is always upside down when you view the groundglass directly on any view camera. There are reflex viewers that will right the image, but they are cumbersome, and most people get used to composing upside down.

This camera is mainly for use on a tripod, though the Toyos are modeled on the Crown Graphic. They don't have grips, viewfinders, or rangefinders in general for handheld use, but I'm sure some people have thought of ways of doing it. Since there are press cameras designed for handheld use, better to get one of those if that's your intention.

When the 45CF came out, I remember that many people thought the build quality was a bit light, and the weight savings weren't enough to justify it over one of the regular Toyo models like the 45AII or 45AX, if you like that design. If you want a new lightweight 4x5" field camera for use on a tripod, I'd consider a Chamonix.

A normal lens for 4x5" is 135-150mm

 

[ColColt]

I just watched a video of a fellow demonstrating this camera but didn't show the tilt and swing functions. It was very well done just the same. Thanks for the info. It would take some getting use to viewing an image upside down.

https://vimeo.com/19660581

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to play tabletop shuffleboard in a bar league. To be successful you need to be able to shoot with either hand so you can curve the puck right or left. If you are shooting the first shot it doesn't matter which hand you use. I was taught to use my left hand since I am right handed. Why? Because it slows you down and you think about the shot more.

When composing on the ground glass you may find that you think about the composition more since the image is not the way you normally view it. I know it works for me.


A normal lens on 4x5 is considered to be 135mm to 180mm and some consider 210mm normal. It's actually a long normal. The 210mm was the most popular focal length for most monorail users. It's got more coverage than the 135 to 180 lenses which is preferable for tabletop photography used in advertising. There are a glut of 210 lenses out there now so most of them are dirt cheap. They are popular for portraiture and everything else.

Read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ Then join the forum: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php I'm a member and so are a lot of other APUG members. We will be glad to have you as a member!

If you want to shoot 4x5 hand held cheap look at a Crown or Speed Graphic. For a little more money you can buy a converted Polaroid. For even more money look at the Wista RF or Linhof Technika's.

For your information Brad S has a Toyo CF for sale here on APUG for $550 plus $15 shipping. It looks like a good deal to me. If you contact Brad I'm sure he will answer any of your questions about the camera.

 

[ColColt]

I think I could readily get use to the upside down image but shifts, tilts, swings, etc may be hard to discern with an image in that position but, like everything else I'm sure it would take some practice.

It seems the larger the negative the more costly, not only the camera, but the accessories and most important, it renders my Besler 23CII useless. That requires another enlarger and being a Besler fan for decades I looked at the 45 MXT with condenser head(just like my 23CII) and that's about $2600 to get you started for printing-not to mention the necessary lens and lens board. A costly hobby. Probably in t he vicinity of around $5K(plus or minus) time you bought the camera, lens, and associated necessities, but; I'm sure everyone knows that. However, $550 for a CF is a great deal. I can't recall what my 23CII cost but, it seems like around $200-300 back around 1978 with the condenser head...precious memories. I've found over the years any hobby cans be as little as you want to get by on or can cost thousands. Depends on one's desires and wallet.

Best I recall, Zone VI Studios(Fred Picker?) use to have a cold light head for both the 23CII and 4x5 enlarger and may have sold the enlargers also. I suppose they, like Kodak, have gone asunder over the years but I would think that would have been the ideal head for 4x5.

 

[Alan Gales]

You will get used to composing the image on the ground glass. Forget those images you have seen of monorails twisted like pretzels. For most photography a little bit of movement or sometimes none is all you need.

Forget spending a lot on an enlarger at first. Pick up an old Omega 4x5 enlarger for peanuts. I even gave one away a while back to a young fellow for free. All the colleges used Omega enlargers so there is a glut of them out there. Yes, the 45 MXT is nicer but the Omega will work just fine. Don't spend a lot of money until you find out if large format is for you.

If you bought Brad's camera and later sold I don't think you would get hurt on it. Just figure any small amount you lost as a cheap rental fee.

I recommend picking up one lens in the 135mm to 210mm range and start burning film. Pick up a Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor, Fuji or Caltar lens in a modern Copal shutter. Let condition and price be your guide. There isn't much difference in them unless you spend the big bucks on a Rodenstock Sironar S. If you don't have a light meter you can use one of your 35mm cameras. There is even an app for I-phones. If you don't have a loupe pick up some cheap readers at the drug store. Some people prefer them over a loupe. You can use an oversized black t-shirt or sweatshirt as a dark cloth. You can buy used 4x5 film holders dirt cheap on Ebay.

 

[ColColt]

Forget those images you have seen of monorails twisted like pretzels.

That's exactly what I envision when I think of view cameras and many photos I've seen. Great advice and taken to heart, many thanks. I've used Schneider and Rodenstock as my enlarger lens but I guess there's a major difference. i do have a 10x loupe but it's probably not the same kind one would use for a view camera's ground glass.

 

[Alan Gales]

That's exactly what I envision when I think of view cameras and many photos I've seen. Great advice and taken to heart, many thanks. I've used Schneider and Rodenstock as my enlarger lens but I guess there's a major difference. i do have a 10x loupe but it's probably not the same kind one would use for a view camera's ground glass.

Most use a 4x to 6x loupe. I use a Toyo 3.6x that was popular but is no longer made. Just make sure that the skirt (lower part) is opaque and not clear. The clear ones are for viewing photographs. The opaque ones are for ground glasses and viewing slides and negatives on a light table.

There is no major difference between Schneider and Rodenstock or the other late model big names. They are all plenty sharp and contrasty. When you start to get into Dagors, Petzvals, Ektars, Heliars, etc. you start to see a big difference. Plus you have all the soft focus lenses out there. That's one of the great things about large format is that you are not stuck with just one brand of lens.

 

[ColColt]

The loupe I have are for viewing slides/negatives and is, of course, clear. I have a couple of books by Ansel Adams, "The Negative" and "The Print" and I recalling one of them his mentioning the 90mm Super Angulon. That must be a good wide angle for the 4x5.

I once had a Pentax Spotmeter V but sold it long ago. That would have been ideal had I kept it.

 

[Alan Gales]

The 90mm SA f/8 is popular with the landscape crowd and they are cheap right now. The f/5.6 version is faster but of course larger and heavier. I own an SA 121mm f/8 lens and it is plenty sharp and contrasty. Of course the other brands are good too.

An analog Pentax Spotmeter V is great for the zone system. I use the digital version myself.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think I could readily get use to the upside down image but shifts, tilts, swings, etc may be hard to discern with an image in that position but, like everything else I'm sure it would take some practice.

It seems the larger the negative the more costly, not only the camera, but the accessories and most important, it renders my Besler 23CII useless. That requires another enlarger and being a Besler fan for decades I looked at the 45 MXT with condenser head(just like my 23CII) and that's about $2600 to get you started for printing-not to mention the necessary lens and lens board. A costly hobby. Probably in t he vicinity of around $5K(plus or minus) time you bought the camera, lens, and associated necessities, but; I'm sure everyone knows that. However, $550 for a CF is a great deal. I can't recall what my 23CII cost but, it seems like around $200-300 back around 1978 with the condenser head...precious memories. I've found over the years any hobby cans be as little as you want to get by on or can cost thousands. Depends on one's desires and wallet.

Best I recall, Zone VI Studios(Fred Picker?) use to have a cold light head for both the 23CII and 4x5 enlarger and may have sold the enlargers also. I suppose they, like Kodak, have gone asunder over the years but I would think that would have been the ideal head for 4x5.

There is absolutely no need to spend anywhere near that kind of money on a Beseler 45xxx series enlarger. There are TONS of them out there on the used market, for a couple hundred a pop or less.

As to cold light heads, if you shop around on the used market again, you can find good ones for not that much, although you'll probably pay more for the head than you do for the enlarger. Failing that, you can always pick up a dichroic head to do variable contrast printing, and those too are very cheap. You'll probably be in to it for under $500 for the enlarger, head and a 4x5 negative carrier and lens. For this, Craigslist and some patience are your friends.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think I could readily get use to the upside down image but shifts, tilts, swings, etc may be hard to discern with an image in that position but, like everything else I'm sure it would take some practice.

It seems the larger the negative the more costly, not only the camera, but the accessories and most important, it renders my Besler 23CII useless. That requires another enlarger and being a Besler fan for decades I looked at the 45 MXT with condenser head(just like my 23CII) and that's about $2600 to get you started for printing-not to mention the necessary lens and lens board. A costly hobby. Probably in t he vicinity of around $5K(plus or minus) time you bought the camera, lens, and associated necessities, but; I'm sure everyone knows that. However, $550 for a CF is a great deal. I can't recall what my 23CII cost but, it seems like around $200-300 back around 1978 with the condenser head...precious memories. I've found over the years any hobby cans be as little as you want to get by on or can cost thousands. Depends on one's desires and wallet.

Best I recall, Zone VI Studios(Fred Picker?) use to have a cold light head for both the 23CII and 4x5 enlarger and may have sold the enlargers also. I suppose they, like Kodak, have gone asunder over the years but I would think that would have been the ideal head for 4x5.

There is absolutely no need to spend anywhere near that kind of money on a Beseler 45xxx series enlarger. There are TONS of them out there on the used market, for a couple hundred a pop or less.

As to cold light heads, if you shop around on the used market again, you can find good ones for not that much, although you'll probably pay more for the head than you do for the enlarger. Failing that, you can always pick up a dichroic head to do variable contrast printing, and those too are very cheap. You'll probably be in to it for under $500 for the enlarger, head and a 4x5 negative carrier and lens. For this, Craigslist and some patience are your friends.

 

[Alan Gales]

And we have The Flying Camera in glorious stereo!

I figured ColColt was quoting a new price on the 45 MXT's. Some people like new. I do too but I can't afford it except for underwear and such.

 

[ColColt]

Both meters were excellent. Mine was very accurate. I had originally bought it after thinking I might get into large format which of course, I never did. That was back in the early 80's. I had too many hobbies going at that point-photography, repairing old tube radios and shooting pistols/rifles and reloading for them. I finally cut out the radios having too many(26) and the space they took up.

I never abandoned photography to any extent over the years but did get away from film for a season, especially since my old lab abandoned anything analoge for digital and sold all their equipment. I went back to my first love recently.

 

[tessar]

When I started out in large format, I used a 35mm viewfinder on top of the camera to get a rough idea of a field of view I liked. The idea is to use a viewfinder with a focal length approximating that of the lens on the LF format camera, i.e. a focal length of a 50mm lens on 35mm would be roughly equal to a 210mm lens on 4x5; a 35mm lens on 35mm roughly equal to a 135mm on 4x5, etc. I found this info on a handy table:
http://presscameras.graywolfphoto.com/length.html
I'd then refine the composition on the groundglass. I only had to do this for a short time. It doesn't take long to get used to the upside-down reversed view on the groundglass, and seeing the image as an abstract (as it were) helps in creating an effective composition.

 

[ColColt]

New is nice but, I figured on the enlarger I might be able to get free shipping. With used equipment not usually and that thing would weigh a ton. I'm not against used equipment. With one or two exceptions all my film cameras are pre-owned and that's about five of them plus half a dozen lens. Who knows who had my Marantz 2265 receiver and Pioneer RT707 before me but both are superb and still going.

135 seems to be the ticket for a lens on the 4x5. That's a good focal length emulating the 35mm lens on 35 format.

 

[Alan Gales]

135 seems to be the ticket for a lens on the 4x5. That's a good focal length emulating the 35mm lens on 35 format.

It seems not quite that wide to me. My 121mm feels like a 35mm on a 35 format camera to me. You will find that going from a long format like 35mm to a more square format like 4x5 makes direct comparisons hard. Plus we all have a different feeling about focal lengths so you really have to try things out for yourself.

If you know of anyone in your area who shoots 4x5 and could show you their camera and lenses it would be a big help to you. If you don't then join the Large Format Photography Forum. Introduce yourself and ask if there is anyone in your area that can help you. You will probably gain a new friend!

 

[ColColt]

I've always considered two formats to be ideal for any 8x10 or 11x14 enlargements without much cropping, the 6x7 and 4x5. I think the 6x7 I had probably approaches 4x5 quality, depending on film.

I don't know anyone in this area that uses anything film related. Everyone's into digital. There was a time some 20 years back I knew of two who worked with 4x5 and 5x7 cameras but they're both gone now. That would have been an excellent place to ask questions as one of them was co-owner of the camera shop I frequented quite a bit. At least I have some of Ansel Adams' books to read at night.

 

[Alan Gales]

The Mamiya 7 is said to be equal or close to 4x5 in sharpness. The big advantage is film flatness with the Mamiya. My RZ67 had some sharp lenses too but I used it for portraits and never blew up anything larger than 11x14.

Where the 4x5 really shines is with camera movements. There is nothing like using a little tilt and having both foreground and background in focus! Fuji made a monster medium format camera that could use tilt but it is harder to use than a 4x5. It's easier to see what I am doing on my 8x10 back over my 4x5 back on my 810 Wehman.

I bet there is someone in TN probably not too far from you that shoots 4x5. Even if you have to drive for a couple hours it would be worth it.

 

[ColColt]

Back when I was doing weddings/portraits/family reunions, etc I used the Pentax. I've had several 16x20's made from the 165 f2.8 LS lens that looked as good as a 4x6 35mm print and that was with VPS 400 film. These scans don't do them justice, unfortunately.

Francis and Kami004a by David Fincher, on Flickr
KathyB013b by David Fincher, on Flickr

I'm sure there is someone in TN but it's a long state and they could be anywhere from Johnson City to Union City. what I should have done, in retrospect, was gotten started back when I first considered it but, water over the bridge now. I would have been miles ahead of the game.

 

[Alan Gales]

Nice work! Yes, prints are always nicer than scans.

I started large format just a few years ago and I didn't know anyone at the time that shot it. I found Large Format Photography Forum and joined. I received a ton of help from reading old posts and asking members questions. I also bought the Steve Simmons book, "Using the View Camera". I own Ansel's books but Steve's book was simpler and easier for me to understand. You can pick up a copy from Amazon if you wish.

I guess a couple years after I joined LFPF I joined APUG. APUG is great but if you shoot large format you should also join Large 'Format Photography Forum. It's free.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php

 

[ColColt]

They did turn out rather nice. Yes, this sounds like a plan. I'll order the book. I learn quickly from reading, always have. When I got my first 35 camera I didn't even know what an f-stop was. Between reading a lot and experimenting I made good progress. Good ol' K64 was a great teacher.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I've always considered two formats to be ideal for any 8x10 or 11x14 enlargements without much cropping, the 6x7 and 4x5. I think the 6x7 I had probably approaches 4x5 quality, depending on film.

...

That's correct. There is not a lot to be gained using 4x5 over 6x7 in making enlargements (especially if you don't ever print large!) but a lot lost if it becomes your only format when everything has to be slowed down. Apart from 4x5 being inherently slow, methodical, paced and tedious by intent (many people like this and embrace it, but could you... can others?), it is not necessarily, not always, the best format for everybody to move up to, and I've known people to become frustrated and angry and move back to medium format (or even, shock-horror, digital). Your perception that viewing an image upside down and back to front could be challenging is partly right, at least in the early stages of of experience with 4x5. But what about focusing in poor light? Or adjusting movements under threat of a drenching storm? Even a Tachihara and 90/4.5 SA won't get you over the line with ease in the dark, sublime beauty and constant dripping of a rainforest (OK, so you don't have them up there in Tennessee! ). It's easy to make mistakes with loaded/unloaded film holders, accidental exposures etc., but much harder to stuff things up with a 6x7 or some other format you are long-experienced with. I have yet to be fully convinced of the usefulness or idealism of 4x5, even as I am printing up to more than a half-metre tall from 6x7 transparencies. I do not buy this sport of producing incy-wincy prints in the darkroom from romantically idealised equipment costing thousands and never printing anything biggger than A5 of A4 which seems so very common in exhibitions. I handled the 45CF recently and thought it was a novel piece of engineering. But then along came an Ebony SV45TI. Now that is a sight to behold (moreso it's cost...). Choices, choices, choices. If you can find somebody around you using 4x5, that would be a golden opportunity to get a hands-on learning stint with that is essentially a camera far removed from medium format. The video you posted is a great reference!

 

[Alan Gales]

Ken Lee is a moderator over at LFPF. He is also a wonderful photographer, real nice fellow and has a fantastic web site. Check this out: http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php

I started with a Canon AV-1 and Kodacolor print film in 1982. I soon sold the Canon and bought a Contax 139 and changed to Kodachrome 25 and 64 and printing 8x10 Cibachrome prints in my parent's basement. I had no idea what an F stop was either before my first camera. It's a good thing I love to read!

 

[ColColt]

I did my fair share of Cibachromes-beautiful prints if done correctly but expensive if you didn't get the exposure or colors right. I had the 8x10 and 4x5 "roll" tanks for developing and I believe the 11x14 as well. I ran across the former two just a few weeks ago looking for something else. I mostly made the Cibas using Ektachrome 50 in the 6x7 when the World's Fair was here.

Poisson-You may be right about some of that but the view camera is another toy and I like toys! I'm retired and have noting to spend my money on other than my dog and lots of time to do whatever I want. Indeed, it may not be for me. That's the gamble we all take when we venture into parts unknown. I'll admit I'd probably never print anything over 11x14 as 16x20's and greater take up a lot of wall space that I don't have anymore. But-what an 11x14 would look like from a 4x5 negative would be super to look at.