4x5 field camera

.. what to buy (used)? Horseman, Toyo, Wista, other? Lens range that needs accommodation would be 72mm XL (maybe down to 58mm), 180mm (maybe up to 210mm). Intended use would be landscape, architectural and found objects. Clearly with a 72mm XL quite a bit of movement is possible. Maybe I need to consider bag bellows, sunken panel or drop bed. What do you people think best suits my needs? Thanks for your advice?

Architectural photography is best done with a monorail camera. It is not impossible with a field camera, but there are limitations that disappear with a monorail. A monorail like the Toyo D45M with a short rail can be surprisingly compact and can be carried in a large backpack.

If you must have a field camera:

The 72mm XL lens has a rear diameter of 75mm. Horseman field cameras use 80mm square lens boards, and the throat in the camera body is ~65mm. Using this lens with a Horseman would be impossible.

The Toyo can be used, but without a wide angle bellows, movements with a 72mm or 58mm lens will be difficult.

Your best bet among these three cameras is a Wista SP or VX. Both camera can be used with two kinds of wide angle bellows. Wista also makes a special lens board that allows far easier control of shutter operations. It must be used with the Type II bellows.

I have a Wista VX and Type II wide angle bellows listed here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ield-camera-wide-angle-bellows-type-ii.213442

Kumar

there are several "field monorais." I'd look at the Linhof Technikardan, or the Toyo VX125. I can't vouch for the Toyo, but I've heard a lot of positive things about it. The TK45 or TK45S are great cameras, and highly flexible.

I would consider a field camera with a back that slides toward the lens, to better accommodate the 72mm. That is one of the main reasons I purchased a Canham, all those years ago.

Things get real tricky when you start mixing folding field 4X5 cameras with wide angle lenses. If you stay in the 90mm wide angle range you're usually just fine. For mine I have the 90mm Schneider Angulon and Super Angulon along with a 100mm Wide-Field Ektar. When you start going wider you're talking "bag bellows", recessed boards, shutter release extensions and cameras with sliding or moveable backs like Andy has with his Canham. I can get by just fine with my 100mm Wide-Field Ektar or 90mm Schneider Angulon. Would it be nice to go wider? Yup, but the hassle for me ain't worth it. Of course if I had a lovely 72mm XL lens laying around I might just feel a little different about this.

Hmm. Landscape, architecture, found objects.

With all due respect to more accomplished LF photographers, OP, what you really need for the subjects you have in mind is front rise and, ideally, rear fall. These movements are used to move the horizon up and down, usually to lower it to eliminate empty foreground. They'e also used avoid tilting the camera to include the tops of, e.g., buildings. Tilting the camera makes vertical lines converge.

And you want to use wide angle lenses, perhaps as wide as 58 mm.

As has already been pointed out, a monorail will do everything you think you want. Failing that, a field/technical camera that has a drop bed and that will allow easy focusing when the front standard is on the inner bed rails.

An inexpensive alternative that will get you started is the humble 4x5 Crown Graphic. Not ideal, but very friendly to short lenses. Minimum flange-to-film distance is 52.4 mm, the bed drops and inner and outer bed rails are linked, making for easy focusing with very short lenses. I don't know how much front rise 4x5ers have, my 2x3ers have 19 mm. No bag bellows, no recessed board (but, then, not needed).

Since you've been on APUG, sorry, Photrio, for nearly 20 years, you might be aware of "the list." If you're not, please ask.

And now for the insulting part. This forum is infested with experienced photographers who are eager to help. Few of us know everything; most of us recommend what we use and like, can't recommend what we're not acquainted with. We all have biases that we have trouble seeing beyond. "The list" has info on more cameras and lenses than most of us have used. Consult it.

Thinking of biases, I'm biased against using very wide angle lenses for landscape work. Shoot a broad vista with a w/a lens and you'll get a frame full of foreground, often uninteresting. Before shelling out for an expensive ultrawide, try a relatively inexpensive shorter w/a, e.g., a 90/8.

John Wiegerink said:

Things get real tricky when you start mixing folding field 4X5 cameras with wide angle lenses.

Click to expand...

Seems like it depends on the camera. I've been using a 65mm on my Toko 4x5 for years without any problem -- and without a recessed board. There are other field cameras that can do the same.

…thanks for all the replies. Considering options.

Andrew O'Neill said:

I would consider a field camera with a back that slides toward the lens, to better accommodate the 72mm. That is one of the main reasons I purchased a Canham, all those years ago.

Click to expand...

one of the reasons I prefer a monorail is it makes it easier to keep the bed out of frame when using ultra-wides. I'm not sure how the Canham wood cameras work but the metal cameras (DLC 4x5, MQC 5x7, JMC 8x10) are practically monorails. Like the Technikardan they are two parallel telescoping rails--one for the rear standard and one for the front standard. I have the JMC, and am tempted to get a MQC. I really like the design on them.

abruzzi said:

one of the reasons I prefer a monorail is it makes it easier to keep the bed out of frame when using ultra-wides.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of field cameras where the rear standard can be moved forward to prevent this problem -- no need to drop the bed.

abruzzi said:

one of the reasons I prefer a monorail is it makes it easier to keep the bed out of frame when using ultra-wides. I'm not sure how the Canham wood cameras work but the metal cameras (DLC 4x5, MQC 5x7, JMC 8x10) are practically monorails. Like the Technikardan they are two parallel telescoping rails--one for the rear standard and one for the front standard. I have the JMC, and am tempted to get a MQC. I really like the design on them.

Click to expand...

The wooden versions allow for the back to slide right up to the front. I've shot with a Schneider 110XL on the 8x10, easily with it, and 75mm Nikkor when I stick the 4x5 reducing back on.

abruzzi said:

one of the reasons I prefer a monorail is it makes it easier to keep the bed out of frame when using ultra-wides. I'm not sure how the Canham wood cameras work but the metal cameras (DLC 4x5, MQC 5x7, JMC 8x10) are practically monorails. Like the Technikardan they are two parallel telescoping rails--one for the rear standard and one for the front standard. I have the JMC, and am tempted to get a MQC. I really like the design on them.

Click to expand...

The MQC is indeed a great camera, and it pairs nicely with the Canham 6x17 rollfilm back.

I was referring to FOLDING field cameras, but it's true for others as well. I guess it depends on your definition of "Field" camera -- which is open to interpretation.

The most bang for the buck in terms of abundant components and predictable standardization would be the Sinar monorail system, which can be configured all kinds of ways, including for very wide angle applications using a bag bellows. The Sinar F2 would be an excellent portable choice.

If someone tells you these aren't "field" cameras, but studio only, despite the "F" stipulation, well, I've backpacked with these at least 15,000 miles of rugged terrain.

xkaes said:

I was referring to FOLDING field cameras, but it's true for others as well. I guess it depends on your definition of "Field" camera -- which is open to interpretation.

Click to expand...

The Canham cameras (both wood and metal) are indeed folding field cameras. Here is the metal 5x7 MQC mounted on the tripod before unfolding...

For most, FIELD mean FOLDING, for others it means "light enough to take into the field".

That's what the Toyo View VX125 (and others) tried to be -- a Lightweight MONORAIL camera that you could take into the field -- for $6,000.

You be the judge. I'm not going to lug that puppy (SIX POUNDS!!!) up a 14-er!!!

P.S. That looks like a Gitzo Reporter Performance!!! Great choice for "FIELD" work, however that is defined.

I carry my Cambo SC 4x5 monorail in the field. Camera is modular, so easy to disassemble and put in a large backpack. Reassembly takes a bit of time, but then, I only reassemble when I see something I really want to shoot. Camera works wonders for landscape and architecture. Has plenty of movements, but, in the field, you actually don't use that many, with front rise being employed most often.

The camera itself is really not much heavier than the Linhof Technika I used to have. It's the lenses that are heavy, and they'd be heavy no matter what camera I carried.

xkaes - One could probably find a really nice used Sinar F2 or Norma for $600, and it would be more functionally versatile than a Toyo. As for weight issues in the mountains, order an XXX-oversized bag bellows and fill it with helium.

I'm glad I bought my little 3-1/2 lb Ebony folder back when they were relatively affordable. Not as fast to operate as a Sinar monorail, but a great option to have around now that I'm well into my 70's. It's seen quite a bit of action both in the high Sierra and Wind River Range.

Drew,

My lightweight TOKO doesn't need a bag bellows, but if it did, I'd fill it with nitrous oxide.