Camera for Macro-ish/still life work.

[Paul Kierstead]

I've been doing most of my still life-style work with a view camera, but sometimes it would be nice to fire a few more shots for a bit less money and processing/scanning effort. So, I turn to MF. I'm cheap, and this camera is for a limited use. So, functionally, I figure:

1. 6x6/7/8/9
2. moderate length lens. Dunno, somewhere between 90mm and 200?
3. Close focusing (see (5))
4. No parallax error, due to close working distances
5. Decent lens performance at ratios from about 1:2 to 1:8 or so
6. Mirror lockup, if applicable, would seem to be good, though I will use strobes a fair bit of the time.

Seems to me rangefinders and tlr's are out, leaving SLRs. As usually, I'm looking to minimize cost. I'm guessing something like a Pentax 67 (or 6x7?) with some specific lens would be good, though don't know which ones.

Any guidance would be appreciated!

 

[picker77]

RB67. I haven't measured it yet, but my 90mm will focus down to around 8" or so, because of the bellows--it's a wonderful, idiot-proof (important for my photography), low cost but very high quality all-mechanical camera built to last a hundred years. It's heavy, but for the kind of work you're talking about that's not a major consideration.

 

[fotch]

Rollie SL66. Best there is.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I recommend the RB67 also.

Jeff

 

[Paul Kierstead]

Looked up the rb67 manual; it says close focusing is 7 7/8" with the 90mm, for a magnificaiton of 0.51. Can be had quite inexpensively as well. Sounds pretty close to ideal!

Many thanks for the excellent suggestion, I wouldn't have thought of it with its special close focusing ability.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Try a roll-film back for your present camera.

 

[keithwms]

Indeed the RBs are superb for this. Hard to beat bellows focusing for macro, and this is an application for which the overall stability of the body really helps.

If you want really high mag with the rb, you may wish to look at the 65mm KL lens. Also, the extension tubes for the rb are quite inexpensive. Also, since the RB lenses are leaf shuttered, you can synch at quite high speeds for your strobes... which may or may not prove useful in your case.

One other trick: it is possible to use the (inexpensive, fast) rz 110/2.8 on the rb for closeup and macro. You won't be able to use the electronic shutter, but for high mag macro with long exposures it's not an issue. Here is what you do to use the rz 110/2.8: you remove two little pins on the lens, it'll be obvious which ones. That f/2.8 aperture is a real blessing when you get to very high magnification. N.b. you won't be able use the rz lens for infinity focus on the rb; it's fine for closeups and macro, but the flange-to-film distance is too long for infinity focus.

 

[Joachim_I]

If you want really high mag

I would not call 1:2-1:8 really high magnification Paul, if you are still thinking of the Pentax 67, there are three lenses you might want to consider:
1) The 2.8/75mm reaches 1:2.8 without accessories.
2) The 4.0/100mm reaches 1:2 without accessories.
3) The 4.0/135mm reaches 1:3.3 without accessories
The 100mm and 135mm lenses are corrected for close-up photography. There is a dedicated close-up lens available for the 100mm lens which allows you to reach 1.1:1. But this is already more than you want. To reach higher magnifications with the 135mm lens you would need to add extension tubes. I would not combine the 75mm lens with diopters or extension tubes because it is a wide angle. Personally, I only have experience with the 75mm lens. It delivers outstanding quality throughout the range, including the minimum focus distance where I use it very often. The 135mm lens is readily available second hand and very cheap. The 75mm and 100mm lenses are two of the latest additions to the Pentax 67 lens line-up. For this reason, they are difficult to locate second hand and achieve much higher prices than the 135mm lens.

 

[BobD]

The Pentax 67 can be used without needing a dedicated macro lens by simply
using an extension tube or reverse adapter.

 

[Joachim_I]

Why would you use a reverse adapter for 1:2-1:8?

 

[Q.G.]

For limited use, just a few more shots, and cheap, do what Nicholas suggests and get a rollfilm back for your view camera.
Macro/still life is slow anyway. And the movements a view camera offer are extra welcome for this type of work.

 

[keithwms]

Yes, bellows focusing is a tremendous asset in macro, and so are tilts.

Lately I have been doing quite a lot of macro on one of my 5x7 cameras, that is nice. But one problem with LF macro is that the lenses are quite slow, typically f/5.6 or slower. When you go well past 1:1, things get *really* dark, even with a fresnel. But on the other hand... you don't have to use LF lenses for macro, you'll get a big image circle out of many smaller format lenses if you simply have the bellow extension. So you can use MF or even 35mm lenses quite effectively. I have been using the rz 110/2.8 on 5x7 quite a lot recently; it is simple to mount an rb/rz lens on a lens board, especially if you don't mind hand shuttering.

 

[CBG]

A rollfilm back for your camera would be least expensive, and make shooting easiest.

 

[Paul Kierstead]

Actually, I have 2 roll film backs, I kind of forget about them. Sheesh. But ... one is a calumet, and I am not fond of the funky path, particularly if I leave the film in there. The other is a Linhof, but it has some issues with wear (and doesn't work that well anymore); my experiences with Linhof would tend to lead me to believe that getting a used RB would be cheaper then repairing the linhof back. Also, once I get out the cam, I usually just say screw it, might as well shoot sheets.

OTOH, you all do give me a good reminder. I'll use the calumet for a few rolls and see how it works out. And the linhof is kinda usable.

Meanwhile, I'll keep my eyes peeled....

Many many thanks for the good suggestions.

 

[keithwms]

IIRC you can use the rb 6x8 back on some 4x5 cameras....

 

[CBG]

My Toyo 6x9 roll film back works well.

 

[Paul Kierstead]

Well, just shot a couple of rolls with the Calumet roll adapter. It is a bit finicky; it will go past a stop if your not careful. Only got 4 shots out of the first roll The second roll, I was more careful on winding, got 10 shots, sort of....didn't have the darkslide in while loading, doh. Y'd think I'd know... anyway, it worked very well, outside that first shot. My template is slightly off, but that is easy to fix; I'll use the roll film adapter for a while. Still, the Rb67 intrigues me.

 

[timk]

rb67 for sure, the 65mm lens will focus to pretty close to 1:1 without any adaptors/extension tubes, great system for macro / still life work.

 

[Paul Kierstead]

Well, fooled around yesterday. Still working on my flower stylings, but this pic I took then was still closer then a lot of cams like to get, especially my RF GW690 (which I love otherwise...). Nikkor 120mm/5.6 lens, Calumet 6x7 rollfilm back, TX320

Again, many thanks to those who took time to reply.

 

[keithwms]

Do avail yourself of a nikkor 4T closeup adapter for use with that 120. Trust me on this. Normally I would not suggets a diopter but... it is very well suited for LF and the 120 in particular.

And... nice shot!

 

[Bosaiya]

I have a GX680 I modified for doing macro work, it certainly does the job.