Ideal Beginner Large Format Field Camera

[seitil]

Here's the thread which picks apart the idea of resolution. I start sharing results near post 450, near the end...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I will check this out, many thanks!

 

[removed account4]

The Graflex cameras are the cheapest option if you want handheld, another advantage (if it works and is in good condition) is the focal plane shutter, which allows you to use cheaper barrel lenses. For portraits the field cameras design is not the best though as the bellow draw is often quiet limited. The Graflex Reflex cameras are handholdable usually come with a lens of older design (you can change it do a more modern lens) and looking at the work of Dorothea Lange and Margaret Bourke White five superb results. With all older cameras with fp shutter you have to check out the camera personally the shutter can dry out, pinholes etc... The cheapest modern lens option seems to be the Symmar in the 210mm focal length as this was the main lens of most studio photographers and the market is flooded with them. Another superb and cheap option is the Kodak 7.7/203mm Ektar.

Regarding resolution LF lenses usually have less resolution than MF or 35mm lenses, it really is the tonality where LF outshines all other formats even the Mamiya 7

i totally agree with MDR

you might look into a graflex d series, maybe a super D or a tele ( took longer lenses had a bigger bellows extension )
it might have been the best portrait camera ever made! if i get rid of all my 4x5 cameras ( i have a handful of press and monorail cameras )
i would keep the series d i have. you never have to focus on ground glass and then hope the subject or camera moved you look down with the film
already loaded and never miss a beat. i have a 21cm 3.8 tessar on mine, beautiful portrait lens, sharp as nails stopped down open up creamy smooth "boo-ka"
i also use a old brass barrel on it ( and other things ) ... works on a tripod with ease, hand held with ease and if you have "graphic 23 / 22" roll film backs
you might be able to just tape them on the back and use roll film ( series d that is, super D has a graflock back i think? no idea about the tele ). yeah,
i was told not to, was told i'd never forgive myself, the focus would be off would be a nightmare and a utter waste of time .. but i have been doing it
for maybe 13 years without issue ( mainly with a graphic 23, and a polaroid 545i ) ... unfortunately the camera doesn't have swing or tilt but who knows if you are handy you might be able to modify
the lens mount to do what you want or have a lens board mount adapter that offers swing and tilt custom made ( guessing, not sure who knows )
if you need to use them with flash, you might be able to ask a repair person to mount a flash syc, mine originally had one but it was removed by the guy who sold it to me .. ( and probably put on something else )

i've handheld speed /crown graphics, used the range finders and not worried too, but i've also had to focus, close lens put film in, pray, expose too, the SLR is much easier and IMHO a better choice ...

YMMV

good luck !
john

 

[flavio81]

The resolving power of which you speak will quickly become moot when you are shooting 100 ISO film with an LF lens that has a maximum aperture of, say, f5.6.
You'll have your share of good shots ruined by camera shake because your shutter speed was too slow.
Using MF for handheld makes more sense: faster films and faster lenses.

This is true; if you want to really take advantage of the superior resolution of large format, you should use a tripod.
You can do it handheld, but I'd guess if you use electronic flash which freezes things at about 1/1000 or faster.

 

[flavio81]

Fact, film square inch for square inch LF resolves less detail than smaller formats due to lens design and optimal lens aperture for the LF focal lengths.

This is not a fact. There are practical tests on the 'net that show that LF resolves more, considering top quality lenses for LF and smaller formats. The lenses might be lower in "lines-per-mm" resolution, but this is more than compensated for by the increase in film area.

For example: 8x10", 4x5" and 6x7 with Provia and D100 compared. And other formats.
No contest, 4x5" wins. And 8x10" is even, even better:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

The f/stop are chosen so the DOF is equivalent across formats. f8 in 6x7, f13.3 in 4x5", f27.2 in 8x10"
The 6x7 camera chosen was the 6x7 camera with the sharpest, highest-resolving lenses available: The Mamiya 7, which on other practical tests stands above head and shoulders to other MF systems. Yet the 4x5" surpassed it clearly.

So basically, a resounding "no" to the belief that "lens design and optimal lens aperture" makes "LF resolve less detail than smaller format".

 

[RobC]

This is not a fact. There are practical tests on the 'net that show that LF resolves more, considering top quality lenses for LF and smaller formats. The lenses might be lower in "lines-per-mm" resolution, but this is more than compensated for by the increase in film area.

For example: 8x10", 4x5" and 6x7 with Provia and D100 compared. And other formats.
No contest, 4x5" wins. And 8x10" is even, even better:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

The f/stop are chosen so the DOF is equivalent across formats. f8 in 6x7, f13.3 in 4x5", f27.2 in 8x10"
The 6x7 camera chosen was the 6x7 camera with the sharpest, highest-resolving lenses available: The Mamiya 7, which on other practical tests stands above head and shoulders to other MF systems. Yet the 4x5" surpassed it clearly.

So basically, a resounding "no" to the belief that "lens design and optimal lens aperture" makes "LF resolve less detail than smaller format".

go back and re-read what I said and keep re-reading it until you undertand it.

 

[Nodda Duma]

You're both right: Flavio likes to keep the DOF the same and thus he is correct. RobC comes from the position of keeping the f/# the same, and in that case he is correct.

Good job both of ya, fellas. Let's not go down that painful path in this poor guy's thread

 

[Paul Howell]

Fact, film square inch for square inch LF resolves less detail than smaller formats due to lens design and optimal lens aperture for the LF focal lengths.

Additional print resolution is achieved solely due to lower film to print enlargement and as has been discussed here ad infinitum, even 35mm film if handled optimally can produce stunning 20x16 prints. Its only when you start to go bigger than that that 4x5 and bigger comes into its own.

Bigger formats, for most people, just cover their lack of skill and equipment in the smaller formats for normal size prints. i.e. upto 20x16. That's just my opinion and people will argue about it but I rekon its a fact.

In agree in the most part, high quality 35mm and MF lens will out resolve large format, inch for square inch. It is inch by inch, a 4X5 negative has many more inches than 35mm or MF. The other controlling factor is the film, on the high end Tmax 100 resolves 200 lines per mm in D 76, Tmax 400 125 lines per mm. So no matter how good a lens could be, it is only as good, in terms of detail, as film you are shooting with. On the other hand a view camera does offer perspective control, shooting a sheet a time allows for individualized development of each shot, useful for ZS or BTZS advocates, and for some of us who do not use PS or Paint I can retouch a 4X5 negative without much trouble, 35mm even 6X6, well my eyes are not good.

My skills are better than most, I have a minor in Photojournalism, was an AF combat photographer and worked for the wires, and I shoot with good glass, in past Nikon and Leica, currently in 35mm Konica, Pentax, Miranda, in MF and LF Mamiya, Kowa, Yashicha, Zeiss, Kodak Commercial. I think at 11X15 I can see the difference between a 35mm and a 4X5, not so much between a 6x9 and a 4X5.

In my way of thinking there is more to LF photography than just resolution and grain size.

 

[nosmok]

+1 with jnanian above about the Graflex SLR's. Some of my best shots were made with the smaller one. The lenses were great.

I have recently found for myself an inexpensive but time consuming (for somebody, it doesn't have to be you) and eccentric entry into near LF: old cameras using 616 or 116 film. My Kodak Special Six-16 is (after a bunch of dialing-in that I keep meaning to post about, peculiar to this machine alone) is genuinely pocketable in a big pocket, has a great Kodak Anastigmat special lens, and takes 4-1/4" by 2-1/2" negatives, so it's basically "half frame large format", the Olympus Pen F to your 4x5 field camera's Nikon F. Plus, you can reroll 70mm film into the 616 backing paper and keep shooting. It is truly hand-holdable. You don't get the movements, but that neg size packs a lot of horsepower. As far as all the dialing in, replacing the bellows should be most of what one would have to do on a typical one of these.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I really don't want to bring this topic here, but once i can find a good used drum scanner that can scan up to 8x10 then i will forget about MF too, until now nothing of my gear/equipment beats my digital MF [60mp] not even my large format, i use just that flatbed scanner that can scan up to 8x10, even it gives good results, but quality is still with my digital MF, in fact this digital MF was the reason for me to try film MF and LF, and that was with 39mp digital MF, now i have 60mp and nothing better i see that this except from 80mp or LF drum scanned or some panoramic gigapix only, but for single shot, without drum scanning or at least film dedicated scanner i didn't see better quality than digital MF [i said better not higher].

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is true; if you want to really take advantage of the superior resolution of large format, you should use a tripod.
You can do it handheld, but I'd guess if you use electronic flash which freezes things at about 1/1000 or faster.

Not true. The Pacemaker Speed Graphic is held against the head and by two hands, combined with its weight it can be handheld at slow speeds. All those press photographers in the first half of the twentieth century would tell you that you are too full of yourself. Take a break.

Furthermore the 4"x5" Graflex Model D and the 5"x7" Graflex view finder is against the forehead and the hands make a very steady platform that can also be used a slow speeds hand held. The mirrors are well damped. Your really should use these cameras before you post about them.

 

[flavio81]

You're both right: Flavio likes to keep the DOF the same and thus he is correct. RobC comes from the position of keeping the f/# the same, and in that case he is correct.

You're such a conciliator

 

[flavio81]

I really don't want to bring this topic here, but once i can find a good used drum scanner that can scan up to 8x10 then i will forget about MF too, until now nothing of my gear/equipment beats my digital MF [60mp] not even my large format, i use just that flatbed scanner that can scan up to 8x10, even it gives good results, but quality is still with my digital MF, in fact this digital MF was the reason for me to try film MF and LF, and that was with 39mp digital MF, now i have 60mp and nothing better i see that this except from 80mp or LF drum scanned or some panoramic gigapix only, but for single shot, without drum scanning or at least film dedicated scanner i didn't see better quality than digital MF [i said better not higher].

You are correct, since the typical flatbed film scanner (i.e. Epson V750) hardly resolves more than 2400 dpi. And these are "dirty" 2400dpi, with some chromatic aberrations thrown in!

For "proper" film scanning you need at least 4000dpi. Maybe more!

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are correct, since the typical flatbed film scanner (i.e. Epson V750) hardly resolves more than 2400 dpi. And these are "dirty" 2400dpi, with some chromatic aberrations thrown in!

For "proper" film scanning you need at least 4000dpi. Maybe more!

To make things worse after it comes off the scanner, even if it is 16 bits/color Gimp reduces it to 8 bits/color on savings. Might as well shoot a Holga and be done with it.

 

[Doc W]

Why the big beef about resolution? I went to 4x5 mainly because I wanted to be able to develop each negative differently. The second reason was movements. I didn't even think of resolution. The OP wants to try 4x5 so let's stay on topic.

 

[GKC]

So I am looking to pull the trigger and get into large format photography! I have been researching for a few months in regards to different bodies and lenses (as well as studying the specifics of movements) but I want to see what people with experience in the field would recommend for a beginner on a budget.

Here are some of my credentials or ideal features

1. Field camera that is hand-holdable in a pinch (ideally only ever going to use a tripod however)
2. Inexpensive but sharp lens for full length portraits (maybe 50-60mm in 35mm)
3. No specific requirements for movements but perhaps some tilt and swing available
4. $500-600 USD for my budget (willing to go a little higher if there is a big increase in quality)

What do you all use and recommend? I appreciate your input!

Ideal? Ideal?
Since you asked....
1. Light tight---no leaks
2. Movements lock down good and tight
3. A working shutter is nice.
4. A lens that won't tax your front standards nor max out your bellows extension.
5. A camera that you like the looks of, so you'll want to take it out and actually use it.

 

[Simon Howers]

Hand held 4x5

So I am looking to pull the trigger and get into large format photography! I have been researching for a few months in regards to different bodies and lenses (as well as studying the specifics of movements) but I want to see what people with experience in the field would recommend for a beginner on a budget.

Here are some of my credentials or ideal features

1. Field camera that is hand-holdable in a pinch (ideally only ever going to use a tripod however)
2. Inexpensive but sharp lens for full length portraits (maybe 50-60mm in 35mm)
3. No specific requirements for movements but perhaps some tilt and swing available
4. $500-600 USD for my budget (willing to go a little higher if there is a big increase in quality)

What do you all use and recommend? I appreciate your input!

I use a Chamonix Saber , a couple of Graflex magazines and an Horseman 6x12 rollfilm back. Whole setup is easy to hand hold. I tour on a motorcycle and can carry the camera, film backs and change bag etc. in a small photo rucksack. The Chamonix is quite uncommon but is a copy of the Polaroid 4x5 which is a bit more available.

 

[flavio81]

Why the big beef about resolution? I went to 4x5 mainly because I wanted to be able to develop each negative differently. The second reason was movements. I didn't even think of resolution. The OP wants to try 4x5 so let's stay on topic.

These are good advantages as well.

I use a Chamonix Saber , a couple of Graflex magazines and an Horseman 6x12 rollfilm back. Whole setup is easy to hand hold. I tour on a motorcycle and can carry the camera...

... i thought you were going to say you were able to use the 4x5 camera while driving the motorcycle!!

 

[RobC]

If you're going to get a field camera you will most likely end up wanting a Linhof Technika. So just bite the bullet and pay the extra to get one in the first place and save yourself going through the tortuous process of changing cameras (and maybe lens panels) up to a Linhof.
Or at least buy a camera which takes linhof lens panels so that if you do want to change cameras it is easier to do.

It is often said that first LF camera you buy is always the wrong one since you really have no idea what you're getting into and which lenses you really wanted but didn't know.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you're going to get a field camera you will most likely end up wanting a Linhof Technikardan. So just bite the bullet and pay the extra to get one in the first place and save yourself going through the tortuous process of changing cameras (and maybe lens panels) up to a Linhof.
Or at least buy a camera which takes linhof lens panels so that if you do want to change cameras it is easier to do.

It is often said that first LF camera you buy is always the wrong one since you really have no idea what you're getting into and which lenses you really wanted but didn't know.

I agree: Linhof is an excellent recommendation. I also think a press camera like Crown Graphic with Kodak Ektar would be a good lower-price choice.

But do not follow in my footsteps. I chose a very cheap $60 Newton NewVue for my first foray. That camera disappointed me and made me swear off Large Format for many years. Had I only chosen a better first camera, my experience might have been more positive and I might have more 4x5 negatives to print (because I like printing 4x5 negatives).

 

[RobC]

Ooooops, I meant to say Technika and NOT Technikardan...

 

[seitil]

Thank you Rob and Bill for that sage advice! I would also like to give a shout out to Ian C who has given me some great information as well regarding how to get the best output from the system as well as some considerations regarding diffraction and aperture selection.

I am going to do some further research and save up a bit more I believe before I make the plunge. I think its worth having a system that will be able to grow with me and one that I can rely on for years to come!

 

[Alan Gales]

But do not follow in my footsteps. I chose a very cheap $60 Newton NewVue for my first foray. That camera disappointed me and made me swear off Large Format for many years. Had I only chosen a better first camera, my experience might have been more positive and I might have more 4x5 negatives to print (because I like printing 4x5 negatives).

If there were a ten worst large format list I think NewtonVue might take the #1 worst spot. Everyone that had one absolutely hated it from what I have read. It's like the Yugo of large format cameras.

Oh, and Bill, don't feel bad. We have all made equipment purchasing mistakes. You ought to have seen my first tripod. On second thought it's good that you didn't see my first tripod.

 

[Paul Howell]

If there were a ten worst large format list I think NewtonVue might take the #1 worst spot. Everyone that had one absolutely hated it from what I have read. It's like the Yugo of large format cameras.

Oh, and Bill, don't feel bad. We have all made equipment purchasing mistakes. You ought to have seen my first tripod. On second thought it's good that you didn't see my first tripod.

I have a Brand which is similar to the Newton or New View, functional and just rather odd. I have seen a few Brands with fitted rangefinders. Double rail design, light weight all alumumimun (sp) from I understand made from salvaged aircraft after the war. It does not fold up like a Crown or Speed, but has full movements with a rotating back. I found mine at a swap meet for about $20.00 in the 80s, I sometimes shoot with it when I need more movement. When I still working overseas my wife did buy a Yugo, having experience with both I give a nod to the Brand.

 

[RobC]

Reminds me of the old jokes about Lada cars...

Why do Lada's have heated rear windows?

 

[mwdake]

Why do Lada's have heated rear windows?

To keep your hands warm when you are pushing them.