- Joined
- Jun 2, 2015
- Messages
- 17
- Format
- Medium Format
I will check this out, many thanks!
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)
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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!
Ideal? Ideal?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!
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
Why do Lada's have heated rear windows?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?