Ideal Beginner Large Format Field Camera

[seitil]

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!

 

[Doc W]

If you want to hand-hold "in a pinch," then a press camera is the way to go. I started with a Pacemaker Crown Graphic. They are very light, portable and durable, but there are very few movements and only on the front. It has a bit of rise, swing and backward tilt, but you can very easily rearrange the front standard to give you much more useful forward tilt. It also has a drop bed feature, but I never used it myself.

They often come with a basic press lens which will not have a lot of coverage. Mine came with a Wollensak which I changed for a Commercial Ektar that I still use on my Wisner.

This will allow you to get started rather inexpensively. It will also help you understand why rear movements are important and will eventually lead you to a full field camera.

 

[Alan Gales]

Why spend the money on 4x5 film to shoot hand held? In my opinion you would be better off buying a Fuji rangefinder (Texas Leica) and shoot 120 medium format roll film.

You can find a nice used Shen Hao 4x5 field camera for 6 or 700 dolllars. As Doc W says an Ektar or Commercial Ektar make excellent portrait lenses. Yousuf Karsh used a 14" Commercial Ektar on his 8x10. Of course if you like a more modern look you could pick up a 210mm f/5.6 lens from any of the major manufacturers (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji, or Caltar).

A 210mm would be like a 65mm on a 35mm camera. They are plentiful and cheap and popular for full length portraiture. Of course you could go with a 180 or 150mm or even a 135mm like comes on a Crown or Speed Graphic.

I use a 14" Commercial Ektar on my 8x10 which is a normal focal length on my camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you want to hand-hold "in a pinch," then a press camera is the way to go. I started with a Pacemaker Crown Graphic. They are very light, portable and durable, but there are very few movements and only on the front. It has a bit of rise, swing and backward tilt, but you can very easily rearrange the front standard to give you much more useful forward tilt. It also has a drop bed feature, but I never used it myself.

They often come with a basic press lens which will not have a lot of coverage. Mine came with a Wollensak which I changed for a Commercial Ektar that I still use on my Wisner.

This will allow you to get started rather inexpensively. It will also help you understand why rear movements are important and will eventually lead you to a full field camera.

A Pacemaker Speed or Crown Graphic will provide a field camera with some movements and yet you can use it handheld. Any lens you buy for it will work on any other 4"x5" camera that you buy later. Also if you decide to move to a field camera later, you can sell the Graphic for about what you paid for it.

Check out www.graflex.org and its forum.

 

[seitil]

Thanks for the great suggestions gentlemen! I have very closely considered the Fuji 6x9 "Texas Leica" and may pick one of those up since they are a real good price for the performance and much easier to handle in general with 120 film. The lack of complexity is quite nice but of course the resolving power wouldn't be as high as a 4x5.

I have also definitely considered the Crown Graphic but would either of you know if I could put a longer lens on those (something like the 210mm?). I am still learning about coverage power as well as bellows extension and was unsure about the math involved to ensure proper coverage for a longer lens on a system with a limited bellows length. Also any considerations on what specific model might be best. I know there are some variations but I just don't want to get caught with an inferior one if there is a better model available for a similar price point.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have and use a 210mm lens on my Pacemaker Speed Graphic both handheld and tripod mounted.

 

[DannL.]

Something to consider . . . how do you want to focus when using your camera handheld? With a typical field camera you might set up on a tripod, and then you could use the focusing screen. But handheld raises other questions. Do you want a camera with a built-in rangefinder that is cammed specifically for the lens that is installed? Do you want to use zone focusing by guessing? Or do you want to use a handheld rangefinder and dial in the distance on the rail? etc.

I use a 5x7 handheld, and with a separate handheld rangefinder I can find the distance and then set the camera rail to the proper position. The distance gauge on the camera bed is specific to the lens I have installed. If I change the lens, I would have to design a new gauge. If you replace the lens on a press type camera that has a built-in rangefinder, you may find that you will need to have a different cam installed (if one exists). Or have a cam specifically made to work for your lens.

Focusing handheld is just something that should be considered when investing in a camera of this type.

I once had the Horseman HF 4x5 field camera and used it handheld, just like I use the 5x7 today. So, shooting handheld is a cinch if you have a good plan and have worked out all of the finer details.

 

[tomfrh]

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 have a Toyo 45A. I paid about $700 for the full kit including case and 150mm lens, which is equivalent to about a 45mm in 35mm format..

I figured it out fairly quickly. It does all those movements, though not as extreme a range as some cameras. I wouldn't bother using movements until you're proficient with the camera.

I wouldn't dream of using it handheld, although you could probably make it work if you had to.

Tom

 

[seitil]

Those are good considerations to think about DannL. I have always been fond of rangefinder focusing but I think rather than dealing with a rangefinder set up which would be more prone to issues I wouldn't be able to resolve on my own (adjustments) I may change my considerations and budget a bit and forego hand-holding now that I think about it. I will have to pick up a better tripod and a focusing loupe but I could always pick up a Fuji 6x9 for more "on-the-go" work.

I am excited to finally give large format a shot and I appreciate you guys taking the time to run over some specifics. This will definitely help!

 

[Paul Howell]

Thanks for the great suggestions gentlemen! I have very closely considered the Fuji 6x9 "Texas Leica" and may pick one of those up since they are a real good price for the performance and much easier to handle in general with 120 film. The lack of complexity is quite nice but of course the resolving power wouldn't be as high as a 4x5.

I have also definitely considered the Crown Graphic but would either of you know if I could put a longer lens on those (something like the 210mm?). I am still learning about coverage power as well as bellows extension and was unsure about the math involved to ensure proper coverage for a longer lens on a system with a limited bellows length. Also any considerations on what specific model might be best. I know there are some variations but I just don't want to get caught with an inferior one if there is a better model available for a similar price point.

I have a Mamyia Universal with a 6X9 back and a Crown, the Crown is lighter, it will take a 210, but the rangefinder is camed to either a 135 or 127, mine came with a Kodak 127 which I upgraded to Tessor 127 which did not affect the rangefinder. I use the shift quite often, tilt only on occasion. Others have used a different make of lens of the same focal length but the new lens did not marry to the cam for correct focusing. If you use a 210 you will need to find or make a cam to match the 210. I understand that the new models with the rangefinder on top allow for different cams for different lens but not the side rangefinders variants. Some also had Graflock backs allowing for roll backs as well a sheet film. I also have a Speed, it is heavier and I have not used the focal plan shutter in a very very long time. I don't think a speed or crown replaces a good field camera, but there are lots of time when hiking I carry a monopod or shoot hand held. When using a tripod I also carry a Kodak Commercial Ektar 152 and an old BL 210 and sue the ground glass for focusing.

 

[Ari]

Thanks for the great suggestions gentlemen! I have very closely considered the Fuji 6x9 "Texas Leica" and may pick one of those up since they are a real good price for the performance and much easier to handle in general with 120 film. The lack of complexity is quite nice but of course the resolving power wouldn't be as high as a 4x5.

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.
LF is a more contemplative approach, and to maximize the image quality, a good steady tripod, combined with proper technique, is essential.
A well-exposed, developed, and shot 6x7 negative can rival the IQ of a 4x5, when used correctly.

 

[RobC]

movements are overated AND introduce aberations thereby reducing resolving power. And all you are ever likely to use is a small amount of front tilt and very occasionaly some front rise and even less frequently some front fall. (major exception is when doing architectural work). And rise and fall require lenses with big enough image circle which means not the cheaper end of the market which often have little if any margin for rise and fall.

If you can put your camera up high so that you take out the near foreground tilt is really not necessary most of the time. And you won't be messing with tilt if you are handholding.

So, do you really need LF and a much bigger enlarger and bigger developing kit and bigger rucksack for all that bigger kit. LF requires a huge amount of serious commitment. Been there done that...

 

[Bill Burk]

...of course the resolving power wouldn't be as high as a 4x5..

If resolving power is what you want, a Hasselblad with fine lenses can give you all you might hope to achieve. I just carried out an exercise demonstrating that (although I claimed it could) a Minox negative is unable to give all the detail of an 8x10 inch negative. But the demonstration illustrated that 35mm negatives might give enough detail to satisfy. Ralph Lambrecht says the best jump in image quality he ever took was from 35mm to Medium Format. So the lesson from Ralph might be that Medium Format can give all the detail you would ever need.

So I would suggest you look for some other driving force to be your reason to shoot 4x5 or larger.

Perhaps it is the simplicity of the cameras, alternative processes that a larger negative allows, ability to do creative negative retouching, the look of a print from a large negative from a certain kind of film at a certain enlargement, the perspective controls that you can get using camera movements, developing each sheet independently.

You can be irrational too.

 

[Wayne]

I started with a Busch Pressman. I took the rangefinder off of it and somehow lost it in a move. Still pissed about that but I still have the camera though, and the first pics (Polaroid 55) I took with it 30 years ago. I used the Pressman for 4 years until I scraped the dough to buy my Wista 45SP.

 

[Dr Croubie]

It also depends on how you're going to print.
The biggest prints I can make are from 6x7 negs, because I've got a 6x7 enlarger. That'll give me 16x20" easily, probably 20x24" but I've never tried that big.
If I shoot 4x5", I'm limited to scanning and my 19" wide R3000. It's great for colour, especially velvia, ektar is a pain to scan but also good once I get it right (and a lot less painful than RA4). But B+W just doesn't scan and inkjet nearly half as good as it wet-prints.
And if I shoot my 8x10", then I get 8x10" contacts, because I don't have an enlarger nor scanner that big.

So, ironically, my best B+W 'detail' comes from a 6x7 back on my 4x5" camera, my best colour 'detail' comes from 4x5 and 617 chromes.
That said, I love my 4x5" and 8x10", I think more specifically because they're monorails and can't be handheld, the whole slow down and contemplate thing. I'm still hanging out for my travelwides so I can shoot 4x5" handheld, but they'll definitely be limited to hiking / snapshots, I'll use the monorail on a tripod for quality still.

ps, for a good quality/price portrait lens, try a 150/180/210mm Symmar-S, they're sharp and barely cost 3-figures.

 

[GKC]

Movements and hand holdable? Look at a Linhof Technica----more money but a big increase in quality. Or a Super Speed Graphic which is probably more within your budget, and also top quality. If you can work with less movements---Crown Graphic.
For a rmedium wide 4x5 lens, consider a 120 Angulon.

 

[MDR]

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

 

[TareqPhoto]

Welcome to LF world!!!

I started with medium format in 2010 and it is my first ever serious in film photography, and because of medium format i jumped to LF, but i didn't shoot LF much yet since that time long ago, but i only shoot LF with tripods, i do have Speed and Crown Graphic for handheld, but it is really sucks for me to handhold it and focus at the same time and i start to shake if i handhold longer than 1 minute without resting.

I do agree that i will prefer MF for handholding more than LF, aren't people saying that LF is slowing you down? so handholding means like you are in hurry and don't want to setup a tripod for example, you may handhold it, but how many times you are gonna do that and for how how long you will handhold it for every sheet?

 

[palewin]

You really are presenting two almost mutually exclusive requirements by combining hand-holdability with view camera movements. The only cameras that provide both are press cameras, which were really designed to provide a large negative hand-held, rather than to emulate a view camera. The only "true" hybrid is the Linhof Technika, which is a wonderful but quite (very?) expensive camera. But there certainly are a lot of photographers who swear by their "xxx-Graphic" models.

But the earlier post which really caught my eye was the one which downplayed the need for movements. It is correct, to the extent that probably 95% of the images in the world are taken with fixed-plane cameras, and if one wants to correct perspective distortion, Photoshop will do it for you. But if you actually carry a view camera and tripod around, movements are a large part of the justification. I end up using camera movements almost every time I use my view camera. The swings and tilts are small, since a few degrees of either go a long way, but they make a big difference in the final image.

In the end, I would suggest you think through your reasons for wanting a LF camera in a bit more detail, since every view camera is really a compromise, providing certain features at the expense of others.

 

[seitil]

You have all brought up great points and I appreciate your feedback. In the excitement of my first post I didn't consider some specific aspects of shooting LF. From your concerns I am definitely going to stick to a tripod for shooting and in this case I think I am going to try to find a Crown Graphic or wait for a good deal on a Wista/Shen Hao/Tachihara to pop up on the bay. This is more an experiment for me to slow down my shooting more and honestly the thrill of looking through a giant ground glass is a big part of why I really want to shoot it (along with the unique look and 3d pop that comes from the shallow depth of field at wide angles).

It is interesting to hear that from some of your experiences medium format closely rivals large format in resolving power. I understand that there are a few more variables to deal with in LF which can lead to more issues (camera shake, lower shutter speeds due to smaller apertures required, shallower depth of field at a given aperture) but an inherently larger negative should result in better resolving power given those variables are accounted for properly. I would love to hear more about why that might be and if any of you have any good examples or resources to show a comparison of large vs medium format resolving power. (I have already googled this a few times but wasn't sure if I was missing anything important)

 

[baachitraka]

You are worrying a little too much but that's okay to learn a bit or more.

I personally buy 200 or more sheets of FB paper and start print the negatives I have then I decide whether I need more detail or not.

 

[RobC]

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.

 

[seitil]

You are worrying a little too much but that's okay to learn a bit or more.

Haha perhaps you are right I am a big fan of Alec Soth's work and ever since I saw his work up close I have been fascinated with how the images seem to be hyper-realistic in how sharp they are, with details that seem to be endless as you look closer at them. I know he shoots mostly medium format digital now but the work I saw was from his 4x5 and 8x10 cameras.

I guess my ultimate goal is to see how much I can get out of the format myself.

 

[Robert Ley]

I would like to second the recommendation of a Super Graphic? It was my first LF camera and the camera that I learned LF techniques. It is very durable, a tough little camera and has a ton of front movements, more than most lenses can handle. That camera and a good normal lens(150-210), a good tripod, half dozen holders, dark cloth and loop and you will be ready to go.
The camera comes with a rangefinder although I never used the one on mine.
Good luck in your new LFadventure!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Bill Burk]

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)