I'm going large..Chamonix 4x5

philosomatographer · Aug 10, 2011

BetterSense said:
The reason people even care about expensive large format lenses is that the film actually does allow the extra Nth amount of quality to be extracted, where with smaller formats it would just be a waste of time. In other words, in LF, the lens is actually becomes your limiting factor, but the limit is still higher quality than smaller formats. If people applied the same standards and expectations to LF as they do smaller formats, the nicer LF lenses probably wouldn't even exist.

Hmm, I'm not so sure - I would make the exact opposite argument, that the lenses are much more of a limiting factor in smaller formats. Again, just from my personal experience.

This was shot wide open with the previously mentioned 1950s convertible symmar, with rather large camera movements applied, on Ilford Line Film (ISO 6, extraordinary resolution).

In my 16x20in print, the details in the in-focus areas are rendered with no visible sign of aberration whatsoever, i.e. 'perfect'. Every detail on, say, the light fitting, is rendered like it would be on a 5x7in print from a top lens on a Leica M3 (I know, I make small prints like that from my M3 + Heliar 50mm f/3.5 all the time).

If this is being "limited by the lens" than I don't know... Ah wait, I found a better example (same scrappy 1950s lens), but this time a smaller (8x10in) scanned print I made:

and a crop:

I sure am glad to be limited by lenses like these Seriously, my modern APO Symmar (which plays in the same league as the famous APO Sironar S) looks just as good, I cannot make it look better. If it looks better in a 6-foot print when observed with a loupe, I don't really care

I can understand that an enlarging lens would not have good performance at infinity, but all normal-purpose LF lenses are way better than what even dedicated photographers can extract from them. I am not a pro, but I feel comfortable that I kinda' know what I am doing, and I have never been able to fault the two junk 1950s lenses I have used on large format.

My modern APO- Schneider and Nikkor lenses only have better coatings (flare-resistance), that's it. Really, don't fall into the "Leica" trap, and buy expensive LF lenses because they're "better on paper". Almost all LF lenses are better than almost all photographers. This is a completely different game.

Grainy · Aug 10, 2011

Thanks for all the replies.

I listened to you guys and ordered a cheaper lens, an exc+ Nikon W 150mm f/5.6. And the book "Using the view camera".

Guess the limiting factor will be me for quite some time.

Pupfish · Aug 10, 2011

At typical "taking" apertures in LF, the major limiting factor to resolution is diffraction. Diffraction puts most lenses of a given focal length and type on equal footing by f/16-22 (the aperture range where most LF lenses are optimized). Most all "normal" focal length lenses are capable of returning very close to 60 lp/mm on film at f/22. There are a few lenses that may be capable of slightly more resolution at f/11-16 (and the APO Sironar S would be among these) but the instances where you can get away with such a wide aperture in LF and need what slight gains might be involved are relatively few and far between.

The middle focal length Plasmats like the 135mm and 150mm Sironars (that would include both N and S) do not have impressively large image circles. The huge image circle of a longer focal length lens like a 210mm Plasmat can make wild moves possible. It's a reason why these are so popular as student lenses, and student use is why they're so ubiquitous in the used lens market. I have a 210mm Caltar IIN f/5.6, which is the same lens as the Rodenstock APO Sironar N. Originally well over a thousand bucks, these are commonly available in mint or near mint condition for $200 or less. I also have a Caltar IIN in 135mm and it's so crisp I've not felt the need to consider replacing it with the Sironar S version-- especially considering how close they are in IC size at this particular focal length. (That said, there is more of an IC difference at the 150mm length, between versions.)

L Gebhardt · Aug 10, 2011

I think the 150mm is great as a single lens option, but if you plan on getting other lenses you may find it's just a bit too close the what is an ideal slightly long and a slightly short. I personally prefer a 135mm and a 210mm as a two lens set. Then I add a 90mm and a 300mm if I think those will get use on an outing.

I use a 135mm Sironar S, and I don't regret spending the money on it (but, it was much cheaper 8 years ago). It is my favorite lens, but I am still very happy with the other lens I have as well. It's really hard to go wrong with modern large format lenses.

Grainy · Aug 10, 2011

Agree with you L Gebhardt, 135mm + 210mm sounds like a great two lens option. Hopefully the Nikkor will keep it's value if I decide to sell it after a while. But for now I will work with one lens, one film developer and two films and "push" my limits within those. After starting with darkroom printing this summer I was surprised of how much of the "expression" I can achieve after the picture is taken.

Grainy · Aug 14, 2011

Ansel Adams writes in his book: "A good technician can make smooth notches with a fine drill along the edges of the flanges that hold the film. These will be visible at the extreme border area of the negatives, and will serve to identify each negative with the holder and with notes made on exposure and development"

Does anybody have a picture of a film holder witch such notches so I can understand what he mean and how it looks like? It seems very practical to have a mark on the negative itself so it can be compared to the notes. If it should help to identify the each negative each film holder must have different notches.

L Gebhardt · Aug 15, 2011

Look at this: http://www.doerzmanphoto.com/film_holders.html

M. Lointain · Aug 15, 2011

The best method I have seen and subsequently use is the binary method by Mr. Lambrecht. It is also efficient-less notches. I use a really sharp knife to make the notches. The drill method above looks a little sloppy, but whatever works, works. The notches do not have to be very big. I try to keep them around 2mm.

If you can afford it I would recommend that you buy Toyo holders. They are the best and expensive but they are worth it. You only have to buy them once.

Link to the binary method- http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1803

M. Lointain · Aug 15, 2011

The best method I have seen and subsequently use is the binary method by I think Mr. Lambrecht. It is also efficient-less notches. I use a really sharp knife to make the notches. The drill method above looks a little sloppy, but whatever works, works. The notches do not have to be very big. I try to keep them around 2mm.

If you can afford it I would recommend that you buy Toyo holders. They are the best but thty are worth it. You only have to buy them once.

Link to the binary method- http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1803

Monito · Aug 15, 2011

There are two problems with the binary method (base 2) that the method Gebhardt points to avoids (Doerzman, roman numeral based). First, it requires the template to read it, since without the template properly positioned the code 11100 is indistinguishable from 01110 and 00111. Second, binary is slow to mentally convert.

I think I may adopt a modification of Doerzman's method: three groups of notches base 5: 1s, 5s, and 25s. Doerzman's is good enough, but seems unbalanced since the 5's gets only one notch or none and the 10s could pile up (though I'm unlikely to ever use or use up that many holders). Base 5 is also easy to add up and decode.

Grainy · Aug 15, 2011

Thanks. Think I like Doerzman's method best, and maybe convert it like Monito says. Binary sounds way to complicated.

I ordered three Chamonix carbon fiber film holders, don't know the quality since I haven't received them yet. Payed $50 each, so the price is about the same as Toyo.

TareqPhoto · Aug 27, 2011

Congrats!
Nice to see more people going to film side, but i really don't know how many people enter film world and how many left it?
Enjoy your beast and post photos!!!

lilmsmaggie · Aug 30, 2011

Congratulations on your LF adventure. I also have the Chamonix 45-n as my first LF camera. While I waited for the camera to arrive after I placed my order with Hugo, I started amassing the essentials: lenses, darkcloth, loupe, film holders, film, etc. etc. Beautiful camera.

This is one of the first shots I took with the Chamonix, and a used Rodenstock f5.6 210 APO Sironar-S:

k_jupiter · Sep 1, 2011

4x5 is not large.

I love it.

I have stopped using my small format stuff (4x5 and smaller) but I do remember, you will not outshoot that Nikor lens for a long damned time. I have used a 150/56.3 Fujinon lens since 1985 and still couldn't exceed the limitations of the lens. And still, the lens IS the limiting factor in a LF setup. Most of us never come close to hitting the LF wall.

I still shoot LF, 8x10 and 5x7. Nothing will ever compare to the depth you get from a contact printed 8x10 negative (except probably a ULF format). As far as everything else for shooting, simpler is better. Invest in a good spot meter, a lightweight but dark dark cloth, a good tripod. For development, the Jobo 2500 with a 4x5 reel is a great option, I have used it as well as a Patterson System 4 plastic tank with home made nylon screen tubes that you put the film in and develop just like roll film.

Remember.. KISS.

tim in san jose

k_jupiter · Sep 1, 2011

Monito said:
There are two problems with the binary method (base 2) that the method Gebhardt points to avoids (Doerzman, roman numeral based).

. Second, binary is slow to mentally convert.

Maybe for you.

I use very small drill bits to put a hex signature in the side of the film tracks. separates the numbering system from the image by a 32nth of an inch.

tim in san jose

Monito · Sep 1, 2011

I've programmed for many years, most of them in Silicon Valley, so I convert binary faster than most. Hexadecimal, being a variant of binary in a sense, is similar. If it works for you, fine. Others may find my proposal more useful to them.

k_jupiter · Sep 2, 2011

Monito said:
I've programmed for many years, most of them in Silicon Valley, so I convert binary faster than most. Hexadecimal, being a variant of binary in a sense, is similar. If it works for you, fine. Others may find my proposal more useful to them.

So then you should know... with 4 holes i can identify 15 sheets of film. Put a small hole in the corner of the carrier and I have an A and a B side. 30 sheets of film. Shooting more than that at one time? Get a Leica.

tim still programming occasionally in san jose

Grainy · Sep 7, 2011

The beauty arrived today

2F/2F · Sep 7, 2011

Looks very nice. Congratulations. I'd love to use a Chamonix some day. I am very curious what they are like.

k_jupiter · Sep 7, 2011

2F/2F said:
Looks very nice. Congratulations. I'd love to use a Chamonix some day. I am very curious what they are like.

Hmmm... looking at that, I might just build one. I really like the rails the fine adjust for the front standard ride on...

tim in san jose

Roger Cole · Sep 7, 2011

Have fun. You'll find a definite learning curve with LF but the results are SO nice, and the process itself becomes something of an addiction, if not an obsession.

Expect to waste some film learning. If you're like almost everyone else including me you'll find new and creative ways to screw up each of your first few times out. Heck, I put it down for 10+ years and then re-discovered some of the same old ones! But you'll get the hang of it. It's not really hard, just takes a deliberate approach and, like anything else, some practice.

TareqPhoto · Sep 8, 2011

Congratulations!
If i didn't go with Shen Hao then i was going with Chamonix, but i saw a nice kit and great price so i didn't wait longer, i think both are great to produce great photos, hope to put my 4x5 in use soon and enjoy it!!!
Post your photos when you will do, good luck and have fun

2F/2F · Sep 8, 2011

k_jupiter said:
Hmmm... looking at that, I might just build one. I really like the rails the fine adjust for the front standard ride on...

tim in san jose

Yes, definitely not "high end" movements. Kind of like a modern-day version of a B&J...which are kind of annoying to use movements with. Still, I am curious enough to want to try one.

What I'd really like to build would be a wooden field camera back and bed that uses a front standard from a SINAR F.

tomalophicon · Sep 8, 2011

Beautiful camera. Congratulations.

k_jupiter · Sep 8, 2011

2F/2F said:
Yes, definitely not "high end" movements. Kind of like a modern-day version of a B&J...which are kind of annoying to use movements with. Still, I am curious enough to want to try one.

What I'd really like to build would be a wooden field camera back and bed that uses a front standard from a SINAR F.

Shhhhhh... I am still trying to sell both my B&J Field camera and my B&J Grover, both 5x7. Don't tell anyone what a PITB it is to use them.

I gave up on them the day my Deardorff came in the mail.

tim in san jose

I'm going large..Chamonix 4x5

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency