Looking For Some Advice

[grat]

There seems to be quite a bit of LF equipment for sale in Japan.
Does anybody have any idea how much any customs charges might be to bring something into the US?

FWIW, out of several 4x5 film holders, 3 lenses, a couple Bronica film backs, a 35mm rangefinder and a Fuji GX680 (medium format, but absolutely massive and weighs a ton), I have so far paid $0.00 in customs charges. I presume, although I don't know for certain, that any customs charges are rolled up into the somewhat exorbitant DHL shipping charges.

Granted, none of those shipments have been over $200 USD.

 

[Vaughn]

When I was on a bicycle trip for 6 months in New Zealand with a 4x5, I packed it up safely for any move over a significant distance. I was already on a re-do trip after a previous photographic disaster to NZ, so protecting the camera was a very high priority. This was before the internet, I could not have gotten on the web and asked who had a spare 4x5 in NZ. The camera was 2.5 pounds with the 150mm lens on it. The pod/head (Gitzo Studex 300/Ballhead No.2) was about 7 to 7.5 pounds. The 5x7 goes of the same pod now with a Gitzo 1376 head. It's been working nicely (the pod/head is an 8.5 pound package). Strong enough pod that one can lean one it and travel rough ground without worrying about it. I can't close one leg completely easily since it got dented on the flight to Chile -- might drill the dent out.

When photographing relatively locally (western US), the 4x5 or 5x7 usually gets carried on the pod, ready to use. A friend once mentioned that with changing light, it is economically better to have the camera on the pod and ready to go. Otherwise one could easily miss several images (in the time it takes to get the camera out of a pack, etc) which might easily be sold for the worth of the camera several times over, or at least pay for the trip, so to speak. (And there is always insurance.)

 

[Alan Gales]

When I was on a bicycle trip for 6 months in New Zealand with a 4x5, I packed it up safely for any move over a significant distance. I was already on a re-do trip after a previous photographic disaster to NZ, so protecting the camera was a very high priority. This was before the internet, I could not have gotten on the web and asked who had a spare 4x5 in NZ. The camera was 2.5 pounds with the 150mm lens on it. The pod/head (Gitzo Studex 300/Ballhead No.2) was about 7 to 7.5 pounds. The 5x7 goes of the same pod now with a Gitzo 1376 head. It's been working nicely (the pod/head is an 8.5 pound package). Strong enough pod that one can lean one it and travel rough ground without worrying about it. I can't close one leg completely easily since it got dented on the flight to Chile -- might drill the dent out.

When photographing relatively locally (western US), the 4x5 or 5x7 usually gets carried on the pod, ready to use. A friend once mentioned that with changing light, it is economically better to have the camera on the pod and ready to go. Otherwise one could easily miss several images (in the time it takes to get the camera out of a pack, etc) which might easily be sold for the worth of the camera several times over, or at least pay for the trip, so to speak. (And there is always insurance.)

Well, what your friend said makes a lot of sense especially since he sells his work. It also makes sense for anyone worried about missing a shot due to changing light. It does take time to set up a camera.

I had a back fusion back in 1994. I also suffer from Rheumatoid Arthritis. I haul my Wehman 8x10 behind me in a wheeled cordura tool bag. I also don't get far from my Jeep. Carrying the camera very far, attached to my Ries J100 tripod is out of the question.

I don't worry about missing a shot due to changing light. I'm not going to be fast enough anyway. I figure I can usually come back another day or shoot something else.

You do make a very good point for the OP though!

 

[MTGseattle]

The OP mentioned 75mm in one reply. That puts quite a limit on some of the "classic" starter cameras does it not?
If we're talking any serious hiking with gear, I find one of the biggest weight savings is in tripods. I finally sourced a used Gitzo that gets to my chin height without center column and is only 3 leg sections. I think its weighs half of my Aluminum Bogen/Manfrotto. It wasn't cheap, but I didn't pay full retail, and that weight savings could be put to hiking with a Linhof vs. Hiking with a modern lightweight field camera if a person desired.
the first 4x5 I owned was a sorry looking speed graphic with a 127mm Ektar. There are no negatives from it that I would print today, but it helped me learn. In college I was able to "check out" a Tachihara wood field which allowed me to learn movements.
Whatever you get, familiarize yourself with it before you start burning through film. Set it up in the house/yard/office, where ever you can and try and focus different things. Upside down and backwards can be strange the first few times.
Good luck with whatever you choose.

 

[Mal Paso]

Actually upside down can help with composition by disconnecting the details. In ancient times when spotting pinholes in lithographic negatives of type, we would turn them upside down so we weren't distracted by the words and the dustspots would appear like magic.

I have a Cambo SC monorail which folds flat, weighs almost nothing and handles lenses 65-400mm. Also sold under the Calumet brand they are dirt cheap and versatile. I also have a Cambo SF which takes the same lensboards etc, weighs more, takes wind better and has fancier movements comparable to Sinar. Almost all the parts fit one another so I can build whatever camera I want from the 2 "bodies". Cambo made 5 different versions from backpack to massive geared movements.

 

[Dismayed]

I tested the waters with a Graflex Crown Graphic. It's a press camera, and movements are limited. But it's easy to carry about and to shoot hand held. Or put it on a tripod and test out some movements. It was only after a few years using the Crown that I purchased a wooden field camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The OP mentioned 75mm in one reply. That puts quite a limit on some of the "classic" starter cameras does it not?
If we're talking any serious hiking with gear, I find one of the biggest weight savings is in tripods. I finally sourced a used Gitzo that gets to my chin height without center column and is only 3 leg sections. I think its weighs half of my Aluminum Bogen/Manfrotto. It wasn't cheap, but I didn't pay full retail, and that weight savings could be put to hiking with a Linhof vs. Hiking with a modern lightweight field camera if a person desired.
the first 4x5 I owned was a sorry looking speed graphic with a 127mm Ektar. There are no negatives from it that I would print today, but it helped me learn. In college I was able to "check out" a Tachihara wood field which allowed me to learn movements.
Whatever you get, familiarize yourself with it before you start burning through film. Set it up in the house/yard/office, where ever you can and try and focus different things. Upside down and backwards can be strange the first few times.
Good luck with whatever you choose.

I find it harder to compose looking upside down. Of course, I've only been at it for 1 1.2 years with a 4x5. Our brains are designed to see straight up so our aesthetics woks best that way too. Of course, when I pick a scene I'm just looking with just my eyes. So the mechanics of setting up a view camera upside down afterward might not matter. The scene was already selected. It's just framing it upsidedown that has to happen.

 

[narsuitus]

@Deke4774 (the original poster)

Since this is now an old thread, you have probably made a decision. Please update us.

 

[FilmGuyMF]

I am new to the forum and shot 4x5 studio (Calumet) 45 yrs ago and am returning to 4x5, still using the Calumet. I am interested in a 4x5 field camera. My 1st choice at this point is the Chamonix 45F2, but it is basically impossible to get with out getting on a wait list and hoping ya can get it 6 months or so. The camera is well constructed and rigid with smooth movements and asymmetrical rear standard movements, so I have read. Anyone have any imput, comments and have one to sell, Ha Ha Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Deke4774]

@Deke4774 (the original poster)

Since this is now an old thread, you have probably made a decision. Please update us.

Hi all,

I knew it was a mistake to look for advice on this forum. It cost me so much money.
I ended up buying a beautiful Tachihara 4x5 wooden field camera, and then a Wista SP metal field camera too.
And then a Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm 5.6, a Fujinon SW 75mm f8, a Schneider-Kreuznach Super Angulon 90mm f/5.6, and a Fujinon W 210mm f/5.6 Lens.
Then there was all the other accessories that I also needed. $$$$$$
However, I love it all.
Thanks for all the insight, and all the advice from everyone.

Derek

 

[Deke4774]

I am new to the forum and shot 4x5 studio (Calumet) 45 yrs ago and am returning to 4x5, still using the Calumet. I am interested in a 4x5 field camera. My 1st choice at this point is the Chamonix 45F2, but it is basically impossible to get with out getting on a wait list and hoping ya can get it 6 months or so. The camera is well constructed and rigid with smooth movements and asymmetrical rear standard movements, so I have read. Anyone have any imput, comments and have one to sell, Ha Ha Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi FilmGuyMF,

Welcome to the forum, and I'm sure someone with more experience then me will be able to respond to your questions.
I think the Chamonix cameras are stunningly beautiful, and while it may not be the exact model you are looking for, I have seen a few for sale in recent weeks in the buy & sell forum on here and at Large Format Photography.
I hope you find what you are looking for.

Derek

 

[winger]

I knew it was a mistake to look for advice on this forum. It cost me so much money.

Yeah, this site is pretty much a big group of enablers for GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). But congrats! Enjoy your new gear!

 

[bdial]

Welcome @FilmGuyMF
Various field cameras show up here from time to time, though maybe owners of Chamonix just keep them, as they seem a bit less common than some of the others.