Massive Overkill 6X7 (MO67) project

[PCC]

This is a tale of how I sort of got into large format photography within the last few months, and, yet, I still have not taken any 4X5" photographs with this setup. Yes, this thread is in the correct section. You see, back in April I chanced on an eBay ad for an Omega View 45E camera that was complete minus the lens and film holders. I've been a hobbyist photographer since the 1980s, using 35mm SLRs, and have always dreamt about moving up to the larger formats so, with a price that seemed too good to be true, I jumped in with both feet. Okay, money has been tight lately due to my son getting ready to go to college and my daughter's volleyball obsession so I have had to pick and choose what I could buy and when. Here I am two months later and I'm no closer to making images on 4X5 film than I was back in April, but, due to an unbelievably low price for a Calumet C2 roll film 6X7 back and a bad Franka Rolfix camera purchase on eBay, I'm finding myself in a position where I can make photographs with this Omega 4X5 camera on 120 film at 6X7 cm. Hence the Massive Overkill 6X7 camera project.

The Rolfix was in terrible overall condition but the lens was in reasonably good shape, having just a bit of dust (and a latent fingerprint etched into it that is only visible under magnification). It's a Schneider Kreuznach Radionar 105mm f/4.5 on a Prontor II shutter. When I received it the shutter was not firing and the mechanism seemingly locked up. Since I had nothing to lose, I opened it up and tinkered with it until it started working as designed, almost. Testing the shutter speeds it seemed like they all worked fine except that 1/10 and 1/5 sec were faster than 1/20 sec and slow shutter speeds were slower than marked. I confirmed this by testing it using my DSLR. Using my D610 and a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor I determined that my front door area was at about 1/200 sec at f/5.6. I set the lens to those same settings, pressed the lens against two extension tubes mounted to the D610, pointed this contraption at the same scene, opened the shutter on B and fired the Radionar before releasing the shutter on the Nikon. Comparing the image from one shot with the Nikkor showed me that the exposure was spot on, a real surprise. Moving on to the next shutter speed and aperture I got the same results until I reached 1/10 sec at which point the shutter seemed to fire at 1/200 sec. 1/5 sec seemed to give me 1/100 sec and 1/2 sec gave me a slightly overexposed image at f/32 so it would seem that the long exposures are slow. The good thing is that I have 1/20, 1/50, 1/100, and 1/200 sec that I can use. The Radionar mounted right up to the recessed lens board that came with the 45E and I could get infinity focus with about 4" of bellows extension so I have some room for movements as well. Using the Calumet C2 roll film back gives me a massively oversized camera for a relatively small negative film size. Focusing is accomplished by wrapping one of my daughter's hair ties around the lens behind the operation levers and slipping it over the shutter release lever with the camera set to B. There's no fitting for a cable release on this shutter, unfortunately. Tripping the shutter to take the photos is done by hand.

I have a roll of TMax 400 loaded in the C2 and have taken six photos around the house so far. I need to take four more photos and have planned to process this roll on Tuesday when I'll be close to the camera store where I bought the film in the first place. This should be a fun adventure until I can afford to get a proper lens and some sheet film. I'll see if they can scan the negatives when they process it and I'll post pics if they do.

 

[paul_c5x4]

Shop around and bide your time - If you are not fussed about the lens, you should be able to pick one up within budget. I got offered a 150mm Symmar yesterday for £30. The shutter had been cocked, but the firing lever was jammed. Probably an easy fix, but I already have 150mm lenses that I don't use.

You'll also find that when you do start buying film holders, you quickly end up with quite a collection - For some reason, I have nearly thirty of them...

 

[Alan Gales]

There is nothing wrong with shooting 6x7 on a 4x5 camera but you can pick up real nice used 4x5 film holders off Ebay pretty cheap.

There is a glut of 210mm f/5.6 lenses out there which would be perfect for your monorail. You should be able to pick up a nice one with accurate shutter for $150 to $200.

 

[PCC]

I have a line on a 120mm Dagor lens in a Compur shutter that I'll be sending money off to purchase in two days (when the credit card cycle ends and I can start buying again). The seller mentioned that he would throw in a few film holders as well. I was also trying to trade for a 65mm Fujinon lens, but, the seller stopped responding (nothing but emails sent so far). Hoping to pick up a 210mm lens eventually. For now, I'm having fun and actually using The Beast.

 

[destroya]

keeble and shukat in palo alto has a lot of used gear. last time I was there they had several used 4x5 film holders. not sure the price but would guess around $10 each

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

That Radionar is no slouch of a lens. I suspect it's from a medium format folder though with an image circle for maybe up to 6x9. I got one on a whim for $25 from a box of lenses and shutters in the back of a camera repairman's shop. I know it covers 6x6 as I used it mounted on my Rolleiflex SL66 with good success:

View attachment 111413
Acros in Rodinal

I use 6x6, 6x8 and 6x12 backs with my Wista and Graflex all the time. They allow use of lenses I could not use on many of my standard medium format cameras. It's not overkill, it's another use.

 

[PCC]

keeble and shukat in palo alto has a lot of used gear. last time I was there they had several used 4x5 film holders. not sure the price but would guess around $10 each

K&S is where I'm going to bring the roll of 120 film to have it processed.

That Radionar is no slouch of a lens. I suspect it's from a medium format folder though with an image circle for maybe up to 6x9. I got one on a whim for $25 from a box of lenses and shutters in the back of a camera repairman's shop. I know it covers 6x6 as I used it mounted on my Rolleiflex SL66 with good success:

View attachment 111413
Acros in Rodinal

I use 6x6, 6x8 and 6x12 backs with my Wista and Graflex all the time. They allow use of lenses I could not use on many of my standard medium format cameras. It's not overkill, it's another use.

The Radionar came from a Franka Rolfix 6X9 folding MF camera. Wide open it appears to cover the 4X5 ground glass fairly well but I know it won't cover it stopped down.

 

[paul_c5x4]

For now, I'm having fun and actually using The Beast.

Having fun is the most important bit.

The Radionar [...] Wide open it appears to cover the 4X5 ground glass fairly well but I know it won't cover it stopped down.

As the lens is stopped down, the coverage will increase. That said, you may well find the corners are vignetting or mushy even when stopped down - For some subjects, it may well be just the effect you're looking for

 

[Ian Grant]

As the lens is stopped down, the coverage will increase. That said, you may well find the corners are vignetting or mushy even when stopped down - For some subjects, it may well be just the effect you're looking for

It may well start to vignette when stopped down on 5x4, it's only a triplet.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

That Radionar is no slouch of a lens.

Interesting. Back when, Modern Photography had nothing good at all to say about Radionars on small format cameras.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Interesting. Back when, Modern Photography had nothing good at all to say about Radionars on small format cameras.

Shhhh! My Radionar will hear you!

 

[PCC]

Shhhh! My Radionar will hear you!

LOL!

For me, the jury is still out on this lens. I have high hopes but, who knows? It sure beats the meniscus lens that's in the Comet. I've taken a few test photos with the Radionar on my D610 and they look pretty good so far. It's not up to the standards of the much newer Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 Gauss that I'm comparing it to, but, that Nikkor won't cover a 6X7 image neither. The larger the format the less critical absolute image sharpness needs to be.

 

[Dan Fromm]

PCC, the problem with many crappy old lenses -- I have my share of them, don't think I'm insulting you or your Radionar -- isn't on-axis performance, it is off-axis performance. This is why testing a lens with a 35mm or full frame digital can be a little problematic. I shoot mainly 2x3, have tried out lenses much longer than normal for that format with a 35 mm Nikon. Y'r Radionar is a normal lens for 2x3 (6x9 in metric) so trying it out with a D610 isn't fully informative; no information at all about what the lens does towards 2x3's edges, and that's where its likely to do poorly.

Never mind, it will be better on 6x7 than on 6x9 and the important thing is that you have a lens you can use on y'r Toyo. I wouldn't count on it putting good image in 4x5's corners, but for the time being that doesn't matter at all.

 

[Alan Gales]

The Radionar came from a Franka Rolfix 6X9 folding MF camera. Wide open it appears to cover the 4X5 ground glass fairly well but I know it won't cover it stopped down.

Some lenses will illuminate the ground glass but will not actually cover. Everything will look good while you are shooting but when you get your negatives back the corners will be vignetted.

 

[PCC]

...Y'r Radionar is a normal lens for 2x3 (6x9 in metric) so trying it out with a D610 isn't fully informative; no information at all about what the lens does towards 2x3's edges, and that's where its likely to do poorly.

Never mind, it will be better on 6x7 than on 6x9 and the important thing is that you have a lens you can use on y'r Toyo. I wouldn't count on it putting good image in 4x5's corners, but for the time being that doesn't matter at all.

Understood. I have experienced this with an AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm DX lens on full frame. It covers the frame from 16mm and up but the corners are fuzzy since this lens is optimized for the smaller APS-C sensor size. The trick is to know what the lens will give to you and to use it creatively or to use a lens that gives you better characteristics for what you are trying to do.

Some lenses will illuminate the ground glass but will not actually cover. Everything will look good while you are shooting but when you get your negatives back the corners will be vignetted.

Thanks for this info. I'll need to do some testing to find out what this lens can do. One thing that I can do to save money is to use inexpensive 120 film to test the corners by using the shifts of the view camera to place the film in the edge of the image circle about where the corner of a 4X5 frame would be.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Dan brings up good points about "crappy" lenses and their limitations. Like I said I paid so little for it I had little expectations. But like many triplets stopped down and without doing any serious focal gymnastics it can perform nicely. I was blown away by the sharpness of the above photo. But I know I was not really pushing its capabilities at all either. Nonetheless it was fun to use.

 

[Ian Grant]

PCC, if I was in your shoes I get a smaller camera like a Century Graphic, or similar, some have better movements.

You can get one with a decent lens at quite low prices, and forget the Radionar.

Ian

 

[Neal]

Dear PCC,

Caltars in Ilex shutters are inexpensive and will make good photos. Enjoy making photos. Upgrade as you can.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[Dan Fromm]

PCC, if I was in your shoes I get a smaller camera like a Century Graphic, or similar, some have better movements.

You can get one with a decent lens at quite low prices, and forget the Radionar.

Ian

Ian, the Century Graphic and the functionally equivalent Crown Graphic have no generally usable movements.

The 2x3ers have 19 mm of front rise. No generally usable front fall, but read on.

The 2x3ers have 11 mm shift right and left, but this is usable only if the front standard is well in front of the bed struts. And when it is used its hard to avoid small unwanted swings.

No swing to speak of.

The front standard will tilt backwards. This is to allow the lens' axis to be centered in the gate when the bed is dropped to allow use of a short lens and the lens makes infinity with the front standard on the outer rails. This combination -- bed dropped, front standard on the outer rails -- will indeed give front tilt but it is usable with a narrow range of focal lengths.

When the bed is dropped and the front standard is vertical and on the outer rails there's front fall. Again, its usable with only a narrow range of focal lengths and focused distances.

I don't understand why people who usually know what they're doing -- that's you, Mr. Grant -- perpetuate the myth that Crown Graphics have usable movements. Front rise, yes, otherwise forget it.

PCC, use your Calumet and Radionar and 6x7 roll holder and be happy.

PCC, so you'll know, I've had a Century Graphic for years and am happy with it. Its a fine camera, but not a view camera.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't understand why people who usually know what they're doing -- that's you, Mr. Grant -- perpetuate the myth that Crown Graphics have usable movements. Front rise, yes, otherwise forget it.

I'm aware what movements these cameras have Dan, and the limitations, I'll be using a Crown Graphic this week while I'm here in Turkey. Yes there's only tilt backwards on the front standard but if you drop the front bed there's some forward tilt.

However with a smaller format shooting 120 fil and shorter focal length lenses a small amount of tilt has a much greater effect and I'd rather use asmall press camera with a decent lens than the camera the OP's using with a Radionar, hence mu suggested possibility. The OP was talking about size of his camera compared to the format.

You won't find me claiming anywhere that Press style Graflex cameras are usable as "Field cameras" except for the Super Graphics, unless you heavily modify them

Ian

 

[PCC]

PCC, if I was in your shoes I get a smaller camera like a Century Graphic, or similar, some have better movements.

You can get one with a decent lens at quite low prices, and forget the Radionar.

Ian

I think you missed the point about this post. It's about using what I have available to me instead of waiting until I can purchase a better suited lens and camera and film and...

Photography is about getting out there and making impressions on either film or a digital sensor. The equipment used to get these impressions are secondary to the photographer's eye and vision. If I can't use my camera now and I get an idea for a photograph, I may lose that between when I get the idea and when I can finally get the equipment to actually pull it off. Yes, I'm not using the correct equipment to take photos using the C2, but, I *am* taking photos with it and learning to use this beast. Eventually, I will be taking photos with this camera for it's intended use: still life images and portraits on 4X5 sheet film. The plan is to use the MO67 as a learning tool and to either buy or to make a lightweight field camera (leaning towards the latter) down the road when I have more experience using the larger formats. These are baby steps that I am taking right now. Who knows? I might just abandon LF altogether. I might step up to even larger formats. I won't know until I've had a chance to begin using what I have and to add to it.

PCC, use your Calumet and Radionar and 6x7 roll holder and be happy.

PCC, so you'll know, I've had a Century Graphic for years and am happy with it. Its a fine camera, but not a view camera.

Thanks! That's the plan. Good to know about the Century Graphics.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think you missed the point about this post. It's about using what I have available to me instead of waiting until I can purchase a better suited lens and camera and film and...

Photography is about getting out there and making impressions on either film or a digital sensor. The equipment used to get these impressions are secondary to the photographer's eye and vision. If I can't use my camera now and I get an idea for a photograph, I may lose that between when I get the idea and when I can finally get the equipment to actually pull it off. Yes, I'm not using the correct equipment to take photos using the C2, but, I *am* taking photos with it and learning to use this beast. Eventually, I will be taking photos with this camera for it's intended use: still life images and portraits on 4X5 sheet film. The plan is to use the MO67 as a learning tool and to either buy or to make a lightweight field camera (leaning towards the latter) down the road when I have more experience using the larger formats. These are baby steps that I am taking right now. Who knows? I might just abandon LF altogether. I might step up to even larger formats. I won't know until I've had a chance to begin using what I have and to add to it.

OK fair enough.

I was surprised to find my 105mm f3.8 Ross Xpres covers 5x4 as does my 105mm f4.5 Tominon, how sharp they are at the edges I've yet to find out.

A Triplet like your Radionar will be soft at the edges wide open but that may well be desirable for some images, particularly portraits.

You are right you have to start somewhere, so have fun, don't be put off if the results aren't what you expect, LF is one direction to go in and it can be very rewarding.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I don't know what cover usually means in the UK dialect of photographer's English. It seems that in the Grant dialect of the UK dialect it means illuminate. But perhaps not since you mentioned having to find out how sharp they are at the edges.

In the US dialect cover has two meanings. Illuminate and put image of acceptable quality in the corners. Both are somewhat subjective. The "illuminate" meaning leads to endless wrangling and often, alas, disappointment.

 

[Ian Grant]

I mean exactly the same as you Dan, I doubt a 105mm lens designed to cover 6x9 and produce a relatively sharp image stopped down will be acceptable in terms of edge sharpness as a slightly wider angle lens on a 5x4.

But then remember some of Emmet Gowin's early images where lenses deliberately vignette, don't cover the format.

Some people want to bend the conventions, that's why Lomography grew so fast.

Ian

 

[EdSawyer]

What do you need to get to 4x5 images? I have some filmholders I would donate to the cause if it would help.