MF macro bellows - who makes the most robust/rigid?

[Michael Mutmansky]

Hi folks,

I have a macro copy setup using my digital camera so I can do copywork of my negatives and chromes from the last 30+ years and it is built around my Fuji GFX cameras...

The macro setup uses some of the Olympus Auto Bellows plus some adapters to fit the camera and lenses to the bellows. The only two problems I have with the approach is that the Olympus Auto Bellows is not super strong/rigid when carring the weight of the GFX body and also holding everything vertically (it's set up as a vertical copy stand arrangement using an old Durst enlarger stand). The second is that there is a decent amount of movement when locking down the standards. It causes the image to shift a little. It's not horrible, but if there is better tolerances on the standards locking mechanisms, that would be great.

So, I have a Hasselblad and it occurred to me that the HB or other MF bellows systems may be a better option for this task. The standards are beefier, they have a wider throat so there's no issues with vignetting, and I presume they are quite robust for the larger cameras and lenses they were built to support. I've not seen any of these in person (HB, Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, Novoflex MF) so there's no way to gauge whether any of them are more rigid than the others, and that's what I'm trying to get some opinions on.

In no case do I expect to use the bellows with my film camera so I don't think that makes any difference, but I do have a 501C and a passel of lenses, so that would be a nice add to the kit. I don't think that should be the deciding factor, however. Cost would be a factor if there are several that are largely comparable, but unless buying new, none of these are terribly expensive.

The most recent HB bellows looks great, the most recent Pentax 645 looks quite solid. But this is from photos only. For the others, it's a bit harder to tell... The Bronica looks fiddly because of the linkage for the lens, but I suppose I could remove that.

Any thoughts on this from people who have some experience with these?

Thanks,

---Michael

 

[xkaes]

I'm familiar with the Minolta bellows, and most of them are very stable, as are the Nikon and Canon bellows I've seen. I've never seen an Olympus bellows, but I would assume they are of the same caliber. I would think a medium format bellows would be better for your situation.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi folks,

I have a macro copy setup using my digital camera so I can do copywork of my negatives and chromes from the last 30+ years and it is built around my Fuji GFX cameras...

The macro setup uses some of the Olympus Auto Bellows plus some adapters to fit the camera and lenses to the bellows. The only two problems I have with the approach is that the Olympus Auto Bellows is not super strong/rigid when carring the weight of the GFX body and also holding everything vertically (it's set up as a vertical copy stand arrangement using an old Durst enlarger stand). The second is that there is a decent amount of movement when locking down the standards. It causes the image to shift a little. It's not horrible, but if there is better tolerances on the standards locking mechanisms, that would be great.

So, I have a Hasselblad and it occurred to me that the HB or other MF bellows systems may be a better option for this task. The standards are beefier, they have a wider throat so there's no issues with vignetting, and I presume they are quite robust for the larger cameras and lenses they were built to support. I've not seen any of these in person (HB, Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, Novoflex MF) so there's no way to gauge whether any of them are more rigid than the others, and that's what I'm trying to get some opinions on.

In no case do I expect to use the bellows with my film camera so I don't think that makes any difference, but I do have a 501C and a passel of lenses, so that would be a nice add to the kit. I don't think that should be the deciding factor, however. Cost would be a factor if there are several that are largely comparable, but unless buying new, none of these are terribly expensive.

The most recent HB bellows looks great, the most recent Pentax 645 looks quite solid. But this is from photos only. For the others, it's a bit harder to tell... The Bronica looks fiddly because of the linkage for the lens, but I suppose I could remove that.

Any thoughts on this from people who have some experience with these?

Thanks,

---Michael

I've never seen any more rigid than the Nikon bellows; with movements like a view camera; excellent!

 

[Besk]

You may want to investigate an extension tube system.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Mamiya has a bellows that has movements too. For copy work, I don't think I want that, but it does look like a nice setup.

The Olympus macro gear is great, actually. It is quite solid and has served me well, but I do suspect that a MF bellows will be a bit more robust for my needs.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

You may want to investigate an extension tube system.

This is too limiting for my needs. If I knew exactly what I wanted all the time, it would be ok to go that route, but I seem to have to be changing reproduction ratios regularly, so a bellows is the best approach I think.

 

[eli griggs]

I had a Hasselblad Auto bellows, years back, and it was ridged enough for the 135mm macro C or CF lens and the 150mm, on a good tripod.

Basically, you need a bellows that is solidly built and medium format Hasselblad tools are good quality.

I currently have a Canon auto bellows and given the size differences, I'd rather use the Hasselblad tool for its stability.

IMO.

 

[abruzzi]

I use a Pentax macro bellows with a Pentax K1ii for digitizing 35mm because with the the slide copier attachment, it’s very fast and convenient. For MF and LF I built a copy stand out of Sinar parts—the table clamp, then a long rail extension, and a P2 standard with an adapter plate that allows me to mount the K1 facing down, since the standard has all heard movements I can easily adjust to remove keystoning and rise/fall/shift helps me center the 120 or LF film in the digis frame.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I had a Hasselblad Auto bellows, years back, and it was ridged enough for the 135mm macro C or CF lens and the 150mm, on a good tripod.

Basically, you need a bellows that is solidly built and medium format Hasselblad tools are good quality.

I currently have a Canon auto bellows and given the size differences, I'd rather use the Hasselblad tool for its stability.

IMO.

I agree that the Hasselblad is very good, I used to mount it in combination with the S-planar 120mm via an adapter on my Nikon, which gave very good results.

This Gallo-Roman mantle pin is about 4 cm long, which is a bit longer than a 35mm frame (Archaeologic collection UGent)...
Nikon D800E and the above mentioned setup.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Thanks everyone... I figured the HB one would be the winner, but a few of the other MF bellows look pretty good as well. In particular the newest version of the Pentax 645. It looks like a very rigid set of standards.

I'm going to do some reading on the HB ones to see if I can find a minimum bellows value. Because all of the HB to GFX adapters are designed to get the lenses to infinity, it adds about 2" to the minimum value and that may be a problem for some of the lenses I have (a couple of 120mm Makro Symmar lenses and an 85mm Macro Varon, plus all of the Olympus bellows lenses, but I think I'll be selling those now that I have the Schneider lenses).