Need some advice!

[jjstafford]

[...] the Linhof 2000, which doesn't have a rangefinder, but has built-in wideangle focusing.

That does it. I'm taking five minutes off and going into the basement with the saw to make that "wide angle" Linhof 2000 feature. There goes the strap, but what the hey, I'll save $6,000.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Careful with that saw, John...

 

[jjstafford]

Careful with that saw, John...

LOL! You are right. It's Friday night. We're going out to dinner where I'll probably cut my other thumb off with a steak knife.

 

[photoluver]

David, yes, that is what I was thinking too (that the assymetrical swing and tilt are nice). To me, that would be the biggest reason to go with the Ebony.

Robert, I bought Lee Frost's book on panoramic photography. It made me want to get a Fuji 617!

 

[John Bartley]

David, yes, that is what I was thinking too (that the assymetrical swing and tilt are nice). To me, that would be the biggest reason to go with the Ebony.

Robert, I bought Lee Frost's book on panoramic photography. It made me want to get a Fuji 617!

From what I've read in your posts, you already have access to a 4x5 to try? The reason I ask, is that if you don't have access to one and if you are in the Ottawa area, I have a Calumet 4x5 (monorail) setup complete that I don't use since my lust for an 8x10 was satisfied .
If you'd like to try it for a couple of weeks. let me know. You will either have to supply your own tripod, or make do with my old Majestic that doesn't have adjustable legs (setup with it can be a challenge ).

cheers

 

[df cardwell]

I think the point I should have made is that since there is really so little difference between 6x6 and 4x5 ( unless you are making 20x24s ! ), stick with 6x6... especially since you like to carry your gear and not drive it in !

Of course, a used Deardorff and a couple used lenses is usually cheaper than one might think :]

 

[df cardwell]

So those people enlarging 11x14 aren't shooting LF? Those people contact printing 6x6[and I mean cm] are shooting LF?

NO.. the point is that to get a good print consistently from 4x5, you have to master the same fastidious technique which, applied to 6x6, will give equally splendid results.

In that respect, 4x5 is medium format.

And as an 11x14 shooter for the past 15 years... 4x5 is medium format.

Of course, the point really is that you don't HAVE to go from 6 x6 to 4x5 to attain the mystical superlatives of transcendent landscapery.

 

[df cardwell]

I would have to disagree with you; I haven't seen too many 6x6 cameras capable of swings and tilts, which is something I do easily with my 4x5.

As I said, if you approve what Adams, Weston, and Cunningham, for starters, did with their 6x6.... one might survive without swings and tilts.

I think it is a very good thing to get the most out of the gear you have, and not succumb to the idea that one needs more, and more, and more.

 

[roteague]

As I said, if you approve what Adams, Weston, and Cunningham, for starters, did with their 6x6.... one might survive without swings and tilts.

I think it is a very good thing to get the most out of the gear you have, and not succumb to the idea that one needs more, and more, and more.

I know some of Adams work, but I am really not familiar with Weston or Cunningham; I have very little interest in B&W. I can tell you though, that people like David Muench, Jack Dykinga and Joe Cornish, all photographers I admire a lot, all use 4x5 and all make extensive use of swings and tilts. You just can't get the extreme depth of field with a 6x6 that I can get with my 4x5.

I agree with you about the equipment ... although, there are things I want to do that are easier with equipment I don't have (like panoramics).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I shoot 6x6 and 4x5" (as well as other formats down to 35mm and up to 11x14"), and I think there's a pretty big difference between what you can do with them. Apply the same fastidious technique to both, and 4x5" will produce a richer negative or transparency, and the trees will be straight if you want them to be to boot, and you have the option of using shift so the lens axis doesn't have to be in the middle of the frame for every darn shot.

 

[photoluver]

John, that is most generous of you - thank you for your kind offer. Unfortunately, I live in Toronto. I actually don't have access to a LF camera, though I may go to Vistek and see whether I can rent one for a week.

 

[dschneller]

John, that is most generous of you - thank you for your kind offer. Unfortunately, I live in Toronto. I actually don't have access to a LF camera, though I may go to Vistek and see whether I can rent one for a week.

An alternative to Vistek if you wish to rent is FilmPlus. I haven't actually rented from them myself though, I go to them for hard to find film.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Jeff Dyck]

Margaret,

Have you considered the 5x7 Canham? (David mentioned it early on in the post) Given the cameras you are considering, budget doesn't seem to be that big an obstacle. A 5x7 Canham with additional 4x5 and 6x17 backs would seem to satisfy all the criteria you mentioned.

Regards,
Jeff

 

[photobackpacker]

Hi Margaret:

Welcome to APUG.

I will add my experience to the discussion for what it is worth. I switched over to 4X5 18 years ago and never looked back. I started with a Cambo monorail, moved up to a Zone VI, then a Wisner Tech Field and finally my Linhoff MT 2000. There are trade offs along the way but in the MT2K I finally have a camera that seems to resonate with the way I work. I love it - but that doesn't mean you will.

There are a number of features with the MT2K that have endeared it to me.

1. Precision. It is tight, rigid and has the look and feel of the precision instrument that it is.

2. I can move from a 400mm to a 47mm without changing bellows. (I absolutely hated having to carry a bag bellows with me in the field and hated even more the need to change bellows in the field.)

3. With the super-wide angle lenses, there is a separate focusing mechanism that works beautifully.

3. While slightly heavier, it is far more compact in a backpack than its wooden counterparts.

By the way, I don't own a rangerfinder or any cams. I love the ground glass composition of LF and wouldn't trade it. I use a BOS screen and love it.

What are the tradeoffs:

1. It doesn't have the extensive rear shift and rise that the Wisner has. Even so, I have yet to run into a shot where this prevented me from getting my picture.

2. It doesn't have the ornamental beauty of a well made wood field camera.

I echo the sentiments expressed here - If you can find a way to try it out to see if LF fits your style of photography, you will potentially save significant money. If you discover LF is for you, buy the best camera you can afford and avoid the "buy new, sell used and trade-up journey." Which one to buy - that depends upon your own personal desires. If the photo experience is enhanced by using an ornamentally beautiful instrument to capture the image, I would go with the wood. If you really value the tight precision and efficiency of use - the MT2K is a fine instrument.

 

[photoluver]

Thanks Dave, for the Filmplus link. It's always good to know a place to source film!

Jeff, I haven't considered the Canham. Thanks for the link. I did think about the Ebony 5x7, though I am not sure whether Ebonies will accept 6x17 and 4x5 backs. I am still researching. This is hard work, but I want to do it right the first time if possible (as in buying what I want and not having to trade up, etc.) I just wish there were more film choices for 5x7.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I keep wanndering back to Lee Frost's Panoramic Photography book that Robert pointed out, and I find the photos just breathtaking. I am still wondering whether I should ditch my 4x5 idea and just buy a Fuji GX617. At some point I would like to have both formats, but at this point I cannot afford to buy both. It's a question of which comes first. I think that I will probably have an easier time with the 617 at first compared with a 4x5, but I have to admit that there is something about LF that really draws me to the format right now. I can't even describe it.

Margaret

 

[photoluver]

Bruce, thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. Have you ever tried attaching a 6x12 Rollex back to your MT 2000? If so, would you be so kind as to comment? Thanks.

 

[photobackpacker]

Sorry, I use only 4x5 B&W sheet film exclusively.

As a Zone system shooter, I prefer the individual processing options sheet film provides. If panorama were my target, I would probably approach it by constructing a simple cardboard mask for the ground class to aid composition. You will get wee bit more negative to work with as a bonus.

If you are shooting B&W or color transparencies, you will grow to love the flexibility provided by the individual individual sheet processing options.

 

[roteague]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I keep wanndering back to Lee Frost's Panoramic Photography book that Robert pointed out, and I find the photos just breathtaking.

Since you like that format, here are few links to photographers using that format that you may like:

http://www.andrisapse.com/
Dead Link Removed
http://www.kenduncan.com/gallery.php
Dead Link Removed

 

[photoluver]

If you are shooting B&W or color transparencies, you will grow to love the flexibility provided by the individual individual sheet processing options.

Bruce, that is a big pro for me for going the LF route as opposed to buying a pano 617 camera like the Fuji. I also like the movements LF offer that will let me control DOF, perspective and distortion. I am now heavily leaning towards the LF with a 6x12 rollfilm back. I've read that the Linhof 6x12 back is excellent. Am I right in assuming that the image quality that I will get from a LF camera plus a 6x12 RFB will produce pretty much the same quality as a dedicated panoramic 612 camera like the Linhof Technorama 612?

Robert, thanks for those links. I have bookmarked them.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A view camera with a 612 Techno Rollex would be a much more versatile tool than the Technorama 612.

A Technika should have no trouble with any rollfilm back. It's sturdy enough to hold the Linhof backs, which are generally the heaviest. Some say the earlier Tech IV and V feel more solid with the back extended than the Master Tech. I haven't compared, but I'd be surprised if it were a real problem.

 

[photoluver]

Thanks David...I'm getting closer!

Thanks for everyone's help here! You've been super.

 

[MikeS]

So, I just had a chat with Jeff from Badger Graphics, and he highly recommended that I go with the Ebony (either the SV45U2 or 45SU) as opposed to the Linhof MT 2000. He said that he sells 10 Ebonies to 1 Linhof. I guess I shouldn't be surprised! My mind had almost been made up on the Linhof too!

I see several folks have given you advice to get a cheaper LF camera to start with, I'm going to go the other route. I don't know you or your finances, but if you can easily afford a Linhof Technika, then I would say to go for it!

You mention a MT2000 and I think you're confusing a couple of different models (although it could be me that's confused). As I understand it the 2000 is the model without a rangefinder, and the Master Technika is the model with a mechanically linked (cammed) rangefinder. I have a Linhof Technika IV which is basically an earlier version of the Master Technika. Considering that you're coming from a MF background, you might feel more comfortable having the rangefinder, it's nice to have, and makes it possible to hand hold a 4x5. When I recently got back into LF I decided to go with a monorail view camera, as I'd never used one (I always used Graflex Speed Graphics as hand held press cameras). Well, it's great being able to focus & compose the shot on the groundglass (under a darkcloth), and it's another thing HAVING to do so. I got an old Speed Graphic soon after, and planned on using it for 'quick' shots, and soon found I was using it most of the time, and the view camera stayed at home. I have since gotten a Linhof Technika IV and have gotten rid of the other 4x5 cameras I had.

The Linhof is in many ways the best of both worlds. Unlike the Graphic press cameras, it has lots of movements available to you (probably more than you'll use, but maybe not), but you can still put a grafmatic or roll film holder on it, and focus it with the rangefinder, and use it as you would a smaller camera.

Then there's the issue of build quality. I've never seen some of the models you've mentioned, so I can't comment on them, but unless Linhof's build quality has gone down a lot since 1960 (when my camera was made), then there's just no beating it! The Linhof is a precision machine!

Just something to think about.

-Mike

 

[photoluver]

Mike,

Thanks for your post. At this point, I have decided that I am going to just "go for it."

Funny you mention the Master Technika Classic (the one with the rangefinder). Initially, that was my first choice for the reasons you mentioned. But Jim from Badger Graphics said that he rarely sells those anymore, and that when it comes to Linhof, people almost always buy the 2000. So I've been trying to find some information comparing the two. The 2000 is lighter and more compact, this much I know. Also that you don't need an adapter for wide angle lenses on the 2000. If you know more about the differences between the two, please share.

Thanks!
Margaret

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Those are the only real differences. The MT has a rangefinder, and the 2000 lacks a rangefinder but has built-in wideangle focusing. The 2000 originally offered the option of an electronic focusing device, but it didn't sell terribly well, and they discontinued that option.

 

[df cardwell]

M

Please arrange a rental of your intended camera, and take a large format class or workshop before you buy. At least be as prudent as you would over the purchase of a new pair of shoes.

There are LOTS of good workshops available that will help; here is an example of a good one:

http://www.theworkshops.com/catalog/courses/index.asp?CourseID=2770&SchoolID=20

Good luck.