View Camera for Roll Film?

[Edwardv]

Arca Swiss 6x9 Metric compact if you can afford one. I know I want one.

 

[thefizz]

Thanks for all the suggestions. It gives me a lot of research to do.

 

[Harrigan]

I have a Galvin View and its pretty underwhelming in my opinion. The main positive attribute of the camera is it’s very low weight and while I’ve not weighed mine I have read it’s under 3 pounds. The camera is bit sloppy and difficult to get zeroed out. There are no markings for squaring the standards in the swing and tilt directions on my camera. All you can do is look at it and hope you get it square. For this reason I don’t recommend the camera for a beginner.

The back does accept roll holders just like sheet film holders but my back is poor. The gg screen flops around and mine is not square to the rest of the camera, it’s tilted and this is very annoying when trying to view images on the gg. There is quite a bit of slop if you compare what you see on the gg and what you get on film. Also my gg back springs don’t hold the roll holders in there all that well. I had to bend them to get the backs to stay in tight.

On the positive side I bought mine for hiking and it’s so small and light it’s a great camera for packing around.

The toyo 23 on the other hand is btwn 8-9 pounds and for this reason I would not buy one. The reason to go to 2x3 for me was small size and light weight and while the toyo is a nice camera its much heavier than many 4x5’s. A 4x5 will also give you the option of 6x12 and 4x5 of course.

 

[Bandicoot]

Arca Swiss 6x9 Metric compact if you can afford one. I know I want one.

The older 'pre-F' Arca 6x9s are nice and quite cheap now - may be worthwhile for the OP to consider as another option. Not nearly as nice as an F-metric, obviously, but they are light and very solid. I do a lot of work with these and appreciate their simplicity and rigidity.


Peter

 

[k_jupiter]

Git yerself an rb back. It will fit any graflock back 2x3 camera. These backs go for 40 to 60 bucks apiece on eBay. I have been watching auctions for 2x3 Graflex roll film holders going for over $100 US dollars. I don't understand. The rb backs are far superior and far cheaper than the equivalent Graphics holders.

I have tried my rb backs on my 2x3 Speed Graphics and my 2x3 graphmatic on my rb67. Both experiments were totally successful.


tim in san jose

 

[k_jupiter]

I wonder if that sucker will fit on a Pacemaker 4x5 Speed? This is reference to the rb67 front end on a view camera...

I know it will fit on a 5x7 B&J with a 4x5 reducing back.

Off to the back house...

tim in san jose

 

[Harrigan]

I wonder if that sucker will fit on a Pacemaker 4x5 Speed? This is reference to the rb67 front end on a view camera...

I know it will fit on a 5x7 B&J with a 4x5 reducing back.

Off to the back house...

tim in san jose

What do you want to fit on a pacemaker 4x5? The front part of an RB? I think I have missed something.

I do have a lens mount ring taken off a Pentax 67 that is moutned on a lens board to my 2x3 Galvin. Specifically I use the 45mm pentax SMC lens lens on 6x9. However I had to modify the camera to focus it.

I have just gone through getting heavily into 2x3 so I'll post some more thoughts on it here if anyone is still reading this.

I have used RB67 backs as well as graflex and horseman 6x9 with the 2x3 graflok back I customized to my Glavin. The mamiya are a good deal and really nice if you shoot 6x7. The graflex have multiple versions and don't advance the film as evenly as the horseman. The horeseman are running 150-250 bucks but they are very high quality although a bit larger than either the graflex or RB. I prefer the horseman backs for 6x9 and mamiya for 6x7.

I also just found a horseman 6x9 polaroid back and borrowed a 6x9 220 horseman back. I am finding with trans film or newer c41 films the 6x9 format is pretty darn good and comparable to 4x5 with some grainier films of old. I have sold my 4x5 now and only use 6x9 and I prefer the option of 6x9 or 6x7 with roll film. Its so much easier than loading film holders before a shoot and the quality is quite good.

 

[epatsellis]

Git yerself an rb back. It will fit any graflock back 2x3 camera. These backs go for 40 to 60 bucks apiece on eBay. I have been watching auctions for 2x3 Graflex roll film holders going for over $100 US dollars. I don't understand. The rb backs are far superior and far cheaper than the equivalent Graphics holders.

I have tried my rb backs on my 2x3 Speed Graphics and my 2x3 graphmatic on my rb67. Both experiments were totally successful.


tim in san jose

Tim,
Most, if not all that I've bought on ebay through the years need refoaming, I have sources for backs cheaply, less than $10 usually. If I'm going to refoam a back anyway, why spend the extra $$$? (I have a half dozen or so waiting for me to get to, probably once it starts getting dark earlier)

As to the front standard, it could probably just squeeze onto a 4x4 lensboard, with a little creativity.

erie

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Peter,

If you want to spend about $850 there is a used Toho FC-45X camera available (or was) on Large Format Forum. It is a field monorail camera that many of us own including Kerry Thalmann, Roger Hicks, David Bebbington, and myself. My stripped and modified camera weighs 2 lbs 12 oz.

The camera does not have an interchangeable bellows and has its quirks for operation. Some have indicated that there were some problems using roll film backs like the Horseman 6 X 12 for the camera (indicated that the back required milling). I have had no problems with mine. With the roll backs you would insert them in front of the Ground Glass much like a Film Holder (the back opens very wide to accept the holders). To protect the Ground Glass I added some velcro on the back of the Roll Film holders to protect the Ground Glass.

Here is the link to the camera:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=272318&highlight=toho#post272318

Here is Kerry Thalmann's review of the camera:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

Rich

 

[thefizz]

Thanks a lot Richard.

Damn it, there too many options, LOL.

 

[Sparky]

what's wrong with just using your mamiya? Do you REALLY need a viewcam with a rollfilm back..? Be honest. Most people convince themselves they need this - when it's totally immaterial to getting the shots they want. Just a thought.

 

[thefizz]

I don't desperately need one but it would obviously give me more options.

I don't need the six cameras I already have but I'm glad to have them.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

As no one has mentioned it yet - 3 1/4 x 4 1/4" Speed/Crown Graphic. A handy bit smaller than 4x5", has usefully larger lens panels than 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" size. Easy to find cheap in excellent condition. Panels and backs take some finding, but it can be done.

Incidentally, I don't own a Toho view, but Roger Hicks showed me his once and I was very impressed!

 

[Sparky]

I would suggest getting a 6x9 or 6x12 fixed film plane camera and just cropping. With a 6x9 rangefinder, for example - you can QUICKLY get the same shots you could with 6x7 (at least vertically) if it had a shift lens or lens rise.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think ergonomics, speed of setup and ease of use are GREATLY underrated parameters.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some have indicated that there were some problems using roll film backs like the Horseman 6 X 12 for the camera (indicated that the back required milling).

Depends on the back. Yes, it was my 6x12 Horseman that needed the second rib milled off, or it wouldn't seat flat. No problem with others.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The point I'm trying to make is that I think ergonomics, speed of setup and ease of use are GREATLY underrated parameters.

Seconded. This is why Sir Kenneth Corfield built the WA67 aka 'Architect' -- though the Alpa 12 S/WA does the same job EVEN BETTER.

 

[JBrunner]

I got a roll film back for one of my view cameras, and after using it a few times, I was like "why am I doing this?" With the time of setting up, and dialing in focus with movements, it was a bit underwhelming to get tiny negatives for my trouble. The roll film back didn't seem to add that much in the way if convenience or speed compared to slipping in a holder, and in the end I was stuck with a bunch of exposures that all had to be processed exactly the same, giving up one of the primo advantages of sheet film. Wasn't worth it, to me. Thats just my take. YMMV.

Best,

J

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Things I like rollfilm backs for on my 4x5" camera--

1. 6x17 with the DaYi 6x17 back, but if I'm traveling, I'm more likely to bring an extra wide lens and crop unless I plan to make a lot of panos, because this back and its finder are bulkier than the extra lens. I've set up my Tech V so I can go handheld with the rangefinder, 6x17 back, 6x17 finder, and a 150mm lens.

2. Casual 6x7 or 6x9 snapshots with my Technika, shooting press camera style with the rangefinder and handheld for the most part. It's easier to carry 5 or 10 rolls of 120 in this situation than the equivalent number of exposures in sheet film (though sometimes I'll carry two Kinematic holders that hold 10 shots each, if it's just a short outing).

3. If I'm planning to take a lot of telephoto shots, and my longest lens isn't long enough. I've occasionally done some impromptu bird photography with the Technika, cammed 360mm lens, and 6x7 back.

4. Testing new color films. A roll of 120 is a lot cheaper than a box of 4x5", just to get an idea of the basic color palette and grain structure.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I got a roll film holder for 6x9 and 6x12. I could crop 4x5 down to both but why? This is more of an issue with color film. You get what 2 sheets of 4x5 colour for the price of one roll of 120?

I think it's actually slower then using a sheet film holder. But it's not exactly a high speed operation normally.

I've added a 6x17 back. Hopefully I'll find a colour 5x7 enlarger to match it. 5x7 colour sheet film is rare enough that cropping wouldn't be much of a choice.

 

[Harrigan]

I got a roll film back for one of my view cameras, and after using it a few times, I was like "why am I doing this?" With the time of setting up, and dialing in focus with movements, it was a bit underwhelming to get tiny negatives for my trouble. The roll film back didn't seem to add that much in the way if convenience or speed compared to slipping in a holder, and in the end I was stuck with a bunch of exposures that all had to be processed exactly the same, giving up one of the primo advantages of sheet film. Wasn't worth it, to me. Thats just my take. YMMV.

Best,

J

Why would it take longer to dial in focus for roll film?

You can also get 2x3 cut sheet film holders but not alot of film choice.

Brackets are for transparency film. I don't find I ever need to bracket color or bw neg film. If I do I shoot sheet film of course.

I find the 2x3 transparencies on velvia or ektachrome and modern neg films 160NC and Pro 160s to have more than enough information for most of my needs. If I need more info I use 5x7 or 8x10.

I have found 2x3 to replace 4x5 for my needs. Mostly I use it for color work but a 2x3 neg of tmax 100 also has quite alot of detail.

 

[JBrunner]

Why would it take longer to dial in focus for roll film?

You can also get 2x3 cut sheet film holders but not alot of film choice.

Brackets are for transparency film. I don't find I ever need to bracket color or bw neg film. If I do I shoot sheet film of course.

I find the 2x3 transparencies on velvia or ektachrome and modern neg films 160NC and Pro 160s to have more than enough information for most of my needs. If I need more info I use 5x7 or 8x10.

I have found 2x3 to replace 4x5 for my needs. Mostly I use it for color work but a 2x3 neg of tmax 100 also has quite alot of detail.

It doesn't take longer to focus with roll film, it just generally takes much longer to set up and focus with a view camera, no matter the back, so for me, the little bit of time saved with a roll back vs the smaller neg isn't worth it (to me).

I have not at any time referred to bracketing. I am referring to processing negatives individually, according to my specific exposure, and my intention for a particular density and curve for that exposure. If all my negatives are on the same piece of film, they must all be processed the same way, and that dog don't hunt for me.

I do see a distinct advantage to shooting a Pan format like 6x17 with a roll back on a view camera, and I agree also about shooting most color. I just wouldn't trade a 4x5 inch for a 6x7cm in B&W for the penalty of loading and inserting a few holders, after going through the trouble of setting up a view camera. Of course that considers my shooting style and end goals, not the OPs.
As I said, your mileage may vary.

BTW, your work looks nice.

 

[Harrigan]

It doesn't take longer to focus with roll film, it just generally takes much longer to set up and focus with a view camera, no matter the back, so for me, the little bit of time saved with a roll back vs the smaller neg isn't worth it (to me).

I have not at any time referred to bracketing. I am referring to processing negatives individually, according to my specific exposure, and my intention for a particular density and curve for that exposure. If all my negatives are on the same piece of film, they must all be processed the same way, and that dog don't hunt for me.

I do see a distinct advantage to shooting a Pan format like 6x17 with a roll back on a view camera, and I agree also about shooting most color. I just wouldn't trade a 4x5 inch for a 6x7cm in B&W for the penalty of loading and inserting a few holders, after going through the trouble of setting up a view camera. Of course that considers my shooting style and end goals, not the OPs.
As I said, your mileage may vary.

Yes it does take longer w/ a view camera no doubt. I think most of my roll work with 2x3 is color. Commercially I only wish I had made the switch sooner as 4x5 is alot more expensive for not a huge advantage. Also my local lab here charges $1.00 per roll more to run 220 compared to 120 so I have a big advantage there.

Sorry I had a booger in my brain and confused what you meant about processing one at a time.

I still use 5x7 for minimum for most of my bw work but the roll film is still pretty good in 2x3. I use the 2x3 for longer hikes where it takes 1/2 the space/weight as the 45 or 57 would.

 

[epatsellis]

what's wrong with just using your mamiya? Do you REALLY need a viewcam with a rollfilm back..? Be honest. Most people convince themselves they need this - when it's totally immaterial to getting the shots they want. Just a thought.

True and for 99% of the shots, that's exactly what I do, however when I must have some perspective control, my Arcbody seems to be on permanent loan to somebody else, hence a quick solution, I have the option of being able to apply view camera movements when the work requires it or the image that I have previsualized requires control of the focal plane. Just a tool, not often used, but when you need it, you need it.


erie

 

[Sparky]

Where it DOES pay off is probably in the studio with a static setup - and you can knock off scores of shots without being hassled by the idea of loading new filmholders.

 

[epatsellis]

And for various architechtural work, in fact. front rise can be a wonderful thing, as well as swing when shooting a 3/4 shot of a building.


erie