What are the best 4x5 camera's to buy for portraits?

[moodlover]

For the sake of completeness, I was thiniking of something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-R...292017?hash=item466af72331:g:ouQAAOSwS8xZgKUN - basically a Rodenstock Imagon 200 mm lens set up to be used with a medium format camera.

When it comes to the Mamiya RZ, what about the 110/2.8 or the soft focus 180/4 lens? Just adding some ideas and options to the mix.

Thanks for the link. I can't seem to find any examples of photos taken with that 200mm lens so I don't think I'd consider it an option unless I can see portraits taken with it. Also at f/5.8 seems a bit slow and having too much DOF compared to the Aero Ektar 178mm. Regarding the RZ, I already own the beautiful 110/2.8 but for medium portraits it doesn't provide the shallow enough DOF I'm looking for.

 

[moodlover]

I think Pacemaker is better because of easier to use focal-plane selections and also top-mounted rangefinder.

Thanks, I will look into a Pacemaker then. Looks like a ~$1000 venture to get a Pacemaker in excellent condition and a decent Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm. For both of these, is there any group of serial numbers I should keep an eye out for?

 

[faberryman]

Have you had a chance for and hands on experience with the Speed Graphic variant you are contemplating purchasing?

 

[moodlover]

Have you had a chance for and hands on experience with the Speed Graphic variant you are contemplating purchasing?

I have not. Luckily eBay has a 30 day return policy should anything go wrong. With the help of youtube and this forum, I've taught myself everything I know about film and even develop/scan at home so I'm not too worried about learning how to use a 4x5. As with all things it will take time and patience.

 

[faberryman]

I have not. Luckily eBay has a 30 day return policy should anything go wrong. With the help of youtube and this forum, I've taught myself everything I know about film and even develop/scan at home so I'm not too worried about learning how to use a 4x5. As with all things it will take time and patience.

It's not so much a question of learning how to use it as the actual experience of using it. You might find using a field camera or monorail quicker and easier. You don't want using the camera to get in the way of making a portrait.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It's not so much a question of learning how to use it as the actual experience of using it. You might find using a field camera or monorail quicker and easier. You don't want using the camera to get in the way of making a portrait.

Faberryman is making a very good point. You'll also need more than utoob and a forum, I'd advise getting a few books.
Besides, reading books has been shown to make you live longer. Books, not computer screens.

 

[ransel]

Thanks, I checked out the photo gallery. Unfortunately a lot of the portraits don't really display a shallow DOF the way an Aero Ektar 178mm open wide does. Not to mention, many of the photos have this overwhelming glow that looks like a cheap Photoshop effect!

"cheap Photoshop effect...how dare you sir...HOW DARE YOU! Yes, if shot at wide apertures, like f/3.? - f/4.5 it does produce a lot of "glow". I prefer the sweet spot of f/8 or f/11 (I don't care for the glow myself), and even a half stop in between. But you are correct - this lens design can not produce the shallow depth of field that the 178mm Areo can. Of course, I have read some people say that it is very easy to miss critical focus (on the eyes) with the Areo due to such a shallow depth of field.

 

[removed account4]

[

Faberryman is making a very good point. You'll also need more than utoob and a forum, I'd advise getting a few books.
Besides, reading books has been shown to make you live longer. Books, not computer screens.

huh ? for a speed graphic ?
its a focusable box camera ...

 

[faberryman]

I am not talking about books, technical specs, etc. I'm talking about actually using it - the haptics of the thing.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Another example of a person who doesn't know advising another of the same.

Ok, so I fucked up not knowing the earliest Anniversary and Pacemaker didn't have Graflok backs and the earliest Pacemakers didn't have a top mounted rangefinders.

However, the key elements I was telling the OP to look for, Graflok back, top mounted rangefinder, and simpler shutter controls, are what is important.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Wrong again. David Burnett uses a 7"/2.5 Aero Ektar on a Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a side RF. More bad advice.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I agree with you there, I need a bright ground glass. How can I ensure my 4x5 body has a good ground glass?

Um.
You're talking about using an f:2.5 lens wide open......

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Y'know, there are a couple of 200/2 lenses that cover 4x5. Dallmeyer Super Six and S.F.O,M. I don't think the OP should settle for a mere 7"/2.5er when he can have a longer faster lens. I've had the S.F.O.M., think it might tear the front standard off a Speed Graphic.

 

[Lachlan Young]

too much DOF compared to the Aero Ektar 178mm. Regarding the RZ, I already own the beautiful 110/2.8 but for medium portraits it doesn't provide the shallow enough DOF I'm looking for.

Really? How big are you planning to print? I'm pretty sceptical of your need for anything faster than an old 210/5.6 Schneider Symmar or similar used wide open on 4x5 if you want to actually hold a moderate amount of your subject in focus. That said, a 210/4.5 Xenar or other Tessar type designs might be worth a look, along with their f3.5 brethren - many in the 180-210 range were offered in shutters of varying sizes.
There's a whole load of vastly more interesting glass out there than the Aero Ektar cliche.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hmm. Y'know, there are a couple of 200/2 lenses that cover 4x5. Dallmeyer Super Six and S.F.O,M. I don't think the OP should settle for a mere 7"/2.5er when he can have a longer faster lens. I've had the S.F.O.M., think it might tear the front standard off a Speed Graphic.

I think there was an f:6 Aero Ektar in the 24" range? Covered 10x10"?

 

[Nodda Duma]

*slowly backs out of the thread*

 

[moodlover]

It's not so much a question of learning how to use it as the actual experience of using it. You might find using a field camera or monorail quicker and easier. You don't want using the camera to get in the way of making a portrait.

This can be said for any camera someone is new to. Obviously it will take time to get used to it the workflow of it and I will test on still-life first. Afterwards, the only way to practice portraits is to actually put a patient person in front of it. I'm sure I'll figure it out. Apparently the Speed Graphics are the only one ready to work with the Aero Ektar 178mm so I'll stick with those for convenience!

Faberryman is making a very good point. You'll also need more than utoob and a forum, I'd advise getting a few books.
Besides, reading books has been shown to make you live longer. Books, not computer screens.

YouTube has taught me more than any book and much faster too. You are free to read books but let's not pretend like YouTube is inferior. Many of the best videos I've watched are just readings of the information from books, with a visual tutorial attached. Win/win in my eyes. In reality, if we don't act this like it's a military procedure, all I really need is some videos on YouTube (which ive already found) that show me how the system works, the camera's manual, and some practice. I've done this with the RZ67 and it can't be that much harder to operate a bigger box. You twist the knobs to set the tensions, you pop in the film holder and remove the dark slide, you spin the knobs to adjust the bellows/focus, you fire away. On the Speed Graphic anyway, which is what I'm interested in. A few books is a good idea, just don't have the patience for it right now.

Let's relax guys, photography can be fun if we let it.

 

[moodlover]

"cheap Photoshop effect...how dare you sir...HOW DARE YOU! Yes, if shot at wide apertures, like f/3.? - f/4.5 it does produce a lot of "glow". I prefer the sweet spot of f/8 or f/11 (I don't care for the glow myself), and even a half stop in between. But you are correct - this lens design can not produce the shallow depth of field that the 178mm Areo can. Of course, I have read some people say that it is very easy to miss critical focus (on the eyes) with the Areo due to such a shallow depth of field.

Haha yes I worry about that too. But that is why Im interested in a bright, sharp ground glass (which of course is probably not easy to find).

 

[moodlover]

Um.
You're talking about using an f:2.5 lens wide open......

What's your point? If the system I buy is old and not great condition there is a high chance the ground glass can be hazy. I shoot in a dark studio with very dim modeling lights (since the flashes are in softboxes) currently with a f/2.8 lens and it's still a challenge at times.

 

[moodlover]

Really? How big are you planning to print? I'm pretty sceptical of your need for anything faster than an old 210/5.6 Schneider Symmar or similar used wide open on 4x5 if you want to actually hold a moderate amount of your subject in focus. That said, a 210/4.5 Xenar or other Tessar type designs might be worth a look, along with their f3.5 brethren - many in the 180-210 range were offered in shutters of varying sizes.
There's a whole load of vastly more interesting glass out there than the Aero Ektar cliche.

I print anywhere from 18x20" and up. I also scan for web. Usually only like focus on the plane of the face and nothing else. Check out http://www.jameswigger.com/portaits for examples of what I'm trying to achieve (he uses the Aero 178mm). Im open to other lens suggestions but again, without examples of what kind of photos they produce I'd never buy one. I've also never seen anything like what this Aero produces and is the look I've wanted for years!

 

[Soeren]

Hard as focussing may it probably will be even harder for the sitter not to move during the the process from focus to tripping the shutter.

 

[Soeren]

I print anywhere from 18x20" and up. I also scan for web. Usually only like focus on the plane of the face and nothing else. Check out http://www.jameswigger.com/portaits for examples of what I'm trying to achieve (he uses the Aero 178mm). Im open to other lens suggestions but again, without examples of what kind of photos they produce I'd never buy one. I've also never seen anything like what this Aero produces and is the look I've wanted for years!

I suspect tilt and swing have a greater impact on that look than the name of the lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

What's your point? If the system I buy is old and not great condition there is a high chance the ground glass can be hazy. I shoot in a dark studio with very dim modeling lights (since the flashes are in softboxes) currently with a f/2.8 lens and it's still a challenge at times.

The original GG screens of Graflex cameras are not that bright about 3+ stops less in terms of effective brightness compared to the ista Combo screen on my 45DX, however fitting a new screen and adding a fresnel (I make screens on a regular basis, usually up to about 100 a year) brought my Crown Graphic screen to closer to 1/2 a stop apparent difference. I changed or reground the screens in my Speed Graflex and Super Graflex making a similar difference.

I use all my Graphics with just the focus hood when working hand-held, even with an135mm f5,6 Sironar or a 90mm f6.8 Angulon, or 203mm f7.7 Ektar it's easy to focus, I can't comment about the level of the modelling lights with your particular flash set up but I have no problems with my Elinchrom and Bowens equipment and they are easy to focus with.

Ian

 

[Soeren]

Id look for a camera using Sinar lensboards and then mount the copal shutter. The higher flashsync (and maybe using slower film) will give you some leeway in regard to use more light for focussing.

 

[Richard Man]

Hard as focussing may it probably will be even harder for the sitter not to move during the the process from focus to tripping the shutter.

Having taken portraits of tons of people, and none of them are models, truer words have not been spoken ;-)