6x4,5, 6x6 or 6x7 RF with a F2.8 lens?

[sevo]

Linhof non-folder would be a that monster that I think was either called a press 70 or tech 70.

The Press 70 was their counterpart to Graflex XL and Mamiya Press, with focusing barrel lenses - but much more exotic and expensive, so unless you happen upon a affordable kit, no sensible choice, as you won't ever find the (three) matching lenses and its special film backs except priced for collectors. The Technika 70 is more versatile than all these Press cameras, thanks to being bellows and lensboard type, but in its turn it is more restricted (limited in movements, focal lengths and accessories) than a real "baby" 6x9 Technika IV or V. The V is best, but expensive - given that its space age design makes the 70 sell for more than the IV in spite of its limitations, the IV probably is the wisest choice among the bunch.

Linhof also made the Linhof 220, a 95/3.5 fixed-lens portrait oriented rangefinder that looks like a oversized 8mm camera - a bit awkward in landscape orientation, but at least as good, concerning the lens and rangefinder quality, as the Fujis.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . What about the Linhof 6x9 cameras? Maybe on the bulky side but i believe there are 100mm f2.8 Planars. I have no experience with these cameras, however. . . .

I've had two 100/2.8 Planars on 'baby' Linhofs. Like an idiot I sold the first (which was gorgeous) and the second (bought to replace it) wasn't as good. I currently have a Graflex XL with an 80/2.8 Heligon which is good. I'd hesitate to trust folders with lenses that fast, in case they'd got bent over the decades: even f/3.5 is pushing it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . The Technika 70 is more versatile than all these Press cameras, thanks to being bellows and lensboard type, but in its turn it is more restricted (limited in movements, focal lengths and accessories) than a real "baby" 6x9 Technika IV or V. . . .

Funny: I don't recall the Tech 70 as more limited than an ST IV (I've had both) but I've never owned a V. What can't the T70 do that an ST IV can? I ask to refresh my aging memory, not to disagree.

Cheers,

R.

 

[culturesponge]

I've had two 100/2.8 Planars on 'baby' Linhofs. Like an idiot I sold the first (which was gorgeous) and the second (bought to replace it) wasn't as good. I currently have a Graflex XL with an 80/2.8 Heligon which is good. I'd hesitate to trust folders with lenses that fast, in case they'd got bent over the decades: even f/3.5 is pushing it.

Cheers,

R.

if focus is critical use a tape measure - no matter what camera, format or medium (stills, dv, cine)

premium quality tape measures are inexpensive & relatively small, have alot more worn-out tape measures than worn-out light meters!

best
alex

 

[Roger Hicks]

if focus is critical use a tape measure - no matter what camera, format or medium (stills, dv, cine)

premium quality tape measures are inexpensive & relatively small, have alot more worn-out tape measures than worn-out light meters!

best
alex

Dear Alex,

Um... no. Use the ground glass. That's what it's for!

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

The Plaubel looks good, although I dislike foldable cameras in general, because of mechanical problems that can arise, plus difficulties in keeping the focus precise. But I was hoping to find something smaller, perhaps I should simply stick to what I have. Pentax 645N with the 55/2.8 is simply brilliant, so is Pentax 67II with the 75/2.8, but much bigger to lug around. Tomorrow is going to be a Rolleiflex day... BTW, brilliant the photos with Bessa II - I have to take a look at one if I have a chance.

Mine is a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B and it is built like a tank and focuses very precise.

Although it is generally considered a 6x6 camera, I feel it is more of a 6x7 image size that the camera produces.

A 1950s model with coated lens should be a great performer. Mine is a 1937 model with an uncoated Tessar 2.8/80mm. And, I have the DPM portrait adapter with it too, for closer focusing.

Great camera, and folds up pretty compact nonetheles!😉

 

[culturesponge]

Dear Alex,

Um... no. Use the ground glass. That's what it's for!

Cheers,

R.

alright then Roger!

(busy) throwing away my tape measures - free at last from the imperial (or metric) tyranny

best
alex

 

[Roger Hicks]

alright then Roger!

(busy) throwing away my tape measures - free at last from the imperial (or metric) tyranny

best
alex

Dear Alex,

Where in Southern California? I lived for 5 years in no-man's-land. Southern California ends at Sta. Barbara; Northern California starts at San Luis Obispo; and I lived in Guadalupe....

My suspicion (not verified empirically for all cameras, but certainly true of those I have tried) is that a ground glass and (say) a 6x magnifier is a lot more reliable than a focusing scale...

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Funny: I don't recall the Tech 70 as more limited than an ST IV (I've had both) but I've never owned a V. What can't the T70 do that an ST IV can? I ask to refresh my aging memory, not to disagree.

I can't really answer to the IV/V differences, as the IVs I've used all were 4x5" or 13x18 - looking though Linhof catalogues it looks as if the baby IV was less versatile than the big ones, the 70 might actually be a upgrade from that.

Compared to the V the 70 was limited to 60mm at the shortest, there were some more movement limitations with wides, and there also was some problem mounting some types of backs. It can't have been entirely irrelevant, in assistant days I had once to drive back to get the V, cursed for losing the best light, when I had accidentally packed the box with the 70 for a architecture assignment.

 

[GaryLH]

I've had two 100/2.8 Planars on 'baby' Linhofs. Like an idiot I sold the first (which was gorgeous) and the second (bought to replace it) wasn't as good. I currently have a Graflex XL with an 80/2.8 Heligon which is good. I'd hesitate to trust folders with lenses that fast, in case they'd got bent over the decades: even f/3.5 is pushing it.

Cheers,

R.

I am just as stupid Roger. My second baby linhof was not as good. Wish I had never sold the first.

Gary