Any old cameras like the Fotoman Dmax?

[Jesse3Names]

I love shooting with my Nikon S3 RF, but sometimes I want bigger negatives with different aspect ratios (6x6 and 6x9 most notably) and the advantages of lens design on MF. I'm posting this here because last night I found what I believe I'm looking for - a camera that can do it all in MF: the Fotoman Dmax body. It allows the use of Hasselblad (6x6), Mamiya (6x7 and 6x8), and Horseman (6x9 and 6x12) film backs that all feed 120/220 roll film and an impressive gamut of wide angle lenses with the appropriate cone adapters. This seems very appealing to me if I travel somewhere with one single body and lens, just having to take different backs for formats. Probably the simplest method out there.

What I don't know is if this has been done this before and how it worked out. Do any of you know of an older camera than can take 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 film backs with a decent selection of lenses, especially wide ones for landscapes? Also, does anyone know what the Fotoman Dmax cameras go for new/used? There's squat for pricing listed on their website I could find and since no one sells them in the US, I would have to buy one through the nearest retailer in Canada.

Cheers,
Jesse

 

[mbisc]

My Crown Graphic takes 6x6, 6x7 & 6x9 backs, and they are very cheap -- lenses range from 47mm to 200mm (or so) -- longer if they are tele designs.

For the ultimate portability, you can also pre-order one of the Travelwides from Wanderlust Cameras, which are 4x5 cameras and would take any rollfilm holder designed for 4x5 backs.

 

[Spanik]

The Mamiya Press series also can do 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 and 6x4.5 and has lenses ranging from 50-65-90-100-150-250.

 

[Jesse3Names]

My Crown Graphic takes 6x6, 6x7 & 6x9 backs, and they are very cheap -- lenses range from 47mm to 200mm (or so) -- longer if they are tele designs.

For the ultimate portability, you can also pre-order one of the Travelwides from Wanderlust Cameras, which are 4x5 cameras and would take any rollfilm holder designed for 4x5 backs.

I've heard of Crown Graphics, but forgot about them. I really like the idea of shooting 4x5, but I'd definitely work up to it starting with 120/220 roll film backs. I understand LF is not meant to be necessarily convenient (in the context of backcountry hiking), but it does produce unparalleled image quality. It's just easier to carry roll film protected in a container in a pack for those trips I decide to punish myself with managing extra gear on top of my GoPro, Canon P&S, and/or DSLR.

I had never heard of the Wanderlust Travelwide. But getting into LF with a brand new body for $150 including a focusing screen sounds like a good deal. Aren't Crown Graphics and Mamiya bodies going for about that, also? Wanderlust say they're planning on making a 65mm lens adapter kit, but as far as I could tell that's as wide as I could go. The 90mm f/6.8 lens they designed the camera has its 35mm-equivalent at 39mm on 6x9 film and 43mm on 6x6. If I went with a Crown Graphic 4x5 or Mamiya Press body and roll film back, I could at least get down to 47-50mm focal length, as close to a MF-equivalent of my landscape lenses on 35mm film/digital. Thoughts?

 

[Jesse3Names]

I actually just went back and realized I misread the charts. A MF 65mm f/8 lens would be most equivalent to a 28mm f/3.5 lens on 35mm film - is this correct? I believe that not only does the crop factor apply to the focal length, but also the aperture. By this same logic, is the normally happy f/8-11 landscape aperture range on a MF camera scaled up to f/18-26? I know these aren't exactly detent positions on any lenses, but going by math I guess you'd have to shoot f/16-22 to get close to the same depth of field - or am I wrong and the DoF stays consistent between formats?

Also, reading about the Crown Graphic - if I were to travel with it and a wide, 47mm lens, would I be at a heavy disadvantage because it isn't capable of all the crazy movements of "field cameras," as it was designed to be a press camera? Not sure I understand the difference or the necessity of these movements as I've only ever shot 35mm or 6x6 on a friend's Hasselblad 500C.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Baby" Linhofs (with all movements). Graflex XL. Polaroid 600-series (with adapters). I have all three. A 4x5 camera with a roll-film back is the cheapest option. See also http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps large.html and http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps large.html

But how does a 65/8 lens magically become a 28/3.5? Angle of view, yes. Speed, no.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jbielikowski]

Well if you like the Fotoman idea you could look up cameras like Alpa, Gaoersi, Da Yi, Cambo Wide, Sinar Handy, Horseman Convertible, Silvestri... and probably more.

 

[Jesse3Names]

"Baby" Linhofs (with all movements). Graflex XL. Polaroid 600-series (with adapters). I have all three. A 4x5 camera with a roll-film back is the cheapest option. See also http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps large.html and http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps large.html

But how does a 65/8 lens magically become a 28/3.5? Angle of view, yes. Speed, no.

Cheers,

R.

Well, if you go from full-frame sensors to APS-C sensors, in Canon DSLRs at least, you have a crop factor of 1.6x. Not only does that apply to focal length, but also aperture. So a 50mm f/1.8 full-frame lens becomes an 80mm f/2.88 mathematically. That's at least as far as I understand it. If you don't apply the crop factor to aperture as well, please say so - I may have been misinformed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, if you go from full-frame sensors to APS-C sensors, in Canon DSLRs at least, you have a crop factor of 1.6x. Not only does that apply to focal length, but also aperture. So a 50mm f/1.8 full-frame lens becomes an 80mm f/2.88 mathematically. That's at least as far as I understand it. If you don't apply the crop factor to aperture as well, please say so - I may have been misinformed.

You have been misinformed. Grievously. Both focal length and aperture remain constant. Only coverage changes as a function of format. Thus my 38/4.5 has the equivalent coverage of 21mm on the 44x66mm format (Alpa) but it is still a 38/4.5: a modest f/4.5 wide-angle on 35mm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well if you like the Fotoman idea you could look up cameras like Alpa, Gaoersi, Da Yi, Cambo Wide, Sinar Handy, Horseman Convertible, Silvestri... and probably more.

Alpa MF cameras are however quite expensive, especially the shift version. And easily the best made of the lot, which is why they're quite expensive...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jesse3Names]

You have been misinformed. Grievously. Both focal length and aperture remain constant. Only coverage changes as a function of format. Thus my 38/4.5 has the equivalent coverage of 21mm on the 44x66mm format (Alpa) but it is still a 38/4.5: a modest f/4.5 wide-angle on 35mm.

Cheers,

R.

And that's why I'm glad I clarified - I totally understood that the physical focal length doesn't change when you put a lens on a different body... it can't according to the laws of nature. But yes - coverage is what really matters and that's what I meant when referring to 35mm-equivalent focal lengths. Now I know aperture remains the same. I hate how there's bad information floating around that tells people when you take a full frame lens and mount it to a crop sensor body that the aperture changes. The coverage obviously does, but not aperture. Thank you!

 

[sevo]

The original barebones 4x5" frame with wide angle lens on a helical cone and hand grip was the "Sinar Handy" dating back to the eighties. Not that much selection in lenses there (I think there never were more than two or three factory cones/focal lengths), unless you have cones made to measure. Personally I only own the 75mm SA on a Handy cone, and use all other lenses on my regular Sinar F's and P's.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And that's why I'm glad I clarified - I totally understood that the physical focal length doesn't change when you put a lens on a different body... it can't according to the laws of nature. But yes - coverage is what really matters and that's what I meant when referring to 35mm-equivalent focal lengths. Now I know aperture remains the same. I hate how there's bad information floating around that tells people when you take a full frame lens and mount it to a crop sensor body that the aperture changes. The coverage obviously does, but not aperture. Thank you!

You are more than welcome! Even when you know better, it is easy to be intimidated by nonsense when it is stated with sufficient confidence.

Cheers,

R

 

[jbielikowski]

You have been misinformed. Grievously. Both focal length and aperture remain constant. Only coverage changes as a function of format. Thus my 38/4.5 has the equivalent coverage of 21mm on the 44x66mm format (Alpa) but it is still a 38/4.5: a modest f/4.5 wide-angle on 35mm.

Cheers,

R.

However, the DOF changes and lenses act as they were faster/slower on bigger/smaller sensor. 45/4 on Pentax 6x7 work quite similar to FX Nikkor 24/2 ( just to get an idea what one could expect not to compare things).

Alpa MF cameras are however quite expensive, especially the shift version. And easily the best made of the lot, which is why they're quite expensive...

Cheers,

R.

Thats why it was first on my list... and because I'd love to have one.

 

[Jesse3Names]

However, the DOF changes and lenses act as they were faster/slower on bigger/smaller sensor. 45/4 on Pentax 6x7 work quite similar to FX Nikkor 24/2 ( just to get an idea what one could expect not to compare things).



Thats why it was first on my list... and because I'd love to have one.

Ah it's all apparent changes. Just as coverage is an apparent change in focal length, there exists an apparent change in aperture. I knew they "acted" as though the crop affected both focal length and aperture, but the YouTube video I saw explaining it did not make a solid point of it. The guy did not stress the importance of apparent vs. actual change. I knew it didn't optically change, but it just appeared to give you the effect of an equivalent lens. So when I said a 65mm f/8 lens would be most equivalent to a 28mm f/3.5, I was still incorrect... correct? I don't meter for f/3.5 because math tells me to, I still meter for f/8. It just gives me the shallower depth of field that f/3.5 has while collecting the same, lesser amount of light f/8 does. Is that a fair understanding of how it works?

If you had to recommend 1-2 of the less expensive cameras out of that list, which ones would those be? I want features that include a reasonably portable size and being able to shoot 47 or 50mm lenses. The Alpa looks beautiful, but there's no need for the volume I will shoot to spend a few thousand. I'm looking to spend up to a couple hundred USD on a body/lens combo with a film back or two.

 

[sevo]

I'm looking to spend up to a couple hundred USD on a body/lens combo with a film back or two.

For "a couple" being anything less than twenty, that will not buy you a pro grade panoramic camera with recent (SA XL or the like) lens - these cameras and these lenses are still being made, and sell for a couple thousand each...

Given the state of the film camera market, you can sometimes strike surprising bargains - cases full of pro gear with no consumer recognizable brand sometimes are offloaded for scrap value. But if you cannot hunt that camera for several years, you'd better settle for something less elusive (and more bulky). Within your budget, 250-300 might buy you a decent Mamiya RB or RZ with 50mm lens and magazines or a Fuji GSW, and if you want movements, roughly twice that could get you a basic view camera (Sinar F or the like) with a clean 75/8 or 65/8 Super Angulon.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I don't meter for f/3.5 because math tells me to, I still meter for f/8. It just gives me the shallower depth of field that f/3.5 has while collecting the same, lesser amount of light f/8 does. Is that a fair understanding of how it works?

If you had to recommend 1-2 of the less expensive cameras out of that list, which ones would those be? I want features that include a reasonably portable size and being able to shoot 47 or 50mm lenses. The Alpa looks beautiful, but there's no need for the volume I will shoot to spend a few thousand. I'm looking to spend up to a couple hundred USD on a body/lens combo with a film back or two.

Para 1: Ah, I now understand the origin of the misunderstanding. Yes, that'll do as an explanation.

Para 2: The only was you will get in sight of $200 US is if you build the camera yourself. The lens alone is likely to cost you that, even the 47/8 (a somewhat variable lens -- a camera manufacturer friend once sent back 11 out of 12, though he may have been over-critical) and you'll be doing well to find a single 6x9 back at under $100, never mind two. Then you need a body -- effectively, just a spacer -- and a viewfinder. The very cheapest bet would be a 65/6,8 Angulon (not Super Angulon) grafted onto a donor roll-film folder body, with the bellows, front standard and bed removed, and a wooden spacer between that and the lens -- but even then, you'll need either a focusing mount (more money) or to set the Angulon hyperfocal at f/16 or f/22.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jbielikowski]

(...)

If you had to recommend 1-2 of the less expensive cameras out of that list, which ones would those be? I want features that include a reasonably portable size and being able to shoot 47 or 50mm lenses. The Alpa looks beautiful, but there's no need for the volume I will shoot to spend a few thousand. I'm looking to spend up to a couple hundred USD on a body/lens combo with a film back or two.

Personaly I'm waiting for the mentioned before Travelwide. Or as Roger suggest, make your own. Old Mamiya Super 23 work nice as a donor, you just chop the top and use wideangle VF for the 50/6.3 (so called Mamiya Flat Top, with some luck you can find one on evilbay).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personaly I'm waiting for the mentioned before Travelwide. Or as Roger suggest, make your own. Old Mamiya Super 23 work nice as a donor, you just chop the top and use wideangle VF for the 50/6.3 (so called Mamiya Flat Top, with some luck you can find one on evilbay).

Yes, but 90mm is hardly a wide-angle on roll-film unless you use a 6x12 back (serious money) and as far as I can see this is the only focal length choice. Chopping up a ratty Mamiya and using a 50/6.3 sounds like a better bet to me (and a better idea than mine). Even then, could you bring it in under $200? Or even twice that?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jbielikowski]

Yes, but 90mm is hardly a wide-angle on roll-film unless you use a 6x12 back (serious money) and as far as I can see this is the only focal length choice. Chopping up a ratty Mamiya and using a 50/6.3 sounds like a better bet to me (and a better idea than mine). Even then, could you bring it in under $200? Or even twice that?

Cheers,

R.

For 120 film sure that makes no sense, but its so light and cheap that I can live with the hassle of using 4x5 holders. They are also testing 65mm Conversion Kit.

200$ is a good pinhole budget to be honest, even Koni-Omega with 60/5.6 will cost at least 400$.