folding 4x5 options

[BW400CN]

I got my feet wet with a little 6x9cm Voigtländer Avus and wanted more!

so I got now a 9x12cm Avus with a Avus Anastigmat 6,8 13,5cm


Voigtländer Avus 9x12 1924 von Michael Relguag auf Flickr

Took my first shots on Wephota Ortho 25


Avus 9x12 Innsbruck von Michael Relguag auf Flickr - Avus Anastigmat 6,8 13,5


Avus 9x12 Innsbruck von Michael Relguag auf Flickr - Skopar 4,5 10,5cm with WW Focar 30 on the rear lens.

And bought a set of lenses today


Lenses for my Avus von Michael Relguag auf Flickr

I still have to learn alot with this size and how to scan this better - but I´m hooked to these large size negatives.

Maybe my next step will be a Graflex Speed Graphic to use shutterless lenses like an old Petzval or A Voigtländer Heliar which is much cheaper if you buy it in a shutterless version.

 

[EdSawyer]

90

90

If you are looking for the best 90, it's the Nikon 90/8, which not only is significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon 90/4.5, it's sometimes cheaper, and most definitely sharper.

 

[redisburning]

Wistas swing ~ the advantage of the Wista over the Toyo is that the Wista will close up with a moderate-sized lens mounted. The advantage of the Toyo is a longer bellows and focusing track. In practical terms, you can use a 300 on a Toyo for landscape; maybe a 210-240 on the Wista. There are work-arounds of course (tele lenses, extension tracks and bellows, top-hat lens boards....)

I see now that the Wistas have back swing.

I don't use movements to change perspective, though. I want them to have very high control over focus. I set my back standard up to be normal to the scene.

What I'm concerned about is let's say I come across a fence and want to have it run from bottom right to top left in my composition as it goes away from me. In order to get just the fence in good focus, I would need horizontal swing on the front standard. If I want EVERYTHING in focus, now I probably have to apply some forward tilt as well plus stop down.

I dont know I feel like that kind of justifies having swing which makes a Toyo or Technika a better choice.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Been there, done that with a lot of variations. My experience is that handheld 4x5 is less sharp than a good medium format rangefinder camera like a Mamiya 7 or Fuji 6x9 because of subtle shakiness, hitting optimal aperture and depth of field, etc.

But you can still have fun shooting 4x5 handheld anyway, even if the results are a wash, you get a lot of comments from bystanders and you blow a lot of shots, which helps keep the film makers in business.

Dear Frank,

Your experience is similar to mine. Hand-held 4x5 can be great fun, and certainly gives a distinct look -- http://www.rogerandfrances.com/sgallery/g sepia 2.html -- but good-sized roll film (6x7cm and upwards) tends to give me better results. In fact I'd even say that overall, a 6x9 back on a 4x5 inch MPP, with a well-cammed lens, can at least equal 4x5 inch with the same camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I see now that the Wistas have back swing.

I don't use movements to change perspective, though. I want them to have very high control over focus. I set my back standard up to be normal to the scene.

What I'm concerned about is let's say I come across a fence and want to have it run from bottom right to top left in my composition as it goes away from me. In order to get just the fence in good focus, I would need horizontal swing on the front standard. If I want EVERYTHING in focus, now I probably have to apply some forward tilt as well plus stop down.

I dont know I feel like that kind of justifies having swing which makes a Toyo or Technika a better choice.

I think that my SHen Hao 5x7 can do that, and it has both 5x7 and 4x5 backs. You could check the specs on their website as an alternative. Looking forward to getting it out in a few weeks time.

Mike

 

[redisburning]

all,

I have given this CONSIDERABLE thought since starting this topic and have ultimately decided that 4x5 isn't going to work as a long term solution for me.

I thought long and hard about what I think my future in this hobby will look like, and what I want to accomplish, and then I compared that with what 4x5 entails, and I don't think it's a good match. I have some plan as to >35mm plans; it's just not going to be LF.

 

[Dwig]

...
What I'm concerned about is let's say I come across a fence and want to have it run from bottom right to top left in my composition as it goes away from me. In order to get just the fence in good focus, I would need horizontal swing on the front standard. If I want EVERYTHING in focus, now I probably have to apply some forward tilt as well plus stop down.

I dont know I feel like that kind of justifies having swing which makes a Toyo or Technika a better choice.

I used a Nagaoka, like the one keytarjunkie mentioned above, for years. It is light enough to make tilting the tripod head over 90 degrees to convert the tilt into a swing very practical. I never found it a stability issue even on a "light" 6# Tiltall tripod.

One caution about all of the models that use Technika size lensboards. Many have too small an opening to swallow the rear element of monsters like the Nikkor-W 90 f/4.5. To use it you have to remove the rear cell and, after mounting the remaining lens, reinstall the rear cell throught the bellows from the rear. Personally, I used a very late 90mm f/8 Angulon (not "Super", but with modern coatings and shutter) which is small enough to be left on the camera when closed if you simply flip the lens board to put the lens on backwards

 

[didjiman]

I have 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17 cameras.

I have looked at Razzle and Byron cameras repeatedly.( Errr - see my 2nd signature statement
Below)

I have been held back by an unanswered question I have.

What size enlargement would make it worthwhile to shoot hand held 4x5 instead of what I have, which are usually shot on a tripod?

Texsport

Texsport, despite what Razzle or Byron imply, you can always put them on a tripod, then you will gain the 4x5 advantage when you are aiming for the highest quality.

 

[Soeren]

The German equivalent to 4x5" between the wars was 10x15cm - pretty closely 4x6", that is, more than 2cm longer on the long edge, but almost exactly the same width. While you can only get 10x15 film as special order (or by trimming from a larger format) these days, the fit across the wide edge is close enough that 4x5 sheets can be used in many (loose fitting) 10x15 holders, if you tape up the unsecured edge.

Quite a few of the "pocket" plate cameras of the period were sold in 10x15 as well as 9x12 and 6x9 versions - the Bergheil among them. The 10x15 cameras tend to be just as slim, just 1 respectively 3 cm longer in two dimension, so they are almost as pocketable.

What??? I thought it was 9X12cm which is very close to 4X5" Only reason I don't use my Bergheil 9X12 more is its hell to load those single sheet holders.
Best regards

 

[ChrisN]

all,

I have given this CONSIDERABLE thought since starting this topic and have ultimately decided that 4x5 isn't going to work as a long term solution for me.

I thought long and hard about what I think my future in this hobby will look like, and what I want to accomplish, and then I compared that with what 4x5 entails, and I don't think it's a good match. I have some plan as to >35mm plans; it's just not going to be LF.

I'll be interested to see what direction you take. A 6x9 negative can be a lovely thing to work with, and 120 roll film avoids a lot of issues (dust, loading etc). I rarely use the 6x9 Fuji GSW 690, but the results are always pleasing.

 

[oftheherd]

The German equivalent to 4x5" between the wars was 10x15cm - pretty closely 4x6", that is, more than 2cm longer on the long edge, but almost exactly the same width. While you can only get 10x15 film as special order (or by trimming from a larger format) these days, the fit across the wide edge is close enough that 4x5 sheets can be used in many (loose fitting) 10x15 holders, if you tape up the unsecured edge.

Quite a few of the "pocket" plate cameras of the period were sold in 10x15 as well as 9x12 and 6x9 versions - the Bergheil among them. The 10x15 cameras tend to be just as slim, just 1 respectively 3 cm longer in two dimension, so they are almost as pocketable.

What??? I thought it was 9X12cm which is very close to 4X5" Only reason I don't use my Bergheil 9X12 more is its hell to load those single sheet holders.
Best regards

That 9x12 was the 4x5 equivalent was what I had always heard as well. But that may be only 'internet wisdom.'

Regardless, they are good photo producers and surprisingly versatile what with GG and scale focusing, some with RF focusing, some with interchangable lenses, such as Voigtlander, Certrope, and Bee Bee and probably others. They accept cut film, glass plates, and roll film holders. Almost all have limited front movements, and I have heard of some with front tilt and swing, as well as the usual rise/fall and shift. They are light to hold if wood, and not really bad with metal bodies.

Of course one must obtain and load cut film holders, then develop a film that is nearly 4x5. Although smaller than 4x5, they are still larger than MF, although they fold up very compactly.

All that said, they aren't for everybody.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That 9x12 was the 4x5 equivalent was what I had always heard as well. But that may be only 'internet wisdom.' . . .

It dates back well before the Internet, not least because the external dimensions of 4x5 inch and 9x12 cm holders have been identical and standardized by the 1950s or earlier.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

all,

I have given this CONSIDERABLE thought since starting this topic and have ultimately decided that 4x5 isn't going to work as a long term solution for me.

I thought long and hard about what I think my future in this hobby will look like, and what I want to accomplish, and then I compared that with what 4x5 entails, and I don't think it's a good match. I have some plan as to >35mm plans; it's just not going to be LF.

In the 40+ years since I bought my first 4x5 inch camera this has pretty much been my conclusion too, even though I still have several 4x5 inch cameras. You've just got there a lot faster than I did. On a tripod, with a good lens and flat film, 6x7 cm (56x72mm) is brilliant, with 6x9 cm or 6x12 cm as further options. For a large format "look", 5x7 inch/13x18 cm is a very great deal nicer than 4x5 and allows a decent-sized contact print. Or 8x10 inch/18x24cm for portraits, or EVEN BIGGER for landscapes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[redisburning]

In the 40+ years since I bought my first 4x5 inch camera this has pretty much been my conclusion too, even though I still have several 4x5 inch cameras. You've just got there a lot faster than I did. On a tripod, with a good lens and flat film, 6x7 cm (56x72mm) is brilliant, with 6x9 cm or 6x12 cm as further options. For a large format "look", 5x7 inch/13x18 cm is a very great deal nicer than 4x5 and allows a decent-sized contact print. Or 8x10 inch/18x24cm for portraits, or EVEN BIGGER for landscapes.

Cheers,

R.

It was always about the movements Roger. Ive owned quite a few MF cameras, and while I usually hated the cameras themselves I have always thought that other than grain/tonality the Mamiya 7 is kind of the last word in IQ out of everything I've used (so, 4x5" and smaller).

I'll be interested to see what direction you take. A 6x9 negative can be a lovely thing to work with, and 120 roll film avoids a lot of issues (dust, loading etc). I rarely use the 6x9 Fuji GSW 690, but the results are always pleasing.

I was going to purchase a Hasselblad, but ultimately I have decided that full frame digital is what I want. Because I want to shoot color, eventually. More correctly, return to shooting in color (which is where I started). The more I learn about adjusting color in post, and I dont mean little adjustments but really fundamental ones, the more I realize that with a FF camera (and it's most likely going to be the A7r) I can get what I want.

I do like 4x5 and I like the movements and I like the results but Im not going to pay 100 dollars for a box of 30 slides and then pay 5+ dollars for each shot to develop. Which made Hasselblad seem like a realistic alternative (I actually have shot 6x6 landscapes and like many of my pictures they were mostly compositional exercises because I am not serious enough about photography to go on trips by myself for that purpose and often have limited choices in regards to subject matter and light, something I aim to change). Until I saw a really direct comparison where frankly I preferred the digital output a little bit and of course digital has a lot else going for it just for me in the past the output had never really done it for me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It was always about the movements Roger. Ive owned quite a few MF cameras, and while I usually hated the cameras themselves I have always thought that other than grain/tonality the Mamiya 7 is kind of the last word in IQ out of everything I've used (so, 4x5" and smaller).. . . .

"Baby" Linhof with f/2.8 Planar? Or even f/3.5 Xenar or f/4.5 Apo Lanthar?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ronald M]

Zone VI with the wide bag bellows. 90 F8 SA works well

Make a GG protector with strip id 1/2" sq balsa and two pieces of Kodak grey board or heavy board or 1/8 plywood.

one board goes where the film holder goes

 

[Stdon]

My limited experience would suggest a Busch Pressman D, has adequate movements,a rotating back,light but rigid aluminum body,really easy to make lens boards,folds up with a Ektar 127, the ground glass is covered and it has gone on many motorcycle trips over my shoulder in a denim bag. The Kalart rangefinder if supplied is not too hard to set up for a variety of lens. I like it so much I bought a second!!!
Peter

+1 on the Busch. Tough reliable and light.

 

[sevo]

It dates back well before the Internet, not least because the external dimensions of 4x5 inch and 9x12 cm holders have been identical and standardized by the 1950s or earlier.

Right, 10*15, while as wide as 4*5, is too long to fit inside 4*5 holders, which made it a misfit in the series of film sizes when everyone standardized on "international" holders. Prior to that, in sheet metal and proprietary holder times, it was considered the continental 4*5 equivalent. When German makers of that era exported to non-metric countries they usually used reducing backs (10*15 to 4*5 respectively 9*12 to QP).

written on the road

 

[ChrisN]

...
I was going to purchase a Hasselblad, but ultimately I have decided that full frame digital is what I want. Because I want to shoot color, eventually. More correctly, return to shooting in color (which is where I started). The more I learn about adjusting color in post, and I dont mean little adjustments but really fundamental ones, the more I realize that with a FF camera (and it's most likely going to be the A7r) I can get what I want.

I do like 4x5 and I like the movements and I like the results but Im not going to pay 100 dollars for a box of 30 slides and then pay 5+ dollars for each shot to develop. Which made Hasselblad seem like a realistic alternative (I actually have shot 6x6 landscapes and like many of my pictures they were mostly compositional exercises because I am not serious enough about photography to go on trips by myself for that purpose and often have limited choices in regards to subject matter and light, something I aim to change). Until I saw a really direct comparison where frankly I preferred the digital output a little bit and of course digital has a lot else going for it just for me in the past the output had never really done it for me.

Interesting, and I can well understand where you are heading. Regarding movements - I've dreamed occasionally about an Arcbody setup with digital back. With full frame digital of course you'll also have the option of focus stacking to achieve greater focus depth in your images if that is what you are after (and depending on whether the subject matter can accommodate multiple exposures). It's hard to beat digital for colour work.

 

[x-ray]

"Baby" Linhof with f/2.8 Planar? Or even f/3.5 Xenar or f/4.5 Apo Lanthar?

Cheers,

R.

The planar 100 f2.8 has about 8mm of movement on 6x9. I've owned a couple of 6x9 Linhofs and have owned two of these lenses. One body was a Technika 70 and the other a Technika IV 6x9. I also owned several wide lenses including the 53mm f4 Super Angulon. The Technika is not a great camera for wide lenses. It's my last choice if wides are what you want to use.

I have what I consider the perfect 6x9 for your use and am thinking of selling it and some lenses. It's a Linhof Technikatdan 23 with normal bellows, wide angle bellows, 6x9 sheet back and grafmatic, 6x7 super rollex and 6x9 Super Rollex back. It's tiny, precision to the max and folds extremely small plus has extreme movements in all axis and takes long glass. I have a 35mm Sinaron digital, 47xl and 58xl schneider super angulon and a 105 Nikkor W. Research the system. It will do exactly what you want and be very economical with roll film. The lenses are killer sharp. I was using it with a digital back for architectural clients and will be retiring next year and selling some of my gear including this setup.

Look at the camera on the Linhof site.
Oh yes, it takes standard Technika boards.