roscoetuff
Well-known
Shot plenty of 4X5 but thinking about 2.25 X 3.25. Curious whether anyone actually bothers with this any more and whether it's worth the bother to lighten up a little?
Graflex Century 23 and some other options look to give movements, but I'm not sure how much. Difficult to find resources for cameras this obscure... which is why I'm posting here to think about and discover what folks already know about the Baby LF's. I'm told for example that Baby Linhofs and Horsemans are also lighter than their 4X5 cousins, but again, specs are hard to come by. I'm intersted in roll film as well as sheet. Might be an issue in my Jobo for the latter, but I've seen folks work that out as well. Suggestions and insights welcome. Thanks!
Graflex Century 23 and some other options look to give movements, but I'm not sure how much. Difficult to find resources for cameras this obscure... which is why I'm posting here to think about and discover what folks already know about the Baby LF's. I'm told for example that Baby Linhofs and Horsemans are also lighter than their 4X5 cousins, but again, specs are hard to come by. I'm intersted in roll film as well as sheet. Might be an issue in my Jobo for the latter, but I've seen folks work that out as well. Suggestions and insights welcome. Thanks!
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I considered getting one, but in the end i find them inconvenient compared to roll film medium format cameras. I've shot, 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10. By the time you add a negative carrier and film holders and whatever else you need,.... i don't think they're a bargain.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
I would give a strong vote for the Horseman system, over the lower-quality Graflex or the very pricey Linhof. I have the 985, with coupled rangefinder, and the VH, a straight view camera. Totally redundant, and I could function fine with just the 985, but GAS happens... I use them only with roll film holders; however, the sheet film holders are nice for my occasional experiments with alternative processes.
Plenty of movements on both, but I would imagine someone with big hands might have some difficulty with the small controls. But wonderfully compact! The 985 with the 105mm f/3.5 (my favorite configuration) folds up into a very small package that travels well and probably weighs less than a Nikon F5. The viewfinder is large and bright, and gives coupled bright-line focusing for all lenses from 90mm on up. The 65mm and 75mm lenses couple as well, but have no bright-lines.
The Topcor lenses are quite good, and compact, but generally a bit slow, aside from the 105. They are not as fast handling as, say, a Texas Leica; shutter cocking and film winding are done separately, and then there's the dark slide to remember
. But they are stable and vibration free, and I've often shot hand-held at 1/30 with no problems. Also, they are not discrete. Expect questions about the "antique" camera.
And, with all respect, I strongly disagree with Deardorff38; I consider them a superb bargain. I keep an eye on ebay prices, and something like the 985 with the 105mm or 90mm, with a roll film back, will set you back between $600 - $700 in nice condition. That's the price for an equivalent Texas Leica, with no movements and a fixed lens. There are always trade offs in cameras, and I happily trade off convenience for versatility.
Plenty of movements on both, but I would imagine someone with big hands might have some difficulty with the small controls. But wonderfully compact! The 985 with the 105mm f/3.5 (my favorite configuration) folds up into a very small package that travels well and probably weighs less than a Nikon F5. The viewfinder is large and bright, and gives coupled bright-line focusing for all lenses from 90mm on up. The 65mm and 75mm lenses couple as well, but have no bright-lines.
The Topcor lenses are quite good, and compact, but generally a bit slow, aside from the 105. They are not as fast handling as, say, a Texas Leica; shutter cocking and film winding are done separately, and then there's the dark slide to remember
. But they are stable and vibration free, and I've often shot hand-held at 1/30 with no problems. Also, they are not discrete. Expect questions about the "antique" camera.And, with all respect, I strongly disagree with Deardorff38; I consider them a superb bargain. I keep an eye on ebay prices, and something like the 985 with the 105mm or 90mm, with a roll film back, will set you back between $600 - $700 in nice condition. That's the price for an equivalent Texas Leica, with no movements and a fixed lens. There are always trade offs in cameras, and I happily trade off convenience for versatility.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
On reflection, price-wise they're a deal, but it's because i find them inconvenient that i don't consider them a bargain. If I'm going to schlep a sheet film camera i'll take (& have) a 4x5 to a 2 1/4"x 3 1/4" every time. By contrast, medium format roll film cameras have grown on me and pretty much replaced 35mm. I've carried Mamiya 6,7, Fuji GW/GSW 670,680,690, Plaubel Makina 670 even Pentax 67, all kinds of places....Excellent lenses, quick loading and easier handling than any 2 1/4 x 31/4" press style camera.I would give a strong vote for the Horseman system, over the lower-quality Graflex or the very pricey Linhof. I have the 985, with coupled rangefinder, and the VH, a straight view camera. Totally redundant, and I could function fine with just the 985, but GAS happens... I use them only with roll film holders; however, the sheet film holders are nice for my occasional experiments with alternative processes.
Plenty of movements on both, but I would imagine someone with big hands might have some difficulty with the small controls. But wonderfully compact! The 985 with the 105mm f/3.5 (my favorite configuration) folds up into a very small package that travels well and probably weighs less than a Nikon F5. The viewfinder is large and bright, and gives coupled bright-line focusing for all lenses from 90mm on up. The 65mm and 75mm lenses couple as well, but have no bright-lines.
The Topcor lenses are quite good, and compact, but generally a bit slow, aside from the 105. They are not as fast handling as, say, a Texas Leica; shutter cocking and film winding are done separately, and then there's the dark slide to remember
And, with all respect, I strongly disagree with Deardorff38; I consider them a superb bargain. I keep an eye on ebay prices, and something like the 985 with the 105mm or 90mm, with a roll film back, will set you back between $600 - $700 in nice condition. That's the price for an equivalent Texas Leica, with no movements and a fixed lens. There are always trade offs in cameras, and I happily trade off convenience for versatility.
(photo. Fuji GSW 690iii, HP5, print on Forte Polygrade WT FB)
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Horses for courses! And looking at your photo, I can totally agree that this is not the sort of location where I would want to be fussing about with the Horseman. I can imagine my fingers being too frozen to get it open!
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
RG, Could you outline what you consider the advantages of a 21/4 x31/4 press style camera over a 4x5? Yes they're a little lighter...not much smaller. I can't see duplicating a 4x5 system..... if...by the time you add a pricey rollfilm holder... they're now heavier and bulkier than a MF camera. (I changed over after having used a Mamiya Press & would never go back). If i'm shooting sheet film, why wouldn't i want the additional real estate of a 4x5 or 5x7 negative?
roscoetuff
Well-known
I agree with "pretty much done with 35mm". Rather shoot digital for more speed, less fuss.
These days, if I'm shooting film, it's 4X5 for now. Kept my TLR, but haven't used it in a few years. So it's time to rethink what I have and why and lighten up gearwise.... with sell off, and the question is whether 2X3 is worth the squeeze. Thinking about a roll film / 2X3 (6X9) back for my 4X5 as a first stop. Have seen some nice shots from Horsemans. Agree that Linhof prices can crank up to Arca $wiss pretty quick. Graflex I don't know much about other than what I've read over the last few days.... as in earlier days I just read right through that stuff in the "...as if..." approach when I was laser focused on getting a field camera (and went for a Chamonix instead).
Negatives of more contemporary MF's cameras ( often with fried electronics) come from experience with the klunkers: Bronica, Rollei's 6000-series SLR MF attempts, etc. Kind of cures you of wanting to fund a repairman's college fund for his kids. Gear tends to be too expensive and make LF look cheap - which it ain't, and rugged - which it is by comparison. That said, I'd love a good Mamiya 6 or 7 if it were fixable in the event the meter dies, etc. I think it's avoiding that issue that pushes these away and towards the slow LF types. AND.... there's this annoying perspective control that really is nice to deal with using TILT SHIFT. Solving that problem is kind of restricted gearwise to the rare tilt-shift lens, o LF.... or by hypnotisim "The angles don't bother you... they really don't.... no one will notice....especially you...." Sadly, the last approach hasn't worked so far.
These days, if I'm shooting film, it's 4X5 for now. Kept my TLR, but haven't used it in a few years. So it's time to rethink what I have and why and lighten up gearwise.... with sell off, and the question is whether 2X3 is worth the squeeze. Thinking about a roll film / 2X3 (6X9) back for my 4X5 as a first stop. Have seen some nice shots from Horsemans. Agree that Linhof prices can crank up to Arca $wiss pretty quick. Graflex I don't know much about other than what I've read over the last few days.... as in earlier days I just read right through that stuff in the "...as if..." approach when I was laser focused on getting a field camera (and went for a Chamonix instead).
Negatives of more contemporary MF's cameras ( often with fried electronics) come from experience with the klunkers: Bronica, Rollei's 6000-series SLR MF attempts, etc. Kind of cures you of wanting to fund a repairman's college fund for his kids. Gear tends to be too expensive and make LF look cheap - which it ain't, and rugged - which it is by comparison. That said, I'd love a good Mamiya 6 or 7 if it were fixable in the event the meter dies, etc. I think it's avoiding that issue that pushes these away and towards the slow LF types. AND.... there's this annoying perspective control that really is nice to deal with using TILT SHIFT. Solving that problem is kind of restricted gearwise to the rare tilt-shift lens, o LF.... or by hypnotisim "The angles don't bother you... they really don't.... no one will notice....especially you...." Sadly, the last approach hasn't worked so far.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I used one for a while with a roll film adaptor because I wasn't able to source sheet film at that time. The best word for it was "cute". The RF worked and the 101mm lens was fine but as a serious camera, there was just something missing and I either went bigger or smaller, depending.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
The one overwhelming advantage, for me, is that of size and weight. As I said, I shoot exclusively with roll film; using a roll film back on 4x5 would just give me a massive and inconvenient setup with no advantages. As for the advantage of the larger 4x5 negative, that is definitely true, but film has seen such improvements in quality since the time these cameras were current that I'm tempted to say that the differences may not be so great.
And for me, using the camera with the rangefinder, hand-held in a crowd, pretty much precludes the awkward bulk of a Speed Graphic or even Linhof 4x5.
Not to mention the expense of 4x5 or (gasp!) 5x7 if one is shooting film, particularly color. And while I am of the opinion that if one chooses to shoot film, one should shut up and quit the whining about expense, it is still an unavoidable concern.
Finally, let's be honest: I'm really lazy. I just don't want to futz with sheet film. Done it, hated it. But that's my stuff, of course!
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Whatever your decision, I would be careful of a Graphic. They're cheap, but don't feel anywhere near as sturdy as the other brands. If you do go the Graphic route, use it with a Horseman back. Graphic roll film holders are crude, made of plastic that has often become brittle, and just never seem to hold the film adequately flat. Ask me how I know...
As an aside, I'm amused by your references to the Bronica and Rollei MF SLRs. And while they can be black holes for repairs, mine haven't been. I purchased a Rollei 6006 a while back, and after I got the battery madness cleared up (expensive!) and found eyepiece diopters (expensive again, and virtually non-existent), it has proven to be an absolute delight. So far. Knock wood...
My Bronicas (S2A and EC) are cheap, bombproof, and my go-to when I don't want to take the Hassy into unsavory environments, social or natural. And the S2A is so pretty, I can just sit and look at it for hours. I like pretty, which the Rollei ain't.
besk
Well-known
The Horseman 980/985 weights approximately 70 oz without lens or Horseman back. It is a very versatile camera.
My 2 x3 Crown Graphic has front rise and shift in addition to forward tilt and a drop bed. But weighs less that 64 oz including a Kodak 105/3/7 lens and Horseman 6x9 back. (BTW the back of Crown must be slightly altered in order to mount the Horseman back.)
I own both cameras and use the Horseman roll film backs, Graflex RH12 (6x6) backs and sometimes sheet film holders with these cameras.
My 2 x3 Crown Graphic has front rise and shift in addition to forward tilt and a drop bed. But weighs less that 64 oz including a Kodak 105/3/7 lens and Horseman 6x9 back. (BTW the back of Crown must be slightly altered in order to mount the Horseman back.)
I own both cameras and use the Horseman roll film backs, Graflex RH12 (6x6) backs and sometimes sheet film holders with these cameras.
roscoetuff
Well-known
Retro-Grouch: Didn't mean to demean the 6008. It's a fine camera, but there's really no one I know servicing them if they have a bad hair day. As referenced above, I'd be happier with all manual. And roll film can be a pain to get on a Jobo reel. The whole process? That's what matters. Sheet film can just be eaiser. But each their own. That's what make it work.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I tray process sheet film, so size doesn't much matter to me.... for me personally shooting sheet film in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 seems as if i'm getting less for the same amount of effort. I always shoot sheet film off a tripod.....so why by another yet camera and set of lenses? If it makes sense to you, that's great.
roscoetuff
Well-known
The thought isn't to keep it all, but to thin and reduce to lighter weight stuff. So far, "the crowd" seems to be suggesting the size isn't gonna save me much and the precision involved in a smaller gear effort (articles on the LF forum) might make the effort less successful. Stuff to ponder. This IS a think about at this stage not a do now thing.
besk
Well-known
I keep a small 2x3 Crown Graphic outfit (with a 65mm lens also) for the times when traveling or just walking around and wanting something larger than 35mm.
Most of the time, if the trip or occasion is to make photographs while using a tripod why not use 4x5?
I mostly use either my 4x5 camera or 35mm film (or digital)- skipping the medium format.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I'm into printing.....& when i travel I like to end up with interesting images to print. Digital is a no-go and hauling LF for international travel doesn't work for me either. I really liked Agfapan 25 when it was around. I've come to like TMax 100.120 film will yield a very nice 16"x20" print.....with substantially better tonal gradation than 35mm from a 6x larger negative. For me personally, MF is a very happy medium, and i can make do with fewer lenses, if the result is a good print. Even a 6x6 neg from a Rolleiflex is a step up....& a good compromise for a small light camera
(Fuji GW680iii, Agfapan 25, 16"x20" print on Foma Variant iii). (Rolleiflex, FP4+, 16x16" print on Foma Variant iii)
Last edited by a moderator:
besk
Well-known
My current travel out-of-the-country film camera is a Agfa Record II (My wife is from Belarus - but I am not going back there anytime soon.)
x-ray
Veteran
Where did you get this? The baby graphics were built to the same standards as the 4x5’s. They are tougher than nails. They were built for day in and day out heavy professional use by press photographers.
I haven’t used it in a while but I still have my 4x5 Pacemaker my dad bought new in 1964. I used it professionally for a couple of decades and it still functions like new.
In the mid 70’s I worked for the Department of Energy and each of us photographers were issued a Super Speed Graphic 4x5. They had been in use for ten years or more and tens of thousands of sheets through them. They still functioned and we’re still tight. I personally adopted a Speed Graphic issued during WWII with olive drab leather and military ID numbers stenciled on it. It worked like a new one with no issues.
I own several very old knob type wind Graflex roll backs. They keep the film flat and are not brittle and have no function issues. The only Graflex roll back that was a problem were the early ones made for the Graflex SLR. The rollers were under size and did not hold the film flat but they were designed for the Graflex SLR which had a different light trap and aren’t compatible with the Graphic spring back or Graflock backs on the press cameras.
I owned three Linhof Technika cameras at different times. My first was a Technika 70 with a 100 Planar, 180 Tele Arton and 53mm f4 Super Angulon, Rollex back and a few other gadgets. The second was a 6x9 Technika V with RF and same set of lenses. The third was a Technika V with no RF and a sweet set of 6 lenses. I had Linhof roll backs for all three.
The Graphic is very nice if you don’t need movements. What movements are on it are minimal and barely of any use. The rise is modest but might come in handy at some point. These were never designed to be a view camera. They’re small press cameras intended to be hand held.
All three Linhof’s were what you’d expect. Very very well made, very heavy and nice movements if you don’t need movements with wide lenses. The Linhof’s have ample movements with normal to longer glass but virtually none with wides.
Linhof’s Super Rollex backs are very heavy and are unique to the 6x9 system. No other maker made a back that fit a 6x9 body. They’re super expensive and heavy and complex requiring periodic maintenance. I’ve had a couple fail due to cast parts in the wind clutch fracturing. Let’s say very expensive repairs.
I thought about buying another late 6x9 Linhof but decided to just use roll backs in my 4x5 Ebony. It’s about the same size and a little lighter and much more flexible in movements and backs.
Personally I wouldn’t mess with sheet film. It’s expensive and the selection is slim and not available many places. Buy a Graphic roll back and whatever camera suits your needs.
There are quite a few 6x9 cameras. As mentioned the Horseman which I have no experience with, the Graflex XL which I think is 6x7 but may take 6x9, Mamiya press and probably a few others. My Brooks Veriwide has a 6x9 roll back and sheet film Graflock back as well. Great camera if a 47mm lens on 6x9 trips your trigger.
Attached samples from the 6x9 Linhof’s and roll backs. The two interiors were shot with the 53mm f4 Super Angulon and the exterior with the 100mm f2.8 Planar. All with the Technika 70. The film was Panatomic X probably in Microdol X.
Attachments
Last edited:
roscoetuff
Well-known
x-ray: Thanks for taking the time to answer with some detail. Quite helpful. Yes, to tell the whole story, I think I began this journey wondering more about panoramas... 6X17 and 6X12 and thinking about what this would involve. Began with catching up to what folks are doing now with 3D printed cameras and old lenses. Steve Lloyd of Chroma Camera is probably the most prolific, but there's also a few others. Some neat projects. But then you compare these to the other choices.... and start (literally) focusing there. Not in a rush to come to a conclusion. Current position is to stick with my current LF cameras... maybe pick up a roll back or rear standard and look more seriouly about narrowing the collection but expanding what it can do. Not much gonna happen soon. THANK you for posting. Lovely... I mean perfect!... shots.
x-ray
Veteran
Glad my post was helpful.
I owned a couple of Xpans and a couple of Fuji G617’s at different times. All great cameras especially for portability and especially the Xpan as a portable camera. I had no complaints with any of them but prices just got so insane on Xpans that I decided to sell it. I used the two I had a fair amount and made some excellent images but as time went on I didn’t use them that frequently and decided to put the money into other toys.
I bought an inexpensive, at the time, variable format 120 back for the 4x5 that will shoot 6x12. I really like it and the quality is very good and film flatness is excellent. The only drawback is the film advance requires viewing the numbers on the film backing paper through a little red window. It’s much like an old box camera but it works.
Shot with the 6x12 back on my 4x5 Ebony and a 58mm Super Angulon XL and center filter.
I owned a couple of Xpans and a couple of Fuji G617’s at different times. All great cameras especially for portability and especially the Xpan as a portable camera. I had no complaints with any of them but prices just got so insane on Xpans that I decided to sell it. I used the two I had a fair amount and made some excellent images but as time went on I didn’t use them that frequently and decided to put the money into other toys.
I bought an inexpensive, at the time, variable format 120 back for the 4x5 that will shoot 6x12. I really like it and the quality is very good and film flatness is excellent. The only drawback is the film advance requires viewing the numbers on the film backing paper through a little red window. It’s much like an old box camera but it works.
Shot with the 6x12 back on my 4x5 Ebony and a 58mm Super Angulon XL and center filter.
