Travelwide 4x5

Same here, the helical is too tight for my liking.
I am not sure about the disassembly, does it mean you have to take the screws out on the inside ?
 
jos58 said:
Same here, the helical is too tight for my liking.
I am not sure about the disassembly, does it mean you have to take the screws out on the inside ?
Click to expand...

On the back of the instruction sheet included with the camera there are instructions on removing the helical.
Yes, you have to remove the 4 screws, be sure you have the right screwdriver, a very small Phillips. Be careful you don't hang up the helical assembly on the interior flocking.
 
The helical will loosen up over time. If it can be turned at all I would leave it alone.
Get a depth of field chart and use it. You don't have to turn the helical very much if at all most of the time. This is from someone who already has a fixed lens 5X7 and a 6X9 in addition to his new Travelwide.
 
besk said:
The helical will loosen up over time. If it can be turned at all I would leave it alone.
Get a depth of field chart and use it. You don't have to turn the helical very much if at all most of the time.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be turned on mine so it is an option to leave it alone.
I will start using it and see if I can live with it for the time being.
 
It's a simple fix to disassemble the helical and file/sand down the 'flashing' high spots where the four segments of the helical tube join. Don't expect the problem to go away. Don't dismiss the aggravation factor of a stiff helical. I'm sure Ben & co. will solve it in subsequent production batches. As I stated before, you can design anything on a computer, but the devil is in the fabrication. Thanks to all the skilled tool & die folks out there.
 
The concept of portability + high picture quality seems to be an impossible dream to, simply because the camera only utilizes f6.8 - 8 lenses.

A tripod would be a requirement for me to capture "keeper" images.

I'll have to pass, just not my style of shooting, which is for maximum quality. That's difficult enough without handicapping myself.

I'd much rather go Speed Graphic + Kodak Ektar 178/2.5.


Texsport
 
Texsport said:
The concept of portability + high picture quality seems to be an impossible dream to, simply because the camera only utilizes f6.8 - 8 lenses.

A tripod would be a requirement for me to capture "keeper" images.

I'll have to pass, just not my style of shooting, which is for maximum quality. That's difficult enough without handicapping myself.

I'd much rather go Speed Graphic + Kodak Ektar 178/2.5.


Texsport
Click to expand...

I'm interested in understanding your point better. Certainly diffraction is not an issue with LF lenses at f/6.8-8, and so in what way would these lenses not offer "high quality" images?

You can't possibly expect us to believe that narrow DOF is the only definition of " high quality?"

I know of few LF lenses faster than f/4.7.

Is it the focal length that's the issue? Help me understand.

~Joe
 
At those f-values, your shutter speeds will be slow and make it quite difficult to hold such a light weight camera steady enough to get clear exposures.

You will need a tripod for any volume of good exposures. If you use a tripod, excellent results are possible - but why then buy a hand held camera?

Texsport
 
A tripod is an advantage in most photography if you are concerned with maximum quality. I am pretty sure that will hold true whether we are shooting a Speed Graphic, Travelwide or Linhoff Technika.
 
I used to own a Razzle and it was ok for street and outdoor portraits handheld with 400 iso film. There are few hours before sunset when the light is not harsh but bright enough for 1/125 and f8.
 
Pioneer said:
A tripod is an advantage in most photography if you are concerned with maximum quality. I am pretty sure that will hold true whether we are shooting a Speed Graphic, Travelwide or Linhoff Technika.
Click to expand...

Yep! Pretty much my point - I almost always use a tripod with my Speed Graphic, but can also use much faster lenses.

Texsport
 
Mine actually arrived today. Diminutive is the word. It is very likely one of the most compact and lightweight 4x5s ever. Packed it away until I get a lens for it. My only 90mm is already attached to a helical, in use on my 6x17, and I can't be bothered to swap it back and forth
 
I shot about 20 sheets with my TW over the weekend.

The idea that you must have a tripod for "high-quality" images is just silly. Yes, it might be nice in some situations with slower films. However, one can also pack the TW with a tiny CF tripod and still have a kit that weighs much less than most 4x5 cameras w/o any lens or tripod.

Most of the photos I took were at f/32, 1/100, with HP5+. Since there is no mirror flapping around it was easy to handhold at even slower speeds - I shot some at 1/25 and 1/50 as well.
 
Corran said:
I shot about 20 sheets with my TW over the weekend.

The idea that you must have a tripod for "high-quality" images is just silly. Yes, it might be nice in some situations with slower films. However, one can also pack the TW with a tiny CF tripod and still have a kit that weighs much less than most 4x5 cameras w/o any lens or tripod.

Most of the photos I took were at f/32, 1/100, with HP5+. Since there is no mirror flapping around it was easy to handhold at even slower speeds - I shot some at 1/25 and 1/50 as well.
Click to expand...

More power to you. Has never worked for me though I thought it did. :eek:
 
Anyone shoot more with theirs? Any opinions? Mine is sitting on the sideboard at home until I get some time to test it.
 
Mine is getting regular workouts. I usually shoot about 6 sheets per outing, just because my Jobo 2509n reel holds that many sheets for developing.

So far I am very happy with it. In fact, I would also say that it is a terrific medium format camera with the Graphic 23 roll film back. Even though it is close to the same size it is lighter that my ARAX 60 or Pentacon 6 TL, neither of which capture 6x9.

I have never been a great fan of wide angle lenses so that has certainly created a learning curve for me. So far none of my shots are really worthy of sharing, not because of any fault with the camera or lens, only with the skill of the operator.

"Get closer you fool, closer!" Or "there is absolutely no foreground interest in this photograph!" This is what you would hear if you leaned close enough to hear my whispers while looking at my negatives. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom