Alpa as an analogue set-up

[Jon Warwick]

Former 5x4 user here, wanting to get back into using a camera with (a) movements, mainly front rise, and (b) with film.
An obvious choice is simply to go back into LF film, but the Alpa STC and dedicated Alpa roll film back attracts me hugely due to its smaller size for travelling, use of 120 rather than sheet film, & modular platform if I do want to use digital later on.
I print huge (60"x50" lambda prints) using films like Acros or even Adox 20. Clearly 5x4 is better than 120, but I've also been pleased with look for such a huge print off my Mamiya 7 via a 500mb+ drum scan. Hence why I'm also toying with an STC and film back.
The issue, and hence my question, is lenses. To get movements on the STC, I would need LF analogue lenses (given their large image circles) like the Super Angulon 58xl or 80mm Super Symmar XL (some data courtesy of Alpa website is here ...https://www.alpa.ch/_files/80SS_MTF.pdf)
It could be that nobody knows, but I'm trying to gauge how these LF lenses perform on 120 film for massive drum-scanned enlargement? Presumably with 120 film I'd be mainly using the "middle sweet spot" of these LF lenses middle, but is resolution likely a step down from the much lauded Mamiya 7 lenses when printing at a huge 60"x50" size?
Any insight much appreciated.

 

[dougpeterson]

Make sure to add the Arca R system to your search. It would provide several advantages over the Alpa.

The RM can fit 120 film.
The RL can fit 120 or 4x5 film and isn't much larger.

Both have:
- a helical that is more accurate than Alpa's, which in turn is better for preset focus like hyperfocal or psuedo-hyperfocal
- an optional sliding ground glass solution, very much desirable for film shooters
- tilt is built into the body, so is available for every lens without any adapters or spacers required
- an optional emodule accessory for determining subject distance and hyperfocal and pseudo hyperfocal focusing
- a viewfinder with better optics than the Alpa viewfinder
- complete lens/accessory/mount/standards interoperability with their full sized 4x5 and 6x9 view camera line in case you decide a tech camera does not suite your style of shooting, or in case you decide you want to add a view camera to use in some types of situations.

Full disclosure: we choose to sell Arca and Cambo, but not Alpa. But I don't think even die hard Alpa fanboys would dispute any of the above. I think it's also fair to say that Arcas aren't as pretty as an Alpa.

 

[yaya]

Also note that while movements on a view camera with bellows are normally limited only by the lens's image circle, on a tech camera they can also be determined or limited by the "tube" created by the longer lens boards and/or adapters. Worth checking with the manufacturers as they will have all the data for each body/ lens/ lens board combination.

BR
Yair

 

[Oren Grad]

...but is resolution likely a step down from the much lauded Mamiya 7 lenses when printing at a huge 60"x50" size?

Yes.

Also, reverse-curl interchangeable roll film backs like the Alpa-adapted holders from Horseman, Mamiya and Linhof are not going to hold the film as flat in the exposure gate as the Mamiya 6/7 cameras do. How much that matters depends on your working habits - how long film sits in your holders between exposures, what are your typical working apertures and focus distances, etc.

 

[Shashin]

I shot a Mamiya 6 alongside a Horseman SW612. I was using the Horseman as a 6x12 camera. I found the Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses very sharp--all three lenses were designed for 4x5. I was using a center filter for the 55mm and the lenses are optimized for f/11 and above, which is typical for 4x5. I would imagine the Schneider lenses on the Alpa will have similar performance.

I thought the Horseman back kept the film as flat as my Mamiya. But at six frames a roll, film did not stay in my Horseman very long. It did not stay long in my Mamiya either...

 

[Oren Grad]

I have a pair of Mamiya 6's and have also tested the 7. I also have Horseman, Toyo and Linhof (Rapid Rollex) 6x9 and 6x7 rollholders for my view cameras, and have used them with view camera lenses designed for 4x5 (75/6.8 Grandagon-N) and also for smaller formats (100mm Apo-Sironar-N, 90mm Apo-Sironar Digital). I've previously owned Sinar rollholders, which had a much flatter film-feed path.

I actually like the 100 Apo-Sironar-N and 90mm Apo-Sironar Digital better than the Mamiya 7 lenses - I prefer the way the Rodenstock lenses draw, especially the way they render focus transitions and out-of-focus backgrounds. But if the question is bench-test resolution over a 6x7cm frame, the Mamiya lenses will win. Moving away from the center of the image circle with the view camera lenses will skew the comparison further in favor of the Mamiya lenses.

As for film flatness: if one has the equipment on hand and is willing to sacrifice a roll of film, the problem is not hard to see. Load the rollholder, let it sit for a few hours. Then pull the dark slide, advance the film, and admire the prominent bump that now sits in the middle of the exposure gate - that's the bit of film that was reverse-wound tightly around the roller on its way from the film feed spool.

Is it a problem if you go through an entire roll quickly? Possibly not. How long does it take before the film picks up that kink? Hard to say, probably varies with temperature and humidity. Can you know what the danger point is without running a lot of tests? Beats me. Would I take the chance if I were shooting for 25x enlargement, with the accompanying expense of drum scans and output media? No.

Jon, if this is a concern, run your own tests. If you're contemplating investing the effort and expense in shooting for monster enlargements, it's worth the trouble to borrow or even buy an inexpensive 2x3 or 4x5 view camera, a 6x7 roll holder and one of the lenses you're considering and see for yourself whether the results are acceptable to you. Model a worst-case scenario by letting a roll sit in the holder for as long as you can imagine occurring given your working routines in the field.

It will cost you some hassle and/or money to resell any no-longer-needed equipment when you're done with your tests, but think of it as a rental fee. The hassle of flipping an exotic, expensive Alpa (or Arca or Cambo) tech camera outfit if you find out that it can't deliver the goods will likely be far greater.

 

[tjv]

I shoot a Linhof Techno with rollfilm back and love it. The Rodenstock HR-W 90mm and 55mm APO-SD lenses are great (the Schneider 60mm XL is better than the 55mm though,) and in my opinion are every bit as sharp as the Mamiya 7 lenses I also use, even when employing movements. THe 90mm is exceptional with quite large movements, while the 55mm is excellent with moderate movements, and starts to drop offpast about 10mm of rise / fall on 6x7cm film.

I use a Horseman back and the film flatness issues do give me the shits, to be honest. I never had any flattness issues with the Mamiya 7ii, but the horseman backs aren't good for keeping film in for very long. I would never keep film in a back overnight, for example. And I'd always take two shots of the same thing if the film has been sitting stationary in the back for anything longer the 30mins, as I'm paranoid. I've heard the genuine Linhof backs (which Apla rebadges for their own system,) is better in this regard, but I have not seen proof of this let alone handled one. At the price of the Linhof back though, I wasn't prepared to take the gamble and get one, especially since I now shoot 99% of my stuff now on a digital back.

As for the Techno, I love it for use with both film and digital. Very flexible system and I very much enjoy using the GG. The lenses are way cheaper because you don't have to buy helical mounts etc, and there is no body / barrel obstruction to deal with as with Alpa when employing big movements on some lenses. I've long lusted after an Alpa, but the cost of entry – for both lens mounts and body – and a few features have always put me off. I know it's hard to get Linhof in the US, but I live in NZ and got my Techno from Paula at Linhof Studio, UK. Amazing service and way cheaper than US prices landed here. Anyway, there's no Linhof agent in NZ, let along agents for Alpa or Arca, so I had no choice. Linhof Studio also sell Alpa, if they are an option for you. If money were absolutely no object for me now, I'd be torn between systems to buy into. The Alpa might win if I had a CMOS back with liveview, otherwise I think I'd stick with the Linhof as I enjoy using it and it's served me very well.

 

[VICTOR BT]

hi Jon,
i use 80mm XL, and Super Rollex on Linhof MT classic.
80mm XL on Alpa will be the exact same lens obviously, and Alpa's 6x9 is actually Linhof.
the lens is Superb, very sharp, field is flat, has more than enough room for movements for 6x9, and decent for 4x5", and very important - aesthetically splendid !!!
at f5.6 it looks great for portraits, and at f8/11 it is as good as it gets for anything you wish, f16 too. havent tried f22 yet, and not too interested, i believe the diffraction will be ok though, if the extra Dof is needed. works great at any focusing distance (well, havnt tried "macro", but close environmental portrait range is great with it, technically and aesthetically). i havent found any issues with flare too, mostly comparable with Rodenstock 150 (which is considered among the bests). i dont have center filter for this lens, and actually dont feel the need even when used with sheet film with some movements, considering you stop it to about f11.
the lens is relatively compact, just a bit bigger that Rodenstock apo-sironar-s, especially the front diameter, but nothing to worry about. it is light too. i see it as normal-wide lens on 6x9. if you need really wide, this will not do, 58 will be better, and i believe it is a great lens too, though no real experience with it.
with Acros, Pan-F, T-max100, (and to an extent with Delta, FP4+ and even T-max400), especially if you develop it with fine developers like Spur SD2525, you will get quality that is not very far from 4x5, especially if printed full frame or close to it. SD2525 gives smooth/rich tonality and real acutance/sharpness, sort of best of both worlds. scans well on epson v800 with betterscan ANR holder (keeps it absolutely flat bellow the glass) and with x10 loupe on a light table, you will hardly detect any grain, and its draw/sharpness is unique and refined. so i believe drum scans will take it even better.
one advantage of Linhof, besides being primarily a 4x5 camera, is that you have a Rangefinder that is much easier to use than i thought it would be at first, and superb Viewfinder, considering that the 80XL is coupled with the RF. mine is in a Comfort Board too, which is better for front movement and easier to access aperture control, but that is not needed for Alpa. However, Linhof is heavier and bulkier than Alpa... substantially so if all you want is using a roll-film eventually. do not expect the Linhof/Alpa 6x9 back to be feather-weight, though with Alpa+80/58+69back it must be really solid in hand but fairly light MF kit overall.

 

[jdphoto]

Perhaps an Ebony SV23U2 would suffice. Uses roll film backs for convenience and accepts 47mm to 800mm lenses. I owned the Ebony SW45 and can attest to their quality. When the convenience and speed of 120mm roll film was required over movements, I used my Mamiya 7ii with 43mm, 50mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses for APO-like performance. Here's a few links that might be useful regarding lenses.

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I use the Mamiya 7II and a full sized Ebony camera, and I shoot black and white and print rather large. The Mamiya is easier to get right, since it does not have any issues with film flatness, lens and body alignment, and in general it has more depth of field. I use very good 4x5 lenses, and they seem to be of similar sharpness to the Mamiya. (I mostly use the 110mm Super Symmar XL and 150mm APO Sironar S.
I mostly use the Hasselblad X5, which renders the difference in resolution a bit moot, as it scans 6x7 at 3200 dpi and 4x5 at 2040 dpi. The 4x5 still looks smoother in tonality and less grainy at large sizes.
If you are drum scanning and using good technique, I would think that 4x5 would be worth the extra effort. You are already going to great lengths to get the best possible quality, and the jump from 6x7 to 4x5 would give you the largest gain, since you are using more than double the film area. Sure, the loading and processing is annoying, but if you get a grafmatic back and a jobo with an expert drum, it's really not SO bad. You can always get a rollfilm back to make things quicker if you need them to be so for that particular shoot.