L
lilmsmaggie
Guest
Carsten, FWIW -- I'm not sure Chamonix is producing 4 x 5 film holders. At least the last time I asked (about a year ago), Hugo said that they had not had time to make any. So, I would say that's another question for Hugo.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
LF (4x5) Newbie Questions
- Thread starter carstenw
- Start date
Carsten, FWIW -- I'm not sure Chamonix is producing 4 x 5 film holders. At least the last time I asked (about a year ago), Hugo said that they had not had time to make any. So, I would say that's another question for Hugo.
carstenw
Active member
Yes, I knew that the Chamonix could do that; I was thinking out loud w.r.t. my Contax, for which I have resisted getting the grip, and hence have no L-Bracket.Carsten, to put a 4x5 (or almost any view cam) vertical, you simply remove the back and re-install it vertical
Ah, great, I thought they were much thicker. I can see that this won't be an issue.
carstenw
Active member
I phrased that badly, I meant in the moment it is tightened, does it move a little? That always bothered me with all the heads I have tried, including the RRS BH-55.
carstenw
Active member
Ah? I thought I had seen somewhere that they did. I wonder where I saw that.
Well, then the question changes to which film holders are nice, and good quality? I prefer something which matches the camera, not the cheap plastic ones I had once upon a time when I had a Crown Graphic, although ultimately this is not a big issue.
carstenw
Active member
Chamonix do make them. I should have looked before answering:
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessory.html
Check that they are actually in production, though.
carstenw
Active member
Well, the latest I will check is when I place my order...
If they don't have/make any, I will get something else.
Read the Stroebel book on using film backs, and it will explain the differences. Basically there are two types of roll-film backs and two types of spring-backs used on view cameras. Roll-film backs either slip under the GG just like a film-holder, or attach via a Graflok connection. The camera's spring back can either be normal, or have a bail. Usually bail backs also do NOT have a Graflok compatible mount option.
The Chamonix's standard spring back -- not sure if they offer other options -- is the most common type, which is Graflok compatible without a bail. You can use either type of roll-film back with this type of spring back.
Bail backs are preferred by many as they make inserting and removing film-holders easier, and thus help prevent moving the camera or changing adjustments. The regular back is simpler and offers the Graflock option, which is an advantage for roll-film shooting. Either type takes just a little bit of practice to get the hang of using efficiently and smoothly.
The Chamonix's standard spring back -- not sure if they offer other options -- is the most common type, which is Graflok compatible without a bail. You can use either type of roll-film back with this type of spring back.
Bail backs are preferred by many as they make inserting and removing film-holders easier, and thus help prevent moving the camera or changing adjustments. The regular back is simpler and offers the Graflock option, which is an advantage for roll-film shooting. Either type takes just a little bit of practice to get the hang of using efficiently and smoothly.
L
lilmsmaggie
Guest
Yes, I agree. I asked Hugo at least twice. And each time 4 x 5 holders were not available. That's why I suggest contacting him before you place your order. A simple e-mail should do the trick: [email protected]
I also suggest that in the same e-mail, you find out if they still have the 45n-1 available. The last e-mail I received from him about a week ago leads me to believe you may have to look elsewhere for a 45n-1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't get a 45n-1 --FWIW I would just check.
Okay...........
MC versions have notably improved contrast and render better color than the older SC versions, and more importantly they render color constantly between focals, hence the price premium for MC. If you read back a few posts this is what I was talking about when I mentioned color consistency between lenses; ones marked MC will be consistent, where ones not marked MC may (probably will) render colors differently. The older single-coated versions however, are sometimes preferred for B&W specifically because of the lower contrast, but will be more flare-prone if shot towards a light-source, so hoods/shades become important. HOWEVER, some of the earlier multi-coated lenses were not specifically labeled MC, so you may or may not get a single-coated lens if you buy a lens without the MC label. Clear as mud now, right?
:ROTFL:
When you're ready to insert the holder place a finger or two on the ground glass section (the part that springs out is what I mean, not the actual ground glass) and use your thumb to gently push against the camera while you pull with your fingers. Once there's enough space you slide in the holder.
I've never had a problem with rigidity while inserting a holder using this technique including on an old 8x10 Empire State which wouldn't lock down after focusing so if you pushed/pulled too hard it would shift the focus.
Last edited:
Lars
Active member
Oh OK... I think I might have observed very slight movement from time to time, far less than my AS B1. The construction is different on the Burzynski, as the tightening increases pressure sidewas towards the center of the ball. Most regular ball head pressure the ball from below when tightening.
For LF tightening creep is irrelevant as you do final cropping using shift movements. You also tend to not crop so tightly in LF.
carstenw
Active member
Interesting comment, another thing I didn't know (the creep not being important in LF bit). I would have thought that you would want to level the camera just perfectly with the ballhead. If the camera lilts slightly to one side, it couldn't be corrected with a shift, but I suppose with a little rotation of the back? I am curious why you said shift, is that because the Burzynski only moves in an axial way?
So, my first LF piece arrived, the Schneider-Kreuznach 210mm f/5.6 APO-Symmar, and it is absolutely stunning, virtually as new and beautiful to handle and look at. I overpaid a little at $445 ($400 seemed about the right price level), but there weren't any more on the horizon and I am used to Leica prices, so it seemed like a deal
I have a question though: I was surprised to find out that the aperture lever has no detents, is that standard for LF lenses?
I was also surprised to see how compact the lens was, about the size of a MF normal lens. In the photos, the only object to compare size with was the lens plate, and I thought they were much larger, but it is tiny, so I had the wrong idea in my head
The f/8 and f/9 210mm lenses must be really tiny.I am all keen to try it out in anger, but it will be a few weeks before I can afford the Chamonix, so I am looking at cheap 4x5 studio cameras in eBay, like the Cambos. It looks like it might be possible to get one for a ridiculously small amount of money, like less than 100 Euro. Any recommendations?
Lars
Active member
I never had any problem with losing my horizon alignment due to ballhead creep - for me human error is far more likely. With my 8x10 monorail there is also some play between the rear standard and the rail when untightened, so I tend to use that for fine alignment to the horizon. Either way, cropping can fix any tilted horizon.
Your new APO-Symmar sounds like a keeper. I have a 180 and a 240, got both of them new in 2002/2003, each for at least twice what you paid.
For under 100 euros a studio 4x5 might be worth considering, perhaps to keep as a backup to the Chamonix later on. Monorails are far more stable at long extensions so they make better macro cameras than field cameras. Cambos are great and like you said not expensive.
Your new APO-Symmar sounds like a keeper. I have a 180 and a 240, got both of them new in 2002/2003, each for at least twice what you paid.
For under 100 euros a studio 4x5 might be worth considering, perhaps to keep as a backup to the Chamonix later on. Monorails are far more stable at long extensions so they make better macro cameras than field cameras. Cambos are great and like you said not expensive.