From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 camera help
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:33:59 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

David McGinnis wrote:
> I have decided to invest in a large-format system soon, but find the large
> array of 4 x 5 choices a bit confusing.  I do mostly landscapes and
>abstracts,
> and suspect I would be happiest with a version of field camera.  What
>are the
> pros and cons of the various types of 4 x 5?  What brands are the
>most reasonable
> for a person on a budget (I hope to get set up for ~$1000 or less)? 
>What about
> using 6cm x 7cm roll film backs on a 4 x 5?  And finally, where are
>the best sources (I do look through Shutterbug) for cameras and lenses?

And donl mathic wrote a response.  I would like to throw in my $.02 worth from 
the standpoint of a very newcomer to large format:


donl> 
donl> You probably do want a field camera, but there are some *very* limited
donl> field cameras out there.

I now have very mixed feelings.  I found a very cheap Calumet 400 monorail
($250 including a very cruddy lens).  It weighs about 8 pounds including
the lens.  The Zone VI wooden field camera, one of the more expensive
ones, weighs about 6 lbs, not including lens.  This is not a great difference.
Now, my Calumet is very much more awkward to carry - the standards are large
and the monorail sticks out the top of my pack.  But the Calumet really 
doesn't weight that much more than the Zone VI, has considerably greater
movements (although the bellows is not quickly interchangable - more on that
later) and, despite what I consider an outmoded and inadequate monorail
design it is still at least as rigid as the Zone VI.  The Zone VI cost ca.
$1200 while my Calumet was $250.  PLUS:  my Calumet carries many honorable
scars.  

But to my real point:  This last weekend I was at a landscape photography
workshop.  (BTW - this was given by Ray McSavaney and I cannot recomment
it too highly.  Ray is a wonderful photographer - my favorite of the 
post-Adams b/w landscape photographers - and a nice guy with a lot to
offer.)  Most of the people were using large format and many of those
were using wooden field cameras.  There was one guy with a brand new
Zone VI.  You know, the one with the gold plated hardware.  Beautiful.
I felt somwhat abashed lugging around my old Calumet monorail.  There was
a fairly strong breeze.  Ken, the guy with the Zone VI, and I had left our
cameras on the tripods next to each other and we were a little ways
off watching Ray do a demonstration when we heard a crash.  You guessed
it.  The wind had knocked our cameras down.  Either it knocked mine into
his or his into mine.  We couldn't determine which was the case.  

The result?  Kinda like crashing a Geo Metro into a 1960 Cadillac.  My 
dinosaur Calumet was completely unscathed.  His Zone VI was, literally, in 
splinters.  The bellows flopped around unattached at one end.  The ground
class was broken.  The lens board was shattered.  Little pieces of Honduran
mahogany everywhere.  Spectators looking somewhat green about the gills 
while clutching *their* wooden field cameras tightly to their bosoms.
Luckily he had a 645 system and a 35mm system so he wasn't out of action for 
the duration.  I know that Fred Picker explictly says that he'll repair or 
replace cameras damaged from tripods falling over.  But I continued to make
large format exposures and Ken didn't.

I think that if I should move to a field camera in the future, it'll be a
metal one like the Toyo.  Jeff Stai, who posts here on occasion, was also
at the workshop and brought his Toyo, which is metal.  I *really* liked that 
camera.  (He also brought some *very* nice landscapes.  Darn near John 
Sexton caliber.)  Now I don't *know* that a metal field camera would have
survived intact.  But I'd give it far better odds than a wooden one.  And for 
now I really feel quite happy about my Calumet!  :-)  In fact,
a couple of weeks ago it took a bath in the Pacific Ocean and I was able
to take it apart and clean out the salt water and get it back in commission
in less than 4 hours.  

donl> You also want a camera with a reasonable bellows.  Mine is about 20", I
donl> think, and it's more than long enough, but 12" is definitely too
donl> short.  I could probably live with 16" or so.  At the other end, when
donl> the lens is short, you'll want to be able to easily switch to a bag
donl> bellows.  Even if it's possible to scrunch the normal bellows up enough
donl> to focus a 90mm lens, as soon as you use any movements, the bellows
donl> runs into itself and won't go any further.  (The interaction of bellows
donl> pleats among themselves can be quite fascinating.  A little rise
donl> translates into a desperate opening of pleats at the top front and
donl> bottom rear, and a desperate scrunching in the opposite two corners.)
donl> Thus you need to be able to *easily* swap to a simple bag.

I couldn't agree more.  I have a recessed lens board for my 90mm lens and
I feel as if I'm stressing the bellows far beyond what I should when I use
much, if any, movements at all.  I know that I'm not able to make use of 
all the coverage for which I shelled out the money to buy a Super-Angulon.
I really do wish that I could use a bag bellows on mine.

donl> You might want to start with a 210mm lens; it's a pretty good length
donl> for many subjects.  I think you can do pretty well with a 210 and
donl> something like a 90 or 120.  A three-lens collection would be something
donl> like 90, 150, 210.  I *occasionally* want a longer lens; more often I'm
donl> trying to decide between 150 and 210, and wish I had a 180, or between
donl> 90 and 120, and wish I had a 105.  It all depends on your style and
donl> subjects, of course.

You'll find that you can crop an amazing amount and still retain good
image quality if you have good lenses.  I have a 210 and a 90.  I very
much wish for an intermediate lens - probably a 150.  My subjective 
experience so far indicates that I'm cropping more than I'm happy with when
I get down to the area covered by a 6x7 negative (exposed with the 90) and that
a 150mm lens would fill that gap quite nicely.  But it's definitely not as 
important to fill the frame with large format as it is with the smaller sizes.
I'm consciously training myself to leave just a little around the edges to
permit a little leeway in cropping when I print.  I never used to do that
in 35mm, prefering to fill every fraction of a millimeter in the frame.

donl> Shutterbug is the only source I can think of other than swap meets (if
donl> there happens to be a photo swap in your area) or local stores that
donl> might have a used department.  I don't see many used ads anywhere else
donl> -- at least not from companies I'd like to deal with.  (E.g.  Adorama
donl> occasionally advertises used gear in some magazines, but I'll never buy
donl> from them again.)

Don't forget 'rec.photo' :-).  That's where I found my Calumet and I know I've
seen other large format cameras advertised here.

Barry

P.s. When I got my view camera, Jeff Stai told me that I'd be discovering
	 1000's of new ways to screw up a picture.  Boy was he right!