|
They sent me replacement parts that were the exact same with extra foam added to stop the ridiculous leaking, but each replacement was broken in new ways - the last one I got was a replacement 8x10 back (minus glass) that has such low tension across the film holder that it can't even hold it upright, let alone push it to the back enough to make it light tight or even at the same focal plane as the glass The front standard is so wobbly my standard lens starts shaking it when I adjust it, gotta wait >30 seconds for it to settle down
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
So, some googling and mostly reading on the largeformatphotography forum, seems to suggest that most people are happy with their intrepids, but also that there is some lemons out there. I'll take it as being forewarned and will stick with my decision...hopefully I wont have to come back here and tell you that you were right  .Found a 5X EMO Macromax on ebay for $60 and now just need a change bag...which I hope my local film shop will have in stock. My local camera shop just looked at me weirdly...I don't think they stock any film at all any more. I have found several on amazon, but would like to support local shops if possible (and prices not outrageous).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
I'm legitimately going to burn my intrepid and piss on it (but not enough to extinguish it)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
At a photographers/camera nerd gathering with beer and food someone brought an Intrepid and I took a look at this thing (Intrepid, more like insipid) and it looked like a wobbly, finicky POS. The owner mistook my cautious interest for my me liking it then tried to first sell -- then give(!) it to me, the price gradually dropping to free. I refused. There's so many great used and new 4x5" bodies out there I don't understand the point of it at all. It's like that stupid Yashica digicam piece of Kickstarter hype-poo poo. It's trash for idiots. Don't be an idiot dude. Or all those morons overpaying $100s of dollars for plastic compacts from the year 1990~1999 all of which by now have been all beaten within inches of their life. Stick with something proven. I only dabbled 4x5 briefly so I'm not gonna lean out of the window too far here, but I picked up a used body for next to nothing and then slowly accumulated some lenses for it. Getting something that's made for pro use means that you won't be pulling out your hair over stupid half-cooked bullshit later. Oh, and when I sold it on I made like 98% of my money back because, you know, it's a camera people actually want vs plastic trash for hipsters. Tl;dr: If I were you I'd listen to the Dorkroom old hands which both ansel autisms and MrBlandAverage are.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
The thread-approved LF camera is the Chamonix 4x5, which ansel autisms, MrBlandAverage, and me all use. It is the very first photo of the very first post in this thread. It may be a bit more expensive than the Intrepid but the cost of the camera is probably the cheapest part about LF photography.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:The thread-approved LF camera is the Chamonix 4x5, which ansel autisms, MrBlandAverage, and me all use. Yo! alkanphel posted:It may be a bit more expensive than the Intrepid but the cost of the camera is probably the cheapest part about LF photography. As a good rule of thumb, if you haven't spent more money on film and processing than on the camera itself, it isn't actually your camera yet.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
I go through literal crates of portra 400 every year
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Haha I think there are quite a lot of us here using a Chamonix!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
I recently came into possession of three Bronica ETRS cameras. Since this is my first time working with Bronica's system is there anything I should keep in mind when testing them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
ReverendHammer posted:I recently came into possession of three Bronica ETRS cameras. Since this is my first time working with Bronica's system is there anything I should keep in mind when testing them? Two thing to keep in mind. 1: The latch to remove the back is fiddly but once you figure it out not so bad 2: 6x4.5 is dumb and bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
ianskate posted:Really loving these! They're all so really smooth and moody, just get good emotional feels from them. Thanks! Yeah, others in the thread have hopefully given you the advice that you need. I'll just add that there was no trick to making these exposures look so even. It was foggy; the environment did all the work for me by being uniformly lit. I just pointed my Pentax 6x7's fairly simple meter at the scene and shot as indicated. The thread has moved on from this, so I'll just add to the current discussions: I like 645 ok. I'd like a 500cm with an a16 back. Seems like a good format if you have really sharp lenses. I don't like my intrepid 4x5. They've sent me two replacement front standards but they're always asymmetrical and can barely hold up my 90/8 super angulon. Also the film holders don't lay flat on the back. I will be getting a chamonix or something if I want to do further LF stuff in the future. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Two thing to keep in mind. Yeah when I first popped one open I was a bit confused at first on how everything went together. Took me a bit but I figured it out. What threw me off at first was how I couldn't get the dark slide in. And then I figured out that the back had to be ON the camera to do that. As for the format, yeah, the 4:3 ratio will be interesting to work with. But hey, something new to try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
My biggest issue with the format is the fact that it requires the same amount of effort to shoot and scan as 6x6 or 6x7. I mean you''ll get a few extra frames on a roll but unless you are chewing through film that's not really a big draw imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:My biggest issue with the format is the fact that it requires the same amount of effort to shoot and scan as 6x6 or 6x7. I mean you''ll get a few extra frames on a roll but unless you are chewing through film that's not really a big draw imo. Which is a fair point especially if you have cropping considerations you need to keep in mind. If anything having more frames would come in handy if I decide to get crazy and go use one of these at a local music event or something. Though I certainly would have to be crazy to swing a heavy rear end camera like this around for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
I’m a huge spray and pray dummy, so the fewer frames I have at my disposal, the more deliberate I try and be. Still looking for a 6x72 format camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I’m a huge spray and pray dummy, so the fewer frames I have at my disposal, the more deliberate I try and be. Still looking for a 6x72 format camera. You should definitely shoot large format then, you only get 1 frame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
ReverendHammer posted:Which is a fair point especially if you have cropping considerations you need to keep in mind. If anything having more frames would come in handy if I decide to get crazy and go use one of these at a local music event or something. Though I certainly would have to be crazy to swing a heavy rear end camera like this around for that. I shoot concerts with my Arax 6x6. It's amazing fun.  Arax018.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Arax023.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I shoot concerts with my Arax 6x6. It's amazing fun. Those are some nice shots. I enjoyed shooting music events on film in general though I haven't done it in a while. Maybe this will give me an excuse to go do it again. And work out more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Hey, I also need a tripod. Doubt my skinny one will hold up. Any recommendations? Bear in mind that I want to take it hiking,
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 08:06
|
|
|
Price no object: gitzo Price is an object: Sirui carbon fiber Price is very important: get more money so you wont have to re buy eventually. Spend the money on a nice ball head and Arca Swiss comparable plates for every camera too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
I'd recommend a Markins ballhead, they're pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Any recommendation r.e. Chamonix 4x5 camera types? N vs. F vs. H Looks like N is stripped down with fewer movements for lighter weight, F is more of a 'standard' field camera and H is for wide angle lenses? What kind of film backs can they take? I'm considering getting into large format and they're apparently the recommendation of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Any recommendation r.e. Chamonix 4x5 camera types? N vs. F vs. H You've basically got the space of it. The H has easier-to-handle rear movements (  ) especially in the rise and fall. The F includes 'asymmetrical movements' (copied from certain Ebony cameras) but in my experience those tend to be useful mostly for landscape photographers. I do mostly people pictures; I don't have asymmetrical movements on my 8x10 and I rarely miss them at all.As for an actual recommendation... it's up to what you want to do with it. The 35mm SLR is so dominant as a camera style because it's pretty good at everything. The further you move away from that - medium format, submini, point-and-shoot, large-format, etc. - you can make your camera better at one or two things... at the expense of literally everything else. By the time you get to large format cameras (and beyond) you're talking about highly purpose-built kits, tuned to exactly the kinds of photography their owners want to do (not just in terms of subject, but also the kinds of movements they use or don't, the places they'll go, the amount of weight they're willing to haul around, etc). All three versions are going to be well-made, so the choice is really a question about what kind of pictures you want to take. Blackhawk posted:What kind of film backs can they take? I'm considering getting into large format and they're apparently the recommendation of the thread. So film holders are standardized, and just about any company's 4x5 holders are going to fit in anyone else's camera. Toyo backs are generally considered the gold standard, but they're expensive and relatively heavy, especially compared to lightweight wood ones. There are a couple slide-in roll film and Polaroid-pack holders, but they're expensive and sometimes finicky. Depending on the springs holding your ground-glass down you may or may not be able to use them (they have considerable thickness). Film backs (e.g. roll-film backs) are usually going to be International/Graflok style, and I don't know anyone making cameras that aren't compatible anymore. Here you remove the entire back of the camera (ground glass and all, just like changing between portrait and landscape) and put the new back in, then use the latches/knobs/whatever on the camera to hold it in place. You almost have to go looking for anything incompatible, and any knowledgeable seller should warn you if you have problems. That said, the Chamonix has ridges on the back (used for securing the ground glass protector plate), which make it incompatible with certain format-changing and Instax backs. These are extreme edge cases and I don't think you have to worry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for the help. I mostly shoot things and landscapes, more so at night with colour film. I think what I'd end up wanting is something on the lighter side as I'll be walking with it and I don't think I'm going to be using movements very heavily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
The Chamonix 45N2 is probably the best one for you, as it's a mostly general-purpose LF camera. If you don't think you'll ever shoot lenses longer than 250mm, you can consider the 45H1 then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
I've been using my Bronica SQ a lot lately, digging 6x6 right now     
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Welp just dropped the hammer on a Chamonix 45n-2, also grabbed some film holders from a local auction website. Now to accumulate the million other little bits and pieces I need to make the thing work...
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 11:17
|
|
|
Still need to get the Kiev serviced 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Welp just dropped the hammer on a Chamonix 45n-2, also grabbed some film holders from a local auction website. Now to accumulate the million other little bits and pieces I need to make the thing work... Hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
What's a good way to scan 4x5 negatives at home if I don't have a scanner that can take them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:What's a good way to scan 4x5 negatives at home if I don't have a scanner that can take them? I'm planning on DSLR scanning mine when I eventually produce one, minimum requirements for that are some source of backlight (e.g. LED tracing pad), a tripod/copy stand and a macro lens for a digital camera. I do pretty much exactly that for 35mm, for 4x5 I'll have to hold the film some other way (taped to the light bed, between some glass or in a flatbed film holder I guess?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Got my film holders today woo, camera and 135mm Fujinon lens incoming as well. I got 6 x fairly used Fidelity film holders, three plastic ones and three wooden ones. The plastic ones look fine, the wooden ones (as I expected) look a bit twisted, do they tend to flatten out when installed in the camera or not? I don't imagine being limited to 6 shots for now is really going to be a big issue...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Got my film holders today woo, camera and 135mm Fujinon lens incoming as well. Go ahead and chuck the wooden ones in the trash where they belong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Woo got it, going to get some fp4+ and see if I can get a good image or two over the weekend!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
^ very nice!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
Love the light and composition. Just went out with 4 sheets of fp4+ for the first time.  I think the first shot I overexposed because my lightmeter hasn't arrived yet and I stuffed up using the lightmeter app on my phone. The last shot was a macro of some lichen but without thinking I set it to f32 so I'm worried that I'm not going to get any background separation and it will suck. Also I was using a black tshirt as my dark cloth but it was hardly dark and too much of a pain to use, cold and moist here this morning so my breath was fogging up the ground glass. Overall though a fun 2 or so hours taking 4 photos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:I think the first shot I overexposed because my lightmeter hasn't arrived yet and I stuffed up using the lightmeter app on my phone. The last shot was a macro of some lichen but without thinking I set it to f32 so I'm worried that I'm not going to get any background separation and it will suck. Also I was using a black tshirt as my dark cloth but it was hardly dark and too much of a pain to use, cold and moist here this morning so my breath was fogging up the ground glass. Overall though a fun 2 or so hours taking 4 photos. Thanks! And for shooting LF macro, you really have to increase the shutter speed a lot because you have to use tons of extension if you're trying to fill the 4x5 frame. On average you'll have to triple or quadruple the shutter speed. And f/32 is fine, I usually use f/22 also for macro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
I wasn't doing extreme macro so the bellows weren't extended that far. I think the photos turned out OK, tons of detail. Not sure I love how the mid-tones came out (feels too contrasty) but that could have just been due to the lighting. Anyone have any experience with FP4+ and Ilford LC29?  
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:10
|
|