|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:"What about cheap 4x5's?" you might ponder. To that question I think I would chortle pretty hardily because "cheap" and "4x5" don't belong in the same sentence. Nobody buys a 4x5 camera because 35mm is breaking the bank. The holders are expensive. The film is expensive. The loupes are expensive. The cases are expensive. The glass is expensive. The bodies are expensive. The cheapest way in would probably be a Crown Graphic (yes, the old press cameras): For the record, this is a "top-RF" Graphic camera. This type uses interchangeable rangefinder cams, one for each focal length. They are pretty hard to find except for the cam for the original 135mm lens. Thus, you're probably better off hunting down a side-RF model (branded Kalart or Hugo Meyer rangefinder). One other complexity of large format is the back. The standard Graphic back was initially intended only to hold film holders - you focus on the panel, slide in the holder, and shoot. However, accessories like Polaroid backs and rollfilm (120) holders eventually came out and these typically cannot fit behind the ground glass. These need a removable panel, which is called the Graflok (or International-) type back. These can be distinguished by the sliding latches at top and bottom. This is a real nice feature but not strictly necessary. Graphic back (for Speed Graphic or Crown Graphic cameras):  Graflok/International back:  Confusingly, Graflex made a third type for their single-lens-reflex 4x5 models, which is referred to as a Graflex back: 
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Advice Needed For the record that's a budget triplet-type lens. It's not real fast and probably won't deliver huge movements or good wide-open sharpness. It's also not worth a lot I would imagine, since you can pick up a good Symmar or something for peanuts. I think a 40D would be a fair-ish swap, body alone. The body will probably get you $225ish, the lens is probably worth $50-75.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Yeah, that's what I posted what I did. Also, no one really seems to like 645 here, which I think is still a nifty format for being cheap and still getting enough of the MF feel (DOF & tones). I use a Pentax 645N, which has glass compatible with the older generation (645) and now the Pentax 645D, digital (a rather cheap ~$9k). 645 is kind of the redheaded stepchild of medium format, that's why. Not that it's not viable to shoot with, but it's a smaller negative than 6x6 or 6x7, but you get a lot less shot per roll than 35mm. It is nice that you can get autofocus lenses and stuff, as 6x6 autofocus is pretty expensive and I don't know of anything bigger. Still though, if I was just getting started I'd hop straight to 6x6/6x7/6x9 as those are a lot more negative for not a whole lot more. I do have a GS645, which is a small 6x4.5 folder. It's a great shooter and it folds flat enough to go anywhere. It's got a modern meter and coatings, but they tend to be a little fragile. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Do you guys have opinions on them, like the Kiev 60 or the Kiev 88? They seen to be considerably cheaper than other cameras and I'll probably be able to find some for nice prices while i'm there, but are they worth it? No offense but both are a bit on the trashy side. They tend to be a bit unreliable, there's a couple companies who specialize in fixing them up and doing some basic improvements to them and if I was going to get one it'd be those. Your mileage may vary on one you pick up out of a random shop. In general, the 60 is probably more reliable than the 88, and has a good lens selection. I would keep an eye out for cheap Moskvas though! They are great little folders made on Zeiss tooling captured in World War II. Iskras were another model, they are a little more finicky but if I remember some have slightly better lenses. If you want to go the Yashica TLR route, I do have a cleaned Tessar/Yashinon Yashica-Mat for sale. Rolleiflexes are also awesome if you end up liking the TLR form factor. Bronica ETRS/SQ are also pretty great for the money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
moonduck posted:The Mamiya 6 (and 7) are both interchangeable lens cameras. There is actually a non-interchangable-lens Mamiya 6/Six.  Mamiya Six IV (1) by rebollo_fr, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Randuin posted:What kind of prices does keh give you? KEH is really bad about keeping GX680 stuff in stock. They usually do OK on the more common lenses but good luck getting bodies from them, I don't think I've ever seen one in stock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
I really really like the second one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:4x5 sheet film is really expensive, right? I'm browsing for cleared-out-my-attic film lots on eBay, and I came across this: I always love the "open box" film where the owner opened the box to take a picture.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Going to try another roll and be really careful about getting the film nice and tight before I send it off for repairs. Put your thumb on the feed spool as you wind up the header to put a little drag on it. Not too much, but it'll get everything in tension. I actually crank my 35mm film back a little bit to put it into tension in the same way, since I worry about my XA's film spacing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Guys, this is a bag-able 4x5 camera The Mamiya 7 has never been sold as a compact camera, only a high-resolution one. You're trading off roll film capability and the best resolution in town in return for drastically lower cost. In practical terms, the holders and changing bags and such are going to add to your weight as well. You do have to also consider press cameras. You can pick up a bargain-basement press camera with a Tessar for $150ish, Angulons go for at least $100 and now that demand is up you're probably talking more like $200 (or even more in the short term). For comparison, that is more than I paid for a Super Angulon 90/8. That matches the capability to straight-on shoot and raises you rangefinder focusing and movements, plus you get an actual ground glass screen if you want to focus by hand. I'm really not sure it'll lower the barrier to entry that much given that it's tied to one particular lens. There are a lot of them out there, but not Urban Outfitter level supply. I'll be real curious if Russia or someone kicks off production of that design, given that it's probably out of patent now. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:How do you plan on setting up the focusing mechanism? That looks like the toughest part of making something like the Travelwide kickstarter. It will almost certainly be a scale-focus helicoid. Note the external VF, there's no rangefinder here. The 90mm is the equivalent of a 28mm wideangle, so it's a little more forgiving of focus errors. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:Looks like a fun camera, also looks like something I'd buy then a few years (ok, a few months) down the line probably end up abandoning having poured more money at LF and wanting as many features as possible, and much sharper optics. The words "point and shoot" have never, ever been aligned with "large format" (or even MF) in my mind... You didn't look very hard. Polaroid rangefinders have been around forever in the low-cost segment. Alpenhause makes great compact travel rangefinders that take sheet film, and Peter Gowland has had fixed-focus or helicoid-focus aerial cameras (a big point and shoot) for ages. In medium format there's the Fuji GA645, and folding/box cameras have been around, like, forever. You could have scale-focused a press camera if nothing else. (the same way you will have to focus the Travelwide)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
If the shutter fits or the body can be adapted, it should take a Super Angulon too, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:This is not to say that a Speed or cheap monorail camera is a bad choice but if you are certain you will like 4x5 (and after a few sheets of Portra 400 you will be) might as well get a kit you are more willing to use and carry. Basically the same reasons I do recommend Hasselblads to people buying medium format cameras. To add to this a little more, press cameras were designed to fit a specific niche - press and sports photography. They were never intended to do insane swings and shifts, and many of them bind up and cannot shift at all with wide angle lenses. On the other hand they do have rangefinder focus, and good luck handholding a monorail. Horses for courses. I sniped a Symmar-S MC 135mm for $175 last week. I was looking forward to having a plasmat I actually have a cam for, but so far the seller doesn't seem to have shipped 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:It's not that I believe they don't exist, it's just that for me personally, p&s wouldn't enter my mind as a methodology for LF/MF.  It was actually probably the original methodology for MF, which really became popular with stuff like box cameras due to low cost, decent IQ (from the negative size), and being a roll film instead of a sheet film (easier for consumers to handle). At best you'd have an aperture control (f/11 and either f/16 or f/22), sometimes not even that.Spedman posted:My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Built out of 12mm thick plywood and all cut with a handsaw. The lens is a big C-Claron Schneider lens I picked up at a photography swap meet, and the wet plate holder is from Chamonix. What is a C-Claron? Some kind of copy lens? How does it compare to a G-Claron?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:Yeah, I know what you're getting at (and I have a number of folders with minimal controls), but it's quite a frustrating methodology to shoot with. I just don't like relying on the negative's size to make up for the shortcomings of the camera/operation. I must admit though, as I sit and run through the options in my head, that L&F p&s is actually more appealing as time passes. Just so long as I could stick something other than the Angulon in it. With some minor modification you should be able to stick any other 90mm on there. With limited close-focus capability, you might be able to use something as long as a 100mm Wide Field Ektar or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I don't know how to make the first one not look like an explosion of orange and red but the original file did not render the street lights well and the picture did not come out very good color-wise. You could convert it to B+W but frankly I don't think the composition is interesting enough to stand on its own. It's just an infinity wall shot, here's the same thing in my town:  The only thing that makes my image interesting to me is the rotation. There's nothing wrong with embracing the monochromatic thing though! It's a nice scene and I actually like the color, it just needs a subject that would be highlighted by that orange and red glow. I may be biased because I just got an 11x14 metallic print of this  and it came out great.  I've printed the B+W neg before but never the slide.scotty posted:I really like what you're going for here, but I've always hated when little details like a car being in the background of a shot ruin them for me. If not for those cars these would be timeless. This is one reason I'm preparing to give large format a serious try. Theoretically the Scheimpflug principle is the solution to this - tilt your plane of focus away from things you want out of focus (and conversely, shift it towards things you want in focus to increase apparent depth-of-field without stopping way down). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I had a question about the last picture. I've noticed my backgrounds appear to swirl when blurred. Is there any particular reason for this? Is that just the 'bokeh' caused by the leaf shutter? No, it's just a characteristic of the lens design. Some have neutral bokeh, where the background is just blurred, others tend to have wilder bokeh or more intense bokeh near the corners (probably curvature of field?). It's a noted characteristic of triplet lenses in particular.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:thinking of selling my pentax 6x7. it's in very good condition and i have the metering prism, wooden grip, and 105 lens. what would be a fair price? I usually price check against KEH and then drop it a bit from there since they offer 6 month warranties on all their used gear. I would get a picture with your username in it before you start thinking about numbers lest buttons be pushed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
The the Symmar-S 135/5.6 MC I sniped like a month ago (for $170) finally arrived. Now I have a plasmat to match my Top-RF Crown Graphic 135mm cam, so I can take a stab at figuring out the workflow. Next stop, a monorail 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Now I know what you mean by "Reala has a magenta cast". I don't think your inversion approach works as well as you think, as I've never seen that in any of my Reala scans despite sometimes being way off on the exposure.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that old batch is shifting as it expires or something. I haven't really seen it with my fresh film though, nor the pile of questionably-dated but cold-stored film I took canoeing a couple summers ago. You can adjust color balance in the highlights/shadows directly in scanner without affecting the overall balance by using the white/black points for each channel. I try to scan the whole histogram and that usually results in yellow skies (on any film) so I'm used to tweaking it by hand.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
I like my GS645, but I'm not gonna lie, it's a temperamental camera and you shouldn't buy it without a warranty. If you want a folder with a multicoated planar-type lens there aren't many alternatives, however, the only ones coming to mind being the Fuji GF670 and the Plaubel Makina. Maybe something like a GS645S would suit you - the fixed-lens models are much more reliable. If you're willing to put up with a little more bulk and weight there is also the Mamiya 6, which provides about as much image quality as it's possible to get in that negative size. It would also let you use a wideangle, which could be nice in the mountains.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
The XA should always be considered a serious contender since it's basically a reflective light meter with a very good lens for its size and a rangefinder built in.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I realize it is kind of silly to be counting the grams of each option when probably going digital would be the lightest of all. I guess I just fell in love with that sweet 6x6 of the Mamiya 6 and was looking for a lighter version. Getting my hopes up that a 60 year old folder can compare favorably to a top of the line, modern 6x6 like the Mamiya 6 is probably a fools errand. Yeah, you aren't going to approach the image quality of the M6 with anything short of a GF670 or a Plaubel (which will run you like $1500+). I guess you could always buy it used for the trip and flip it afterwards. It is definitely a bit silly to be counting grams when you're shooting MF/LF, just hoof the extra pound or two and take what you like. If you want GND filters you pretty much need a SLR. Rollei TLRs aren't all that heavy when you get right down to it, maybe they have some accessory to let you use GND filters accurately? (paramender and a Lee filter kit?) Don't forget you can splice together shots really easily in Photoshop nowadays. You could shoot one exposure for sky and one for the ground (at same aperture/different shutter speeds) and then mask the image. Basically, HDR By Hand. Shot this freehand in Santa Barbara with my GS645, slow and wide open, and automerged it in Photoshop.  1:1 crop from the JPG: 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I was also looking at the Pentax 67 but MLU bodies were getting more and more expensive, and I kind of like the rotating back, leaf shutter, and bellows focusing on the RB. It's tax refund season. There is a big bump in gear prices at this time every year. It seems to be particularly pronounced with P67 gear for some reason, it jumps 25-50% for a few months. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:33 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
copen posted:Actually this is exactly right I don't carry it because its a 9 pound 645 camera right now. I need to get more lenses and a 6x7 back. I'm lusting for a hassie though. Yeah, big negatives own, but conversely small cameras also own. I usually settle this by carrying an Olympus XA as a backup/meter with an awesome 35mm lens for some big, heavy, possibly meterless camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
You don't convert it. An 80mm is an 80mm, you're just taking a smaller crop out of the image circle. It will have the exact same FOV as any other 80mm lens.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Field of view varies based on format, focal length/compression remains the same. Actually compression varies based on distance, not focal length. The field of view will change from 6x6 to 35mm (normal to long) but the field of view will be the same as any other 80mm lens that covers 35mm. nielsm posted:But the flange focal distance is probably significantly longer, and the image circle larger than a lens made for 35mm, so you might be able to mount it on bellows and tilt and shift it around. The film-to-flange distance will be the same as any 80mm lens unless they're designed as telephotos (some are). The bigger problem is coming up with some kind of a tilt-shift bellows.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Quick question for the large-format crowd: I've always bagged it, myself. No idea what freezerburn will do to an emulsion, but it doesn't do the meat in my freezer any favors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:I think I remember something similar to what Spedman says, but this Kodak document says deep freeze for long storage, refrigerate for "next six months". Do note that this is particularly exacerbated for exposed-but-unprocessed film, which doesn't have very good archival characteristics. The image is not as durable until the latent image is converted to a permanent physical image. That article is titled "handling of unprocessed film" instead of "unexposed film" so I'm not sure which they are referring to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:Does that sound reasonable for someone with my background to cut my teeth on larger negatives? Will I regret getting a massive toaster sized cameras? Am I overthinking it? You're probably overthinking it. Larger negatives are great, but there's a few consequences. One is really short rolls. A 6x7 gets 10 shots on 120 and you're done. It's more expensive to shoot and process. The equipment also does tend to weigh as much as a toaster, particularly for the larger stuff. It's not significantly heavier to shoot large format instead, but film and processing cost even more. I like 6x7 as a first jump from 35mm. It's big enough that you will notice a definite difference but equipment is still relatively available. 6x9 is also a nice format, but apart from the Fuji rangefinders there aren't many cheap systems to shoot it on. The really nice thing is that all this stuff has already depreciated about as much as it ever will so you can sell it if you change your mind or don't like it. Don't trust selenium meters, if it doesn't specifically say "meter accurate" or use a meter that needs a battery assume that it is broken or wrong. I personally like my P67. It's like a big 35mm SLR, very reliable, and the glass and system are solid. It has an f/2.4 standard lens, which is one of the faster available. The 75 and late 55 are very nice too. Slow flash sync and heavy are also phrases that come to mind. The Polaroid back is a pain and you either need to keep a separate body just for polaroids or only shoot it at the beginning/end of rolls. TLR: You can probably find a Tessar Rolleiflex for $250 if you do some looking. I do like the Rolleis here since they have a TTL reflex finder in addition to a sports finder, but you can get equivalent quality out of an Autocord or go with a Yashica Mat for availability. Folder: The Zeiss Super Ikonta C is a great little 6x9 folder that packs a lot of quality into a small package, or the square format model B's (B, BX, etc) even have niceties like auto-advance at the expense of one frame per roll. I also really like my GS645 folder, it's got a modern multicoated Planar lens and meter and wind advance and I paid $360 for it. It's pretty damned sharp even wide open, and it can go anywhere. However, they can be finicky little cameras so I HIGHLY recommend you buy from KEH to get the 6-month warranty. If you really want ground glass focusing there's the RB/RZ series, there's the Mamiya Super 23 series, and many camera systems have optional hoods. There's also the Fuji GX680, which makes the RZ look like a point and shoot and enables tilt/shift movement on all lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:So for some reason I decided to purchase the most ungainly camera ever made. You're really posting this in the wrong thread. That's compact and light compared to a GX680.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
It's actually a very easy fix compared to most cameras. Or you can get it fixed very cheaply at your friendly neighborhood shadetree mechanic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
gently caress yeah, one of my all-time never-sell lenses (along with any variation of the SMCP-35mm/6x7-75mm, Nikon 105/2.5, and another few select lenses). I've never tested it scientifically, but it's sharp enough for me all over right from wide open. It give s nice amount of perspective distortion if you use it up close, it doesn't foreshorten too bad at infinity, the contrast is great, it's difficult to flare, and it uses a reasonable filter size. I basically have no complaints whatsoever about that lens. It's even very reasonably priced for a high-performance Distagon. It really doesn't get better than this unless you go buy a Mamiya 7 or something. Talk about diminishing returns. Someday I'd love to try the 75/2.8 asph and the 300 or 400 EDIF. I really ought to sell a bunch of my other crap to get hunting for one. I'd love to see what the modern high-ISO sensors can do for astrophotography. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I mean, I think we're both saying the same thing here, but my point is that if that dust isn't black, why hasn't Saint Fu just cleaned his/her negative or spotted the dust in Photoshop? Why bother telling us? Whining about an insignificant aspect of your photo that displeases you is a time honored tradition?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Yeah, just treat it like slide film in terms of metering precision. I figure you have about a half stop of real wiggle room, one stop overexposed is probably OK, beyond that you really take your chances. It gets really saturated, everything gets an earthy cast, and the colors tend to go neon (laser yellow, cyan blue, fire engine red). On the other hand if you're bemoaning the death of Ultra Color films then it's the stock for you. Set your meter at 50 or 40 and go to town.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:9x12? i've never heard of any rollfilm that's 9cm high. There were a few rollfilms that were that large. 122 film is known as "postcard" size because people would use it to contact-print their family cards, it was pretty common in large folders (Kodak No 3a) and that's very close as well (8.25cm). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:So, after flipping through a lot of pages in this thread, I'm about to drop some cash on a Pentax 67. Any tips for someone that hasn't shot MF before? Learn good shooting technique (brace your body as much as possible), consider investing in a decent ballhead and an L-bracket, learn to freehand with mirror lockup if you're concerned about vibration (it's overblown). Umm, don't put your finger through the shutter. It's huge and it's right there when you're loading. Loading is probably the trickiest part, make sure both the pressure back (green/orange 120/220 on back) and the counter (on the right hand side) are set, make sure the keys are aligned when you insert the spools. Don't leave the meter on. It will drain your battery in 24h or so if you forget about it. And consider getting it sent in to have a split prism screen added, they really help focusing the wide angle lenses. It's really about as easy a starting MF camera as you can get. It's just like an overgrown Spotmatic. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:The older ones don't have an auto-off, I had mine drain on me a few times, ended up just taking the battery out when I wasn't using it. I know some of them supposedly have an auto-off, I've never seen one. But my prism is definitely old, it's actually marked Honeywell Pentax rather than Asahi.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 05:49
|
|