Looking for a light weight LF camera

[Roger Hicks]

Just weighed the Toho set up (note Toho not Toyo). Camera, 120/6.8 Angulon, 2x Grafmatics (12 sheets), MPP tripod, Novoflex head, 4 kg. the lot. Focusing cloth, loupe, meter, hood, filters add about 1 kg more.

Anyone wanting an MPP could do worse than to join the MPP Users Club: www.mppusers.freeuk.com.

Cheers,

R.

[Dwig]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

...and Angulons need to be used at f/11 or less, preferably f/16 or less -- f/6.8 is for focusing only -- while Super Angulons can be used at full aperture. I have both, and have had other examples of both. I find the 120 Angulon vastly more useful than the 90. Again, I have both.

(I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out that there are other good reasons besides coverage why Angulons are smaller and cheaper).

Cheers,

R.

I don't disagree at all.

In the time I used the 90 Angulon I never needed or wanted to use it at a wide aperture. I primarily used it for the classic "rocks and trees" stuff and F/22 was probably my most used stop.

The only time that I remember using it wide was when a played with the antique trick of removing the font cell to double the focal length and get a slightly soft portrait lens. Schneider actually advertised the lens as a convertable in the early days of its production, roughly a century ago, long before the first coated version. Stopped down, the converted lens could deliver a moderately sharp image, but not stellar.

[zgeeRF]

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

Get a "near mint top rangefinder 4x5 Graflex Pacemaker Crown Graphic with a cammed 135mm f/4.7 Schneider Xenar in a Synchro-Compur shutter with the narrow chrome speed adjustment dial" for between $275-$350 USD on eBay. Don't settle for less, this was the best version of the Crown Graphic. If the rangefinder or shutter need service, Fred Lustig or "the Camera Wiz" provide excellent service.

Get a Harrison Pup-Tent changing tent, ten Fidelity or Lisco plastic film holders, a Toyo Hood Loupe. And a #2 or 3-series Gitzo tripod or a Leitz Tiltall or other medium sized quality tripod.

And just shoot a lot of film.

That combination (Crown Graphic with the Xenar) was my entry into the format for little money, as you suggest Frank. Couldn't agree more, especially since... it took a while to use it enough to develop an appetite for more movements and... got a Shen Hao too. Now I know that if the latter was my first LF I would have used it less often. Portability depends not just on the weight but also on how many knoobs you need to turn/adjust before shooting. No wonder the Graphlex was the speedy PJ choice for so long...

The question for Frank: what is the "..the narrow chrome speed adjustment dial" ?

George

[kuzano]

I've had 2 or 3 of the Super Graphics (one a Super Speed). They are a bit heavier than the other Graflex cameras discussed here.

However, I picked up a "rat" super that would have been prohibitive to restore (on my budget). It was also missing the bellows, so the red button shutter was compromised.

So, I stripped out all the electronics and rangefinder parts that were still attached. It's been sent in for a new bellows, in order for use as a ground glass view camera.

I will also take a half inch off the top when it gets back (the place where all the rangefinder and battery stuff used to live).

When all this is done, I hope to have an all metal graflex that will weigh somewhat less than a Speed or Crown. I have a Fujinar 150W in a small Seiko shutter.

My purpose here is to come up with a durable metal, fairly light, view camera with a bit more movements than the earlier Graflex cameras. The Super had additional front movements over the earlier models, with swing and shift added by Graflex. In addition, there are some tweaks that increase the range of the front movements on the Super and Super Speed front standards.

I will add that the one camera that I haven't seen mentioned here, and is the lightest 4X5 I've packed around is the Gowland Pocket, or the Calumet branded Gowland Pocket. Nothing that I have ever used for 4X5 with considerable movements has ever been lighter than the Pocket's. They show up on eBay 2 or 3 times a year and sell for $150 to $300. They are just a little trickier to lock down the movements (all friction). But, with a lens and shutter, probably about 4 to 5.5 pounds complete.

[degruyl]

I guess I am not going to bother much with the "lightweight" aspect (which I should, but others have covered it pretty well).

I will comment that I love the graphmatic backs. The only problem is that you really have to put six sheets of the same film in there. It is way too confusing to try to mix and match developing / exposing. In other words, you get six shot "rolls" (OK, magazines).

They are very easy to load, assuming the septums are straight, and pretty easy to operate. And they work well with press cameras. I suspect that working with ground glass would make you lean more towards traditional film holders, but I don't really know. I can't deal with focusing gg.

Best selling point: they are smaller than three film holders.

[ethics_gradient]

I think regular film holders could complement Grafmatics nicely. I shoot mostly B&W in 35mm, and every once and a while I come across a shot I wish I could switch to color for. I'm still in the process of assembling my Speed Graphic kit, but I think ideally I'd have 2-4 Grafmatics loaded with B&W film, and maybe three or so regular holders for color.

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by ethics_gradient

I think regular film holders could complement Grafmatics nicely. I shoot mostly B&W in 35mm, and every once and a while I come across a shot I wish I could switch to color for. I'm still in the process of assembling my Speed Graphic kit, but I think ideally I'd have 2-4 Grafmatics loaded with B&W film, and maybe three or so regular holders for color.

I'll have to try a Grafmatic sometime. In the meantime, I use a latest model Kodak Easyload. I use Easyloads and Quickloads. No film loading, no dust problems, use whatever ISO, emulsion, color or B/W, with each shot. Early Kodak Easy Load units had problems, but the last version of the Kodak unit is as reliable as the Fuji Quick Load backs.

Some complain about the expense, and limited selection, but I have about 160 Quick and Easy load envelopes in the freezer. Personally, I don't consider the expense a big issue if you count your time as expense and the freedom from avoiding dust during loading film in backs.

[katcons]

Guys, I'm currently eyeing a Graflex but it's the body only. No lens, no ground glass, no back. Can you recommend an ebay seller where I can get those three in one go? I checked ebay for the backs, they go pretty fast!

[Frank Petronio]

Just be patient. Some people chop their Graphics down to in order to sell the parts at higher prices, don't fall for that. You want one all set up with the back, lens, and the cam so it all works together -- it will be less expensive and less hassle. Replacing the cam is the bugger on these cameras so just avoid doing if you can. This is the exact model I described (with the narrow-rim rounded aperture shutter):

http://cgi.ebay.com/Graflex-Crown-Gr...ht_8709wt_1159

I usually pay about $350 for them in the USA. I think that seller is decent. Search for "Crown, Xenar". The good thing about that seller is that they know what they are selling and you know the rangefinder works, etc. You can find them for $200 but usually the seller doesn't know the camera's ass from its lens (or some other quaint saying).

The Grafmatic holders are nice but they also encourage you to overshoot so I got rid of mine. The pace (I do portraits) is better when you slow down a tad. The weight difference isn't much because the Grafmatics are heavier metal versus light plastic double side 4x5 holders. Also the Grafmatics are expensive and they are more mechanical, as in they fail once in a while or you can accidently buy a bad one... so don't worry about them right away.

mpex.com might have some in stock and Jim Andracki there can put together an entire outfit for you -- holders, loupe, tent, etc. KEH might be good too although the sales people don't know large format as well.

No offense to the RFF experts, but start lurking here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php

And read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info

You'll see some familiar names, these are the two best photo forums on the Internet (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php is good for digital too).

[noci]

the lens question also depends on what film formats you want to shoot.... a 90 LF on 6x9 feels like a 40 - 50 mm on 35mm.. use the smaller Fuji instant film and it gets more wide, like a 35.. I pondered that lens question for ages before ending up with a 90 4.5 Caltar - and it offers me the flexibility I need, so I can use the my setup as an insane MF camera with movements.

[Trius]

Not to hijack, but when I use a 150 on 4x5 I have the sense that it is a bit wide, at least in comparison to a 50 on 35mm. Given the aspect ratio of 4x5, I should think it would be opposite. Or maybe I'm just not getting close enough.

In any event, this is what has me thinking of getting something in the 210-240 range to complement the 150.

[FPjohn]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...rca-rm3d.shtml

Should cost not be important.

yours
FPJ

[Yammerman]

Got my self a Fotoman 45PS which I'm having setup with a 90mm SA. No movements but I'm more likely to go out and about with it.

[JCT]

FWIW, I purchased my Super Graphic from the guy that Frank has linked to on Ebay.

Completely honest, he knows his stuff and is great to deal with. I'd buy from him again, no problem.

No connection, just a pleased customer.

JT

[agiyo]

Crown and Speed Graphics with beautiful 127 Ektar lenses were almost all we used, my first 7 years as a school photographer. We covered everything from product shots to portraits to sports with them, and it occurs that I should share some of our technique.
We almost always shot with Stroboflash IV units, which gave a good exposure at about 15'-20' at about f/16-f/22 for sports-type action.
For moving targets---US football or basketball or whatever---we set the camera at f/16, hoped the action came toward us, and pushed the shutter solenoid battery pack button when it was about 15' away. There was no rangefinder focusing on moving targets; we either used the wire frame finder (in the second notch from the top for parallax correction at that distance) or sometimes the optical viewfinder if that camera had a good one.
This obviously required skills such as correct anticipation of where the action would happen, to be in position and ready.
We carried about 10 holders for 20 shots, and would run them to the darkroom and change film at half time of a football game, then shoot however many during the second half.
For lighting large areas, such as the front of a building or football stadium at night, we often used big magnesium foil filled flashbulbs, many of which were WWII surplus from night aerial reconnaissance! Space 3 or 4 of us connected by wires, or just with the big bulbs on a flash gun, in front of a grandstand, and the trusty Graphic on a tripod, and when the main flash went off, the helpers would set theirs off. A 1-second exposure was plenty long enough for everybody to set off their flash and those babies put out enough lumens to shoot EI 400 film at f/11 or f/16, even at that distance.
When all you worked with was a Crown or Speed Graphic, the flow was efficient and images could be stunning.
The last models of Graphics had much-improved integral rangefinders; the ubiquitous Kalart ones usually mounted on the side of the cameas were so dim that we preferred using the ground glass whenever possible. The later ones had a flashlight bulb inside the rangefinder that occasionally worked; you could turn it on, the light beam would be projected out the rangefinder ports, and if the surroundings were dim enough, you could focus the two dots of lights together on your subject and know that would be sharp.
I gave a friend my last Crown Graphic, then sold my Super Graphic I had modified to give more-than-adequate field camera movements back in the early 90s. Soooo...of course I had to find another one for which I have a range of excellent lenses, and it's all the 4x5 camera I'll ever need.
It doesn't matter which camera you have, the thing that is most changeable and adaptable is your eye and perception, and that's what makes a real difference, not worrying about whether another piece of gear will make you the fad of the forum. Study great paintings, read fine literature, watch the way great movie directors light scenes, LOOK at light all the time. That will make really meaningful improvements in your photography.

[degruyl]

Originally Posted by agiyo

Crown and Speed Graphics with beautiful 127 Ektar lenses were almost all we used, my first 7 years as a school photographer. We covered everything from product shots to portraits to sports with them, and it occurs that I should share some of our technique.

Thanks for that. (because someone should say it).

I am impressed that you could change out ten holders and run back and forth to the darkroom in time for the second half. (of course, that depends on the length of half-time, but whatever).

With the advent of turning graflites into lightsabers, what is anyone else using for a flash these days? And, how are you mounting it?

(I just did a quick search for a picture of a photographer - I think Weegee - with a ridiculous array of flashes on his crown / speed. I could not find it. If you know the picture, put up the link. It is fitting in light of the previous posting).

[katcons]

Thank you, everyone for the suggestions and tips especially on practical use. I have been milling about and I'm 70% decided on getting a 5x7 since the 4x5 may be too "small" for my needs, as I think it's only a little larger than 120s.

If you have more input, please keep em coming. Thanks again!

[kmack]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the Gowland Pocket View camera. 5x7 and 8x10 are available.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by katcons

Thank you, everyone for the suggestions and tips especially on practical use. I have been milling about and I'm 70% decided on getting a 5x7 since the 4x5 may be too "small" for my needs, as I think it's only a little larger than 120s.

If you have more input, please keep em coming. Thanks again!

The normal 120 size to use on 4x5 cameras is 6x7, or 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. 2.25 x 3.25= 7.31. 4x5=20. That makes the 4x5 negative about 3 times more real estate. Granted, 5x7=35, but consider the larger enlarger, enlarger lens, and trays. May not be worth the expense.

[venchka]

True. But.

5x7 yields wonderful contact prints. And wonderful inkjet prints via an Epson 4990. GOOGLE Ken Lee. Ken works with 5x7 and an Epson 4990 scanner. It just doesn't get much better. On the other hand, 5x7 is bigger and heavier and generally more expensive.

[dannyt]

I sold all my LF gear and got me two Razzledogs, one 110B and one 900 which has front movement. They are a joy to use, a real Texas Leica.

[vha]

Originally Posted by ChrisN

If you want the lightest, it's hard to beat a Nagaoka 4x5 at 2 pounds 11 ounces without a lens. (Yes, 2lb 11oz!)

And check this page for good reviews of lightweight lenses.

That is 161 grams less than a chamonix, wonder if its as flexible too?
Light stuff is always interesting, but not that bargain friendly

vha

[vha]

Originally Posted by drewbarb

How do you like the Chamonix, vha? Which model do you have? Imressions, opinions? I'm really curious to try one. I shoot with a Toyo 45 field right now (AII- but I'd switch to the A's reversible back to save weight), but I'm interested in something lighter. The CF is indeed light weight, but you sacrifce some movements and from my experience with the camera, some rigidity and build quality, too. If you shoot with wider lenses, perhaps a Walker camera would serve.

Still testing the camera, but so fare so good, took me some time to get the lens-board I needed, and that I got the chance to borrow a Speed Graphic peacemaker with a Aero Ektar delayed the testings quite a bit.
Have the 045n-1 in dark walnut, got it as a part of a trade for a rollei.

Compared to my sinar P/C (depending on how I mix it) its Portable, much lighter, I can actually carry the gear for a Sunday walk without a Sherpa, and it looks nice, not that important but its a great conversation starter
Even thou it´s light and small for being a 4x5 it feels right, sturdy enough, quite easy to mount, but you can´t beat a Graflex in ready for use tempo. Like the idea that the bellows works for most lenses, have tested both a 90mm and a 180mm with no problem. A friend of mine who is a classic photographer (fine art and portraits) uses it with a 240mm as main lens and is happy with it, and he is picky

So if you can afford it, would like that your 4x5 gear fits a messenger bag, not need all the millimeter accuracy a sinar gives but enough moments for normal use, and you like fine craftsmanship I would recommend the camera for you. Sinar is for studio, this one begs for a walk

vha

[vha]

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

There seems to be some controversy over where the Fresnel gets placed by the Chamonix factory -- I haven't followed it but it's not good PR for what otherwise looks like a popular camera. It got a lot of hype when it first came out but now there are a few threads on the LF Photo forum of why people ditched theirs.

There is no perfect all-around view camera, if you haven't figured that out yet ;-)

Tested mine and my eyes could not see any problems, did both a close up test and some other boring photography and the focus was where it was supposed to be. Not sure when my camera is made or batch number since i bought mine 2nd hand. Think some problems is more a "web problem" than a field one

Could not agree more, the best camera is the one you have not bought yet, because it might appear tomorrow. No one speaks about all the nice photos you could have taken instead of waiting

But that might just be me . . .

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by katcons

Thank you, everyone for the suggestions and tips especially on practical use. I have been milling about and I'm 70% decided on getting a 5x7 since the 4x5 may be too "small" for my needs, as I think it's only a little larger than 120s.

If you have more input, please keep em coming. Thanks again!

Wise choice!

Cheers,

R.