Graflex.org

[clawhammer]

Greetings all. After becoming disillusioned with my digital camera (after making 20x30 prints) I've decided to go for a larger format. right now I'm kinda torn between a pentax 67 medium format system or a crown graphic 4x5 system. I have two main hobbies: hiking and photography. I love 'wide' lenses, with my favorite focal length in 35mm being ~20mm. I've see some 75mm 4x5 lenses, and based on my calculations they should be roughly equivalent to the 20mm lenses I'm used to. So, what I'm looking for is a compact, relatively light-weight solution that gives me good performance at wide fields of view.

I'd love to get a 4x5 for the image quality, but I'm a little confused with lenses. First, am I correct in my calculations that a 75mm lens is going to be roughly equivalent to 20mm in the 35mm system? Second, lens boards: Is there a standard? can you purchase lensboards and mount your lens in them by yourself without too much trouble? Third, can I fold up a crown graphic with a 75mm lens? will I run into problems with the bellows?

I'd love to go 4x5, but where I live there's no 'pro store' where I can go in and get advice on this format. I'm on my own, and I would really appreciate some guidance.

[Dan Fromm]

Go here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ and read the FAQs. You might want to visit the forum and ask your question there too.

I don't believe there's a 75 that covers 4x5 and will fit in a closed Crown. If I'm right, you may have to give up a little compactness.

[t.r.sanford]

There was a 75mm. f:9 Wide Angle Dagor, a tiny, shallow lens that would fit with clearance to spare, if you could find one.

A 20mm. lens on a 35mm. camera offers diagonal (image circle) coverage of just over 94º; a 75mm. lens on 4x5, just under 88º (allowing for the vignetting of the frame edge by the filmholder edges and rabbets). A 65mm. lens on 4x5 is closer to the 20mm.'s miniature-camera coverage, offering about 96º on the diagonal.

Because the aspect ratio of the two formats is different, you can't really get an exact equivalent.

-A 20mm. lens on a miniature camera provides about 84º angular coverage on the horizontal dimension, and 62º on the vertical.
-A 75mm. on 4x5 offers just under 72º horizontally and 65º vertically.
-A 65mm. on 4x5 provides just under 80º on the horizontal dimension and 72º vertically.

The 65mm. f:8 Super Angulon probably is the easiest 4x5 superwide-field lens to find. I've never owned one, and I don't know whether you can close a "Crown Graphic" around one, but someone here does know.

[Henry]

Claw, you sound like the perfect candidate for 2x3, as in Century Graphic. With a 6x7 roll film back, and appropriate lenses (e.g., 65, 105, 135/162, 203), you can do everything a Pentax 6x7 can do and more, and better. Look at the current listings on the 'bay; there are usually several, and some are real bargains. Plus 120 roll film is a heck of a lot more convenient to use than sheet film, IMO, and it's cheaper, and there are many b/w and color emulsions to pick from. Just my $0.02 worth.

[45PSS]

[clawhammer]

Wow, I'm impressed with all the replies. Thanks to all, it's been very helpful.

It seems to me that that using a 2x3 would make the field of view of the lens a little narrower, or am I smoking something? What are the advantages of the 2x3 over 4x5 besides weight/size?

Dan, thanks for the link.

[Henry]

Field of view depends on lens focal length/coverage relative to format, not primarily on negative size per se. The main advantage of 2x3, as I see it, is ease of use and compactness (assuming roll film, not cut film). But there's no doubt that larger formats, incl. 4x5 etc., can yield stunning images that contact print or enlarge beautifully. The latter has to do with degree of enlargement relative to print size: a "2x3" (i.e., 6x7 cm., actually more like 2-1/4x2-3/4 inches) negative enlarged to "8x10" is a 4x enlargement, whereas a 4x5 enlarged to 8x10 is only a 2x enlargement. Having said all that, I've still pulled some impressive enlargements off of "2x3" negatives, up to 12.5x17 (an enlargement factor of 6).

[Les]

I've shot 4x5 for 20 years, I have a 65mm SA and yes the bed will close on a Crown Graphic, not sure about a Speed (A Speed Graphic has a focal plane shutter, the body is deeper and is heavier, for a backpacker, I'd stick with a Crown. The 58mm Grandagon will also work on a Crown without movements which you might like to play with. Both of these lenses can be had for around the $300 mark.

I'd say the rough equivalent of a 20mm in 2x3 is a 47mm Super Angulon, rough being the operative word. (It's also the widest lens for the format for under $1000. )

A 2x3 Century can use 6x9, 6x7 and 6x6 holders and is a whole lot lighter and smaller to backpack with than a 4x5. And while I've never used one extensively, I'd hazard a guess a Century outfit with a 47, 65, 90, one back and 10 rolls of film will still be lighter than an Pentax with similar lenses. That said, the Pentax will be easier and faster to use. Any Century or 4x5 Graphic will be slower and while there is a work around, the rangefinder can only be set for one lens at a time, If you like to play with lots of lenses you'll be using the ground glass and a tripod most of the time. That may be a good thing. It slows you down, allows you to think and 'work the shot'. But if you are hiking with lots of people that want to "get to the next camp site to party" you may be left behind.
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

[Henry]

Yep, what Les said. If I were backpacking with my Century, I'd pick one "all-purpose" lens, probably a 101 self-cocking like the Century Graftar for ease of hand-held shooting, have the Kalart sighted-in for that lens, then compose through the "sports" (wire frame) finder.

If you were going "out in the wild" for some *serious* shooting, then take an assortment of lenses and a tripod, compose and focus through the ground glass, and ask your friends to save dinner for you. And don't forget the hooch; beer and wine are too cumbersome to backpack!

[clawhammer]

Heh heh, thanks for the reminder Henry

I don't mind the additional bulk of the 4x5 system, at least for the hikes I've been doing lately. I've been training with a bunch of extra water bottles in my pack to simulate the weight of a full pack, and I'm already carrying around my 35mm/digital system with 4 or 5 lenses (one of which is an old 200 f/2.5 metal monster from the 70's), so I'm used to the weight.

Usually when I hike I'm by myself or with one or two other people, all who are used to stopping for me to take a pic, so time isn't really an issue. I'd prefer to take my time to get a good image that I can blow up/crop to my hearts content than give up film area, so I guess I'll be going with a 4x5. I think I'll take Les' advice and go with a crown graphic and a wide lens- hopefully a 65 if I can find one for around 300.

Thanks for all your help!

[troublemaker]

Clawhammer,
Read up on wide angle lenses and their coverages.
I see mentioned above a Super Angulon 65mm f8 lens. It might just cover 4x5 stopped down (155mm image circle), but barely. A nice lens for 6x9 cameras then offering some movement with good coverage. The other problem with them is they are ussually found in the tiny Compur 00 size shutters which are iffy. Bigger faster modern wide angles with nice coverage and bright focussing aren't really all that good stopped down. It really depends on the lens and personal preference. Bigger faster multi-coated ussually carries a bigger faster price also.
And consider how wide is wide enough? I can't imagine needing anything wider than 65mm in my 6x9 backpacking kit. I carry a 103mm as my standard. The problem as I see it is DOF. And if you can't cover the DOF with a given lens (consider the classic near far landscape composition) to have everything in focus without movements then one must have a lens with enough coverage. A 65mm will ussually work for me straight on, but I still need covering power if I use tilt or rise, and have been lately.
So what I am pointing out is there will be considerable difference in DOF ranges with a 4x5 than a little 35mm with short wide angle with very shallow DOF ranges even wide open. Another problem to consider is that some superwides for large format require and were intended to be used with center weighted graduated filters, esspecially necesarry if using narrow latitude tranperency films. The center filters can cost as much as the lens. And more crap to carry.
If I backpacked with a 4x5 I'd carry my 150 Symmar S 5.6 and my 90mm Angulon 6.8. The 150 offers enough movement and the 90mm is light and stellar sharp, but requires care infocussing the forground. I had a 65mm Nikkor f4 SW and sold it as it was too wide for 4x5 landscape work, and wasn't even as sharp as my 50 year old 65's. Big heavy and expensive. I thought it was intersting that a 50 year old 65mm Angulon 6.8 outperformed it on my 6x9 Crown. And the Angulon is tiny, only a few onces compared to nearly a pound and a half.
My Crown 6x9 (2-1/4x3-1/4) backpacking kit weighs approx eight pounds complete with ten rolls of film and tripod. A little more if I take the El Carmagne carbon tripod. With this kit I get images up to 30" enlargment that look pretty good. Unlike yourself, I find I am unable to carry much weight and bulk becomes a problem hiking alone and carrying all the food and essentials for four to eight days. But I congradulate you on having friends with enough patience to allow you to relax and make your images. I find it takes me at least twenty minutes for quick shots during the day's ramblings, and much longer for evening and morning shots that require careful set ups, and multiple exposures and sometimes up to two cups of coffee waiting around. One friend I used to hike with told me it was OK, but the body language and attitude suggested something different and I was forever feeling rushed. On those trips in the future I will carry my 35mm or something a little faster....

[Dan Fromm]

Troublemaker, if you get the opportunity try a 47 SA. I use mine more than my 65 Ilex.

Cheers,

Dan

[troublemaker]

47mm is too wide really for my approach. Even 65mm seems overkill for most scenes as it moves the background back too far for a sense of a litteral interpretation of scale. Even the 103mm smalls things. 135mm in the 6x9 seems about right but, Where I shoot in the Sierra doesn't lend itself to the longer lens. Can't get the background into proportion, or rather it gets cut off.
Anyway, another problem was the necessity of removing a big wide angle's reaer element and having to carry extra or re-vamp the entire filter kit, which I none of these things are necessary with the 65 SA f8.
And check this out. The SA I grabbed seems to have been factory made to fit the Copal 0 shutter it is in. Very nice rig, and fits right on the front of the Crown. I did some workwith it already and am reasonbly pleased since I was able tofocus and use movements, side shift for veticle rise evertything with nice coverage. The Linhof 65 6.8 I took also is just a bit better to focus and image quality straight on, but any movement and the f8 is much better.
The lens I am most curious about now is the Grandagon 75mm 6.8. I am thinking this would be a lot sharper and less flare than the Nikkor I tried, and would be pretty happy with a 105 and a 75, but am done playing try buy and sell for a while. Time to use what I have.

[Dan Fromm]

Troublemaker, you're right, wide angle lenses aren't often the best for broad vistas. In the Pine Barrens and Everglades, though, they're often very useful. I use 'em little when visiting in CA, but have got a couple of satisfactory shots of Carson Peak from a deck facing it.

[troublemaker]

Remember the panoramic 4x5 topic a couple weeks back on photo.net?
So when I was in the White Mtns last week looking back across at the Sierra crest I decided to mount the 65 SA on the 4x5 and made an exposure but Ihave not yet developed my sheets. I figured I could see about coverage a little bit and we'll see what kind of image I end up with. Probably another boring test shot, but the road was snowed in still where I ussually go. I did do some other work later in the week and really liked the little 6.8 Angulon until I tried using some movements and couldn't even focus it using the rise or side shift. I checked back at the Schneider site about coverages and no wonder. Straight on it is really easy to use unlike the nasty little Raptar which will wear ya out in no short order. The f8 SA 65 was also pretty user friendly, and much better than the first one I tried which didn't seem to be in focus stopped down. That first one was also in a 00 shutter on its last leg and not trust worthy by any means.
Oh yeah, above I wrote that the 6.8 Angulon outperformed a Nikkor f4 65 SW. Image quality was actually slightly better with the Nikkor wide open to about f8, after that the little 6.8 was better. That sort of jives with a couple things I read about the fast Nikkor. But when it comes to convenience and useability within my own kit the Nikkor was just a problem, but I actually made a little money on it. The price made the thing kind of stupid with regards my system also. But whereas I thought the modern lens with its MC would be some stellar improvement over the fifty year old stuff, not evebn worth a second test, just listed it and good bye...