So! It's time for hypotheticals.

Woodsy

Woodsy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,676
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Good people of Fermenting & Cabbage section, I need your help.

I should preface this with the fact that I am asking on behalf of someone else, and so with that in mind, any and all thoughts are appreciated.

Since going LF, I've kind of fallen off a bit when it comes to 'looking' at / for cameras which I new regret. However, I have been asked to recommend a film camera which conforms to a few conditions, which are:

Needs to be MF of LF or MF field camera or LF hand held; any format between 6x6 and 5x4 (inclusive) apart from pano.
Landscapes are the sole focus, so easy and accurate use of filters such as grads is essential
Not hilariously heavy.
budget in the hundreds, not thousands.

Now. I'd recommended things like an RB67 and hassey 500. Does anyone have any other suggestions? No brand loyalty, so can be any make.

Would really appreciate any thoughts!
 
I think for value v quality the Bronica SQs take some beating.

Considerably lighter than the RB too.
 
Fuji GW690? Not quite as requested but a better lens is hard to find and 6x9 is pretty much perfect imho, for landscape. You can pick up a minter from Japan for less than 400 earth pounds.
 
RB67, but then I always say that whether its appropriate or not, When is it not :D
 
The problem with the Fuji's is that they're Rangefinders so not ideal for using Grads/Polarisers because you're not looking through the lens.

Simon's shout for the Bronica SQ is a good one for lightness otherwise the Hasselblad is equally good but the budget might be pushed for that depending on how many hundreds it is. If your friend just wants to get out and shoot 6x6 for reasonable money they could pick up something like a Kiev88 for around £150. Might not be so well made as the Hasselblad (questionable!) but I liked the one I had.
 
Much as I love the Fujis they're not the best if you want to use grads. So if the Bronica doesn't appeal then go with a Hassy, it's light, proven in the field and the 50mm lens is pretty cheap.
 
Agree with suggestions so far (SQA, 500C/M, RB67) and will add Pentax 67 into the mix.
 
Large format cameras come into their own if full movements are required. It has few essential advantage if used as a superior box camera. Landscape work often requires both back and lens movements
Wooden LF cameras have an astonishingly good size to weight ratio, and a small one that accommodate rollfilm backs of 6x7, or better still for landscape 6x9 r

What is available at a good price is largely down to the good offices of EBay and prices Can be very reasonable.
 
Like it. Like it a lot. Many thanks all! I have to agree about the fujis, probably not the best choice for filters. A field camera is certainly an option to be considered, and needless to say, I'd recommend one :D

Seems the Pentax 67 is quite a bit lighter than the RB, so that's probably the RB out.

I like the look of the SQ-A (not that it's for me) and the weight of them comparable to the pentax it seems.

Aside from the Shen Hao and the Ebony, are there any other 2x3 field cameras out there?
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
Aside from the Shen Hao and the Ebony, are there any other 2x3 field cameras out there?
Click to expand...

Some.

No-one has yet mentioned TLRs. Is there a real need for grads? I use negative film and I've never had to use them - slide users differ on this. As a B&W photographer, TLRs do have the advantage of not showing a red/green/yellow view when I put a filter on - the other side of not viewing through the filter.

Edit to add - if I were going to have just one camera (and a view camera wasn't possible) the RB67 (or RZ67 with the tilt/shift adaptor) would be my choice.
 
Last edited:
Who said you can't use grads on a TLR? ;0)

20324520419_d5cd55d33b.jpg
 
StephenM said:
Some.

No-one has yet mentioned TLRs. Is there a real need for grads? I use negative film and I've never had to use them - slide users differ on this. As a B&W photographer, TLRs do have the advantage of not showing a red/green/yellow view when I put a filter on - the other side of not viewing through the filter.

Edit to add - if I were going to have just one camera (and a view camera wasn't possible) the RB67 (or RZ67 with the tilt/shift adaptor) would be my choice.
Click to expand...

Yep, grads are required. Personally, even with colour negative, I'd still use them as well.
 
Yeah, it's Gumtree so it will be one of 4 things;

1) Seller has no idea what they're selling so picks a price out of the air - bargain
2) Image was taken from a Google search and seller checked previous ebay sales, undercuts by a few hundred £ to get interest - Scam
3) Seller is genuinely not interested in the camera anymore so wants a quick sale - bargain
4) Seller won't post - annoying

2 out of 4 isn't bad odds ;0)
 
stevelmx5 said:
Yeah, it's Gumtree so it will be one of 4 things;

1) Seller has no idea what they're selling so picks a price out of the air - bargain
2) Image was taken from a Google search and seller checked previous ebay sales, undercuts by a few hundred £ to get interest - Scam
3) Seller is genuinely not interested in the camera anymore so wants a quick sale - bargain
4) Seller won't post - annoying

2 out of 4 isn't bad odds ;0)
Click to expand...

The good news is that a reverse Google image search doesn't find any other copies of that photo.
 
RB67 inc WLF, back and lens 2540g, Pentax 67 inc standard prism and lens 2300g, all weights measured my my usual slapdash half-arsed approach to accuracy :D
 
Last edited:
As a recent convert, I'll weigh in with the Pentax 67 or 6x7. I find it much more pleasant to use than the SQ/Blad/RB 'box' type camera. Completely personal preference, but feels a lot more tactile in the hand due to it's shape. The lenses are absolutely top notch and unlike some other brands, they are also dirt cheap. The 6x7 negative gives you quite a lot more image resolution than 6x6 when, like most people, you end up printing as a rectangle (10x8, 16x12 etc.) And it's even (relatively) light when attached to the 90mm lens and waist level finder. I've carried that combo around for five hours on the stupid narrow strap that it came with, and it was no problem at all.
 
rb67 lenses have quiet a varience in weight
my 250mm is damn heavy, 90mm isnt too bad
 
Woodsy said:
Good people of Fermenting & Cabbage section, I need your help.

I should preface this with the fact that I am asking on behalf of someone else, and so with that in mind, any and all thoughts are appreciated.

Since going LF, I've kind of fallen off a bit when it comes to 'looking' at / for cameras which I new regret. However, I have been asked to recommend a film camera which conforms to a few conditions, which are:

Needs to be MF of LF or MF field camera or LF hand held; any format between 6x6 and 5x4 (inclusive) apart from pano.
Landscapes are the sole focus, so easy and accurate use of filters such as grads is essential
Not hilariously heavy.
budget in the hundreds, not thousands.

Now. I'd recommended things like an RB67 and hassey 500. Does anyone have any other suggestions? No brand loyalty, so can be any make.

Would really appreciate any thoughts!
Click to expand...

Bronica GS-1 is another good option, which offers 6x7 with interchangeable backs, but is much smaller and lighter than than Mamiya 6x7 SLR options. No rotating back for the GS-1, although there is a rotating prism.

What I like about the Bronicas, as opposed to the Hasselblads, for landscapes,is that the Bronica SQ series and Bronica GS-1 use almost all the same filter sizes for the lenses within those particular camera systems (67mm and 72mm, respectively). With my Hasselblad, not only is the filter size unstandardised across lenses, but the lenses require filters with Hasselblad bayonet fittings, so you can't even use your normal filters without adapters of some sort, which aren't necessarily cheap. Of course, you could choose to plump out the cash for filters made specifically with Hasselblad bayonet fittings... if you have even more cash to spare.

The Hasselblad system is far more extensive than the Bronica systems though. If you ever want the possibility of movements with the system, the Hasselblad offers the Flexbody. If you ever want to go digital, there are backs made specifically for V system cameras to do this. You can also get bodies with focal plane shutters in the Hasselblad V system, which is, incidentally, the only reason that I own a Hasselblad. For landscapes, however, I prefer my leaf shutter SQ-A and its 67mm filter threads.
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
Like it. Like it a lot. Many thanks all! I have to agree about the fujis, probably not the best choespecially iers. A field camera is certainly an option to be considered, and needless to say, I'd recommend one :D

Seems the Pentax 67 is quite a bit lighter than the RB, so that's probably the RB out.

I like the look of the SQ-A (not that it's for me) and the weight of them comparable to the pentax it seems.

Aside from the Shen Hao and the Ebony, are there any other 2x3 field cameras out there?
Click to expand...

It seems there are various chinese and indian ones still made.
But suitable ones have been made since the photographic year dot.
many of them were made in 1/4 plate and 9x12 cm formats. equally many of them take the eponymous rada 120 holders. Or thir own. Many others have been fitted with international backs which fit any modern roll holder.
wooden field cameras designed especially for 6x9 usually have restricted movements and problems with wider than normal lenses. Unless you can fit bag bellows.
 
Some excellent points in here. Really appreciate it. Didn't know that about the blads and their filter system, bit of a turn off, that!

Of all of the options, while my preference is the RB, I would imagine the bronica is looking like the best option. :)
 
If landscapes are the camera's main use then I can't see the point in using a sq camera as if you have to crop then you might as well get a 6X4.5 like the ETRSi
 
You're not thinking "square" properly, Brian!
 
excalibur2 said:
Well Chris I did try to be sq with a Rollei SL66 and tele-rolleiflex many moons ago ;)
Click to expand...

The greatest advantage of the square format is that you always have it in the correct orientation, whether intending a landscape or portrait view.
and for editorial work allows for cropping in any orientation with out losing quality.

The tele rollieflex and several other models of that generation. Permit the using of the supplied optical flat glass pressure plate in the focal plane. This ensure a totally flat film for critical work. This was especially useful for ariel work as it prevented film bulge caused by the venturi pressure effect of the slip stream. Which is the bane of large and medium format work.
 
Well what put me off sq was when I started doing colour printing and wasted expensive paper if I didn't crop to fit 10 X 8, also in the initial shot (for many times) would have to make allowances around the subject to allow for a crop (could be vertical or horizontal)........but with 6 X 7 or 6 X 4,5 you can come in tighter on the subject although you still have to make some allowance to fit 10 X 8 paper, but with experience that was no problem.
 
excalibur2 said:
If landscapes are the camera's main use then I can't see the point in using a sq camera as if you have to crop then you might as well get a 6X4.5 like the ETRSi
Click to expand...
excalibur2 said:
Well what put me off sq was when I started doing colour printing and wasted expensive paper if I didn't crop to fit 10 X 8, also in the initial shot (for many times) would have to make allowances around the subject to allow for a crop (could be vertical or horizontal)........but with 6 X 7 or 6 X 4,5 you can come in tighter on the subject although you still have to make some allowance to fit 10 X 8 paper, but with experience that was no problem.
Click to expand...

The SQ can also shoot 6x4.5 and 35mm, Brian, if you're really that opposed to cropping a square 6x6cm frame.
 
excalibur2 said:
If landscapes are the camera's main use then I can't see the point in using a sq camera as if you have to crop then you might as well get a 6X4.5 like the ETRSi
Click to expand...

As I say, it's not my personal choice, as that'd be the RB if I had to shoot MF. As I shoot LF it's of no consequence to me.

Said person however may prefer the 6x6 format, and may wish to adopt (IMHO) the proper approach, of getting the composition right in camera. Of course there may be times when a crop is necessary, I'm not saying it'll be the perfect 6x6 composition every time, but this is true of any format - cropping 6x7 to a square crop if the composition is not worth missing but does not suit 6x7 for example. Also, as said, the advantage of not needing to rotate the camera with a non square format is attractive as well.
 
skysh4rk said:
The SQ can also shoot 6x4.5 and 35mm, Brian, if you're really that opposed to cropping a square 6x6cm frame.
Click to expand...

Well it looks like I bought the the wrong cameras i.e. rolleis way back that has formed my opinion that exists today ;) Anyway there must have quite a few good reasons switching to 645 and 67 as I would have thought about "why switch"........h'mm so long ago I've probably forgotten other points.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well what put me off sq was when I started doing colour printing and wasted expensive paper if I didn't crop to fit 10 X 8, also in the initial shot (for many times) would have to make allowances around the subject to allow for a crop (could be vertical or horizontal)........but with 6 X 7 or 6 X 4,5 you can come in tighter on the subject although you still have to make some allowance to fit 10 X 8 paper, but with experience that was no problem.
Click to expand...

When i started i was not aware how well the 6x6 format worked with 10x8
I calculated the proportion to fit the screen and stuck paper squares marking the corners. If you avoided the corners you could crop full width either way.
later on I bought gridded screens for some of my rollies
later still i did not need them as I became self programmed by many thousands of exposures.

It never bothered me in the slightest when colour printing or making black and whites because in those days no one printed square except chemists.
The only time I regularly printed square was making 3meter square bromides for window displays. But that was the brief.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
The only time I regularly printed square was making 3meter square bromides for window displays. But that was the brief.
Click to expand...


Normally I'd break that down in to a workflow and imagine how it could be done, but I'm right out of think, used my last bit just now making a cup of tea :(

even a full tank of think would struggle with 3m sq bromides though
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
Normally I'd break that down in to a workflow and imagine how it could be done, but I'm right out of think, used my last bit just now making a cup of tea :(

even a full tank of think would struggle with 3m sq bromides though
Click to expand...

The first month we had no suitable equipment so we use meter wide paper and exposed it in 3 sections using internegs. The large durst pillar mounted enlarger could be swung horizontal, and wheeled into position.

We then hung it on another wall and developed them with sponges, Hosed to rinse. Then fixed with sponges again. There was then more hosing. It worked but was wasteful.
We then had 3 purpose built Plastic drums and troughs constructed for us with spiked fixing clamps They only use 5 liters of chemicals. the dev was discarded every 3 prints. But the fix was tested with blank film to clear. To process you added the chemical and winched the handle.
Drying was simply hanging in a drying room.
The finished strips were given to the Display department for mounting. but there was only 5 cm overlap.
We never had to do a reprint so we must have done something right.
They looked amazing in the twelve department store windows each month
People made a special point of coming to see each set of new ones at the then Gallerias Preciados store in Madrid Now owned by its rival El Corte Ingles.

The paper was mostly from Negtor a Spanish manufacturer. It was extremely heavy weight with very little stretch. as long as they were all hung the same way to dry.
Before I left we had a new set of condensers and lens, that allowed us to print with out an inter-neg. ( not that the quality changed much, it was just easier.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top