lf-photo.org.uk

Sorry, but it's another newbie, which type of camera question.

My main interest is what our American cousins sweetly term as intimate landscape. My research shows they appear to prefer 210mm as the main lens for this style.

From your experience is this the best lens for us or is it because everything is bigger over there. Would the 150mm be preferred over here.

This means...... would I be better off buying a standard/wide angle camera or a more normal one.

Should my long term aim be for a camera system such as Ebony RSW45 with 150, 90 & 65 lenses or Shen Hao PTB54 with 210, 150, & 90 lenses - both brands only used as examples of type.

I'm not looking for all the answers, just trying to ensure I start on the right road & to narrow down my initial search criteria.

Since I don't drive I rely on public transport to get me to places I can't walk. Whatever I eventually buy will therefore have to be fairly easy to carry or transport as I am more reluctant to carry heavy equipment as I get older. (Looks at large camera bag full of RZ67 equipment and groans.)

I'll appreciate any help you can give me to get started.

Hi Morrie and I'm assuming you are talking about the type of intimate landscape described here? : http://www.f-8andbethere.com/notes/thei ... dscape.htm

I'd say it really depends how close you are able to get to the element you want to photograph, and I'd be thinking that often you might need a lens longer than "normal" to isolate the feature you are interested in. 210 doesn't seem excessively long for this, and I'd certainly be thinking in terms of a camera that could comfortably take that length of lens.

Others will be along soon to offer opinions on suitable cameras, but lighter would be better for me as it means you can maybe take another lens or a few more film holders instead. Take your time and don't do anything too hasty!

Hi Morrie

I've only been using a LF camera for the past year and went for a Chamonix 45N-1 which only weighs 1380g together with 90, 180 & 240 lenses. I too like the inner landscape and find that I take most with the 180.

My Chamonix complete with the 180



Taken with my 180 f5.6 Symmar

An interesting question. For 'intimate landscapes' many of the folk that I go out with swear by a 240mm lens - especially the Fujinon A which is good for long bellows extension as it doesnt place strain on the extended set-up by virtue of its lightweight. Tend to use TKs or 45SU though so have plenty of bellows. Personally I have used a 200 or 250 (now 240) on a 45Te which also has plenty of bellows extension.

I personally have found a 150 is too short. Analagous to using a 50mm macro lens on 35mm. I am not saying you cant or I havent used 150mm or shorter but its harder to isolate detail the wider you go.

Bellows extension is going to be important - I found 270mm on my 45S too short for using a 250 for intimate landscapes hence the trade up to the 45Te. As such I think even with the 150/180 & top hat you may find the RSW lacking in bellows quite quickly.

So.. I would look for something with minimum of 250mm bellows extension so that a min of a 180mm could be used with some flexibility and not working at the furthest edges of extension.

I've just gone over all my intimate landscape style shots and I can't find a consistent focal length. I seem to use 110 or 150 for a lot of my near/far compositions, a 240 for near 1:1 pictures but if I've wanted to really emphasize the size of a small feature in a near/far composition, I have used an 80.. Personally I would go for a 150 as a good 'standard' lens although the 240 Fujinon is a mighty fine lens (bit long on the extension when you're working close up though).. Having seen the Chamonix cameras I have nothing but good stuff to say about the (although I use an Ebony myself it was chosen out of desire as well as practicality - if I were buying again I might purchase an Arca Swiss F line though)..

Tim

In your cogitations on choice of camera, don't foget Mike Walker's axcellent range of cameras, both folding and otherwise. www.walkercameras.com; he sponsors us to the tune of a 10% discount on cameras and 5% on lenses.

Tim, funny you say that - I would also probably go down the F line route too if I had the choice again.

davejt3 wrote:Tim, funny you say that - I would also probably go down the F line route too if I had the choice again.

Interesting... If I wasn't looking at getting an ultralight camera next I'd be saving up for one I think..

Tim

p.s. Can anybody recommend the lightest 4x5 I could use a 110 and 240 on?

Tim

I had an RW45 (mahogany) for a while and was good very solid camera limited to using a 300 (limited close focus) down to 90mm and weighed in at 1.9kg. Has a smaller footprint than 45Su too and reasonably packable. Shame about the price now ! I think you could customise it some more by taking front & rear swings off it and losing a few 100 gms. If I wanted a proven quality camera that was lightweight that would probably be my choice. I had a fit of pique over a user error with the camera that ruined a whole weeks piccies from Scotland and sold it - I think I would still be using it now otherwise. If you can forego the 240 then I thought the RSW45 was brilliant and met my requirements for about 3 years.

The issue with the ultra LWs (Jon Brock has something that I cant remember the name of and a Wista before that) is with the 240 - it really pushes the rigidity from what I have seen of them at workshops / trips and from experiments !

Shen Hao looks attractive at 1/3 price and same weight, slightly longer bellows but no personal experience to say how it feels in the field or to its rigidity.

You dont mention it but shaving weight off the tripod and head is a big headache and where I think the bigger saving can be made.

davejt3 wrote: You dont mention it but shaving weight off the tripod and head is a big headache and where I think the bigger saving can be made.

Thanks Dave,

I've gone through my kit with the wife's kitchen scales (she didn't find out so I'm still half sane in her eyes) and found out I'm carrying 20+Kgs

My tripod (3540XLS) is definitely one of the heaviest components at 3Kg (with rrs head and spikes) which I was looking to get a Gitzo 1541 and acratech head (which I've found out is what Joe uses on his lightweight kit) at 1.5Kg.. If I can fit it all in a vertex (saves 2Kg on the Pro) and use a leightweigt (45s?) camera then I can get down to 10Kg - should allow me to walk a lot further..

However that is a lot of money just to save a bit of weight and I'm thinking I'd be better off just getting fitter

Tim

If price (or patience waiting for a used one) is no object, then I can't say a bad word about the Ebony 45S. If I hadn't moved up to 8x10 then I would still be using one. Totally rigid, light weight and more movements than you can shake a stick at. For me at least, I've tried quite a few mono's and field cameras, and the Ebony was the most user friendly.

Your dead right about the 45S - had one of those too but it packs quite a bit bigger without the protection that you feel you get from a folder.

The RSW45 works really well on a Manfrotto 55 4 section CF and acratech head, The 45s was just OK with shorter lenses and the SV45Te likewise unless its windy or you need large height. I just love the stability of a camera on a big tripod and head - so reassuring I use 1548 and BH-1 mainly and am prepared to carry it. Head is the biggest weight and although it is OK with the acratech movement is less smooth, clearly pushing the limits of the head even though well within spec weight wise. Once the bellows are extended by a large amount (e.g. the 240) then moments are a bigger issue than weight and fine adjustments are just not easy or smooth. I have kinda binned that combo now and just use it with the digital.

I think the real answer is to live with something like the RSW and the 110 / 150 combo and then have the ability to really scale back the tripod/head and bag dimensions such that you can pack in something tiny. Limit the grads, amount of film carried etc. Other than that its pack a 5d/D700 and a T/S lens or two with a small grad set and accept that A3+ is probably the limit where portability is the biggest priority.

Sorry, think we have somewhat hijacked this thread with a digression

Just get yourself a couple of Llamas to carry your gear.

http://www.stephenwillard.com/llamas/ll ... lamas=home

What is it you like so much about the Arca-Swiss?

Thanks for all your comments.

I can see that the choice of lenses and/or camera, even for my limited interests, is not going to a straightforward yes or no answer. As I wrote previously the question of weight is important but not at the cost of the quality of results. I can see no point in leaving my comfort zone of medium format unless the results justify the extra expense & effort.

I want to try to restrict my buying to equipment I will actually use on a regular basis as well as trying to keep the costs under some sort of control. Even without including the cost of the replacement scanner or possible new printer the costs tend to climb quickly, as you all know - the necessary price of starting with a larger format.

Interested to read the comments regarding tripods. I assumed I would be using my old Benbo with its B&S head. It gives me the height I need to photo standing upright. Using it at least spares me one further expense. The only problem is it weighs in at 9lbs - I've just checked. To think 20 years ago I use to walk all day carrying it.

Morrie wrote:I assumed I would be using my old Benbo with its B&S head. It gives me the height I need to photo standing upright. Using it at least spares me one further expense. The only problem is it weighs in at 9lbs - I've just checked. To think 20 years ago I use to walk all day carrying it.

Hmmm, I've wrestled one of those monsters and would, personally, get as much as I could by selling it and, to keep costs down, buy a Manfrotto 055ProB with a 410 head.

Ball heads make for problems trying to square everything up with the weight of an LF camera balanced on top; the 410 is a geared head, which makes life a thousand times easier.