[rollei_list] Re: 6 x 9 search
- From: Laurence Cuffe <cuffe@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:22:13 -0700
I've shot the same lens (65mm angulon) on a 5x4 using the linhof close focus
board. You get the full circle of the image on the film.
While were on the topic has anyone used the Plaubel 69W proshift which looks
interesting but is big bucks and probaly over specked for this application?
All the best
Larry
On Friday, August 31, 2007, at 05:28PM, "rcreason-1" <rcreason-1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
> <title></title>
></head>
><body bgcolor="#cccccc" text="#000000">
><font face="Comic Sans MS"><br>
>I use the 65mm f6.8 Schneider-Kreuznach Angulon </font>with my
>Century Graphic and works quite well for 6x9. I don't think I could
>use anything much shorter than this.<br>
>Bob C.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>Eric Goldstein wrote:
><blockquote
> cite="mid:c2560f00708310508i4b2fc5cep5a8ed3dcdd798793@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">All good information. I think the 80 is the widest lens these
> cameras
>can be set up for use with the viewfinder and kalart IF you can find
>the right cam/scale. It is a very compact, light, and high quality
>lens, but really must be shot at f/16 or smaller to get good
>performance (by design, according to Kodak).
>
>I did doubt check, and only some 65 mm designs can be used on some of
>the 23 Graphics. I thought I remembered this finding when doing the
>research a few years ago. The Busch Pressman Model C can easily handle
>a 60ish mm lens and is a better choice for wide...
>
>If you can handle Fuji lenses, their "Texas Leica" 69 with 65 mm lens
>is probably the most practical choice but now we are talking a
>different class of size and $$...
>
>
>Eric Goldstein
>
>--
>
>On 8/31/07, Mike Bischof <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
>href="mailto:nbg90455@xxxxxxxxx";><nbg90455@xxxxxxxxx></a> wrote:
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">Jan,
>After all the technical discussions ;-), let me give you some perspectives
>from a user's point, as I have gone that route in the last couple of years
>-- and yes, it does lead to LF photography with no shortage of opportunities
>to blows lots of cash. As a result, my current favorite weapon is an Arca
>Swiss 4x5 Field camera with a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S 210, but that's a
>different discussion :-D
>
>Back to the topic at hand. After considerable time with the 6x6 negatives
>and slides from my Rolleiflex, I wanted to get something with a bigger (and
>rectangular) negative, so my first choice was a Crown Graphic 23. Here are a
>couple of notes on that camera (which I still own and love, but which
>doesn't get a whole lot of use anymore, thanks to the Arca):
>
>1) Relatively cheap and lightweight camera with good (and cheap) access to
>multiple lenses. I still have the 101mm Ektar and the 80mm WA Ektar, both
>are great lenses.
>2) With the proper sets of infinity stops (and good calibration), neither
>lens really needs the rangefinder for focusing _landscapes_ since they
>_will_ be shot at infinity. Of course, other shots will require focusing.
>3) For hand-held operations, focusing by groundglass is a PITA, but so is
>composition. I always used my Crown Graphic tripod-mounted, but it is
>possible to do handheld as well. For _landscapes_, I think the bigger issue
>is composition, but if you are only using B&W, where you can crop during
>printing (rather than slides, where that is less desirable), you could just
>get the proper masks for the external viewfinder that is attached on top of
>the (older?) Crown Graphics. They are not as accurate as in an SLR, but you
>can just make sure that you are capturing the scene in general (also see
>film flatness issues below).
>4) If you do buy a Crown Graphic, make sure you get one with a Graflock, so
>you can use rollfilm holders. Since you are interested in 6x9, you want the
>rollfilm holder that generates 8 shots out of a 120 roll (I think it's
>called RH-8???). There are (at least) two versions, the newer ones have
>additional rollers to achieve better (but not perfect) film flatness, but as
>a result, the image is really more like 6x8 (one of mine was as small as
>56x72mm). The older ones do not have the rollers, are closer to 6x9, but
>also have more film flatness issues. My approach was always to compose
>generously, and then really only use the center 6x7 (or so) for printing.
>5) There are wider lenses than the 80mm WA Ektar for 6x9, but they will all
>require you to "drop the bed" to avoid it showing up in your picture. As a
>result, IMHO, _handheld_ composition is practically impossible. I had a 65mm
>Angulon and a 47mm (Super?-) Angulon for a while, but even tripod-mounted it
>was a PITA, and they never saw enough use (for me) to warrant keeping them.
>
>Incidentally, since I wanted to have a _handheld_ camera whenever I can't
>use my Arca, I got a 6x9 folder about a year ago. Since I didn't want any
>front-cell focusing camera (due to the well-known image quality issues, all
>the Zeiss Ikons (unfortunately) were off the list. I ended up getting a
>Voigtlander Bessa II, which had most of the things I wanted:
>- good optics. I only got the Color-Skopar (=Tessar) version, but there is a
>Color-Heliar and even a Apo-Lanthar version. although at _much_ higher
>prices.
>- coupled rangefinder
>- not front-cell focusing -- the whole lens moves when focusing
>I does have considerable film-flatness issues, but, again, the center potion
>(about 6x7) is perfect, and the viewfinder isn't terrible accurate for
>composition anyway.
>
>Feel free to contact me offline, if you have more questions.
>
>Cheers,
>Mike
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->---
>Rollei List
>
>- Post to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>href="mailto:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
>
>- Subscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>href="mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
> with 'subscribe'
>in the subject field OR by logging into <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>href="//www.freelists.org";>www.freelists.org</a>
>
>- Unsubscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>href="mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
> with
>'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into <a
>class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>href="//www.freelists.org";>www.freelists.org</a>
>
>- Online, searchable archives are available at
><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>href="//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list";>//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list</a>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> </pre>
></blockquote>
></body>
></html>
>---
>Rollei List
>
>- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
>- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
>- Online, searchable archives are available at
>//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
