Hi Volker,
thank you for your very comprehensive and well thought out response.
I don’t want to do landscapes with 35mm, not enough area on the film. 6x6 would
be a minimum, or as Eddy suggested, maybe 6x7 or 6x9. He mentioned that
developing and storing 120 format based negatives would be a whole lot easier
than dealing with 4x5 as well, if I understood him correctly. It also makes for
a lighter setup to carry around, when based on roll film rather than sheet film.
Your explanation of DOF as a board is very useful, and makes a lot of sense.
Adjusting aperture changes the thickness of the board, while tilt/shift adjusts
the angle of it relative to the horizon and film plane. It sounds from your
description that a 6x6 (e.g. Rolleiflex 6000) would be difficult to focus and
control due to the limited size of the ground glass.
The 55 SA looks great, but seems quite rare, and optimised for architectural
photography. When I do shoot cityscapes or buildings, in most cases I want the
distortion in order to create a sense of scale and movement. The 55 SA also
looks like it’s very, very expensive, much more than getting a view camera or
folder (which would also allow different lenses/focal lengths and be much more
flexible). I haven’t done “real" architectural photography in decades, and have
no plan on doing it currently.
The reason I asked is because I find from time to time the last few years when
shooting landscapes that I’d like to do the “everything in focus” look, from
something right under your nose to mountains in the background. It doesn’t seem
doable with a 80mm lens. I have the 40mm, but it isn’t always that I want that
wide angle perspective. Nor will the 90 or 150 do it, despite all of these
being excellent lenses.
I totally agree that the 6000 system is very dependable, reliable and well
designed. I’ve had a 6008i2 for about 12 years, upgraded the batteries a few
years ago to the latest high-capacity version and couldn’t be happier. That
said, there are days when I lust for the Hy6, which is more or less the same
camera (the AF version) in an even nice and more ergonomic package.
The Cameras you linked to look amazing, and I’ve watched some reviews on
YouTube for a few of them. The Charmonix and Arca F Misura look really nice,
but I don’t see anyone selling the Arca anywhere, are they still available? The
next question I ask myself is this, if I actually went with a 4x5 field camera
or small monorail, would it that much more to carry to go full 8x10? At least
the Arca (and probably Sinar) seem to be built so you can interchange many
parts and use them for both formats.
Then I remind myself that I’m neither a professional photographer, nor
independently wealthy, and figure I should stick to my trusty TLR and 6008…
:-). At some point I will have to try a LF setup, just to have tried it. I just
don’t want to spend thousands of dollars for the experience.
Cheers,
Thor
On 1 May 2018, at 01:36, Volker Muth <volker_muth@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Thor,
for 35mm the shift lenses like the Nikon 28mm PC is fine for dealing with
Perspective Distortion retaining the impression of hight with a mountain. To
achieve a large DOF you only can stop down. If your lenses still have a
Depth-of-field-scale you can use hyperfocal focusing to efficient use of your
DOF for a given aperture. The problem with smaller apertures is the loss of
of quality due to diffraction blur.
Tilting is another story. Imagine the DOF as a board which hangs in the air
plane-parallel to your lens and film plane. An reduction of the aperture
(larger f-stops) results in an evenly "growth" of the thickness of this board
(the DOF) towards you and away from you. "Tilting" means that you can tilt
the vertical board resulting in a slope. When you pose this "slope" in your
motive you can achieve the DOF so efficiently that you need not stop down as
much required with a fix lens. With a view camera you can not extend your DOF
but position it freely where you want it. Additionally you can deal with
Perspective Distortion, too. The process of finding the right position of
your "board" in your motive by tilting requires some control on the focusing
screen. This is done with a loupe. Having done this on a 5x4 monorail I found
the 6x6 screen to small for my taste. For the 6000 Rolleiflex there is a nice
Schneider PCS Super Angulon 55mm f/4.5 which can do tilt & shift as well.
There is no rule of thumb on "how much movement you need". The DOF depends on
you format, reproduction scale, tilt & shift movements required. There is a
fine DOF calculator from Rodenstock out there with a fine explanation
included on how to do use the Scheimpflug principle on a view camera
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/155145-REG/Rodenstock_260700_Depth_of_Field_Calculator.html
<https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/155145-REG/Rodenstock_260700_Depth_of_Field_Calculator.html>
I use it myself. The designer of the calculator, Mr. Schön does the large
format workshop at Linhof in Munich for decades:
http://linhof.com/en/linhof-workshops-und-seminare/ ;
<http://linhof.com/en/linhof-workshops-und-seminare/> He is very good in
explaining how to use a view camera properly.
On cameras - if you want to do serious architectural work you will need a
view camera. The Graflex cameras are fine but they where designed as press
and not as a technical camera. They don't have the front and back movements
you will need. The Linhof Technika has more movements (the wide angle lens
capability increased with later versions). There are so many used Sinar
Norma, F, P1, P2 or Plaubel Peco, Profia 5x4 inch monorail around you get
them for a good deal. For a field camera I might have a look at a china built
Shen Hao: http://www.shen-hao.com ;<http://www.shen-hao.com/> or Chamonix:
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras.html ;
<http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras.html>. Anyway a 5x4 monorail can
be fairly small as the Arca Swiss Misura proves:
http://www.galerie-photo.com/misura_peronne_us.html ;
<http://www.galerie-photo.com/misura_peronne_us.html>
A word on the reliability of the Rolleiflex 6000 - I use a 6008 professional
since 2010 and it never let me down. It is a very fine camera and a well
thoughtful planned system. I never would change it for a Hasselblad. The old
NiCad cells can now be replaced by modern NiMH or even LiPo (Lithium) cells.
Here's an information (in German):
https://www.photoscala.de/2017/10/05/neu-von-wiese-fototechnik-akkus-und-ladegeraet-fuer-rolleiflex-6008-6006-slx-und-lens-control/
<https://www.photoscala.de/2017/10/05/neu-von-wiese-fototechnik-akkus-und-ladegeraet-fuer-rolleiflex-6008-6006-slx-und-lens-control/>
Paepke Fototechnik in Duesseldorf can also do the NMH refit.
Best regards,
Volker
______________________
mailto: volker_muth@xxxxxxx ;<mailto:volker_muth@xxxxxxx>
Am 01.05.2018 um 00:25 schrieb Thor Legvold:
One thing I’ve noticed pretty much always when doing landscape shots, is
that more often than not I want an extreme depth of field. If there isn’t a
plant of flower in the foreground and mountains in the background, there’s
at least mid-ground and background that I want sharp.
The first few examples here are similar to what I mean:
http://www.photoaxe.com/how-and-when-should-i-use-a-shallow-depth-of-field-part-2/
<http://www.photoaxe.com/how-and-when-should-i-use-a-shallow-depth-of-field-part-2/>
Since I’ve always used small format (35mm) and medium format (6x6), there
hasn’t really been much of a solution, aside from very rare and pricey
tilt/shift adapters. Never having tried one, I don’t know if it would really
help, or is more geared towards smaller adjustments for architectural
photography, f.x. Has anyone used one of these and can comment?
I’ve toyed with the idea of picking up a folding field camera like a
Speed/Crown Graphic or Linhof Master Technica but always put it off. Now I
wonder if that is maybe what would solve my DOF dilemma when out shooting
landscapes. How much more of a DOF can I expect with movements? How much
movements do I need to do what I’m describing?
There’s also the Rolleiflex SL66 (to keep things on topic, lol). I’ve heard
it’s heavy and unwieldy, that none of my 6000 series lenses will work with
it, and that the electronics tend to fail. But I’m open to hear other
people’s experiences and suggestions.
Every time I see a 8x10 print I’m blown away by the tonality, detail,
sharpness, and 3D quality, but I don’t want to deal with carrying an 8x10
rig around with me. Plus figuring out how to load it, develop it, print it,
store it. That’s just too much, which is why I’m thinking maybe 4x5 would be
a nice step up from 6x6, but not as heavy/bulky/slow as 8x10. It’s seems
still relatively compact and manageable.
Can anyone who’s worked with these different format and cameras comment?
Thanks,
Thor
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org/>
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org/>
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list ;
<//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list>
