PDA

View Full Version : If you had a choice, same price, which camera?



Cruzingoose
08-10-2010, 12:03 AM
Decisions, decisions, decisions. A "like new" Fuji G617 in the box with all accessories including the special neutral density filter, OR a 35mm Widelux, also in very nice condition, but no box or case. Both cameras are working, but may need to have the sticky gooey light seals replaced.

G617 advantage: BIG Negatives. Disadvantage: Enlarging

Widelux advantage: 35mm, any medium enlarger works. Disadvantage: parts, lots of moving things, no filters, tricky to operate and get good results.


So, the decision is based on format, not on price.

E76
08-10-2010, 12:05 AM
Big negatives are a disadvantage when enlarging? What?! :confused:

Cruzingoose
08-10-2010, 12:36 AM
Big negatives are a disadvantage when enlarging? What?! :confused:

OK,OK. Let me clear this up a bit. My darkroom is vertically challenged and small to boot. I have no room for a 5x7 enlarger, so no way to enlarge these negs. I have just enough height for my Fuji G70 enlarger. I do have a nice Brumberger 5x7 contact printer for now., but I may in the future have a more roomy darkroom. SO, to buy the 35mm format that I can work with NOW, or the 6x17 format for the future?

Ian Grant
08-10-2010, 12:57 AM
Big negatives are a disadvantage when enlarging? What?! :confused:

That could be true, I shoot 6x17 myself and the format is slightly wider than 5"x4" so not all 5x4 enlargers might be capable of accepting the negatives. I have a 10x8 enlarger so have no problem.


So, the decision is based on format, not on price.

You're missing a far more important fundamental decision and one I had to make myself 4 years ago, perspective distortion or whatever else you want to call it. I need precision and these are typical of my 6x17 work:

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/2/3/2/8/miletus01_sm.jpg

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/2/3/2/8/aprodisas_04a.jpg

Now go and look at images made with a Widelux swing lens camera. (http://www.google.com/images?q=widelux%20images&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=520) Quite a significant difference but there's distortions.

A Widelux is much harder to use handheld, they are prone to mechanical problems, so really it's also far more about what type of images you want to make.

Ian

Cruzingoose
08-11-2010, 02:02 AM
Thanks Ian, WOW, there is no comparison. The Fuji wins! I suppose in an artsy way, the Widelux has its place. But I'll have the FUJI on Thursday and a roll of Hong Hong's finest Shanghai B&W film throught it by Friday. I can do with contact prints and scanning :(EWWW Digital:( for now.

BTW, I know where there is a nice Widelux for sale..........;) PM for details, I know it's bad form here, but it still should have a good home here at an APUG member's home.

Steve Smith
08-11-2010, 04:37 AM
Ian, I have just had a look at the panoramic images in your gallery and I think they're great - especially Ampitheatre Ephesis and Ironbridge.

Your composition makes it look like the natural format for these shots - In fact you somehow make it look as if no other format would work! The subject, foreground and background just seem to fit naturally within the frame.

Do you have any more posted any where which I can look at?


Steve.

Ian Grant
08-11-2010, 05:29 AM
Thanks Steve, I have other shots but not possibly not online or scanned. There maybe some on my website but I'm not sure. It looks like they will be published next year in an Exhibition catalogue, but I'll have to use neg scans I think because FB prints don't scan well at all.

I don't take the 6x17 out as much as I should, it adds significantly to the weight in my backpack and in the heat here that's an issue :D

The format's great, I wish I'd begun using it much earlier because back ithe the late 80's early 90's I used to get frustated not being able to make some of the images I could visualise. In the end I made a mask and shot 6x12 on 5x4 film.

Unlike others though I only use a WA on my 6x17, a 75mm f8 Super Angulon, but that's only wide in the horizontal dimension, it's normal in the vertica;, but that allows me to get images, I found a 90mm lens too long, The 75mm allows me to get in quite close and also get shots just not possible with a longer FL..

I have no issues composing to the format, even when shooting with the 617 alonside 5x4 & 6x6, I guess it's intuitive. Will see if I have any other pano shots I can post, I know there's quite a few negatives unprinted back in the UK.

Ian

mrred
08-11-2010, 05:34 AM
That could be true, I shoot 6x17 myself and the format is slightly wider than 5"x4" so not all 5x4 enlargers might be capable of accepting the negatives. I have a 10x8 enlarger so have no problem.



You're missing a far more important fundamental decision and one I had to make myself 4 years ago, perspective distortion or whatever else you want to call it. I need precision and these are typical of my 6x17 work:

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/2/3/2/8/miletus01_sm.jpg

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/2/3/2/8/aprodisas_04a.jpg

Now go and look at images made with a Widelux swing lens camera. (http://www.google.com/images?q=widelux%20images&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=520) Quite a significant difference but there's distortions.

A Widelux is much harder to use handheld, they are prone to mechanical problems, so really it's also far more about what type of images you want to make.

Ian

Not a fair comparison. It's like you are comparing a 28mm to a 150mm. Yes, if you stand way back, the long shot will cover the same picture. You can't start calling the perspective shift a flaw. If anything, I expect most would find that the attraction.

Ian Grant
08-11-2010, 05:56 AM
Not a fair comparison. It's like you are comparing a 28mm to a 150mm. Yes, if you stand way back, the long shot will cover the same picture. You can't start calling the perspective shift a flaw. If anything, I expect most would find that the attraction.

I'm not saying anywhere that the perspective shift is a distortion, I'm talking about the distortions caused by using a curved film plane and a rotating lens, with cameras like a Widelux. I actually use the widest lens I can on my 6x17.

So you're saying most would prefer an image of a straight wall to look like this :D

http://d1.stern.de/bilder/stern_5/fotografie/2009/46/Lucas_Wahl_Kathmandu/Lucas_Wahl_Kathmandu_10_maxsize_735_490.jpg

Ian

mrred
08-11-2010, 06:52 AM
Sure, it is a more naturally appealing view. Although I enjoy the 'corrections' possible with a view camera (other extreme), I consider this part of the art.

For the record, I am considering a Horizon for some fun. All the same reasons.

keithwms
08-11-2010, 07:12 AM
I wonder if you could enlarge 617 negs by placing the neg diagonally in a 4x5 enlarger, with the neg carrier slightly expanded.

Anyway I would think that 617 contact prints could be very appealing.

Sirius Glass
08-11-2010, 07:15 AM
Go for the Fuji and get a shorter focal length lens for the enlarger.

Enjoy, you will be happy with either.

Steve

Steve Smith
08-11-2010, 07:17 AM
I wonder if you could enlarge 617 negs by placing the neg diagonally in a 4x5 enlarger, with the neg carrier slightly expanded.

Unfortunately not. The diagonal dimension of a 5x4 frame is 162mm so it is a bit short plus it will crop the corners off. However some enlargers, like my DeVere 54 have a larger light source/diffuser than 5x4 so could be adapted.


Steve.

Cruzingoose
08-13-2010, 12:19 AM
The deed is done. I'm now the owner of a practically new G617. The counter reads 064. Got the case, camera, special filter, rectangular sun shade and 4 other colored 77mm filters, yellow, red, UV and green. There is a step ring in the package it fits the filters but it does not fit the lens. The only thing missing is the manual.

Cruzingoose
08-26-2010, 12:38 AM
Just a quick update on the G617.....

The foam seals were a slightly gooey and a test roll of 220 showed some edge fogging, but not too bad. All other functions are perfect. Tonight I removed the foam goo and replaced it with black felt. I used acrylic yarn for the channels with light dabs of Elmers glue.

Just got in 50 rolls of Shanghai B&W 120 and I must say that it is pretty nice stuff. At normal exposure and 8 minutes in HC110 makes for nice crisp negs. It does seem to need a couple of minutes in PhotoFlo to keep spotting at bay compared to other films.

Now to build a basic horizontal enlarger for 10" enlargements. I've got a Photographers Handbook dated 1908 that describes in great detail how to build enlargers, powered by window light, oil lamp and limelight (gas). Sounds like a bit of a project, but unless a 5x7 enlarger finds me, it will have to do.

mrred
08-26-2010, 05:10 AM
Just got in 50 rolls of Shanghai B&W 120 and I must say that it is pretty nice stuff. At normal exposure and 8 minutes in HC110 makes for nice crisp negs. It does seem to need a couple of minutes in PhotoFlo to keep spotting at bay compared to other films.


I found that LuckySHD really loves to be selenium toned (the actual neg). You might want to try that on the Shanghai.



Now to build a basic horizontal enlarger for 10" enlargements. I've got a Photographers Handbook dated 1908 that describes in great detail how to build enlargers, powered by window light, oil lamp and limelight (gas). Sounds like a bit of a project, but unless a 5x7 enlarger finds me, it will have to do.

Were not the first enlargers just upside down view cameras?

Ian Grant
08-26-2010, 05:17 AM
Were not the first enlargers just upside down view cameras?

Surprisingly no. Often they were horizontal and purpose built.

Ian