Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,927   Posts: 1,585,171   Online: 822
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,351
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    This is the review where I got the review about the Galvin. Compared the specs he said with the specs for the horseman. He doesn't make the Galvin sound that great. He questions build, and also flimsyness. The camera while easy to set up is tough to level. But it is lightweight. I too found it hard to believe that a technical camera would have more movements than a monorail.

  2. #12
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,351
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Brian, I'm with ic. If nothing else, the Galvin allows indirect movements and Horseman technical cameras don't.

    You've shifted your requirements around enough to convince me that you don't really know what you need (as opposed to would like) to be able to do and that you don't understand view cameras very well. The best cure for the first is to get a view camera and learn to use it. Then you'll know what you need. The best cure for the second is reading. Steve Simmons' Using the View Camera or Leslie Stroebel's View Camera Techique are what you want. Get both.

    Your question, posed as "Here's what I think I want to do, what's the best camera?" has been asked many times. Even now getting a view camera and stepping up to LF (I know, you want roll film formats only) isn't a tiny investment to be made casually so people contemplating the move think very hard, badger old hands, agonize ... before buying. This is perfect normal. I'm not slamming you, I'm reminding you that your path is well-trodden.

    Nearly every beginner replaces its first view camera by the end of its first year. The only way to know what aspects of a view camera don't suit is to use it.

    No beginner believes this, every beginner thinks it is informed and self-aware enough not to blunder. We've all done the same. Though we knew what we were doing, blundered.

    So get something plausible that fits your budget, learn to use it, and then sell it to buy a camera that suits you.
    Thanks Dan, but I know all about view cameras. I actually just sold my Wista 4x5 that I had for about 7 years. I'm starting to miss view camera work, mainly the movements for perspective in architecture, but don't miss loading film holders and being limited on shots. I enjoy medium format and am limited to printing that in my darkroom currently, all reasons for a MF view camera.

    What I was uncertain about is exactly how much movement I'd need to architecture, something I didn't shoot alot of with my 4x5. I did mostly landscapes, which used a tiny bit of tilt and maybe some rise here and there. I'm assuming interior architecture needs more movements than exterior? So would either the Galvin and Horseman offer enough movements for architecture? Thanks.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,569
    Brian, thanks for the patient explanation.

    Funny, I'm acquainted with Jeff Goggin, although we haven't communicated for years. Per Google, his e-mail address seems still to be audidudi@mindspring.com. Why don't you ask him whether he'd use a Galvin for your application? His review makes it sound iffy, also makes me regret that when I started thinking about moving to 2x3 (around 1988) I didn't get literature from Galvin. Back then it seemed too hard to set up consistently to be worth pursuing.

    BTW, www.cameraeccentric.com has a 2x3 Galvin brochure and a 1988 Horseman catalog.

    This http://www.ebay.ca/itm/CAMBO-SC-1-6x...item5895820964 2x3 Cambo SC has been on offer off and on for the last year, you might ask the seller whether he still has it, also whether it has a bail or international back. Unfortunately the Super Cambo catalog on cameraeccentric doesn't report on movements. If you're seriously interested, I can take mine out and measure.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    73
    I don't know anything about them, really, but I know ebony makes a folding and a non folding version of a 6x9 or 6x12 camera. I'm not sure which it is.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,133
    I bought a Galvin new from Jim Galvin soon after he began making them. Sold it some time later. Went in other directions. Many years after that, forgetting how imprecise and fiddly the Galvin was, I bought another one used. Sold it too when use reminded me of its shortcomings.

    Since my application is landscape, not architecture, and I don't "see" wide angle, I later bought a new Horseman VH. Still have and like it. But I wouldn't recommend it for architecture or with lenses shorter than 75mm -- unless you have one of the rare aftermarket recessed boards.

    If I were in your situation today I'd give serious consideration to this:


    Talk it over with Jeff at Badger; he's a straight shooter. Also, I'd track down one of the RB-67 power drive 6x8 backs. Really good film flatness and a convenient 9 frames per roll that fit in a single negative storage page.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4
    I'm an architectural photographer using a 6x7cm view camera for exactly the same reasons the OP is looking for one. The problem is that with MF your technique needs to be absolutely spot on, which implies a precise and quite highly-engineered camera - and that isn't going to be cheap. There are quite a few "2x3" cameras out there, but very few are good enough to achieve reliable high-quality results.
    There are only two I would actually recommend -
    Arca-Swiss 6x9 (F or M series, depending on your preference)
    Linhof Technikardan 23s
    In either case, I would strongly recommend the addition of an Arca-Swiss binocular viewer, and the best and most modern analogue lenses you can get your hands on.
    I use a TK23, and after 15+ years I am very happy with it, but if buying now would be hard pushed to choose between either of these. Note, however, that neither of these at present are ideal for MF digital, which requires even more precision!
    Interestingly, I was so taken with my TK23 that I bought a TK45 a few years ago - but I sold it because it was much more cumbersome and I was not getting significantly better results.
    Please don't let anyone tell you that something old/cheap will do - the smaller the format, the less margin for errors there is in any part of your technique. A cheap 4x5 with older lenses and a rollfilm back can be a recipe for real heartache. And before somebody accuses me of it - that is not because my technique is in any way flawed!
    I hope that's useful.

  7. #17
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,351
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by IanBb View Post
    I'm an architectural photographer using a 6x7cm view camera for exactly the same reasons the OP is looking for one. The problem is that with MF your technique needs to be absolutely spot on, which implies a precise and quite highly-engineered camera - and that isn't going to be cheap. There are quite a few "2x3" cameras out there, but very few are good enough to achieve reliable high-quality results.
    There are only two I would actually recommend -
    Arca-Swiss 6x9 (F or M series, depending on your preference)
    Linhof Technikardan 23s
    In either case, I would strongly recommend the addition of an Arca-Swiss binocular viewer, and the best and most modern analogue lenses you can get your hands on.
    I use a TK23, and after 15+ years I am very happy with it, but if buying now would be hard pushed to choose between either of these. Note, however, that neither of these at present are ideal for MF digital, which requires even more precision!
    Interestingly, I was so taken with my TK23 that I bought a TK45 a few years ago - but I sold it because it was much more cumbersome and I was not getting significantly better results.
    Please don't let anyone tell you that something old/cheap will do - the smaller the format, the less margin for errors there is in any part of your technique. A cheap 4x5 with older lenses and a rollfilm back can be a recipe for real heartache. And before somebody accuses me of it - that is not because my technique is in any way flawed!
    I hope that's useful.
    This is something I've been discovering the more I research medium format view cameras and it's rather interesting to me. So the designs of most LF lenses just aren't good enough to produce tact sharp results with roll film? Makes sense to me. Are certain lenses better than others? I do love sharp results. I'm a MF RF shooter now so I'm pretty much spoiled by sharp lenses. I remember when I used to use my 4x5 with a 6x9 film back the results were always un-impressive. Somewhat soft and it seemed disappointing to me. But I just assumed it was my lens which was a 135mm fujinon. Shouldn't the dedicated lenses made for the horseman VH-R perform well enough with that camera? I mean they were designed for 6x9.

  8. #18
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,351
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    If I were in your situation today I'd give serious consideration to this:


    Talk it over with Jeff at Badger; he's a straight shooter. Also, I'd track down one of the RB-67 power drive 6x8 backs. Really good film flatness and a convenient 9 frames per roll that fit in a single negative storage page.
    This camera looks interesting, and certainly affordable. Do you or anyone have experience with this camera? My fear with cheap wooden 4x5s is always flimsiness.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    ...Do you or anyone have experience with this camera? My fear with cheap wooden 4x5s is always flimsiness.
    I don't, but can't recall anyone posting that their Shen Hao cameras were flimsy. The TFC-69A appears to be a well-made Ebony copy. Talk to Jeff about it, including what his return policy might be if you were to order one.

    Being limited to enlarging from medium format in my darkroom too (for now), I've been concentrating more on contact prints, mostly from 5x7 and whole plate negatives. You might wish to consider that approach. While you'd once again have to load/unload holders, I view the smaller number of available exposures as a good thing that encourages better seeing rather than a limitation.

  10. #20
    dlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,627
    Images
    341
    Brian,
    If you intend to shoot in a style similar to your current rangefinder camera, your options are somewhat limited. You cannot make use of shift/rise, perspective, or focus plane adjustments through the rangefinder. A technical camera like the Horseman VH-R gives you an option of using the rangefinder to focus and compose quickly with the rollfilm back in place (i.e. you don't have to remove groundglass back and replace with the rollfilm back). For instances when you need critical composition and want to make use movements, you can use the groundglass. The range of movements available on the VH-R are really quite extensive, and would be limited in only extreme situations (extensive rise/shift). As you and others have noted, good technique is required to get optimal results, but when isn't this true?

    I haven't used Horseman lenses with the VH-R, although they are supposed to be decent. I've used Nikkor, Rodenstock and Schneider LF lenses with excellent results. You just need to make sure that the image circle for each lens covers the negative area with sufficient room for movements when you need to use them.

    Let me know if you have questions specific to the Horseman.

    Best,
    Daniel
    Last edited by dlin; 09-15-2012 at 10:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin