Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,050   Posts: 1,561,112   Online: 875
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexz
    Thank you guys, still no clear opinions as regarding Super-Rolex vs. Horseman backs though.
    Alex, the Linhof Super Rollex and Horseman roll holders are both fine products. The difference is that the Super Rollex is "overengineered" and built to last a lifetime. As a consequence, it's much heavier and, when purchased new, much more expensive. It's also possible that it maintains film plane register with slightly greater precision. But most users (myself included) find that the Horseman works well too, so it's really a personal choice as to whether the superior construction of the Linhof is worth the extra money and weight.

    Other modern roll holders more or less readily available include Sinar, Calumet, Wista and Toyo. Most recently some Chinese vendors have also entered the market with 6x12 and 6x17 "multiformat" holders of fairly primitive design but reasonably solid construction.

  2. #12
    AllanD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire,UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    80
    Linhof Super Rollex RFH are heavy but well made. Apparently, a late model will have more robust gearing, so is preferable. Mine have shiny film rollers which can cause flare at the edges of the film aperture when using very wide angle lenses (47 on 6x7). The film wind is very rapid.

    Linhof also make a thing called a Rapid Rollex. This a "slip-in" type RFH. These are lighter, more convenient and have blacked film rollers. They are only available as 6x7. These RFH have a reputation for holding the film very flat, but I haven't noticed any difference compared with a Super Rollex.
    Heat or light; it depends on your sensitivity.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Israel
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    365
    Thanks guys, understood.

  4. #14
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    I have had good luck with a toyo 6x9 back. I load it with Kodak UC 400 to back up some of my 4x5 B&W in color.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    112
    I use a couple of Sinar Zoom backs. They are really superb with several interlocks to keep you from screwing up, they add to the complexity a bit but they are worth it. They hold the film flatter than any 6x12 back I have yet seen with the exception of the Fotoman 612 camera which allows you to tighten the film just prior to exposure.They will shift on the fly to and from any format, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12. The downsides are that you need to keep them very clean in side to prevent scratching and that due to their weight may make a light weight field camera back lean out of focus. If you are careful with these 2 problems they are the best out there.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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