Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,568   Posts: 1,545,440   Online: 1093
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    This way when I go out, I just take 1 camera with 23 backs and have the advantage of shooting any of the formats I want.
    23 backs? you must have 35mm and 126 format backs in that lot then.

  2. #12
    wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,418
    Images
    140
    I use a wehman 8x10 and carry a 4x5 back as well. I don't get as much rise as i'd like with my 90mm but it's fine in nearly all cases. Making blanks to accomodate other backs is easy with this camera as i uses 1/4" material.

    vinny

  3. #13
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,714
    Images
    20
    The Wisner 8 x 10 will focus to 90 mm on the normal bellows...it will go to 40 mm with the bag bellows...I like the Wisner cameras because I can use the longer lenses and for its rigidity when extended..IMNSHO it is the best camera offering the most features and stability---the tech series has great movement ability..
    [FONT="Arial Black"][/FONT]

  4. #14
    Whiteymorange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,290
    Images
    26
    The 8x10 Rochester Universal I just acquired has inserts for it's plate holders that allow for 4x5, 5x7 and 6.5x8.5. The ground glass is marked for each of these formats as well. I had 4x5 film holders that fit and I can "reassign" some of my 5x7 film sheaths, but I'm going to have to works some to do the full plate thing - maybe use Ole's jam on glass routine? Have to cut the film down too...

    On second thought, maybe I better get used to the single format first. I tend to experiment too much as it is. I think less is more here.

  5. #15
    Nokton48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    148
    Well,
    I have a number of Sinar Normas, they are a modular design. I use them from 6x6cm format up to 8x10".

  6. #16
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I see my name popped up in this discussion, too...

    My 24x30cm plate camera has three holders with format reducing inserts to 18x24cm, 13x18cm, 10x15cm, 9x12cm, and 6.5x9cm. Other inserts ahould be fairly easy to make. The camera can also focus a 50mm lens at infinity. With rise/fall and shift on the lens board, there is no need for bag bellows. I won't get much swing or tilt with the shortest lenses, but then again it doesn't take all that much with such short lenses...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Are you taking this camera into the field? In the studio, I think it's reasonable to use an 8x10" or larger camera with reducing backs, but in the field, I can't imagine carrying an 8x10" camera and requisite tripod just to shoot 4x5", and since some 4x5" cameras (like the Deardorff 4x5" Special) are really just 5x7" cameras with reducing backs, it makes sense to combine those formats, if you are using reducing backs.

    Of course the Sinar and Arca-Swiss change the rear standard frame and bellows, so this is a different approach than using reducing backs, but it's also more like owning several different cameras, since only the rail and front standard are shared by the different formats.
    I have to agree with David. If you're going to schlep an 8x10 camera into the field, why would you want to put a 4x5 back on it? Instead of a 90mm lens with a 4x5 back, wouldn't you be better off to replace that 90mm lens with a 180mm wide angle lens and always shoot 8x10?
    Dan

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    I guess it depends on the camera. My 8x10 is less then 1kg heavier then my 5x7. Obviously bigger

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena View Post
    I guess it depends on the camera. My 8x10 is less then 1kg heavier then my 5x7. Obviously bigger
    Right - but once you've gone to the trouble to bring it out, why put a reducing back on it? Why not just use 8x10 film?

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Colour 4x5 film is more common and cheaper. Not to mention enlargers. Or you may want to stick a roll film holder on the camera.

    Most of the reasons to use a smaller camera apply to reducing backs. I've got 5x7 and 4x10 backs. Plus a 6x17 roll film back. I could crop all three out of a sheet of 8x10 but it doesn't take much film to cover the cost of the reducing back and holders.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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