I only have a view camera but it it sounds as if Mike is interested in using the roll back on press cameras. In that case, if you plan to use the rangefinder, light leaks wouldn't be as much of a problem. If you actually notice a problem, a little electrical tape in the appropriate spots when you clamp the back on, would easily solve it. I'm going to try some felt or camera foam on mine as a simpler, more permanent solution. It would seem that the biggest problem on a press camera would be framing. You would still need to pay attention to advancing the film and cocking the shutter as two separate operations.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
I have never understood why anyone would want to go to so much trouble to use a roll film back with a view/press 4x5 camera. There are so many really excellent MF used cameras available at bargain prices nowadays. Am I missing something here?
Movements, Macro, less money, more choice in film without having to carry anouther camera (although the roll back is not much smaller than the mamiya 6).
Originally Posted by gma
It is not a perfect solution but... And there aren't that many 6x9 or 6x12 mf cameras out there.
I have a 6x9 Graphic roll film back that I use with my Crown Graphic Special. I have only used it a few times outdoors but so far I haven't noticed any light leaks (I'll have to watch out for them now). I have 6x9 marks on the ground glass for focusing and composing and everything has worked well so far. It's a great way to try a different format without committing to different bodies,lenses etc. It is a bit of a struggle changing from GG to rollfilm back then back again but for a few shots at a time I don't mind and I do it with Grafmatics as well.
Another aspect was that MF SLRs with interchangeable lenses didn't catch on until the late 1960's. The Press Cameras were highly popular prior to that. The roll film backs provided another element of utility.
When those first color slides came back from the Moon, everybody had to have a 'Blad.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
There is a much wider range of 4x5" cameras available than 6x9 view cameras, both in terms of features and in price, so if you want the features of a view camera with the convenience of rollfilm, there are many more options if you add a rollfilm back to a 4x5" camera, plus you get the possibility of using sheet film occasionally.
For MF I generlly use a couple of Fuji rangefinders. But they don't focus that close for some of my "studio" shots. And like I said in my previous post, if I am just playing around with some unresolved ideas, running roll film through the 6x7 roll film back is much less expensive that using 4x5 film for experimentation. With 100 iso film, I can still get some excellent prints this way.
To me, it's the best of both worlds.
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
"I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc
For 6X6 I use Hasselblad camera bodies which I can also use on my Sinar P1 by using a Sinar/Hasselblad Panel. They work like a dream with the Sinar field lenses from 90mm through to 300mm and when necessary down to F64! The combination also gives me the full movement facilities of a monorail.
For 6X9 I use the Fuji 65mm and 90mm (Fixed Fujinnon) which I find very good for copy work.
But, the full 5X4 has the last word, where it really matters.
Their are benefits and drawbacks
When using the RF back you get all of the LF flexibility. You give up some quality in the lenses, though, depending on what MF lenses you are using. Someone here can correct me, but I am pretty sure that (for the most part) with each step up in format you lose some resolving power in the lens. While using the larger film area more than makes up for this when enlargements come into play, when you use a RF back, you are still in 120 size film. This isn't to say you cannot make magnificent prints from a RF back, that isn't the case. Just being technical :-)
It all depends on the lens, Andrew. On 120 roll film, in 6x6 cm format, my 55mm Rodenstock Apo Grandagon (which covers 4x5) outperforms my dedicated 50mm Hassleblad Zeiss Distagon. My 110mm Schneider Super Symmar XL (covers 5x7) outperforms my dedicated 120 mm Hassleblad Zeiss Makro Planar. In addition, the superior performance of these two example LF lenses easily extends to the 6x12cm roll film format as well.
Originally Posted by AndrewH
The main reason for using the Hassleblad (or my Hasslebladskys) is that they are much faster to set up and shoot (not really of a virtue to me - except for doing film testing).
Everything is analog - even digital :D