Hertz - is this even possible? (And everybody else too) :)

Shutterbug · Mar 26, 2005

Matt, are you sure 150mm is the equivlant focal length for 4x5? I've been using a 135mm Ektar on my Linhof Kardan for like, 5 years now and I've always thought that was the Equivlant FL... If not, I'm glad none of my employers noticed it

the (almost) un-hand holdable size of 4x5 makes it seem very different.

I dunno, I had fun with a 4x5 Technika once, that that was pretty holdable 8)

Large format is for use with still life/landscape.

Come again? I RARELY shoot a portrait in anything BUT LF... But I guess I'm just a large format purist!

Hertz van Rental · Mar 26, 2005

Shutterbug said:
Matt, are you sure 150mm is the equivlant focal length for 4x5? I've been using a 135mm Ektar on my Linhof Kardan for like, 5 years now and I've always thought that was the Equivlant FL... If not, I'm glad none of my employers noticed it

I dunno, I had fun with a 4x5 Technika once, that that was pretty holdable 8)

Come again? I RARELY shoot a portrait in anything BUT LF... But I guess I'm just a large format purist!

I used to use a 180 as standard. The standard lens is the same as the film diagonal, but a bit either way is neither here nor there.

As for using LF for portraits - of course you can use it. Studio photographers used LF as standard for portraits up to the 1950's. But the drawbacks make it a bit cumbersome and MF is much easier. But there is always someone who likes to use a hammer to crack a nut

ksmattfish · Mar 26, 2005

150mm seems just on the wide side to me for 4x5. I think it's closer to the angle of view that you get with a 40mm lens using the 35mm format. 135mm is definately wide angle for 4x5, probably similar to 35mm focal length with 35mm film. 180mm is probably closer to "normal", but I've always been told that 150mm is normal. I'm with Hertz: "normal" focal length = the measure of the format diagonally across from corner to corner.

I use LF for portraits, and I use hammers to crack nuts. The nutcracker always gets lost at the back of the drawer, while I always seem to have a hammer laying around. I use 4x5 because I was born to be obnoxious and troublesome

I've been using my convertable Schneider 150/265 on my Calumet monorail for portraits. It's a 150mm lens, but if you unscrew the front element it becomes a 265mm. It's not super sharp compared to my other LF lenses, especially in the corners, but it works great for portraits. I've been trying to do more portraits with it.

I love to use 4x5 hand held, but I think most folks used to tiny 35mm SLRs and DSLRs would find it a bit intimidating. They have to build up the wrist strength. I recently almost bought a mint condition Graflex RB 4x5 SLR, but I decided to hold off until I could try one, because the only reason I want one is for hand held work. I've used my Speed Graphics hand held, but both of them have messed up rangefinders. I need to get them fixed.

EDIT: I just measured a 4x5 neg from corner to corner. It's approx 160mm.

Hertz van Rental · Mar 26, 2005

It's a bit like most things in Photography and it's down to personal preference. You tend to use the camera that works with your approach to taking pictures - and as the situation dictates.
I did try using a 10x8 Sinar P to take the pictures at a friend's wedding once as a joke (albeit a serious one. I wanted to see how easy it was). Didn't go down well.

paul rond · Mar 26, 2005

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...lblad/cameras/hasselmodels/models/arcview.htm

This is the Arc Body. The Flex body is about the same except it uses hassy lenses instead of the Rodenstock lenses.

DocFrankenstein · Mar 26, 2005

paul rond said:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...lblad/cameras/hasselmodels/models/arcview.htm

This is the Arc Body. The Flex body is about the same except it uses hassy lenses instead of the Rodenstock lenses.

Wow. How much does that go for?