Re: which camera for architecture ?

On Friday 28 November 2003 09:11, Donn Cave wrote:

> Quoth Stefan Patric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...
> | I've used a Cambo SC II, on which all today's Calumet LF rail
> | cameras are based, for the past 20 years or so for ALL my large
> | format work. Even with the 12" short rail, it is NOT a lightweight
> | camera and is NOT
> | all that portable.  Broken down, it fits along with 4 lenses on
> | boards with accessories into an 18 x 22 x 8 inch metal transport
> | case and
> | weighs in without tripod or film holders at 30 pounds or so.  I
> | suggest you go with a lightweight, folding, bed type, field camera
> | and
> | backpack.  It'll save you from dislocating your spine.
> 
> Architecture can be pretty demanding on features, though, so it
> depends on how serious he is about that.  Maybe the smart way
> to approach it is to do as you propose and get a wood field,
> and keep it simple and cheap.  Then if it's really not enough,
> get the 45nx or whatever for the hard core architecture stuff.

I get the impression that the OP's photographic intent is more fine art
architectural work.  The OP only has to please himself.  There's no
demanding client to please like when you're doing it for a living.

> The alternative is a super field, like the Gandolfi Variant,
> or a light monorail (Toho?  Arca-Swiss FC?  Technikardan?),
> but they're expensive compromises between extremes that can
> be done better and cheaper.  Picture accidentally dropping
> a Technikardan on the rocks, or in a creek or something.

I don't think these types of field or compact cameras will ever be
needed really.  Your basic "inexpensive" field camera will more than do
the job.

> I think my 200m Nikkor M is better for 4x5 than the f5.6 symmar
> type lenses, which are in my opinion better for the 150mm-180mm
> range.  I'd want a lens in the 135-150 range, too - 210mm & 65mm
> doesn't sound like a very versatile pair.

I like the Fuji 240 APO myself -- compact like the 200 Nikkor, but much
greater coverage.  And I find that the spacing between it and my 125
f5.6 Fujinon W works well.  I used to have a 180, but it was never long
enough.  Rarely used it.  Got rid of it.  However, the 200 M is a very
nice little lens.  I was considering getting one at one time.  I tested
it against a 12 inch Commercial Ektar made in 1966 IIRC on an 8x10
Kodak Master View (the metal one) just for fun.  The Ektar won in
coverage (about 60 degrees at f32) and was sharper, but only in the
corners, and then only a little.  I was very impressed that a 35 year
old, single coated, Tessar lens designed and manufactured without the
aid of computers was still just as good as a modern computer designed
and made optic.

-- 
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]