Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
OK 
I spend entire late evening yesterday looking at Intrepid camera.
And they have cool developing tank for LF at BH.
I still think LF is more for taking it slow.
You know, check framing, check if image is still coveted by the lens.
It is mediating and relaxing: shouldn’t be chasing of light.
I spend entire late evening yesterday looking at Intrepid camera.
And they have cool developing tank for LF at BH.
I still think LF is more for taking it slow.
You know, check framing, check if image is still coveted by the lens.
It is mediating and relaxing: shouldn’t be chasing of light.
Deardorff38
Mentor
You're right there KF. But sometimes there's a long wait for the light. And that's O.K. My favourite LF photographer is Vittorio Sella (1859-1943) and he made images under all kinds of wild conditions in wild places. I have been lucky to see many of his original prints & they are unbelievable.
Nokton48
Mentor
We all sometimes wait and other times go into speed mode.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vit...kAhVQeKwKHdPyAc8Q_B0wCnoECAoQAw#imgrc=_&vet=1
This photographer IS amazing. Thanks for mentioning.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vit...kAhVQeKwKHdPyAc8Q_B0wCnoECAoQAw#imgrc=_&vet=1
This photographer IS amazing. Thanks for mentioning.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
To me, 4x5 and other LF cameras are more about tonal scale and less about movements.
The Travelwide with a Schneider Angulon 90mm lens essentially gives you the same field of view as a 12mm lens on a FourThirds format sensor, a 50mm lens on 6x7 film, a 21mm lens on FF (film or digital) cropped to 24x30mm, etc. The differences between these different formats with equivalent FoV—aside from the workflow differences between film and digital capture—all have to do with how they produce different levels of depth of field control (since you don't have shift and tilt controls).
The nice thing about shooting 4x5 with B&W negative film is that you can contact print it to stunning quality positives that are a useful size just as they go, or scan it to huge, high pixel count digital files with enormous tonal differentiation and detailing.
The Travelwide with a 90mm lens reminds me of my last 4x5 film experience. My friend built the equivalent of the Travelwide more than 25 years ago in wood and loaned it to me for a while. It was a purpose-built wide 4x5 camera, just like the Travelwide, and proved just as nice to travel with (albeit a bit heavier), and it made stunningly nice negatives when used sensibly–as it was intended to be, that means. It was not a general purpose camera, but I bent it to use doing street photography, fine art geometric abstractions, and even some environmental portraiture.
At about $150 plus the cost of your choice of lens, to me this is a pretty cheap way to work with an interesting, single-purpose camera and make some fine photographs. Any of the lenses mentioned above would cost more, never mind the camera they're attached to.
What it's not is an introduction to large format photography, either with a field camera or a full studio camera. The lack of shifts, swings, and tilts precludes much of what most people think of when they think of large format photography. If that's what you're after, this is the wrong camera.
My point of view: Creativity blossoms in constraint. If I were interested in working with something in 4x5 film, I'd order a Travelwide tomorrow. In fact, I'm working on building something similar using Instax Square film and a 40mm lens/shutter from a 35mm folding camera. Should be a hoot if I ever get it done.
G
The Travelwide with a Schneider Angulon 90mm lens essentially gives you the same field of view as a 12mm lens on a FourThirds format sensor, a 50mm lens on 6x7 film, a 21mm lens on FF (film or digital) cropped to 24x30mm, etc. The differences between these different formats with equivalent FoV—aside from the workflow differences between film and digital capture—all have to do with how they produce different levels of depth of field control (since you don't have shift and tilt controls).
The nice thing about shooting 4x5 with B&W negative film is that you can contact print it to stunning quality positives that are a useful size just as they go, or scan it to huge, high pixel count digital files with enormous tonal differentiation and detailing.
The Travelwide with a 90mm lens reminds me of my last 4x5 film experience. My friend built the equivalent of the Travelwide more than 25 years ago in wood and loaned it to me for a while. It was a purpose-built wide 4x5 camera, just like the Travelwide, and proved just as nice to travel with (albeit a bit heavier), and it made stunningly nice negatives when used sensibly–as it was intended to be, that means. It was not a general purpose camera, but I bent it to use doing street photography, fine art geometric abstractions, and even some environmental portraiture.
At about $150 plus the cost of your choice of lens, to me this is a pretty cheap way to work with an interesting, single-purpose camera and make some fine photographs. Any of the lenses mentioned above would cost more, never mind the camera they're attached to.
What it's not is an introduction to large format photography, either with a field camera or a full studio camera. The lack of shifts, swings, and tilts precludes much of what most people think of when they think of large format photography. If that's what you're after, this is the wrong camera.
My point of view: Creativity blossoms in constraint. If I were interested in working with something in 4x5 film, I'd order a Travelwide tomorrow. In fact, I'm working on building something similar using Instax Square film and a 40mm lens/shutter from a 35mm folding camera. Should be a hoot if I ever get it done.
G
mbisc
Silver Halide User
I have both a Travelwide 90 and an Arca Swiss Field Camera -- they are both 4x5 and they both get lots of use. If I have the time and patience, I take the Arca, but the Travelwide is a great travel camera (especially with the family) when you don't want to carry a tripod (and/or are not allowed to use one).
I used to carry a 6x9 when travelling, but the Travelwide allows me to stick to one film format & processing scheme (I use TMax 100 for the Arca and TMax 400 for the Travelwide, and they both have the same development time -- as per my film testing).
As far as being slow, of course 4x5 is slow, but I view that as a good thing, TBH. It is not too slow to miss good shots - the attached image took less than a minute to make (and that included getting the Arca out of the backpack, assembling it & metering the scene)...
Zafar Khan's Tomb in Tughlakabad by Mike, on Flickr
I used to carry a 6x9 when travelling, but the Travelwide allows me to stick to one film format & processing scheme (I use TMax 100 for the Arca and TMax 400 for the Travelwide, and they both have the same development time -- as per my film testing).
As far as being slow, of course 4x5 is slow, but I view that as a good thing, TBH. It is not too slow to miss good shots - the attached image took less than a minute to make (and that included getting the Arca out of the backpack, assembling it & metering the scene)...
Zafar Khan's Tomb in Tughlakabad by Mike, on Flickr
jgrainger
Established
There are people here who are better qualified to comment than me, but here's my 50p anyway..
If you don't need movements, then you should probably consider medium format as preferable. Large format has some specific advantages, but for regular photography is arguably at a disadvantage to cameras such as the Mamiya 6 and 7 and Koni Omega - the Mamiyas have about the best lenses while the Koni probably has the best film flatness in medium (and for that matter also compared to 4x5) format, and good short to medium lenses.. there are other cameras like the Mamiya Universal and Fuji Texas Leica too. If you want movements there's also a Fuji 680?? and (less flexible) various baby press cameras.
Medium format is also cheaper, more available, and easier to handle.
That being said, I've probably finished up shooting mostly 35mm and 2nd, 4x5, with nearly no medium format use post February. My Koni is sharp but once you start carrying such a beast then a folding 4x5 doesn't seem much extra hassle in order to gain movements and through the lens viewing for filters, etc.. the 4x5 doesn't even have to take ages if you don't let it.
If you don't need movements, then you should probably consider medium format as preferable. Large format has some specific advantages, but for regular photography is arguably at a disadvantage to cameras such as the Mamiya 6 and 7 and Koni Omega - the Mamiyas have about the best lenses while the Koni probably has the best film flatness in medium (and for that matter also compared to 4x5) format, and good short to medium lenses.. there are other cameras like the Mamiya Universal and Fuji Texas Leica too. If you want movements there's also a Fuji 680?? and (less flexible) various baby press cameras.
Medium format is also cheaper, more available, and easier to handle.
That being said, I've probably finished up shooting mostly 35mm and 2nd, 4x5, with nearly no medium format use post February. My Koni is sharp but once you start carrying such a beast then a folding 4x5 doesn't seem much extra hassle in order to gain movements and through the lens viewing for filters, etc.. the 4x5 doesn't even have to take ages if you don't let it.