[timw4mail]

• Minolta X-370
• Tmax 100
• Pacific Imaging PrimeFilm XA Scanner

[cooltouch]

Hey goatsNdonkey, what are the film dimensions on that monster back for your Koni Omega? Cool camera, by the way. I've always liked those things for some ineffable reason.

[goatsNdonkey]

Hey goatsNdonkey, what are the film dimensions on that monster back for your Koni Omega? Cool camera, by the way. I've always liked those things for some ineffable reason.

The Koni-Omega Rapid M complete 120 film back (front and back halves, including the dark slide, take-up spool, but no film) weighs 1lb. 7.7 oz (672 gr.) and has approximately these dimensions (as measured by me with a ruler):

Height: 3 1/2 in. (88mm)

Width: 6 1/2 in. (167mm)

Depth (front to back): 2 1/2 (64mm)

Depth must be less than that Fuji 6x9 with a lens on it, of course.


The entire Koni-Omega Rapid M, with the normal Hexanon f3.5 90mm lens, is about 5 1/2 in Tall, 8 1/2 in Wide (with the standard hand grip), and 5 1/2 inches deep (front to back, not counting any filter or lens hood on the 90mm).

I got the camera from an elderly retired small town photographer. It must have shot hundreds of weddings and special occasions, as well as some other portraits, since the 1970s. The first time I shot it, I only used a tripod, but the next time, I hand held it. It didn't seem that heavy (for its size), perhaps because I let it hang from my neck on a strap until I was ready to raise it to focus and frame shots. Here's one of my favorite shots from that second roll which was Ilford XP2 ( f/8 V 11 and 1/500 sec):



(previously posted)





.

[tuco]

If a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is a Texas Leica, my Koni-Omega Rapid M rangefinder must be an Alaska Leica, as it's 120 film back alone is close to the size of the Fuji.

Just when you think you've seen them all. It's amazing the number and different kinds of cameras ever produced.

[CreationBear]

Tuco-- Regarding your Texas Leica, is there a particular "flavor" to Fuji lenses? I ask because I keep being drawn to the Fuji gx680 since I do landscapes almost exclusively and the movements would come in handy, especially under conditions where deploying a 4x5 field camera would be tricky.

[baro-nite]

Under what conditions is it easier to deploy a GX680 than a 4x5 field camera? I've never handled the former, but by all accounts and per specs they are as big and clunky and heavy, or more so, than many of the latter. I was attracted to the idea of one once, as one of the very few medium format systems with movements, but I came to my senses. For one thing, it was discontinued quite a while ago, and these are not simple mechanical cameras.

[stevebrot]

I ask because I keep being drawn to the Fuji gx680 since I do landscapes almost exclusively and the movements would come in handy, especially under conditions where deploying a 4x5 field camera would be tricky.

Under what conditions is it easier to deploy a GX680 than a 4x5 field camera?

I had much the same question, particularly since the GX680 was intended for studio use. I guess the answer might depend on which field camera is intended as the alternative, whether 120 roll film is the intended format, and what 120 film holder is being used. Things get fiddly fast with holders that require removal of the ground glass.


Steve

[CreationBear]

but I came to my senses

Ha, I was actually planning on PMing you, since you seemed to be the sort to have entertained this admittedly eccentric approach.


At any rate, all your cautions are well-taken. My thinking was along the lines that Steve mentions--since I'd probably end up putting a roll film back on the field camera anyway, the prospect of handling the handling the GG whilst
in typical Southern Appalachian conditions (i.e. with sweat in your eyes and pecker gnats in your ears) is something that gives me pause. I also have the notion--perhaps mistaken--that the Fuji might have a more compact footprint than a field camera, especially if I find myself, as I often do, perched on a steep slope or high above a streambed and wishing I'd been born with a prehensile tail.


At any rate, I'm going to commit to my Pentax 67 system for at least the upcoming year to see if I truly need anything different.

[baro-nite]

Ha, I was actually planning on PMing you, since you seemed to be the sort to have entertained this admittedly eccentric approach.

Guilty as charged!

At any rate, all your cautions are well-taken. My thinking was along the lines that Steve mentions--since I'd probably end up putting a roll film back on the field camera anyway, the prospect of handling the handling the GG whilst
in typical Southern Appalachian conditions (i.e. with sweat in your eyes and pecker gnats in your ears) is something that gives me pause. I also have the notion--perhaps mistaken--that the Fuji might have a more compact footprint than a field camera, especially if I find myself, as I often do, perched on a steep slope or high above a streambed and wishing I'd been born with a prehensile tail.

I too had the thought of starting with a roll film back when I was getting started with the view camera. Never did, just jumped right in with sheet film, and no regrets.

[CreationBear]

I too had the thought of starting with a roll film

Ah, I thought you were rolling with the Shen Hao 617, but you're hard to keep track of! BTW, I'm really digging the "quad"tic of the Cullasaja--nicely seen and executed.

[baro-nite]

Ah, I thought you were rolling with the Shen Hao 617, but you're hard to keep track of!

Oh yeah, that camera. Came in after I had been using the 4x5 for a while; uses the same lenses so at least it wasn't an entirely new system.

[tuco]

Tuco-- Regarding your Texas Leica, is there a particular "flavor" to Fuji lenses? I ask because I keep being drawn to the Fuji gx680 since I do landscapes almost exclusively and the movements would come in handy, especially under conditions where deploying a 4x5 field camera would be tricky.

There is the Fuji GW690* (90mm, f3.5) and a GSW690* (65mm, f5.6) both are fixed lens cameras. Mine is the wide angle version. It's really not wide enough for what most people use on wide angle landscapes. But the lens doesn't have a lot of corner distortion for people pictures when aimed up a little as show in the attached image.

The focal length is good for sight seeing kind of pictures as well as candid people pictures. On sunny days I usually shoot handhold. Exposures past 1 second are inconvenient to do with its weird "T-Mode" (no bulb mode). And I find myself wanting at least f4 on lens often. I'll take it almost anywhere and just accept the picture it can take and not worry about what it can't do.

Maybe you've seen these already but here is a sense of how wide the lens is and another of doing people.

[stevebrot]

I too had the thought of starting with a roll film back when I was getting started with the view camera. Never did, just jumped right in with sheet film, and no regrets.

I have three roll-film holders, two Calumet (C2 and C2N) and one Linhof "Super Rollex". The Calumet holders are designed to slip under the groundglass, while the Linhof is is not. The Linhof is a wonderful precision item, but a pain in the field.

Here are the Calumets:


(CN2 in foreground, CN behind)

...and innards...


(C2 in front, CN2 behind)

...and here is the Linhof (photo courtesy of B&H):


Linhof 45 Super Rollex Film Back 6x7cm for 4x5 Cameras 1459 B&H

(...no, I did not pay $2500 for the Linhof ...)


Steve

[g026r]

This roll was nothing but trouble.

To start with, I shot this frame with a lens I had been looking for for a while: an E.Ludwig Victar 50mm f2.9. It's not that common outside of the m40 Praktiflex mount, and I had been looking for an m42 version1 at a nice price. Finally found one at a price point I was happy with and bought it from a seller who said the glass was clean — oh boy was it not. Hard to tell how much of the soft glowiness to this shot is from being wide open, and how much is from the fairly extensive fungus infestation.

The other problem was a bit more serious than just a single lens. About midway through this frame there's a bright line; that's the start of a shutter problem that by the end of the roll left the camera inoperative and many of the frames ruined. Unfortunately it's also something I couldn't spot until after I opened the camera to remove the roll.

1. Interesting, at least to me: the m42 version looks to be a factory-modified m40 version. There's a ring that's very obviously of different metal around the base of the lens, and the engravings around the edges of the inner part clearly continue down behind it.



Canon FTb.
E.Ludwig Victar 50mm f2.9.
Ilford XP2 Super.

[longbow]

Super Program, A 24-50 w/Orange YA3 filter & FP4+
f11 @ 8 sec exposure