Porta VC 400 or 800?

zxcvbob wrote:

 >
 > If I get any spectactular shots, I'd like to be able to blow
 > them up to 16x20 without getting too grainy. Most of the good pictures
 > are destined to be 8x10's.
 >

The 400asa shot would go 8X10 with no problem and probably 11x14's would
look OK. 16X20's would be pushing both the choice of film and the old
olympus folder IMHO. I have one of those folders and while it's pretty
good, I'm not sure how tack sharp that large a print would be from one..

I also agree a tripod and slower film would be better but then it turns a
hike and taking some pictures into a "photo trip"...
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

Stacey wrote:
 > zxcvbob wrote:
 >
 >
  >>If I get any spectactular shots, I'd like to be able to blow
  >>them up to 16x20 without getting too grainy. Most of the good pictures
  >>are destined to be 8x10's.
  >>
 >
 >
 > The 400asa shot would go 8X10 with no problem and probably 11x14's would
 > look OK. 16X20's would be pushing both the choice of film and the old
 > olympus folder IMHO. I have one of those folders and while it's pretty
 > good, I'm not sure how tack sharp that large a print would be from one..
 >
 > I also agree a tripod and slower film would be better but then it turns a
 > hike and taking some pictures into a "photo trip"...


I have a lightweight tripod, and I use it as a walking stick (folded up
and one leg extended.) I've gotten some great pix with my old Ricoh
Diacord. The olympus should be a better camera but I haven't gotten as
good a pictures using 100 speed film. So I want to choke down the
aperture quite a bit and see. I'll also have my 35mm camera with me
with slow transparency film.

Bob<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

In article <3apgoqF6fustgU1 RemoveThis @individual.net>,
zxcvbob <zxcvbob RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:

 > or something else completely? I'll be travelling to Yellowstone and
 > Southern Utah this summer, carrying an old Olympus 6x6 folding camera.
 > It has a red window in the back for the film counter, with a sliding
 > cover (I don't know if any of that makes a difference when using fast
 > film in an old camera.) I want to use fast film so I can use small
 > apertures. If I get any spectactular shots, I'd like to be able to blow
 > them up to 16x20 without getting too grainy. Most of the good pictures
 > are destined to be 8x10's.
 >
 > I'll also have some Kodak Gold 100 film or equivalent with me for full
 > sun situations.
 >
 > Thanks.
 >
 > Best regards,
 > Bob

I agree with Rafe, you want slower film for scenics and a
tripod. The 400 might be ok for a few wildlife pics
though. 100 asa is better, or even slower if you can find it.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

zxcvbob wrote:


 >
 >
 > I have a lightweight tripod, and I use it as a walking stick (folded up
 > and one leg extended.) I've gotten some great pix with my old Ricoh
 > Diacord. The olympus should be a better camera but I haven't gotten as
 > good a pictures using 100 speed film. So I want to choke down the
 > aperture quite a bit and see.

By f11 it should be as good as it's going to get. Mine is OK, not as good as
a tessar camera (especially a non-front cell focusing one) but better than
most old folders are. Most of the front cell focusing lensed folders are
kinda weak when shooting at infinity unless shot at f11-f16.
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3apgoqF6fustgU1@individual.net...
 > or something else completely? I'll be travelling to Yellowstone and
 > Southern Utah this summer, carrying an old Olympus 6x6 folding camera.
 > It has a red window in the back for the film counter, with a sliding
 > cover (I don't know if any of that makes a difference when using fast
 > film in an old camera.) I want to use fast film so I can use small
 > apertures. If I get any spectactular shots, I'd like to be able to blow
 > them up to 16x20 without getting too grainy. Most of the good pictures
 > are destined to be 8x10's.
 >
 > I'll also have some Kodak Gold 100 film or equivalent with me for full
 > sun situations.
 >
 > Thanks.
 >
 > Best regards,
 > Bob

I personnally like the Kodak Portra family of films. But, depending on your
subject matter, you might want to consider the "NC" type rather than the
"VC". If you're shooting outdoor, sunny landscape type stuff, the "VC" film
might be too contrasty. Just my opinion-- YMMV. Also, (my info here may be
old or just plain wrong) isn't the 800 speed Portra only available in "UC",
ultra contrast?

As for the red window in the back, it certainly wouldn't hurt to keep it
shut. Possibly, maybe, perhaps, holding the camera in just the right (wrong)
way could maybe perhaps allow enough bright midday sun to get thru and fog
the film. If it does, the chances are great that it will fog that classic,
once-in-a-lifetime shot!

IMHO, the best accessory to improve sharpness is a tripod. Of course, if
you're using a tripod, you can use a longer shutter speed and even smaller
aperature settings. And carrying/setting up a good heavy tripod tends to
make you take more care in composing the shot! (Again, just my opinion)


--
Ken Hart
kwhart.TakeThisOut@aec.nu<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

Stacey wrote:
 > zxcvbob wrote:
 >
  >>
  >>I have a lightweight tripod, and I use it as a walking stick (folded up
  >>and one leg extended.) I've gotten some great pix with my old Ricoh
  >>Diacord. The olympus should be a better camera but I haven't gotten as
  >>good a pictures using 100 speed film. So I want to choke down the
  >>aperture quite a bit and see.
 >
 >
 > By f11 it should be as good as it's going to get. Mine is OK, not as good as
 > a tessar camera (especially a non-front cell focusing one) but better than
 > most old folders are. Most of the front cell focusing lensed folders are
 > kinda weak when shooting at infinity unless shot at f11-f16.


Mine is an Olympus "Chrome 6" and has a rather large f/2.8 lens (I don't
recall the markings on it) and the owners manual makes a big deal about
a tensioner or something in the camera back that hold the film unusually
flat to accommodate the wide aperture -- but it is front-cell focused.
I should run some of my old film through it at f/8 f/11 and f/16 before
the trip and see how sharp it is at infinity. If infinity focus is too
soft, I might be better off lugging my old TLR.

Is there a different folding camera you can recommend that is tack-sharp
at infinity and not too expensive? I don't really need one with a
rangefinder or a meter.

BTW, I tried some Agfa ASA 50 film a few years ago (in the TLR) and the
colors were so saturated it ruined all the pix -- they looked
cartoonish. I need to find that roll of negatives and see if I can
scan them and tone them down in Photoshop to get usable prints.

Best regards,
Bob<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote in message
news:3atkunF6foh9sU1@individual.net...
[SNIP]
 >
 > Is there a different folding camera you can recommend that is tack-sharp
 > at infinity and not too expensive? I don't really need one with a
 > rangefinder or a meter.
 >

What's your definition of "not too expensive"? There are older cameras that
someone else (like Stacey) could advise you on better than me, but if you
are happy with 645, the folding Fujica GS645 is a very nice camera with an
awesomely sharp 75mm f3.4 lens. It does have a rangefinder and a meter, and
isn't 'cheap' - but you do see them going for not bad prices sometimes.

I have one, and like it a lot. I also like the Fujica GS645S with a
somewhat wider lens, though that model isn't a folder.



Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800? 

zxcvbob wrote:

 > Stacey wrote:
  >> zxcvbob wrote:
  >> By f11 it should be as good as it's going to get. Mine is OK, not as good
  >> as a tessar camera (especially a non-front cell focusing one) but better
  >> than most old folders are. Most of the front cell focusing lensed folders
  >> are kinda weak when shooting at infinity unless shot at f11-f16.
 >
 >
 > Mine is an Olympus "Chrome 6"

So is mine, I have the f3.5 version.

 > and has a rather large f/2.8 lens (I don't
 > recall the markings on it) and the owners manual makes a big deal about
 > a tensioner or something in the camera back that hold the film unusually
 > flat to accommodate the wide aperture -- but it is front-cell focused.


That's the problem. Those front cell focusing lenses are designed to be best
at "snap shot" shooting distances i.e. mid range focus points. Stopped down
they work OK at infinity. Personally I think the zeiss tessar is about the
best of the folder lenses. The color skopar is good but the cameras these
were used on leave something to be desired. I do have an old welta folder
that has a non-front cell focusing tessar, on a flat bed like a view camera
with a coupled rangefinder but they aren't very comon and the bellows on
that model ussually need replacing.

 > I should run some of my old film through it at f/8 f/11 and f/16 before
 > the trip and see how sharp it is at infinity. If infinity focus is too
 > soft, I might be better off lugging my old TLR.
 >
 > Is there a different folding camera you can recommend that is tack-sharp
 > at infinity and not too expensive? I don't really need one with a
 > rangefinder or a meter.
 >

The 521 6X4.5 ikonta's are pretty good. Should be able to pick up a scale
focus tessar sample for around $100 or less and they are about as small as
a medium format camera is going to get. Again it's a front cell focus
camera (and uncoated lens) but I've had very good results with these again
stopped down to f11-f16.

The best folder is the later fuji but again they have bellows problems and
aren't cheap but perform REALLY good. Another choice is the other 6X4.5
fuji's and they are smaller/better than a TLR would be.

BTW I always LOVED the cartoon look of agfa 50!
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Porta VC 400 or 800?