anyone with comments on horseman sw612 pro

[Darren Lew]

i'm considering this camera against a cambo wide.

anyone have any experience with the horseman, or even the non-pro model or
the sw69?

[Goldscout]

See a review on wrote for the luminous landscape. They cover a lot of
equipment. It's at www.luminous-landscape.com the sw612pro review I wrote is
under equipment/panaromic section.

I like the camera for architectural and scenic shots when traveling.

[Heavysteam]

I use a Horseman 6X12 back with my field camera and it is essentially the same
back that is on the SW612. It works well and I've had no overt problems with
spacing or light leaks.

However, when you get into the price realm of the Horseman SW612, you might do
well to look at a used 617 system. While 6X12 is a great format, I think 6X17
has a big edge for pure visceral impact.

[Mark Rabiner]

Did you see this guys site?:
http://aci.mta.ca/personal/holownia/index.html

6x17 has a few bad aspects to it.
1. As a rectangle it with that extreme of an aspect ration, it has lost all
semblance of formality.
You just read it from left to right like a line. It IS a line. A 6x12 though is
still a rectangle, a box.
You can compose in it. Things can move in a circular motion and make shapes.

It's like going to the movies like you see them now: Vistavision or ToddAO.
(6x17 moviewise is Ultra Panavision 70 or Cinerama. Not what you're going to see anymore)

2. Everyone and his grandmother is doing it. It's like cross processing, infra
red, hand coloring, Polaroid transfers..

3. Requires a 5x7 enlarger. 6x12 you can print in the standard 4x5.

4. I forgot.

5. 6x12 gives you more on a roll....ooops.

6. A 6x12 back is a nice alternate way to use a 4x5 press or regular view camera
alongside sheet film.

7. Cut a piece of paper in half long wise and it's great for a 6x12 with nice borders!

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

[Jim Bancroft]

Hi Darren-

I have the CamboWide 470 with a 47mm SA XL lens. It's about the same weight
as the horseman 612 but has a few advantages IMHO.

1. It can be used with 6X12 rollfilm or 4X5 (when confronted by a
subject which is not panoramic it's nice to have an option)
2. The back is compatible with Cambo gear like a reflex viewer.
3. It's a lot less money even with a 6X12 rollfilm back (unless you buy
a Linhof or Sinar).
4. You could buy a CamboWide 470, 612 Horseman Back, and a 5X7 Hobo
with a 110mm Symmar XL for less than the list price of the Horseman pro with
a 45mm lens.

Also, keep in mind:

1. These are all one lens cameras since the price of additional lenses
is almost as much as the camera kit.
2. In most cases these WA cameras require using a center filter
( 11/2 - 2 stops)and a minimum f stop of f16 which translates to shutter
speeds of 1/15th sec. or less with ASA 100 films in sunny conditions. Not
easily hand holdable for best results.

Hope this helps.

jim
"Darren Lew" <dl...@interport.net> wrote in message
news:97mb17$bvu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...

[Heavysteam]

Mark, you don't have to sell me on 6X12, I love it !!

There are a few points I can make though, in defense of 6X17.

I can shoot a 6X12 image with a 6X17 camera but I can't shoot a 6X17 image with
a 6X12 camera.

6X17 can really isolate and enhance horizontally or vertically oriented scenes
in a way that a 2:1 format cannot.

More film can be handy sometimes.

By the way, you have some great images on your web site.

[Willem-Jan Markerink]

In article <3A9F1AB0...@rabiner.cncoffice.com>,

Mark Rabiner <ma...@rabiner.cncoffice.com> wrote:
>Heavysteam wrote:
>>
>> I use a Horseman 6X12 back with my field camera and it is essentially
the same
>> back that is on the SW612. It works well and I've had no overt
problems with
>> spacing or light leaks.
>>
>> However, when you get into the price realm of the Horseman SW612, you
might do
>> well to look at a used 617 system. While 6X12 is a great format, I
think 6X17
>> has a big edge for pure visceral impact.
>
>
>Did you see this guys site?:
>http://aci.mta.ca/personal/holownia/index.html
>
>6x17 has a few bad aspects to it.
>1. As a rectangle it with that extreme of an aspect ration, it has lost
all
>semblance of formality.
> You just read it from left to right like a line. It IS a line. A
6x12 though is
>still a rectangle, a box.

All 35mm (swing lens) panorama cameras have a higher than 1:2 aspect ratio.
(24x58, 24x66).
1:2 is considered still to 'squarish' to give a good panorama
impression....it's too regular, too symmetric, too easy to divide in two
real squares.
Even Noblex 6x12 is actually 50x120mm, hence 1:2.4....yet they still also
offer a 50x170mm model....

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

<w.j.ma...@a1.nl>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]