Horseman 980 vs. VHR
jon wells
especially regarding the difference between the two models. I know
about the revolving back.
- The RF/VF on the VHR was re-designed....how does it differ from the
980?
- With the normal FL lens, how close can the RF focus (and is it the
same for both)?
- The VF for the 980 shows markings for 90 - 180 mm lenses, but none for
the 65 or 75. How do you compose with these lenses? Was this changed
on the VHR?
- Does the VF have markings for both 6x7 and 6x9 formats?
- What FL does the entire VF window approximate?
- The VHR does front swings....does the 980 too?
- Can the rotary back be used on the 980 to achieve portrait mode with
roll film?
- Can the lens boards accomodate Copal 1 shutters?
- Were there any other changes between the two models? Are there any
disadvantages to the VHR?
Any help along these lines is very much appreciated.
richard evans
the VH series is a much newer design. The RF on the 970 is quite
accurate for normal distances and can be adjusted if it's 'out'.
Providing you have matched cams for the lenses. Again, as you are
probably aware, the serial number of the lens is stamped on the
matching cam. For the 105mm. lens the RF focuses to about 3 feet,
closer than that there is no further movement in the RF (or cam).
For composing with the 65mm. lens, I use guesswork if I'm in a
hurry or the gg if I'm not. The field width with 65mm. is about
the same as eyesight looking straight ahead. I'd like a Universal
Finder from Linhof or Tewe but haven't found one cheap enough
yet!
Limited front swings on the 970, small lever at the base of the
left standard.
VF format appears to be 6 x 9cm. but not marked, and full field
about 80mm. For normal purposes it would be useable with the
75mm. lens.
Horseman lenses come with Seiko shutters, blank lensboards are
available from Komamura or from third-party suppliers.
Others with 980 or VH variants will be able to be more specific.
HTH
jon wells wrote in message <39FA2DFE...@slip.net>...
>I'm looking at the Horseman 980 and VHR cameras and have some
questions,
[snipped]
Mark Bergman
used to own and used extensively a 980 and never found a reason to upgrade
to the VHR. Even thought the differences are minor you need to compare the
two side by side and play with both to determine which one is more useful to
you. If your just getting in to it I would suggest the 980 since it's
cheaper and focuses closer. There was a nice 65mm lens for the 980 that
will not work on the VHR. The 65, 105 and 180 Topcon lenses are great.
"richard evans" <ric...@katsika.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RHuL5.8711$d4.9...@nnrp4.clara.net...
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> The VHR has a revolving back and thus cannot focus as close as the 980.
Mark,
I think you got that backwards. The VHR, with revolving back, has a
thicker body, thus a slightly greater maximum extension. More extension
== closer focusing (you need a longer bellows to focus up close than at
infinity).
> used to own and used extensively a 980 and never found a reason to upgrade
> to the VHR. Even thought the differences are minor you need to compare the
> two side by side and play with both to determine which one is more useful to
> you. If your just getting in to it I would suggest the 980 since it's
> cheaper and focuses closer. There was a nice 65mm lens for the 980 that
> will not work on the VHR. The 65, 105 and 180 Topcon lenses are great.
Why won't the 65mm Horseman lens work on a VHR? I have two friends who
shoot with VH/VHRs. One uses a 65mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N on a flat
board, and the other uses a 58mm Super Angulon XL on a slightly recessed
board. I have some Horseman and Calumet literature from the 1970s and
1980s, and they still sold the 65mm lens with long after the 980/985 was
discontinued. The last reference I have is a Calumet catalog from 1987
that lists only the VHR and the ER-1 cameras with Super ER lenses from
65mm - 180mm with matching rangefinder cams. The Super ER lenses were
the last of the Horseman/Topcon line made exclusively for the 2x3
Horseman Camera (Topcon also made some Super Topcor lenses for 4x5) -
they were the only Horseman lenses that were multicoated. My friend who
shoots with a VH just ordered a multicoated 65mm Super ER. He doesn't
anticipate any problem using it with his VH. If he does have any
difficulty, I'll let you know.
I'm not knocking the 980. It can often be found for very reasonable
prices on the used market, and is a very well built camera. If you find
one in good shape, it can be a very good way to shoot medium format with
movements at an affordable price. In addition to the Horseman lenses,
you can also use other brands of large format lens that will fit on the
small Horseman lensboard. This opens up a lot of options in both newer
multicoated lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Fujinon, plus
older bargain priced lenses like the Kodak Ektars. Lots of options,
limited pretty much only by one's imagination and budget.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Mark Bergman
needs around 65mm between the lens board and film plane to focus at
infinity. If you want any shifts or tilts that distance actually becomes
much less. A 980 body is around (estimating) 50 mm thick. The revolving
back adds another 20 or 30 mm to the body thickness. So now the distance
between the film plane and the lens board is 70 or 80 mm and how are you
going to focus a wide angle lens to infinity? Your right, you will be able
to do macro work. A recessed lens board is an option but as far as I know
Horseman never made one.
The VH, like the 980, does not have a revolving back either. The question
was comparing the VH and 980, it was asking about comparing the VHR and 980.
A gentleman in the Carolinas made some neat stuff for the VHR which included
a recessed lens board, focusing mount and mount to use ultra wide angles
like the 58mm on the VHR. IF you can one of these homemade rigs they are
pricey.
With a 980 the lens board had to push to the minimum extension. I doubt if
you would be able to focus the 65mm to infinity on a VHR.
"Kerry L. Thalmann" <K.Tha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39FFB0...@worldnet.att.net...
BobE
Both the VH and the VHR have revolving backs. About the only difference
between the two is the lack of rangefinder on the VH.
Plenty of people have used 65 lenses successfully on the VH/VHR even
with a flat board - but with almost no movement. Horseman sells(sold)
a 65 lens already mounted on their slightly recessed board for the
VH/VHR.
Rodenstock quotes the lensboard to focal plane distance of their 65mm
f/4.5 Grandagon-N lens as 70.1mm and this is similar to Schneider's 65
offering.
A fellow in Illinois once manufactured recessed boards that recessed a
65 with a Copal O shutter approximately 7mm. This made more movement
possible. (I have a few of these still for sale at $75 plus shipping
BTW.)
The main practical difference between the 970,980, 985 cameras and the
VH/VHR series is the thinner body and lack of revolving back on the
900's. There is a tripod socket on the side of the 900's to use for
vertical shots.
Bob Eskridge
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> The wider the lens the shorter the focusing distance.
Hi Mark,
Agreed, but this is not what you said in your original posting that I
responded to. You said, "The VHR has a revolving back and thus cannot
focus as close as the 980." There is a very big fundamental difference
between your two statements.
> Thus a 65mm lens
> needs around 65mm between the lens board and film plane to focus at
> infinity.
According to a Horseman data sheet I have from 1986, the flange to focus
distance for infinity for the Horseman 65mm f7 Super ER is 70.6mm.
> If you want any shifts or tilts that distance actually becomes
> much less. A 980 body is around (estimating) 50 mm thick. The revolving
> back adds another 20 or 30 mm to the body thickness. So now the distance
> between the film plane and the lens board is 70 or 80 mm and how are you
> going to focus a wide angle lens to infinity?
This is way off. I just measured both a 980 and a VHR. The ground
glass on the VHR is about 4 - 5mm fruther back than on the 980. Nowhere
near 20 - 30mm. So, using the same refererence point, the 980 has a
minimum focusing distance of about 50mm and the VH/VHR around 54-55mm.
You can easily focus any 65mm, or even the 58mm (ftf = 69.3mm) Super
Angulon XL. You can focus the 47mm Super Angulon XL (ftf = 59.1mm), but
the bed might show up in the picture without the bed dropped. Of
course, movements would be restricted by the compressed bellows and the
sides/top of the camera body. The same is only slightly less true for
the slightly thinner 980/985.
> A recessed lens board is an option but as far as I know
> Horseman never made one.
Horseman made a slightly recessed board (~5mm) that came as standard
equipment with the 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 105mm and 120mm lenses.
> The VH, like the 980, does not have a revolving back either. The question
> was comparing the VH and 980, it was asking about comparing the VHR and 980.
This is incorrect. The difference between the VH and VHR is the
presence of the rangefinder mounted on top of the VHR body. The VH uses
the same revolving back as the VHR. I'd be surprised if the two cameras
didn't use exactly the same body casting, since both were made at the
same time and only have the difference in the top mounted rangefinder on
the VHR. The lack of the rangefinder on the VH actually makes it the
most compact of the Horseman models, making it a very good field camera
for anyone who intends to use it on a tripod focusing and composing on
the ground glass.
> A gentleman in the Carolinas made some neat stuff for the VHR which included
> a recessed lens board, focusing mount and mount to use ultra wide angles
> like the 58mm on the VHR. IF you can one of these homemade rigs they are
> pricey.
I believe you are referring to Scott Bonnett. He made many neat
accessories for the Horseman cameras (rangefinder cams for third party
lenses, recessed and extended lensboards, etc.). He sold his remaining
inventory to Bob Eskridge a while back. Bob may still have some of
these parts in stock - at prices that are quite reasonable.
> With a 980 the lens board had to push to the minimum extension. I doubt if
> you would be able to focus the 65mm to infinity on a VHR.
Like I said above, focusing the Horseman, or any other 65mm at infinity
on the VH/VHR is no problem. The problem comes when you want to try to
use front rise or shift. Using movements with wide angles on these
types of cameras (not just Horseman, but any drop bed design) is always
an issue. If the compressed bellows don't get you, then the sides of
the body cavity itself get in the way. This is not exclusive to the
VH/VHR.
Kerry
Mark Bergman
SO what is the difference between the 980 and VHR which is what the original
poster asked.
"Kerry L. Thalmann" <K.Tha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A0197...@worldnet.att.net...
Kerry L. Thalmann
> SO what is the difference between the 980 and VHR which is what the original
> poster asked.
Hi Mark,
Basically the rotating back and the redesigned viewfinder (also
rotates). The VHR also has more front shift, but that was actually
added in the 985 (other than the fact that last 985s were all black,
like the VH/VHR, I believe that is the only difference between the 980
and 985). These changes are all minor evolutionary steps. Small
improvements on what was already a very good design.
When I get a chance, I'll go back and try to answer the original posters
question point by point.
Kerry L. Thalmann
I'll do my best to answer your questions. See comments below.
jon wells wrote:
>
> I'm looking at the Horseman 980 and VHR cameras and have some questions,
> especially regarding the difference between the two models. I know
> about the revolving back.
> - The RF/VF on the VHR was re-designed....how does it differ from the
> 980?
Like the back, the viewfinder on the VHR rotates for either vertical or
horizontal compositions. It is also physically taller, with a larger
opening and slightly brighter (to my eyes).
> - With the normal FL lens, how close can the RF focus (and is it the
> same for both)?
The rangefinder focuses down to 1 meter (3.3 feet) for both models.
Closer focusing requires using the ground glass.
> - The VF for the 980 shows markings for 90 - 180 mm lenses, but none for
> the 65 or 75. How do you compose with these lenses? Was this changed
> on the VHR?
The 980 has frame lines for 90mm, 105mm, 150mm and 180mm and the entire
viewfinder image is a rough approximation for the 75mm. The VHR has the
same labeled frame lines, plus four dots that seem to correspond to the
120mm focal length and an additional unlabeled frame that corresponds to
the 75mm lens. The entire viewfinder can serve as a ROUGH approximation
for the 75mm lens, but the corners get cut off and the full viewfinder
presents a square, rather than rectangular, image (both due to the
rotating nature of the VHR finder).
> - Does the VF have markings for both 6x7 and 6x9 formats?
Yes, for both models.
> - What FL does the entire VF window approximate?
See above.
> - The VHR does front swings....does the 980 too?
Yes
> - Can the rotary back be used on the 980 to achieve portrait mode with
> roll film?
No. The rotary back is an accessory for the 4x5 Horseman models (or any
other 4x5 with a Grafloc back). It does not fit the 2x3 models. The
back on the 980 is fixed in the horizontal position. To shoot
verticals, the camera must be turned on its side. A second tripod
socket is furnished for this purpose.
> - Can the lens boards accomodate Copal 1 shutters?
Yes, both models.
> - Were there any other changes between the two models? Are there any
> disadvantages to the VHR?
The VHR has more front shift (30mm left or right, vs. 14mm for the
980). This increased shift was added on the 985 model. The VHR is a
little taller (about 1/2 - 3/4" due to the rotating viewfinder) and
slightly thicker (due to the rotating back). Both cameras weigh the
same (4.4 lbs.). Cosmetically, the VHR is all black - the 980 is chrome
and gray with black leather (early 985s were chrome/gray like the 980,
later 985s were all black like the VHR).
The only disdavantage I can think of to the VHR is the higher price.
Hope that helps. The changes from 980 - 985 - VHR were minor
evolutionary improvements. The basic design and functions stayed the
same. Of course, the big difference is the rotating back and rotating
finder on the VHR. That makes it more convenient if you shoot a lot of
verticals (especially if you shoot using movements with the camera
mounted on a tripod). Both are very well made, well designed cameras.
The 980 can often be found quite inexpensively and can be a real
bargain. Heck you can get a camera, several lenses and a couple backs
for less than the price of most other medium format tilt/shift lenses
alone - and with the Horseman you get a much wider range of movements
for ALL of your lenses.
John Sparks
>jon wells wrote:
>> - The RF/VF on the VHR was re-designed....how does it differ from the
>> 980?
>Like the back, the viewfinder on the VHR rotates for either vertical or
>horizontal compositions. It is also physically taller, with a larger
>opening and slightly brighter (to my eyes).
Hi Kerry,
Somewhere I read something that suggested that the viewfinder and
rangfinder were combined in the VHR or that the rangefinder was somehow
usable while looking through the viewfinder window. Is any of this
true?
I have a 980 I bought a while back. I kind of wished I'd held out for a
985 but I didn't know better until after I got the camera. Besides any
difference in the total amount of shift (which I didn't know about), the
980 and VHR have L shaped struts holding the front panel in position.
These allow more shift to be used with short lenses without running into
the struts. I've rarely cared about the shift (with the hundreds of
view camera photographs I've made I can only remember using shift once
or twice), but have wanted more rise when shooting verticals (which of
course uses the shifts without a rotating back) so this is more of an
issue with the 985 than the VHR.
John Sparks
Kerry L. Thalmann
See my comments below.
John Sparks wrote:
> Somewhere I read something that suggested that the viewfinder and
> rangfinder were combined in the VHR or that the rangefinder was somehow
> usable while looking through the viewfinder window. Is any of this
> true?
Not for my eyes. Like the 980, the viewfinder and rangefinder are too
close together for me to view both at the same time (viewfinder with
left eye, rangefinder with right). Maybe someone else has been able to
accomplish this trick, but it doesn't work for me. So, I just switch
back and forth between the two using my right eye for both.
> I have a 980 I bought a while back. I kind of wished I'd held out for a
> 985 but I didn't know better until after I got the camera. Besides any
> difference in the total amount of shift (which I didn't know about), the
> 980 and VHR have L shaped struts holding the front panel in position.
> These allow more shift to be used with short lenses without running into
> the struts. I've rarely cared about the shift (with the hundreds of
> view camera photographs I've made I can only remember using shift once
> or twice), but have wanted more rise when shooting verticals (which of
> course uses the shifts without a rotating back) so this is more of an
> issue with the 985 than the VHR.
By coincidence, I got an email from Bob Eskridge (be...@shtc.net) earlier
today and he mentioned that the 980 can be modified to have greater
shift capacity like the 985/VHR. He even has some of the L-shaped
struts for such a modification. Bob has been following this thread, but
if your interested, you might want to contact him directly. Bob is a
great resource for both information and parts for the Horseman cameras.
If anyone can help you out, he can.
Good luck,