Related Links:
Horseman SUPER WIDE 612 (SW612) (6x7cm, 6x9cm, 6x12cm)
Horseman Technical Cameras (6x9, 6x7, 4x5)
Horseman View Cameras (rollfilm backs)

Horseman Related Posts in Medium Format Digest
Note: the above MFD postings are an extensive resource of postings on Horseman cameras, lenses, operation, manuals, and related topics. Check it out!

See the reference for details on lens testing and standards for interpretation. Note that these are early lenses fom 1963 time frame, so later lenses may be even better. As expected, most of these lenses perform at their best in the mid-range f/stops, rather than wide open or fully stopped down. The lenses are Horseman P.W., P.W., P.S., P.S., and P.T. labeled respectively. Keep in mind also that these lenses are covering 6x9cm too!

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
From: T Loizeaux [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: overlooked MF camera

I wrote to you about this some time ago.

You still have omitted my mainstay medium format camera: the Horseman VH 6x9.

It is still very much in production as is one of the best technical/field cameras around. Check with Calumet, B&H Photo, or the Horeseman Home Page.

I was shooting with my VH-R in Miami last week and a man came up to me carrying his Horseman 980. We talked about these medium format cameras from Horseman and wondered why they are so overlooked.

My VH-R systems travels with me tomorrow to New Your City where I'll be shooting a job on Ektachrome transparencies.

Tom

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Thomas Loizeaux [email protected]
Subject: Response to Do you know: Horseman 985 vs VHR
Date: 1998-09-05

The Horseman 980 came before the VH-R design. The 980 did not have a rotating back which allows for instant change-over from vertical to horizontal and vice-versa. The 980 did have a viewfinder window, but did not have the vertical - horizontal orientation of the viewfinder as the VH-R does. Both models have a coupled rangfinder and cams that match with the various Horseman lenses.

The current VH is the same camera as the VH-R, except it does not have the rangefinder or focus cam linkage.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Thomas Loizeaux [email protected]
Subject: Response to What's wrong with Horseman 6x9?
Date: 1998-09-05

I use my Horseman VH-R whenever I want crisp, grainless b&w negs and/or transparencies and will be in a situation where I can take the time necessary to work from a tripod. Most of my Horseman shooting is nature type stuff where I want the finest renderings of tones and textures. The Horseman gives me 6x9cm images in a camera that is very compact and portable. I carry my entire system in a a 14 x 18" case. I often click the camera into my Bolex tripod and hike through woods and climb over rocks with the camera attached and folded closed.

I also always use the focusing hood which allows me to clearly see the entire groundglass and focus effortlessly.

When I shoot 35mm in these situations I am almost always disappointed with the results. The 24x36mm image just can't deliver what the 6x9cm frame can.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Tom Loizeaux [email protected]
Subject: Response to What's wrong with Horseman 6x9?
Date: 1998-09-06

I began my medium format experience with a Hasselblad- but didn't like the square picture requirement. Then I found the Crown Graphic "23". This gave me rectangular images with amazing quality. It's biggest limitation was it's inability to provide much in the way of tilts when in the horizontal mode, and NO tilts at all in the vertical mode...when you need them even more!

I went to the Horseman VH-R because it gave me the ability to use tilts, swings, revolving back, optical viewfinder w/ frame markings, coupled rangfinder,... on a compact 6x9 camera that is engineered and made to the highest quality.

From: [email protected] (peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: horseman vh-r
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998

Yes, and Bob Eskridge who follows this group has cams for many independently made lenses.

Seiko is not a lens, it is a shutter (the old one). The camera is excellent, you can make your own lensboards out of stock aluminum.

Excellent camera!
bob

[email protected] wrote:

>Can this camera be used with LF lenses other than horseman/seiko lenses?
>If other lenses could be used, do they still allow the use of the
>rangefinder?  Any experiences with the seiko lenses, and generally with
>this camera? Thank you very much in advance for any comments.
>--
>william

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Bill Glickman [email protected]
Subject: Mamiya 7 vs. Horseman SW612
Date: 1998-10-04

I am trying to make a decision between buying the Horseman sw612 or the Mamiya 7. I see some advantages to the Horseman including:

1) Ground glass option for critical focus work.
2) Larger format backs available (6x7,  6x9,  6x12)
3) Rodenstock lenses, although outrageously priced, does anyone know why?
4) Rugged with lens protector, nice when ya drop it.
5) Only a pound heavier and about the same size.
6) A look at filter effects on image when using ground glass.

The disadvantages I see of the Horseman ...

1) Horseman only seems to offer lenses up to 90mm? With the use of a lens adapter, can this camera use other view camera lenses such as the Schneider 150mm Super Symar XL?

I must be missing something, because the Mamiya 7 is so popular and the Horseman is rarely mentioned or carried by phot stores, could some one fill me in on what I may be missing here? Thank you in advance for your help, I expect this camera to last a long time!

From Medium Format Digest:
From: James Chow [email protected]
Subject: Response to Mamiya 7 vs. Horseman SW612
Date: 1998-10-04

The camera you choose should really be dictated by its intended use. If you're shooting landscapes, I'd go with the horseman sw612. I think most people have not even seen it let alone used one. On the 612, you have to view the ground glass to see the effects of focusing, as there's no coupled rangefinder (or guess according to the DOF scales on the helicoil) and no meter. The M7's meter isn't TTL, so there's no advantage over a handheld meter. The Rodenstock lenses are basically Rodenstock 4x5 lenses w/ an integrated helicoil and mount. You can actually buy the helicoil as a separate accessory in the horseman catalog, but you'd need to make your own mount/bellows rig to fit it to the 612 body if you want to use, say, a 150 apo sironar.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Tom Loizeaux [email protected]
Subject: Response to Widest lens for a Horseman VH or VHR 6 x9 field camera?
Date: 1998-10-19

Horseman makes a 65mm f 7 lens that works well with the VH and VH-R bodies. It can cam-couple with the VH-R, uses infinity stops in both cameras, but requires a very slight lens standard rise to fully clear the bed in the vertical mode with a 6x9 image.

I believe there's plenty of extra bellows close left to use a 53 or 47mm lens, but I'm not sure about when the bed would come into view and I don't know that you'd be able to focus. If you drop the bed to it's lowest position, as you can on the Graphic cameras, it won't allow you to focus the ultra wide lens because the rear track does not track with the bed focus movement.

If you want "ultra wide" go with the Horseman SW bodies.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Howard Slavitt [email protected]
Subject: Are Topcon lenses multicoated? They were marketed by Horseman
Date: 1998-10-21

Along with the VH/VHR/980/985 cameras (6 x 9 format, technical field cameras), Horseman marketed a series of "Topcon" lenses. From reading the various threads on this website concerning Horseman cameras, I've gathered that the Topcon lenses are considered quite good. Do you know, are they multicoated lenses?

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Milco van Klingeren [email protected]
Subject: Response to Horseman VHR
Date: 1998-10-22

There is a small screw-adapter available that can be screwed on the cable release and that fits exactly in the hole on the mounting plate of the lens. I owned one when i had my Horseman 985.

rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected] (Balotin)
[1] Re: Horseman technical camera
Date: Fri Nov 20 1998

You can identify the camera by looking at the front when it is in the down position, with the bellows still retracted- It will either say horseman 960, 970,980, vr, vh, or va.

some had a rotating back, also let me know what the lenses say, and if the camera had a viewfinder.

rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected] (Michael Gudzinowicz)
[1] Re: quality & coverage of Horseman (& other) 6x9 lenses
Date: Thu Dec 03 1998

scott [email protected] writes:

>I would appreciate any info on the quality and coverage of Horseman 6x9
>lenses, as well as other lenses for that format. If there are any web
>sources on coverage and the various factors of optical quality, that
>would be ideal. Comments also welcome.
>        I could also use a web list of lenses for this format, if such a  thin 
>exists. I have found lists of specs for 4x5 lenses, but not for 6x9/6x7
>lenses.

The following are specs for the lenses circa 1986. An aquaintance of mine uses the system, and his work holds up well to other medium format systems.

Many (100's) 4x5 lenses can be used, if they are small enough to fit the board and bellows. If you are intersted in a specific focal length, let me know and I'll generate a managable list.

FL      F#      IC      Deg    Maker           Model
65      7       152     98     Horseman        Super
75      5.6     120     77     Horseman        Pro
90      5.6     150     79     Horseman        Super
105     4.5     158     73     Horseman        Super
105     3.5     125     61     Horseman        Pro
120     5.6     160     67     Horseman        Super
150     5.6     160     56     Horseman        Super
180     5.6     140     42     Horseman        Pro
                                                     

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Tom Loizeaux [email protected]
Subject: Response to Horseman VH vs. Horseman VHR
Date: 1998-12-08

Garret's answers were correct...except that the other differance between a VH-R and a VH is that the VH-R has an optical viewfinder which sits on top of the camera. The VH simply has this top unit omitted. The viewfinder can rotate the finder in either hor. of vert. mode. This viewfinder unit also has a window where you can see the optical rangefinder image.

I bought the VH-R because I thought rangfinder focusing would be a very handy feature. I have never used the rangfinder feature!

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Sai-Kit NG [email protected]
Subject: work on website
Date: 1999-01-08

Hi, I recently post some photos at a website [Ed. note: broken link as of 2/2003 to http://www.dg21.com/~del/distance/ pages] (This site is chinese base but there is a lot of images which is universal). The photos were took by a Horseman SW612 camera w 65mm lens. Any interested parties can take a look at it and comment are welcome.

Thanks

From: "BC" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Finally found a MF with Movements etc.
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999

Don't want to lug the 4x5 or develop individual sheets anymore, so started considering a medium format that had all the movements of a view camera, but with a synced rangefinder and changeable film backs.

I finally found the Horseman VH-R. It's got it all, the perfect folding field camera. Not to many are imported, so they aren't easy to come across, but since few people know about them, their demand is limited. The price on the used market is unbelievably cheap, you can buy a whole set-up with body, lenses and backs for under 2k.

Yeah, you can get all this in a crown graphic or a baby linhof, sort of, but the weight, size and rangefinder syncing ease makes the VH-R a better option for the field.

bye

From: joemix [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wideangle for 6x9 Horseman
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999

> I'm purchasing wideangle to my Horseman VH-R.
> I'm considering Schneider Super-Angulon 47 mm or Rodenstock APO
> Grandagon 45 mm, but I have some questions:
> Do anyone use them with Horseman VH-R or VH?
> How difficult is focusing with rear bellow?
*
I have a VH-R and a 45mm Grandagon.  It can be focused with the rear
bellows if you have infinite patience and nothing better to do.  It is
impractical.  The main problem is there is no way to use from rise and
fall because of the interference from the camera body.  This is a
problem with field cameras & super wide angle lenses in general.

> Do camera bed vignette in horisontal pictures? Is 15 degree drop
> enough or should bed be dropped all the way?
*
The bed doesn't vignette in horizontal format but you need bed drop in
vertical format.  15 degrees is enough.
*
> How big movements are available?
*
Damned little.  I got a 2x3 Crown Graphic in bad shape and am trying to
modify it specifically for the 45mm Grandagon.  I'm going to cut large
parts of the (wood) body away so I can use rise & fall, tilt & shift.
The modification also requires taking a grinding tool (Dermel) to the
front standard to enable shift and forward tilt.
*
> How difficult is using ND grads with them?
*
I find it difficult to use ND grads with anything.  I'm always guessing
where the edge is and hoping the picture will come out OK.
*

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999
From: Joel Seaman [email protected]
To: "[email protected]"
Subject: Horseman SW 612

Has anyone had experience with a Horseman SW612? I have one with a 45MM Apo-Grandagon lens that produces images with substantial light fall off. These images occur despite the use of the ridiculously priced and overrated Rodenstock center filter!!! The light fall off is not consistently strong and seems to vary, perhaps in relatiion to the angle of the camera relative to the sun. Any experiences would be appreciated. The Rodenstock filter has the added benefit of producing "outstanding" examples of flare if the rays of the sun even feign towards the camera .

Joel

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999
From: DON WHIPPLE [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Horseman SW 612

I have a similar problem with the 4x5 Cambo Wide 47XL. It is advertized by Calumet as a 4x5 with 15mm shifts. I use a Horseman 612 back on it and a Helipan center filter. Even shooting at f/32 the lens will not cover the 612 format without shifting. It barely covers 6x9.

Don Whipple, AIA [email protected]

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999
From: Roy Harrington [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Horseman Lenses

John Sparks wrote:
>
> Does anyone have specs (coverge angle or circle, construction
> elements/groups, filter sizes, etc) for the Horseman lenses that were
> sold for their 6x9 cameras (980, 985, VH-R, etc).  I am particularly
> interested in the specs for their 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, various 105mm and 120mm
> lenses.  Anyone know if there were multiple lens designs of any of these
> lenses (I know there were 2 or 3 105mm, the 105/3.5 Pro, 105/4.5 Super
> and maybe a 105/5.6 Super, but don't know about the others).
>
> Does anyone know of other modern view camera lenses specificly designed
> for 6x9 (I guess the various plasmat style 100 and 105mm lenses count,
> but other than those)?  I recently bought a Horseman 980 with a 105mm
> lens and would like to find a couple of other lenses that are small
> enough to fold inside the camera.  I believe it would take a lens with a
> #0 shutter, a filter diameter of 46mm or smaller to fit and fairly short
> extension in front of the shutter.  I assume all the Horseman lenses
> will fold inside the camera, but don't know that for sure.
>
> I'd guess the Rodenstock Sironar-N 135mm would fit.  Anyone know for
> sure?  I think I'd really prefer a 120mm, any one know of one other than
> the Horseman?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Sparks 

Hi John,

I found this table about Horseman lenses a while ago.

FL      F#      IC      Deg    Maker           Model
65      7       152     98     Horseman        Super
75      5.6     120     77     Horseman        Pro
90      5.6     150     79     Horseman        Super
105     4.5     158     73     Horseman        Super
105     3.5     125     61     Horseman        Pro
120     5.6     160     67     Horseman        Super
150     5.6     160     56     Horseman        Super
180     5.6     140     42     Horseman        Pro

I also have a copy of a data sheet which has the same focal lengths but are all listed as Super ER. They have the pretty much the same coverage. There is a 105/5.6 listed with 160mm coverage. It also says they all foldup into camera except the 180mm. The 180 is a telephoto and about 3 inches long. If you are specifically looking for a 120mm, I'd guess that a 120 APO-Symmar would probably fit.

Roy

--
Roy Harrington
[email protected]
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2000
[1] Re: Fuji 6x9 lens disappointing

Im usually not your standard lens sharpness fanatic, but as a fine art ( cough ) B&W printer, I just feel queasy about replacing the 4x5 with this, and I really would like to.

Why not replace the 4X5 with a 6X9 field camera? That way you can have most of your view camera movements and lenses while having a compact camera. I use a Horseman 985 (Current model is the VH) can take 6X7 or 6X9 backs and with three lenses (65mm, 105mm and 180mm) is more compact and lighter than my RZ67 with three lenses. Although it looksnearly identical to the Horseman 4X5 field cameras, it is a fraction of the size.

From: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Choosing an MF system: portability, lenses and movements?

I am looking to move up from 35mm - to say 6x7 - and am trying to find a system that is (1) relatively portable, (2) has a few lens options and (3) incorporates camera movements. Is this even physically possible?

Sure. I use a Horseman 985 with a 6X7 back. It has a full range of lenses from 65mm to 180mm, front and back movements, built-in rangefinder and viewfinder, and can also take cut film holders, 6X9 back and even 6X12 or 4X5 with an adapter and appropriate lens. Although a bit larger physically than a Pentax 67, it is fairly light and can flash sync at any shutter speed. Cameras in the horseman 6X9 series are also plentiful and reasonable used. Look for 980, 985, VH and VHR models. Lens quality-- top notch. You will need to meter manually, though, as this camera has no built-in meter. I have used the camera hand-held on a number of occasions and with different lens, focusing and framing using the rangefinder and viewfinder, with excellent results.

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000
From: "richard evans" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

I have a 970, not too dissimilar to the 980. As you will be aware 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

>I'm looking at the Horseman 980 and VHR cameras and have some questions,
[snipped]
>- 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? 

Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

Mark Bergman wrote:

> 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/

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

Mark Bergman wrote:

> 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

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

Jon,

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.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

The wider the lens the shorter the focusing distance. Thus a 65mm lens 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.

.....

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000
From: BobE [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

To correct a bit of misinformation:

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

...

Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

Mark Bergman wrote:

> 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

...

Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Horseman 980 vs. VHR

Hi John,

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 ([email protected]) 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,
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: "george sanquist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie needs opinion on Horseman 6x9

The VH should be an excellent camera. I once owned a Horseman 985, a predecessor of the VH, and liked it a lot. The lens focal lengths work out as follows.

24mm on 35 = 57mm on 6x9
50mm on 35 = 116mm on 6x9
105mm on 35 = 243mm on 6x9

For the normal lens I would recommend 100mm or 105mm lens. I think all of the major lens makers make a good lens in that range. Some of them may be small enough to be left on the camera when it is folded.

One caution, if your commercial work includes table top or macro work the VH might not have enough bellows extension, especially with a long lens. Check this out before you buy. If you need more bellows extension look at a monorail camera. I now use an Arca 6x9 and love it. It is not quite as compact as VH but still folds into a practical package and can be expanded to handle close up work with any lens. The VH will probably handle a 57mm lens ok but might not work with shorter lenses. Extreme wide angle lenses may not allow full movements because the back of the lens projects into the body and can bump into the top or side of the camera when using rise and shift movements. Again check an authorative source before you buy.

...

From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anything on a Horseman 75mm f/5.6 lens?
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002


120mm is the image circle at f22 focused at infinity.  So, it covers 6x9
with movements.  It would be nice if other manufacturers would have
followed Horseman's lead and labeled their lenses with the coverage
spec.  Would save us from always looking up this info in the data
sheets, and would help buyers considering purchasing a used lens
(especially a discontinued lens like this particular Horseman).

Horseman... beast????  I don't think so.  One of the virtues of the
Horseman lenses is the very compact size.  They were designed to cover
6x9 with movements and many cover 4x5 with little or no movement (for
use with the Horseman 6x9 - 4x5 back expander).  The filter size of this
little gem (like most other Horseman 6x9 lenses) is 40.5mm.  The late
Super ER models were the only variety of the Horseman 6x9 lenses to be
multicoated.

Kerry

Mike King wrote:

> 120�?  What's the filter size on this beast?  On many modern lenses that
> 120� would designate the filter size in millimeters.
>
>  wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > (yes, I'm a newbie too, appears that I'm not the only one here...)
> >
> > The lens is a "Professional Horseman 1:5.6/75mm 120�", by Tokyo Kogaku,
> > in a "Seiko-SLV" shutter (B, 1 - 1/500s) and apertures marked down to
> > f/32 (looks like might go near f/45 though).
> >
> > Does the "120�" mean coverage? Is this angle, circle diameter, circle
> > radius or what?
> >
> > This is retrofitted on a Linhof Technika IV 2x3" lensboard, and
> > apparently the Horseman camera would have had the flash terminal
> > somewhere else than the shutter ring - so there isn't a functional flash
> > cord socket at the moment, only a piece of wire...
> >
> > Anything else on this lens or shutter that I should be aware of? What
> > Horseman model would it have been for originally, and when?
> >
> > Yes, I do have a camera for this... the first-ever "system" camera I
> > bought myself was the 2x3" Tech IV ;-) although I've been using various
> > medium- and small-format cameras since I was, oh, 3 years old or
> > so... (apparently I was given my first own 110-format camera when I was
> > 4 years old but I'd been using my father's 35mm Pentax before that)
> >
> > I thought the rollfilm Technika would be a reasonable thing to learn
> > movements on, and besides I got it for a good price - body, 105/2.8
> > Xenotar (coupled) and this (not coupled), and 1 each of GG and rollfilm
> > back. After the usual used-gear routine (servicing...) I'm learning the
> > drill with the 105mm first.
> >
> > Does a 2x3" Technika count as "large format" here? I have a book that
> > explicitly ranks it as such ;-) although I'm planning to get to
> > 9x12cm/4x5" some time... but I can put the 120 rolls in the tank and
> > develop with lights on, which I do find rather nice.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mikko Nahkola 
> > My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.
> > #include 

--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/

Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/


From: John Sparks [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How About 6x9?
Date: 17 Nov 2000 


Jerry Gardner [email protected] wrote:
>Just to add yet another decision point to my choice between an RZ67 and 501CM,
>I've been looking at an Arca-Swiss 6x9 FC.

>For the kind of work I want to do, this may be a better bet than either of my
>other choices. Lens price, especially, becomes less of a problem because I can
>use lenses from my 4x5 outfit and the choice of new lenses is much greater
>since I'm not locked into just one manufacturer.

>The extra weight is not really that big of a concern for me.

>Anyone have any comments on an Arca-Swiss 6x9 FC instead of a Mamiya or
>Hasselblad?

I haven't used an Arca-Swiss, but do own a Horseman 6x9 and have used
Hasselblad and a Bronica 6x7.  For landscapes made with the camera on a
tripod, the control and quality I get from the Horseman is much better
than the Bronica or Hasselblad.  Being able to swing, tilt and shift
allows me all the control I of the larger view cameras I've used without
he hassle of loading holders and developing sheet film.  I find the
quality of 16x20's from the HOrseman using a film like Ilford Pan F+ to
be about equal to 4x5 with Delta 100 or Tmax 100.  I haven't used the
4x5 since and am unlikely to use it in the future (anyone want to buy a
Wisner :-) ).  I do still occasionally use 8x10 when I want really large
prints but since the vast majority of my prints are 11x14, there is
little call for that.

The Bronica GS-1 gives about equal quality to the Horseman assuming that
I can get everything in focus without swings and tilts (definately not
always true).  I can shoot much quicker and more spontaniously with one
of the SLR's and wouldn't shoot moving subjects or even still
portraits with the Horseman.  I also find that I can get in a rut if I
use view cameras too much.  I skip lots of subjects because I'm not sure
I'll like the photograph and don't necessarily want to take the time to
set up the camera and maybe miss something else.  With the SLR's I shoot
many negatives that I doubt I'll print (but end up printing a fair
amount anyway).  It's a much different way of working.

The Horseman is awkward to hand hold (though I have done it) and an
Arca-Swiss would be virtually impossible.  When I use the camera hand
held, I much prefer the Bronica or maybe the Hasselblad if I need faster
lenses.  I find that I use medium format cameras handheld much more than
I ever expected before I bought one.  This was also the main reason I
didn't buy an RZ67.  I borrowed an RB67 and found it a real pain
(literally) to use hand held between it's rack and pinion focusing
which forced me to hold the very heavy camera with one hand while
turning the focusing knob with the other.  The Bronica is much lighter
and allows supporting the camera with both hands even while focusing.

I don't like the Hasselblad negatives enlarged to larger than
16x16 (which gives equal quality to 16x20's from 6x7 or 6x9).  Going to
a cropped negative 16x20 from the Hasselblad gives a noticably less
creamy tonality than I like.  When printing 11x14 or smaller, there is
little to choose between them.

I picked the Horseman because it was pretty inexpensive (mine is a older
980) and makes a nice compact and lightweight package that is very quick
to set up (one complaint of mine with view cameras even after using them
for almost 20 years).  I rarely use lenses shorter than 100 on any of
these cameras so that wasn't a big factor.  I wish I could use my longer
lenses easier but can live with the rather limited range the Horseman
can handle If I was a big user of lenses wider than 65mm or lenses 300mm
or longer, I'd probably have gone with the Arca-Swiss instead.

Hope this gives you some useful things to think about.

John Sparks




From: Leonard Evens [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 65mm (or so) for Horseman 985???
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 

Geoff Murray wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>         I use a 65mm Schneider Super Angulon on my Horseman ER-1 and it
> works very well. Shifting is limited due to the nature of the camera.
>
> Geoff
> www.geoffmurray.com

I checked the Horseman web site, and it appears they are still selling
an updated version of their 6 x 9 technical camera, but they don't
mention lenses.  So it must be possible to buy lenses for it, although I
expect they may be very expensive.

With the 65 mm lens, there are some tricks for extending camera
movement.  First, there is more movement parallel to the bed than
perpendicular to the bed, and one can turn the tripod head so that
movement is either vertical or horizontal.  (For my 980, that is of
limited use since it doesn't come with a rotating back, but later
versions of the camera do.)  Second, when focused close to infinity,
which would be the situation for a normal subject with a wide angle
lens, the top of the front standard hits the top of the camera when you
raise the front, thus limiting the amount of motion in that direction.
But I found you can rack the lens further out, raise it and then rack it
back to focus and thereby get past the obstruction.

Of course there are the usual techniques involving tilting the camera
and then adjusting front and back appropriately.

> "Skeenut" [email protected] wrote...
>
>>I need a recomendation.
>>I've been looking for a 65mm HOrseman Super for my 985 (medium format
>
> camera
>
>>with movements) unsuccesfully.
>>What are your recomendations for a similiar length lens, that will fit the
>>camera and provide ample coverage to allow for movements.
>>Any ideas, sources?
>>Thanks,
>>Jeff