PDA

View Full Version : Chinese 6x17 Rollfilm Backs



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Jim Moore
11-06-2004, 11:41 PM
Has anyone ever used one of these? Seems like it would be an inexpensive way to shoot 6x17 format.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/search_product2.asp?x=4078

Another dumb question.... Is the Graflok back the type on Zone VI / Wisner cameras?

As always thanks for the info!

Jim

Tom Hoskinson
11-07-2004, 12:23 AM
Has anyone ever used one of these? Seems like it would be an inexpensive way to shoot 6x17 format.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/search_product2.asp?x=4078

Another dumb question.... Is the Graflok back the type on Zone VI / Wisner cameras?

As always thanks for the info!

Jim
Hi Jim, I use the 6x12 version of this Shen Hao back very frequently and I like it a lot. It is a very simple and reliable back.

Dunno about the Wisner and Zone VI, but the Shen Hao back fits a standard Graflock back. As a consequence, it works equally well on my Linhof, my Ikeda 4x5, my Wista 4x5, my Shen Hao 4x5 and my 8x10 Wehman (with Singer Graflock 4x5 reducing back).

I have asked John at J&C Photographic to get me a price on the 6x17 Shen Hao rollfilm back.

David A. Goldfarb
11-07-2004, 07:19 AM
Kerry Thalmann did a review in _View Camera_ magazine, I think it was last issue. It looks like a good option, but there may be a new one coming out that also looks interesting. Check the forum at lfphoto.info, and there's a thread on this new Chinese 6x17 back with a link to the website.

Jim Moore
11-07-2004, 09:08 AM
Thanks Guys!

Jim

David A. Goldfarb
01-22-2005, 05:40 PM
I just bought one of these from a Hong Kong dealer on eBay named "oneworld3." The price from Hong Kong with shipping was about $100 less than Badger's price excluding shipping, but Badger's comes with a monocular viewer, which mine lacks. I don't particularly like monocular viewers, so it works out for me. It does have the groundglass viewer with an extending bellows shade. I didn't get charged customs.

I'll post some test shots as soon as the weather clears up, but here are my first impressions.

As Kerry Thalmann wrote in his review for _View Camera_ magazine, the finish is indeed "industrial" and the design simple (frame counting from the paper backing), but it seems like a perfectly functional back. One interesting aspect of the design is that there are two pressure plates side by side, and I'll be interested to see how this works in practice. I don't know how other 6x17 backs/cameras do this.

It does do 6x9 and 6x12, but the masking system is a little fiddly. It would be nice to have one-piece masks that just slip in or even better--adjustable masking blades with controls on the outside, so you could switch formats on the fly. Instead there are two sets of two metal masking blades that screw in on each side of the film gate, one pair for 6x12 and one pair for 6x9, so no format switching mid-roll, and you need to carry a small screwdriver (which I often do anyway) to use that feature.

I'll be using this on my Tech V 4x5", and it looks like I can use it easily with lenses from 90-210mm and maybe as long as 240 or 300mm. With the 360 Tele-Xenar, I got some mechanical vignetting at 6x17, but I could use it with 6x12 or 6x9. I couldn't focus a 65/8 Super-Angulon on the Wideangle Focusing Device with this back. I have a 75/8 Super-Angulon on a recessed board, and I was able to focus it on the inner rails by the awkward method of using the front standard pulls, but maybe I'll remount that lens on a Tech 23 lensboard and see if I can use it with the Wideangle Focusing Device since I don't have a cam for it anyway. [Okay--I tried that and it didn't work, so back to the normal recessed board, and I'll either have to focus the 75mm lens with the front standard pulls or rear movements.]

If it holds the film flat and doesn't leak light, I'd say it will be worth the $548 I paid for it.

Nick Zentena
01-22-2005, 09:11 PM
If you're going to order from China you might want to ask the factory what the price is. I just received a 6x12 back this week. Price was about 60% of the US price. Plus mine came with three masks in addition to 6x12. It's actually fairly well made to my eye. Sure it's got the red window but that'll limit frame spacing issues to operator error. It also allows format changes at will. OTOH you'd need to keep track of which frame number you should be using if you're switching formats. Considering the number of frames you get with 6x12 [and I guess this is even worse with 6x17] it would be nice if it took 220 but obviously that's not possible.

jp80874
01-23-2005, 07:19 AM
Jim,

oneworld3 just had an auction for this finish with a Buy it Now. He has two auctions going right now, one with a Buy it Now of $530 and the other has no reserve.

I am wondering what you would use to enlarge this for silver printing. Can you get a 6x17 negative holder for your 8x10 enlarger? I think it is too wide by 5mm for my 4x5 Saunders.

John Powers

veriwide
01-23-2005, 08:47 AM
I just got one of these 6x17 backs this week, and I too bought it from "oneworld" on ebay. Great service, and it got here in less than a week.

I have posted my first shot in the standard gallery on Friday titled "Good Advice."

It will be used on my Sinar F1. It comes with adapters for 6x9 and 6x12, in addition to the 6x17 format. It is light weight, and straight forward to use. There are two pieces, the film back and the ground glass back. The glass back has abuilt in bellows hood. I still use a dark cloth with it, but it does help.

I was hoping to shoot some today, but it is 5 degrees F with 50-70 mph winds and snow, maybe I'll use the Hassy today.

Patrick

glbeas
01-23-2005, 08:59 AM
Jim,

oneworld3 just had an auction for this finish with a Buy it Now. He has two auctions going right now, one with a Buy it Now of $530 and the other has no reserve.

I am wondering what you would use to enlarge this for silver printing. Can you get a 6x17 negative holder for your 8x10 enlarger? I think it is too wide by 5mm for my 4x5 Saunders.

John Powers
It might work with the proper lens. If you consider the image circle has to include the corners of the 4x5 then 2.5mm extension on either side would still be inside the image circle once centered. You could find a 6x9 holder and have a machine shop cut the ends of the hole to make a 6x17 of it. A little tracing on a sheet of paper will tell the story for you.

jp80874
01-23-2005, 10:05 AM
It might work with the proper lens.

Gary,

Thank you for the response. I donít know how to figure what lens would be required. Here is what I have. Can you tell me if any one of these would fit your suggestion?

I have three lenses for my Saunders LPL 4550 XLG. 150mm, 90mm, and 50mm, all Rodenstock APO Rodagon-N. They are for 4x5Ē, 6x7cm and 35mm negatives. At worst case I found a new 6x9 carrier at about $90.00 retail. I donít see anything on eBay today.

Thank you for your help.

John Powers

glbeas
01-23-2005, 10:20 AM
Best bet the 150mm lens for the 4x5 will be the best. And be patient, you can find a 6x9 holder cheaper than that. If you want to see how the coverage compares draw a 4x5 rectangle on paper, then with a compass draw a circle just clearing the corners. the take a 6x17 sized cutout and place it over the circle. It'll probably fit inside the circle. Most 4x5 enlargers have 6" or larger condensors or diffusion plates so your circle should be no larger than your equipment will cover.
For a quick fix just use a glass plate to hold the neg (if the saunders will accept it) and mask it to fit with black paper. This would be a quick way of checking to see if your system will handle the coverage as well by doing a grey non image print with the masked glass installed. Any falloff will be obvious. You could also try using a multiple image strip of a smaller frame size and see how the densitys look at the corners.

David A. Goldfarb
01-23-2005, 10:24 AM
To make traditional enlargements from 6x17, you need a 5x7" enlarger or bigger (without making something like the equivalent of an extension back for a 4x5" enlarger). A glass neg carrier and a mask would be the easiest way to go about it.

I haven't decided how I'll print yet. I contact print 5x7", so I may contact print these, at least for B&W, but maybe I'll scan color. If I want to enlarge traditionally, I may rent some time on an 8x10" enlarger occasionally.

For those who have these--what's the longest lens you've found that works with this back without vignetting on 6x17, out of curiosity? I'm thinking of trying some Whistler-style full length portraits.
----------------------------------------------------------
PS: Negs are drying. These lenses work--

90/8.0 Super-Angulon
135/5.6 Symmar convertible
150/4.5 Xenar

These lenses don't cover the format at infinity, but might be okay for relatively near subjects--

75/8.0 Super-Angulon (a more modern 75mm lens should cover)
135/3.5 Planar
(I didn't test my 90/6.8 Angulon, but I'm fairly sure image quality will drop off drastically at the edges)

Longer lenses start to show some mechanical vignetting from the camera back irrespective of subject distance--

168mm ser. III Dagor--covers about 6x16.5mm--close enough for me.
210/5.6 Symmar--covers about 6x15 cm
235mm rear cell of the 135/5.6 Symmar--covers about 6x14.5 cm
(anything longer will show more vignetting)

David A. Goldfarb
01-24-2005, 07:13 AM
Okay, this shot is nothing special, but just a quick scan of the negs with the lenses that work for me. From top to bottom those are-

90/8.0 Super-Angulon (a center filter wouldn't hurt)
135/5.6 Symmar convertible
150/4.5 Xenar
168 ser. iii Berlin Dagor

All at about f:22, 1/60 sec, K2 filter, TX at EI 800, Acufine

mark
01-24-2005, 08:25 AM
David,
Are you happy with the back, now that you have used it?

David A. Goldfarb
01-24-2005, 09:05 AM
Yes. It holds the film flat enough for the apertures I'm likely to use with the lenses I have, operates smoothly, is in good registration with the groundglass viewer, and doesn't show any light leaks. It's not a substitute for a 617 back on a 5x7" camera or even the half-darkslide trick that I use on the 8x10" camera, but it extends the range of what I can do with a 4x5" camera (which is what I've been carrying lately for travel), so it looks like something I'll use. I don't own any other 6x9 or 6x12 back for 4x5" (though I do have 6x6 and 6x7), so I might use it occasionally for those formats, say, if I'm shooting mainly 4x5" B&W and want the option to shoot some color rollfilm. For the amount of 6x17 I think I'll be shooting, a simple $500 back is fine for me. If I decide that I REALLY like panoramic formats, I'd look into a 7x17" camera before looking into one of the more costly 617cm options.

I think I'll get a 75mm lens with more coverage than the one I have, so I'll be able to use it with this back, and maybe I'll see if I can find one that can share a center filter, at least for the time being, with the 90/8.0 Super-Angulon.

paul owen
01-27-2005, 05:11 PM
Hi. I've just had the first few rolls of transparencies back from the lab that I've put through my recently acquired Art Panorama 6x17 film back (made by Shen Hao). Results are great!! This back would appear to differ from the DAYI version in that it has a single (one piece) film pressure plate rather than 2 smaller plates. For the outlay I'm VERY pleased!!

David A. Goldfarb
03-09-2005, 07:46 PM
Update--I just got a 75/4.5 Grandagon-N, and it does indeed cover the format, if the groundglass is to be believed. I'll shoot some tests in the next week or two and see how it really looks.

Dave Wooten
08-10-2005, 12:09 PM
This has a thread somewhere but I cant find it....the questions are:

1. Will the Shen H. 6 x 17 roll film back fit right on to my Crown graphic?

2. Any one in Apug land using one of these?

Jeremy
08-10-2005, 04:10 PM
I know David Goldfarb has one. Would love to try one out, but it's too pricey for me right now :( Anybody in the Texas area have one and wouldn't mind letting me run a few rolls through it?

Dave Wooten
08-10-2005, 05:01 PM
thanks Jeremy, it must have one of Dave G"s posts..I'll check

btw is the One O clock Band still in existence at NTSU?