PDA

View Full Version : If you were designing a camera



Pages : 1 [2] 3

barryjyoung
03-09-2007, 02:27 PM
I have read with great interst everything that has been written in this thread and thank all of the contributors for their time, their insight and their experience.

I see two things that I need to modify in my original design. The large cameras I will be making will have a large and robust front standard made for large and heavy lenses. I need to come up with a way to move the back forward for wide lenses. These are two shortcomings that have been avoided due to your input on this thread.

I also see that a cameras beauty is second to its functionality in ULF. That gives me the freedom to design with materials other than brass and wood.

Thanks to all of you.

George Losse
03-09-2007, 03:20 PM
1. Would you buy a camera made from aluminum or would you only buy a wooden camera?

Doesn't matter to me.

2. What is more important rigidity or light weight?

rigidity - I don't back pack, I use the Jeep to get closer to my subject.

3. How important is it to you that the camera is beautiful? Is it a tool, or a showpiece or both?

Beauty helps it hang and the house, but means nothing to the photography.

4. What features can you live without? What features can you not live without?

Live without- Rear Rise, Geared rails on every extension.
Not live without - Tripple extension,give me as much bellows as possible, more then one tripod mounting hole

5. Would you pay twice as much for a camera that had graduated movements and detent stops?

?

6. Do you use triple extension bellows often enough to add 50% to the price?

If I had to pay 50% more for tripple extension I wouldn't, I'd buy another camera that had it at no extra costs.

7. Synthetic bellows are less expensive and more weather resistant than leather. Would bellows material be a deciding factor in your purchase and do you think there should be a choice?

Just as long as there is enough bellows, doesn't matter what its made of.

8. Do you REALLY need rise and fall on the back? $$$$$$

I have it on my current cameras and have used it inlandscape work maybe once in the last ten years. And that was to try it. For a studio monrail type of camera, I wouldn't live without it. When I was doing that type of work I used it all the time.

Dave Wooten
03-11-2007, 09:56 AM
Enough extension to use 600 mm.

The Ability to focus from the back.

Lots of front rise.

A "standard" lensboard large enough to hold the heavier lenses....i.e. The large toyo boards, they also have the step down adapter board using the smaller Toyo field camera boards....Toyo also has an adaptor board that fits the graflex boards. I like the little Toyo field camera boards better then the linhof as they are a bit beefier in the width, gives me a scotch more room on the 600 fugi etc...

Richard Ritter is constructing an adaptor board for my Wisner cameras that will accept the small toyo boards...The omega boards are the same and quite inexpensive....

As to rigidity and light weight...look at the Wisner 7 x 17 Tech....mine is about 12.5 lbs and meets all the above requirements...has many wonderful movements....you might find you use them in the "studio" as you get older and more feeble and begin to shoot still lifes etc..

Also for 7 x 17....a 5 x 7 back is nice....you can also shoot 7 x 11, no problem and use your existing film holders.

As George mentioned always include 2 mounting screw inserts....this is where a new idea would be nice....a better mounting system so the camera would nt turn....I put a second bolt in the place provided to stop this....the majestic head is slotted and allows the use of 2 mounting screws...If you can build a "Better Wisner or Phillips" at a better price, I think you d be in the ball park...used Wisner s are out there at @ 2500 and in pristine condition.

I do like a beautiful camera.

Here in the desert the heat is a factor on metal....I have insulating pads on my Majestic tripod legs....metal is hot and cold to the touch, also metal explansion can be a problem. Although I like the large metal toyo boards, I had a small problem getting the lensboard out of a Canham 11 x 14 camera here in the desert...(wonderful camera) ... the metal expanded enough that we had to remove the back and push the lens board out from the rear....metal to wood...I have both leather and synthetic bellows, I like the synthetic....bellows weight and sag have to be dealt with and the lighter the bellows the better...

I would base the 7 x 17 on a good 5 x 7 design.

Good luck Barry and keep up the good work!

A tripod head would be nice....one designed for the camera...

spongeboy
03-11-2007, 11:43 PM
I really like Kerry Thalmann's "Franken"-Arca 7x17 conversion and I (personally) might one day start there if I decide to go anywhere near that format....(having accumulated a variety of spare older Arca bits (form 4x5s and 5x7s...) that could be modified like Kerry's. I like the lightweight but solid engineering elegance of the Arca type design. It really works well for me.

A bit off topic: If anyone were to machine nice 4x5 standard frames from aluminium to replace the old plastic ones I'd be interested....

robsoe
03-13-2007, 11:25 AM
A 7x17 camera which one can change the orientation of the back from horizontal to vertical and vice versa easily would be nice. I think it would need a back that can be attached to the focusing base on either the long or short side (field changeable) and a higher front standard to accommodate the vertical orientation.

Dave Wooten
03-13-2007, 11:48 AM
A 7x17 camera which one can change the orientation of the back from horizontal to vertical and vice versa easily would be nice. I think it would need a back that can be attached to the focusing base on either the long or short side (field changeable) and a higher front standard to accommodate the vertical orientation.


Or a 7 x 17 back for a 14 x 17 camera...:)

jgjbowen
03-13-2007, 05:31 PM
A 7x17 camera which one can change the orientation of the back from horizontal to vertical and vice versa easily would be nice. I think it would need a back that can be attached to the focusing base on either the long or short side (field changeable) and a higher front standard to accommodate the vertical orientation.

robsoe,

check out Richard Ritter's ULF cameras @
http://www.lg4mat.net/ulfcamera.html

Barry,

I know Richard's original camera used aluminum for his rail system, but he abandoned it due to all of the problems associated with aluminum tripod legs, ie the don't get along too well with dirt!. So it depends on how you want to use aluminum in your camera.

Jeremy
03-13-2007, 07:34 PM
Didn't Richard switch to carbon fiber?

sanking
03-13-2007, 08:18 PM
A major plus for me would be the ability to place the back in either horizontal or vertical orientatioin with the banquet and panorma cameras like 7X17 and 12X20.

Also, you should definitely consider the advantage of composites like carbon fiber. They beat aluminium in terms of rigidity at a given weight.

Sandy

jgjbowen
03-13-2007, 08:23 PM
Didn't Richard switch to carbon fiber?

Yes, he did

barryjyoung
03-14-2007, 02:54 AM
robsoe,

check out Richard Ritter's ULF cameras @
http://www.lg4mat.net/ulfcamera.html

Barry,

I know Richard's original camera used aluminum for his rail system, but he abandoned it due to all of the problems associated with aluminum tripod legs, ie the don't get along too well with dirt!. So it depends on how you want to use aluminum in your camera.


Wow, quite an interesting design Mr. Ritter has there. It seems to answer most of the requests fielded here. So has anybody bought one? I would say that is an incredible design effort.

barryjyoung
03-14-2007, 02:56 AM
A major plus for me would be the ability to place the back in either horizontal or vertical orientatioin with the banquet and panorma cameras like 7X17 and 12X20.

Also, you should definitely consider the advantage of composites like carbon fiber. They beat aluminium in terms of rigidity at a given weight.

Sandy


Hi Sandy:

The Ritter camera is convertible, carbon fiber and looks to be very lightweight. I am very impressed. Is there anything you do not like about it?

Thank you

jgjbowen
03-14-2007, 10:51 AM
Wow, quite an interesting design Mr. Ritter has there. It seems to answer most of the requests fielded here. So has anybody bought one? I would say that is an incredible design effort.

Barry,

Yes, I own one. Richard just started delivering cameras less than 6 months ago, so there aren't a lot of them out there. I believe it will be reviewed in either the March or May issue of View Camera.

I really like the light weight and versatility of the camera, but then again, I've never used any other ULF camera. The ability to change from horizontal to vertical, back swing and tilt, front rise, swing, tilt and shift along with 34" of bellows and the bail back are all very nice features I was able to take Richard's prototype out for a test drive at a Fine Focus Workshop. Based on that experience I had Richard make a few modifications to better fit my oversized hands (I'm 6'6" and a former basketball player, so my hands are larger than the average bears).

sanking
03-14-2007, 12:48 PM
Hi Sandy:

The Ritter camera is convertible, carbon fiber and looks to be very lightweight. I am very impressed. Is there anything you do not like about it?

Thank you

No, I like it a lot. In fact I have considering having him build me a 20X24" camera based on the design. The convertible feature should be a big selling point. It sure will be IMHO for most persons with previous experience trying to use non-convertible 7X17 and 12X20 cameras in vertical orientation.

Sandy

barryjyoung
03-16-2007, 03:45 AM
Barry,

Yes, I own one. Richard just started delivering cameras less than 6 months ago, so there aren't a lot of them out there. I believe it will be reviewed in either the March or May issue of View Camera.

I really like the light weight and versatility of the camera, but then again, I've never used any other ULF camera. The ability to change from horizontal to vertical, back swing and tilt, front rise, swing, tilt and shift along with 34" of bellows and the bail back are all very nice features I was able to take Richard's prototype out for a test drive at a Fine Focus Workshop. Based on that experience I had Richard make a few modifications to better fit my oversized hands (I'm 6'6" and a former basketball player, so my hands are larger than the average bears).

Well, it looks like a very well thought out design. I am sure you will get many years of happy use from it. Thanks for the reply.

vet173
03-18-2007, 03:51 PM
Hi Barry, How have you been doing? I've been meaning to get up and say hi. My preference would be for wood. Metal is REAL cold in the winter. I had a problem with grit that got into the focus track of my 2x3 graphic. galled and never was right after that. Balance, rigidity over weight. With 7x17 I don't think you are going to be using a lot of front movement. Most shots will be considered wide for the most part. Lenses used will be at the coverage limits. I would not consider any other camera without triple extension but for this one I would go for the double. I want a front standard that will let me use heavy glass. Think of my 420 5.5 berlin dagor we were looking thru. With the packard shutter and the lens in front of that. Weight is considerably out from tilt pivot point.

barryjyoung
03-18-2007, 06:46 PM
Hi Barry, How have you been doing? I've been meaning to get up and say hi. My preference would be for wood. Metal is REAL cold in the winter. I had a problem with grit that got into the focus track of my 2x3 graphic. galled and never was right after that. Balance, rigidity over weight. With 7x17 I don't think you are going to be using a lot of front movement. Most shots will be considered wide for the most part. Lenses used will be at the coverage limits. I would not consider any other camera without triple extension but for this one I would go for the double. I want a front standard that will let me use heavy glass. Think of my 420 5.5 berlin dagor we were looking thru. With the packard shutter and the lens in front of that. Weight is considerably out from tilt pivot point.


Hmmm, no name I recognize, but I calculate a 90% probability that you have an APUG tee shirt, a Starbucks Extreme Polar coffee mug in red and that you crew chief a funny car.

vet173
03-18-2007, 06:54 PM
Hmmm, no name I recognize, but I calculate a 90% probability that you have an APUG tee shirt, a Starbucks Extreme Polar coffee mug in red and that you crew chief a funny car.Dat be da one.
John Berry

barryjyoung
03-18-2007, 08:26 PM
Dat be da one.
John Berry


Hey John:

Great news. between the time I sent the last message and now, I finally got the manual pulse generator to work on the CNC mill. Wooo Hooo! I worked on that modification for more than a week. Now I am building a new bench to hold the very much larger milling table which will show up soon. Once that is done and the new table is mounted and the machine is permanently wired, we will be making film holders fast as pancakes.

Nice to hear from you again, how is the Saltzman enlarger working for you?

vet173
03-18-2007, 08:46 PM
Barry,
Glad to hear you got the mill up and going. Where is it, in the dining room? I didn't think you had room for more in the garage. The Salsman is doing great, when you get some 8x10 negs come on down. I'll give you a call or email an set up a get together. Would like to see that 7x17