PDA

View Full Version : The best 11X14 field camera...



Pages : 1 [2]

TheFlyingCamera
11-01-2007, 07:23 PM
If you're DESPERATE for mounting a packard shutter on a big lens, you can always do what I did... I made a "universal" front-mount system. That camera is a Gundlach Wizard 11x14, with a Bausch & Lomb 1C 16" f4.5 Tessar. AKA big-ass lens. I just have to make a new face-plate for another lens and I can transfer the packard to it. The Gundlach takes an almost 7" lensboard, which is what I'd consider to be the minimum size for a field camera. Nice would be a 9", but that's getting too big for a field camera.

Curt
11-01-2007, 07:55 PM
That's what I call ingenuity Scott, what a great solution.

Curt

Harrigan
11-01-2007, 09:00 PM
I made my ULF to accept 7" lens boards and I do need them that size for a few lenses. I also front mount a packard shutter to a 300mm metrogon.

As far as taping film goes I think its sad that on expensive new film holders there is no provision for properly holding the film down, other than using tape in the center. I can not use tape on the film I use for 30x40cm as its quite thin and easily kinks. Also I don't like having tape goop on the septum of an otherwise nice film holder. I just think tape is a bad cheap solution to the problem. What we need is a better design not the same old thing. I have worked up several designs for a better film holder but I don't see them really going anywhere at the moment but maybe one day.

Curt
11-01-2007, 09:33 PM
I agree, a good many years ago Beseler came up with the Negatrans 4x5 negative holder so glass wasn't necessary, I have one and every time I use it I am thankful that someone designed it. I am thinking hard about a film holder that keeps the film flat. Like Dr. Seuss said; "We can do better than this".

Jim Fitzgerald
11-01-2007, 09:45 PM
Scott, I like your idea for the Packard. I nixed the box design I had and have gone with yours. Thanks for posting it. The parts are drying as we speak.

Jim

ReallyBigCameras
11-01-2007, 11:13 PM
One aspect of modern ULF field cameras I don't like is the smallish lens boards. For some of us, the field camera does double-duty as a portrait/studio camera, and it's quite necessary that it take some rather large old lenses (and the large Packard Shutter that goes along with them).

That's one reason I went with the 171mm front standard on my Franken-ARCA. The newer 141mm front format frame would have been a little smaller and lighter, but I already had the 171mm format frame, as well as 171mm/Sinar, 171mm/110mm, 171mm/Technika lens board adapters. Plus, as mentioned above, the 171mm size allows me to use my exiting 171mm 38cm bellows with an intermediate standard to get another 15" of extension when needed.

I use the smaller 110mm ARCA-SWISS lens boards on my 4x5/4x10 cameras. The 171mm/110mm adapter lets me share these lenses with the Franken-ARCA. I can also barrel mount lenses on Sinar boards to use with, or without, my Sinar shutter. My main set of 7x17 lenses (240mm Computar, 305mm G Claron, 450mm Fujinon C and 600mm Fujinon C) are all small enough to mount on 110mm ARCA boards (or even Linhof Technika size boards) I just normally leave the 171mm/110mm adapter mounted on the camera and carry the lenses on the smaller 110mm boards. This keeps the weight and bulk down.

However, I have visions of super sizing my Franken-ARCA to 14x17 and plan to use my 42" Red Dot Artar on it. That lens is too big for the 110mm boards. It will barely fit on a Sinar board, but requires modifying the flange to fit on the board. The 171mm ARCA-SWISS board handles it with ease.

So, I have the best of both worlds - small, compact boards for my small, compact lenses, but also the option to use huge lenses as I move up in format.

For ULF use, I recommend, at a minimum Sinar size boards. Even if you use smaller lenses, the ability to accept Sinar boards allows the use of the Sinar shutter - which is a great solution for using a whole slew of affordable barrel mount lenses capable of covering ULF sizes - without going to the expense of getting them mounted in individual shutters.

Kerry

Curt
11-02-2007, 12:44 AM
What would be the maximum bellows extension for an 11x14, 40",48", other?

ReallyBigCameras
11-02-2007, 01:10 AM
What would be the maximum bellows extension for an 11x14, 40",48", other?

Depends on your intended use. For landscapes, you might be able to get away with as little as 26 - 27" (I think the 11x14 Phillips Explorer has a max. extension of about 27"). This will let you use a 24"/600mm lens for distant subjects. 32-34" of extension will let you use a 30"/760mm lens for general landscape use.

For portraits or still life shots, you'll want something longer. It depends on how long a lens you want to use and how close you want to focus.

For my 14x17, I'm contemplating limiting the bellows to about 32 - 34" to allow the use of my 760mm APO Ronar, but keep the weight and bulk down to be able to carry it in the field. When I'm shooting close to my truck, I could still use the 42" Red Dot Artar (which is too heavy to carry around on my back with a 14x17 camera, film holders, other lenses, suitable tripod, etc.) with an intermediate standard and the 38cm ARCA 171mm bellows. Of course, the only real weight savings would be in the bellows, as I can custom tailor the rail lengths to match the application and lens choice.

Kerry

TheFlyingCamera
11-02-2007, 05:27 AM
My Gundlach Wizard has about 40" of bellows. It came with an 18"/29"/39" triple convertible lens, and so I'd just barely be able to use the 39" element at infinity with it.

sanking
11-02-2007, 10:52 AM
My Gundlach Wizard has about 40" of bellows. It came with an 18"/29"/39" triple convertible lens, and so I'd just barely be able to use the 39" element at infinity with it.

What convertible lens is that? Sounds like it would be a real user for ULF.

As to how much bellows you might need, what Kerry said is right on. You need a lot more for portrait work than for landscapes.

Another consideration is DOF. If you want wall to wall sharpness on your prints, which is one of the reasons some of us like ULF, you will need to use relatively wide angle lenses to get as much DOP as possible. For that reason alone many ULF users tend to favor wide angle lenses with landscapes.

Course, it depends a lot of where you photograph and your objectives. Out west with big scenes where you put your camera on a hill and the nearest object in the scnes is 200-300' away long focal length lenses are very useful.

Sandy King

TheFlyingCamera
11-02-2007, 12:11 PM
Sandy- it's a Manhattan Optical rapid rectilinear, an f7. It's in a dial-set pneumatic shutter, all the speeds of which work, and while some are not accurate, they're pretty consistent up and down. I haven't made an image with it yet, but at least in the unconverted length, it looks to be a real keeper. Beautiful transitions from sharp to soft.

Jim Chinn
11-02-2007, 01:15 PM
As far as using tape, the key is to reduce the "stickyness" slighty. I use a double sided tape from 3M that has moderate tack on one side and less tack on the other. The less tacky side is still a little to sticky for a thin film like Efke. After putting the tape down I take a clean cotton cloth and genty rub the tape with alcohol. A few swipes reduces the tackiness enough to hold the film securely but allow for easy removal.

I put down several one inch peices of tape down all four sides and a make a small square of tape closer to the center. I lay the film down and gently tap on it (using clean cotton glove) to get it to set. I have a couple of half circle indents on the inside of the frame that allows me to get my finger under the film. Tape on that side is a couple inches away from the edge so I can get a smooth lift. I shoot 6 sheets and then replace tape.

Some folks will think the tape is to big of a hassle, but when I can build several of mine for the cost of a new standard holder, the extra work is more than an adequate trade off.

Some folks will think

Curt
11-04-2007, 07:51 PM
Some folks will think the tape is to big of a hassle, but when I can build several of mine for the cost of a new standard holder, the extra work is more than an adequate trade off.

Jim, what size holders have you made and what have you found better for the slide, aluminum or acetal?

Curt

Jim Chinn
11-05-2007, 06:52 AM
I've made 11x14 and 7x17 holders for cameras I made and also a 12x20 but don't have a camera for that one.
For darkslides I use a material called Garolite. I use .060. It is a composite that I can get locally, but you can get it mail order from McMaster Carr. I like it better than aluminum because it's easier to work with and does not kink or bend if you drop it.

Curt
11-05-2007, 08:15 AM
I went to my bookmarks on McC and found I bookmarked XXGarolite, Delrin and Acetal Copolymer. The problem with aluminum is it needs to be coated or painted. I have two older 11x14 wood holders and the only thing they have in common is the slides, they both have the same dimensions.

Jim Chinn
11-05-2007, 10:26 AM
Garolite XX is what I usefor the darkslides. I do use aluminum for the septum. I have had them powder coated and also painted them myself. If you paint aluminum, you have to dull it with very fine wet/dry sand paper, prep it with a dillute muratic acid, rinse and paint immeadiately. If you wait even a few minutes the aluminum will oxidize and the paint will later flake off.

Curt
11-05-2007, 09:25 PM
I have a rough layout for the camera base of 18" square with 40" to 44" of total extension front and rear as in a field camera. The wood choice is still up in the air, cherry, mahogany, maple, a lighter wood or what ever I find interesting or lighter in weight. The hardware, brass, stainless steel, plastic composite, lots of choices here too. It could just be wood and brass with a powder coating.

Jim Fitzgerald
11-05-2007, 11:38 PM
Curt, my layout is very similar. about 17 1/2" square with a guesstimate on the bellows of about 40". I have some of the Walnut cut and finished. I'm using the same design idea from my 8x20 by laminating thinner pieces together to make the rails and joining pieces. In the very early stages right now. I'm intending on using as little brass as possible. Racks, rods will be brass and the rest I'll make up as I go. My 8x20 is 14lbs. and I hope to keep this one light as well.

Jim

Curt
11-06-2007, 01:29 AM
Curt, my layout is very similar. about 17 1/2" square with a guesstimate on the bellows of about 40". I have some of the Walnut cut and finished. I'm using the same design idea from my 8x20 by laminating thinner pieces together to make the rails and joining pieces. In the very early stages right now. I'm intending on using as little brass as possible. Racks, rods will be brass and the rest I'll make up as I go. My 8x20 is 14lbs. and I hope to keep this one light as well.


Interesting enough I was thinking that the size is too large and was going to look at reducing it some. I was figuring the rails would have an extension of 11 inches with a 7 inch over lap which would make it very stable. I would need four 12 inch racks or 48 inches and four pinons which is right around a hundred dollars. If I reduce the base size then little changes in the design. With some thought about what I have, a Kodak 2D in 5x and 8x, a Seneca in 5x and 8x, a Shen, a Calumet 4x and 8x, the maximum bellows is 32 inches. Since I intend to use the camera as a land/seascape and nature etc. I can't see needing more than 40 inches. I am giving some thought to a revolving back. Wouldn't that be keen? I might make a mockup and see how it functions. This is where a little drafting or CAD might be helpful.