IN my gallery here at apug on page 2 there are 3 photos made with my Eastman Improved #2 711. The problem with trying to adapt a 711 back with an 8X10 camera is the width. That 11" width is only 1/2" smaller than most 8X10 dimensions which are 11 1/2" square. The Deardorff is 12X12 and I did manage to adapt a 7X11 back onto a 'dorff once upon a time. The Eastman camera falls between an 8X10 and 11X14 for size. I have 2 of them, one is like new original and one is really pretty but it's waiting for me to make a new bellows. Both of them have both 711 and 810 backs possible on the same camera, kind of a nice feature. What would REALLY be nice would be to make a 10X12 back for the 711 to take advantage of the extra bulk. I may try that at some point. I do think the 7X11 format is very fetching printed. The big Eastman will accept an 18" Verito with no complaining.
This thread brings back memories of my first "large" large format camera, an Eastman 2D in 7x11. I believe that this camera was really intended for portraits as it had the horizontally sliding lens board that permitted the lens to be centered over either side of the back which also had the capability of a sliding panel for two 5+x7 vertical exposures on each sheet of film. I used 8x10 holders with it by the expedient of inserting a wood block at the far end and slicing 1/4 inch off each side of wooden 8x10 holders. The result was an a 10 by slightly less than 8 image. Wish I had that camera again (and the B&L Triple Protar I used on it!) :-)
You might want to drop Kerry Thallman an Email. If anyone has worked with converting or making an adaptor back from 8x10 to 7x11 it would probably be him.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
At this point, I haven't actually owned a 7x11 camera, or shot any 7x11 film. I have a keen interest in this format and like the slightly panoramic aspect ratio for landscape shooting.
Originally Posted by Jim Chinn
What I do have is a couple 7x11 Eastman holders, with a couple more on the way that I purchased last week on the British eBay. Once they arrive, I'll probably send them all off to Alan Brubaker to get them rebuilt, light tight and ready to use.
When shooting non-standard formats, I have learned from experience to always make sure I have functional, light tight holders before I even start looking for/assembling a camera. Good holders are the key to successful and enjoyable shooting. I learned this many years ago in my first foray into the 4x10 format. At the time, it was impossible to get light tight holders to for my Wisner camera. The second time around in 4x10, I was fortunate to acquire several very nice Lotus 4x10 holders at a very agreeable price. They are light tight, beautifully made and a joy to use. I'm enjoying 4x10 much more this time around.
For a 7x11 camera, I'll probably have Richard Ritter make me a camera back and adapt it to the same chassis I use for my 7x17 Franken-ARCA. Since the 7x17 version is already 2 lbs. lighter than the 7x11 Eastman, a 7x11 version of the Franken-ARCA would probably tip the scales at about 10 - 11 lbs. - assuming the same 28" max extension. Not an ultralight, but for a portable 7x11 monorail with geared front movements, not too bad.
BTW, a 7x11 Eastman, complete with adjustable iris lens mounting flange, went for just over $250 on the British eBay last week. I passed on the camera (at that price, I probably should have bid on it for the back alone), but purchased the holders mentioned above from the same seller.
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts, hope more 7x11 shooters will add more to this thread - it has been most helpfull for me.
Jim, Thanks for the link to the gallery shots..just what I wanted to see (btw - that road grader looks like some kind of mechanical bug, loved it).
Kerry, Thank you for the input about the holders...good advice.
Options seem to be to either see about having an extension back made for the 8x10, finding a 7x11 camera, maybe find a 10x12 camera and have 7x11 and 8x10 backs made for it (nice tirple format). Guess I could always find some holders, and make a pinhole to get a 'feel' for the format.
Thanks everyone...seems like I recall another member, Annie, shooting 7x11 maybe she will drop by and give us her thoughts.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
[QUOTE=photomc;453694]Options seem to be to either see about having an extension back made for the 8x10, finding a 7x11 camera, maybe find a 10x12 camera and have 7x11 and 8x10 backs made for it (nice tirple format)./QUOTE]
Another option is to adapt a modern monorail camera to the format of your desire. As I mentoned, I did this for my 7x17 Franken-ARCA. Prior to that, I adapted a Louts 4x10 back and bellows to my ARCA-SWISS chassis.
I personally like the modular nature of the ARCA-SWISS system for these types of projects. However, other modern monorails can also be adapted - and may be more common/affordable on the used market. About the same time I was assembling my Franken-ARCA, Richard Wasserman was pulling together a 7x17 on a Sinar chassis. If you do a search for 7x17 Sinar you should be able to find photos of the results. I saw Richard's camera in person and it turned out VERY nice. Like my Franken-ARCA, Richard Ritter made the back for Richard's 7x17 Sinar conversion.
Sinar cameras are very plentiful and quite affordable on eBay these days. Likewise for Cambo and Toyo cameras.
The advantages of this approach are many. You get a modern monorail with extensive movements, good rigidity and smooth operation - not some rickety old 80 - 100 year old camera that's seen it's better days. You also get access to a full range of affordable accesories. This include everything from lens boards and extension rails to, in the case of the Sinar, a great behind-the-lens shutter for using barrel lenses.
For anyone whose interested in making a 7x11 (or other non-standard format) camera on a modern monorail chassis, here's some links to the projects I mentioned above:
My 7x17 Franken-ARCA
My 4x10 Swiss Lotus
Richard Wasserman's 7x17 Sinar Conversion
I'm concerned that an extension back would run the risk of being bulky and awkward. Of course, it would depend on how much actual extension is involved and it should be proportionately less than that required for a 5x7 extension on a 4x5. I've just always thought those Tachihara extensions looked clunky.
Originally Posted by photomc
My own solution (which like everything else it seems, is "in the works"...) you touched on. I have a 10x12 English plate camera (Hare) which has been converted to take S&S 10x12 film holders. It's a perfect vehicle for 7x11 and a I'm working on a reducing back. Unlike the Eastman and the Korona, this camera folds into a compact box which isn't much larger than an 8x10 Deardorff. Movements are limited; but then, I don't use a lot of movements typically. And the 10x12 format is nice, too. And quite a contrast shape-wise from 7x11.
Otherwise, I really like the idea of a Canham conversion - 'though not the most economical.
The biggest problem will be finding film holders.
The beauty of a monorail is the backs can be easily removed and swapped with another format. Also you can utilize the front standard from a precision made arca or sinar or whatever. You can find front standards very inexpensive fairly easily. Monorails also remove alot of the weight of the pretty folding field cameras.
I would do as Kerry suggests and find some FH's first becasue these are the most important part of the camera. Making a back is relatively easy for most competant wood workers as long as you have the fh's onhand. I did not say it was easy for the home woodworker you do need precision tools.
There are six 7x11 film holders currently in the classifieds.