PDA

View Full Version : New Lightweight Camera System



jb7
26-Apr-2015, 15:35
http://carboncameras.com/img/carboncamerasC812bwweb.jpg (http://carboncameras.com)


Iíd like to introduce a design for a new lightweight multiple format field camera system; you can find out about it at www.carboncameras.com. Iíve written rather too much about it there, but in short-

The camera is in development, and the tooling for the production prototype is being made. I have no projections for when the prototype might be completed...

The camera uses a new lightweight bag loading film holder, and shoots regular and panoramic formats without any special reducing back. Itís been designed for those who might like to travel more than a few feet from the trunk of the car, carrying more than a few loaded sheets of film. This one doesn't take regular film holders, it doesn't have a traditional back, athough there might be a variant that does, sometime in the future...

The camera has no need for focusing scales, and hence there is no need to emerge from under the cloth to check those scales for depth of field calculations. Focusing is achieved by moving the rear standard, not the front standard, and the camera is quick and intuitive to set up and operate.

There is provision for the control of front tilt and swing from behind the camera back - itís an option, of course, and it may prove useful to those shooting larger formats with longer lenses, although the front movements can still be set in the usual way, by getting out and taking a walk around the camera.

The camera is modular and can be produced in a range of sizes that might sound unusual- 8x12, 11x17, 14x20, among others, but each of these sizes refers to an aggregate size- 11x14 and 7x17 might be more appropriate film sizes to use in the C1117, for example. The first production prototype will be the C812, which will be able to shoot 8x10, 5x12, 6x12, and 8x12.

I would be grateful if any factual inaccuracies on the website could be identified, as I would not like those to persist. Differences of opinion are welcomed too, though respectfully, we may have to continue to differ. This camera is the product of a singular vision, and the committee approach to design may have led to unacceptable compromises.

Any feedback on the design would be appreciated. However, this is a very complex project, if it is to be done well, and although a huge amount of time, money, and energy has been invested into getting it this far, it might simply be a bad idea, and there may come a point where it goes no further. Upwards of 7 billion people already consider this camera to be a bad idea, so if you must post to tell me that, well, thank you in advance.

If a much smaller number of people could see the benefit of a very lightweight field camera system, where a lot of the weight is saved from the film holders and tripod, in addition to the camera, then that information might be more useful. This new camera design is something of a novelty; itís an actual original design, and not just another copy of an American Classic. If there is to be a new generation of large format photographers, perhaps this one could be for them...

It has taken a very long time to get this far, and itís going to take more time to move this project further forward. When I have something more to show, and after I have had time to test, I would like other photographers to get hands on experience of the camera. If youíre not too far from NYC, perhaps it might be possible to arrange this. Please get in touch. If and when I take the camera further afield, Iíll announce it Ö

This is not an offer for sale, it is not a Kickstarter announcement. However, if this project is going to amount to anything other than a footnote in the history of large format film photography, then at some point I may need to broaden the conversation to include those topics. I must admit that I would have no idea of how to make a kickstarter project out of such a potentially high value item as this anyway; the price point is beyond the sweet spot for online crowdfunding. But that conversation is not for now. There are no prices, no offers of availability, and as such, I believe Iím not breaking any site guidelines here. Just to make sure, Iíve contacted the moderators already to run this post by them.

Thank you for reading. I hope some of you might find the camera interesting enough to share around...

Peter De Smidt
26-Apr-2015, 15:54
Looks great! Interesting design. Good luck with the development!

vinny
26-Apr-2015, 16:23
I'd hit that:)
best of luck.

Bill_1856
26-Apr-2015, 17:18
Have you looked at Richard Ritter's camera? Already in production, price is fair.

Randy Moe
26-Apr-2015, 17:32
I really want to see the new 'Bag Mag'. That's really exciting!

Everything looks good from here and on your site.

I don't think anybody here an can honestly complain about anybody that actually improves camera designs and makes it happen.

Keep on keepin on!

richardman
26-Apr-2015, 18:05
Yes, innovative new design is always a good idea. The market is small, but best of luck!

koh303
26-Apr-2015, 18:23
This is a SUPER COOL design with many innovative features.
My 2 cents:
The site has WAY too much text, and in tiny font, many paragraphs and is very hard to impossible to understand whats it all about, the videos are good but do little to help this problem.
The bagmag idea is cool, but seems like:
1. you are forcing the shooter to carry the max size of the camera with him which for someone shooting something smaller then the max would be more then he would have in DDS holders. While these holders are cool looking, they seem to be every bit as expensive as an exotic size holder might be. Combined with the size issue above, i am not sure why this is an advantage for someone schlepping around ULF.
2. Inserting that Bagman seems to need lots of force on the rear standard, and sure to cause some movement (?), or so it seems from the video, though i guess thats something that use and experience might overcome. I guess very large holders have that problem just as much.

How much will this cost? How many will be made, and how long will the wait be? Are lens boards standardized?

If the GG is removable, how accurate is its positioning? I am sure that with CF its easy to make it so it is very accurate, but just asking.

On a side note - the CF looks amazing, and the finish is incredible, well done!

Randy Moe
26-Apr-2015, 18:35
I missed this part the first time at the site.

It truly is a Bag Mag.

http://www.carboncameras.com/Loading_Film.html

Old-N-Feeble
26-Apr-2015, 19:13
That might be precisely what I need so I can carry an 8x10 camera. Alas, I'm sure I can't afford it. It does look like a very fine machine.

StoneNYC
26-Apr-2015, 19:25
Your site is very confusing, WAY to many words, and I tried to read the entire "film holder" section, and I get to the bottom where I think I'll actually get info, and it just trails off to a mystery...

No further info.

Have you solved static issues with a non leather bag mag?

Keep at it, but less words, more show is my advice. More pictures.

Best of luck!

neil poulsen
26-Apr-2015, 19:40
A little over 6 lbs. Pretty decent for an 8x12. I gather that an 8x10 would be a little less.

The spec says 30mm of rise. But from the photo, it seems like it should be able to rise more than that?

Sal Santamaura
26-Apr-2015, 21:34
Looks very interesting. Your film holder system seems something like a large Readyload concept, but reloadable and capable of accepting different sizes. So far so good. However, what is the sleeve made of and how do you keep it from accumulating (as well as depositing on the emulsion) dust? Is the fabric electrically conductive? Do you incorporate a means to dissipate charge, or does the carbon fiber "carrier" serve that function?

Ignore all those complaining about your Web site. Anyone involved in ULF film photography ought to be willing to thoroughly investigate its pages for what's contained in all their nooks and crannies. :)

Personally, I'm not in your current target market, since ULF becomes less attractive as I age, even considering your weight-reducing camera and holder approach. However, assuming all the development bugs get worked out, I'd definitely be interested in a dedicated whole plate version with reversible back. Now that would be attractive!

jb7
27-Apr-2015, 05:55
Thank you to all who commented- I wasn't sure how this was going to be received, since there were quite a few new things all going on in one place here.


... The bagmag idea is cool, but seems like:
1. you are forcing the shooter to carry the max size of the camera with him which for someone shooting something smaller then the max would be more then he would have in DDS holders. While these holders are cool looking, they seem to be every bit as expensive as an exotic size holder might be. Combined with the size issue above, i am not sure why this is an advantage for someone schlepping around ULF.


Thanks for your detailed response- I don't think I indicated a price for anything, other than imagining the holders to be no more expensive than a fairly priced used ULF holder. The obvious advantage, I suppose, would be the ability to maximise the performance of your lens set over a panoramic format and a regular format, without having to carry two different camera and film holder systems. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, this would only make sense to those who would ordinarily be put off using different formats because of the need to carry two different sets of much heavier holders, along with two different cameras. Or, shoot a smaller panoramic format using cut down holders...


2. Inserting that Bagman seems to need lots of force on the rear standard, and sure to cause some movement (?), or so it seems from the video, though i guess thats something that use and experience might overcome. I guess very large holders have that problem just as much.

How much will this cost? How many will be made, and how long will the wait be? Are lens boards standardized?

If the GG is removable, how accurate is its positioning? I am sure that with CF its easy to make it so it is very accurate, but just asking.

On a side note - the CF looks amazing, and the finish is incredible, well done!

I think I might have mentioned that the camera in the videos was the original prototype, built to prove the concept of the film holder system. The new system is based on that, but is completely different in every detail. If I was to make a video of me inserting a standard 8x10 film holder into a standard 8x10 camera, with bail back, on a lightweight tripod system, then I'm sure there would be some movement involved there too. I suppose, in my experience, it's probably more important that the camera remains locked off in relation to itself and to the tripod, than if the tripod were to lift a leg during loading.

Yes, the focusing screen is removable, though there is not much need to do that in normal use. Its positioning is accurate enough, it's accuracy is a function of the flatness of the screen, since the holders and screen share the same bearing surfaces. Although as I've already mentioned, the new system is the same design, but will be detailed differently to improve accuracy, and I can't answer that question properly until the camera is built.

I don't know how many will be made, I suppose the number is directly proportional to the amount of people who think the camera is a good idea, and are willing to accept the price point as being justified. I don't know how much it will cost, until I get an idea of how repeatable it is in production. I can't imagine the numbers will be anything more than very small cottage industry sized, or maybe none at all.

Lens boards will be proportional to the camera size, and I plan to use Sinar, Arca 171, Century 9", and maybe even a Technika board, if there is a demand for a really light weight camera. There should be a certain amount of mixing and matching possible.



A little over 6 lbs. Pretty decent for an 8x12. I gather that an 8x10 would be a little less.

The spec says 30mm of rise. But from the photo, it seems like it should be able to rise more than that?

That 30mm rise is with the back in the vertical position- the rendering shows the lens centered on a landscape format, where more rise would be available. I think 80mm. Please bear in mind that these numbers are estimated, until I have something I can actually measure...


Looks very interesting. Your film holder system seems something like a large Readyload concept, but reloadable and capable of accepting different sizes. So far so good. However, what is the sleeve made of and how do you keep it from accumulating (as well as depositing on the emulsion) dust? Is the fabric electrically conductive? Do you incorporate a means to dissipate charge, or does the carbon fiber "carrier" serve that function?

Ignore all those complaining about your Web site. Anyone involved in ULF film photography ought to be willing to thoroughly investigate its pages for what's contained in all their nooks and crannies. :)

Personally, I'm not in your current target market, since ULF becomes less attractive as I age, even considering your weight-reducing camera and holder approach. However, assuming all the development bugs get worked out, I'd definitely be interested in a dedicated whole plate version with reversible back. Now that would be attractive!


The fabrics used on the original prototype were nylon, and along with the grounding properties of the holder in the camera, in use, static charge was not a problem. The bag design is perhaps less susceptible to trapping dust than a holder which can be completely opened, since the bag always encloses its space. I really haven't had much of a problem with dust, perhaps less of a problem than I had with a standard holder.

A smaller camera might be possible, though I haven't thought much about going as small as 4x5. A whole plate could be used on the 8x12, as well as 8x10, which would sit on the same platform. I have also considered a dedicated 7x17, and that could easily be made work for whole plate size too. the camera does shoot vertically, however, the back and bellows are removed as a unit, rotated, then re-attached. This is one way in which the overall size of the back can be minimised compared to a square reversible back.

A couple of you have mentioned age, and none of us are getting younger. The camera has been designed to be easy to use, not only in its dramatic weight reduction, but also in the rather generously sized controls, which allow the camera to be locked off even by those with reduced grip.

Although this has been posted in the new ULF section, one of the main formats this camera has been designed for, 8x10, is not ULF at a all...

Thanks again for taking the time to comment-

fishbulb
27-Apr-2015, 07:47
Nice design; it will be interesting to watch this develop.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the text on the website. But I am younger and keep my glasses prescription up-to-date.

Considering the average age of the large format demographic... each page has four font sizes, maybe bump up the smallest size to the same as the second-smallest size?

Kirk Gittings
27-Apr-2015, 07:57
Looks great! Interesting design. Good luck with the development!

jb7
27-Apr-2015, 08:52
Thank you-

Yes, I should follow stricter rules with the typography. I'm not a website designer, it's just an additional trade to add to the 11 trades necessary to be a camera maker, that Gandolfi the younger mentioned in film which was linked to on these pages recently.

In fact, given the use of composites and new materials in this camera, you could probably add an additional 4 or 5 trades...

My eyesight is good too; the text I'm typing now is the same size as the paragraph text on the website.

However, I use safari and Chrome, and it's possible for me to increase the size of the text from a button on the toolbar. So I'm not quite sure what the problem is, apart from a general untidiness which must be addressed on some pages. I've run the site through the google mobile site checker, and it passed everywhere too.

Colin Graham
27-Apr-2015, 09:17
Great stuff Joseph- what a innovative approach, and beautifully realized as well. The website is really good too, I think the text and attention to detail is quite appropriate to the venture.

One suggestion- replace the CAD rendering on the home page with the photo of the actual prototype- it looks really good.

jb7
27-Apr-2015, 09:21
Thank you Colin, that means a lot to me-

The rendering is of the next prototype, the C812, hopefully there will be some progress, and I'll have something to photograph shortly.

It does look like a scale model of the C1117 though...

Drew Wiley
27-Apr-2015, 09:44
I admire anyone willing to stick their neck out with an innovative new design. But as others have already noted, the introductory website is so convoluted it's difficult to follow and needs some serious editing. Anyone into routine field use doesn't need preaching as to the benefits of light weight. But you have to convince them of rigidity and overall functionality. You make a big deal out of a hypothetically superior filmholder, but don't even illustrate it, or describe how it might be easier to use, hold film truly flat (if it does at all), or loads. Then that front standard - how heavy are the lenses it will realistically hold (since ULF users sometimes have some heavy ones). The lack of front swing would be a non-starter for me. You've got the things propped up on a tinker-toy spindly tripod and a ball head. That makes me question your understanding of keeping a big camera stable in real-world conditions. There's a limited market out there, so you need to find the right mix of features and hopefully find a realistic price niche too. Just some things to think about as you prototype. Good luck!

vinny
27-Apr-2015, 09:57
I admire anyone willing to stick their neck out with an innovative new design. But as others have already noted, the introductory website is so convoluted it's difficult to follow and needs some serious editing. Anyone into routine field use doesn't need preaching as to the benefits of light weight. But you have to convince them of rigidity and overall functionality. You make a big deal out of a hypothetically superior filmholder, but don't even illustrate it, or describe how it might be easier to use, hold film truly flat (if it does at all), or loads. Then that front standard - how heavy are the lenses it will realistically hold (since ULF users sometimes have some heavy ones). The lack of front swing would be a non-starter for me. You've got the things propped up on a tinker-toy spindly tripod and a ball head. That makes me question your understanding of keeping a big camera stable in real-world conditions. There's a limited market out there, so you need to find the right mix of features and hopefully find a realistic price niche too. Just some things to think about as you prototype. Good luck!
Drew, there's a video showing how the holder loads and functions. I found it just as I was about to give up.

jb7
27-Apr-2015, 10:14
Thanks Drew. Sorry if you haven't found everything, but the only movement the camera is missing is rear rise and fall. I can't comment on your other claims.

matthew blais
27-Apr-2015, 10:56
It sure is pretty..not sure how it collapses for transport though..and didn't see a link to that on the site.

jb7
27-Apr-2015, 11:08
It will fold up like the original prototype- this picture is on the Design Goals (http://carboncameras.com/Design_Goals.html) page, there are more pictures there too-

http://carboncameras.com/img/Design_2.jpg (http://carboncameras.com/Design_Goals.html)

Peter De Smidt
27-Apr-2015, 11:15
The camera is beautiful and looks very well built. Whether or not you ever go commercial with this, it is an amazing achievement!

vinny
27-Apr-2015, 11:26
I like the box joints, they look nice and are much stronger than miters which I've seen on some new camera designs lately.
Hey guys, I don't know of too many talented woodworkers/metalworkers/carbon fiber workers who are also website savvy. Give him a break.

Bob Mann
27-Apr-2015, 11:58
All I can say is "WOW" - there is a lot of creative work here - hope you find the time and resources to bring this to market.

Drew Wiley
27-Apr-2015, 12:04
OK. I watched the video with the bag concept. Clever. But I guess the devil will be in the details in terms of preventing the fabric from scuffing the film or having
light leak risk over time. Vinny - I am giving him a break, but also know that once he pins down the prototype he'll need something more marketing friendly. I deal with incredible wood and carbon-fiber workers (and all kinds of specialty materials) every day. Some are extremely web savvy. Some aren't. It's easy enough to get help with those kinds of things. These are the kinds of tips he needs. Some of us are aware of a number of near-misses in terms of film handling alternatives, like the Mido system. Everyone would like some kind of option. But prototypes need to be made, and frankly tortured under real-world conditions for awhile, to discover where the weak links are. The question I posed about film flatness is an important one. Not everyone shooting big cameras does so to attain an old fashioned look. Film is held by the perimeter but not kept tight in the middle. The biggest risk would be if the bag material caused enough static
to tug that big piece of film especially out from the plane of focus in the center. I routinely use staticides on darkslides, but don't know the risk of these to film
if they somehow got in direct contact with the emulsion. Any kind of waterproof, lightproof fabric material is going to have to address this issue. One more link
in the chain.

Old-N-Feeble
27-Apr-2015, 13:52
Use very minimal clearly-written textual content combined with very pretty imagery that supports the text and shows important details. Simple is better. Pretty is better. Easy logical clear navigation is a must.

This isn't a criticism at all. I'm in awe of that camera and am a bit sad that I know I could never afford such a beautiful work of industrial art and craftsmanship.

John Layton
27-Apr-2015, 14:07
Wow! Light weight, gorgeous looks, high functionality (and relatively weather proof?) and sturdiness in a form that presents something new and unique! I would love to see this in person! I'll PM you very soon to share some of my own successes and trials of attempting to bring something "outside the box" to market. In the meantime, you can grab my website from my profile and get a look at my design. Good luck, and I'll be in touch!

jb7
27-Apr-2015, 17:48
Thank you all so much for the encouragement. It really helps, makes it seem as if it's in some way worthwhile.

Old-N-Feeble
27-Apr-2015, 19:26
Thank you all so much for the encouragement. It really helps, makes it seem as if it's in some way worthwhile.

Worthwhile? Hell yes it's worthwhile!! :)

Drew Wiley
28-Apr-2015, 12:23
No matter what eventually transpires with marketing, it is always rewarding to make something both beautiful and functional like this. It also makes the act of photography feel very special. I'm getting a bit past the age of realistic ULF work myself, and have deliberately limited myself to 8x10 or smaller; but I do hope
a few people will nibble at this project. I was one of Dick Phillips' first customers way back when he innovated a whole new trend in field cameras. But tweaks came over time in his design, which is something inevitable as the learning curve progresses. Any such project is commendable.

Kirk Gittings
28-Apr-2015, 12:37
No matter what eventually transpires with marketing, it is always rewarding to make something both beautiful and functional like this. It also makes the act of photography feel very special. I'm getting a bit past the age of realistic ULF work myself, and have deliberately limited myself to 8x10 or smaller; but I do hope
a few people will nibble at this project. I was one of Dick Phillips' first customers way back when he innovated a whole new trend in field cameras. But tweaks came over time in his design, which is something inevitable as the learning curve progresses. Any such project is commendable.

ditto

jb7
30-Apr-2015, 06:12
Thanks again, Drew and Kirk, and OnF, of course--

Just a few points-

I'm a little surprised that I haven't been challenged on any 'factual' representations on the website. I was sure there would have been something contentious there, though perhaps I have been over cautious...

Secondly, although the big thing about this camera is the lightness of the system, and the new film holders that it's based on, and the ability of the camera to shoot multiple formats without a reducing back- there is another simpler feature which is really remarkable- the focusing system which allows you to dispense with scales on the camera to determine the optimum aperture.

Focusing using an indexed wheel may not be new in itself, but I've never seen the system implemented in this way before, and certainly not on a field camera. Having used it, it is so much more convenient to know your focus spread while focusing, rather than having to emerge from the darkcloth to note positions on scales, focus once for near, once for far, subtract... and so on.

Just in case this has been missed, you can read about it here- (http://carboncameras.com/Focus_and_Focus_Spread.html)

And thanks to QT for the page linked to there, which provides the software for my hardware...

Drew Wiley
30-Apr-2015, 10:42
Without trying to be my usual smart-alec self, What are scales? Yeah, I do know what you mean. But I don't think anyone uses that kind of feature in the field.
Rarely even in the studio. It the kind of redundant bells n' whistles things that just gets ignored in the real world. I'd imagine that most people comfortable with
any big format compose depth of field issues based on the look they're trying to achieve. I can't imagine anyone fooling around with hyperfocal theory to determine some hypothetical "ideal" f-stop. There might be an exception or two to that statement out there. There are just certain things way easier to do intuitively. And if starting positions for bellows extension using common lenses is involved, well, there are so damn many potential lenses, that everyone is likely to make their own little customized tape mark, or carry their own little tape rule or whatever. A lot of fuss over nothing, really. No need to over-feature a field camera, or to try to create a ULF equivalent to a Sinar P. And frankly, it's a bit difficult to even want to challenge your "factual" side of this when it's
pretty damn obvious you've gone to a lot of effort already to beautifully machine the prototype; so this apparently a labor of love. Since I'm highly involved in equipment distribution myself, and get routinely shown all kinds of clever prototypes from everyone from backyard craftsmen to major international manufacturers, I just know from experience that's it's extremely rare for anyone to get a hole-in-one. It takes time to find the weak links in any invention and
iron them out. My main concern, since it is the most innovative aspect of your new camera, would be how well the film bag concept works in the long haul.
If you do go to market, you might want to have an optional Plan B camera for those who would prefer using it with traditional sheet film holders. It is inevitable
that anyone dropping serious money is going to ponder the availability of replacement film bags etc if you're no longer in business (and that is a common scenario in a niche market like this). Or they might already own big holders, an expensive investment to begin with. Just an idea, while your project progresses.

Jim Becia
30-Apr-2015, 11:07
"Without trying to be my usual smart-alec self, What are scales? Yeah, I do know what you mean. But I don't think anyone uses that kind of feature in the field."

Drew,

Not only do I use it, I have scales on both my cameras just for this purpose. When I stop down to f45 or f64 with my 8x10, trying to gauge what is in sharp is virtually impossible for me. The scales make it simple and work well for me, and the scales work with all focal lengths. I am not sure you fathom how simple this process really is. One scale on my camera works perfectly with all my lenses. It beats stopping down and "guessing" an appropriate f stop.

Drew Wiley
30-Apr-2015, 11:46
Yeah, I learned that whole Sinar depth thing with both P and F systems, yaw-free, whole nine yards. Never used it since. For me, depth of field is an integral aspect of composition itself. With large format, esp once you get into 8x10 or especially ULF, not much of the image can ever be in precise focus. I ignore all that "circle of confusion" nonsense too. I decide what I want critically in focus relatively to my intended print size (which can sometimes be pretty big), and what needs to work a tad softer, even if one has to have their nose to the print to see the difference. That's for enlargement, with my decision being made with a loupe. Since most ULF film is contact-printed, I'll bet most people stop down to where it looks good on the groundglass and only inspect a few spots with a magnifier, if at all.
There is no guessing. What you're trying to do is impose an artificial one-shoe-fits-every-foot-size template on pictures. How can "best" ever equate to that kind
of mechanical imposition, where you surrender that aspect of the aesthetic element?

John Layton
30-Apr-2015, 11:58
Everyone doing LF employs a ritual which is most meaningful/workable for them. So as they say..."different strokes for different folks" - OK?

Drew Wiley
30-Apr-2015, 12:04
(Interrupted). I probably work faster than scales. I compose, do my tilts, swings whatever, determine what I want in critical focus and stop halfway down to fine
tune that or those areas using the loupe, then set my final working aperture. I know from sheer experience what to expect at f/32 vs f/45 vs f/64. Most people don't even own filmholders sufficient to guage the true effect - their film sags! So if it's an 8x10 shot, for example, that I plan to turn into a very crisp high-gloss
30x40 print, I know to use a precision adhesive filmholder and not stop down below f/45 unless I absolutely have to. But a lot of ULF usage is just the opposite -
rather direct portraiture. And the very last thing Mrs Frumpingham wants after recovering from her facelift is an immaculately detailed shot showing every bit of
cellulite, wrinkles, and age spots in her tortoise neck. More likely someone is going to use a tessar the size of a golf cart on the front of that big camera set at
f/4.5, not f/45! Selective focus becomes the name of the game. Leave a bit of sparkle in her eyes... otherwise ...

Drew Wiley
30-Apr-2015, 12:12
No ritual, John... just intelligent decisions applied as needed. Tabletop studio photography is one thing, traditional portraiture another, immaculately detailed landscapes another. I employed hyperfocal theory just once last year - a near-darkness MF road shot. I know how to do it. But no, I'm not trying to make converts
to my methodology at all, but am simply pointing that going to all the trouble of scales on a really big format film might only have very limited market appeal.
Even in the studio Sinar realized that not everyone needed that kind of thing, so came out with the X camera as an alternative to the P, having the same precision gearing but without all the engraving. Why do I mention this in this context. Same reason as P versus X: the selling price of the final object.

John Layton
30-Apr-2015, 12:54
Point taken Drew...and I should amend by adding that the "ritual" is that which best helps the photographer to best connect with the subject/conditions at hand. So no, this is not fixed - aside from the technical necessities which need to be learned well so that they, along with the physical aspect of the camera, can virtually "disappear." Nor do I use scales. In fact, once I'm under the dark cloth, I don't even want to look at the camera. I want it to go away. But I do tend to chat with myself, either aloud or silently, during my "ritual," and I can see how counting turns on a wheel, while my gaze might remain affixed to the ground glass, might be useful - and in a way that would not necessarily interfere with what has, by then, hopefully become a connection significant enough to allow me to then see completely in both directions - from that which exists beyond the lens through to the final print. Then again, turning a wheel, I just might lose count!

jb7
30-Apr-2015, 13:02
There are no scales on the camera, there is no need to read off a scale to determine the spread between near and far focus.

You are free to ignore the distance between near and far, if wide open is the style you practice, or you can count the revolutions of the handle on the hand wheel, without having to look at it, if that information is important to you. Since one revolution of the hand wheel will adjust focus by 2mm, it's quite easy to use the focus spread between near and far points to inform your choice of aperture, as indicated by QT's article from this site, and linked to on the page I mentioned.

I never mentioned the hyperfocal anywhere, though the same system could be used to calculate that too-

However, for the reasons indicated by Jim Becia- if sufficient depth of field is important to the picture, this camera allows that calculation to be made while checking focus on the screen, without the need to consult scales on the camera bed.

Jim Fitzgerald
30-Apr-2015, 13:26
Jb keep it up. The design idea and what I've seen so far are great. Wish I had the same skill.

Drew Wiley
30-Apr-2015, 13:43
It would be no big deal to me either way. I'm the type of guy who would home in on the relation between weight-portability and rigidity. After that, the special
features. What is so nice these days are the options in special materials like carbon fiber, which allow new ways of addressing these problems. Just about any
modern ULF camera is going to be expensive, so the detailing is another thing I'd look at as an indicator of overall quality. The people who want to tape a piece
of film to the back of a paint can and punch a pin hole in the lid are a different crowd entirely. I admire good machining, good fit and finish.

jb7
30-Apr-2015, 17:38
Thank you Jim, appreciate the words of a master maker-
got to aim towards your bigger size cameras soon-

chad23
10-May-2015, 13:10
Looks intriguing!
Waiting forward to try it.
And when is it planned to launch?

jb7
11-May-2015, 13:13
Looks intriguing!
Waiting forward to try it.
And when is it planned to launch?

'Launch' might be too strong a word...

I'm working on making the prototype, then it will have to be tested. As soon as it looks like it works reliably, then I'll be inviting others to test it, and provide feedback. Only then, and only if it still seems like a good idea, will a launch be considered...

I'm making progress on it, but it will be slow...