View Full Version : DIY Open Source Field Camera Design
Tim Meisburger
2-Jul-2015, 18:18
I am in the (slow) process of building an 8x10 field camera modeled on my 4x5 Ikeda Anba. I've built the back and the frame, and there is still some woodworking, but at this point I'm thinking about sourcing metal parts. I'm using the 4x5 model because there are actually no good plans on the web for field cameras. There is also no good source for parts. I got to thinking that it might be possible for the many people on LFPF interested in camera building to pool their resources and design one (or several) generic cameras using standard parts, and then collectively source those parts.
For example, gear racks are available from China relatively cheaply compared to sourcing such stuff from a specialty suppliers, but might have a minimum order of ten meters. That is a big buy for one person, but ten meters of rack will build less than 10 8x10 cameras, so if we all agreed on a standard rack size and design, bulk purchase would be feasible and keep costs down. The same could be done for knurled knobs and other metal parts. Using this approach we might be able to get entire parts kits for 30 or 40 dollars. If we had a standard design we could also get mass produced bellows, or at least find a common source for bellows materiel. Although everyone has wood available, a standard cutting list would make the use of a variety of different woods possible (for example, I could have mahogany blanks sufficient for an 8x10 cut and shipped from Thailand for probably $20 plus shipping).
I think a lot more people would build cameras if they had a good design and could source materials relatively easily, but what do you think? Is this something anyone else would be interested in getting involved in?
Michael Roberts
2-Jul-2015, 18:35
Tim,
I have an IA 4x5 and think it would be a great design for 8x10. I would certainly be interested in buying the necessary metal parts in kit form.
Michael
jbenedict
2-Jul-2015, 18:50
Here is a website with many resources for building various types of large format cameras:
http://home.online.no/~gjon/camerabuilders.htm
Some of this is not in English and, like lots of pages which have been up for a few years, there are a few dead links. However, if you read the listings on 8x10 flatbed cameras, you will get a lot of ideas on how to do this without resorting to a lot of factory manufacture red parts. There are a few sets of plans with drawings and stuff. One of them has a cut list for the wood used. Designing a camera around commonly available bellows rather than having custom bellows made might be easier. There is a guy on eBay who is a pretty reliable source of a wide variety of bellows for factory built cameras.
Tim Meisburger
2-Jul-2015, 19:04
Here is a website with many resources for building various types of large format cameras:
http://home.online.no/~gjon/camerabuilders.htm
Some of this is not in English and, like lots of pages which have been up for a few years, there are a few dead links. However, if you read the listings on 8x10 flatbed cameras, you will get a lot of ideas on how to do this without resorting to a lot of factory manufacture red parts. There are a few sets of plans with drawings and stuff. One of them has a cut list for the wood used. Designing a camera around commonly available bellows rather than having custom bellows made might be easier. There is a guy on eBay who is a pretty reliable source of a wide variety of bellows for factory built cameras.
Thank you, but I am well aware of that website, and have searched it several times for good plans without finding any. What I'm most interested in is a professional quality design. The Raymond Kirby link, now dead, showed the quality of camera I'm interested in building, but he never included any detailed plans or sources for parts.
Tim Meisburger
2-Jul-2015, 19:06
Michael, an 8x10 based on IA would be one of the lightest available. Although extension would only be about 600mm, I think that would be fine for backpacking and landscape photography.
Tim, I'd be interested in being part of a bulk order...
brandon allen
2-Jul-2015, 20:43
Tim,
Thanks for your post. I have had the same thought about coming up with a "standard" design for DIY LF camera/s. I'd be glad to participate! I love the idea of coming up with a parts kit that could save potential builders significant cost. I would suggest starting with a standard design for a spring back - which could be included in a camera build that uses any design the builder wishes - folder, monorail, lots of movements, few movements etc. After that, the focusing mechanism - meaning the rack and pinion parts which are indeed VERY expensive when sourced individually.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I think that a useful goal would be to "standardize" the tricky parts of a camera build project and leave the simpler bits to the builder's ingenuity. And perhaps several designs could be developed using the standardized sub-assemblies.
Tim Meisburger
2-Jul-2015, 20:57
Tim,
Thanks for your post. I have had the same thought about coming up with a "standard" design for DIY LF camera/s. I'd be glad to participate! I love the idea of coming up with a parts kit that could save potential builders significant cost. I would suggest starting with a standard design for a spring back - which could be included in a camera build that uses any design the builder wishes - folder, monorail, lots of movements, few movements etc. After that, the focusing mechanism - meaning the rack and pinion parts which are indeed VERY expensive when sourced individually.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I think that a useful goal would be to "standardize" the tricky parts of a camera build project and leave the simpler bits to the builder's ingenuity. And perhaps several designs could be developed using the standardized sub-assemblies.
Yes, I think that makes sense. If you have a standard design some can make that, while others will use the parts and hack their own design.
brandon allen
2-Jul-2015, 20:58
Exactly
brandon allen
2-Jul-2015, 22:28
As I said in my earlier post, I think that the spring back is the place to start with an overall camera design, but maybe making rack and pinion components available at a reasonable cost would attract more people initially. Any guesstimate of cost for the components, minimum order, etc? I would be interested in a group-buy for this stuff right now!
jbenedict
3-Jul-2015, 06:36
Thank you, but I am well aware of that website, and have searched it several times for good plans without finding any. What I'm most interested in is a professional quality design. The Raymond Kirby link, now dead, showed the quality of camera I'm interested in building, but he never included any detailed plans or sources for parts.
This one looks a lot like a Deardorrf-derived design and has detailed diagrams and instructions.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040914084523/www.srv.net/~vail/camera.htm
Oren Grad
3-Jul-2015, 07:33
Asking as someone who is all thumbs, and was a total klutz in machine shop as an undergraduate many moons ago: is there a systematic difference in likely ease of construction between, say, a classic flip-down focusing rail design like an Eastman No. 2, a design with collapsing front standard like the Ikeda or Nagaoka, or a Phillips-style design with detachable front standard? Which parts might be useful across different design types?
Tim Meisburger
3-Jul-2015, 08:02
This one looks a lot like a Deardorrf-derived design and has detailed diagrams and instructions.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040914084523/www.srv.net/~vail/camera.htm
Yes, that one looks better.
Tim Meisburger
3-Jul-2015, 08:04
Asking as someone who is all thumbs, and was a total klutz in machine shop as an undergraduate many moons ago: is there a systematic difference in likely ease of construction between, say, a classic flip-down focusing rail design like an Eastman No. 2, a design with collapsing front standard like the Ikeda or Nagaoka, or a Phillips-style design with detachable front standard? Which parts might be useful across different design types?
Simplest, I think, would be a flip down like the Eastman, or maybe a straight copy of the Burke and James (which is a remarkably capable design, and relatively light). I am most interested in a lightweight design like the Nagaoka, but either style could probably be built with the same racks and gears.
brandon allen
3-Jul-2015, 08:11
FWIW, I have been making tentative plans to start an 8x10 folder and was going to more or less copy the rear focus B&J design - for lightness, simplicity, and ability to focus short lenses without having to tilt the bed down and angle the front standard struts backward or some other silliness.
Tim Meisburger
3-Jul-2015, 08:19
FWIW, I have been making tentative plans to start an 8x10 folder and was going to more or less copy the rear focus B&J design - for lightness, simplicity, and ability to focus short lenses without having to tilt the bed down and angle the front standard struts backward or some other silliness.
Its a good design, and it might make sense to start off with a model that more people could reasonably expect to be able to make with the tools they have available. If we get enough people interested we can do a poll and see what style most prefer and start with that. Once that is done, there is no reason we cannot add additional styles.
brandon allen
3-Jul-2015, 08:41
Its a good design, and it might make sense to start off with a model that more people could reasonably expect to be able to make with the tools they have available. If we get enough people interested we can do a poll and see what style most prefer and start with that. Once that is done, there is no reason we cannot add additional styles.
I agree.
The B&J is not the "prettiest" of LF camera designs, but it seems that if you are looking at "bang for your buck" it is pretty hard to beat.
I envision something along the lines of this design, maybe slimmed down a bit here and there: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?56948-Restoration-of-a-Burke-and-James-5x7-Field-Camera
For ultimate simplicity, could even be done with friction-focusing of the rear standard. I've never tried it but I'm told that it actually works quite well.
brandon allen
3-Jul-2015, 08:52
A poll to see what others actually want to build is an excellent idea btw
Jim Jones
3-Jul-2015, 10:38
The rack and pinion are perhaps the most difficult items to improvise in a DIY camera. However, there are alternates for fine focusing. Lead screw focusing is used on well-regarded new and less regarded older cameras. The Noba camera used a V-belt, although fine braided wire under tension might be more practical. Some early Polaroids used a lever to provide precision focusing over a small range.
jbenedict
4-Jul-2015, 19:44
Yes, that one looks better.
That design was listed on the Norwegian LF Builder's site.
Tim Meisburger
4-Jul-2015, 23:31
So if we had a poll for the first design, what should we include?
Deardorff style
Phillips style
Nagaoka/Ikeda style
Tailboard style
Anything else?
We should also find a volunteer who knows CAD to do drawings. I can draw with a pencil and t-square, but that is it.
Also, someone who can help specify rack and gear sizes. I can order from china, but do not know the teeth per inch I should be looking for.
Can anyone measure the B&J rack and tell me what that measurement is in the european system?
Leszek Vogt
5-Jul-2015, 01:10
Tim, I would love to do it (and am capable), but there is no real way to get my 2004 CAD to work....it requires XP OS. Last time I tried to activate it, I got no cooperation from Autocad people.
It appears that if you are not purchasing something...they don't really wish to be bothered.
Les
Paul Hasluck's book Photographic Cameras and Accessories is a good reference book, it's available online as a PDF and also a Reprint from the same PDF. It give details for making various types of camera as well as other items and provides a useful starting point despite being written more than 110 years ago.
Ian
Tim Meisburger
6-Jul-2015, 01:06
Thanks Ian. That is a great book, and should be very helpful.
Congratulations on defeating Germany! England had a good cup and did much better than expected.
For anyone interested in the book, here is the link: https://archive.org/details/photographiccame00hasluoft
Tim, I do quite a bit of restoration work on early field, tailboard ad SLR cameras. One thing you notice is how much sturdier some cameras are compared to others and also how most US designs moved away from the more traditional British designs, Deardorff being one exception. Japanese and other Indian field cameras were largely derived/copied from the cameras made by Houghton's in their Indian factory.
What I'm saying is sometimes it's better to look back before going foeward.
Ian
Tim Meisburger
6-Jul-2015, 03:53
I think the Nagaoka/Ikeda design is based on the British field camera model, and to me that seems most attractive. A single extension 8x10 made like the Ikeda would have two feet of bellows, and would make a lightweight field camera. I think a double extension would be like the Deardorff, but I've never seen one in person. I'll read the chapters on cameras this evening.
I think the Nagaoka/Ikeda design is based on the British field camera model, and to me that seems most attractive. A single extension 8x10 made like the Ikeda would have two feet of bellows, and would make a lightweight field camera. I think a double extension would be like the Deardorff, but I've never seen one in person. I'll read the chapters on cameras this evening.
Yes that's right and you can see it more clearly with the Japanese field cameras made in the 1930's before WWII, they look almost identical to Indian made cameras. Actually almost all my early British field cameras are triple extension and quite light but the largest is Whole plate. A major difference is up until the end of WWII British cameras still used book-form plate holders something dropped in the US by around 1900.
Of course we also expect more movements these days so the Wista and similar cameras largely sharing the same parts like the Nagoka and Ikeda is a good starting point.
Ian
seabee1999
6-Jul-2015, 15:28
Just wanted the group to know that I have access to CAD. My job in the Navy is as a draftsman and I even have CAD at home. If I can help I will.
R/
Dave
monchee10
6-Jul-2015, 16:13
I'm in... Yet I have no idea if I have the skills to build a camera. I do have the desire though.
Michael Roberts
6-Jul-2015, 17:07
Tim, I have another camera to nominate as a prototype, in addition to the Anba: the Rochester King 8x10. Mine has become my primary 8x10 camera b/c of its light weight and features. 5lbs, front rise/fall, forward & backward tilt; rear tilt & swing. 24in. extension. The back slides forward to accomodate short, wide lenses. They are pretty rare, so a template for DIY and a source for hardware would be great resources.
I'm in the process of fabricating an accessory so it can handle 24" and longer lenses.
I'll post pics of both models later tonight or tomorrow.
Tim Meisburger
6-Jul-2015, 18:43
Michael, that looks like a great option as well, and is very similar to the Ikeda design. Can you post a picture of the camera? Particularly the from assembly. If we we used that as a model we would at least have an 8x10 we could measure directly (I'm scaling my design from an Ikeda 4x5, and pictures of a Nagaoka 8x10).
Ian can weigh in, but I do think this is also the English field camera design he is advocating. Would look sweet in mahogany and brass!
Here are a few links for the King:
http://www.historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=kingroc
http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/roc/king.htm
The King is one of the small number of British style field cameras made in the US, another was I think the Albion. It has the advantage of a spring back.
I posted either here or on APUG a small catalogue by I think Vevers a British company who sold camera kits and parts, from memory they were based in Leeds, they also supplied finished cameras for small retailers to re-badge and sell as their own.
Here's the link (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum147/82155-1898-camera-parts.html) actually it was Lonsdale Bros in London who made the kits, Vevers sold brass parts and were in Leeds.
Ian
Barry Kirsten
7-Jul-2015, 14:41
If I may raise another matter... bellows material. I'm about to start a light-weight 4x5 and am realising that diy bellows is going to be a problem. I have not been able to find a source of the right material at all. There is also a comprehensive thread here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?67879-What-s-the-best-available-bellows-fabric which has not resolved the issue satisfactorily, to my mind. Rudy from ecbuyonline makes excellent bellows (which I have previously bought) and he states his material is sourced in the US, but I can't find it. I agree that metal hardware is very important, but if we want a truly diy camera, attention to bellows making is also important.
Michael Roberts
7-Jul-2015, 18:19
The Ikeda Anba 4x5:
Michael Roberts
7-Jul-2015, 18:21
And...
Quite a lot of brass. Sliding locks on the back. Front swing as well as back swing.
Michael Roberts
7-Jul-2015, 18:23
The Rochester Optical King 8x10:
Michael Roberts
7-Jul-2015, 18:24
a few more of the King...
Michael Roberts
7-Jul-2015, 18:26
and, finally...
Tim Meisburger
7-Jul-2015, 19:53
Thank you all for this information. Ian, that is exactly what we need today, a source of generic parts for a generic camera. Probably we will never get them all from one source, but if we can develop a standard parts list that would make it possible, and perhaps more feasible, for small suppliers or manufacturers to source or produce parts. It might not be worthwhile to make one set of springs or front hardware, but if you could be relatively confident of selling 100 sets, it would make more economic sense to tool up.
Ian, the wood parts are interesting, as I'm relatively sure here in Bangkok I could identify a supplier for kits like that, and I'm sure that could also be done in many other places. You mention and link a 7 page PDF in the APUG post, but the link is dead. Can you post the PDF here?
Barry - Yes, bellows. I also have noticed we do not have a good source for this material, and it is certainly something we would include in the generic parts list. My understanding is that different materials are needed for different size cameras, but the beauty of this is that people could try a variety of materials in a standard design and then post their experiences and sources. Eventually we would find usable materials. Personally, I'm thinking leather, but that doesn't seem too common on cameras larger than 4x5.
Michael, thanks for these pictures. I have an Ikeda 4x5 (mine is the chrome-plated version) and it does have a lot of parts. Might be better to go with the simpler King, if you think it has the required functionality.
Michael Roberts
7-Jul-2015, 21:12
It would be nice to add front swing, but not absolutely necessary IMO.
Ian, the wood parts are interesting, as I'm relatively sure here in Bangkok I could identify a supplier for kits like that, and I'm sure that could also be done in many other places. You mention and link a 7 page PDF in the APUG post, but the link is dead. Can you post the PDF here?
Not sure what happened the file had disappeared on the server. I've uploaded it again it's here (http://lostlabours.co.uk/photography/cameras/images/lonsdales.pdf), the quality isn't high but you get the idea.
I've a friend who has a wood yard, he supplies my wood and also a friend who makes banjo's, he's got computerised machinery that could make camera kits quite efficiently and his father is an engineer and was a keen photographer, it's something we've talked about.
I think the Lonsdale catalogue is interesting as it shows what could be possible.
Ian
Tim Meisburger
8-Jul-2015, 01:48
Thanks Ian. I'll have a look.
Can your friend's machine do metal as well? I really know nothing about these modern computerised milling machines, but with my limited understanding it seems like to me that they would be perfect for cutting out some of these flat parts, but I'm not sure how economical that would be.
You should ask your friend about milling film holder mouldings. If those were available by the foot, all those people looking for odd-size or ultra large holders could make their own.
Tim Meisburger
8-Jul-2015, 01:56
Wow! It makes a man want to go back in time. The Paget looks exactly like an Ikeda Anba.
Thanks Ian. I'll have a look.
Can your friend's machine do metal as well? I really know nothing about these modern computerised milling machines, but with my limited understanding it seems like to me that they would be perfect for cutting out some of these flat parts, but I'm not sure how economical that would be.
You should ask your friend about milling film holder mouldings. If those were available by the foot, all those people looking for odd-size or ultra large holders could make their own.
My friend only works with wood, he mainly works with architects and interior designers but sources his own wood. His father works with metal though, however I don't think he has the time or inclination. Two of my neighbours make scale working locomotives and both are engineers by trade, one works on prototype rocket engines. Next time I see them I'll ask about making brass parts.
A couple of years ago I asked a local engineering shop about making brass thumb nuts and they charge by the hour plus material costs, expensive for a few but economic for quantities.
McMaster Carr in the US are a potential source of parts but they don't ship abroad, there's a demand for brass fittings and no supplier outside the US. It's something that needs some thought.
Ian
Mick Fagan
8-Jul-2015, 03:25
This might sound a bit silly, but what about utilising 3D printing for some of the componentry?
I have a friend who has had some extraordinary pieces of equipment manufactured to repair machinery, very impressive.
If this mob in Melbourne can manufacture a working jet engine, admittedly using something a bit bigger than what I'm envisaging, then maybe some of the requirements could be obtained via this route?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/3d-printing-melbourne-engineers-print-jet-engine-in-world-first-20150226-13pfv1.html
Mick.
Michael Roberts
8-Jul-2015, 10:30
Tim,
A couple of other thoughts about design:
First, I could even get by just fine w/o a rack and pinion. The front rise/fall on the King is friction-focusing. I could easily use friction-focusing for focal length/hyperfocal length-focusing as well. The key is smooth focusing and the ability to lock down tightly and accurately. Eliminating rack and pinion could significantly simplify design and tooling requirements. Note even some higher-end cameras like Arca-Swiss use friction-focusing.
Second, I often use 5x8 and 4x10 splitters with my 8x10 King. Centering the lens is not a problem with normal and long lenses, but with short lenses, my bellows is not flexible enough to allow centering. What would really help would be having a bellows like the Ebony universal bellows (http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html) that combines elements of a standard bellows with a more flexible, bag-like bellows near the front.
Third, I've thought about building a variation of the King with a rear, U-shaped, extension (like the Deardorff: http://deardorffcameras.com/deardorffcameras/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/07a.pdf) to increase the maximum bellows extension from 24 to 30". The current rear brackets on the King allow for an extra 1-2" of extension, but a U-frame would allow much more. Of course, that means redesigning how to slide the back of the camera to the front for wide-angle lenses. Could be done similar to the Deardorff, I suppose, as long as doing so does not add too much weight for additional hardware.
Michael
Michael Roberts
8-Jul-2015, 10:34
This might sound a bit silly, but what about utilising 3D printing for some of the componentry?
I have a friend who has had some extraordinary pieces of equipment manufactured to repair machinery, very impressive.
If this mob in Melbourne can manufacture a working jet engine, admittedly using something a bit bigger than what I'm envisaging, then maybe some of the requirements could be obtained via this route?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/3d-printing-melbourne-engineers-print-jet-engine-in-world-first-20150226-13pfv1.html
Mick.
Mick, this looks great! A few camera brackets would seem to be easy compared to an entire engine of parts. I just wonder how long it will take for this tech to spread and prices to come down?
Jac@stafford.net
8-Jul-2015, 11:43
This might sound a bit silly, but what about utilising 3D printing for some of the componentry?[/url]
Indeed, why not? Another possibility is to use Emachineshop's (http://www.emachineshop.com/) free CAD and make dozens of copies at once. Most of our parts are very easy to make. I have use Emachineshop and found it excellent.
brandon allen
11-Jul-2015, 08:49
Indeed, why not? Another possibility is to use Emachineshop's (http://www.emachineshop.com/) free CAD and make dozens of copies at once. Most of our parts are very easy to make. I have use Emachineshop and found it excellent.
I looked at emachineshop's website and it does seem very attractive! What sort of parts have they made for you and how was the pricing?
Jac@stafford.net
11-Jul-2015, 09:09
I looked at emachineshop's website and it does seem very attractive! What sort of parts have they made for you and how was the pricing?
I used emachineshop (http://www.emachineshop.com/) when it was just starting-up, and even then it was outstanding. All I made were flat parts - custom louvers for a sports car. The price for one was something like $50, but I had two dozen made for $110, total. With machining, set-up is usually the most expensive part. When making a drawing it will sometimes pop up with recommendations to make the job easier. It is great at materials, optimization, and expense suggestions, too. You can download the software and use it at no expense. It only costs when you finalize an order.
The concept of the business was to have parts made whenever a strictly qualified shop has idle time.
EDIT: Well, I just saw this in their gallery (http://www.emachineshop.com/machine-shop/plugins/phpthumb/phpThumb.showpic.php?src=../../../machine-shop/assets/images/examples/171801.jpg). It reminds me of the lead screw some of us need for our Century studio stands - the part made by Peter J. De Smidt!
Link here. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?123068-New-Lead-Screw-for-Kodak-Century-Bi-post-Stand&p=1251787&viewfull=1#post1251787)
Tim Meisburger
11-Jul-2015, 17:18
Jac, so essentially what you are saying is that its the design and tooling up that is expensive, and after that cranking out additional copies is relatedly cheap. This is, in essence, what I keep thinking. Having a shop make the front assembly for an Ikeda Anba would be very expensive, but having them make 100 might be relatedly cheap. That's why I think if we can settle on a standard design economies of scale could make a parts kit affordable. Then, with a standard set of parts available it would be possible to make any number of modifications to the original design, and if an alternative design became popular then the small number of additional parts required could be made in the same way. Eventually we would have a small catalog of camera parts, and demand sufficient to make it economical for suppliers to provide them.
Jac@stafford.net
11-Jul-2015, 18:39
Jac, so essentially what you are saying is that its the design and tooling up that is expensive, The design is only as expensive as the drafter/designer would charge. It could even be free. A fair compensation would be to gift some of the parts to the designer. Set-up is usually the most expensive part. Cranking out more copies is pretty reasonable.
Having a shop make the front assembly for an Ikeda Anba would be very expensive, but having them make 100 might be relatedly cheap.
Yes. In fact, an ambitious person could copy an entire Deardorff, for example.
That's why I think if we can settle on a standard design economies of scale could make a parts kit affordable. Then, with a standard set of parts available it would be possible to make any number of modifications to the original design, and if an alternative design became popular then the small number of additional parts required could be made in the same way. Eventually we would have a small catalog of camera parts, and demand sufficient to make it economical for suppliers to provide them. If the modified parts are enough in demand, then yes, otherwise it is likely they might not be cost-effective to make.
brandon allen
11-Jul-2015, 19:51
I can't imagine it would be cost-effective for a machine shop/supplier to make parts available on an ongoing basis, but a group-buy would be plausible. Perhaps somebody would consider stockpiling a number of parts or complete kits that could be sold to builders down the road. Obviously that would require an investment.
Joe Smigiel
11-Jul-2015, 20:30
Having made a few bellows, I would suggest that a bellows is a part that could also be sourced if the camera design was standardized. I ordered a synthetic bellows from Custom Bellows for an 11x14 build and I was very impressed with the quality and turnaround time. The cost was reasonable and if we would be using a standard, quantity discounts should be available to bring the costs down further.
Frankly, making bellows can be a PITA. Ok if you want to be able to say you've made the entire camera, but otherwise it is a tedious labor. There are some savings involved if you buy the material and construct it yourself, but what is your time worth (assuming you can find the correct materials)? For a compact folding field camera, the materials need to be very thin, opaque and durable. Not many things fit that bill. Thin leather of sufficient size is very expensive and many opaque fabrics are too thick or not durable enough. The closest thing I've seen available recently is Thor Labs BK-5 rubberized fabric. I'm building a replacement bellows for a Rittreck 5x7 Field camera with it right now but have taken the precaution of spray painting the inside layer flat black as the original surface seems very reflective and much lighter in tone than the Porter's fabric that was previously available.
I'm also working on a replacement for a Toyo Metal Field Camera right now and will be attempting to get a bit more extension out of the bellows than the original had. That means I'm cutting stiffeners out of thin, dense paper at 45 folds per panel. Times 4 panels. That's nearly 200 precise cuts for the stiffeners. Mindless...
I wonder if it can be done on one of those Cricut or similar machines used for scrapbooking? Has anyone tried that approach?
Tim Meisburger
11-Jul-2015, 22:13
Brandon and Joe,
Bellows should of course be part of a standard design. Then they can be sourced from Rudy or Custom Bellows. Speaking of Rudy, it might be interesting to raise the parts issue with him, as I assume he might have connections with suppliers in China.
I'm back working on my 8x10 again. I made the back last September (I have fitted it to my studio camera so I can use in in the meantime), and am now working not he box. I am dovetailing the corners, but if I had to do over again I would probably finger joint, as dovetails so small are fiddly, and I find my eyes not really up to the task anymore. Still two corners to go, and for those I might borrow my wife's reading glasses. After I finish the box I can build the front, but after that I am stuck till I get (or make) some hardware.
brandon allen
11-Jul-2015, 23:10
Joe,
It would have to a cutting machine other than the cricut brand, as you may already know. My wife has a cricut and I was all excited to use it to cut bellows ribs, until I learned about the lawsuit and the cricut machine's unique inability to cut user-made designs. Useless.
brandon allen
11-Jul-2015, 23:21
Back on topic...
Personally I would be perfectly happy to use a standardized ready-made bellows. In fact I ordered mine from Rudy, with fine results.
I tried to get info from Custom Bellows and they never responded to my emails. Can anybody give specifics - what do they charge for an 8x10 bellows? Mine (4x5) from Rudy cost $140. On eBay right now 8x10's seem to be going for $175-185. I expect a bulk discount would apply if we made a big order.
Tim, while dovetails are very cool, finger joints are definitely the easier way to go - as far as the standard design is concerned. My hat is off to you, however, I'd love to see photos!
I wondeer if it can be done on one of those Cricut or similar machines used for scrapbooking? Has anyone tried that approach?
Steve Smith who has posted here but mainly posts on APUG has used a laser cutter to make bellows stiffeners he posted about it in a thread.
I've not tried using the Thorlabs blackout material for bellow, I just tried to place an order but their site gave an error report so I'll order by phone tomorrow. I've at least 8 or 9 sets of bellows to make.
At the moment I have a large roll of shutter cloth (for 35mm & 120 shutters) but am reluctant to use this for bellows as it's expensive. However I make my own shutter cloth for Thornton Pickard roller blind shutters and larger SLR/Graflex type shutters and have used this in the past for bellows. I'm experimenting with making dark blue cloth for someone else at the moment.
Recently I bought some blackout material for my new darkroom only to find it's not light tight, I'm assuming (hoping) it's not the Thorlabs material as it's quite thick and doubled would be impractical for small bellows.
Ian
Joe Smigiel
12-Jul-2015, 06:30
Brandon,
I was not aware of either issue with the Cricut machines. I thought it had a scanning trace function that would allow user designs.
I thought the drawbacks might be the maximum dimensions it was able to cut and perhaps the stickiness of the substrate sheets would be too much to release thin papers without damage.
Joe,
It would have to a cutting machine other than the cricut brand, as you may already know. My wife has a cricut and I was all excited to use it to cut bellows ribs, until I learned about the lawsuit and the cricut machine's unique inability to cut user-made designs. Useless.
brandon allen
12-Jul-2015, 08:26
I shot an email off to Rudy making a general enquiry about him making bellows for this project. I also asked if he had contacts for other parts suppliers.
Tim Meisburger
12-Jul-2015, 08:30
Dovetails are a pain. Poorly exposed 4x5 Shanghai in D-23:
136726
Tim Meisburger
12-Jul-2015, 08:33
136727
brandon allen
15-Jul-2015, 20:01
Cool stuff Tim!
Rudy replied saying that he could supply a large order of standardized bellows at a discounted price. He also said that he could find manufacturers for other (machined) parts as well.
I don't think we can read too much into this as we don't have an actual design or any idea of what sort of quantity we need, but as plans shape up more it seems as though it may be worthwhile to run it past Rudy to see what he has to offer.
Michael Roberts
15-Jul-2015, 20:26
That's really great Brandon. Good work.
Tim Meisburger
15-Jul-2015, 20:42
Yes. Thank you.
I have been looking at Ali Baba, and gear racks are available in one meter lengths relatively cheaply, but I don't understand the descriptive nomenclature. We need help from a machinist to develop a parts list that actually defines parts in a way that would make ordering possible. For example, I could measure in teeth per inch the rack on my 4x5, but when ordering you need information on the modulus and slope, etc. that I do not really understand how to measure.
andreios
16-Jul-2015, 01:25
I've just now stumbled on this thread - and I've subscribed to it already - I'd be interested in purchasing just the "difficult-to-machine-on-your-knee" parts and building my own.
Just my 2cents to the camera designs - I have been eyeing the cameras made by argentumcameras in Hungary - very simple and yet rugged design..
Nodda Duma
16-Jul-2015, 03:23
Yes. Thank you.
I have been looking at Ali Baba, and gear racks are available in one meter lengths relatively cheaply, but I don't understand the descriptive nomenclature. We need help from a machinist to develop a parts list that actually defines parts in a way that would make ordering possible. For example, I could measure in teeth per inch the rack on my 4x5, but when ordering you need information on the modulus and slope, etc. that I do not really understand how to measure.
It'd be better to enlist the help of a good mechanical engineer. Someone who's used to generating drawings just like you need and understands design trade offs as well. If you don't know any I can put you in touch with a couple who might be willing to help.
Tim Meisburger
16-Jul-2015, 06:25
Hi Andreios and Nodda. I don't think we want to base our generic design on a camera currently in production, or design something new. To me it makes most sense for something like this to go with something that already has the kinks worked out. Once we have a source for parts worked out, then folks can more easily generate their own designs. That seems to suggest either an English-style field camera, or a tailboard. I tend to lean toward the English. Although they are more complex than a tailboard, they are nicer, and if you want a tailboard you can still get one relatively inexpensively. The English style includes the Deardorff, Wista, Ikeda, Nagaoka, etc. etc.
It would be great to have a mechanical engineer working on the project, but its more a challenge of taking an existing design and adapting it for available components than designing something new.
These are just my thoughts, but I'm open to other ideas.
jbenedict
16-Jul-2015, 09:24
Now all you guys gotta do is stop talking and start doing.
I would suggest using the last British made field cameras from Watson/Gandolfi as a good starting point. Gandolfi didn't originate the design but did modify it many years later. They are robust cameras.
Ian
brandon allen
16-Jul-2015, 10:53
Now all you guys gotta do is stop talking and start doing.
Agreed, but we need to nail down exactly what we want to end up with first.
andreios
16-Jul-2015, 11:00
Of course, Tim, I didn't mean anyone should copy (steal) designs from István @ argentum, just that some of his ideas might be useful for adapting cameras to individual needs.
I fully agree with an English design model, that would be lovely indeed,especially when it comes to front standard..
Michael Roberts
17-Jul-2015, 11:33
Of course, Tim, I didn't mean anyone should copy (steal) designs from István @ argentum, just that some of his ideas might be useful for adapting cameras to individual needs.
I fully agree with an English design model, that would be lovely indeed,especially when it comes to front standard..
I like the argentum design, except for the inability to use wide-angle lenses.
Michael Roberts
17-Jul-2015, 11:34
I would suggest using the last British made field cameras from Watson/Gandolfi as a good starting point. Gandolfi didn't originate the design but did modify it many years later. They are robust cameras.
Ian
I like this idea.
I like this idea.
I guess I coming to this from a different direction as I now restore old Field cameras and SLRs etc, I was thinking mainly British but in fact I've rebuilt a few US cameras as well and have 4 more in the queue :D
What I see is the weaknesses with some designs, where they break, crack, fail etc, and often it's easy to see why as it's poor design. I'm just re-assembling a half plate camera after repairing the front standard which had broken into 3 pieces. 2 triangular braces have screws far to close to the edges, it's no wonder it broke unfortunately not on the actual joint, more expensive camera would use an L shaped brace. To be fair this is a generic camera it's not well made.
It's worth searching Youtube for the 2 Gandolfi videos.
Ian
brandon allen
17-Jul-2015, 13:52
I guess I coming to this from a different direction as I now restore old Field cameras and SLRs etc, I was thinking mainly British but in fact I've rebuilt a few US cameras as well and have 4 more in the queue :D
What I see is the weaknesses with some designs, where they break, crack, fail etc, and often it's easy to see why as it's poor design. I'm just re-assembling a half plate camera after repairing the front standard which had broken into 3 pieces. 2 triangular braces have screws far to close to the edges, it's no wonder it broke unfortunately not on the actual joint, more expensive camera would use an L shaped brace. To be fair this is a generic camera it's not well made.
It's worth searching Youtube for the 2 Gandolfi videos.
Ian
That is a very valuable viewpoint! And I would certainly welcome your input. More specific details would be great.
brandon allen
17-Jul-2015, 13:55
That is a very valuable viewpoint! And I would certainly welcome your input. More specific details would be great.
When I say "I" there I should have said "I, for one..." I'm not trying to take over [emoji3]
Tim Meisburger
17-Jul-2015, 17:42
Ian, I'm up for that. I am currently using a 4x5 Ikeda for a model. I can, and have, done basic drawings to scale that up to 8x10. I chose that because it seems the lightest design for a single extension (about 600mm) 8x10 field camera. Between 6 and 7 pounds, I think. But I'm not wedded to that, as I have only done the back and the case so far. An English style design would be fine, I think, and lovely, but I don't have an example to copy.
For me, it makes sense to keep the parts list as short and generic as possible, a perspective that might sway some design choices. On the Gandolfi there is a two piece case which (I assume) adjusts swing and tilt with four knobs. Is that correct? And is that simpler than the Deardorff style?
Jac@stafford.net
17-Jul-2015, 20:20
Agreed, but we need to nail down exactly what we want to end up with first.
What do you mean by 'we'? In my experience collaboration includes alternative approaches, working things out over time and experience. Projects of this modest scope do not work when treated as if monolithic.
.
.
brandon allen
17-Jul-2015, 20:51
What do you mean by 'we'? In my experience collaboration includes alternative approaches, working things out over time and experience. Projects of this modest scope do not work when treated as if monolithic.
.
.
I just mean that a consensus needs to be reached regarding what sort of camera to design and obtain parts for. Is it going to be an English-style folder? Tailboard? Other?
I could lock myself in my study and hammer out a complete set of plans and scour the web for parts suppliers, but if it's all for a camera that nobody wants to build, then what's the point?
But certainly, the rubber must meet the road sometime. Since the whole idea is to create a "standard" let's pick a design and get cracking!
brandon allen
18-Jul-2015, 23:45
I just mean that a consensus needs to be reached regarding what sort of camera to design and obtain parts for. Is it going to be an English-style folder? Tailboard? Other?
I could lock myself in my study and hammer out a complete set of plans and scour the web for parts suppliers, but if it's all for a camera that nobody wants to build, then what's the point?
But certainly, the rubber must meet the road sometime. Since the whole idea is to create a "standard" let's pick a design and get cracking!
To this end I have begun designing a reversible spring back suitable for this project.
I am most familiar with Sketchup, so that's what I'm using. Basically it is 12"x12" square and 5/8" thick (including a 1/4" thick light seal).
Here is a view of the design so far with and without the film holder in place. I haven't bothered with the ground glass frame yet.
137122
Here is a detail of the stiles that make up that basic frame with a bit more detail worked in.
137123
The dimensions are very easy to change. I would welcome input.
Mick Fagan
20-Jul-2015, 04:29
The dimensions are very easy to change. I would welcome input.
Would it be possible to use decimal inches, or whatever it is you use for inches on computer programmes in the USA?
Once a design is complete, I would then metricate it as I use metric measurements and converting something down to 1/64 of an inch to millimetres could get tricky.
I grew up with feet and inches, I was a youngish adult when Australia converted to metric measurements over 40 years ago, I have never wished to go back to feet and inches, they are just so user unfriendly, not to mention computer unfriendly.
Mick.
Tim Meisburger
20-Jul-2015, 04:35
Brandon, that looks good. I've already built the back for my camera, so I can make measurements from that as well. I can do both imperial and metric, but I need to step away from this project for about a month, as I'm off to the US to take my daughter around to look at colleges, then install my son at the University of Arizona, where he is an incoming freshman.
Then I'll be back!
brandon allen
20-Jul-2015, 06:58
Would it be possible to use decimal inches, or whatever it is you use for inches on computer programmes in the USA?
Once a design is complete, I would then metricate it as I use metric measurements and converting something down to 1/64 of an inch to millimetres could get tricky.
I grew up with feet and inches, I was a youngish adult when Australia converted to metric measurements over 40 years ago, I have never wished to go back to feet and inches, they are just so user unfriendly, not to mention computer unfriendly.
Mick.
I'd be happy to just do the whole thing in metric if that's easier.
I very much prefer SI units, but doing woodwork in the USA essentially requires use of "traditional" units. It's an uphill battle. All the tools and materials come in fractional measurements. When I started putting my wood shop together I vowed to work in metric - rest of the country be damned! - but it didn't take long to realize that I was swimming upstream.
Decimal inches is almost as good as metric...
But I digress...
Does anybody have CORRECT measurements for an 8x10 (that's inches folks...) film holder? The specs listed on the website everyone seems to refer to are obviously flawed. This becomes apparent if you try to create a 3d model based on those measurements.
I don't own any 8x10 holders or I would measure for myself.
Daniel Moore
22-Jul-2015, 18:55
Following this thread with great interest. Fabricating my own 4x5 has long been a desire.
I've owned a Chamonix (Phillips inspired, I presume) and an Osaka field camera. The Osaka design was light years behind the Chamonix for rigidity. Even though the Chamonix used some carbon fiber, the rigidity I'd attribute to the hardware alone.
Drawing up the CAD model/editing can become a big job, possibly too much work for one person in this particular endeavor. Let me know if I can help. I would propose any contributors work in DXF format for cross compatiblity between CAD packages and ease of interchange. Though my woodworking career has been in fractional inches, I draw in decimal inches and I have no issue working in metric units. Any decent CAD package can export to any of these, no problem.
Tim, if you ever care to take your paper and pencil into the computer, take a serious look at Viacad 2D/3D. The lastest version can be bought for as little as 69.00 USD with a discount coupon code that seems perennial on the net. All the power you'll ever need for woodworking, metal working. Much easier to draw/edit with precision than Sketchup. It's by far the easiest program to learn 3D CAD on as well.
Jerry51
23-Jul-2015, 09:18
Hello, I am very much interested in building an 8x10 or 11x14 field camera. I am a retired cabinetmaker and have access to a woodshop so the wood parts wood be no problem for me.
Have you developed any plans yet for the Field Camera?
brandon allen
23-Jul-2015, 09:37
Jerry, welcome! Presently there is active discussion about what style camera to design and procure parts for. So, at this moment - no no plans yet.
jbenedict
23-Jul-2015, 17:20
RE: Film holder standards
Search on: ANSI film holder measurements and you will get a number of ANSI standard dimensions for film holders.
Some of the larger holders, especially for banquet cameras, don't follow a standard and holder and camera must be matched together. If you build your backs to these ANSI standards you will be able to use standard film holders. (Fidelity, Lisco, etc.)
Jac@stafford.net
23-Jul-2015, 17:29
RE: Film holder standards
Search on: ANSI film holder measurements and you will get a number of ANSI standard dimensions for film holders.
The last time I checked it cost $$ to acquire those specs. I might be wrong, regardless it is time to post them into a public place. Does anyone already have it to share, or should I?
Tin Can
23-Jul-2015, 18:16
Is anybody saying these are not correct?
http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html
Tim Meisburger
24-Jul-2015, 04:10
Randy, I'm pretty sure those are correct,but you can easily check if you have a modern 8x10 holder. My understanding is that there may be some variance in older holders (i.e. pre 1930). I didn't use these when I made my back, just measured the fidelity holders I had. I'm in the US now for three weeks, so cannot check mine.
Jim Jones
24-Jul-2015, 06:38
Measuring existing film holders in hopes of deriving the correct film holder dimensions can introduce errors. Some of the data in the link cited in post 90 are incorrect. The value for "depth to film surface" is actually the "T" value, the depth from the film holder's face to the septum surface. This means a .012 error, the width of the film slot. The value for "Exposure height" is obviously wrong; it is actually the D2 value, the maximum long dimension of the film slot. The 8x10 "Exposure height" should be 9.575. The "Width" value is the maximum: the minimum for film holders up to 8x10 is .031" less. My figures come from the copyrighted ASA Z38.1.1951 spec sheet, which lists sizes only up to 8x10. Perhaps a good researcher can find newer freely downloadable official specs online.
Dan Fromm
24-Jul-2015, 09:56
Jim, http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html
jbenedict
24-Jul-2015, 10:07
Jim, http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html
These come from a 1998 version from ANSI. They *are* the standard.
brandon allen
24-Jul-2015, 10:36
These come from a 1998 version from ANSI. They *are* the standard.
And they are also wrong! Or at least listed incorrectly.
Using the 8x10 data as an example:
Distance to Exposure Field: 0.775"
Exposure Height: 10.026"
Sum of the two: 10.801"
Distance to Tab Location: 10.850"
That leaves only .049" (1.245mm) between the upper edge of the exposure field and the upper edge of the retaining tab. Look at any film holder and you will see that this cannot be correct! This figure should be in the vicinity of .375" or more.
137460
Using the Exposure Height figure mentioned above by Jim Jones (thanks btw!) we now have:
Exposure Height: 9.575"
Distance to Exposure Field: .775"
Sum: 10.350"
So now the distance between the exposure field and the retaining tab is a more plausible .500".
brandon allen
24-Jul-2015, 10:52
Is anybody saying these are not correct?
http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html
Yes. Because they are not correct.
Tin Can
24-Jul-2015, 14:06
Jim Jones has it covered.
Thanks Jim!
jbenedict
24-Jul-2015, 19:06
Here's a link to information S&S uses to make their holders:
http://ssfilmholders.com/?page=documents
brandon allen
27-Jul-2015, 07:37
Here's a link to information S&S uses to make their holders:
http://ssfilmholders.com/?page=documents
Unfortunately they do not list specs for 8x10 holders. The measurements may or may not be the same.
I haven't done an exhaustive search, but I have rooted around the web several different times and have been unable to find a reliable set of specifications, this is why I think taking measurements from a number of different brand holders and "averaging" the results may be the simplest solution.
A_Tabor
30-Jul-2015, 08:31
This thread caught my eye while I was googling for general camera designs the other day. I've yet to work with large format, but I'm finding myself more than a little interested in the entire process as something different from the usual sports photography I do.
I honestly have no idea what kind of camera I actually would want, but I do know the end results that I will be looking for eventually would be black and white landscape prints in the order of 'insanely huge and rather dominating in a space'.
As for the 8x10 holders, could the detailed specification not be avoided by designing a scalable back frame? You don't need to design the camera to take every 8x10 holder on the market, it just needs to be able to accept the 8x10 holders of that you are actually planning to use.
Maybe get a google form and spreadsheet going and let people submit detailed measurements of all of their existing holders, and then you can define a specification range off of those. Then the end user would either build their back frame to accept the holders they own or are planning to get, or use a larger frame that accepts sub-frames if the range of holders is large enough that there isn't a reliable 'one size fits all' kind of option.
Jac@stafford.net
30-Jul-2015, 10:12
As for the 8x10 holders, could the detailed specification not be avoided by designing a scalable back frame? You don't need to design the camera to take every 8x10 holder on the market
All the film holders made for decades are of a standard size.
brandon allen
30-Jul-2015, 19:45
All the film holders made for decades are of a standard size.
True, but if they are like the 4x5 holders that have also been "standard" for decades, there is still a fair bit of variation between manufacturers.
Jac@stafford.net
30-Jul-2015, 19:56
True, but if they are like the 4x5 holders that have also been "standard" for decades, there is still a fair bit of variation between manufacturers.
Not in my experience. Has anyone found ISO standard film holders not placing film at the proper place? ...and yes I know of the bloke who uses a micrometer, straight-edge and toothpick to measure. Way too anal to be important.
.
brandon allen
30-Jul-2015, 22:06
Not in my experience. Has anyone found ISO standard film holders not placing film at the proper place? ...and yes I know of the bloke who uses a micrometer, straight-edge and toothpick to measure. Way too anal to be important.
.
I agree with everything you said.
The holders do in fact vary, but I would not say that the variations are significant. I think I overstated things when I said there is "a fair amount of variation" between holders. There is "a little" variation between manufacturers.
Nodda Duma
31-Jul-2015, 04:24
you're talking about manufacturing tolerances, right? Those will vary from unit to unit. Some companies control their manufacturing tolerances tighter than others.
brandon allen
31-Jul-2015, 08:10
you're talking about manufacturing tolerances, right? Those will vary from unit to unit. Some companies control their manufacturing tolerances tighter than others.
Yes, I think that is a good way to sum it up.
I also think that since the various holders are not EXACTLY the same, yet they all work just fine - then the camera design does not have to conform EXACTLY to a given standard - it just has to work.
To that end - does somebody have a few 8x10 holders, a micrometer and perhaps 10 minutes of spare time?
I need two measurements:
A) The distance between the top of the retaining tab and the start of the exposure field.
B) The distance between the end of the holder and the end of the exposure field.
Please click on the thumbnail to see the whole image, it doesn't seem to display properly otherwise.
137777
Yes, I think that is a good way to sum it up.
I also think that since the various holders are not EXACTLY the same, yet they all work just fine - then the camera design does not have to conform EXACTLY to a given standard - it just has to work.
To that end - does somebody have a few 8x10 holders, a micrometer and perhaps 10 minutes of spare time?
I need two measurements:
A) The distance between the top of the retaining tab and the start of the exposure field.
B) The distance between the end of the holder and the end of the exposure field.
Please click on the thumbnail to see the whole image, it doesn't seem to display properly otherwise.
137777
No need to measure. There exists an ANSI spec for film holders. The details of which are summarized nicely at http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html
Tin Can
31-Jul-2015, 11:11
I agree, use published data. 8x10 is a well known size, ULF can differ.
Single Measurements are often crude and inaccurate.
You will never get us to measure 100's of them for a statistical study.
Jim Jones
31-Jul-2015, 16:23
No need to measure. There exists an ANSI spec for film holders. The details of which are summarized nicely at http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html
Finding something on the internet does not guarantee veracity. The depth to the film's emulsion in this link is wrong, as are a few other dimensions.. See post #92 above.
barnacle
2-Aug-2015, 02:07
Watching this one with interest.
I'm currently at the (re)design stage of a home-made camera, after a prototype I made a few years back gave up the ghost... I'm a linux user, so LibreCad is the choice of cad system for me, saving in DXF.
The camera is based loosely on the Tachihara 4x5 and is 4x5 itself: it has rising/falling and tilting front (but no swing or side-shift), probably a single extension because I want to use an existing Custom Bellows bellows that I had made some time ago but never used, and a tilting back. The intent is that it folds together without the necessity of removing a standard (130-160mm) lens.
At the moment the drawings are only ideas/sketches, to see how things fit together, but I can post them if there is interest.
I discovered that things like small gears, knobs, and racks are available from models and robotics stores, or from places like Musumi (though I think you need to be a registered company to shop there). In particular, if you don't need a screw know, look in the electronics catalogues for collett knobs which are usually available very cheaply and with internal sizes for 1/8, 3/16, and 1/4 inch shafts.
The general materials will be oak and brass; I have a lot of seasoned oak nice and snug in the garage from some flooring, though I will need some wider sheet, I think. I'm trying to do this with a minimum of tooling, so a few hand tools, a pillar drill, and a 1960's Unimat lathe/mill that I've just about restored: all it needs now is an arbour for a slitting wheel making so I can use the small saw-table attachment.
Joe Smigiel
2-Aug-2015, 11:41
It's probably obvious to most, but scaling down or up between different formats is not going to be equal in all three dimensions. Thickness and weight are going to be factors with the materials to be used, so a simple scaling in the XY plane will very likely be different than the remaining third dimension.
Film holder specifications for different formats are a good example of this.
Just thinking aloud...
Joe Smigiel
2-Aug-2015, 11:56
I agree, use published data. 8x10 is a well known size, ULF can differ.
Single Measurements are often crude and inaccurate.
You will never get us to measure 100's of them for a statistical study.
Agreed. Here's some measurements and data I made or gathered from the web for whole-plate holders. They are all over the place.
137825
I would strongly recommend obtaining the actual ANSI specifications for 8x10 holders and going with that. Somewhere I have a copy and I'll look for the numbers. (The derived one illustrated on the web is not accurate.) In any event, I think the cost of the actual ANSI document is something like $35 and it contains all the other standard large formats (except whole-plate). IIRC, I think it went to up to 14x17 or 16x20 as well.
Daniel Moore
2-Aug-2015, 13:01
I found this quick little weekend project very inspiring:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/12697013/Making-of-Jirkon-4x5
brandon allen
2-Aug-2015, 14:57
I would strongly recommend obtaining the actual ANSI specifications for 8x10 holders and going with that. Somewhere I have a copy and I'll look for the numbers. (The derived one illustrated on the web is not accurate.) In any event, I think the cost of the actual ANSI document is something like $35 and it contains all the other standard large formats (except whole-plate). IIRC, I think it went to up to 14x17 or 16x20 as well.
I just searched and browsed through the ISO and ANSI websites and cannot locate the relevant standard. I located the specs for the sizes of sheet film: DIN ISO 1012:2000, but not the film holders. And the prices for various documents ranged from about $80-$300.
Can somebody help here? Joe if you have it, that would be fabulous!
brandon allen
2-Aug-2015, 15:01
I agree, use published data. 8x10 is a well known size, ULF can differ.
Single Measurements are often crude and inaccurate.
You will never get us to measure 100's of them for a statistical study.
Ok, can you supply the needed specs?
I can't.
Jim Jones
2-Aug-2015, 17:21
I found this quick little weekend project very inspiring:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/12697013/Making-of-Jirkon-4x5
Having occasionally made small metal parts with basic tools, I'm impressed by Jirka's skill. One suggestion: long slots in aluminum can be made on a table saw with a fence. Exercise care both for results and for safety.
Joe Smigiel
2-Aug-2015, 17:43
I just searched and browsed through the ISO and ANSI websites and cannot locate the relevant standard. I located the specs for the sizes of sheet film: DIN ISO 1012:2000, but not the film holders. And the prices for various documents ranged from about $80-$300.
Can somebody help here? Joe if you have it, that would be fabulous!
ANSI IT3.108 1998 Edition, April 28, 1998
Photography (Cameras) - Double Film Holders (Lock-Rib Type) - Dimensions
Here's the page:
https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?&item_s_key=00313483&item_key_date=011231&input_doc_number=&input_doc_title=
$25 but it looks like it is no longer available through this source.
Here's another possible way of ordering it though I don't know if the cost would be the same.
ANSI/PIMA IT3.108-1998, Photography (Cameras) - Double Film
Holders (Lock-Rib Type) - Dimensions (withdrawal of ANSI/PIMA
IT3.108-1998)
Order from: ANSl
Send comments (with copy to BSR) to: James Peyton, I3A;
i3astds@i3a.o
I'll look for my long lost copy.
barnacle
2-Aug-2015, 23:07
I found this quick little weekend project very inspiring:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/12697013/Making-of-Jirkon-4x5
It's people like that who make us up our game... I bet that took more than a weekend!
Hello guys are we getting any closer to camera design i'm getting anxious to build my 8x10 field camera and I'm not getting any younger.
Thanks
barnacle
4-Aug-2015, 11:53
Just collecting possibilities:
Delrin racks, in a couple of sizes: I prefer the smaller 0.5 mod. http://www.motionco.co.uk/racks-plastic-racks-c-32_42_71.html
Matching delrin spur gears: smaller the better for precise focus: http://www.motionco.co.uk/spur-gears-spur-gears-c-32_33_34.html
Both very reasonably priced but delrin can be a devil to glue to anything.
Neil
barnacle
4-Aug-2015, 13:12
And a collet knob: other sizes are available. http://uk.farnell.com/elma/020-2120/knob-black/dp/1209751
Or these are cheaper: http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/potentiometer-knobs/1375462/ and http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/potentiometer-knobs/1375478/
Neil
Barry Kirsten
4-Aug-2015, 14:31
I'm following this thread with interest for my own building plans in other formats. The delrin racks and pinions look very interesting for smaller formats, possibly even 8x10, but I'm not confident they'd stand the wear and tear in larger formats. I certainly wouldn't glue the racks, as you say Neil; I don't know of any glue suitable for delrin.
Lachlan 717
4-Aug-2015, 15:23
May I suggest the front bellows be Sinar-sized?
That way, those of us using Sinar shutters could keep using them on this camera.
barnacle
5-Aug-2015, 04:44
Lachlan, I'm using an existing bellows, so I'm constrained there.
Barry, the same supplier offers brass and steel rack and pinions, too. The higher mod values are significantly more robust, but have larger teeth.
Neil
Barry Kirsten
5-Aug-2015, 14:12
Thanks Neil. motions is an excellent site... there are many items there of interest to camera builders. The metal racks and gears would certainly do the job for large cameras, but I would be interested in what others think about the delrin rack for 8x10. I also noticed that they offer a glue which they seem to claim is suitable for their plastic parts.
Jac@stafford.net
5-Aug-2015, 15:57
I deeply resent that ISO and ASA standards are not free to the public. What's with that?
Similarly very much of original US research funded by the government to public universities is locked-up. It is just plain wrong.
Kevin J. Kolosky
7-Aug-2015, 11:47
Is light weight more important than sturdiness? There is material that is used to build outdoor furniture. Furniture that is left outside at all times in tough Minnesota weather. Its made of recycled milk jugs. Its tough stuff. Real tough. But alas, it is also heavy. Perhaps due to its toughness thinner pieces could be used in places where much thicker wood pieces would have to be used. And it may be a bit more expensive as well. But as I said, its tough. With some stainless steel metal parts you could probably take the lens and bellows off and leave it outside all winter, come back the next spring, and take right up where you left off.
I'm about to have some brass work made, sliders for lens boards and knobs, also tripod mounting bushes. I'm contemplating getting a reasonable quantity as that reduces the cost.
I've two options, the first is a neighbour who will make me odd parts I need, he's a precision engineer working on rocket (missile) propulsion for a living, however the second option is to get a local workshop to make multiple parts, they charge by the hour + materials but that works out quite inexpensive if planned out well first.
The sliders are for adapter lens boards to allow the use of Linhof/Wista, Pacemaker Graphic, Seneca etc, board with a 10x8 camera, so like the sliders on a Pacemaker Graphic front standard.
The Knobs will be two sizes styled on typical early 1900's British field cameras. They'll be drilled but not right through and un-tapped so they can be adapted to suit.
Ian
Tim Meisburger
4-Sep-2015, 16:58
Ian, it seems to me that the British design requires a simpler (i.e. less machine work) parts set, but I don't have a camera to use as a model. Can you do a parts list? And take some photos of a good example so I can do a drawing?
I'll take a set of knobs, 2 sliders and a tripod bushing. If you can tell me the size of the racks and pinons, I'll try to find a source for those from China and make those available.
Old-N-Feeble
4-Sep-2015, 18:11
Ian, depending on size and cost I might be interested in a set of slide locks too.
I am glad I found this thread, even though I would never consider an 8x10.
Recently I decided I wanted a 6x12 panoramic camera, and about the only thing I could find close to my budget was a holga or holga mod. So I did the holga mod, but that wasn't exactly what I wanted.
What I really wanted was something just short of the Shen-Hoe 6x17, something with bellows focusing, front movements, roll film capable, back movements not necessary.
For a thousand to three thousand there are several cameras that come close, they all take interchangeable lens tubes that are as expensive as high quality lenses, and only rise and fall for front movements. no shift no tilt.
Now I am looking at the Bulldog 4x5 kit camera made from MDF 326$, 215 british pounds or choping a crown graphic (I am just interested in wide angle) The bulldog would be almost perfect for me but MDF construction give me a break.
I read somewhere that everything in photography is a compromise, I think it's true. I am going to continue to follow this thread as I am sure each and every one of you wants that perfect camera. It could be out there with off the shelf parts, just like the PC.
Also if you should come across that perfect camera for me fell free to drop me a line.
Matt
I am glad I found this thread, even though I would never consider an 8x10.
Recently I decided I wanted a 6x12 panoramic camera, and about the only thing I could find close to my budget was a holga or holga mod. So I did the holga mod, but that wasn't exactly what I wanted.
What I really wanted was something just short of the Shen-Hoe 6x17, something with bellows focusing, front movements, roll film capable, back movements not necessary.
For a thousand to three thousand there are several cameras that come close, they all take interchangeable lens tubes that are as expensive as high quality lenses, and only rise and fall for front movements. no shift no tilt.
Now I am looking at the Bulldog 4x5 kit camera made from MDF 326$, 215 british pounds or choping a crown graphic (I am just interested in wide angle) The bulldog would be almost perfect for me but MDF construction give me a break.
I read somewhere that everything in photography is a compromise, I think it's true. I am going to continue to follow this thread as I am sure each and every one of you wants that perfect camera. It could be out there with off the shelf parts, just like the PC.
Also if you should come across that perfect camera for me please drop me a line.
Matt
Ian, it seems to me that the British design requires a simpler (i.e. less machine work) parts set, but I don't have a camera to use as a model. Can you do a parts list? And take some photos of a good example so I can do a drawing?
I'll take a set of knobs, 2 sliders and a tripod bushing. If you can tell me the size of the racks and pinons, I'll try to find a source for those from China and make those available.
I'll take some photos in the next few days Tim, I've been working on 3 different British field cameras in the past 2 weeks and have 4 others as well,sizes range from Quarter plate to Whole plate.
Ian, depending on size and cost I might be interested in a set of slide locks too.
It'll be a week or so before I get around to looking at sourcing the parts, I've 8 sets of bellows to make first and that's a daunting task :D
Ian
barnacle
11-Sep-2015, 13:53
So... every time I find myself out of work I start designing a camera. And every time it gets to the interesting stage, some maniac gives me a new job...
Aye well, it might take a while then. But I have things in mind :D
Neil
Fr. Mark
14-Sep-2015, 22:25
I'd like to second the idea of Sinar Shutter compatibility be an option.
And, that bellows making is tedious even for a non-tapered bellows. I built one with about 120cm extension and used black-out cloth sold in fabric stores for an 8x10 camera using a huge projector lens it works, but it is cumbersome. It is much too heavy and thick for what you are trying to do.
Now, I'm working on adapting this 8x10 camera to use the Sinar shutter and DB lenses. This will NOT ever be anyone's idea of field camera unless you are taking mules or camels with you in the field. All this said, the Sinar shutter is NOT a light weight. I'm half afraid to finish building the adapter for Sinar shutter and lenses to improvised 8x10 for fear that once I see the 8x10 negatives/prints from lenses this good I may succumb to the urge to buy the 8x10 Sinar gear and get standard 8x10 holders as well as make an 11x14 and 14x17 and...the next time I am going to have to do it to a higher standard of fit and finish having been spoiled by 1970s Sinar P now. And, I have not yet gotten a darkroom I can easily handle 8x10 never mind the bigger formats.
Friction focus and adjustments are far simpler, but the longer the lever arms on things or the higher the weight the harder it is to keep everything square/rigid and moving smoothly and locking down well. I way under-estimated this set of problems in my "design" which combined a bunch of ideas, not terribly well. So, I guess, I second the idea of using a design that has a lot of years on it already. Probably, the kinks have been worked out. With my camera I find that with the 10 pound projector lens, the center knobs for rise/fall and tilt are not enough to lock down tilt and have had to add a couple more knobs at the top of the standard to pinch the frame holding the bellows and lens board frame and, yes, the lens is in the lens board in such a way as the center of gravity is pretty close to the movement axis. It is not all stuck out front on a flange.
Is the goal light-est weight field camera of proven design (i.e. Gandolfi or Deardorf or similar with gear focus) or best bang for buck and simplicity of construction? i.e. Tailboard like the B&J with friction focus from rear? Tailboard-type cameras also set up quickly and are generally more rigid, I think.
Delrin is nice for sliding surfaces and low loads---I remember fondly the first set of delrin model railroad wheelsets/trucks we had in the 1980's---slippery. A glass filled engineering resin might be better for handling the higher loads. I'm not an expert in this.
My brother built a small reflector telescope that looked like it had been part sourced at a junk yard, but worked quite well. It used a combination of pvc pipe cut offs sliding on bits of Teflon or (now hard to find) formica sheet with a little texture (think 1980's kitchens and baths) also sliding on little bits of teflon. Nothing was locked down, the idea was to slide the telescope smoothly and then it would stay put when you stopped. Aluminum on aluminum sometime galls as will some kinds of stainless on stainless threads if tightened too much. I worked for a company that tried to seal pressure vessels with stainless on stainless screw threads and we had no end of trouble (there may have been issues with grit and also definitely harsh chemicals).
This raises all sorts of questions about materials. Woods (I've come to appreciate Maple for cost/strength/machinability and no allergen type issues like walnut), aluminum, brass, titanium, epoxy/fiberglass, epoxy carbon fiber, epoxy/fiberglas/plywood, epoxy/cardboard w/w/o glass/carbon fiber, what about Kevlar fiber?. The Kayak and home built boat people are really into this sort of stuff, too btw, so they may be good resources for this project.
I love the Sinar P and v. heavy tripod once I have them where I want them, but there are days when something much lighter would be nice.
Also, are we locked into 8x10? I'm kind of thinking I have enough invested in 5x7 that I might want a lighter 5x7 and 6.5x8.5 if I had the holders...madness...
Exciting thread
Jim Jones
15-Sep-2015, 07:15
. . . Is the goal light-est weight field camera of proven design (i.e. Gandolfi or Deardorf or similar with gear focus) or best bang for buck and simplicity of construction? i.e. Tailboard like the B&J with friction focus from rear? Tailboard-type cameras also set up quickly and are generally more rigid, I think. . . .
Tailboard cameras like the B&J have one serious problem with stability. The tailboard and the extension rely on a butt joint less than an inch thick. The weight of the camera exerts a lot of pressure through leverage with such a joint. Not only does the joint have to be precisely mated, but it has to be clamped very tightly to be rigid. Thicker mating surfaces would help. So would having a hinge without any play located well above or below the clamping area.
Just thought everyone might like to know the Custom Bellows Company in the UK is still alive. I just finished building a modified Bulldog that I got from them. Here it is with a 90MM lens. with the modification I have made I will be able to use lenses up up 210mm.
jongrep
17-Oct-2015, 22:37
Here is a website with many resources for building various types of large format cameras:
http://home.online.no/~gjon/camerabuilders.htm
Some of this is not in English and, like lots of pages which have been up for a few years, there are a few dead links. However, if you read the listings on 8x10 flatbed cameras, you will get a lot of ideas on how to do this without resorting to a lot of factory manufacture red parts. There are a few sets of plans with drawings and stuff. One of them has a cut list for the wood used. Designing a camera around commonly available bellows rather than having custom bellows made might be easier. There is a guy on eBay who is a pretty reliable source of a wide variety of bellows for factory built cameras.
My website is moving by the end of October: jongrepstad.com
Jon Grepstad
el french
25-Nov-2015, 13:50
Is the idea dead or are there plans to make plans?
Tim Meisburger
28-Nov-2015, 17:53
Next up I need to buy some parts. I've been too occupied with wet plate recently, but will get back to this over the Christmas break.
Tim Meisburger
7-Dec-2015, 18:28
I'm ready to order racks and pinions and shafts, but I need some help defining those. The task is to define a standard that will work from 4x5 to 8x10. From what I can see we could use either vertically flat metal type racks that look a bit like saw blades and screw to the side of the extension frames, or flat racks that screw to the bottom of the frame. I think we just need to choose one, then design around it.
If anyone can settle on a standard, I'll contact Chinese suppliers about the possibility of a bulk order.
We need a set, so rack specifications (metric is probably better), compatible gear and compatible shaft. If you can point me to a specific example at a gear supplier that will work as well.
Once we settle on a drive train we can start looking for knobs and flatware. The objective in the end is a parts kit that builders can use for their own designs.
Tim Meisburger
7-Dec-2015, 18:29
I'm ready to order racks and pinions and shafts, but I need some help defining those. The task is to define a standard that will work from 4x5 to 8x10. From what I can see we could use either vertically flat metal type racks that look a bit like saw blades and screw to the side of the extension frames, or flat racks that screw to the bottom of the frame. I think we just need to choose one, then design around it.
If anyone can settle on a standard, I'll contact Chinese suppliers about the possibility of a bulk order.
We need a set, so rack specifications (metric is probably better), compatible gear and compatible shaft. If you can point me to a specific example at a gear supplier that will work as well.
Once we settle on a drive train we can start looking for knobs and flatware. The objective in the end is a parts kit that builders can use for their own designs.
jeffreythree
7-Dec-2015, 22:29
I am in the middle of building a 4x5 camera. My rack and pinion is coming form here: http://www.mcmaster.com/#racks-and-pinions/=1057buy . In fact, I find a lot of interesting bits for my hobbies there. It may not help you in Thailand as a supplier, but they explain pretty clearly how to pick the proper rack and pinion sizes.
Michael Roberts
15-Dec-2015, 05:54
Great, Tim! Glad to see you are back onto this project and moving ahead.
Michael Roberts
15-Dec-2015, 05:55
Great, Tim! Glad to see you are back onto this project and moving ahead.
jeffreythree--thanks for the McM Carr link. I have bought stuff from them before, but I did not know they sold racks and gears usable for camera building...and in lengths long enough for ULF! Good to know.
Tin Can
15-Dec-2015, 10:58
I am in the middle of building a 4x5 camera. My rack and pinion is coming form here: http://www.mcmaster.com/#racks-and-pinions/=1057buy . In fact, I find a lot of interesting bits for my hobbies there. It may not help you in Thailand as a supplier, but they explain pretty clearly how to pick the proper rack and pinion sizes.
It would be interesting to know which exact parts you bought. You can link directly.
I ask, as I have already read all their info and wonder if their side drilled mounting holes are convenient?
Most old wood cameras, I know of, mount the rack with holes drilled from the top.
Lastly, Tim and others desire Metric rack/pinion, which is available, but not, I believe from McMaster.
I use McMaster for many things, as they are local, making pickup possible. They have a huge warehouse and no order is too small! Sometimes I get free courier delivery on tiny orders.
Tim Meisburger
29-Dec-2015, 19:18
Okay. I've given up on drawings and a new design, and have decided to simply copy a 4x5 I own in 8x10. When I start making or buying hardware I may need to do some modifications, but this is the basic template:
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9222_zpsjmeb7c3l.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9222_zpsjmeb7c3l.jpg.html)
It is a 4x5 Ikeda Anba. It was never made in 8x10, but Nagaoka made a very similar camera in 8x10 that was a favourite of Brett Weston. In honor of him I'll call this the BW Special. It will have about two feet of bellows, which I think is adequate for what it is intended to be, a lightweight field camera.
Tim Meisburger
29-Dec-2015, 19:21
Here are some details of the hardware. My first purchase needs to be rack and pinion, and I took these so that when I try to order from vendors in China they will have some idea what I am talking about. If that doesn't work out, I'll order from McMaster; but one of my objectives for this project was to find inexpensive sources for a generic parts kit that others could use, and I have not quite given up on that yet.
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9224_zpsriey0ogr.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9224_zpsriey0ogr.jpg.html)
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9223_zpsq70ajff1.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9223_zpsq70ajff1.jpg.html)
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9226_zps9hvjgzkz.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9226_zps9hvjgzkz.jpg.html)
Tim Meisburger
29-Dec-2015, 19:29
I built the back for the camera more than a year ago, and have been using it on my studio camera. Recently I made the rest of the wooden part for the camera. Here is a shot after I made the frame and the base, but before I put the sliding rack together.
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9227_zpsofvnodhn.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9227_zpsofvnodhn.jpg.html)
And here it is put together. The 8x10 back (already shellacked) is in the background, still mounted on the plywood conversion back for the studio camera:
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9232_zpsmnktfjzh.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9232_zpsmnktfjzh.jpg.html)
And finally here it is as it will appear folded up. Everything is mahogany.
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l496/Tim_Meisburger/Camera%20Building/DSC_9233_zps8sghuale.jpg (http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/Tim_Meisburger/media/Camera%20Building/DSC_9233_zps8sghuale.jpg.html)
Tin Can
29-Dec-2015, 20:03
Looking great!
Michael Roberts
29-Dec-2015, 21:34
Tim, it's a good place to begin. I love my Ikeda 4x5. Same design, larger formats seems like a good way to go.
Tim Meisburger
30-Dec-2015, 18:51
RACKS AND GEARS
I spent some more time on this today, working on possible options. I have not been able to find a retail supplier in China, but perhaps with this information some of our members can investigate.
Looking at my 4x5 camera, I see it has helical (slanted) teeth, but I was not able to find any brass helical racks, so am going with standard teeth. Using approximate dimensions from my 4x5, I searched for similar parts and came up with two options; one metric and one standard. They are:
Racks
http://www.khkgears.co.jp/world/3013pdfmaster/bsr.pdf
Khkgears.co.jp BSRO.5-300 m0.5 303mm length 3mm face 9mm height $23.07 (need two) $46.14
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gear-racks/=10gxvck
McMaster-Carr 7854K13 20/32 24” length 3/16” face 3/16” height $34.00 (makes two) $34.00
Gears
http://www.khkgears.co.jp/world/3013pdfmaster/bss.pdf
Khkgears.co.jp BSSO.5-15a 3mm bore 8.5mm O.D. 3mm face $10? Each $40.00
http://www.mcmaster.com/#gear-racks/=10gxhwn
McMaster-Carr 7880K25 1/8” bore 9mm O.D. 3/16” $12.75 each $51.00
KHK total: $86.14 McMaster: $85.00
Considering all the other parts I will have to buy, these are pretty expensive (but compared to the time I'm investing, not very). One of the problems we have is too much quality. For a camera we have almost no load, and no wear, and a bit of slop is probably not a problem since we lock down focus. We don't need high strength and super precision cut gears, but that is all that is available, and that costs.
For someone wanting to use rack and pinion focusing on the cheap, and particularly for 4x5, I would suggest they investigate plastic racks. Hobby racks are readily available on ebay, as are plastic or brass press-fit spur gears, and I think they would work fine for a light 4x5. It would be fun to design a generic 4x5 English-style field camera using these and other readily available off-the shelf parts, and maybe I'll do that next unless someone beats me to it.
Tin Can
30-Dec-2015, 19:39
So you will drill these tiny racks with a hole for tapered head wood screw and mount them to a precision milled wood height? http://www.mcmaster.com/#7854k13/=10gz0py
They are not cheap and getting them lined up will be work.
I would be tempted to try bigger in plastic. http://www.mcmaster.com/#57655k63/=10gz0d1
3/16 is tiny. even 1/4" is small. But plastic is cheap to experiment with. Maybe a bench test?
I wonder if a new epoxy could eliminate screws?
I think these gears could be a real pita, beyond money.
Just trying to have a conversation, do as you please.
Tim Meisburger
30-Dec-2015, 20:11
Happy to conversate. That's the whole idea of the open-source design! I have no idea what I'm doing with metalwork, and welcome all input.
Anyway, I wish there was an easier solution, but yes, I expect to drill and countersink, either through the teeth or through the side. They do sell pre-drilled steel racks in longer lengths, and i guess steel would be okay for the racks and gears. The metric racks are quite a bit taller and would be easier to drill. Plastic is probably a practical solution, but I'm putting so much effort into the rest of it that I prefer metal.
Tin Can
30-Dec-2015, 20:19
Happy to conversate. That's the whole idea of the open-source design! I have no idea what I'm doing with metalwork, and welcome all input.
Anyway, I wish there was an easier solution, but yes, I expect to drill and countersink, either through the teeth or through the side. They do sell pre-drilled steel racks in longer lengths, and i guess steel would be okay for the racks and gears. The metric racks are quite a bit taller and would be easier to drill. Plastic is probably a practical solution, but I'm putting so much effort into the rest of it that I prefer metal.
Well brass will be easier to drill. And not rust in Thailand.
I always try to find an easy way. I have made things all my life and the second and third iteration is always better, as we see the flaws in our first design. Always happens.
What I find annoying is the person who pipes up after you have made the first one, not before. Very easy to be Sharpshooter as I call the armchair quarterback.
I admire anybody that can build and not just critique. :)
Michael Roberts
30-Dec-2015, 20:43
Tim,
One alternative to consider is the King design. Fewer metal parts. In addition, going with friction focusing instead of rack and pinion would eliminate even more metal parts. The key is being able to lock down tight on the rear and front standards and the extension rail.
Just my two cents.
Michael
Tim Meisburger
30-Dec-2015, 20:52
Randy - I know what you mean. I build a lot of stuff and figure it out as I go along, so the second would always be easier and better than the first, but I only make one!
Michael, can you explain of show me the King design? I don't know what that is.
Michael Roberts
30-Dec-2015, 22:08
Tim,
Page four of this thread.
Michael
Tim Meisburger
30-Dec-2015, 23:09
Ah yes, of course. I thought you were referring to something with friction focusing. I went back and looked at the photos and it really is a nice design. Unfortunately, I don't have one, and without one in front of me I'm not sure I could work out that sliding back part. I may try to do the front like that though, as the wood would be a lot easier to mill than brass. Is that some sort of sliding bolt for front rise?
Its also a double extension right?
Is there a pin or something that holds the front lensboard holder parallel with the front standard, or do you just line them up and twist the knob tight?
barnacle
31-Dec-2015, 04:08
Delrin racks, in a couple of sizes: I prefer the smaller 0.5 mod. http://www.motionco.co.uk/racks-plastic-racks-c-32_42_71.html
Matching delrin spur gears: smaller the better for precise focus: http://www.motionco.co.uk/spur-gears-spur-gears-c-32_33_34.html
Both very reasonably priced but delrin can be a devil to glue to anything.
l
From my post a few pages back, for those in the UK; they also do metal gears and tracks.
As an aside, has anyone used/considered ripstop 2oz nylon as a bellows material?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/WATERPROOF-BLACK-SILVER-PU-COATED-NYLON-REFLECTIVE-AUTOMOTIVE-OUTDOOR-RIPSTOP-/331717419364?hash=item4d3be62164:g:iwYAAOSwAHZUMrCW
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1-5m-Ripstop-Nylon-Material-Craft-Kite-Clothing-Waterproof-PU-Coating-/291092303072?var=590247346857&hash=item43c6740ce0:m:m6z0OEo8yh19FZQClD7Zuaw
Neil
Tim Meisburger
31-Dec-2015, 04:48
I should go back and read everything! Those are great, and cheap too. 250mm might be too short for an 8x10, but would work fine for 5x7 or 4x5.
Jim Jones
31-Dec-2015, 07:56
If I had to make a LF camera from scratch, I'd try a system somewhat similar to the Noba camera, which used a V-belt focusing system. However, rather than a V-belt, a small flexible braided wire cable wrapped around a shaft would be more compact and lighter. Except for the cable and a few fasteners, the whole system could be made of wood. Here in Midwestern USA, Osage Orange trees provide hard tough wood for axe handles and such shafts. Maybe in a few days I'll have time to provide a drawing.
Michael Roberts
31-Dec-2015, 09:20
Ah yes, of course. I thought you were referring to something with friction focusing. I went back and looked at the photos and it really is a nice design. Unfortunately, I don't have one, and without one in front of me I'm not sure I could work out that sliding back part. I may try to do the front like that though, as the wood would be a lot easier to mill than brass. Is that some sort of sliding bolt for front rise?
Its also a double extension right?
Is there a pin or something that holds the front lensboard holder parallel with the front standard, or do you just line them up and twist the knob tight?
Yes, the front rise/fall seems very much like the Ikeda except it does not have brass plates on the sides of the lens board frame. There are two knobs: one controls front tilt and front rise/fall; the other locks the front standard into place and allows back tilt.
The reversible back is very much like most wooden cameras--so nothing special there. This is a double extension, with 24" of extension for 8x10.
The keys to the design are the rear standard metal braces which have a "shoe" that fits below a groove and allows the rear of the camera to extend a couple of inches to the rear of the camera base as well as ride all the way up to the front standard to accommodate very short fl lenses.
I actually have a spare 8x10 I just acquired. I could disassemble it and send photos and measurements if you are interested.
Michael Roberts
31-Dec-2015, 09:42
Here are some close ups of the rear brace and "shoe."
The long arm is similar to most cameras--it allows a screw and thumb knob for raising/closing the rear of the camera.
The innovative part is that it does not simply have a flat plate at the bottom that screws onto the camera base. Instead, it has a bottom piece that has a flat, perpendicular "runner" that glides forward and backward in a channel on the base. The channel is formed by wood, not metal.
There is a second, smaller brace that simply inserts into a small hole drilled in the camera back and provides a second point of connection.
The lower bracket also as a screw thread for a knob to lock down the position of the camera back at any point.
Michael Roberts
31-Dec-2015, 09:46
more
The front standard is attached to a rectangular wood frame, just like the Ikeda.
Two brass strips serve to hold the rear bracket and the rectangular wood frame extension in place. Each has a brass knob to lock down.
There is a single fine focus knob near the right front for fine geared focusing of the extension rail. IMO, this is optional and could be omitted in favor of friction focusing.
No design is going to appeal to everyone, but I think there are some distinct advantages of this design over the Ikeda--fewer metal parts that would need to be designed, ordered, and stocked. Simpler kit to build. All you really need to order is the rear and front brackets and the locks (and, of course, the normal spring back hardware). The brass plate strips are easy to make/find/source. The wood bits are relatively simple as well.
Fr. Mark
31-Dec-2015, 18:02
I'd like to see the belt drive system.
Ripstop nylon is light proof?
Fittings: other materials for consideration besides steel, brass and aluminum? Is Aluminum too soft? Falls too easily?
Delrin was mentioned. Other plastics?
Epoxy plus glass or carbon or Kevlar fiber? I've also wondered about epoxy plus wood fiber/cardboard.
Jac@stafford.net
31-Dec-2015, 18:13
Ripstop nylon is light proof?
In my humble experience, no.
.
barnacle
1-Jan-2016, 06:36
Ah, that was what I feared. Oh well, back to the drawing board. At least I'm only a hundred miles from Custom Bellows.
Neil
Jim Jones
1-Jan-2016, 09:49
I haven't tried scrubbing black liquid acrylic artist's paint thoroughly into thin fabric to make bellows material, but it might be worth a try. The paint would likely adhere better to natural fabrics than to synthetics.
rbultman
10-Jan-2016, 07:43
ANSI IT3.108 1998 Edition, April 28, 1998
Photography (Cameras) - Double Film Holders (Lock-Rib Type) - Dimensions
Here's the page:
https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?&item_s_key=00313483&item_key_date=011231&input_doc_number=&input_doc_title=
$25 but it looks like it is no longer available through this source.
I was able to create an account and add the standard to my shopping cart. The cost is $25. I did not complete the purchase, but it looks like it is available.
Good luck with this effort.
Regards,
Rob
Tim Meisburger
10-Jan-2016, 17:41
Michael, that looks like a viable solution, but I'm still concerned I could not build it without an example in front of me. But I do think I could do the King front standard, and that it would be easier to do that in wood than try to machine a metal front like the Ikeda. I've sent an enquiry to the local distributer of KHK Gears about the racks and gears. Hopefully I can buy those here and avoid high shipping charges. I had hoped to find a cheaper source, but I think that if I can at least define parameters on a generic parts list that would be helpful, as no parts list for a field camera currently exists, unless there is one in Rayment Kirby's new book.
Michael Roberts
16-Jan-2016, 07:29
Tim,
I'm still thinking about the design for attaching the rear frame to the rest of the camera. The direction I am currently thinking is not to use a specially-designed bracket, but just a regular bracket that screws into a small wooden piece that would fit into a track on the camera base (like the brass "shoe" on the King) and that can be unlocked to slide the rear of the camera all the way to the front and which also locks into a wooden rail (or U-shaped wooden piece) than can slide to the rear of the camera base (like a Deardorff) for a triple extension.
Designing the wooden rails like the King shouldn't be too hard. The key in this design would be the locks to be able to tighten down all the moving parts securely.
Tim Meisburger
16-Jan-2016, 07:46
I think I get you. Instead of a brass shoe you use a wooden shoe. Sound like an interesting design. If the design can incorporate wooden parts and use flat metal parts whenever possible it will be simpler to home build.
Michael Kadillak
22-Jan-2016, 08:34
The Rochester Optical King 8x10:
What a thing of beauty.
barnacle
23-Jan-2016, 14:08
Curse the internet... this morning I came to this thread to refer to some gear track sizes I posted a while back. Then I got distracted on the gears page, which led me to wonder if a clock's divide by twelve motion train could be made with the manufacturers standard parts, which led me to research that, which led to fake perpetual motion machines, which led to... now it's nine o'clock and I *still* haven't put pen to paper!
Arghh.
Neil
barnacle
24-Jan-2016, 04:34
Okay, a philosophical question: Is there a preference, with a folding field camera, whether the folding should be achieved by moving the front carrier right to the front of the base and folding it back (a la Tachihara), or push it back as close to the ground glass as possible and fold the base up (a la MPP/Speed Graphic/Sanderson).
The first is simpler to engineer, but requires that the bellows be large enough to bend approximately 90 degrees, and the front carrier needs to be able to spin vertically so everything lines up. There's also the disadvantage that if the tripod mount is through the base of the rear standard, it would be difficult to get things folded without removing from the tripod.
The second is more aesthetically pleasing to me, but means that the front standard has to slide off whatever travel system is designed before the base can be folded up. Which means the standard has to find its way back onto the tracks - and even on my MPP with the traveller tracks linked that's quite tricky.
My intention is that by default the camera will fold with the lens protruding through a hole in the base.
Neil
Michael Roberts
24-Jan-2016, 05:53
Neil,
I think it is a personal preference. If you want to leave a lens on the camera, then I think you have three choices: (1) use something like a tailboard design where you have a front rail instead of the solid wooden base that are used on clam shell designs, (2) as you mention, cut a hole in the base for the lens to poke through (and offset the tripod mount from its usual position in the middle of the base), or (3) design the front standard so the lens board mount is set to the rear of the front standard (this allows room for the lens when the lens board mount is rotated flat against the base when the camera is folded). I have cameras with 1 and 3, but not 2.
Option 1 is your second preference above. Options 2 & 3 reflect your first preference, above.
Come to think of it, I also have a camera that is designed with your option 1 but does allow a lens to stay on the camera when closed in a clam shell design. This requires a little deeper rear frame to accommodate the lens. This camera was not designed for interchangeable lenses, but there is no reason you couldn't design a camera this way if you are willing to deal with the greater depth of the rear frame.
Michael
barnacle
24-Jan-2016, 12:15
Thanks Michael,
My MPP press camera, a very close copy of the Speed Graphic I understand, is a folding clamshell design. Lenses are interchangeable but there isn't a lot of room in there. My Rodenstock Sironat f5.6 150 is way too big to fit, though the original and a newer 135mm are fine.
Neil
Michael Roberts
24-Jan-2016, 18:31
Another option with some cameras is to store the lens on the camera with the lensboard reversed. There is usually more room to the rear due to the bellows. You still have to detach the lensboard and flip it around before focusing a shot and shooting, but it's a little faster than pulling a lens out of a bag.
Michael Roberts
24-Jan-2016, 18:35
I think I get you. Instead of a brass shoe you use a wooden shoe. Sound like an interesting design. If the design can incorporate wooden parts and use flat metal parts whenever possible it will be simpler to home build.
Tim, I'm also intrigued by the way the rear camera frame is attached to the base on the Phillips/Chamonix cameras. I posted on the Cameras forum to ask someone to post or direct me to a better photo of how this works for short lenses. There are photos on the Chamonix site of extended cameras. This could be an easy (relative) solution to both short lenses and rear extension capability.
barnacle
5-Feb-2016, 13:56
Courtesy of http://www.slecuk.com/balsa-wood/Wood.html a quantity of mahogany - sapele, apparently - has landed on my doorstep.
146110
A 5x4 is now in progress. I'll start a separate thread to document it, so as not to clutter this one unnecessarily. Let's see how it goes. Someone will probably decide to give me a job halfway through, so it'll stall for months...
Neil
barnacle
11-Feb-2016, 09:19
More racks available in the UK, even cheaper than motionco. http://www.technobotsonline.com/gear-racks.html http://www.technobotsonline.com/gear-racks.html
There are many many interesting things on that site; I have an idea or two for using the various beams as a base for a camera. Hmm.
Neil
Tim Meisburger
14-May-2016, 03:05
UPDATE: B.S Kumar in Japan just informed me that he has a machinist that might be able to make metal parts kits for view cameras, but needs drawings. I have two camera builds in process, a 4x5 and an 8x10, and both are based on the Ikeda Anba design, since I have one. I have drawn the wooden parts, but not the metal, and sent my camera with my shipment to the US last week. I can do the drawings when I get to the US and get unloaded, but that may not be before August. If anyone wants to undertake drawing, speak up.
Fr. Mark
30-Aug-2016, 13:56
Any news on this project?
Ive been hovering - making bits and pieces.
This last week I've made a 6x7 roll film field camera to use in Canada next week. I bought Mahogany from SlecUk the company Neil (barnacle) posted a link to. I used the track and guides from a Quarter plate Speed Graphic but a 5x4 Pacemaker front standard. I have another Quarter plate trackbed etc and plan to use it for a 5x4 camera but with a slightly wider body to accept a 6x17 back, with capability to use a 75mm Super Angulon. I'm using parts of a Super Graphic front standard but modified to use Linhof/Wista lens boards as that gives a lot more movements.
Building the 6x7 field camera has been interesting but also logical and easy. Graflex Pacemakers and Super Graphics need the drop-bed for front tilt, I reversed the front standard but needed to place the back slightly higher to allow fall to compensate the tilt. That's a lesson that will progress to the final 5x4 camera.
Ian
Tim Meisburger
30-Aug-2016, 14:38
I'm moved now, but still settling in, so haven't started back on mine yet. I'm still looking for the holy grail of a complete set of metal parts that can be easily sourced. At this point, I'm not sure this can be done off the shelf, and the best bet is a machinist willing to sell parts kits. I think the English style (like the Ikeda) is the best for a generic design, as the wood parts are relatively simple to make and assemble, and the finished camera is a lightweight field camera.
McMaster Carr in the US sell almost everything needed but won't export outside the US, their reasons are quite irrational.
Ian
Fr. Mark
30-Aug-2016, 17:38
I will have to look more at field camera designs. I'd love an 8x10 adaptation to the Sinar rig I have (I don't have 2 kilobux to buy one). And, I'd also like a good field 8x10. I'm loathe to buy stuff I could make. But sometimes existing products are so well thought out that I'd never get to that level. But affordable 8x10's are often rickety and lack what seem like important movements. But fewer movements equals more rigidity and simpler construction. Why Ikeda type and not lead screw focus like chamonix? Why front focus at all?
B.S.Kumar
30-Aug-2016, 19:09
Send me a set of drawings for all the metal and wooden parts, and I'll get a couple of prototypes made.
Kumar
Any ideas where I can download this pdf?
Hi I would be interested in your drawings please as I would like to make 4 x 5 camera
Michael Roberts
11-Dec-2019, 06:12
MACKE, AFAIK Tim never completed the plans he started (post 183, above). He hasn't posted here in over a year, but you could try sending him an email to find out if he ever finished the drawings (left-click his name for his email).
If you can provide a little more info about your motivation for building a 4x5 and your planned uses (need for camera movements) then I (and other members) can provide some advice and options.
For example, you can build from scratch, starting with building a spring back around a 4x5 film holder. [here is a thread on a 7x11 camera build I did earlier this year: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151872-7x11-Camera-Build&p=1495465&viewfull=1#post1495465]
You could buy a relatively inexpensive Intrepid 4x5.
You could buy a vintage 4x5 and modify it, if needed.
Each option has its advantages. Also, if you want to build your own, do you want to use wood or 3D printing, or some other method?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.