Using and Modifying the Travelwide 4x5 camera

[HMG]

How long a cable release is required for mounting though the channel in the grip? It appears (based on Kickstarter photos) that an 18" will work.

[Tin Can]

How long a cable release is required for mounting though the channel in the grip? It appears (based on Kickstarter photos) that an 18" will work.

If you look at my first setup I immediately modified the grip handle with a slot, to allow a shorter cable to be used.

Now we are into using and modding the camera/ This should be a new thread.

Perhaps the Mods can move this thead starter to a better location?

Hello Oren!

[Oren Grad]

Done - carry on! :)

[Tin Can]

Just checking in.

Let's rock!

[Ben Syverson]

If you look at my first setup I immediately modified the grip handle with a slot, to allow a shorter cable to be used.
So cool! That's a great idea.

Without modification, you should be able to thread a 12" cable release through the utility grips, but it can be unwieldy if you throw the whole rig in a bag (the cable can get crimped/bent). I wish we had the ability to add a hole to the grips!

[Tin Can]

Maybe some cannot find this. Here is my first Travelwide mod.

I probably would not have thought of it, if I hadn't seen a similar solution on A FOTOMAN camera and since I have 3 dozen of these short German NOS shutter cables I try to dedicate one to a camera as needed. (none are for sale, I bought a large Lot of them on eBay}.

Some have asked, what length cable fits? I don't know because I did this. I made center punch dents in a row and drilled them out with a cordless drill. I hand filed it all until my cable could pass through. The cable chrome part was loose at top and I applied 2 layers of gaff tape to make it stay in place, when pushed into the top hole. Then I gaff taped cable and slot. Gaff tape also improved my grip. I drop everything. Pita!

139714

[HMG]

I modified this DOF chart (https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/4x5/90depth.htm) for a more pocketable version. Haven't done it yet but need to calculate a f6.8 column for my Angulon.

[Tin Can]

I modified this DOF chart (https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/4x5/90depth.htm) for a more pocketable version. Haven't done it yet but need to calculate a f6.8 column for my Angulon.

I like! I get closer. I'm shooting people at 3 ft. I sighted in for 3' and try to guess 3'. I should probably use a string to raise the weirdo old man factor. That's my next mod!

I keep getting people saying they blinked from the flashbulb. They blink late and I get 'eyes wide open' not shut... They ask for a second shot. I am training them not to expect a second chance.

Then I tell them pics will be ready tomorrow............. :)

Next I stop scanning and only show them prints.

ps for nervous nellies. I AM USING FLASH BULB COVERS OR SHIELDS!

I am finding flashbulbs give a different 'texture' perhaps from movement? No 1/10,000 sec freeze.

[Oren Grad]

I modified this DOF chart (https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/4x5/90depth.htm) for a more pocketable version. Haven't done it yet but need to calculate a f6.8 column for my Angulon.

Unfortunately, Schneider doesn't say with the charts what CoC criterion they used - it's worth checking against a DOF calculator to see what it is.

[HMG]

Unfortunately, Schneider doesn't say with the charts what CoC criterion they used - it's worth checking against a DOF calculator to see what it is.

It's not on that chart but on another it specifies a "blur circle" of 0.10mm.

[Drew Bedo]

I do not have a TW camera yet and won't till the last of the pre-orders go out, BUT . . .

Is there a way to put a protective cap or cup over the lens/shutter? Maybe fastening the drilled out lid from a plastic container to the body and snapping the continer over all of it?

Is this needed or am I just fretting over a problem that I don't have (yet)?

[HMG]

Is there a way to put a protective cap or cup over the lens/shutter? Maybe fastening the drilled out lid from a plastic container to the body and snapping the continer over all of it? ...

I assume you mean more than a lens cap. I think a "supersized" cap that would friction fit over the focus ring is a good idea for keeping both the lens and shutter clean and in keeping with the "take anywhere" ethos.

Will have to measure when mine gets here. Good application for a 3d printer if the printer material is flexible enough.

[Light Guru]

I do not have a TW camera yet and won't till the last of the pre-orders go out, BUT . . .

Is there a way to put a protective cap or cup over the lens/shutter? Maybe fastening the drilled out lid from a plastic container to the body and snapping the continer over all of it?

Is this needed or am I just fretting over a problem that I don't have (yet)?

I'm just going to use a regular lens cap over the lens.

[Jon Shiu]

There are some neoprene lens caps that may work, if can stay on securely.

Jon

I do not have a TW camera yet and won't till the last of the pre-orders go out, BUT . . .

Is there a way to put a protective cap or cup over the lens/shutter? Maybe fastening the drilled out lid from a plastic container to the body and snapping the continer over all of it?

Is this needed or am I just fretting over a problem that I don't have (yet)?

[Winger]

I may find or make a flexible cover that's more like a small bag. If I shoot with something that I don't have to look through the lens, I can guarantee I'll have pictures of the inside of a lens cap.

[Ben Syverson]

One good solution is an oversized neoprene wrap, like the ones they use for lenses. The parts that are the most vulnerable are the cable release and the shutter cock lever. They're slightly protected by virtue of being inset from the helical. But still, it's safest to unscrew the cable release when in transit.

The lens itself is pretty safe with a lens cap on. If you're really worried, you can add a UV filter.

[dave_whatever]

Been tinkering with mine tonight, fitting the lenses, cleaning the shutter on the angulon etc.

First thoughts on the travelwide bodies:
-pretty rigid, more so than I expected.
-dead light.
-ground glass supplied seems adequate for the job of setting infinity.
-adjusting helical for infinity is simple. Helical relatively stiff to turn, but this may prove to be a good thing.
-Even with the spring back removed the camera won't accept either a Grafmatic of Horseman 6x12 back. These both want to overhang the closed end of the film holder space, and can't because the solid end piece that the spring back screws into is there. Maybe they would work if you filed away most of that side, but that's a one-way street and precludes future use of the spring back and normal holders. Bit of a shame as I was banking on using the 6x12 back and Grafmatics instead of normal holders, adn the Grafmatic would really suit this camera down to the ground, but never mind.
-Flash shoes seem pretty tight, at least with the things I've tried to mount, like a Voigtlander 15mm finder, Gaoersi 90mm finder, or my Linhof Multifinder. The Linhof especially is very tight. The plus point is once on you're not going to find these falling off. Plastic seems pretty strong though, I might try and file/sand a shoe out a bit and see if that loosens things up a bit. But I totally acknowledge that on a solid coldshoe its better to be on the tight side than the slack side.

[Corran]

I'm a bit disappointed that the Horseman 6x12 back doesn't work!

[AuditorOne]

It is a 4x5 camera...right? It was designed and intended to be a point and shoot 4x5.

Could be wrong but I don't remember any advertising that indicated it would handle 6x12.

[Kuzano]

I'd be surprised if the Horseman will not fit with the springs removed and using bungees. I plan on using the DaYi back which is multiformat 6X6 ti 6X12 and fits Graflex back. The measurement for the Horeseman should also fit a 4X5 Graflex. The Horseman is simply an overpriced roll film back, but measures to the Graflex opening that uses DDS, so should fit this back opening (sized to DDS as it is) and held on with the cords.

Can't imagine it's not a surmountable problem. The DaY is half the price of a used Horseman, in any event and multi format to boot.

[Tin Can]

I just checked the fit of a Horseman Roll Film Holder Type 451, which is a 6X9 120mm roll film holder to fit 4X5 cameras. 8 on 120.

It fits easily and well, but the Wanderlust springs will require a rubber band or wood shim to fully clamp the left side of the film holder, the right side is firmly clamped by the camera springs.

[Tin Can]

Go to this thread for my description on fitting a Horseman 6X9 roll film holder. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?125258-Using-and-Modifying-the-Travelwide-4x5-camera&p=1282135&viewfull=1#post1282135

Let's separate usage from delivery, as it is 2 different issues.

[Oren Grad]

Posts on fitting the 6x12 RFH moved to the "usage" thread.

[dave_whatever]

I'd be surprised if the Horseman will not fit with the springs removed and using bungees. I plan on using the DaYi back which is multiformat 6X6 ti 6X12 and fits Graflex back. The measurement for the Horeseman should also fit a 4X5 Graflex. The Horseman is simply an overpriced roll film back, but measures to the Graflex opening that uses DDS, so should fit this back opening (sized to DDS as it is) and held on with the cords.

Can't imagine it's not a surmountable problem. The DaY is half the price of a used Horseman, in any event and multi format to boot.

Be surprised, because as I said above, the Horseman 6x12 back does not fit. Based on actually trying it, not speculation!

A 6x9 or 6x7 back should fit as they generally don't overhang the end of the footprint of a standard 5x4 holder. Not sure if the chinese 6x12 backs would fit, should do if they don't overhang.

A quickload holder fits fine by the way, with the spring in place. Probably a bit cumbersome handling though.

[EdSawyer]

Bummer about the 6x12 and Grafmatics not fitting! btw, there's a reason the Horseman 6x12 is an expensive back: it's basically the best available, certainly better than any of the chinese roll-film backs. The only thing better I could imagine might be a techno rollex back.

[Ben Syverson]

-Even with the spring back removed the camera won't accept either a Grafmatic of Horseman 6x12 back. These both want to overhang the closed end of the film holder space, and can't because the solid end piece that the spring back screws into is there.
Shame about the Grafmatic and Horseman… I didn't have either on-hand when I was designing the camera, otherwise I might have tried to devise a different system for the spring back.

FWIW, it seems like the Dayi 6x12 back should fit. And possibly the Gaoersi if you pull the left dark slide all the way out?

[Drew Bedo]

In he past,ways were found to modify the Polaroid 110 series (and others) to accept instant pack films and 4x5 holders . . .even Grafmatics. There is a small industry feeding this market niche.

I am sure that fitting roll iolm backs or Grafmatic magazines to a TravelWide will be figured out in several ways by multiple photographers. It may become a niche market of its own.

And yet, the concept of the TW revolves around simplicity and light weight. Adding a roll film back or a Grafmatic will make the camera heavier. Adding on a Graflock back (epoxy putty?) will add even more weight. Now it may be that a TW with apretty substantial lens is on the front handles better with some weight on the back. . . .we will have to see.

[HMG]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the actual number of users of a 6x12 back would be tiny. And even the appeal of a roll film back is negated on a camera without movements (as MF cameras can do the same). A magazine back such as the graphmatic is more in keeping with the Travelwide concept.

[dave_whatever]

Adding a roll film back or a Grafmatic will make the camera heavier.

Not quite. A kit consisting of the travelwide with a grafmatic will weigh less than a travelwide with the three normal film holders it replaces, and would allow faster shooting. Similarly a kit consisting of a 6x12 back and a few rolls of 120 will always weigh less that the same number of shots on 4x5 film. Yeah you could go out and buy an all-metal 6x12 but it would be heavier. For some potential uses of the TW, like shooting in mountain environments, a 6x12 back would make a lot of sense.

[rdenney]

I'm a bit disappointed that the Horseman 6x12 back doesn't work!

I'll try a Shen-Hao 612 back when mine arrives. That back has the right flavor for a Travelwide. My Sinar Vario would be a bit over the top.

Rick "not remembering which side is the dark slide opening, though" Denney

[Corran]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the actual number of users of a 6x12 back would be tiny. And even the appeal of a roll film back is negated on a camera without movements (as MF cameras can do the same). A magazine back such as the graphmatic is more in keeping with the Travelwide concept.

I don't think so. 6x12 is just the panoramic format with roughly [4x]5" width. It makes a lot of sense to use the TW as a panorama tool, a giant XPan kind of.

If the Shen-Hao works I might pick one up. The Horseman is pretty awesome, and probably second only to the Linhof. The lever wind and automatic stops already make it better than the typical Chinese backs using knobs and red windows.

[A_Tabor]

I'm kind of curious as to what the modification required to fit some of these different backs to the camera are. Is there enough material and space that you could shave off the needed material, but then build some kind of bolt-on fitting that would let you change the base body between using the different style backs as needed?

Would love to see some detailed pictures if anyone has the time. I'm not really expecting that I'll get one for myself, but it does sound like a fun mechanical and design problem to solve.

[letchhausen]

Make a mask, shoot 4x5 and crop. Problem solved.

[Corran]

Make a mask, shoot 4x5 and crop. Problem solved.

No, that's not a solution at all, it's a waste of time and money.

[Drew Bedo]

Not quite. A kit consisting of the travelwide with a grafmatic will weigh less than a travelwide with the three normal film holders it replaces, and would allow faster shooting. Similarly a kit consisting of a 6x12 back and a few rolls of 120 will always weigh less that the same number of shots on 4x5 film. Yeah you could go out and buy an all-metal 6x12 but it would be heavier. For some potential uses of the TW, like shooting in mountain environments, a 6x12 back would make a lot of sense.

Sure—the kit may be heavier in total.
To clarify my remarks:

I was referring to the camera itself. With the 90mm/f6.8 Angulon on the front (as it was designed to have) and a film holder on the back, the camera should be handy. With a larger mass on the back though, (Grafmatic magazine, roll film back, Graflock back )the camera may be harder to handle (assuming hand-held shooting).

On the other hand, if a more massive lens is put up front (my 90mm/f8 Nikkor) than maybe a Grafmatic or roll film back will balance out that weight out front.

These things will all be tried out and we will see what works.

[Tin Can]

No, that's not a solution at all, it's a waste of time and money.

What cameras does a 6x12 roll film back fit? I really don't know.

Do most of them require a Grafloc back?

http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/features.html

A quick glance at a Grafmatic and the 'plastic do it all' camera, seems to indicate they could be mated with camera mods.

[Corran]

Well the Horseman (and many others) indeed fit any standard Graflok back. I have shot my Horseman using my Chamonix, Linhof, Toyo G, etc.

Of course without the camera in-hand I don't know what is preventing it from working, as reported earlier.

I am sure the heft of the Horseman would drastically change the handling of the camera. Personally I definitely plan on using the TW on a tripod regularly (hiking).

[Tin Can]

Well the Horseman (and many others) indeed fit any standard Graflok back. I have shot my Horseman using my Chamonix, Linhof, Toyo G, etc.

Of course without the camera in-hand I don't know what is preventing it from working, as reported earlier.

I am sure the heft of the Horseman would drastically change the handling of the camera. Personally I definitely plan on using the TW on a tripod regularly (hiking).

The Wonder camera clearly does not have a Grafloc back.

Have fun with it when it arrives.

[EdSawyer]

Other advantages of 6x12 (as if there aren't enough already): Never a dust problem from dusty film holders, per-shot price is WAY cheaper than 4x5 sheet film, can carry a lot more shots for the same weight/space, more choices of emulsions than sheet film. Personally I use 6x12 horseman a lot, especially with a Chamonix Saber - it's a great combo. Judging by price/demand of the horseman 6x12 roll-film holders, there's definitely a fairly wide user base of them (and of 6x12 in general).

[rfesk]

I have several Grafmatics and use them but maybe with the Travelwide I will just get a small bag to carry as many holders as are needed. That way can have different emulsions also. We'll see.

[wojszyca]

I managed to install my f6.8 Angulon yesterday and today I did the calibration. All went quite smooth and it was my first ever experience with LF lens so all was new to me. I am not sure if the lens is perfectly centered, as the opening is a bit bigger than the diameter of the lens element, but then I think that it doesn't matter if it is centered 100% precisely? I mean that as long as the image circle covers the film area it shouldn't matter if the image is slightly shifted off-center? I hope so. Here is an image from the calibration: https://instagram.com/p/88Bvq4uaTk/

[Tin Can]

I managed to install my f6.8 Angulon yesterday and today I did the calibration. All went quite smooth and it was my first ever experience with LF lens so all was new to me. I am not sure if the lens is perfectly centered, as the opening is a bit bigger than the diameter of the lens element, but then I think that it doesn't matter if it is centered 100% precisely? I mean that as long as the image circle covers the film area it shouldn't matter if the image is slightly shifted off-center? I hope so. Here is an image from the calibration: https://instagram.com/p/88Bvq4uaTk/

Did you try installing the retaining flange/ring backwards?

That worked for my Rapax.

Let's move this usage discussion to this thread. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?125258-Using-and-Modifying-the-Travelwide-4x5-camera

[wojszyca]

Thanks Randy for movin the post to the correct thread :)


Did you try installing the retaining flange/ring backwards?

I didn't! I think I will first test it as is and try that shall I have any issues. Do you think that having the lens very slightly off-center can be a problem?

[Tin Can]

Thanks Randy for movin the post to the correct thread :)



I didn't! I think I will first test it as is and try that shall I have any issues. Do you think that having the lens very slightly off-center can be a problem?

Only you can answer your question by testing.

[Ben Syverson]

I didn't! I think I will first test it as is and try that shall I have any issues. Do you think that having the lens very slightly off-center can be a problem?
I don't think it's a problem—it's very difficult to notice slight shifts. In fact, the film can shift back and forth a millimeter or two in some holders. By the way, retaining rings can often be installed either direction, but will fill more of the Copal opening in one orientation. We made the opening slightly on the large side, simply because the actual lens/shutter size varies quite a bit.

Hope this helps!

[wojszyca]

After work I am picking up the film holders. I hope I did the calibration right, I have the Angulon f/6,8 so the lens that the camera was designed for. After calibration my infinity point is very close to the fully retracted helical but it is not at THE very beginning (I hope my limited English is understandable).
Anyway, I am going to find out very soon!

[wojszyca]

There is a new group on Flickr for Travelwide 4x5 shots. I just joined :)

https://www.flickr.com/groups/travelwide4x5/

[Philip Jackson]

I picked up my Travelwide from the post office in Canberra, Australia yesterday. Installed a 6.8 Angulon last night, but have yet to calibrate to infinity. Hopefully it'll be sunny on the weekend.

On first impressions, the helical seems great. The metric distance numbers don't really jump out at you, but are easy enough to see. I may not bother with a cable release using it hand held - it seems like it may be easier just to directly trigger the shutter by lightly nudging the release with a finger.

The metal prongs on the back may take a little getting used to, and taking out a focussing screen and replacing it with a film holder may have the potential for movement unless you are pretty careful and/or use a very stable tripod. But that's probably not how I'll use it most of the time.

I'm down to my last couple of packs of the peel-apart Fuji instant FP-3000B and my Polaroid 3.34 X 4.25 holder that slides under a 4x5 Graflok back won't fit. As Ben said earlier, it's a real pity Fuji discontinued this wonderful instant material.

Instax seems less endangered, and I think it'd be very nice if somebody develops and markets a Fuji Instax Wide back for the Travelwide. Somebody seems to be modifying the hand cranked Instax back Lomo developed for their Belair to make it fit the Polaroid 600SE or Mamiya Universal Press, but it'd be better to have something made from scratch specifically for a Travelwide, ideally with a 3 volt battery and motor. However I have no idea how easy it would be to do in order to get the Instax material into the film plane, and then presumably eject it vertically straight up out of the holder? Perhaps you might have to remove the back first, but that wouldn't be too bad a workaround. Bob Crowley from the New 55 project previously reported an attempt to modify the back from an Instax 210 camera for his Graflex, but apparently he made a hack of it, so perhaps it might not be as easy as it seems.

Philip Jackson

[wojszyca]

I took my first shot yesterday.
Many first times here - my first ever large format shot, first time ever handling sheet film, first time ever developing it and scanning it. First time ever using the Travelwide and the sport finder.
Considering all that, I am happy I got any results. Framing is random, as I had no idea what area of the actual frame does the sport finder cover, so I just centered it on the subject and used the bubble level to level the camera.

The photo is not sharp. At full size, it is obviously soft. Either I did the calibration wrong, or it is camera shake (2 min exposure). Long exposure wasn't probably the best idea for the first test, but it was raining all day and only stopped after dark. And I was too eager to try to wait..

Here is the rough scan of my first attempt:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wojszyca/22183041349/

[Drew Bedo]

NIce first image!Welcome to the LF world.

My intro was a beaten old press camera and my first image was a fence post—hand-held no less. I was so glad to get anything at all. We share your excitement.

[ndrs]

Mine arrived today in Germany.
I'm thinking about adding a proper ground glass. The big question is whether I should cut a hole in the plastic screen and use it as a frame or sacrifice an old film holder for this.

[wojszyca]

NIce first image!Welcome to the LF world.

Thank you so much. I consider it partial success :) I need to learn to compose better with the sport finder and - the most important - solve the mystery of missing sharpness. I hope it was just camera shake over the long exposure.

[Cor]

Wojtek,

Sound your have fun, good ! One thing you might check on your lens, well actually your Compur shutter: the little metal block in which you screw your cable release in, has a tiny screw, sometimes these are not tightened enough, and you can loose this valuable attachment piece, you might want too check that little screw..

Good luck !

Cor

[wojszyca]

One thing you might check on your lens, well actually your Compur shutter [...]

Thank you so much! I will sure check that.

[gliderbee]

Here's mine, all set to go (still looking for a usable strap though). I don't see the need for a cable release when supporting the camera in the palm of the left hand and softly pushing the shutter with the left index finger.

141302

[OeT]

Hi everyone, my first post on this forum
I got my two cameras last week and the first thing that struck me was that at least for me it was pretty uncomfortable to hold so I began working on a 3D-printable grip.
If you have any improvement to add I will try to work those in.

Here is the first print/prototype
141322
141323

Things to change
I'm going to make it a little bigger so the film holder "flaps" wont be rubbing against the palm and angle the shutter release a bit and make the cable go inside the grip.

[HMG]

Hi everyone, my first post on this forum
I got my two cameras last week and the first thing that struck me was that at least for me it was pretty uncomfortable to hold so I began working on a 3D-printable grip.
If you have any improvement to add I will try to work those in.

Here is the first print/prototype
141322
141323

Things to change
I'm going to make it a little bigger so the film holder "flaps" wont be rubbing against the palm and angle the shutter release a bit and make the cable go inside the grip.

My temptation would be to have this on the other side, so held with left hand. Assuming no issue with clearing film back. That way you could grip with left hand while using right hand to manipulate the film holder. I'm righthanded, so that influences my preference.

[AuditorOne]

Just received notice that mine will ship on the 28th of this month. Not in time for Halloween but certainly in time for Thanksgiving and Christmas. I am already wondering what kind of extension I might need to fabricate so that I can shoot 5x7 as well!!

[OeT]

My temptation would be to have this on the other side, so held with left hand. Assuming no issue with clearing film back. That way you could grip with left hand while using right hand to manipulate the film holder. I'm righthanded, so that influences my preference.

I'm planning on making one for the left side as well so you can choose right, lrft or both sides.

[gliderbee]

What annoys me most is the black-on-black of the distance scale, which is very hard to see with my middle-aged eyes. Anybody a solution for that ? I tried to paint them but it becomes a bit of a mess ...

[Tin Can]

White gaff tape, so I can mark my own distances which I find are different than stock. Works for me well.

[Drew Bedo]

What annoys me most is the black-on-black of the distance scale, which is very hard to see with my middle-aged eyes. Anybody a solution for that ? I tried to paint them but it becomes a bit of a mess ...

White correction fluid and a sponge?

Sombody will have a better solutuib.

[Winger]

What annoys me most is the black-on-black of the distance scale, which is very hard to see with my middle-aged eyes. Anybody a solution for that ? I tried to paint them but it becomes a bit of a mess ...

There are paint pens from Sharpie that are very fine point, and available in white. I've used those to do markings on various car parts that had been freshly painted (both raised and depressed). Doing it right after a cup of coffee is not recommended, however.

[HMG]

There are paint pens from Sharpie that are very fine point, and available in white. I've used those to do markings on various car parts that had been freshly painted (both raised and depressed). Doing it right after a cup of coffee is not recommended, however.

Similar pens in silver and gold as well (may not be "Sharpie" brand).

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, the distance markings were a challenge. We could have pad printed them, but then they could rub off.

I find that a white china marker (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1640-China-Marker-White) is helpful to keep track of a handful of distances. When you recalibrate, you can easily rub the mark off.

[pierre506]

My closest focal distance is 1 meter after calibration using SA 90mm f8 lens.

[pierre506]

With the Metz 45 CT-3 strobe.141512

[pierre506]

After practice, I found the Travalwide could bear:
Polaroid 405, 545i,Fuji PA-145, "23"(or 66, 67) 4x5 Graphic, ...
Could not bear:
4x5 Grafmatic,Polaroid 550, Fuji PA-45, Horseman 612, Toyo 67(69)/45,...
All because of the position of the Travalwide still spring~
141513
Ben might not see too many different 4x5 holders before. However, it should hold 4x5 Grafmatic at least as a Quick-shoot camera.
I believe it's very easy to make an adjustment to fit other holders onto the 1st generation mold.

[BarryS]

What annoys me most is the black-on-black of the distance scale, which is very hard to see with my middle-aged eyes. Anybody a solution for that ? I tried to paint them but it becomes a bit of a mess ...

Instead of making the distance scale numbers raised, they should have been recessed--it would have been easy to fill them with white paint. Since I prefer a scale in feet, I'm going to make a printable template in illustrator and use white markings on a black background.

[ndrs]

After practice, I found the Travalwide could bear:
Polaroid 405, 545i,Fuji PA-145, "23"(or 66, 67) 4x5 Graphic, ...


May I ask how did you make Polaroid 405 fit?
True, it fits perfectly with darkslide out but this makes it unusable for any practical purposes...

[Ben Syverson]

May I ask how did you make Polaroid 405 fit?
True, it fits perfectly with darkslide out but this makes it unusable for any practical purposes...
Not true! The dark slide slot doesn't let in much light—but I've taped over it anyway.

The only downside is that the film is exposed within the camera between shots—so you have to be careful not to trip the preview lever or take an accidental shot.

[Corran]

So the 90mm XL works on the TW:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/DSC_0683s.jpg

The rear element just fits perfectly into the "well" of the helical. However - this is only with the newer 90mm with the removable rear element "shroud" that protects the huge element otherwise (this is used to fit it into a Technika). So it won't work with older 90mm XL lenses.

Also, it's more retrofocal than the other 90mm lenses, so it focuses way past infinity. As it came, the TW helical was at 1.5 meters or so before it came into focus at infinity. Minimum focus distance was like 15 feet. The reason I have a Technika lensboard on top is I used that and a series adapter as an "extension" piece, which gave me a bit more leeway but still wasn't enough. I might could squeeze some more extension without modifying the camera by fooling around with other bits and pieces I have around. But it works as-is, just not for close focusing.

Does the "plate" on top of the helical come off? If so, some sort of small extension plate could be made.

[ndrs]

Not true! The dark slide slot doesn't let in much light—but I've taped over it anyway.

The only downside is that the film is exposed within the camera between shots—so you have to be careful not to trip the preview lever or take an accidental shot.

You're right of course. I somehow didn't think this way.
So it's usable but limits 405 use to either a full pack, sacrificing one sheet per removal at half-pack, or loading/removing half-pack in darkness.

[Corran]

I have a couple of different 405 holders. One of them, the dark slide is really flexible, and I'm able to just barely slide it in out at a very steep angle.

The other, nope.

I took some photos today with some 3000B film, will post scans later.

[Jim Cole]

OK, so did anyone else break their camera in less than 5 minutes??? ;)

I managed to disconnect the internal helical from the front turning ring. There are four little protrusions from a plastic ring inside the camera that is screwed to the camera body making reconnection difficult.

I'm not sure how to reconnect everything without breaking one of the protrusions. It doesn't just screw back in.

Ben? Justin? Help!

[Chauncey Walden]

Arrived today and I decided to start with the 65 Super Angulon. Removing the helical was straightforward but dang those screws are small. Ben, what size are they? I can foresee the need to have some spares. Mounted the 65 plate and the Super Angulon. I guessed at 3 shims as I was aiming for a 17 foot focus and shooting at f/22. Lucked out and I think I'm pretty close. Even with a 6x loupe it is difficult to tell on the focusing screen just when it is in focus. There is a bright spot in the center that is fairly usable but I don't think you would have much luck composing on it with the 65 f/8.The hole for the cable release works well and the 65 doesn't require much length. I had to do a little filing on the wire frame finder to get it in. Not a problem and I think it would work well for the 90. With the 65 you have to imagine the extra area surrounding the frame. Again, not a problem. Then I hauled out a Grafmatic and a Kinematic to see what would have to be done to use them. The Grafmatic is a snug fit side to side but the side overhang at the top would have to be addressed by lowering the sides. At the rear, I think it would be unworkable as the rear overhang and the rear stop are connected by a 45 degree angle which would require removing too much of that end. The Kinematic joins the two with a right angle and slides right in width wise and would be workable with significant modifications. The overlap of the Kinematic covers the current mounting holes for the spring but does not extend past the end of the camera. So the rear wall would have to be reduced about half its height and a grip, fastened into the side of the camera, with its height raised to the height of the Kinematic and having mounting points for the spring would be added. Then you would have 10 shots available and in the hand which I think would be perfect for this camera.

[plywood]

OK, so did anyone else break their camera in less than 5 minutes??? ;)

I managed to disconnect the internal helical from the front turning ring. There are four little protrusions from a plastic ring inside the camera that is screwed to the camera body making reconnection difficult.

I'm not sure how to reconnect everything without breaking one of the protrusions. It doesn't just screw back in.

Ben? Justin? Help!

Don't know for sure but I think you will have to use a small screwdriver to remove the retaining clips, then the focusing collar with the helical threaded into it goes in from the back, line up the slots in the helical with the protrusions on the retaining tabs and secure with the screws.
Won't have mine until tomorrow but then I think reassembly will be self evident.
Still, all in all you should wait for a reply from the designers, Ben and Justin.

[Jim Cole]

Don't know for sure but I think you will have to use a small screwdriver to remove the retaining clips, then the focusing collar with the helical threaded into it goes in from the back, line up the slots in the helical with the protrusions on the retaining tabs and secure with the screws.
Won't have mine until tomorrow but then I think reassembly will be self evident.
Still, all in all you should wait for a reply from the designers, Ben and Justin.

Thanks! I thought it was a bit weird. As soon as I started turning the focusing ring to play with it, there were some loud clicks like something snapped. When I looked in the back of the camera, the whole helical tube was at a slant and it wouldn't move at all. I think maybe it wasn't quite assembled correctly, forgivable since the boys had to do 1500 of these. I think you are right about removing the internal collar, but I will wait for the proper instructions.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks! I thought it was a bit weird. As soon as I started turning the focusing ring to play with it, there were some loud clicks like something snapped. When I looked in the back of the camera, the whole helical tube was at a slant and it wouldn't move at all. I think maybe it wasn't quite assembled correctly, forgivable since the boys had to do 1500 of these. I think you are right about removing the internal collar, but I will wait for the proper instructions.
Jim, sounds like you broke the retaining collars. They should give some resistance when you rack past infinity. But you keep twisting, you'll snap the tabs. Basically, you shouldn't have to force anything.

I'll send some more tabs once we have everything assembled!

[Jim Cole]

Jim, sounds like you broke the retaining collars. They should give some resistance when you rack past infinity. But you keep twisting, you'll snap the tabs. Basically, you shouldn't have to force anything.

I'll send some more tabs once we have everything assembled!

Ben,

Thanks for the reply. The retaining collars look absolutely intact, not broken with all four little tabs in place. I had literally rotated the collar one rotation when the snapping sounds started. I think it was just installed a little off kilter or it took a hit in shipping which jolted it out of place.

If you could just tell me how to reinstall the pieces correctly, I think we'll be in business.

Thanks!

[Ben Syverson]

Oh, very strange. I'm struggling to picture it! I would say, unscrew the retaining rings and then reinstall the whole assembly?

- Take off the focus indicator grip (rubber).
- Unscrew the retaining collars from the inside of the camera (don't lose the screws!)
- Pull the whole assembly out of the back
- Rack the focus collar all the way to the base of the helical (away from the copal opening)
- With the helical and collar pointed as if they're going into the back, orient the helical assembly so that the infinity collar is pointing to 12:30 or 1:00
- Install the retaining tabs like ears on the left and right. If you get one tooth, the other should snap into place. They have a top and bottom—if you're looking at the back, make sure that the side with the slight bevel on the tooth is facing up.
- Put the screws into the retaining tabs first
- Lower the whole assembly into the body
- Attach the screws —*don't over-tighten.

That should do it! Let me know if that helps. And hopefully this helps anyone else in the future to reassemble the 90 helical!

[Jim Cole]

Oh, very strange. I'm struggling to picture it! I would say, unscrew the retaining rings and then reinstall the whole assembly?

- Take off the focus indicator grip (rubber).
- Unscrew the retaining collars from the inside of the camera (don't lose the screws!)
- Pull the whole assembly out of the back
- Rack the focus collar all the way to the base of the helical (away from the copal opening)
- With the helical and collar pointed as if they're going into the back, orient the helical assembly so that the infinity collar is pointing to 12:30 or 1:00
- Install the retaining tabs like ears on the left and right. If you get one tooth, the other should snap into place. They have a top and bottom—if you're looking at the back, make sure that the side with the slight bevel on the tooth is facing up.
- Put the screws into the retaining tabs first
- Lower the whole assembly into the body
- Attach the screws —*don't over-tighten.

That should do it! Let me know if that helps. And hopefully this helps anyone else in the future to reassemble the 90 helical!

Ben,

That worked, thank you very much. One of the little loops on one of the retainers that the screw passes thru did break, but it's good enough to hold for a little while. When you get a chance, email me the price a new pair of retainers with an extra set of 4 screws (in case they start to strip with a couple of removals) plus the cost of shipping and I can PayPal the total to you before you ship.

Thanks and I'm really looking forward to putting some film thru this little beauty.

[Tin Can]

First thing I did was take the whole thing apart, which is 4 screws as Ben knows.

Be gentle you guys, I think some of you are asking a lot of when you install heavy lenses, Bryan, and Grafmatics and Metz flash, Pierre!

I know you can break them, it is plastic.

There's a good reason I settled for a tiny 90mm Rapex, it's very light weight and I think light is where this camera is at. With regular DDS holders.

Now ignore me and let's see those mods.

After all I did drill holes in mine before ever using it...:)

[Corran]

:)

Truth be told, I took off the 90XL and put on an Angulon for my trip, calibrated it (and my freshly-calibrated Blik) so I'm set for snapshooting. It was more of an experiment - I tried many different lenses and configurations.

[Ben Syverson]

Bryan, I can't wait to see the results! You'll have to weigh in on how the 90XL compares. Do you have a Super Angulon to play with too?

I just found a 101mm Graflex Optar in a drawer… It won't focus to infinity on the Travelwide, but it could be interesting as a portrait setup. I'll give it a whirl and report back.

[Corran]

Yep I have all three...will have to try to do a comparison.

[nonuniform]

I'm so glad I read this thread. The distance scale is in meters? I was wondering why mine was so off!

(yeah, it's right there in the instructions, but, I need BIGGER print!)

[nonuniform]

I wish New55 PN was a reasonably functional product, shooting with my remaining Type 55 and 59 is really great.

[nonuniform]

How did you get a Polaroid 405 to fit in the Travelwide? Mine won't. It's way too tall for the end of the spring clips. This camera would be better with something like the way graflok backs are held on to a crown graphic.

[rdenney]

How did you get a Polaroid 405 to fit in the Travelwide? Mine won't. It's way too tall for the end of the spring clips. This camera would be better with something like the way graflok backs are held on to a crown graphic.

It was designed for standard film holders, and a Graflok would have added a lot of cost. But you can remove the spring clip (which is held on by two screws) and use bungie cords to hold on a 405.

Rick "frustrated to be traveling while his new Travelwide is waiting at home" Denney

[plywood]

Just tried my 90 f6.8 Angulon and find opening about 3.3 mm larger than lens. Seems like there must be variation in '0' size mounts. The diameter of my threads is just over 32mm resulting in a bit of slop. Not being knowledgeable on these things I was wondering if this is common? As a manner of information the jam nut on my lens is labeled Burke & James and has a shoulder that is a bit too large for the opening on the 90 so I cannot just turn the jam nut around.

[Tin Can]

Just tried my 90 f6.8 Angulon and find opening about 3.3 mm larger than lens. Seems like there must be variation in '0' size mounts. The diameter of my threads is just over 32mm resulting in a bit of slop. Not being knowledgeable on these things I was wondering if this is common? As a manner of information the jam nut on my lens is labeled Burke & James and has a shoulder that is a bit too large for the opening on the 90 so I cannot just turn the jam nut around.

You have the wrong jam nut, most would have a shoulder that would fill that gap.

Improvise

[Drew Bedo]

I just found a 101mm Graflex Optar in a drawer… It won't focus to infinity on the Travelwide, but it could be interesting as a portrait setup. I'll give it a whirl and report back.

All this lens swaping is really interesting to read. Ben's post about the 101mm Graflex Optar got me thinking . . . .

What about one of the 110 lenses from one of the classic 6x9 folders from Agfa/Ansco, Zeis, Voightlander et al? Mount it and run the TW helical mount out till the lens is at infinity. Now focus with the lens' front element and scale as it was designed.

I understand the possibility of vignetting and questions of inherent sharpness . Its just a wild thought.

cheers to all

[plywood]

You have the wrong jam nut, most would have a shoulder that would fill that gap.

Improvise

Ah yes. Well for right now I've just centered by feel and eyeball, snugged up the jam nut flat side in and all seems well.

As a matter of curiosity has anyone else found that the focus scale as shipped was bang on correct? I set up outside looking at power poles at 1/2 mile for the inf position and found no better adjustment necessary. Tried indoors at measured 2m setting and again found image sharp with lens set to 2m on scale. That's measured from film holder, not lens.

[Tin Can]

What's a meter, is that music or somethin...

[plywood]

All this lens swaping is really interesting to read. Ben's post about the 101mm Graflex Optar got me thinking . . . .

What about one of the 110 lenses from one of the classic 6x9 folders from Agfa/Ansco, Zeis, Voightlander et al? Mount it and run the TW helical mount out till the lens is at infinity. Now focus with the lens' front element and scale as it was designed.

I understand the possibility of vignetting and questions of inherent sharpness . Its just a wild thought.

cheers to all
Drew, I've tried a 105mm f4.5 Kodak lens from a Tourist 6X9 on 4X5 and it vignettes severely. Corners completely black. I have used a 130mm f7.7 Kodak lens from a larger folder and it just covered 4x5 at infinity. The frame diagonal of the camera it came from was 127mm.

[Kuzano]

Sorry ... should have posted here instead of original thread.

I have 159 envelopes of usable Fujifilm and Kodak Quikload and ReadyLoad envelopes, frozen for some time now. I plan to start using them with the TW. I have the final version Kodak Professional Readyload film back which supercedes early problematic Kodak holders and delivers results as good as the Fujifilm Quikload holder. These backs slide into the same spot as a DDS holder and have the same setback on the film in the holder.

I plan to start using the inventory of envelopes I have.

Secondly, I plan to find a way to reload some of the 159 envelopes I will have left over, with any emulsion 4X5 I want to use. I have torn down these envelopes and played with some ideas. I have hoped over time, somone would see the value of either reloading quikload/readyload envelopes or provide a system.

If anyone here knows of a project or mfr reloading Quikload/Readyload envelope with film of choice, would like to hear about it. It's come up before, but all leads have lead to dead ends.

Personally, I think the TW is a perfect camera for use with preloaded film sheets. Carry a TW, a Quikload or Readyload back and a dozen envelopes.... Light, light, light Kit!!!

[wojszyca]

Just tried my 90 f6.8 Angulon and find opening about 3.3 mm larger than lens.

I didn't measure the difference but mine was also a bit loose in the opening, I even mentioned it before somewhere in this thread. I think it was a very small difference though, I just screwed it in place trying to keep it central, probably not super-precise, and it works fine, I don't see any problems...

[David Aimone]

Yes, me too:

The Good News:

The travelwide 90 is assembled, calibrated and working wonderfully.

The Bad News:

In converting to the travelwide 65 with my second body, 3 of the tiny screws came out fine; the last won't budge and in trying to remove it somehow I broke the thin plastic ring through which the screws go. So it's sitting there with three screws out, one stuck and the little retainer ring broke.

What do I do?


OK, so did anyone else break their camera in less than 5 minutes??? ;)

I managed to disconnect the internal helical from the front turning ring. There are four little protrusions from a plastic ring inside the camera that is screwed to the camera body making reconnection difficult.

I'm not sure how to reconnect everything without breaking one of the protrusions. It doesn't just screw back in.

Ben? Justin? Help!

[ImSoNegative]

I took my first shot yesterday.
Many first times here - my first ever large format shot, first time ever handling sheet film, first time ever developing it and scanning it. First time ever using the Travelwide and the sport finder.
Considering all that, I am happy I got any results. Framing is random, as I had no idea what area of the actual frame does the sport finder cover, so I just centered it on the subject and used the bubble level to level the camera.

The photo is not sharp. At full size, it is obviously soft. Either I did the calibration wrong, or it is camera shake (2 min exposure). Long exposure wasn't probably the best idea for the first test, but it was raining all day and only stopped after dark. And I was too eager to try to wait..

Here is the rough scan of my first attempt:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wojszyca/22183041349/
That is a great shot

[ImSoNegative]

I am looking forward to getting one of these when they become available

[Jon Shiu]

Ack! I broke it too, 5 minutes! Hopefully, they'll have spare parts available soon.

Jon

Ben,

That worked, thank you very much. One of the little loops on one of the retainers that the screw passes thru did break, but it's good enough to hold for a little while. When you get a chance, email me the price a new pair of retainers with an extra set of 4 screws (in case they start to strip with a couple of removals) plus the cost of shipping and I can PayPal the total to you before you ship.

Thanks and I'm really looking forward to putting some film thru this little beauty.

[Paul Cunningham]

Secondly, I plan to find a way to reload some of the 159 envelopes I will have left over, with any emulsion 4X5 I want to use. I have torn down these envelopes and played with some ideas. I have hoped over time, somone would see the value of either reloading quikload/readyload envelopes or provide a system.

If anyone here knows of a project or mfr reloading Quikload/Readyload envelope with film of choice, would like to hear about it. It's come up before, but all leads have lead to dead ends.



New55 indicates that their 1SHOT holders can be reloaded "once or twice". Link to Facebook statement (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1089043664462238&id=190955884271025)

[Light Guru]

Does anyone have any tips for using the wire frame viewfinder? I have never used one before. How far out do you hold it to get proper framing?

[BarryS]

http://i.imgur.com/OL5ICTz.jpg?1

My Wanderlust camera with a Nikkor 90mm SW f/8 lens, Super Watameter rangefinder, Mamiya Press 50mm viewfinder, and a little custom painting.

[Tin Can]

Does anyone have any tips for using the wire frame viewfinder? I have never used one before. How far out do you hold it to get proper framing?

It works great for me with my glasses almost as close, as I can get to it, with a 90mm.

I primarily use it at 3 ft and I get my frame every time. I find it works very well, far better than the Israeli viewfinder I bought for this camera. It's view is too tiny.

If you look at the old time press camera guys they almost always shot with the 'sports' finder wire squares. Everything, not just action.

Makes sense as you can see action coming into frame and shoot. I shoot in bars and can watch out for left field...

I never used the sports finder on my press cameras until I saw how well the little square thing works for me. ymmv

[plywood]

Just FYI folks. Quite a few have reported tight to very tight focusing. I decided to take a look at the helical surface and found ridges where the mold tool joins, four of them equally spaced every 90 degrees. I cut long narrow strips of #220 sandpaper and, using my finger, held pressure on the strip as I pulled them across the valleys. This reduced the mold flashing and now the reassembled helical is much improved, at least in the range between inf and 1 meter. Focusing is still snug but not as it arrived, almost too tight to turn.

The usual 'at your own risk' warning, whatever you do don't lose the 4 tiny screws, read Ben's instructions on removing and installing the helical etc etc.

Also, be very careful on the little 'ears' on the retaining semicircle's that the screws go through. Don't overtighten them, just sung them up. Mine are fine but I could see where they could be broken off easily. Have good light, the right mini Philips screwdriver, put on your strong reading glasses and take your time.

[Drew Bedo]

Are there any other approaches?

Light lapping/polishing compounds— rouge maybe?

Lubed with Moly or Graphite powders?

[plywood]

Are there any other approaches?

Light lapping/polishing compounds— rouge maybe?

Lubed with Moly or Graphite powders?
Don't know. My approach was "cut and try", not a planed out procedure. I might take it apart again and smooth everything out with some #600 grit. But as of now it's working fine so......if it ain't broke, don't mess with it. I think this thing was made about as well as it could have been given the price point and material choice. For 8X the price one might produce a brass and aluminum helical that is really smooth but, who would buy it?

As to any lube. The helical is exposed as you focus closer, you would get the lube on your fingers if not extremely careful.

[HMG]

... For 8X the price one might produce a brass and aluminum helical that is really smooth but, who would buy it?...

You're right about 8x the price:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=342089&gclid=CjwKEAjwzdGxBRC3rPWZq83FzyUSJAB9IC5iCN6sA-Z3tPyFMgPlzsR-t3TCwF-2ak0Y8idt71b5sRoC3bvw_wcB&is=REG&Q=&A=details

[Drew Bedo]

Right you are Randy. I was just venting some coffee pressure on a rainy Saturday.
This thread will eventually amass a body of practical knowledge about these cameras that will be a gold mine. Your remarks about price point are spot on too.

Folks forget that the whole concept for this camera was a light weight wide (ish) angle 4x5 camera for well below $200. Re-read the first posts 250 pages ago in the KS announcements thread for yhe designe philosophy. Only cigar box pinhole cameras cost less. The long wait has generated anticipation and raised expectations, and now Christmas is here.

[OeT]

I am now pretty happy with my 3d printable hand grip design for this camera.

141638

141639

I used a pretty low resolution when printing this grip so the finish is not the greatest but i just wanted to test it out before spending time on a higher resolution print.
The grip can be downloaded here if anybody wants to make their own one

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1103382/#files

[Tin Can]

I am now pretty happy with my 3d printable hand grip design for this camera.

141638

141639

I used a pretty low resolution when printing this grip so the finish is not the greatest but i just wanted to test it out before spending time on a higher resolution print.
The grip can be downloaded here if anybody wants to make their own one

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1103382/#files

Very nice and thanks for the work and file.

I need a left side grip...

Thanks again!

[OeT]

Thanks I'm gonna start the work on the left side tomorrow.
Do you think I should add a similar holder for the shutter release or should I just make a hole from top to bottom as it is on the camera?
May I'll do both.

[Tin Can]

Thanks I'm gonna start the work on the left side tomorrow.
Do you think I should add a similar holder for the shutter release or should I just make a hole from top to bottom as it is on the camera?
May I'll do both.

Yes do both, perhaps add areas for straps and even a place to bolt on a metal cold shoe, which may be needed if the OE shoes break.

Maybe wait for more input also.

I use old film camera flash handles, but they are not perfect either as the TW has a small base, which does not grip an old style flash handle well.

I believe they made their base small for minimum weight and a problem with large filled areas warping the rest of the body in production molding. I may be wrong.

Never forget that second guess Sharpshooting is way easier than invention and production reality!

[plywood]

Yes do both, perhaps add areas for straps and even a place to bolt on a metal cold shoe, which may be needed if the OE shoes break.

Maybe wait for more input also.

I use old film camera flash handles, but they are not perfect either as the TW has a small base, which does not grip an old style flash handle well.

I believe they made their base small for minimum weight and a problem with large filled areas warping the rest of the body in production molding. I may be wrong.

Never forget that second guess Sharpshooting is way easier than invention and production reality!

For the small base perhaps you could configure the base plate to have a locater pin that fits in the bore hole. That would keep the camera from rotating on the base. I am building a handle that will attach from the top. I placed a long 1/4-20 bolt through the left bore hole and a piece of angled aluminum bracket to attach the handle to. Having a hard time describing it but don't really know how to post pictures.

[Jim Cole]

I have my new TW camera calibrated and ready for some film.

Here she is with her Russian rangefinder, viewfinder and 90mm Angulon with shutter release.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5794/22460660950_875dce7091_b.jpg

I do like the idea of the beefier grip as presented by OeT.

[OeT]

For the small base perhaps you could configure the base plate to have a locater pin that fits in the bore hole. That would keep the camera from rotating on the base. I am building a handle that will attach from the top. I placed a long 1/4-20 bolt through the left bore hole and a piece of angled aluminum bracket to attach the handle to. Having a hard time describing it but don't really know how to post pictures.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I use a 6mm threaded rod that goes through the hole on the camera with the top and bottom plate that then attaches to the grip with two M4 screws.
The hole and the bottom plate does have a lip that makes the piece fit snugly to the camera if that's what you mean.

141653

I also made a instruction guide with pictures on how to put it together.

141654

[plywood]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I use a 6mm threaded rod that goes through the hole on the camera with the top and bottom plate that then attaches to the grip with two M4 screws.
The hole and the bottom plate does have a lip that makes the piece fit snugly to the camera if that's what you mean.

141653


I also made a instruction guide with pictures on how to put it together.


141654
Ah, now I see how it attaches to the camera, I couldn't tell from the first two pictures. Doggone clever and does not add unnecessary bulk to the already small camera.

[Steve Goldstein]

One of the first things I did with my Travelwide was to slap a Really Right Stuff mounting plate on the bottom so I could use my tripod while calibrating the helical. I tightened the attachment screw as much as I dared since I didn't want to rip the bushing out of the body, but the plate still spun a little when I put the camera on the tripod. Smooth anodized aluminum against smooth plastic doesn't have much friction. Then I found another small RRS plate I had, model BPnS, which comes with a thin cork gasket on the side that contacts the camera. The BPnS is pretty small, being made for lightweight Point-n-Shoot cameras, but it does the job. Problem solved.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
I use a 6mm threaded rod that goes through the hole on the camera with the top and bottom plate that then attaches to the grip with two M4 screws.
The hole and the bottom plate does have a lip that makes the piece fit snugly to the camera if that's what you mean.

141653

I also made a instruction guide with pictures on how to put it together.

141654
SO. COOL. From the beginning, we wanted people to be able to modify and extend the camera, so this makes me so happy.

When we have a bit more bandwidth, I'd like to have a "Hack the Travelwide" page on our site with CAD files and links to mods.

[Ben Syverson]

(snip) I tightened the attachment screw as much as I dared since I didn't want to rip the bushing out of the body (snip)
Steve, good news about the BPnS, but you don't need to worry about pulling the tripod thread out of the camera—it's insert molded directly into the plastic. I think you might be able to pull it out with a pickup truck and a hitch, but the whole camera would probably break first. :)

[DougD]

Just calibrated mine. No significant modifications. A little colour on the distance scale. Voigtlander viewfinder and a Blik. Looking forward to some fun with this kit.

141662

[letchhausen]

Since I'm seeing a lot of range finder/view finder combos perhaps someone could give some overview for the thread and calibration info. I'm not familiar with that stuff but do know that when I borrowed my friend's Chamonix Saber using the Polaroid (coupled) range finder made that camera very easy to use (hand held) with a Grafmatic or holder attached. While not coupled it seems like people are attempting similar handling with the Travelwide.

[Drew Bedo]

Don't remember if this has been discussed:

Is there an app that would let a smart-phone be used as a 90mm specific viewfinder? Can't be too hard to find a shoe compatible mounting bracket.

Is there a range finder app?

[rdenney]

Since I'm seeing a lot of range finder/view finder combos perhaps someone could give some overview for the thread and calibration info. I'm not familiar with that stuff but do know that when I borrowed my friend's Chamonix Saber using the Polaroid (coupled) range finder made that camera very easy to use (hand held) with a Grafmatic or holder attached. While not coupled it seems like people are attempting similar handling with the Travelwide.

Here's an overview:

The focus scale is close enough for any lens in the vicinity of 90mm, once it is calibrated to infinity.

Install the supplied frosted screen, frosted surface towards the inside of the camera.

Mount the camera on a tripod. Open the lens, and set the aperture so that the lens is fully open and clear. Point the camera to an obvious landmark that is at least 500 feet (150 meters) away.

While viewing the focus screen using about a 6x magnifier, turn the focus ring until the distant landmark is sharp on the screen. Take time; be sure.

Lift the soft rubber ring off the camera by pulling it straight to the front. It is toothed to engage slots on the hard planting underneath. Rotate it so that the indicator notch lines up with the infinity symbol at the top, and reinstall. The camera is now calibrated.

Both the small Voigtlander and the plastic Blix rangefinders shown in this thread read in meters, just like the numbers molded into the camera.

To make a picture, look through the rangefinder and turn its control wheel until the two images merge. Read the distance off the scale, and turn the focus ring of the camera until it reads that distance.

Most of use will spend an hour with the plastic screen, checking targets at all distances, until we are satisfied it's all working.

Rick "figuring all this is on the instruction sheet" Denney

[Steve Goldstein]

This morning I recalibrated my TW, this time with an 8x focusing loupe, because I wasn't fully satisfied I got it right yesterday. First I made sure the loupe was properly focused for my eye by holding the focus screen against the magnifier and looking directly at a light fixture in the house. This made it really easy to see the screen's surface texture. Calibration was a snap after that despite the serious hotspot.

Others have spoken of using frosted tape on the focusing screen, but using a properly focused loupe was sufficient.

On another front, the flocking sheet on the inside of my helical wasn't perfectly adhered all the way around, there were some gaps. This was easily to fix with a single-edge razor blade, I just slit the flocking at each air gap and pressed down the pieces. The resulting gaps are essentially invisible.

[plywood]

At least for some uses DOF will be your friend. For example;
Set lens focus at 15 meters.
Aperture at f16.
Adjust shutter speed for reading at f16.
Now, for a moderate 8X10 enlargement, everything from 6 ft. to infinity will be within the DOF.
Selected blur circle on the negative is 150 microns for this caculation.
A big negative snapshot camera if you will.

[Steve Goldstein]

Newsflash - Infinity focus with 75mm on the Travelwide

Yes, you read that correctly, I verified it this morning. You can use a 75mm on the TW with the regular focusing helical provided it's a 75mm f/6.3 Super-W-Komura. This is a relatively uncommon 8-element design having a flange focal length slightly over 100mm. Here are some things I learned during this exercise.

Infinity focus requires about 12.5mm of helical extension. This leaves ~7.5mm more extension available and gives a close-focus limit of a bit over 0.8 meters. This is based on calculation, I didn't actually measure it.

The extension of the helical inside the TW's body will cause corner vignetting at infinity, even at f/45. It should be easy to cut away parts the helical with a Dremel tool or a file to solve this problem, but I haven't yet done so.

One of the Komuras I tried is in a Seikosha shutter, and it really wants a thin shim between shutter and mounting plate. Something similar to those shipped with the 65mm adapter plate (38mm outside diameter), but with 32.5mm interior diameter for Copal 0 sizing, will do. Tightening the mounting ring without a shim causes the plastic mounting plate to deform very slightly and makes it difficult to adjust the aperture. Not impossible, just difficult. The minor added benefit of a shim is that you'll need less extension for infinity focus, which means your close-focus limit will be reduced.

[David Karp]

My Travelwide/90mm Raptar combination is now calibrated. I really like this setup! I have a hand-held rangefinder already and a BLIK on the way.

Now I have some questions. How do you use the sports finder? Which end goes toward the front of the camera? How close do you put your eye to the finder?

Why do some of you put their optical viewfinders on the side? Is it because you don't want the rangefinder hanging off the side of the camera? Wouldn't that be better than having the finder off center?

I have a Desmond DP-505 50mm Square QR Bi-Directional Camera Plate that I use on my Olympus E-M1. It is compatible with ARCA Swiss-type clamps. They sell these on EBay and on Amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/Desmond-Square-Bi-Directional-Camera-Compatible/dp/B00BMCH6F2). It has four grippy surfaces on it, and enough of these surfaces grab enough of the Travelwide so the grip is pretty secure.

[letchhausen]

Thanks for the overview Rick. And to everyone else for the other information we're sharing. As this goes on google will be sending this out to the (hopefully) masses to read and figure out options for this camera. Here's hoping it catches on beyond the LF contingent!

[Jim Cole]

Why do some of you put their optical viewfinders on the side? Is it because you don't want the rangefinder hanging off the side of the camera?


Yep!




Wouldn't that be better than having the finder off center?


The off center finder really doesn't affect view vs photo that much, especially since the purpose is to be able to use it hand held. Most of the old rangefinder 35mm cameras had their viewfinder off to one side.

Enjoy your new TW and set it up however you'd like!

[David Karp]

Thanks Jim. Not criticizing. Just wondering. I am sure I will be doing some experimenting with accessory placement.

[Jim Cole]

Thanks Jim. Not criticizing. Just wondering. I am sure I will be doing some experimenting with accessory placement.

Didn't take your comment as criticism at all. My last comment was meant to be fun, not an order. Don't you love the internet?

[David Karp]

:-)

[rdenney]

I have a Leicavit finder that has a shoe on the top, so I could stack the rangefinder on top of the viewfinder. Symmetry and all that. But it doesn't go wide enough.

For the 65, I have a Sea and Sea finder for the Nikonos which leaks, making it unsuitable for same. But it's wide enough for the 65 and big enough to use as a handle.

The wire finder doesn't seem wide enough when I adjust my distance so that the front rectangle hides behind the back rectangle. That's how I would have thought it would work, and no other approach would seem accurate. I want to be able to compose with at least a bit of precision. But I haven't given quality time to the setup to really know what works--that needs daylight and the camera and I have been together only at night.

Rick "next weekend" Denney

[letchhausen]

Do you think a third party GG like a Maxwell would fit? I suppose it would have to be drilled....

[Tim Meisburger]

I made a wooden frame the size of a film holder and mounted a ground glass in that when I made the Polaroid conversion, and that will work as a ground glass on any camera that accepts holders. I plan to use it on the Travelwide, as I will normally use a light tripod and ground glass focusing.

[Tin Can]

Do you think a third party GG like a Maxwell would fit? I suppose it would have to be drilled....

No, definitely not, and if you ask this type question we may give you an easy DIY solution, but ask that here. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?125258-Using-and-Modifying-the-Travelwide-4x5-camera

I wrote the DIY solution 10 minutes ago but deleted it as I felt it too obvious, perhaps you do not have the camera yet?

[Tin Can]

I made a wooden frame the size of a film holder and mounted a ground glass in that when I made the Polaroid conversion, and that will work as a ground glass on any camera that accepts holders. I plan to use it on the Travelwide, as I will normally use a light tripod and ground glass focusing.

Tim, just gave the answer!

[Drew Bedo]

RE: Ground Glass.

Got to thinking over the second cup this AM and had a thought on the TW ground glass issue.

A 4x5 glass plate holser could be modified by cutting away much of the septum. A glass focusing screen would then be epoxied in. Both dark slides would serve as gg protectors.

The unit would hqandle just like a film holster.and would be rugged enough for regular use in the field.

I am sure that any problems with focal plane registration could be worked out.

Any thoughts . . .do I need another cup of coffee?

[Drew Bedo]

A purpose-built fround glass holder would make a good after market product or 3D printing project. It could be useful on other cameras as well . . .as a "back-up" gg or for a swap-meet find with brokengg.

[Tim Meisburger]

Drew, your idea will work. When I did the polaroid conversion last spring I made a wood frame the same size as a holder and let in a ground glass at film surface registration. This glass can be used in any camera that takes a standard holder, and when I made I intended to use it on the Travelwide as well. You can see a picture here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121626-Mahogany-Polaroid-800-conversion-to-4x5&highlight=polaroid+tim+meisburger

[David Aimone]

I'm not that handy. I probably could figure out a way to scavenge a 4x5 film holder and put a piece of ground glass in it.... maybe!


Drew, your idea will work. When I did the polaroid conversion last spring I made a wood frame the same size as a holder and let in a ground glass at film surface registration. This glass can be used in any camera that takes a standard holder, and when I made I intended to use it on the Travelwide as well. You can see a picture here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121626-Mahogany-Polaroid-800-conversion-to-4x5&highlight=polaroid+tim+meisburger

[Steve Goldstein]

I'm not that handy. I probably could figure out a way to scavenge a 4x5 film holder and put a piece of ground glass in it.... maybe!

I have visions of a sliced-open wooden 4x5 holder...

[Tim Meisburger]

Well, the one I did was a bit fancy, in mahogany and all, but you could do one in pine and it would work fine. I think it would be significantly more trouble and work to modify a holder, but you would have the advantage of built in ground glass protectors, as Drew mentions.

[Jon Shiu]

It seems like it would be fairly easy to cut out a hole in the Wanderlust plastic calibration panel and then drop in a 4x5 piece of ground glass, with supports glued across the corners to keep the same registration.

[Tin Can]

It seems like it would be fairly easy to cut out a hole in the Wanderlust plastic calibration panel and then drop in a 4x5 piece of ground glass, with supports glued across the corners to keep the same registration.

+1.

[rdenney]

I'm wondering if a rear Fresnel (such as the one made by Sinar) would mitigate the hot spot. I'll give that a try when I get back home.

Even with a plain ground glass, the hot spot might still be pretty warm.

Rick "who has a stock of old Kodak screens for experimenting" Denney

[Corran]

I don't want to cut/modify the GG that came with it, or else the idea to place a new screen inside the existing panel would be great.

I seem to remember Ben mentioning a different GG being manufactured at a later date...I'll probably hold out for that, even if it costs extra.

Though Rick's idea above is interesting, I think I have an extra fresnel somewhere...

[letchhausen]

No, definitely not, and if you ask this type question we may give you an easy DIY solution, but ask that here. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?125258-Using-and-Modifying-the-Travelwide-4x5-camera

I wrote the DIY solution 10 minutes ago but deleted it as I felt it too obvious, perhaps you do not have the camera yet?

I was asking the question directly to someone else's comment in the kickstarter thread and while my comment got moved, theirs did not so sounds a little out of context. And no, I do not have the camera yet but hopefully tomorrow depending on the incompetency of USPS. But like the person I was speaking to, I could see having a better GG. I have a Maxwell in a box someone around here that I could probably dig out and use or hack or whatever...

[Tim Meisburger]

It seems like it would be fairly easy to cut out a hole in the Wanderlust plastic calibration panel and then drop in a 4x5 piece of ground glass, with supports glued across the corners to keep the same registration.

My camera has not arrived yet, so hard to tell, but I wonder if you could simply re-grind (or grind) the plastic calibration screen? Ben was trying to buy a manufactured texture and had problems with that, but would the application of a bit of 600 grit sandpaper and some elbow grease improve the supplied screen?

[Ben Syverson]

Just to clarify, we will 100% be producing an improved focusing screen. We'll make it available for free + shipping to all current backers and pre-order customers, and all future orders will ship with it.

We actually lost the texture of the current focusing screen through subsequent attempts to improve it, so once these are gone, they're gone. It's almost too bad, because that center spot is so bright that you can do focus calibration in daylight without a loupe. I anticipate that the current screen will have a life of its own on the used market once we replace it with the new one.

[Tin Can]

Chicago is suffering from 5 days of 70 degree dry weather. We are in the streets, as soon snow will come....

This may seem stupid, but today I scouted shots with my iPod 6 and when shot in square mode, it's angle of view is close to that of my Raptor 90mm and corresponds with the view I see with the Travelwide wire sports finder.

Now you wonder, 'So what!'

Well, I like to shoot from a low angle or right from street level, but I dislike laying on the ground and looking through a peep sight or GG, so I test shoot angles of view to see what my Travelwide will capture by mounting the TW on a 3" high tripod and shoot a test 'Polaroid' right through the wire finder. Of course I am shooting hyper-focal.

Not perfect, but good enough for what I want. ymmv

Decided I could do better and found in my junk parts, a phone holder and a threaded cold shoe mount that fit, placing the iPod lens in the right place. I'll compare pics in a day or two.

[Tin Can]

141829

[Corran]

Just hung up 11 negatives to dry, all shot with the TW. I could immediately tell that the framing was not good. The stock viewfinder seems to be much tighter than reality, and so I have really loose compositions.

I will be trying some different viewfinders...

[Corran]

Update: I was surprised to find that the Mamiya 43mm viewfinder works pretty much perfectly, using the inner framelines, not the whole view. I don't even have that lens or the Mamiya 7, I just picked up the viewfinder cheap on eBay as an experiment. As a bonus it has a bubble level built in! I've always thought the ~45mm focal length on 6x7 was akin to a 75mm lens on 4x5, but apparently that viewfinder is a bit tighter.

[David Aimone]

Glad to hear there will be an improved focusing screen eventually, and glad it will be free (but was willing to pay for it).

When the dust settles, parts for my second camera would be great, as the little interior retainer ring crumbled when trying to get the last screw out for installing the 65. Fortunately, installing the 90 was easy as cake and very happy with the images coming from that camera.

First four images from the 90 here (https://500px.com//daimone/sets/travelwide-90).

[EdSawyer]

The Mamiya 7 43mm viewfinder is a great piece (as is the one for the 50 also). The 43mm 6x7 FOV is about equal to a 65mm lens on 4x5. The best viewfinder for a 90mm on a 4x5 that I have found is the Koni-Omega 58mm viewfinder.

[Corran]

The 43mm viewfinder has framelines inset into the whole frame. I assume the inner framelines are what you use to frame with the 43mm, but I could be wrong. Dividing the nominal size of a 4x5 image by the nominal 6x7 image shows that the 43mm is roughly equal to a 75mm lens, not 65mm, and a 53mm VF would be correct for a 90mm view on 4x5. That said, like I mentioned, the Mamiya seems to be forgiving enough (showing a slightly tighter composition) so that it is about perfect for the 90mm view. This makes sense since rangefinder VFs tend to be a bit smaller than the actual frame, leading to looser compositions.

[Jon Shiu]

It seems like it would be fairly easy to cut out a hole in the Wanderlust plastic calibration panel and then drop in a 4x5 piece of ground glass, with supports glued across the corners to keep the same registration.

The modification is fairly easy and takes about an hour. I marked the size and position of the ground glass on the plastic screen. Drilled out holes in the corners. Sawed out the rectangle with a coping saw (or hacksaw blade). Sanded edges. Glued in supports with 5 min. epoxy. Glued in ground glass with 5 min. epoxy.

Happy with the results. Now easy to focus and compose.

141840

Jon

[EdSawyer]

well, calculate as you like, but I have used the 43 on the Mamiya 7 and several lenses on 4x5 including 47XL, 65mm, 90, etc., and the 43mm basically mimics the FOV seen by the 65mm on 4x5. It's definitely wider than a 75mm FOV. Likewise with the 58mm viewfinder and a 90mm lens on 4x5.

[Corran]

Perhaps the Mamiya 43mm is slightly wider than advertised and/or your 65mm slightly narrower. The exposed film area of the Mamiya 7ii (official specs) is 56x69.5 millimeters, while the image area of 4x5 is roughly 96x120 give or take a couple of millimeters, giving pretty much exactly a 1.72x or 0.58x factor to calculate equivalent focal length from one format to the other. Meaning the FoV of a 75mm on 4x5 should equal the FoV of a 43.5mm lens on 6x7.

I like math so I was simply double-checking my calculations here.

[dave_whatever]

There's no way the brightline frame in the Mamiya 7 43mm finder are a match from what a 65mm lens gives you on a sheet of 5x4" film, at least if they were then they would be WAY too wide for their intended use of 43mm on 6x7. Brightline frames as standard on any rangefinder tend to be conservative rather than overgenerous.

I could however believe the entire viewable field of a 43mm finder is a rough match for 65mm on 5x4".

[OeT]

Is there any list on witch 90mm or 65mm lens that will work with the cameras.
I'm looking to get one and don't want the get wrong lens.

[Jon Shiu]

Is there any list on witch 90mm or 65mm lens that will work with the cameras.
I'm looking to get one and don't want the get wrong lens.

yes, look at the Travelwide Kickstarter campaign page.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Once the viewfinder is perfected, perhaps something like this loupe peephole from the Linhof Technar would be an idea. I am heading into the shop later to do exactly this to a Printex (w/o rangefinder). I'm adding a eye cup to it. Couldn't hurt!

The darkslide holder would barely work as-is, so it goes to the bin.

141925

(photo sample from the big auction site)

[pierre506]

141977

Modified it a little.
Then the camera can stand on table without the interference of the shutter release.
I also can add a handle on it~

[Ben Syverson]

141977

Modified it a little.
Then the camera can stand on table without the interference of the shutter release.
I also can add a handle on it~
Nice! I like the hand strap!

[pierre506]

141978

Another way with b-grip.
And I found a very good function of the Quick release of b-grip~
It's really good for TravelWides.
141979

[pierre506]

141980
141981
With b-grip bottom on table & hanging on wall~

[Drew Bedo]

Not familiar with "B-Grip". Is this a DIY or an of the shelf product?

Looks good though.

[pierre506]

Not familiar with "B-Grip". Is this a DIY or an of the shelf product?

Looks good though.
http://www.bgrip.com/

[AuditorOne]

Not familiar with "B-Grip". Is this a DIY or an of the shelf product?

Looks good though.

I think I would feel a bit foolish with the Travelwide on a belt holster. I agree that it is very small compared to other 4x5 cameras. But let's get real, it is a 4x5 camera! :)

Screw a light monopod on the bottom and carry it around over your shoulder. :D

[Brian Puccio]

Sorry, I'm new to large format (I'm coming form 35mm rangefinders and before that, 35mm SLR)...

I tried to figure out what spot on the helical corresponds to infinity to calibrate the focus ring by pointing my camera at a ship on the horizon (probably a mile out, give or take). I was able to get close ... I could definitely tell when I wasn't in focus, but when I was in focus, I could rotate the focus ring almost half a turn until I saw the image go soft.

Is there a trick to this I just don't know?

FWIW, Schneider 90mm f/8.

[Bob Salomon]

Sorry, I'm new to large format (I'm coming form 35mm rangefinders and before that, 35mm SLR)...

I tried to figure out what spot on the helical corresponds to infinity to calibrate the focus ring by pointing my camera at a ship on the horizon (probably a mile out, give or take). I was able to get close ... I could definitely tell when I wasn't in focus, but when I was in focus, I could rotate the focus ring almost half a turn until I saw the image go soft.

Is there a trick to this I just don't know?

FWIW, Schneider 90mm f/8.

You doing that at f8 or at optimal aperture?

[Brian Puccio]

You doing that at f8 or at optimal aperture?

I did it at f/8 since I figured that would be the shallowest DoF which would let me "zero in" better than if I had stopped down.

[Tin Can]

http://www.bgrip.com/

I will definitely get a B-Grip with belt.

Looks far better than the first iteration of some lesser designs.

Toting camera on tripod in urban areas is not going to work for anybody.

This week I used a Bogen tabletop tripod (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=283757&gclid=CjwKEAiAgvyxBRDmuviAj67g-XQSJABTLMcHjV34rfwLgCBPVkEhwbYynTwBWLtpzHQjqumvoDidLhoCWh7w_wcB&is=REG&m=Y&A=details&Q=) and found many places to use it. It also fits in my back pocket.

[rfesk]

In reference to Brian's problem in setting up the focus of the Travelwide: Find an object of very good contrast. You will need to try for best focus. With wide angle lenses it can be difficult. Another way to check yourself is to focus on something at a definite distance that corresponds to the scale (such as 10 meters) and see if that is in focus. As a practical matter I never focus at infinity with wide angle lenses. Instead I focus closer, stop down and let the dept of field take care of the rest.

[plywood]

Sorry, I'm new to large format (I'm coming form 35mm rangefinders and before that, 35mm SLR)...

I tried to figure out what spot on the helical corresponds to infinity to calibrate the focus ring by pointing my camera at a ship on the horizon (probably a mile out, give or take). I was able to get close ... I could definitely tell when I wasn't in focus, but when I was in focus, I could rotate the focus ring almost half a turn until I saw the image go soft.

Is there a trick to this I just don't know?





FWIW, Schneider 90mm f/8.
You ARE viewing the image with a magnifier, right? Because a 180 degree turn would be about 9mm of movement and on a 90mm lens would put your focus at about 900mm, about 36 inches, assuming you started from infinity. Something don't add up.

[Tim Meisburger]

Brian, try using a loupe, and focusing on a distant specular highlight. Or mark near soft and far soft and split the difference.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I tried to figure out what spot on the helical corresponds to infinity to calibrate the focus ring by pointing my camera at a ship on the horizon [...]

You chose a most difficult subject for focusing. Shooting low across a large body of water means you can have a 'shimmering' image due to diffraction from atmospheric moisture. Ask our Navy vets!

[Brian Puccio]

Thank you all for your ideas, you guys are all so helpful!


In reference to Brian's problem in setting up the focus of the Travelwide: Find an object of very good contrast. You will need to try for best focus. With wide angle lenses it can be difficult. Another way to check yourself is to focus on something at a definite distance that corresponds to the scale (such as 10 meters) and see if that is in focus. As a practical matter I never focus at infinity with wide angle lenses. Instead I focus closer, stop down and let the dept of field take care of the rest.

I think I'm going to try to focus on something closer, "calibrate" the focus ring, then shift out to infinity and see if very distant things look sharp, and if so, accept that.


You ARE viewing the image with a magnifier, right? Because a 180 degree turn would be about 9mm of movement and on a 90mm lens would put your focus at about 900mm, about 36 inches, assuming you started from infinity. Something don't add up.

No, sorry, I don't have one. I will borrow someone's this weekend and see if that helps. I agree that something isn't right :)


Brian, try using a loupe, and focusing on a distant specular highlight. Or mark near soft and far soft and split the difference.

I'm going to borrow a friend's loupe and I will use a distant point light source, that's probably better to tell than a ship, even though the ship is much further, the difference between focusing on something a few hundred feet away and almost a mile away shouldn't matter.

If this (and all of the above fail), then I think I'll just do the split the difference thing :)


You chose a most difficult subject for focusing. Shooting low across a large body of water means you can have a 'shimmering' image due to diffraction from atmospheric moisture. Ask our Navy vets!

Very true. It was a clear, cool day, but I should probably find something that is easier to see a crisp shape of rather than something that is as far away as possible.

Thank you all again, I'm very excited about this.

[David Aimone]

Get yourself a loupe anyway, even if it's a cheap one like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/697032-REG/Carson_ML_10_ML_10_10x_MagniLoupe.html



Thank you all for your ideas, you guys are all so helpful!



I think I'm going to try to focus on something closer, "calibrate" the focus ring, then shift out to infinity and see if very distant things look sharp, and if so, accept that.



No, sorry, I don't have one. I will borrow someone's this weekend and see if that helps. I agree that something isn't right :)



I'm going to borrow a friend's loupe and I will use a distant point light source, that's probably better to tell than a ship, even though the ship is much further, the difference between focusing on something a few hundred feet away and almost a mile away shouldn't matter.

If this (and all of the above fail), then I think I'll just do the split the difference thing :)



Very true. It was a clear, cool day, but I should probably find something that is easier to see a crisp shape of rather than something that is as far away as possible.

Thank you all again, I'm very excited about this.

[Drew Bedo]

The bar code from any package makes a good target.

[Bob Salomon]

Get yourself a loupe anyway, even if it's a cheap one like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/697032-REG/Carson_ML_10_ML_10_10x_MagniLoupe.html

Great loupe if you are looking at slides on a light box. Terrible loupe if you want to check for critical focus. For that you need a loupe with a focusing eyepiece so you can focus on the image forming, grain side of the gg. And it has to have an opaque skirt. 4 to 6x is ideal.

[David Aimone]

All extremely true, however on the cheap, I seem to make do with these in the field. Better than relying on my dollar store reading glasses...


Great loupe if you are looking at slides on a light box. Terrible loupe if you want to check for critical focus. For that you need a loupe with a focusing eyepiece so you can focus on the image forming, grain side of the gg. And it has to have an opaque skirt. 4 to 6x is ideal.

[Bob Salomon]

All extremely true, however on the cheap, I seem to make do with these in the field. Better than relying on my dollar store reading glasses...

Try the correct way and then compare your results. You don't need to shoot film.
Just confirm which loupe is more accurate.

[David Aimone]

I'm not disputing that at all. I have both. However, if I was just getting into LF with a travelwide, I don't think I'd want to spend as much or more than I did on the camera to calibrate the helical.


Try the correct way and then compare your results. You don't need to shoot film.
Just confirm which loupe is more accurate.

[Bob Salomon]

I'm not disputing that at all. I have both. However, if I was just getting into LF with a travelwide, I don't think I'd want to spend as much or more than I did on the camera to calibrate the helical.

Then again, if the helical is not properly calibrated, you will be wasting film, time and processing which is far more expensive then the camera, the lens or the loupe, combined.

[plywood]

About loupes. I often have used a 50mm lens, looking through the front. Just move it back and forth until you see the ground glass surface clearly, I think it would be about 5X at that point. My magnifiers are 'as found' and I've also have a 80mm viewing lens from a wrecked TLR. For even closer I use a 34mm lens that was a projection lens from a microfilm reader. The plastic calbration screen does not have a very fine surface so the hi mag 34mm lens is not of much use. The 80 seems about right for this screen.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am a bit surprised that no one suggested aerial focusing.

[fatcontroller99]

Tried my zacuto video viewfinder for kicks, view was pretty clear, but 3x not quite enough to get that fine control.

[Tin Can]

Aerial focusing thread as I was unfocused...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?45251-aerial-focusing&p=433645&viewfull=1#post433645

[plywood]

I wanted to have the option of a longer lens so I built an extension back out of plywood and foam core so I can use an old Kodak 130mm f7.7, seems to cover ok, even at infinity. The film plane sits back 41mm from the TW and balances well and only weighs about 5.4oz.

[Drew Bedo]

Plywood: Pictures? This approach will open up the TW to the use of lenses out to perhaps 150mm . the limit will be weight, balance and handling I think.

Perhaps someone will develop a 3D printed extension series of rear extensions.

[plywood]

Pictures.....yes ok, never have done that but I'll try. I'll ask the missus to help, she is the computer savvy one in the family.

Should also mention that this back is 'universal' with the foam core insert cut to length that depends on the lens FFD. That depth would have to be at least 120mm for my design to work. If a lens has a FFD between say 100 to 119 mm it would be hard to get my extension back close enough to focus to infinity. Clear as mud?

[Kuzano]

I think this would lead to a 3d printed set of adaptors for 120 and 150. OK getting too complex. But I have a computer client who makes bicycle parts CNC and I have talked with them about cutting a back that will mount a Graflok set of mounts for my roll back and Fuji Quickload holder.

Hoping to get a shipping track notification soon for my two TW's

[Ben Syverson]

CNC is the way to go for something like this. Exciting! I'd love to see some photos.

[Drew Bedo]

I only have a vague knowledge of this stuff but . . . .it is my understanding that it is possible to have a 3D CAD file printed in aluminum now by consumer oriented companies.

Have I got that right?

[Tim Meisburger]

Drew, its not printing. For aluminium they use CNC machines, which are computer-controlled milling machines. So you load your drawing, and the machines cuts a block of aluminium to shape.

The 3d printers print plastic.

[Kuzano]

Drew, its not printing. For aluminium they use CNC machines, which are computer-controlled milling machines. So you load your drawing, and the machines cuts a block of aluminium to shape.

The 3d printers print plastic.

Actually, I think they have "weaponized" the material used in 3D printing, by adding metallics to plastic. There's a guy in Texas who is selling the 3D printing files to build parts, including the receiver section of AR15, which are proven to work.. The advantage... no serial numbers. It may be that 3D printing will soon catch up with CNC.

In fact, there is already for sale a unit that does CNC AND 3d Printing, and I think one other function. I want one.

[B.S.Kumar]

Metals can be 3D printed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_laser_sintering

Kumar

[Drew Bedo]

Lets keep this thread focused on photography (pun definatly intended).


A quick search for 3D printing with metal turned up these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApmGFDA6ow
http://3dprintingaluminum.com/


I'm not good at this so there will probably be more. Looks like there are some outfits that will take your CAD file and 3D print out a complex (or simple) shape in several metals, from aluminum, brrass, steel or even titainium. Now I can barely type, and I use a cell phone that only makes phone calls, but there must be a couple of members of this community who can , or know someone who can, doodle up accessory parts for the TravelWide and other bodies such as the various Polaroids, then get them printed out.

Ben et al: I know that you guys are up to your, shall we say, armpits, in assembly and delivery of the current incarnation of the TravelWide, but when things slow down and you lives smooth out, 3D printed metallic parts could be another profitable outlet for your creative energy.

When the Polaroid conversion fever was at its height, Angelene Jolie famously bought a customized Littman 45 Single for Brad Pitt—for thousands of dollars. There will be some celebrity out there that will spend big money for a one-off TravelWide made out of titaniumm— with their name custom molded in place as the serial number.

Alternativly, I can imagine a business model where you guys have a relationship with one of the 3D printing companies such as Shapways or Solid Concepts (Stratasys) where you upload a product to them and consumers (us here on LFP) order it from them. You would get a license fee or royalty from the manufacturing company. There is probably a more sophisticated way to do this.

The point is that you guys would put in the designe time and move on.Tthe other company would take the orders, make the parts on demand and ship them out. You would get what song writers call"Mail-Box Money".

Cheers

[Ben Syverson]

Drew, great thoughts! All of these options are on our radar. Right now, 3D printing is just a terrible process. It might become viable as a production mechanism sometime in the next 5-10 years, but we're definitely not there yet. And at-home FDM is particularly awful.

I could see us offering CNC'd accessories (or even cameras) down the line, but we'd need to explore the process a bit more. I personally like the idea of using wood as a material… Metal is just going to weigh me down and scratch other cameras in my bag.

[plywood]

Drew, great thoughts! All of these options are on our radar. Right now, 3D printing is just a terrible process. It might become viable as a production mechanism sometime in the next 5-10 years, but we're definitely not there yet. And at-home FDM is particularly awful.

I could see us offering CNC'd accessories (or even cameras) down the line, but we'd need to explore the process a bit more. I personally like the idea of using wood as a material… Metal is just going to weigh me down and scratch other cameras in my bag.
The team that made the Intrepid 4X5 has made extensive use of CNC on plywood. From what I've read the software that runs these machines varies a lot and can run into quite an expense for good efficient programs. If that is nailed down and a reliable supplier is located for the plywood then cameras could be turned out for a reasonable price. Perhaps even a u-build kit.

[OeT]

I have now completed the left hand grip for 3d printing with and without holder for a shutter cable.
142271

I'm just going to make a test print and se so everything fits together before uploading it.
The right side grip can be downloaded from here:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1103382

[Drew Bedo]

I have now completed the left hand grip for 3d printing with and without holder for a shutter cable.
142271

I'm just going to make a test print and se so everything fits together before uploading it.
The right side grip can be downloaded from here:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1103382

Now that's what I'm talking about.

[rjschell]

142503 I crazy glued a cable tie to the spring back to make it easier to insert film holders.

[David Karp]

I am interested to see what folks are doing with respect to a neck or other type of strap for their Travelwide.

Same for bags. What bags have you found work well with the Travelwide? I am thinking of some sort of sling bag or messenger bag, but have to check some out to see how easy they are to work out of.

[rjschell]

Re: a better ground glass. Just get a 4.75x5.75 ground glass and frame the edges with 5mm plastic or heavy cardboard shims.

[reedvalve]

I am interested to see what folks are doing with respect to a neck or other type of strap for their Travelwide.

Just got mine last night and slung it with a length of paracord so I can wrap it around my wrist a couple of times, or around my neck if I need my hands free to change holders or the like. On my first walkaround with the camera at lunch today it seemed pretty usable, and will do until a better idea presents itself.

142513

The paracord is in the hole where many use a cable release, but I found that I can trip the shutter with less camera movement by pushing my thumb directly on the release

[HMG]

Just got mine last night ...

If you don't mind my asking, where were you in the supporter "sequence"? I.E. what number?

Thanks.

[reedvalve]

I think I was number 225

[HMG]

I think I was number 225

Miles to go before I sleep. I'm 800 something.

On another note, anyone have experience with the Carson 6x (http://www.carson.com/magnifiers/loupes/1474-lumiloupe-plus-ll-062) focusing loupe? I don't want to get into a loupe argument, but it seems like it may be a good, inexpensive choice (with tape over the transparent bottom) for calibrating. I assume the 6x would be better than the 11x, but welcome to your thoughts on that as well.

[Kuzano]

I am 347 and got mine two days ago in Oregon

[Kuzano]

It would be great if those posting images would list the lens used. I'm seeing a lot of Super Angulons and kind of defeats my purpose, as I want light by using a shorter 90mm lens (angulon, perhaps other)

[rfesk]

I am using the 90mm Angulon lens that the camera was designed for. However, will investigate using my 100mm Kodak Widefield when I get a chance.

I have had my Widefield for several weeks and was #300 something. My wife received hers yesterday and her number was much higher I can't remember what.

Hang in there - they will arrive!

[Steve Pitchford]

1.To Ben, Oren Grad, Randy Moe, Kellog & et al.
Fist of all let me say congratulations to Ben and Justin for very successfully completing this long journey testing your patience, tenacity, and perseverance . I hope it's your spring board to life.

When I first heard of the complication with the ground glass screen I wasn't surprised. I once worked for a tech company and plastic bezels were in my domain. Getting short runs to match was difficult and even longer runs could go crazy if the hoppers had to be refilled or the heat got out of control. We had our best luck with the Duralith company out of Millville, NJ. They showed us the most and best samples but always seemed to have trouble reproducing them. It's like playing horse shoes. You can get close.

If you are going to be a true P&S person and shoot from the hip don't bother with the below discussion.

At first I thought, no problem I'll just buy a GG and drop it in. That was before two things happened: 1, I received the TW calibration screen and saw its multi-sided/shaped & dimensions. 2, In January of this year I lost an eye due to melanoma cancer and my good eye isn't that good. I don't see well into the dark and my depth perception is poor.

So, no drop in GG, and I was really liking the one from Deardorf. Instead I'm going to cut an opening in the TW calibration screen an fit in an acrylic GG to regain brightness and ease of focus. There are three obvious questions: Where do I cut the opening in the TW Screen and how do I cut it and what size do I cut it to. Of course each question begs a clutch of follow up questions such as, are the TW plastic and the Acrylic GG the same thickness? Can they be bonded with glue or require a mechanical attachment?

This is the point where I beg Ben, the forum members and the brotherhood of TW owners for ideas and help with this modification. I have made a list of questions for Ben that might help the process.

1. What type of plastic is the TW focusing screen made from? Is it a high temp melt like polycarbonate or a low temp melt like Styrene? What is the mold temp? This will help in my tools choices.
2. Is there a datum point that measurements can be taken from? If not are the knock out pin marks symmetrical and equally spaced? What is that on center spacing?
3. Is there a film position offset left or right? Where is the exact placement on the TW screen the film should line up to? I know it should mimic a film holder's location.
4. What is the plastic thickness of the screen frame walls? I measured them from 6 locations on 3 sides, (the curved wall could not be used), and averaged those measurements out to 2.48 mm. The curved end wall varied between 2.86 & 3.05mm. All measurements were taken with calipers I purchased at Harbor Freight (possibly not accurate).
5. Is the screen panel portion the same thickness as the walls or different? If different, what is the thickness of the screen portion? I measured the depth at the same locations, first from the viewing side and then to the film side, from the top of the walls to the viewing panel surface. They were, TL 6.12mm & TR 6.35, and BL 6.19mm &BR6.21, and averaged 6.21mm. The film side, the most important side were, BL(TL) 4.82 & BR(TR) 4.76mm, BR(TR) 5.21mm & 5.31which averaged 5.02mm. Subtracting the average depth numbers from the total wall height of 13.15 leaves 1.92mm thick for the focusing panel? Is it? It would seem it is also about 1mm out of plane. Probably my eye.
6. I noticed the screen placement panel is not equally set, up or down, in the walls around its perimeter. Wall height around the outside perimeter dim. is 13.15mm on 3 sides.. I measured 4.76-5.31mm from the film emulsion side to the top of wall film side. Average, about 5.05mm. What is the correct offset?
7 .All these dimensions should be on the pre-mold drawings. I realize some of the questions seem like duplicates asking for the same answer, and they are. I want to make sure we're on the same page and that other TW owners might understand what I'm asking for.
8.Please correct me on any mis-measurements!
9.Also, will any TW focusing screens be available in case I screw this one up.

I mentioned above that I liked the Deardorf GG, it's great quality for $60,00, but as soon as I received my TW I re-thought it. The camera is so lite it almost floats out of your hands, so I found a very durable acrylic GG maker from Bohemastudio in Lodz, Poland thru ebay.com. He custom cuts to size and makes grid lines and non-grid GGs. I think cutting the GG 5mm over film size on all sides might be a good size. He does business thru ebay so look for him there. I'll be messaging him soon.

Happy trails, & thanksgiving

[Jon Shiu]

Steve, I couldn't follow all that, but I did a drop in glass in post #161.

Jon

[Roger Cole]

No mods, but finally got my Angulon mounted. It was something of a PITA with the depth in the camera and getting my (also brand new) spanner down there and also with having my retaining ring notches somewhat deformed from some over zealous tightening at some point, probably by the same 800 lb. gorilla that had last mounted it on my Tech III board, but I finally managed it.

I agree that the plastic focus screen is barely adequate. It has enough texture of its own that it's hard to find precise infinity focus but considering the lack of precision inherent in setting a distance scale, I'm sure I got it close enough.

In spite of the posts already saying so I had to try all my other film holders to see for myself. Calumet 6x7 rollfilm back? Fuggitaboutit. Though really if I wanted to use roll film I'd use one of my rollfilm cameras, though the idea of doing some pinhole shots with Delta 3200 did come to mind. There are other cameras that can do that, though. Grafmatic? Nyet. Polaroid 405? Nope, although it comes closest. Someone could make a replacement spring set that has each spring about half as wide and that one would fit without removing the spring back. Only a regular DDS fits, which is what I expected.

I honestly just propped it up on that glass on the first suitable surface I could find without a cluttered background. It was only later I realized there was another retro statement in photographing my new 4x5 film camera sitting on the glass over my turntable. ;)

Still need to get myself a rangefinder for it.

142566

[Ben Syverson]

It would be great if those posting images would list the lens used. I'm seeing a lot of Super Angulons and kind of defeats my purpose, as I want light by using a shorter 90mm lens (angulon, perhaps other)
The SA is pretty light. I don't mind carrying the ƒ/8 all day. The Angulon is absolutely featherweight, but you have to put up with slightly soft corners.

Steve, I'll have to look up the data we have on the GG. I believe it's PC. Keep in mind, everyone, that we'll be offering a revised first-party GG for free (plus shipping). I plan to tackle that in the first few weeks of 2016.

[Roger Cole]

Somehow I missed that a real usable GG was forthcoming for just shipping. That'll be great Ben!

[AuditorOne]

Looking forward to the new GG but not the end of the world. My camera is focused well enough but I am sure there will be some times when I would like to be able to ensure critical focus on something without resorting to f/16 or higher apertures.

[rfesk]

I had a ground glass back from an old B&J Press camera laying around. So was able with a little work to make a substitute for the one supplied by Ben.

That said, just about the only reason I would ever need it would be for composition purposes now that I have my Angulon dialed in.

The Travelwide is a P&S camera and that is the way I plan to use it. Estimate the distance in feet and convert it to meters in my head and take the shot.

[Roger Cole]

I had a little cheap plastic optical viewfinder within a couple weeks of backing the project, so I'm going to use that. I really don't know HOW one is supposed to use the wire frame "sports finder." What it frames is totally dependent on the distance it is from your eye. Is there a specified distance for using it or what am I missing?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have a Russian rangefinder thing to figure out distance to aid in focusing, but I only use it for up close. How close is the wire frame to your eye? My brow is almost touching it. So far, so good.
The image I posted above was shot at infinity, lens wide open.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm going to paint the distance scale on the travelwide, white. The numbers are VERY difficult to see. Very happy they are in metres!

[Roger Cole]

And of course I wish they were in feet. For one thing, feet are a finer (as in smaller, not superior) unit of measurement. Centimeters are way too small and no one uses decimeters which would, for that matter, still be too small. (One problem with metric for everyday use - often times a unit 1/10 as much is too small while the unit itself is too large to really be convenient in everyday use.) But I can see how a small project like this can't produce cameras with two focusing scales so it's the same choice I'd have made if I were the makers. :)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Metric is easier.

[Roger Cole]

Metric is easier.

I don't agree with that and have long been a very vocal proponent of keeping our units of measure in the US in spite of the fact I am familiar with and comfortable with using the metric system. But this isn't really the place for that debate.

[Drew Bedo]

Can the TW calibration screen be retextured with 600 grit paper or some other suitable abrasive?

Has no one tried to modify a film holder as a frame for a true GG? The dark slides would protect it.

What about modifying a glass plate holder?


The effective ececution of the righ tdesignee could be a successful Kick-Starter project in its own right.

[eklevmyr]

In spite of the posts already saying so I had to try all my other film holders to see for myself. Calumet 6x7 rollfilm back? Fuggitaboutit. Though really if I wanted to use roll film I'd use one of my rollfilm cameras, though the idea of doing some pinhole shots with Delta 3200 did come to mind. There are other cameras that can do that, though. Grafmatic? Nyet. Polaroid 405? Nope, although it comes closest. Someone could make a replacement spring set that has each spring about half as wide and that one would fit without removing the spring back. Only a regular DDS fits, which is what I expected.



142566

Roger, If you're set on getting the 405 back into use, I have had really good luck by removing the spring back and ball bungee-ing the 405 holder in place. Initially I was worried about the three screws holding the spring back on as I thought they were just tapped in the plastic, but they have brass inserts so removal and replacement are a breeze (Good work Wanderlust). The only way to not waste a piece of film is to load a new pack so the pack's dark slide paper is still intact and put the 405 holder in without its dark slide. Then you're pretty committed to using the whole pack before changing. Its not the cleanest solution, but I didn't have any problems with it and got some decent exposures. I think it is worth a try. I would advise you to make sure the ball bungees, or however you would want to secure the back, are tight enough to ensure the back doesn't move around too much.
Hope that helps.

[Steve Pitchford]

The SA is pretty light. I don't mind carrying the ƒ/8 all day. The Angulon is absolutely featherweight, but you have to put up with slightly soft corners.

Steve, I'll have to look up the data we have on the GG. I believe it's PC. Keep in mind, everyone, that we'll be offering a revised first-party GG for free (plus shipping). I plan to tackle that in the first few weeks of 2016.

Ben, Sounds great. Looking forward to your new GG. I think I will continue my mod effort as it is good therapy for my hand & eye coordination. Setting up Wista 4x5 with all the adjustments is eye boggling still and takes forever. I expect my TravelWide to be a life changer.

Happy trails,
SteveP

[Maris Rusis]

Metric is easier.

Yes! When Australia changed over to the metric system instead inches, feet, yards, chains, furlongs, miles....I though I'd never adapt. Now I realise a camera focussing ring calibrated in metres is equally good at coarse and fine distance scales eg 2 m, 2.2m, 2.25m, and so on without changing units. The mental key for me was to think in decimals rather swapping to alternative units or vulgar fractions.

[Ben Syverson]

I wish we could offer both, but honestly, metric works best for cameras… A meter marking with one decimal place is 3X more accurate than feet, and more compact that listing feet and inches.

In any case, I love seeing these photos! Great tones on those trees, David!

[rdenney]

I wish we could offer both, but honestly, metric works best for cameras… A meter marking with one decimal place is 3X more accurate than feet, and more compact that listing feet and inches.

In any case, I love seeing these photos! Great tones on those trees, David!

And the cheapie Blix and relatively cheap vintage Voigtlander rangefinders are calibrated in meters.

Rick "but the word you were looking for was 'precise' rather than 'accurate'" Denney

[Roger Cole]

And the cheapie Blix and relatively cheap vintage Voigtlander rangefinders are calibrated in meters.

Rick "but the word you were looking for was 'precise' rather than 'accurate'" Denney

I almost bought another one - forget but could look it up - off the bay but realized in time it was in feet.

Not big thing for me. Years of target shooting a couple decades back left me ok at estimating range in yards and that's close enough to meters.

[Drew Bedo]

Has anyone made a selfie stick for a TW? Two Meters ( or six feet six inches) would be enough.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Yep. There is an eight foot LF stick PetaPixel right now. Downright silly.

[Steve Pitchford]

Has anyone made a selfie stick for a TW? Two Meters ( or six feet six inches) would be enough.

Why Drew, why?

By the way, I had hoped to be the 1st vision impaired photog to show photos on the LFP site but you beat me to it. I visited your web site and must say it is excellent.
Look forward to seeing more of your work.

Happy trails,
SteveP

[Drew Bedo]

Well . . .the post was ment as a friendly mockery of both the Meter Vs Yards discussion combined Selfie phenomenon.

Thanks for your kind words. Hoping TO FIND A CHANGE OF STYLE WITH A tw . . .IF AND WHEN.

[Drew Bedo]

I guess that a few rear extensions have been made (by Plywood?) by now. What about making a rear extension with just a bit of rear tilt built-in?

The lens would be a bit longer than 90mm of course, but that's the point of an extension anyway, right?

[mdarnton]

Really off topic, but I can't resist here: You're comparing apples and oranges; let's compare like with like: feet with one decimal point is a whole lot more subtle than meters with one decimal point.

However, in my field, violin making, we switch fluidly back and forth between systems quite a bit, and it seems that some systems work better for measuring some things, some for others, depending on the nature of the observation being made. There's no clear win in the real world, as opposed to the cleanliness of the theoretical world that none of us actually live in. Nature recognizes neither system. :-)



I wish we could offer both, but honestly, metric works best for cameras… A meter marking with one decimal place is 3X more accurate than feet, and more compact that listing feet and inches.

In any case, I love seeing these photos! Great tones on those trees, David!

[Ben Syverson]

Really off topic, but I can't resist here: You're comparing apples and oranges; let's compare like with like: feet with one decimal point is a whole lot more subtle than meters with one decimal point.
That would be true, except that no one uses decimals with feet—it would be odd to see "5.3 feet"... It's almost always feet and inches, which ends being 5' 4", and that just takes up more space. It's true that both are arbitrary, but we had to choose one, and there was never even the beginning of a shadow of a doubt that we should use meters!

[Oren Grad]

Folks, we're taking Ben's comment as the last word on the feet-vs-meters thing as it relates to the Travelwide. I've carted the rest of that discussion off to its own thread in the Lounge, where you're welcome to continue if you'd like.

[markodile]

Here's my TW65 with a level (one I had spare, admittedly a bit clunky, but it works), and a handle I made for an SLR probably 40 years ago. The handle is a perfect fit. It had a cable release on it, but I removed it because my fingers fall exactly on the shutter release button on the side of the lens and the cable is not needed. Note the 8-exp roll film back. The fit under the metal spring clips was sloppy on the left side, so I glued a couple of pieces of wood on the sides to fill the gaps, and it seems to work great now. I threaded a strap through the left side grip; the camera can 'hang' on my left hand from the strap.

142723

[markodile]

And here is my TW90 with a similar level. I also put a strap on the left side, but expect this camera to be mainly on a tripod, so no accessory handle. The Canon S90 on top serves as a viewfinder and light meter. On the mode dial on the S90 you can preset the amount of lens zoom, the picture mode, metering mode etc., and store those to the "C" (custom) setting. I have it set for widest zoom, which is very close to the angle of view of the TW90. I also have it set for B&W (I'm shooting Tri-X), and for spot metering. All I have to do is turn the mode dial to C and the S90 configures itself perfectly.
142724

[Jac@stafford.net]

Does the S90 give distance to subject?

FWIW I use a laser rangefinder attached to my wide viewfinder camera, with the focal plane matching. Exposure is the least of my worries.

[markodile]

Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to get the S90 to show distance to subject.
But I don't have trouble estimating by eye.