convert De Vere 504 Bench Enlarger (4x5) to 5x7 help needed

[zsolt]

have a De Vere 504 Bench Enlarger that has a problem at the moment with its head,so i took it down and saw this huge hole under my negative carrier:)it was 14x15cm,and i shoot 13x18cm film,was thinking at a spacer between the film holder and the light source,to be able to enlarge this negs..and of course another light source,but thats already figured out..:)
and here comes my question..anybody has an idea how far should i take the light source away?
enlargements would be between 20x25cm(8x10inch) and 40x50cm(16x20inch)with a 240mm G-claron
is there anybody out there who thought about this,maybe even made it?saw a guy thinking at converting it to 8x10 here(gave up at the end),but not 5x7..
could use some help here,cause i feel a bit lost,and dont feel like making100 lightboxes till i find the optimal thickness;)
anybody has an idea?or a formula,or something to solve this?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks!

[IanG]

You need a different light source, I have a 5108 and the head is up against the negative.

Ian

[zsolt]

of course i need a different light source,namely a bigger..but even if i would have it now,the diameter of the hole under my negative carrier(dunno how they call that place)would still be the same..14x15cm..and im willing to enlarge 13x18cm negatives with the 504..
now i have to take my light source away from the hole,with the negative,to compensate for the 3 cm what i dont have there..
but my question would be how far should i place the thing?
i red my post again,and its wrong,sorry..
the order is normal,as a normal enlarger,light source, film, lens..and the spacer should be between the lens and the film,but on the upper side..
i hope this clears things..
sorry bout that,my bad

[interneg]

I wouldn't start hacking away at a DeVere, they're precise & solid for a reason.

You could contact Odyssey Sales to see if it's possible to convert it into a 507 - won't be cheap but it'll definitely work. I recall it involves replacing the entire head/ bellows assembly.

[Tin Can]

I also wanted to convert a DeVere 504 without a head to 5X7. I changed my mind.

Too nice to mess up. I tried an extension box which just sat on top but it was NG, for reasons I now forget. I think my lenses couldn't focus. Distances were off.

It will remain 4x5.

[zsolt]

Christ,no..i didnt want to touch the thing..just the head,make a bigger one,for 5x7,and with an extension try to fix the missing 3 cm i have there..
i have a good frien who is pro working with metal and all kindsof machines cnc, and others i dont remember,if this attempt fails,was thinking to ask him to make a bigger base that holds the negative carrier(no idea how they call the thing)but if so,than maybe it could be even 8x10,red here that the chassis for the 4x5-8x10 is the same,so it would be stable..
but first would like to fix this somehow,if possible with an extension..
Thanks for the Odyssey Sales idea,but i would like to end this cheap-but good,and buy film instead..i cant see any problem why couldnt someone,who knows what he is doing, make a bigger base(neg. holder thing) out of metal,and install it..
heck if it doesnt work for some reason,the other base can be put back easily..its just screws,and of course,i dont want to cut things..im not a vandal..

[zsolt]

I also wanted to convert a DeVere 504 without a head to 5X7. I changed my mind.

Too nice to mess up. I tried an extension box which just sat on top but it was NG, for reasons I now forget. I think my lenses couldn't focus. Distances were off.

It will remain 4x5.

Thanks for sharing this with me-us Randy!
could you Please tell us some details of your extension experiment?how far did you try to move the neg from the neg holder base(still dont know the name)?and what lenses did you try?yours is also a bench enlarger?
if i would wall mount it,or make a small metal drop table for it,i think it should be able to focus.it might need just bit more distance what your enlarger(maybe) couldnt handle with the lenses you used..
or maybe a wider lens,lets say not 240,but 210..
i might sound like a vandal terror guy,but im not..i will make everything with care and love.
and i really dont see why it wouldnt work..
all the enlargers in the world were made by humans using machines,and their hands..and mind

[zsolt]

I have a 5108 and the head is up against the negative.

Ian

Ian,
may i ask what lenses you use with your 5108,and could you tell me some info on the distance between lens and easel,and lens and negative when making 2x-3x enlargements?(with the lens you use)
Thanks in advance!
zsolt

[zsolt]

You need a different light source, I have a 5108 and the head is up against the negative.

Ian

also may i ask you how big your chassis is?(mine is113cm(44 inch))Odyssey Sales sad this on their site about the 5108:
"This Enlarger has the same range as the 504 and the 507 models, although the maximum film size used here is 8"x 10"."
to me it sounds that yours is the same big..exept the floor stand,of course..
also may i ask what is the max magnification that you can get without dropping the table?
Cheers!
zs.

[Tin Can]

You need the charts that show enlarger magnification, with distances with each lens.

Here is a sample Durst doc. http://www.durst-pro-usa.com/pdf/MAKING%20BIG%20PRINTS%20IN%20SMALL%20ROOMS%20APENDIX.pdf

[zsolt]

You need the charts that show enlarger magnification, with distances with each lens.

Here is a sample Durst doc. http://www.durst-pro-usa.com/pdf/MAKING%20BIG%20PRINTS%20IN%20SMALL%20ROOMS%20APENDIX.pdf

Thanks a lot Randy!
this table tells me that i could make 24x30 inch prints with my bench De Vere without wall mounting with the 240mm lens,i guess with a EI-nikkor 210 could make even biggers(but there is no need2x enlargement is more than enough for me)
could you tell us Randy,if you can recall what lenses you tried on your enlarger?after what your table tells,i think it was at least a 300-360mm.
i think it could really work out for my purpose..im gonna measure what bellows draw i need for my 5x4,and neg. to easel distance with my "normal use"and if its possible to use after somehow with 4x5 as well,im good:)if 8x10 and 4x5 works 5x7 cant be a problem..
would someone have a table like this for 4x5 and 5x7 too?could be really useful!
Thanks Everyone for the info-suggestions!its really apreciated!!
thought first i would be abandoned as a vandal-punk:D

[zsolt]

could you tell us Randy,if you can recall what lenses you tried on your enlarger?after what your table tells,i think it was at least a 300-360mm.

just realised my confusion,sorry..you talked aboutyour 5x7,but i turned 8x10 with the table..my bad..
but still,would be curious about the lenses you tried on your 5x7 experiment..;)

[IanG]

Ian,
may i ask what lenses you use with your 5108,and could you tell me some info on the distance between lens and easel,and lens and negative when making 2x-3x enlargements?(with the lens you use)
Thanks in advance!
zsolt

Mine's the floor standing version. I have 240mm and 300mm Componom S lenses, there's no way the 300mm would be practical on a bench model which is why I bought the 240mm, I found the 300mm awkward. I can measure some distances tomorrow.

Ian

[zsolt]

Mine's the floor standing version. I have 240mm and 300mm Componom S lenses, there's no way the 300mm would be practical on a bench model which is why I bought the 240mm, I found the 300mm awkward. I can measure some distances tomorrow.

Ian

Thanks Ian!would appreciate it!

[Tin Can]

Right now I use 150mm Rodagon with 5x7" negs or 6x17cm on a 10x10 FOTAR enlarger chassis with my own head. I need the baseboard to neg room.

I want to find a mounting ring for my El-Nikkor 180mm enlarging lens and try that. It's an odd size.

I doubt many are using longer than 210mm for 5x7 enlargements.

I use 240 Rodagon for 8X10 enlarging on Calumet 10X10 chassis with a 1212 Aristo as of last week.

I experiment a lot.

I am also not the expert on any of this.

[zsolt]

Right now I use 150mm Rodagon with 5x7" negs or 6x17cm on a 10x10 FOTAR enlarger chassis with my own head. I need the baseboard to neg room.

I want to find a mounting ring for my El-Nikkor 180mm enlarging lens and try that. It's an odd size.

I doubt many are using longer than 210mm for 5x7 enlargements.

I use 240 Rodagon for 8X10 enlarging on Calumet 10X10 chassis with a 1212 Aristo as of last week.

I experiment a lot.

I am also not the expert on any of this.

Thanks Randy!
and may i ask which lenses couldnt focus on your 5x7 experiment with the De Vere?would be interested in that..if you remember..
Thanks in advance!

[jose angel]

Thanks a lot Randy!
this table tells me that i could make 24x30 inch prints with my bench De Vere without wall mounting with the 240mm lens,i guess with a EI-nikkor 210 could make even biggers(but there is no need2x enlargement is more than enough for me)
could you tell us Randy,if you can recall what lenses you tried on your enlarger?after what your table tells,i think it was at least a 300-360mm.
i think it could really work out for my purpose..im gonna measure what bellows draw i need for my 5x4,and neg. to easel distance with my "normal use"and if its possible to use after somehow with 4x5 as well,im good:)if 8x10 and 4x5 works 5x7 cant be a problem..
would someone have a table like this for 4x5 and 5x7 too?could be really useful!
Thanks Everyone for the info-suggestions!its really apreciated!!
thought first i would be abandoned as a vandal-punk:D

Some thoughts:
If I understand you correctly, you think you may use your 4x5" bellows with a 5x7" (or even a 8x10") lens. Usually, any 4x5" bellows/cone is simply too short.

Think that theoretically, at 1:1 you need to double the focal lenght to find the bellows draw/base to lens distance. That is, with a 150mm lens, the bellows draw should be near 300mm, and the base to lens distance about another 300mm. At 2:1, just add another focal lenght to that base to lens distance (that is, 300+150=450mm), for 3:1 another focal lenght (300+150+150=600mm), and so on. To calculate the bellows draw, for 2:1 add half the focal lenght to the focal lenght (150+75=225mm), for 3:1 add one third the focal lenght to the focal lenght (150+50=200mm), and so on.

Just apply this calculations for any enlarging lens. 5x7" lenses usually are in the 180-210mm range, 8x10" lenses are in the 240-300 range (WA versions aside). A 240mm lens will need 360mm of bellows to focus a 2:1 print.
Don`t know about your enlarger, but you can calculate&DIY a wide enough lens cone (if possible) to be used at a given magnification. And you can made a "box" to be used on top of your film stage... if possible. And there is the colum height. And you`ll need a good film carrier (big&heavy). A new light head. Etc. etc. etc. (BTW, the light head will take you a couple inches at much).

Let`s be realistic. Do you really need to do this? Isn`t 4x5" big enough for you? What about contact printing 8x10", or even to work on alternative processes? At the end, 2:1 or smaller from 8x10" seem too much pain, too much homemade, too much flimsy approaches to make a not so big print at all. And don`t miss that shooting 8x10" is not cheap.
Well, if you want it, that`s right. But honestly, I`d look for a "true" 5x7" enlarger instead. 8x10"s are not so common anywhere (nor cheap!).

I`d find even easier to build a 16x20" camera in order to make contact prints... :D Good luck.

[zsolt]

Some thoughts:
If I understand you correctly, you think you may use your 4x5" bellows with a 5x7" (or even a 8x10") lens. Usually, any 4x5" bellows/cone is simply too short.

Think that theoretically, at 1:1 you need to double the focal lenght to find the bellows draw/base to lens distance. That is, with a 150mm lens, the bellows draw should be near 300mm, and the base to lens distance about another 300mm. At 2:1, just add another focal lenght to that base to lens distance (that is, 300+150=450mm), for 3:1 another focal lenght (300+150+150=600mm), and so on. To calculate the bellows draw, for 2:1 add half the focal lenght to the focal lenght (150+75=225mm), for 3:1 add one third the focal lenght to the focal lenght (150+50=200mm), and so on.

Just apply this calculations for any enlarging lens. 5x7" lenses usually are in the 180-210mm range, 8x10" lenses are in the 240-300 range (WA versions aside). A 240mm lens will need 360mm of bellows to focus a 2:1 print.
Don`t know about your enlarger, but you can calculate&DIY a wide enough lens cone (if possible) to be used at a given magnification. And you can made a "box" to be used on top of your film stage... if possible. And there is the colum height. And you`ll need a good film carrier (big&heavy). A new light head. Etc. etc. etc. (BTW, the light head will take you a couple inches at much).

Let`s be realistic. Do you really need to do this? Isn`t 4x5" big enough for you? What about contact printing 8x10", or even to work on alternative processes? At the end, 2:1 or smaller from 8x10" seem too much pain, too much homemade, too much flimsy approaches to make a not so big print at all. And don`t miss that shooting 8x10" is not cheap.
Well, if you want it, that`s right. But honestly, I`d look for a "true" 5x7" enlarger instead. 8x10"s are not so common anywhere (nor cheap!).

I`d find even easier to build a 16x20" camera in order to make contact prints... :D Good luck.

Hello Jose,and thanks for writing!
useful calculations here,what i appreciate,Thanks!
i have a De Vere 504 Bench Enlarger,as i mentioned before.that has(at the moment):
52cm bellows draw,and with the head up bellows extended the lens easel distance is approx 62cm.that makes a film-easel distance of 115cm(and if i make "the box" the distance will be just bigger)
you are right..i need a light source(what i already got,as mentioned before),a box on the "film base"(or whats its name),to take thefilm away,i dont see a reason for a heavy negative carrier,but that i got too already with ANR glass,(and the way i see there is no more etc-etc...)
no,4x5 isnt "big enough" for me,and i would like to enlarge the negs,if i would like to contact print,i wouldnt write this post here;).alternative processes are out of the question..
lets be realistic..pain is good,homemade-DIY i love,if its well done i dont see why it would be "flimsy",and i dont know how big you print,but to me a well made 16x20 print is good-big enough(for the moment ;) )
so lets love each other,
an enlarger be it DIY-or-professionaly made in a factory with engeneers working on it for decades,the result is a print..
and if thats good,im happy;)
btw,wouldnt mind building a 16x20 camera,but getting film holders and film for the thing would be another question..
Thanks!
zs.

[jose angel]

Right, the result is a print, but the enlarger is certainly not the same... the game may be the same, but there is a difference in the playing! Anyway, if it doesn`t matter for you, that`s ok! No questions here. "DIY photography" is even more funny than "plain photography" by itself. I know it (although sometimes I forget that the important thing is that... the final print!) :D
A 16x20 print coming from 8x10" is 2x. If it comes from 4x5" it is 4x. From 5x7" is less than 3x. Not sure if there is a big difference. (Hopefully you have a good 8x10" camera and the enlarger is perfectly aligned after the upgrade).
It is like printing smaller than 4x6, out of 35mm film or 6x7. But as mentioned, it`s all for fun. Go ahead! :)

[zsolt]

did i say something wrong Jose?

i think(it might be just me) there is a difference between 4x5 and 8x10,even enlarged just 16x20,im not saying like 6x7 and 8x10,but there is..
important that subject matter also playes a role here,how much DOF you need..etc
for example,16x20 enlargement is the upper limit of 4x5 for me..and again,it might be just me in the whole world..but its like that.
lets take that up to a 24x30 enlargement.(what i could do on my enlarger after the modification,as your calculations say.)i dont think the game would be the same.
btw..Father Ansel built his enlarger too from a repro camera,with the help of a pro metal worker(-i guess..maybe he did it all on his own,but doubt that)
and doesnt look "flimsy"to me at all..
again..im not triing to fight here over opinions,was just asking for some help here,and your calculations just did the thing,Thanks for that!
but again..its just opinions..and mine is different than yours.and none of us will lose sleep over this i think;)
i didnt ask for an easy solution out of this..i asked help to fix a specific idea.
and you helped me,and im grateful for that!
Thank You Jose!
zs.

[jose angel]

I`m not fighting here, zsolt, don`t sweat. I`m glad helping anybody if I can. I was just thinking aloud (maybe I shouldn`t... ). Ok, I got it. My excuses.

[jose angel]

I was thinking on Randy`s experience... I have refurbished and modified several enlargers with the same result.
Don`t believe in theoretical calculations; you should check every component... (the etc. list... :D). E.g., even if you have a long bellows, it could be not fully usable after an 8x10" conversion. It may cause vignetting, so you must calculate the lens to film light path and check if the bellows (or lens cone, if so) is wide enough to fit this cone. If not, you`ll need to increase the carrier height, the functionality of the bellows will be limited, and smaller enlargements could be affected. Or the larger, if the bellows cannot be compressed enough. Of course, you can made several boxes designed for different magnifications... Don`t miss to make them fully -and easily- adjustable (if not, all this will be fun but also a nonsense!).

[Luis-F-S]

Hey Jose he's just asking for opinions and you gave him yours which I agree with! It's just not what he wanted to hear. Go for it but I wonder why DeVere didn't make a 4x5 to 8x10 conversion?

[zsolt]

please guys,tell me why does a Beseler 4x5 work(with the 8x10 conversion kit)for 8x10,and why wouldnt a 504 De Vere work?
if a friend makes new negative base,and i make new bellows,than the light path is perfect,and the box isnt needed anymore,but a small one could be practical for bigger head height possibility..
i think De Vere never made a 8x10 conversion,cause they have a 8x10.
guys..i just want to understand this.im not triing to fight or say that my opinion is the best..im just wondering why it wouldnt work..
dont think at me as a stupid guy,but a stupid guy who wants to understand..
:)
Thanks Gentleman!

[Luis-F-S]

Pls post some pictures when you're done with your project!

[zsolt]

Jose,could you Please point out the things that i missed in my conversion plan,and if its a real bump,that cant be fixed by a human,or human operating a laser cutter-cnc machine( or how they call the thing),this nonsense will stop,and i will go back to my cave to think on something else..and leave you guys to do your thing:)
what does a Beseler have, what i dont see, and the De Vere misses?if i make new negative base-negative carrier-bellows-light source,its a superb enlarger compared to the converted Beseler.the De Vere from 4x5-8x10 has the same column,so stability is not an issue.
there might be something obvious,or hidden, what i looked over,but if you point it out,than i learn,and wont be (so) stupid anymore..
Luis,if i remember right,you have an 8x10,floor stand.may i ask the max negative easel distance without the table dropped,and the max bellows extension?
are you able to make 2-3x enlargements with 8x10 without dropping the table with a 240-210mm lens?
sure,i will post pictures if the thing is done..but it will take time,thats for sure..
Thanks in advance guys!

[Tin Can]

zsolt.

Jose gave you the methods to calculate what you ask. Please draw on paper your ideas and calculate angles for what you want. The numbers depend on the actual lenses.

I highly suggest you read this entire website. Starting below, as it is directly related to your plans. Then explore and ponder. Glenn has taught me much from his website.

http://www.glennview.com/810.htm

[Luis-F-S]

In Houston on a shoot will check when I get home

[jose angel]

please guys,tell me why does a Beseler 4x5 work(with the 8x10 conversion kit)for 8x10,and why wouldnt a 504 De Vere work?
if a friend makes new negative base,and i make new bellows,than the light path is perfect,and the box isnt needed anymore,but a small one could be practical for bigger head height possibility..
i think De Vere never made a 8x10 conversion,cause they have a 8x10.
guys..i just want to understand this:)
Thanks Gentleman!
I`m sorry I don't know De Vere enlargers (only that they are known to be amongst the best).
The upper part of the bellows use to be attached to the enlarger`s main chassis; normally it has a square or circular cut, just a slightly bit larger (if any) than the format. This is the lower part of the film stage, where the film carrier is located. Well, this cut could act as a bottleneck.

Enlargers use to be as compact as possible (specially modern ones); if there is no plan of bigger format conversions, it could be hard to replace this part. Think that the cut is too small for an 8x10" negative, so even if you made a spacing box over it, the bellows cannot be used at its full length. So the "enlargement versatility" is then limited. You need to calculate&check it directly over your enlarger`s measurements.

Looking at internet`s images, looks like the De Vere 504 have two different chassis, one for the lens stage and another for the film/head stage (looks great). From what I see it should be easy to remove the head and to attach a conversion box, but the 4x5" "cut" is still there... so you are forced to either cut a bigger hole (if possible), to replace it with a homemade one (if possible, think that the enlarging axis could be altered so you would need to replace the lens stage as well), or to limit the enlarging capability once converted. It`d be great to find that the cut is actually on a screwed plate that can be replaced with another CNC`d plate (Hmmm, you need 2" at each side to keep the axis!), so you could order and attach a wider bellows. Check it on yours.

I also don`t know about the Beseler conversion kit (although I have seen and own some Beselers). If you replace the film stage and the bellows with a much wider one (8x10" is double in diameter), the thing will work at its full strength. I assume Beselers are designed this way. Or, like on mine, the bellows is somewhat wide and short, fitting longer lenses on extension tubes (Omega style). The light head use to be a simple hat over the film carrier, so not an issue at all.

[zsolt]

I`m sorry I don't know De Vere enlargers (only that they are known to be amongst the best).
The upper part of the bellows use to be attached to the enlarger`s main chassis; normally it has a square or circular cut, just a slightly bit larger (if any) than the format. This is the lower part of the film stage, where the film carrier is located. Well, this cut could act as a bottleneck.

Enlargers use to be as compact as possible (specially modern ones); if there is no plan of bigger format conversions, it could be hard to replace this part. Think that the cut is too small for an 8x10" negative, so even if you made a spacing box over it, the bellows cannot be used at its full length. So the "enlargement versatility" is then limited. You need to calculate&check it directly over your enlarger`s measurements.

Looking at internet`s images, looks like the De Vere 504 have two different chassis, one for the lens stage and another for the film/head stage (looks great). From what I see it should be easy to remove the head and to attach a conversion box, but the 4x5" "cut" is still there... so you are forced to either cut a bigger hole (if possible), to replace it with a homemade one (if possible, think that the enlarging axis could be altered so you would need to replace the lens stage as well), or to limit the enlarging capability once converted. It`d be great to find that the cut is actually on a screwed plate that can be replaced with another CNC`d plate (Hmmm, you need 2" at each side to keep the axis!), so you could order and attach a wider bellows. Check it on yours.

I also don`t know about the Beseler conversion kit (although I have seen and own some Beselers). If you replace the film stage and the bellows with a much wider one (8x10" is double in diameter), the thing will work at its full strength. I assume Beselers are designed this way. Or, like on mine, the bellows is somewhat wide and short, fitting longer lenses on extension tubes (Omega style). The light head use to be a simple hat over the film carrier, so not an issue at all.

Thanks for your info Jose!
the hole under the negative carrier is 14x15cm..(thats the reason i thought about a 13x18 conversion first)
yes,i plan to replace that part,and also make a small arm-elongation for the lens stage to compensate for the enlarging axis(thanks for pointing that out my friend!;)).and new bellows ..
btw,as mentione before,both is attached with 3 screws,so replacement is easy..and after if i want,can put everything back as it was..no harm.
made a stupid drawing of the plan,i will scan and post it..i hope it helps,and wont confuse you guys more..im not really good at drawing..

[interneg]

I use a 504 on a regular (not all day every day, but sometimes it feel like that) basis.

There are innumerable problems with attempting the Beseler approach with the DeVere & this is why I'd insist you contact Odyssey Sales before doing anything.

The 'hole' at the negative stage is a little bigger than 4x5 on a 504, how do you intend to prevent vignetting? the Beseler has a rather different & considerably bigger 'hole' at the neg stage I recall (I think my 45CB7 measures about 20x20cm, though this was not the model the 810 kit was designed for, better to find out what the 45mxt was)

If you've ever taken the dichroic/ condensor/ cold cathode head off a DeVere you'll see that the assemblies can be stripped down - the lens/ negative stage can be taken off the column - I'd have assumed to enable different neg stages for the 504/507/5108/515 to be assembled readily. That said, I have heard that the 5108 might use a different size of column - again Odyssey would know.

Once you're looking at light sources, I'd bet that the cost of a Heiland 10x8 LED head will be greater than what a good 5108 floorstander will cost... Or if you're intent on homebrewing it, make sure it weighs the right amount otherwise it'll go shooting up the column with enough force to severely injure someone the moment you unlock it...

[zsolt]

so here it is,forgive me,but i cant draw(as you see here)
155881

[zsolt]

In Houston on a shoot will check when I get home

Thanks Luis!appreciate it!

[MartinP]

From memory you could re-use the base, column, focus-slider, head-slider. The supports for the head and the focus-stage (more space between axis and column), the head (with new light-source), the focus-stage (with new neg-holder), the bellows and the lens holder would all need to be fabricated.

[zsolt]

I use a 504 on a regular (not all day every day, but sometimes it feel like that) basis.

There are innumerable problems with attempting the Beseler approach with the DeVere & this is why I'd insist you contact Odyssey Sales before doing anything.

The 'hole' at the negative stage is a little bigger than 4x5 on a 504, how do you intend to prevent vignetting? the Beseler has a rather different & considerably bigger 'hole' at the neg stage I recall (I think my 45CB7 measures about 20x20cm, though this was not the model the 810 kit was designed for, better to find out what the 45mxt was)

read my post before-checkpicture after your post,i will replace it..

[/QUOTE]
If you've ever taken the dichroic/ condensor/ cold cathode head off a DeVere you'll see that the assemblies can be stripped down - the lens/ negative stage can be taken off the column - I'd have assumed to enable different neg stages for the 504/507/5108/515 to be assembled readily. That said, I have heard that the 5108 might use a different size of column - again Odyssey would know.
[/QUOTE]

no they dont,i dont know about 11x14 but till 8x10 its the same column..as i mentioned 2x before..

[/QUOTE]
Once you're looking at light sources, I'd bet that the cost of a Heiland 10x8 LED head will be greater than what a good 5108 floorstander will cost... Or if you're intent on homebrewing it, make sure it weighs the right amount otherwise it'll go shooting up the column with enough force to severely injure someone the moment you unlock it...[/QUOTE]

:) there are just other solutions that the 2-3000euro Heiland LED head..im sure it works supperwell,i dont question it,i have Heiland products,that im satisfied with.
lots of people made LED conversions..that work..and the blue (high contrast)is not a factor anymore,i know before it was..
royal blue...its blue..no-very little green in it.
and btw..as i mentioned before the light is already fixed.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!
All the Best!
zs.

[zsolt]

From memory you could re-use the base, column, focus-slider, head-slider. The supports for the head and the focus-stage (more space between axis and column), the head (with new light-source), the focus-stage (with new neg-holder), the bellows and the lens holder would all need to be fabricated.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Martin!
light is fixed,bellows i can make -no problem-,neg holder ready,so i have to change the support for the head,and lens stage(what a friend will fix..)
so,all i have to do is when the friend made it change the stages with the 3 screws,(2x3 screws-2 stages-,sorry)attach the bellows,the light,insert the film holder,and im good..
check my drawing,its not super,but you might see what im planning to do better there,than i could explain..
AlltheBest Martin!
zs.

[jose angel]

Thanks for your info Jose!
the hole under the negative carrier is 14x15cm..(thats the reason i thought about a 13x18 conversion first)
yes,i plan to replace that part,and also make a small arm-elongation for the lens stage to compensate for the enlarging axis(thanks for pointing that out my friend!;)).and new bellows ..
btw,as mentione before,both is attached with 3 screws,so replacement is easy..and after if i want,can put everything back as it was..no harm.
made a stupid drawing of the plan,i will scan and post it..i hope it helps,and wont confuse you guys more..im not really good at drawing..

Looking at your sketch I`d still consider a 5x7" conversion instead. At a first sight it seems feasible without further modifications; looks like you only need to extend the frame a bit more than a couple centimeters on the long side (with say, a wooden DIY conversion box) and that`s all. You will get 5x7" capability and you could still adjust and use 4x5" with the right carriers without even using a screwdriver. You could buy good 5x7" carriers and masks (e.g., Durst) at a reasonable price, and "easily" build the conversion box to fit this carriers.
Another option could be machining the part and changing the bellows; you could get then a "true" 4x5"/5x7" enlarger.

If you are definitely decided on 8x10", you obviously need new parts. CNC is expensive, materials are expensive, bellows are expensive, carriers, etc. but I also think its easier to go ahead and made your own one than to find an affordable one in the used market.
I don`t see a problem on the light head... I`m using LED sources for a while now, never looked back. I also think steadiness is not of an issue... just attach an adjustable "V" arm from the top of the column to the wall and it will be rock solid.

[zsolt]

Looking at your sketch I`d still consider a 5x7" conversion instead. At a first sight it seems feasible without further modifications; looks like you only need to extend the frame a bit more than a couple centimeters on the long side (with say, a wooden DIY conversion box) and that`s all. You will get 5x7" capability and you could still adjust and use 4x5" with the right carriers without even using a screwdriver. You could buy good 5x7" carriers and masks (e.g., Durst) at a reasonable price, and "easily" build the conversion box to fit this carriers.
Another option could be machining the part and changing the bellows; you could get then a "true" 4x5"/5x7" enlarger.

If you are definitely decided on 8x10", you obviously need new parts. CNC is expensive, materials are expensive, bellows are expensive, carriers, etc. but I also think its easier to go ahead and made your own one than to find an affordable one in the used market.
I don`t see a problem on the light head... I`m using LED sources for a while now, never looked back. I also think steadiness is not of an issue... just attach an adjustable "V" arm from the top of the column to the wall and it will be rock solid.

i know Jose,that was the reason of my post(as started)to convert 5x7,and than i thought why not 8x10,if possible with a small change..
i didnt mention this,but the metal work will be for free cause the guy owes me,and will make it for free..and he is really good,already made some things for my cameras,an he knows what he is doing..everything works as should-as did before..bellows i can make,carriers i got.light is fixed,so as i see it,it might work out..
i could make 2-3x enlargements with the beauty with a 210-240,and to me that would be good enough for the time being:)
but i m curious to hear from Luis,or Ian if they could measure their 5108..
if its done-working i will post it here with pictures-dimensions,and this cnc computer drawing thing,dunno how they call it,the plan that the machine uses to make the thing.
so other people can make it themselfs..if anyone is interested in the conversion at all XD.
as i see it,its fairly easy,as an example,i would have more problems triing to make a De Vere column..

[zsolt]

I don`t see a problem on the light head... I`m using LED sources for a while now, never looked back.

Jose,than you MUST know this(if you dont you are welcome;) ) : http://www.jbhphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/LEDsVCPrinting03.pdf
if you have the Heiland LED head,than forgive my DIY soul..

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a 504 floor-standing enlarger, and I've had an 810H. This seems doable. I agree about asking Odyssey Sales, possibly by a phone call. Over the years I've needed a few things. Occasionally, OS came through really affordably. Other times they were horrendously expensive. While it may be a long shot, they may have the needed parts sitting around that they'd love to get rid of. KHB in Canada is also a good, but usually very expensive, resource, as is Teamwork in London.

[zsolt]

I have a 504 floor-standing enlarger, and I've had an 810H. This seems doable. I agree about asking Odyssey Sales, possibly by a phone call. Over the years I've needed a few things. Occasionally, OS came through really affordably. Other times they were horrendously expensive. While it may be a long shot, they may have the needed parts sitting around that they'd love to get rid of. KHB in Canada is also a good, but usually very expensive, resource, as is Teamwork in London.

Thanks for telling us your opinion Peter!
"they may have the needed parts sitting around that they'd love to get rid of."
you are totally right here Peter!i checked their site waaay back an today again after Interneg suggested it,and the 504 bench model is between 1500-3000 Pounds,depending on light source,that made me think that they are out of my budget,even for the 8x10 parts,but you gave some light here,what i appreciate!
Thanks Peter!will contact them in a blink!

[coisasdavida]

I believe you could try around 7,5cm/3in extension on top of the negative stage.
De Vere 504 and a flat lens board works ok with a 75mm lens. So in case you end up using a 150mm, a 75mm extension should be okay with a lens board.

You could try it with gatorfoam to check usability and see if you get any vignetting (from the 14x15cm hole) and to check max and min sizes of prints before commiting to the build.
If you do get vignetting with your 240mm, try going for a shorter lens (150mm and 180mm have been suggested before) to avoid that.

I have done the same thing to convert a Durst M800 (6x9cm) to 8x10" and it works.
I have three 504 columns here and have wondered about mounting my Elwood head on top of one for a long time.
The Elwood column is so hard to operate.

[jose angel]

I have done the same thing to convert a Durst M800 (6x9cm) to 8x10" and it works.


I`d love to see a photo of this upgrade. Is it possible? :)

[zsolt]

I believe you could try around 7,5cm/3in extension on top of the negative stage.
De Vere 504 and a flat lens board works ok with a 75mm lens. So in case you end up using a 150mm, a 75mm extension should be okay with a lens board.

You could try it with gatorfoam to check usability and see if you get any vignetting (from the 14x15cm hole) and to check max and min sizes of prints before commiting to the build.
If you do get vignetting with your 240mm, try going for a shorter lens (150mm and 180mm have been suggested before) to avoid that.

I have done the same thing to convert a Durst M800 (6x9cm) to 8x10" and it works.
I have three 504 columns here and have wondered about mounting my Elwood head on top of one for a long time.
The Elwood column is so hard to operate.

Thanks for telling us about your 8x10 enlarger coisasdavida!i would also love to see it,if you could share some pics with us!
wont have any vignetting cause i will replace both stages..
three 504 columns-huh??you lucky one...if i would have one more i would wall mount it,and i would be set for life..
one day it will come..
let us know if you got somewhere with your Elwood-De Vere plan!

[coisasdavida]

I`d love to see a photo of this upgrade. Is it possible? :)

Yes!
This link to a tag that contains many posts related, fourth or fifth should be what you're looking for.
https://refotografia.wordpress.com/tag/ampliador/

[jose angel]

Great, thanks. :)

[coisasdavida]

Okay!
Zsolt, I got carried away today and got the hacksaw out and cut the negative stage out of the Elwood. Here it is sitting on top of the De Vere. My idea is to keep the De Vere negative holder working on this one and use the Elwood light source with smaller negatives and shorter lenses. Let's see if I can make it work, I mean, allow the head to move up and down.

https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8408/30289641165_f2a0b98d34_h.jpg

Above the Elwood carrier there are 4 metal blades to vignette/frame the negative, I'd like them to continue working too.

[zsolt]

coisasdavida,
fell asleep on this post,sorry..
Great that you could convert a medium format to 8x10.Thanks for showing us!may i ask how did you fix allignment problems on that project?
this is a 5x7 conversion-right?
im sorry but i dont see it work..max 14x15cm negatives(if you didnt do something else,what you didnt tell us;) )
if you didnt convert the negative stage(cut bigger hole)than your solution would be to put the wood extension ON the negative stage,and the negative carrier on TOP of that.
"My idea is to keep the De Vere negative holder working on this one and use the Elwood light source with smaller negatives and shorter lenses"
can you describe this a bit further please!you plan to use this setup with smaller negatives?why?
i dont understand..
could you explain a bit better what you did-plan to do?
im sure i muisunderstand1-2 things(at least..:) )
Thanks Man!
zs.

[coisasdavida]

Think of the imaging cone, I'll have two negative stages at different distances to the lens.
Of course, I'll have to remove the bottom one to use the upper one and vice versa.

[zsolt]

i understand,but i think you could use just one stage..the 3-4 cm wont do much there.
you took off parts from the head attachment that could come really handy(maybe you didnt take them off,anyway,mine looks different there)..if you have them,just put it back,and attach the head to it,but not the extension.like this you dont have to take off the head-extension every time you want to change negative..or how is that fixed?is the head attached to the black vertical panel now?if it does,and it lifts the head up,but not the extension,than you have a working enlarger than can be used as before-as it was intended.
congratulations!
show us some prints if you make some with the enlarger!

[zsolt]

did you try it with any lightsource coisasdavida if the bellows are wide enough?it might be a problem.
curious how it worked out..
let us know!

[coisasdavida]

Ok, I started moving forward here. Some pictures in this post: https://refotografia.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/de-vere-504-%e2%80%a2-conversao-para-5x7-parte-i/

[coisasdavida]

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5666/30638257740_cb3875b168_h.jpg
Here it is.
More images at https://refotografia.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/de-vere-504-%e2%80%a2-conversao-para-5x7-parte-ii/