PDA

View Full Version : Proposal for handheld LF cameras



MJSfoto1956
25-Mar-2007, 19:23
Dear manufacturers of handheld LF cameras,

I have a simple proposal that I believe will increase sales of your products among existing large format users.

It is clear that there has long been a need for a handheld 4x5 -- something that can use existing LF lenses and is lightweight enough to take "untethered" photographs. However, not being able to switch a lens from a cone to a lensboard quickly and simply is problematic for many of us as it is often desirable to bring BOTH a camera with movements as well as a handheld body while on a shoot. It would be ideal (IMHO) if you could come up with a bayonet mount for #0 and #1 Copals that would mount to:

Technica-style lensboards
your own lens cones with helical focusing mechanisms

...both of which would be machined to receive the bayonet. This way one could bring one set of lenses and two LF bodies (i.e. one handheld and one LF with movements) and switch between the bodies on an as-needed basis. As it is, once you mount and adjust a 75mm lens to a lenscone, it pretty much always stays there even when it would be significantly better to swithc the lens to a view camera to use movements to capture a particular shot. The alternative of course would be to purchase TWO 75mm lenses, but both the cost and the extra weight are undesirable and ultimately unnecessary.

While it is true that one could just as easily bring a lens wrench and switch the lenses manually, it is both tedious and error prone, especially while out in the field. With the bayonet concept, the lens would also be easier to store in a vest or pocket as it could finally be divorced from the square lensboard (yay!). In short, you would be making a new LF lens attachment standard that would work with ANY size lensboard and/or lens cone.

Anyway, I for one would love such a standard feature and its availability would encourage me to opt for a very simple, lightweight handheld as an accessory to my normal view camera to provide a platform for more spontaneous shooting as I saw fit.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

Brian C. Miller
25-Mar-2007, 19:45
I want a pony, too!

Greg Lockrey
25-Mar-2007, 19:53
How about a lens plate with it's own bellows?

Brian C. Miller
25-Mar-2007, 20:12
OK, seriously now.

We have the Hobo (http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?cat=237), the Gaoersi (http://www.gaoersi-camera.com/cp_detail.php?id=8021&nowmenuid=3300&cpath=&catid=0), and the Fotoman (http://www.fotomancamera.com/product_list.asp?id=190). And of course many assorted press cameras. But no, you want a pony!

How about this: Buy a Toyo 45CF, and also get some masking tape. Make marks on the tape for your lenses, and focus points at various distances. And off you go!

But wait! You want 75mm lenses that cover 4x5. Ouch. New, those go for $800 to $2000. You'd definitely need a recessed lens board. But that's OK, though, those are only $80.

I think that a Toyo 45CF would do nicely.

Ole Tjugen
25-Mar-2007, 20:49
What's wrong with a Technika? A 45 Technika is very well suited to hand held photography, and also has enough movements for most subjects when put on a tripod.

There once was a bayonet mount for LF lenses - on the Voigtländer Bergheil. Thanks to the German LF'ers I've now got three extra bayonet fittings so I can easily swap lenses on my Bergheils. :)

Oren Grad
25-Mar-2007, 22:24
What's wrong with a Technika? A 45 Technika is very well suited to hand held photography

For hand-held use there's a huge difference between an 8 pound camera and a 4 pound camera. I don't think Michael's crazy at all, though I don't expect it to happen.

Horseman used to have a bayonet system too, albeit for use with its 140mm view camera boards rather than the small field camera boards.

domenico Foschi
25-Mar-2007, 23:32
For hand-held use there's a huge difference between an 8 pound camera and a 4 pound camera. I don't think Michael's crazy at all, though I don't expect it to happen.

Horseman used to have a bayonet system too, albeit for use with its 140mm view camera boards rather than the small field camera boards.



Focal plane shutter?
Those speed graphics are getting awfully old.

GPS
26-Mar-2007, 00:22
A camera with a helical focusing mount provided with a bayonet that would accept a Tecnica lens board would be simply unwieldy and awkward looking. It's like wanting to marry a cow with a goat. There is a good reason why no manufacturer does it.

GPS
26-Mar-2007, 01:58
...
Anyway, I for one would love such a standard feature and its availability would encourage me to opt for a very simple, lightweight handheld as an accessory to my normal view camera to provide a platform for more spontaneous shooting as I saw fit.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

There you touch the kernel of the problem. The camera you envisage would not be a lightweight and a simple camera. The Technika lensboard would be necessarily bigger (especially with its attaching mechanism) than the helical focusing mount needs to be. That only would make for an awfully looking beast. Not to speak about the positioning of the viewfinder that must have a clear view over the Technika board. If you made a camera with a helical mount bigger than the Technika lens board and its attaching mechanism you would have too a big beast again - not lightweight.
Recently, there was another thread asking for such a "have it all" camera (a coupled viewfinder,helicoid focusing, shift and rise etc. etc.) The common problem with these dream cameras is that the final product - even if technically possible - would not be pleasing in some of the important aspects - weight, dimension or else.
A good example of the final disadvantages is the Gilde camera. This camera, that "does it all" - changes all the formats on the go, have helicoid focusing, many lenses, an optional gg, etc. is a heavy - even if technically ingenious - monster that costs so much that it doesn't attract any important part of the market customers. Yet, technically speaking, it's well done. But speaking about a simple and lightweight camera is impossible in its case too.

archivue
26-Mar-2007, 02:55
there is a bayonet mount for arca user i

MJSfoto1956
26-Mar-2007, 05:49
Guys, the proposed bayonet would be on the SHUTTER. Thus there would never be a Technica board used with a handheld cone.

To wit: Lens + shutter mounted to proposed bayonet.
Bayonet attaches to EITHER:
- lens board or
- lens cone

This way you could have one 90mm XL and use the same lens on:
- handheld 4x5 (via cone)
- handheld 6x17 (via cone)
- traditional 4x5 view camera (via lensboard)

Brian C. Miller
26-Mar-2007, 07:45
OK, how big is the rear element on the 75mm or 90mm? The mechanical drawing (pdf) (http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/super-angulon/super-angulon_xl_56_72_3.pdf) for the Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72/5.6 shows that the rear element is 75mm wide. That's wider than the shutter! The rear element for the XL 90/5.6 is 78mm. Wider yet!

Now we have the problem with the bayonet attachment. The Technika lensboard is 96mm x 99mm, so 96-78=18, so 9mm (.35-in) on either side. And you want the helicoid focusing. You don't want to scratch the lens trying to insert it, do you? So there needs to be some room for that. Is there still enough room left over? It would be a really tight fit if there was.

Michael, I'm sorry to tell you this, but your pony doesn't fit through the bedroom door.

MJSfoto1956
26-Mar-2007, 08:18
OK, how big is the rear element on the 75mm or 90mm?

Simple! Unscrew the rear element, detatch the bayonet, re-attach the bayonet to another lensboard or lens cone, then screw the rear lens back in. All told it should take about 20-30 seconds to pull off.

Brian C. Miller
26-Mar-2007, 09:39
Waitaminit. I sense fumbling here. "Unscrew the rear element" is exactly what we want to get away from, right? We don't want to watch a destructive impact test of a $2500 piece of glass, so that's the whole reason for the bayonet mount. Unscrew and move, not unscrew, unscrew, set it down, grab, watch, panic, mourn. Love your lens, not leave your lens. (Your lens has way more than 50 ways to leave its lover! And coy isn't one of them.)

Also, the helicoid focusing will need to move the lens a meaningful amount, and not interfere with the shutter or the lens elements. I don't see any info on the Horseman site about their focusing mechanism. What I do see is that its all part of the cone, so there's some room to play. I think that a general-purpose helicoid focusing coil would have to clear the rear element.

The best solution is to make the RF-type 4x5 with a helicoid focuser that takes the Technika lensboard. But are you really going to cut the weight down past what a Toyo 45CF weighs? I honestly don't think so.

Get the 45CF, slap in the 75mm, and just crop out the bed's vignette in the frame.

GPS
26-Mar-2007, 10:38
OK, how big is the rear element on the 75mm or 90mm? The mechanical drawing (pdf) (http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/super-angulon/super-angulon_xl_56_72_3.pdf) for the Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72/5.6 shows that the rear element is 75mm wide. That's wider than the shutter! The rear element for the XL 90/5.6 is 78mm. Wider yet!

Now we have the problem with the bayonet attachment. The Technika lensboard is 96mm x 99mm, so 96-78=18, so 9mm (.35-in) on either side. And you want the helicoid focusing. You don't want to scratch the lens trying to insert it, do you? So there needs to be some room for that. Is there still enough room left over? It would be a really tight fit if there was.

Michael, I'm sorry to tell you this, but your pony doesn't fit through the bedroom door.

Indeed, one is a cow, the other is a goat and they don't match each other well. My solution to the problem is a different camera with the helicoid focusing and a small Arca Swiss for the rest. Just waiting to compare the future Fotoman Dmax with the future Arca Swiss handheld - see then what animal will be present in the bag...

Gordon Moat
26-Mar-2007, 11:04
I think the emphasis on a helical focus might be where this is going in the wrong direction. We already have a few helical focus solutions, and all are better suited for a permanently mounted lens. If there was a different type of focus mechanism, like a Mamiya RB/RZ67 or Fuji GX680, then there should be no problem with using a Linhof board.

The difficulty then becomes balance and grips. One problem pointed out with the Gaoersi was that the grip was not well positioned with the shutter release. I like the Gaoersi idea, though I would prefer a grip that goes on the other side of the camera. The model for this is the ALPA 12TC, their new compact camera. Make the grip changeable, and provide other choices, and maybe allow it to fit on either side of the camera.

Back design is another matter. I agree that having the ability to use a lever wind rollfilm back would be nice. However, I would balance the camera for Readyloads/Quickloads, or regular film holders. Instead of the more common right side film holder entry, make it left sided to allow a grip on the right.

Accessory mounts are another important item. Definitely a viewfinder mount, and also a mount to allow a rangefinder (uncoupled for simplicity). Then perhaps another shoe mount to allow either a flash or light meter mounting. Beyond that a tripod mount on the bottom, and on one side.

Notice I have not mentioned movements. I think there are already cameras on the market that address movements quite well, so why bother complicating what should be a simple design. If a simple shift or rise and fall capability was desirable, incorporate an offset lensboard mounting adapter; this would be something like the offset square lensmounts available for the ALPA 12W.

Anyway, just my opinions. I would probably be more interested in modifying a Gaoersi, or perhaps modifying a Fotoman, though the starting cost is not that great for modifying a camera. Price something $500 (US) or less, and I would think people would be more interested.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

MJSfoto1956
26-Mar-2007, 11:44
all good points. Still the idea of a lightweight, handheld as an accessory to a view camera has great appeal. The minute you add bellows or other features the weight rises quickly. This is why the Fotoman 45 is so simple -- and simple/lightweight pretty much requires a helical focusing mechanism.

So the quandary is are we stuck with permanently mounting one of our precious lenses to a lens cone? Or is there a way to quickly and easily remove it without tools such that it could be re-used on a lensboard? The only solution I can think of is a bayonet. Perhaps there is something else out there but I was curious what the manufacturer's take on this was. If they could pull it off, they could sell both a 6x17 AND a 4x5 body to prospective customers who would be safe in the knowledge that one lens could do double or even triple duty.

Frankly, I don't ever imagine changing lenses "out in the field" but rather, decide on a day-by-day basis that "today I am going to shoot handheld" and switch lenses in an appropriate setting and walk around with a lightweight camera instead of lugging a complete 4x5 outfit when it makes sense to.

Good example: when we travel to New Mexico, my wife often declares that "Wednesday" she intends on shopping in the square. In such situations I generally do one of two things:

Use that opportunity to go out and shoot by myself somewhere else (and bring my whole LF kit)
or use that opportunity to bring a lightweight handheld camera along (more often than not this is a medium format Mamiya 7)

I have to admit that I enjoy spending casual time with my wife, even during shopping sprees! I never feel comfortable lugging around a big pack while shopping. I leave that for when I shoot alone in the field. Thus, for me at least, it would be a boon to have a really lightweight handheld that could use together with my field camera lenses. It wouldn't bother me in the least to sit in a hotel room and change lenses (I typically bring lens tools anyway, but I was hoping for something easier and more repeatable).

But yes I agree: I too can't imagine that I would enjoy switching lenses as described out in a dusty wind with an approaching thunderstorm!!!

Gordon Moat
26-Mar-2007, 12:01
Two cameras that come to mind on simplicity are the Konica Instant Press, and the old Polaroid 250, 350, and 360 Automatic (also the model 180). The Konica uses a variation of the old 110B knob focus mechanism. The Polaroid Automatic cameras use a trapezoid push pull focus mechanism, coupled onto a rangefinder. The step up in film size from Polaroid pack film to 4x5 is not that huge. These cameras are relatively light and portable (even with a mostly metal body), yet they lack helical focus. A focus helical also adds cost, and complicated lens changes.

However, another way to use a helical focus mount on a regular 4x5 camera would be a separate adapter. Make the bayonet, or special shaped mount fit onto an adapter that fits where a Linhof board would fit. Obviously it would be a little thicker than a regular Linhof lens board, but that just mean moving the front standard back a bit more. Then there is less unscrewing of elements, or remounting, and wear of these threads and parts is minimized.

I understand the interest in a Mamiya 7 style solution scaled up to 4x5. However, if you had something like an RB67 style converted to be more like a Hasselblad SWC, then the weight would not be that extreme; the mirror box is much of the weight. Does a geared rack with bellows really weigh more than a helical? Doesn't the cost of a helical increase cost?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Jim Jones
26-Mar-2007, 13:17
Press cameras underwent decades of development and improvement. After studying the proposal for a handheld LF camera, I'd rather use the more practical and versatile Speed Graphic.

Gordon Moat
26-Mar-2007, 13:37
Definitely think that press camera (Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic, Linhof, et al) would be the competition to any newer designs. While I like the concepts of these old cameras, I think there would be a market for something without movements. Take an older design concept, eliminate the movements, then I think the weight could be very low, and the overall camera quite simple. The other problem is that a really nice Crown Graphic can be found for under $350, so when a new design is twice that amount I think it limits the potential audience.

Perhaps a good model of design is ALPA. Unfortunately there are a couple problems, one being the pricing. Undoubtedly brilliant design and construction, though with a limited audience. Using longer lenses is really not that simple, so these are biased towards wide and super wide photography. Gaoersi and Fotoman at least make longer lenses possible on their designs, but I think a few things could be better on either of them.

What I really don't get is how a new Fotoman or Gaoersi should cost as much (or more) than a new Shen-Hao. Local prices in California for teak are much worse than for aluminium. Also, with CNC capabilities in many places, once a design is figured out the cost of producing an all aluminium design should not be that great. Is the volume of sales simply too low to allow any price reductions?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

MJSfoto1956
26-Mar-2007, 14:01
Definitely think that press camera (Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic, Linhof, et al) would be the competition to any newer designs. While I like the concepts of these old cameras, I think there would be a market for something without movements. Take an older design concept, eliminate the movements, then I think the weight could be very low, and the overall camera quite simple. The other problem is that a really nice Crown Graphic can be found for under $350, so when a new design is twice that amount I think it limits the potential audience.

Well that is why the Toyo 45CF exists -- lightweight and relatively cheap with reasonable movements. People find fault with this camera too -- not enough movements, too flimsy, not enough bellows draw, etc.

I think if you need an all-purpose camera then a technical/press-style camera with a bellows is what people are buying (and our statistics back this up). If on the other hand you want a camera you can dump in the trunk of your car and forget, then perhaps only the Hobo meets that requirement. (or alternatively a beat up Linhof III or IV similar to what Don Kirby uses).

I always fantasized that someone would make a full-featured view camera wherein the back could pop off, and you could then pop on a cone and keep shooting in handheld fashion. Linhof "almost" had this with the Technar, but alas it was to be a silver-spooned child from conception.

Choices, choices!

GPS
26-Mar-2007, 14:19
...
I always fantasized that someone would make a full-featured view camera wherein the back could pop off, and you could then pop on a cone and keep shooting in handheld fashion. Linhof "almost" had this with the Technar, but alas it was to be a silver-spooned child from conception.

Choices, choices!

But then, there is a good reason why it doesn't exist. After all, what would you gain with it? The only "advantage" of such a solution would be that the second camera would be lighter because of the missing back. As you would need some case for it anyway (i.e. weight) the advantage would be ridiculous in the end. No manufacturer would go to such a length for such a meaningless reason. When you think of it in details, then the Fotoman solution - the same lens but moved from one platform to the other - is by far the simplest from many points of view. It's nice to dream but for dreams to become reality they must have some logic in the real world. The philosophy behind camera constructions is an amazing topic, anyway.

Struan Gray
26-Mar-2007, 14:41
I always fantasized that someone would make a full-featured view camera wherein the back could pop off, and you could then pop on a cone and keep shooting in handheld fashion. Linhof "almost" had this with the Technar, but alas it was to be a silver-spooned child from conception.

The Sinar Handy is essentially a 4x5 format frame with a cone on the front and a handle screwed on. There is no reason why you can't make a modern version. I believe that Fotoman will make you a Sinar-compatible coned board with a focussing helix if you want it enough to place the order, or you can make your own: lots of coned Norma-era boards going for a song these days.

The Ebony top-hat Technika lensboard is modular, with spacer rings to hold the lens out in front of the board and a small flat annulus that attaches to the shutter. You could use no spacer for a flat board, and get Fotoman to add a compatible threaded adaptor to the front of their helix. For Copal 1 lenses with normal sized elements it would be easier than fiddling with lens keys in the field. For Copal 3 and wasp-waisted lenses you will still need to remove the rear element so it won't save much time.

MJSfoto1956
26-Mar-2007, 15:39
The Sinar Handy is essentially a 4x5 format frame with a cone on the front and a handle screwed on. There is no reason why you can't make a modern version.

Well this thread was an attempt to get one or more manufacturers to chime in. In the meantime I have already begun designing and implementing the following mods for my Gaoersi:

Linhof anatomical grip to replace the stock grip (just picked up one on eBay for $50)
Silvestri front rise viewfinder (minor mods to make room for vertical film loading)**
Some sort of bayonet (or something) to allow me to share my cone-mounted 75mm Grandagon on my Linhof Technikardan

S.K. Grimes will likely do the mods, once I have the details worked out.

** the Silvestri viewfinder works perfectly with the 25mm front rise of the Gaoersi Here is an image:

http://www.magnachrom.com/Cameras/GaoersiSilvestri.1024.jpg

btw: this is the same camera whose front cone was repaired with tape -- can you see it?

Brian C. Miller
26-Mar-2007, 20:08
Well this thread was an attempt to get one or more manufacturers to chime in.
How many camera manufacturers read this board?

One thing that really strikes me is the concept of diminishing returns.

Price. Toyo 45CF = $810, Horseman Wood Field = $898, Fotoman 45PS = $800, Gaoersi = $700
Weight. Toyo = 3.4#, Horseman = 3.2#, Fotoman = 2.4#, Gaoersi = 2.4#,
Market. Toyo = Everybody, Horseman = Everybody, Fotoman = definite subset, Gaoersi = definite subset


I think that a better solution is like Gordon suggested, a trapezoid focusing mechanism with interchangeable scales, and then put Technika-style lens boards on the front. Either Fotoman or Gaoersi could do that for their cameras.

GPS
27-Mar-2007, 00:32
Well this thread was an attempt to get one or more manufacturers to chime in.

For a manufacturer to "chime in" there must first of all be a sufficient market for the given camera. The more the camera is specialized, the less there is the market for it and the less attractive is its production for the manufacturer. That was the weak point of Technars, Sinar Handys etc. Fortunately, what is a disadvantage for the official manufacturer is a great advantage for - an amateur camera builder! If an idea is a valid one, even if too specialized for a camera manufacturer to be accepted for market reasons, there are many good reasons for an amateur to "chime in" and go ahead with the construction. Thus and amateur can produce cameras never seen on the market with features never seen on mass produced cameras. The real realm of amateurishly produced cameras are not more or less good imitations of cameras already on the market but specialized cameras too expensive for the mass market, but very viable for a one product amateurish project.

GPS
27-Mar-2007, 00:34
...
btw: this is the same camera whose front cone was repaired with tape -- can you see it?

Just curious -how did you solved the faulty scale issue in the end?

Paul Ewins
27-Mar-2007, 00:54
Bayonet mount is the route I chose when I wanted to share lenses between my home built Kodak 3A panoramic and my Speed Graphic. The lenses (90/6.8 Angulon, 105/6.8 Leitmeyer and 150/9 G Claron) all use a copal 0 shutter which matches the spacing in a Pentax K-mount (and probably Canon, Nikon etc).

I grabbed the lens mounts from a broken lens and a couple of off-brand extension tubes and screwed plates made from 2mm aluminium to them. The plates have a Copal 0 size hole which is where the lens is attached. I attached the shortest extension tube to the front standard of the Kodak and glued a body mount from a broken camera to the Graflex board. All very easy.

For Copal 1 sized lenses you would probably need a medium format sized bayonet, and again a set of extension tubes would be the easiest way of acquiring the necessary bits.

Dean Jones
27-Mar-2007, 01:13
The whole thing falls into a hole with the use of an accurate rangefinder that in turn incorporates the correct parallax compensation to suit the lens fitted. Noah Schwartz has already come up with a bayonet mounted lens on the Polaroid 110B, but the compact style of 4x5 camera is restricted to a certain bellows draw applicable to the 90mm/127mm/150mm focal length only.

Keeping the weight factor down is another snag that must be overcome, unless you wish to make a whole new camera of plastic, mind you I recently handled an Italian made 8x10 that was all plastic, but rather rickety.

I figure that using one lens encourages more thought on how to approach the subject, and as with a DSLR, it soon becomes a PITA when you require a huge and heavy backpack in order to carry all the extra lenses about.

I just gave an insurance quote to a fellow about to go overseas......equipped with a Canon 20D was fine, but along with it was a 100-400mm IS L, a large 24-70mm f2.8, a 17-40mm L and a 580EX flash. What a struggle travelling with that amount of gear.
Most tourist attractions probably won't let him in without paying $500 an hour, because he looks like a pro, even if he's only a tourist.

Wanting to escape all the hassle, I just take a suitable camera quipped with a lens I love, knowing what it can do as well as its limitations. A simple handheld Polaroid 900 or 110B with a late model MC lens is wonderful....if I want a wider view, I take a second 3 1/2 pound Polaroid equipped with a 90mm Angulon.....simple as that, both cameras have accurate rangefinders tuned to the respective lenses.

It's more than enough when I'm shooting 4x5, to take along a half a dozen Grafmatics, or thirty standard holders, without taking a swag of extra lenses too......I like to think about how to shoot the subject, rather than worry about which lens to use.

The Linhof is a great camera, but compared to the Polaroid, it's rather unwieldy, plus more than twice the weight. The master tech I had was a wonderful camera to use, but not suitable for hand held use after an hour or two! Then I had the doubt as to whether the rangefinder/cam relationship had wandered after switching lenses.

I'd never considered the Linhof a point an shoot!

Paul Droluk
27-Mar-2007, 03:03
Ok, J Michael, here's the maufacturer chiming in... I've studied this now since your posting first appeared, and have come to the conclusion that indeed we could make a bayonet mount that would work on OUR Cones, and also be mountable to any lens board. Essentially a large version of the Nikon lens mount. It would allow any lens (with a rear group O.D. of 79mm or smaller) to be swapped from any of our cameras to any lens board, as easily as changing a Nikon lens.

Barring large production volume, I would estimate a price in the $200 range for each mount, plus an additional $50 for the Cone modification... we would only do this for our Cones.

Struan Gray
27-Mar-2007, 03:26
I would be interested in such a system even though I have no use for a handheld point and shoot LF camera. If nothing else, it would let me keep my lenses in cylindrical lens cases. Even a Technika board wastes a fair bit of rucksack space.

Paul, if you could offer a compatible lens case, like the old plastic bubble cases for Hasselblad lenses, I would be in hog heaven. An ABS or perspex cup with a moulded-in bayonet, and a second cup that screws onto the top would be a joy to own. If you restricted them to Copal shutter sizes and rear-group compatibility with a Technika light trap the range of possible sizes wouldn't be too outrageous. An optional padded outer case or sleeve (like a beer can holder) for field use completes the set.

E_Aiken
28-Mar-2007, 20:36
I'd be happy to see a modern rebuild of the old Crown/Speed Graphic style optimized for light weight, handholdability, and ease of use in the field. Rangefinder focusing would be great. If I'm going to do the sort of work where I'll be using movements I'll typically be using a tripod and have no problem carrying my light field camera. If we could have something quick to operate with a Graflok style back that could take something like 120 - 210mm lenses (dare I even wish it could get down to a 90?) that'd be a fantastic mobile street scene/candid portraiture camera, the sort of thing that could knock a 'blad or Mamiya 7 out of heavy use...

Brian C. Miller
28-Mar-2007, 22:37
I'd be happy to see a modern rebuild of the old Crown/Speed Graphic style (snip)
That would be the Toyo 45CF. It has everything except the rangefinder, and Fotoman has that as an accessory for their cameras. (OK so the rangefinder won't be coupled, but you can mark a piece of tape for that.)

Henry Carter
29-Mar-2007, 04:50
The Linhof Master Technika, and its many predecessors, is an excellent rangefinder focused hand-holdable point and shoot camera. Yes, it can be heavy, which is why I often use it with a monopod, but I can use it hand-held with 75 to 250 mm lenses, making it a very versatile instrument.

If you find the 4x5 Technika too heavy, there is the 6x9 Technika 23, a scaled down version of the 4x5 Technika.

Ole Tjugen
29-Mar-2007, 05:08
If you find the 4x5 Technika too heavy, there is the 6x9 Technika 23, a scaled down version of the 4x5 Technika.

If you find a 4x5" Technika too heavy, try a 5x7" one. That will teach you what "heavy" means! :D :p

MJSfoto1956
29-Mar-2007, 08:45
Bayonet mount is the route I chose when I wanted to share lenses between my home built Kodak 3A panoramic and my Speed Graphic. The lenses (90/6.8 Angulon, 105/6.8 Leitmeyer and 150/9 G Claron) all use a copal 0 shutter which matches the spacing in a Pentax K-mount (and probably Canon, Nikon etc).

FABULOUS!!!

MJSfoto1956
29-Mar-2007, 08:49
Barring large production volume, I would estimate a price in the $200 range for each mount, plus an additional $50 for the Cone modification... we would only do this for our Cones.

That only makes sense. Nobody would expect you to support your competition! I guess my question is this: does this make sense for Fotoman and its client base? Do you think there is a need AMONG YOUR CLIENTS for this? Or is this just a very small subset of handheld users who might want such a feature?

Ted Harris
29-Mar-2007, 09:07
I for one would not buy it. The whole purpose of the Fotoman and like cameras is simplicity. Ye, all my other cmeras take Technika style boards so the Fotoan is an odd man out but so what? The bayonet would add weight and cost ... not just to the Fotoman but also to all the other cameras.

For not a lot more than the cost of the bayonet you can get a lens and leave it permanently mounted. OTOH, while changing cones/lenses in the field is a bit fiddly, so what? Still only takes a few moments. If I am worrid about speed I'll reach for my DSLR or Texas Leica anyway.

Dean Jones
1-Apr-2007, 02:35
Using a hand held LF in a situation where accurate focus is necessary will require range finder assist. Using a 150mm at a wide aperture is impossible without it.

Taking into consideration weight, ease of use, speed of operation, compactness, and price, nothing beats a 4x5 Polar for shoots like this. ;)

Gordon Moat
5-Apr-2007, 15:22
Just to revisit this topic, on the Robert Polidori discussion was mentioned someone who builds custom cameras. While looking through that site, I came across some images (http://www.kippwettstein.com/camera/pages01/camera02a.htm) of what looks like a Linhof board on one of the first designs. The builder is Kipp Wettstein (http://www.kippwettstein.com). Definitely nothing cheap, though it at least gives a size indication, and shows what is possible. That one seems to be fixed focus, which would only work for very wide FoV lenses. How tough could it be to add some sort of focus?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

ic-racer
18-Apr-2007, 10:38
I have always been facinated with hand held photography. There are certain physical constraints imposed upon cameras that (ie certain laws of physics) that work against the photographer, when it comes to designing large format hand-held equipment.

Practically, we can think of common B&W film being ISO 200 in general use (TMY, HP5 etc) and this is somewhat of a fixed number. There are some ISO 800 or 1000 films, but they are limited in availability in large format sizes. They are also more susceptibile to fog, etc.

The sun's intensity is relatively fixed, also. So, with a fixed intensity light source and a fixed film sensitivity, we can imagine 'bright daylight' hand held photography with shutter speed/f-stop combos like these:
1/2000 f5.6
1/1000 f8
1/500 f11
1/250 f16
1/125 f22
1/60 f32

This is 'bright sun' so, when the clouds come, things will only get worse.

Now we can look at these combinations as they apply to various film formats (assuming 'normal' lens):

Minox: Won't work, diffraction will be too great at these f-numbers, but we can go to a SLOWER film and be OK
16mm Spy/Still Cameras: Still too much diffraction for most cameras (1/500 speed max) but can go to SLOWER film
35mm: f11 to f8 will give excellent hand-holdability. f16 will have too much diffraction (for me) and f5.6 will allow too much abarasion at the corners.
6x6mm f11 at 1/500 and f16 at 1/250 are doable. For SLRs with floppy mirrors 1/500 just cuts it. My 2.8F TLR's shutter release really 'gives' and jerks a little, therefore requiring 1/500th.

6x9: 1/250 f16 and 1/124 f22 are pushing the limits of hand-holdability with 'normal' lens. Larger apertures can be used for 'special effects' like blurry edges and shallow DOF. But for standard 'pictoral' photography, these small apertures are needed.

4x5: Now we are getting into the problem area. 1/125 at f22 is really pushing the envelope. You can try 1/250 at the risk of some underexposure in the shadows. Or f11 at the risk of fuzzy corners. May be OK for portriats, but I suspect a lot of skill needed to reproduce 'tripod' results. Cutting the 'normal' focal length in half will cut the streaks from camera shake in half (like a faster shutter speed). So a 80 or 90 mm lens may be OK at 1/124. A 45mm at f22 1/125 will be like 1/500th in terms of camera shake. So, hand held 4x5s with WA lenses seem the way to go.

Therefore, certain Linhof Technicas and Littmans that don't take WA lenses seem to have limited hand hand-held use under the above described conditions.

5x7: 1/60 at f32. High risk for camera shake without going to WA lens at least 1/2 normal focal length.

8x10 1/30 at f64. Very high risk for camera shake unless the camera is very heavy or stabilized some way or super WA lens.

So, in summary, one can design any format of hand-held camera, however, will one be able to actually take a usable hand held picture?

David A. Goldfarb
18-Apr-2007, 11:31
Eh...I like Ole's response--"What's wrong with a Technika?" Sure there's a substantial difference between the 8 pound camera and a 4 pound camera, but if you use the 8 pound camera often enough, you get used to it. I have a somewhat weakened left wrist from a fracture a few years ago, but I still manage with it. Maybe it's from years of playing the trombone, which is supported with the left hand, in a similar position to the shooting position with the ergonomic grip on a Technika. A trombone is lighter than a Technika, but you can use both hands to support the Technika, and on a trombone the right hand has to be free to move the slide (unless you play left-handed, like Slide Hampton, in which case it's the other way around).

So that's my solution. You don't need a lighter camera. You need a trombone.

Kuzano
26-Oct-2007, 21:43
How about this:

http://www.bigcamera.com/articles/images/104.jpg

At www.bigcamera.com. 75MM Mamiya Sekor... Mamiya helicoid, covers 4X5

Ole Tjugen
27-Oct-2007, 00:04
...
5x7: 1/60 at f32. High risk for camera shake without going to WA lens at least 1/2 normal focal length.

8x10 1/30 at f64. Very high risk for camera shake unless the camera is very heavy or stabilized some way or super WA lens.

So, in summary, one can design any format of hand-held camera, however, will one be able to actually take a usable hand held picture?

You are making some assumptions here that are not necessarily true:

Why do you assume that 5x7" would be used at 1/60s f:32, and 8x10" at 1/30s f:64 ?

"Fuzzy corners" will only be a problem with lenses with tight coverage, meaning (mostly) wideangle lenses. A 210mm Xenar at f:16, 1/200s has sufficient sharpness over the whole 5x7" to be eminently useable. I have used a 300mm Xenar hand held at 1/50s and got sharp pictures - certainly sharp enough for contact prints, maybe a little too shaky for more than moderate enlargements. In that case the sheer weight of the 7kg camera and 1kg lens helped stabilise everything, and 1/50s was the fastest shutter time on the Compound 5 shutter.

LF cameras (well - most of them, at least) have no mirror slap to shake the camera, and the shutters (ditto) work radially. Both these factors contribute to making it possible to use longer shutter times with LF than the equivalent 35mm "rule of thumb". Add a little more weight ant it gets even more stable!

There was a ship photographer back in the dry-plate days who added an extra 7 kg (?) of weight to his camera to be able to shoot hand held from a small boat. I can't remember his name, but I do remember that he got very useable pictures!

bartf
27-Oct-2007, 13:28
In a perfect world I'd like either a modern 110B/900 that can fold with a 135mm f3.5 Xenotar OR a Technika with a Koni Omega style or Mamiya Universal style rangefinder.

But my modded 900 and Super Graphics are keeping me happy. Now just need to scrounge up enough for a Technika and cam..

John Hoang
27-Oct-2007, 15:41
I don't know if it is practical and/or cost effective to produce lens cones that can accept technika boards? This way, ones can use lenses interchangeably between many view cameras and point and shhot Fotoman's, for instance.

ronald lamarsh
30-Oct-2007, 10:30
Frankly I have setup my Tech III for just this purpose when I go on a long road trip to my favorite wheat fields. I have a 150mm Xenar scale focused at about 10 to 15 feet and close the lens to f22 and use my sports finder for the pull-over-and-shoot moments. I works quite well and the whole setup is about 4lbs a grafmatic helps also.

Asher Kelman
31-Oct-2007, 22:49
Frankly I have setup my Tech III for just this purpose when I go on a long road trip to my favorite wheat fields. I have a 150mm Xenar scale focused at about 10 to 15 feet and close the lens to f22 and use my sports finder for the pull-over-and-shoot moments. I works quite well and the whole setup is about 4lbs a grafmatic helps also.

Ronald,

Any pictures to be posted :)

Asher