LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI On EbaY 8,000 [Archive] - Page 2

Drew Bedo

14-Jan-2010, 10:12

I think my first camera was a Brownie or Hawkeye (some cheap Kodak taking 620 film). I was 11 years old. That was fifty years ago. Since then, I have owned many cameras. Got most of them used. In the eighties and nineties, I traded photographica at Leonard Hart’s now defunct “Houston Camera Show and Sale”. I never refused to buy a camera based on the seller’s personality. The deal was always based on the camera offered and the price asked.

I have always looked on a camera as a tool to be used (see an exchange between me and Gordon in this thread in late ’09). Who made a camera or who uses one just like it never has been important to me as a photographer (although provenance can be plenty important to collectors). I have a deep interest in a Polaroid based 4x5. I would like to change, alter or grow my current photographic style while remaining within the LF field. I would love to have a Byron—or a Littman. I have heard that the Byron will be about $1,400 USD “new”, while Louis points out that previously owned Littmans auction at ~$2,500 to $3,500USD.

Yet at this time, I am focusing my efforts and resources on promoting my work. I have re-done my website and will show more often this year. I am seeking representation. Later in ’10 , there will be a small ad in B&W Magazine. Another camera is just not in the picture at this time, new or used . . .at any price.

Robert Hughes

14-Jan-2010, 11:45

Where's that dead horse animated gif?

Len Middleton

14-Jan-2010, 11:51

why there are so many "1st post" reader, loving littman's 4x5?!!!

So someone does a search on the Internet for large format photography and finds this site.

And given all the information, knowledge and opinions available, decides to do a search of the site.

And lo and behold, he homes onto the one item he is so enamoured with and makes his first response to address the "injustices" piled upon it.

Yes, it could happen...

Then again, maybe they are just a "shill"...

I wonder what other subjects they have commented on...

Gordon Flodders

15-Jan-2010, 01:33

Upon returning to NYC I used it the next day in studio and it looked/worked perfectly there too. There is something about the littman 4x5 and the images you produce with, its not just a great camera, its the camera you will reach for first.

As far as I can ascertain, the Littman produces an image no better or worse than any other 4x5. The image quality out of any camera is dependent upon two things, that being the ability of the operator and the quality of the lens. Full credit should be given to Polaroid for their manufacture of a camera body that renders itself far more useful nowadays as a 4x5, (when correctly converted) than it ever did using the outdated and messy old Type 47 rollfilm.

There are many things to consider when selecting any rangefinder equipped LF camera, those of weight, portabilty, usability and even more importantly, price and personality of its manufacturer. IMHO the Littman easily passes the first three, but fails miserably with regard to the last two.

Success of the Razzle, the Byron (and many others) is due primarily to price and performance. More importantly it's due to the attitude adopted toward LFer's, the general public and customers past and present.

After wading through the tiresome claims stated within the all too numerous *bay listings (the original topic of this thread), I get the feeling I've been really brainwashed, resulting in the fact that reaching for a Littman 'first' maybe not such a great idea. :eek:

GF.

Ash

15-Jan-2010, 05:41

GF said it really well.

Think of brand loyalty.

Think back to the last time someone in a shop was rude or snotty to you, did you feel like buying there again?

Think of the customer service you received from a company, would you buy their product again?

Then take the classic "I don't buy Japanese" or similar. Due to historical and cultural stigma, my grandfather for example wouldn't buy Japanese products (because of the war), just as my father never let me wear black suit shirts (because of the Fascists).

Thebes

15-Jan-2010, 12:27

Given Littman's previous actions in message forums I think his support in this thread is largely of the shill kind. Too bad that effort can't be put into making a truly new camera, something his prices would surely justify. As it is I find him vile and would never purchase one of his cameras, not even used.

Neat concept, but they've been around for a lot longer than he has been making them. If I ever got one I would probably make it myself, it seems to me that a RF folder should be a camera inexpensive enough to take into the street without fear of enormous financial loss. The Razzle 900 looks nice and isn't sold via a "patent troll" business model, though I still think I'd prefer the pride of having built my own... out of idle curiosity mostly, but the RF looks really nice and it could be handy. A used Polaroid 900, a used graflok back, a lens and some metal bits it might only cost 400 bucks, plus a few dozen hours of work... it could be worth it. But at 8 grand, one would have to be mad.

Drew Bedo

15-Jan-2010, 12:54

Thebes: Check this thread for a DVD video on doing a Razzle type conversion yourself.

fuegocito

16-Jan-2010, 07:25

I still think I'd prefer the pride of having built my own... out of idle curiosity mostly, but the RF looks really nice and it could be handy. A used Polaroid 900, a used graflok back, a lens and some metal bits it might only cost 400 bucks, plus a few dozen hours of work....

Hi Thebes,

I have the 900 body already torn apart, the useless bits, the graflock back...all you need is a lens and time to piece them together. I have a Razzle already and was planning on making one with a 90mm lens...and now I have changed my mind. If you are interested, drop me a line.

Rob

seanriva

18-Jan-2010, 13:48

Sean, that would mean allot more if you gave us your website so we could check out your portfolio of "Fashion, Beauty, Portraits, Wild Life, Nature/Landscapes, and Nudes". All I could find was this portfolio of snapshots on Friendster: http://profiles.friendster.com/3376875

So I understand everyone else on this forum seems to hate on Littman. I feel differently and have said such. As far as my websites here they are. My last year and a half of artwork which is being shown @ the Morrison Gallery later this year and Berlin the year after, is not on my sites because I want to keep it unseen till then. I understand people have copied littman's camera and made it cheaper. But, not at this quality and this is my opinion and I will always feel this way even if you would rather peddle your own cheeper version.

www.seanriva.com

www.seanrivaart.com

CarstenW

18-Jan-2010, 14:38

My name is Sean Riva and I have been a photographer since the age of 14. I am now 30 and photograph Fashion, Beauty, Portraits, Wild Life, Nature/Landscapes, and Nudes. I have an extensive camera collection consisting of 2 Nikon F4 with 5 lenses, a Contax 645 with 3 lenses (135 macro being my go to for beauty)

That is an interesting claim, as there is no 135 Macro for the Contax 645. The only MF 135 macro I am aware of is the Hasselblad and it has no focusing helicoid and is meant to be used with bellows, hardly a lens to use for beauty.

Could you elaborate a little?

I would also love to see photos of your two Littmans.

Gordon Flodders

19-Jan-2010, 02:55

So I understand everyone else on this forum seems to hate on Littman. I understand people have copied littman's camera and made it cheaper.

This 'hate on' seems to be the general feeling amongst most LFer's as far as I can see. The animosity stems from the many years of insults, threats and general stupid behaviour shown on various forums, most of them outside LFPF.

As for 'stealing his camera' let me say that it never was 'his' camera to begin with, it was Polaroid's. Others have converted the 110B in various ways, some long before Littman even thought of the word 'Patent'.
I believe this is where the problem first arose, as the insistance that only he could modify a Polaroid and all others must 'desist' was nonsensical and it only enraged those who dare have any similar ideas.

To my knowledge, no one has ever adopted the Littman method of conversion so nothing was ever stolen, but the stupid belief that it was, began the furore back in 2002.

I have several examples of converted Polaroid cameras and fail to see that any single camera produces a better image than any other, to make a claim to the contrary is preposterous.
No amount of use by a movie star/film director, rich and famous/perhaps artistic individual or photographer could possibly have any effect on image quality of a camera.

As for 'cheaper' conversions, I cannot see a single alternative that utilises a strip of 'Velcro' to maintain the front standard's position of integrity, nor do I see any other's conversion covered in rubber matting, so as to disguise the CB103 plastic holder, commonly found on all 'Four Designs' packfilm conversions.

As for perfect parallelism being 'better than expected' what does this mean exactly?
It seems we will never know without first spending $8000 on a mystical Allen key arrangement.

Someone obviously thinks we all came down in the last shower. :p

GF.

Terence McDonagh

19-Jan-2010, 07:03

People spend more than what a Littman costs on a designer handbag.

It's called having more dollars than sense.

Putting a bigger engine in a Volkswagen doesn't make it a Porsche. It's a Polaroid 110 with a 4x5 back grafted on to it.

I've seen the Littman and the Razzle. There's not $7,000 worth of difference unless you count the story of having to deal with Mr Littman. From my perspective as an engineer, the difference is more in the $100-$200 range at best, not counting the cost of a different lens.

seanriva

19-Jan-2010, 10:21

That is an interesting claim, as there is no 135 Macro for the Contax 645. The only MF 135 macro I am aware of is the Hasselblad and it has no focusing helicoid and is meant to be used with bellows, hardly a lens to use for beauty.

Could you elaborate a little?

I would also love to see photos of your two Littmans.

The lens is a 120 macro (my fault) and I have used it many times on beauty. A small portion of which are on my website under beauty. Specifically dry lip and wet eye. . .

As for images I have done rescently and pics of my camera's it appears william has made an ebay listing with some of that info in it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290391667467

Hope this clears that 135 issue up and that you enjoy my stuff. Will check in again later. SeanR.

Drew Bedo

19-Jan-2010, 12:16

While I have no objection to nude photography as a genera (and the examples in the E-Bay listing are terrific . . .really good stuff Sean) it was surprising to see them at all on E-Bay. I thought they were pretty careful about full frontal nudity. Am I wrong about that? Does E-Bay allow depictions of the unclothed human form now?

Scott --

19-Jan-2010, 13:37

Drew Bedo

19-Jan-2010, 13:41

? (!)

Gordon Flodders

19-Jan-2010, 14:25

In my opinion, Ebay is not the ideal place for any artist to display his work, it only cheapens it, partly due to the poor quality and low resolution associated with an auction site.

One could have captured similar images with a 35mm camera surely?

Looking at the pics, I found it disappointing that her head is either partly hidden or completely cut off, making it seem like she didn't like the idea to begin with, nakedness in itself does not make for a great photograph generally. I would rather see her face, her eyes and her expression.

What I really don't understand is the belief that because a Littman was used, it follows that any image from it is bound to be artistic?

Am I missing something here, as I don't get the connection.

GF.

CarstenW

19-Jan-2010, 15:52

The lens is a 120 macro (my fault) and I have used it many times on beauty. A small portion of which are on my website under beauty. Specifically dry lip and wet eye. . .

As for images I have done rescently and pics of my camera's it appears william has made an ebay listing with some of that info in it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290391667467

Hope this clears that 135 issue up and that you enjoy my stuff. Will check in again later. SeanR.

Yes, I have the 120 Macro myself, a great lens.

I like some of your photos very much, but William is not doing himself any favours with that tacky eBay ad. The photos in it are a mix of great, horrible, unsharp, and day-1-snapshots in a mirror. The cameras themselves are mostly truly of horrible taste, with a few being kinda classy. I wish that he had not used the Cartier-Bresson name for one of his cameras. There really is no point or excuse, given that HCB used Leica M cameras himself.

Jack Dahlgren

19-Jan-2010, 16:19

William is not doing himself any favours with that tacky eBay ad.

I think the ad is a perfect reflection of Mr. Littman. I'd not change it a bit. It says even more than he thinks it does.

jb7

19-Jan-2010, 17:36

If this thread was locked, the world would not be a poorer place-

Sean, I like your pictures-
or rather, I like the colour and composition of the latest ebay set-
though I'd agree that they would have been more engaging if the most important and expressive part of the figure had been included,
rather than just showing another object in the landscape-

What I find offensive is your uninformed attitude that your friend, Mr Littman, somehow invented the Polaroid Camera,
and that anyone else who makes the same machine into an accessible and usable modern camera is simply 'peddling' an inferior product.

I wonder if you feel more comfortable knowing that the camera you use is unlikely to be blemished by being used by the hoi polloi who populate these forums?
Perhaps the handbaggy camera you use is no more than a badge,
being functionally no different to any other conversion?
Although the Byron looks to be a far superior product to me,
it might not have the same cachet as the wallpaper*ed version you've chosen.
At least, not yet-

By the way, if you haven't seen any of the other Polaroid conversions,
isn't it a bit hurried of you to dismiss the others that are peddled in the same way as your friend's? on ebay?

Littman continues his unabashed name dropping with his latest reference to your grandmother-
I wonder which name he finds more important, yours or hers?

The whole Littman scene is wrapped in hoity toity-
and your own endorsement does nothing but add to that aspect of it.

I'm ashamed to find myself adding to the oxygen of publicity surrounding it;
I'm sure he cares about nothing but seeing his name publicized.

As someone who's not afraid to pick up tools to make a camera, I'd choose a Byron any day-
the Littman seems to rely on a single over engineered trick,
a lot of decoration, and now, a new low, celebrity twice removed-

joseph

seanriva

20-Jan-2010, 07:47

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26202186/

It is interesting because if you watch this movie, Ford argued that Kearns hadn't invented anything new, not the car/ not the wiper and just arranged things differently.
They said it was all obvious which is what we keep reading here.
In 1941 you needed a flash of genius to claim an invention but now all you need is to prove that you offer a greater utility than the original product and you have an improvement to an existing product.

In this forum if someone dares admit they like the camera they are reminded its not about the camera but character which of course is nonsense because it is all based on unsubstantiated accusations and hearsay by people who don't have a first hand experience.

I have seen the so called conversions and they aren't as well built as the Littman nor do they perform equally, a friend has the Razzle and he can not tell when his lense is not giving him perfect focus. The polaroid (now Fuji instant no longer real posi neg, please come back!!) looks ok when in the field with no light box/loop but upon returning home to fined images soft, one can tell the difference.

As for people wanting me to include faces in my rescent images. . . I am sorry I failed to have you understand my work. It has nothing to do with the individual and for that I am truley sorry. The ebay listing is not all my work Joseph or my doing at all, I only took the nudes. My personal opinion is if you want tons of hands, feet, faces you can always buy a playboy and even read about the girl and what she likes. If you want to understand form and the conection with nauture you seek to use that which is necessary and nothing else. It seems people have not understood that and for that I am sorry.

As far as this thread feel free to continue bashing Littman and now it seems even me by association. I have said what I have experienced and shared my thoughts and opinions. I feel no need to continue hurting someone elses feelings or my own. Thanks again for listening and looking . . Sean.

rdenney

20-Jan-2010, 11:24

Look, people, the price of something is what someone is willing to pay for it. Price has nothing to do with cost, and it has nothing to do what what any given person might have paid for it in the past.

If someone is willing to pay thousands upon thousands for a Whatevermatic for whatever reason, and they have the money, then blessings upon their house. Those unwilling to pay it can explore other options. If the price offered is unreasonable, then it will go unsold, and will either be offered again at a more marketable price or will remain in the ownership of the seller. A thousand years from now, all of these will be in some landfill anyway.

If someone else wants to ask the general opinion on the value of a Whatevermatic, they will get opinions, some of which may even be accurate. And if someone wants to discuss the mechanical genius behind any given invention, then the merits of such can be discussed in the abstract without having laid fingers on the design itself. As an engineer, I am frequently called on to create and evaluate designs of things that do not yet exist. If that was impossible, we would be without many of the things we use daily in life, including most cameras.

But even if engineering discussions cannot find the value commensurate with the price being demanded, that doesn't mean those who pay such prices are stupid. It just means that they assign value differently than most of us, perhaps both to cameras and to dollars. As long as they are happy and get what they want, they can go unjudged by me. What would really be had is if they suddenly "discover" a brand I use, make it hip to those who value being hip, driving up the price so that I can no longer afford it. On the other hand, if they drive up the price of stuff I have and no longer really use, then maybe I'll start selling some of it.

Rick "thinking the claim that a Razzle doesn't focus accurately needs to be backed up by more than a friend-of-a-friend story" Denney

Robert Hughes

20-Jan-2010, 11:50

OTOH, NASA has lowered the selling price on Space Shuttles to $25,000,000 a crack. And they're giving away rocket engines for free! Grab one up now for your next vacation. And don't forget to bring lots of film... :)

IanG

20-Jan-2010, 13:59

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26202186/

In this forum if someone dares admit they like the camera they are reminded its not about the camera but character which of course is nonsense because it is all based on unsubstantiated accusations and hearsay by people who don't have a first hand experience

When that someone is being used as a vehicle to sell that camera on Ebay then people have a right to be cynical, think there's collusion, that you're Littlemans stooge posting in this thread..

Unlike others I have no issue with your images in that Ebay advert but I do think it smacks of Hollywood hype to trot out your personal lineage when it's the merits of your photography with that camera that's a selling point. It's like the very worst of the National Enquirer adverts. Note - as I assume you aren't the advertiser I'm not pointing fingers at you.

Some of us use 5x4 cameras hand-held without the need to pay grossly inflated prices for over hyped cameras. Polaroid conversions aren't the only option but using any LF camera hand-held is more prone to sharpness issues and you could shoot a sharp Polaroid test and the next E6 exposure be unsharp (or soft) with any camera due to camera shake.

Over the years there have been numerous Polaroid to 5x4 conversions which have given these camera's a new lease of life, Littman was not the first and even Razzle's aren't the last in the line of conversions.

Comparisons between a Littman, a Razzle, or any other conversion aren't valid unless backed up with facts, your friend might be using an inferior lens, a Tessar type design, something like the 127 Ysaron, an Ektar etc, and these lenses aren't sharp until f16, or he might not be able to hold a camera as steady as you and made a poor choice of film/shutter speed/aperture.

Ian

Gordon Flodders

20-Jan-2010, 14:18

I have seen the so called conversions and they aren't as well built as the Littman nor do they perform equally, a friend has the Razzle and he can not tell when his lense is not giving him perfect focus.

Sean, obviously your 'friend' is unaware that a Razzle has a lifetime warranty, something which your Littman doesn't have. If he is getting a soft result, it may be due to the fact he has not checked the calibration of the finder, something that can be re-adjusted in a few minutes.

If there's a problem it can easily be addressed, so I suggest you wise him up. Rangefinders are identical on all Polaroid conversions and may wander due to being dropped, shipped or mishandled. At least somebody solved this problem and offered a simple adjustment in the field by removal of a small rubber plug, something else Littman overlooked.

GF.

Gordon Flodders

21-Jan-2010, 13:40

William is not doing himself any favours with that tacky eBay ad.

The 'tacky' listing has just been removed. :eek:

GF.

CarstenW

21-Jan-2010, 13:45

I am not surprised. It must have broken a slew of eBay rules.

Ash

23-Jan-2010, 11:14

I think people are forgetting....

What respectable company requires an auction site as their shop front?

Most good manufacturers use dealers, or sell direct.

If Littman cameras were to be taken seriously there would be a list of authorised dealers, or contact info on the website to deal direct.... to me it looks like the low cost of running ebay listings is his only hope of generating profits.

Robert Hughes

8-Feb-2010, 15:33

OMG! :eek: THE FIRST LITTMAN 45 is on the Dreaded - right now!!! With a low, low starting bid of $2500. Oh, I'm peeing my pants, so excited! I've gotta get it ...

Hey , wait a minute? WTF? What's this line mean - :confused: "sold as used- sold as is. final sale"

And all those T&A shots surely violate eBay rules, don't they? Maybe not, since they seem to be kinda out of focus, heh.

Um, I think I'll pass. Look, there's a nice Agfa Clack for $9.95 ... :p

SAShruby

8-Feb-2010, 17:25

There are three listed!!! So much for business if you have to write so much bullshit to sell one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Littman-45-Single-Camera-Rodenstock-127MM-YSAREX_W0QQitemZ260520516253QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?hash=item3ca83b9a9d

Comment like: "It is the only proven and reliable hand held 4x5 camera out there!!!" What a joke!

Gordon Moat

9-Feb-2010, 18:53

There are three listed!!! So much for business if you have to write so much bullshit to sell one.............Comment like: "It is the only proven and reliable hand held 4x5 camera out there!!!" What a joke!

Apparently Littman never saw a Linhof. :rolleyes:

Drew Bedo

10-Feb-2010, 09:14

Or a Hobo— or a Fotoman. . . .

ki6mf

10-Feb-2010, 14:43

So you don't want a Littman buy a press camera!

Dan Fromm

10-Feb-2010, 15:48

Oh, go pick on Alpa!

Drew Bedo

11-Feb-2010, 13:29

Hello ki6mf:

I think the last few posts referred to a passage quoted by SAshrubry . . ."It is the only proven and reliable hand held 4x5 camera out there!!!" (Describing the Littman 45 Single)

The posts that followed merely named other reliable hand-held 4x5 cameras available. Neither the Hobo nor the Fotoman are considered “press cameras” as I understand it.

Somebody help me on this . . .do I have that right?

ki6mf

11-Feb-2010, 13:35

You are correct Hobo and Fotoman are not press cameras. That said Fotoman is no longer sold in the USA, I believe they are still sold in Hong Kong. I am not sure if HOBO is still making cameras. A press camera is still less expensive than a Fotoman and much less than a Littman. And it does the same job! The Fotoman does not have a coupled rangefinder and without lenses were selling for around $900 in the US when it was discontinued. Press cameras can be had for appx $300-600 depending on condition.

A camera body is only used to hold in the light!

ki6mf

11-Feb-2010, 13:53

In terms of a reliable hand camera I strongly suspect all 4X5 cameras should be on a tripod! The exception is if you use flash to stop action.

The other question is for the $$$ would a press camera work as well or if you want to spend that much $$$ would a Linhoff work as well even hand held. The answer is Yes. Camera body means nothing what you see is everything.

Jack Dahlgren

11-Feb-2010, 17:21

In terms of a reliable hand camera I strongly suspect all 4X5 cameras should be on a tripod! The exception is if you use flash to stop action.

How is handholding a speed graphic loaded with tri-x and shooting a 135mm lens in daylight a problem? You can easily stop down to f/22 and still have a shutter speed which stops action. In fact I think that press cameras have less camera shake due to their mass and there is no mirror slap associated with the shutter. Generations of reporters have done this.

EdWorkman

11-Feb-2010, 18:04

What Jack said, and those guys didn't have 400 speed tri-x. I've had opportunity to print from postcard size negs of speeding trains, taken ca. 1940. The trick apparently was to know exactly when to press the shutter as the train approached-into the rather narrow depth of focus, and to shoot "wedgies" so that the relative sideways motion was less than that of broadsize. Straight-on shots were a once-in-a-lifetime situation. The 3A Graflex was a favorite, as well as the Speeds

Ash

12-Feb-2010, 02:46

I was shooting outdoors 1/60 at f5,6 and f8 with a Razzle. The negs were sharp when enlarged to 12x16 in the darkroom, and could easily go larger. Never had an issue hand-held, only ever had an issue paying for film ;)

Drew Bedo

12-Feb-2010, 13:40

There is a new thread about patent stuff on photo dot net . . .look out !

jack_hui

13-Feb-2010, 03:21

Newly arrived Byron with Heliar 150mm len, shot wide open, 1/2sec
Fuji FP-100B45 instant film.

http://www.pbase.com/jack_hui/image/121910425.jpg

My Byron is equiped with Heliar 150mm, Rodenstock 127mm and Schnieder 90mm lens.

bbjorkum

16-Feb-2010, 06:49

I would say the Graflex Super D is a more reliable hand held 4x5 camera. You really know it's in focus.

bbjorkum

16-Feb-2010, 06:53

What's really ugly on the Littman, is the cut on the right side of the camera, and the Horseman back which is attached to the pack film back that's attached to the camera ...

Gordon Flodders

15-Mar-2010, 02:22

I have been watching this #bay item 260520516253 a converted Polaroid by the Littman company, but it has jumped enormously in price from $2749 to $5499 in a couple of weeks. I was thinking about making a bid, but every time I check it out the price has risen by several hundred dollars and there's been over fifty revisions too. Does anyone know who Peter Workflow is?
The camera is being sold as is, with a sticky shutter, dust in the lens and a well worn strap. The whole thing seems very creepy.

GF.

Robert Hughes

15-Mar-2010, 07:32

It may seem pricey at $5,500.00 - to you - but you're ignoring the fact that it's a Littman. There's quality there you just can't get anywhere else, no matter what the price. So bid early and bid often, because once this camera is gone ... another one will be there in 2 weeks, even more fabulous than this: "as is, with a sticky shutter, dust in the lens and a well worn strap."

Oh, well: I guess I'll have to make do for awhile longer with my $120 Busch Pressman. Working shutter, very clean, good strap. But it's not a Littman, sigh...

Nathan Smith

15-Mar-2010, 08:43

Out of curiosity I had to go check out the Byron. I hope I'm not repeating an earlier post, but this is pretty neat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djy4CXMXZls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68C8YlnegOM&feature=channel

Looks like he takes your camera and lens and does the conversion for $1600:
http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/p/byron-conversion-service.html

.. at this point we can resume the conversation regarding the price of a Polaroid conversion vs a $150 Graflex, but I must admit, the slim design and interchangeable lenses are very cool. If $1600 vs $150 was not an issue for me I'd probably be buying one, but those others for $8k - fuggedaboudit.

Nathan

Gordon Flodders

16-Mar-2010, 13:44

It has risen to $5649 overnight and now the shipping has more than doubled. Do these cameras really appreciate in value that fast? Maybe I should buy it now before it reaches 10k.

GF

Scott Davis

16-Mar-2010, 14:02

Why put money in your 401k when you can buy a Littman?

Robert Hughes

17-Mar-2010, 06:09

These guys should be advertising on Fox. Gold! Seeds! Littman cameras!

Scott Davis

17-Mar-2010, 11:10

How do you know the products are female? did you take their pants off to check?

Gordon Flodders

1-Apr-2010, 02:07

There's now four of them currently for sale on the popular auction site, but how can anyone tell which one is the best value for money?. The prices range from $1500 to $8500 and it's very confusing, as they're all made by Polaroid :confused:
One ad states the camera was hired out for ten years.
Does anyone really want a camera that has been used by every tom dick and harry?

I might settle for a Byron instead and forego the ravioli.

GF

Renato Tonelli

1-Apr-2010, 07:17

Let's start a bidding war; you guys go first - I'll watch.

The Byron conversion is very appealing but too expensive for my budget. I wonder how it performs: accuracy of rangefinder, edge-to-edge sharpness, etc.

Is Mr. Littman still threatening to sue anyone who attempts a Polaroid conversion on his own?

Gary Williams

6-Apr-2010, 06:27

I always thought it would be cool to buy one of these, but I think you have to be a moviestar to afford one. Is it worth it?
item # 290286184204

I never could understand how they gave Littman a patent on technology, that Polaroid and Graflex originally patented back in the 1940's- and said patents have already expired- i.e. instant film and the Graflok back.

that patent clerk must have just emigrated here from Pakistan or something....

Maybe I'll go out and patent the automobile today, and make billions $$$

Drew Bedo

6-Apr-2010, 11:08

I don’t think he patented the conversion per se. I read one of his patents online and my understanding was that he patented the connection method for attaching the back to the camera body. See threads here and on photo dot com that were posted early in the previous decade for the links.

Craig Roberts

14-Apr-2010, 18:17

This diatribe has exceeded its usefulness. Drop this post for all our sanity. Craig

Drew Bedo

15-Apr-2010, 09:32

Hello CR,

I aplolgize for the diatribe. I just thought there was some misunderstanding about what patents had been granted. I really meant no offence to anyone.

Ash

15-Apr-2010, 10:49

SOMEONE buy my Razzle?

I really need the cash to put toward a Littman.

Gordon Flodders

15-Apr-2010, 15:50

SOMEONE buy my Razzle?

I really need the cash to put toward a Littman.

What's the difference, apart from $5000? :eek:

GF.

Ari

15-Apr-2010, 16:08

As befits Hollywood fashion, we've given Mr Littman and his cameras much more attention than either deserved.

Ash

15-Apr-2010, 16:26

What's the difference, apart from $5000? :eek:

GF.

I don't know, but it looks like the Razzle is destined to stay in my hands :/

Kirk Gittings

15-Apr-2010, 16:27

If anyone wants this thread to die, they could stop bumping it with posts!:rolleyes:

Craig Roberts

15-Apr-2010, 18:00

Kirk, please kill it. This is over the edge. Craig

Jack Dahlgren

15-Apr-2010, 18:14

I like this thread. It balances insanity with insanity.

Avert your eyes Craig!

Gordon Flodders

15-Apr-2010, 22:22

I like this thread. It balances insanity with insanity.

Avert your eyes Craig!

This thread has proven to be more popular than the Beatles, who in turn were more popular than JC.

GF.

Renato Tonelli

16-Apr-2010, 05:46

Sometimes I almost miss Mr. Littmann's multi-page long posts... almost.

jack_hui

25-Apr-2010, 19:47

there are always some "LONG_POST_BY_NEW_MEMBER" on this thread?!!

Jim collum

25-Apr-2010, 21:08

you happen to have a pointer to any info on your work? articles? i've done some searching, but haven't found any references to a nick maghera (as a photographer or journalist) anywhere on the web. Proving you're a real person with a photographic history might add some substance to your post. This wouldn't normally be the case (doubt about someone's identity), but Mr. Littman has had a long history of posting under other peoples names.... and the 'fingerprint' is usually a very long verbose post about how great the Littman camera is, and how horrible all the others are as someone's very first post. From first glance, your post appears as though Mr. Littman wrote it under someone else's name. My apologies if you really are a photojournalist named Nick Maghera.

jim

Jack Dahlgren

25-Apr-2010, 22:30

Mr. Littman has had a long history of posting under other peoples names.... and the 'fingerprint' is usually a very long verbose post about how great the Littman camera is, and how horrible all the others are as someone's very first post. From first glance, your post appears as though Mr. Littman wrote it under someone else's name. My apologies if you really are a photojournalist named Nick Maghera.

jim

I don't think that Mr. Littman is half as eloquent as this Mr. Maghera.

Ash

26-Apr-2010, 02:11

I'm with Jack,

I managed to read more than a paragraph of this new one's post. That said, I stopped reading after the second post.

Scott Davis

26-Apr-2010, 05:05

Do not feed the troll...

falth j

26-Apr-2010, 05:28

On PBS, there is a short advertising blurb about the woman who bought a table at an auction.

A man at the back of the room, was purported to have yelled out, “how could someone pay so much for such a lousy table”…

Of course, the guy found out the buyer was his wife.

No matter..

beauty is still in the eye or hands of the beholder, buyer, husband, or mother…

And, that’s why we have ebay, and the high prices someone else’s trash sells for..

Ruddy Roye

28-Apr-2010, 11:10

I have no idea who Nick Maghera is but I also have been privy to seeing two other polaroid conversion cameras up close and I agree with a few of his observation; I do not see the kind of work on the others that are on the littman. I admit I especially became interested in looking at these two other cameras because I am ALWAYS interested in the reason why Mr. Littman has always had to defend his camera in threads, and why I have always been made to feel as if I had made a stupid decision for buying his camera. looking at the two cameras I saw, I am now certain without a doubt that I made the right decision FOR ME.
For example, as I approach 40 one of the things I lost was some of my vision up to 8 inches. Things are blurrier. The groundglass on the back of the Littman is very clear. So it helps. The ground glass on the back of say the Razzle is like a misted fiber glass, I was unable to use it even with a loupe.' When I try to use the viewfinder it is a little bothersome because of the spikes at the back. I have taken some good, a few great and some so so images with the Littman but all in all, I have been able to go three years with my camera without it ever needing an overhaul. One of the camera I looked at carefully, (Razzle) which seemed very new, the front standard was shaky and twisted from side to side. In the past I have read these threads resisting the urge to comment because it always feels the same, this is the first time I have read where someone else is saying what I want to say. I think that if all things being equal (all the cameras) then Mr. Littman can be criticized, but so far his camera is built a better in many of the areas that interests me. The Razzle that I looked at had an inferior lens to the one I use, not saying that the lens was no good because to each his own, but I NEED the lens I have on mine. I hope this came off as just an observation and not just a criticism. Again I have stayed silent and felt compelled to support what Nick was saying.
And for anyone who is guessing if I am real, I can be googled.

Scott Davis

28-Apr-2010, 12:06

Ruddy-

I don't think anyone is criticizing the Littman camera itself- it may very well be the best Polaroid conversion ever made. What folks take issue with is the fact that Mr. Littman and his alter egos shout down every other conversion, and that whatever his quality differences might be, there is no justification for collectible-Leica pricing for something that never was and never will be what a collectible Lecia is. It's a combination of arrogance, hubris and short-sightedness on the part of the maker that causes folks to react to the cameras like a bad rash, not the cameras themselves.

Oh, and BTW - Nick IS another of Mr. Littman's alter egos- he posted the same screed word for word on Photo.net and APUG at the same time he posted this one here.

Kirk Gittings

28-Apr-2010, 12:43

Ruddy, your observations and experience is welcome and respected here.

SAShruby

28-Apr-2010, 16:36

Littman was here? Damn, I "missed" it! My day is ruined! :D

Drew Bedo

28-Apr-2010, 19:42

Rudy: Thanks for the drama-less evaluation. I have been looking for an objective apples-to-apples comparison and your post is likely to be as close as we will get to that ideal in this thread, so once again . . .thanks.

Unfortunatly, I am as likely to be able shoot with a Littman as I am to shoot with a Technika or a Nikon D-3. One day I may get a a Byron, they look pretty good on U-Tube, and the cost is below the heart-attack level.

Gordon Flodders

29-Apr-2010, 03:41

I can speak from experience on this subject as I own both a Littman and a Razzle. I have compared them side by side and used them both fairly often. I have found that although the Littman has a Horseman back fitted, it relies on a plastic pack film holder to attach the 4x5 back to the Polaroid body. The identical system can be found on the Four Designs pack film conversions from a few years back. The myterious method of using a strip of tacky Velcro to hold the front standard in place, has often made me wonder why? Even the highly expensive Littman camera that sells for $5000+ still uses a strip of Velcro.

The Razzle uses the original Polaroid front standard locking method which is far more sturdy, so the fact that Ruddy states it seems wobbly seems strange, mine locks in firmly and doesn't move at all. Surely Polaroid would not have designed it to be that way back in the fifties?

The Byron now goes a step further and uses a metal plate with grooves that allow the little locking tab to engage in, so this is even more acceptable, especially if using interchangeable lenses.
The Byron looks to be the most clever of all the conversions, judging by the photos I have seen of it. The Razzle is the next best thing to a Byron, and finally, the Littman misses out due to lack of detail here and there. It usually requires a little coaxing to get a decent result, although I can never really tell which camera produced which neg, that seems solely dependant upon the lens fitted.

Ruddy, do you not relise that you shouldn't be using the ground glass screen at all? These cameras are designed for hand held use and WITHOUT a tripod. As far as I know the screen is only used for checking the accuracy of the rangefinder from time to time. I leave mine at home and Littman sells his as a rather expensive accessory.
If you must rely on the GG screen, why use a rangefinder? Unless you have very steady arms, using the ground glass hand held would seem impossible.
I think that most problems associated with using a converted Polaroid camera arise from either user error or just plain ignorance of the method.

The really sad thing about the whole Polaroid conversion scenario is the attitude that has been long adopted by an individual and unfortunately it has tainted the LF world for quite a few years.:(

GF.

Drew Bedo

29-Apr-2010, 12:28

Hello Rudy,

Thanks for the side-by-side comparison and review. I have held one example from Alpenhause done on a 900 body. It seemed to be competently done, but I had nothing else to compare it to. I am liking the Byron more and more.

Ash

29-Apr-2010, 16:12

Just pulled out my Razzle 900, because the previous posts/comments got me wondering if I've overlooked any of those criticisms.

I clicked the front standard into place and gave everything a rattle, tried to move things with a determined but not aggressive force (think, push not shove). Nothing wobbled.

The focusing is smooth and with little friction, so you could say it was 'loose' compared to a geared field or monorail. If I'm focusing with my thumb I don't want something that isn't easy to go back and forth. Fact is, I keep my thumb on the wheel as I take the image, that's how I'd 'lock' the focus, just like on any other rangefinder or slr from a smaller format.

Viewfinder isn't as bright as a Leica, but the RF patch is viewable and have focused in a number of lighting situations.

The ground glass I agree is nothing compared to a satin-snow. That said I'd almost never use a Razzle or any other conversion for GG focusing. The reason I bought it was for handheld. When I check the RF vs GG, I can take a loupe and I can see the focus matches up exactly between RF and GG - it's sharp, it's the same, and if I can use an eye in a viewfinder I'd prefer that to a screen on the back.

The protruding bolts are annoying, yes. I think Dean's new versions feature something a bit slimmer. For me I just deal with it. There's roughly an inch and a half between the top left bolt and the VF, which means for my skull, more than enough space I'm not poking myself in the face.

As for lens, I tried a quick readup before I got mine converted for me. I was offered the Fujinon W 150/5,6 - hardly found any info online about it, but it was modern, resolved enough detail in a large enough image circle. In practice it's produced a sharp image even wide open with enough resolution for large images (12x16 traditional prints, and scans to at least that effective print size at 450dpi or above).

To be honest, I got so pissed with the last guy who dragged me out of town to look at the camera and made comments based on speculation, that I decided the camera was worth more to me than to try and sell. Even though I wanted to sell it, I play with it (fondle?) and it just feels too nice to give away for any price.

If the camera had produced poor results, I'd have chopped it in a long time ago. I ended up selling my (60's) Hasselblad and going back to an RB67 (70's). Guess which I prefer? Which is the bigger name in photography?

It's down to user and budget, but I see nothing in a >$1000 conversion that I couldn't get in something for less.

Jim collum

29-Apr-2010, 22:50

Nick,

I really don't think the issue has ever been with the camera. Granted, some of the newer models seem to border on gaudy.. but there is genuine craftsmanship there. From what i've read, the issue is with Mr. Littman, and with the tactics he has taken in regard to his camera. The pages and pages of near irrational monologue has done nothing to further the marketing of the camera. He really is his own worst enemy. There's enough room for both Leica and Bessa, and I don't see Leica having public breakdowns about the Bessa product (referring to Mr. Littman's posts about his competitors .. not yours). These monologues have dirtied the water for further praise of the Littman camera... which is the reason for the treatment your post received here.

Jim. I think you are right 100% about what it means being part of the forum.
As a matter of fact, I have been in the forum for years (as well as in photo.net) with my real name!

And I love the forums. If you only knew how many people helped me when I had technical questions on techniques (especially lighting techniques) and such....
I mean I have done jobs around the world and before leaving, I was going back and forth with pros all over the world on how some hard to do lighting was supposed to be done, what gear to bring not to be left behind etc. etc.

Trust me, I am in the forums and I love them and some things I have been accomplished would not at all have been possible if not for the great photographers that share their experience in these forums. And the best tips come by the people who are not famous but share their knowledge and I would want to hug them all :)

But the point here is that I want to express my opinion (which has been cancelled as if I were an email address, not even a person, just like that) on a camera that I own and I love and it is just not fair that I cannot share videos and images to show what I think shows these differences are.

And it's not fair when a producer tries to pull another producer down, when they are making two completely different products, especially when all of the attention on Polaroid conversions has been mainly drawned by WL, even if he wasn't the first.

Even if we were speaking about the external details / decoration alone, there is so much more work on the Littman. We don't see the differences between a Woolsworth bag and a Prada one, but our wives do! And it's not like our wives are material or superficial, they have a different sensitivity, that's it! But don't they often see things that we don't see? Isn't it cool when they walk like a sexy cat with that new shiny bag they spend all our money on?

To me it is fair that someone who has put such effort in making such beauty, is prized for this effort, and should point out the differences, when there are, and to me there are differences. And it is unfair that other competitors compare their cameras to his being in a different price range when they have so obviously not invested such amounts of money to obtain perfect parallelism, close up focusing, the center of the film plane correspondance to the center of the lens etc etc etc.,

Call Mr. Weigand at Linhof and tell him that with much less (1/3) you can buy a Shen Hao and that it does the exact same things. See what he says! It probably infact does the exact same things, or very similar functions. But would we ever say that is the same camera? would we ever say that they have the same exact value and that there is no point for Linhof to have a small share of the market? would we like if Linhof weren't there anymore?
(I know myself it is such a pushed comparison. But you have to remember that here we are not talkin about companies with capitals and private equity, german or japanese. we are talking about a single person investing all they have in a project in which they believe in, which to me needs to be safeguarded at all costs)

Anyways I love my cameras all of them and I love all of the producers that have done them and the engineers that have built them, and I cannot call up Mr. Mamiya and do that but I can do that with Mr. Littman! (who is always exagerated in his words, but again if he doesn't defend his position he wouldn't at all be in the market and that to me would suck).

And I love the forum so now this is the last post with this "emergency identity" - I am going back to my work and my love: photography!

Nick

(whether you use a ground glass or not, well that depends on how you compose really. It's not that the camera is "meant to be handheld". That is an option you have but you don't "have to do it". If I want to have an option to compose in a different way, which I do, and want a proper gg, well, then you need the gg, and it better be good!)

(attourneys? never liked them)