PDA

View Full Version : LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI On EbaY 8,000



Pages : [1] 2

minesix66
7-Jan-2009, 18:00
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

Kuzano
7-Jan-2009, 18:10
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

Depends on who you talk to .....

According to Littman, that's about half price, and he even had one listed for $100,000 at one time with some sort of goofy donation to "The Feed The Wild Whales Foundation" or something equally bizarre.

If you talk to people who buy a Razzle (effectively the same result), that listing is about ten times the price of having one one built.

When you have a week to spend on absolutely worthless information, do a search on Littman 45 Single and wade in.

It's a modified used Polaroid roll film camera that can be bought at least three times a week if not more on eBay for $75 to $100. Degrees of modification vary, but it's a long way from $100 to $8000 using the higher percentage of the parts that come with the $100 purchase price.

Jim Galli
7-Jan-2009, 18:31
I'd rather have an $85 Speed Graphic thanks. Weighs less and far more useful. imho of course.

Brandon Draper
7-Jan-2009, 18:37
I seen that and wondered what was so special about it. How is modified?

Frank Petronio
7-Jan-2009, 18:38
Or just rip the back off of Jim's $85 Speed Graphic and take the $100 used Polaroid 110 and belt sand the dickens out of the rear end, epoxy the Graphic back on. Then go kill an alligator, skin it, and glue its hide onto your plastic camera. And go snub Brad Pitt's nose in it with your $7,815.00 savings.

(Actually Dean Jones does a very nice job with his conversions and they are fairly priced. Although I tend to agree with Jim, an inexpensive Crown or Speed does more for very little difference in weight or bulk, and it will be sturdier and offer more movements too.)

dazedgonebye
7-Jan-2009, 18:46
Razzles are beautiful at a fraction of the cost.

Even though I can't justify one, I'm tempted by them just because of the clever way Mr. Jones attacks the challenges.

Kuzano
7-Jan-2009, 18:49
Actually Dean Jones does a verynice job with his conversions and they are fairly priced.

I also want to make it clear that I, in no way, intend to diminish Dean or the Razzle. I have been close a couple of times to sending him one of my Polaroid 110's. If he just weren't so busy and having to stop taking orders because of the demand. His camera's are very likely the real value in this modification process IN MY OPINION at least.

Eh? What grit belt on that sander, Frank?

Oren Grad
7-Jan-2009, 19:00
What Frank said...

I think these Polaroid conversions are an acquired taste - although I bought a Razzle, I didn't acquire the taste, and so I sold the camera after not too long. But Dean is a blast, and if that sort of contraption is right for you his price is eminently fair for the ingenuity and labor that go into it and the entertainment value you get out of it.

As for whether a Littman Single is worth ten times the price, that's up to you.

Frank Petronio
7-Jan-2009, 19:17
I would love it if Dean would apply his strange yet pragmatic Aussie engineering to some larger format gear, like a cheap, light 8x10 or some other crazy contraptions. The various generations of backs he's developed for the Razzle have some clever ideas that probably should have been the defacto standard for 4x5 100 years ago... it's a shame he came to this so late in the game.

aduncanson
7-Jan-2009, 20:26
I once offered to edit Mr. Littman's website, to cleanse it of inaccuracies and grammatical errors if He would give me one of his cameras. He appeared to take my offer seriously, but neither of us followed up. I think that I was lucky since he is evidently capable of generating an unlimited number of inaccuracies and grammatical errors

Ernest Purdum
7-Jan-2009, 20:32
Getting back to the Dollar question, it's like suing. Anybody can sue anybody else for any reason. Now, can he receive damages? That's another question.

r.e.
7-Jan-2009, 20:34
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

Mr. Littman is a character, but as someone who has used one of his cameras, I was completely satisfied with the product.

Cheers.

John Schneider
7-Jan-2009, 21:46
...he is evidently capable of generating an unlimited number of inaccuracies and grammatical errors

You should read the patent!

Evidently the patent examiner was asleep at the wheel, or more likely he decided to let this patent, inaccuracies and all, go to meet his quota (probably thinking who's going to care anbout a patent on 70+ year old technology?).

Gordon Flodders
8-Jan-2009, 02:36
I can never understand why Mr Littman feels such a desperate need to be associated with the rich and famous. The poor guy must have an enormous inferiority complex. We know what a Polaroid is worth, even when draped in exotic timbers, skins or whatever else elevates the price tag so much. The very idea of a light weight 4x5 camera is good, but why the need for all the rah rah? Image quality of this camera is obviously way better than what any old Graph can produce.

Dan Fromm
8-Jan-2009, 02:52
I'd rather have an $85 Speed Graphic thanks. Weighs less and far more useful. imho of course.Jim, welcome to the Ignorant Barbarians' Club.

Ash
8-Jan-2009, 03:58
Gotta love the publicity and awareness you all generate by commenting on those auctions!

I doubt I'll ever be allowed near a Littman. As a Razzle supporter and defender I think that man has it in for me... after all I had corrected some typographical errors he made during a debate on this forum ;)

Each to their own. Dean's conversion was affordable so I bought one. And I'm very happy with the results. I am under no illusions - I very much doubt Littman's will produce a better image.

Drew Bedo
8-Jan-2009, 10:59
The Littman 45s has been available for what...5 or 6 years now? I have not seen one come up for sale as a used item in that time. Why is that? I might consider a used one.

David A. Goldfarb
8-Jan-2009, 11:20
I saw one at Photo Gizzmo in New York once. I think it was a used or demo model.

Ash
8-Jan-2009, 11:20
Drew I think it's because you sign an agreement that you must return it if you ever wanted to get rid of it or something. Or maybe that was another myth?

IanG
8-Jan-2009, 11:21
I believe Littleman has Patented his advertising verbiage that he uses on Ebay :D

Polaroid conversions pre-date his cameras by many years, so he offers nothing new or Patentable, if however you want to pay his prices then don't look at Dean's affordable Razzle conversions which do come with genuine user recommendations, and from users of this Forum :)

Ian

Frank Petronio
8-Jan-2009, 11:56
Littman has several examples of how he improves upon the quality of his conversions on his site, and while most are exaggerated or passive-aggressive negative jabs at his competitors, he does build a competent workable camera at a premium price. More power to him if celebrities want to buy his cameras. The problem most of us have is his shrill attempts to defend his sketchy patent and his threats to sue or harm anyone who converts a 40-year old obsolete plastic camera so it can use 4x5 film. It's so ridiculous that it seems like a joke, but the guy is dead serious.

The main potential problem with these 110 conversion cameras is if the back is not aligned parallel with the lens standard. To make the conversion, the original back needs to be cut or milled away. Tolerances vary, but remember that this is folding strut camera and the alignment between lens and film plane has always been an issue for any camera of this type -- Zeiss, Agfas, Kodaks, etc.

I don't know if Dean gets his backs perfect to the last 0.001mm. But it isn't rocket science to use a spacer block to measure the four corners of the cut and sand the plastic down to match, which would get his cameras within the same level of tolerances as any wooden field camera and probably some of the metal ones.

When I had a Razzle I did a comparison between the 110's Yasarex and a modern Symmar -- the film was impossible to tell apart louped or scanned. So I really doubt you would need to swap out lenses (which make the camera difficult to close and carry) and while movements would be nice, you're never going to get a fully-featured 4x5 out of a 110 so why invest so much into one? Get a Razzle or one of the other conversions, or go search out directions on how to do it yourself. Heck Dean will help you "do it yourself" because he is grounded in reality, as opposed to Mr. Littman who wants to sue you for your basement workshop activities with yard-sale cameras.

Ash
8-Jan-2009, 12:10
This is the thread devoted to my own Razzle as it was being modified for me, http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26897


As the previous auction number has now been replaced by item 290149081295, something should be stated regarding the seemingly urgent need for 'parallelism'.
As per second pic, observers may note that my Razzlok adapter actually sits on the camera's rail and as it is precisely machined parallel, it could not be influenced by adhesive or any other situation that would see it lack 'parallelism'.
I think the whole issue has been grossly over emphasized. Contrary to belief, 'Mr Caliper' can often tell lies, especially if not held perpendicular to the item being measured, or used by a novice untrained in engineering basics.

A far more accurate method of determining 'parallelism' would be to place the camera's film plane or adapter, face down on a polished granite surface table and with the placement of an accurately ground spacer inserted onto the camera body where the bellows attaches. The height could now be compared at various points, using a height gauge (pic 3).

Now providing the lensboard is perpendicular to the film plane and you happen to be standing in a vertical position, perpendicular to the ground with the subject situated exactly vertical and perpendicular to the ground that YOU are actually standing on, go ahead and shoot wide open.....you can guarantee absolutely, there will be no fall off in sharpness from top to bottom or side to side will occur.

pic 3 - http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5195&d=1186889189

luis a de santos
8-Jan-2009, 12:35
The answer to the initial question is ........NO

Best

Jim Galli
8-Jan-2009, 21:25
Jim, welcome to the Ignorant Barbarians' Club.

Proud member of the IBC and yes, until proven otherwise, the Speed is lighter than Mr. Littman's tank.


Image quality of this camera is obviously way better than what any old Graph can produce.

You are kidding I hope. Lenses and photographers make images, not fancy light tight boxes. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you were being facetious and I missed it.

Gordon Flodders
9-Jan-2009, 01:20
You are kidding I hope. Lenses and photographers make images, not fancy light tight boxes. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you were being facetious and I missed it.

Dead right Jim. Littman believes there can be no alternative, especially if his fancy box has a movie star attached :D

jnanian
9-Jan-2009, 05:08
wasn't he selling one for 100K last year?

thats a lot of film and paper for the speed...

gevalia
9-Jan-2009, 12:17
Drew I think it's because you sign an agreement that you must return it if you ever wanted to get rid of it or something. Or maybe that was another myth?

Ash,
I seem to remember reading one of his rants where he claimed that when you bought the camera, you didn't actually own it. You could not sell it, you could not dismantle it to clean it etc. I was so intrigued that I bought a few 110's for less then $20 on fleebay and made my own. Oops, did I just infringe?

Drew Bedo
9-Jan-2009, 13:03
What....so its a lease contract? Does he buy them back at the origenal price, a pro-rated price or the current retail price?

Ash
9-Jan-2009, 13:11
Drew I believe Littman came to Land in a dream, telling him to create a wonderful instant camera that may one day make a fortune for him when cut to pieces and modified. He then appeared twice in holy shrouds and once again to somebody speaking in tongues.

icefan13
9-Jan-2009, 13:53
I saw a couple of used Littmans for sale at Lens & Repro last year, for well under 2 K if I remember correctly.

John Schneider
9-Jan-2009, 14:03
Ash,
I seem to remember reading one of his rants where he claimed that when you bought the camera, you didn't actually own it. You could not sell it, you could not dismantle it to clean it etc.

If true, there are so many things illegal/unconscionable/just plain wrong that I don't know where to begin...

r.e.
9-Jan-2009, 19:56
I saw a couple of used Littmans for sale at Lens & Repro last year, for well under 2 K if I remember correctly.

Lens and Repro rented his cameras as recently as a couple of years ago. That's how I wound up trying one. It's kind of interesting to read an entire thread made up of posts from people who are trashing a product without ever having used it.

Cheers.

Frank Petronio
9-Jan-2009, 20:24
Nobody has criticized the cameras as he builds them, I am sure they are very nice.

r.e.
9-Jan-2009, 20:56
Nobody has criticized the cameras as he builds them, I am sure they are very nice.

I understand. Look, the fact that Mr. Littman is a character is not news. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of posts about him on, for example, photo.net. It's always the same stuff: he's crazy and/or evil, and his cameras can't possibly be worth what he charges for them. Maybe it's time to give the talk about his personality a rest. As for his cameras, I don't know of anyone who has actually used one who has bad things to say about it.

Cheers

Jim Galli
9-Jan-2009, 21:07
I understand. Look, the fact that Mr. Littman is a character is not news. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of posts about him on, for example, photo.net. It's always the same stuff: he's crazy and/or evil, and his cameras can't possibly be worth what he charges for them. Maybe it's time to give the talk about his personality a rest. As for his cameras, I don't know of anyone who has actually used one who has bad things to say about it.

Cheers

It's just too over the top to leave alone. Like putting fresh paint on a 1966 Checker Cab and asking for $380,000. What's even nuttier is that people have bought them.

jnanian
9-Jan-2009, 21:41
IDK buying a camera that shouldn't cost more than 1K ( if that )
for 100,000.00 because some of it will be donated to charity?
that is kind of wacky ....

Gordon Flodders
10-Jan-2009, 01:01
Maybe it's time to give the talk about his personality a rest. As for his cameras, I don't know of anyone who has actually used one who has bad things to say about it.

Cheers
Nobody disputes the fact that a Littman is a fine camera. It's because he doesn't build them :eek:
The cameras are fine, however the guy is a total PITA and with such an annoying attitude, it's obvious people will queue up to put the boot in.

icefan13
10-Jan-2009, 11:23
I understand. Look, the fact that Mr. Littman is a character is not news. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of posts about him on, for example, photo.net. It's always the same stuff: he's crazy and/or evil, and his cameras can't possibly be worth what he charges for them. Maybe it's time to give the talk about his personality a rest. As for his cameras, I don't know of anyone who has actually used one who has bad things to say about it.

Cheers


I agree. I'd buy one in a flash if I had the money.

And as for how much he charges, yes, that is frustrating ONLY because I cannot afford one. But the reality is: Do you earn a living selling your photographs? Do customers say to you, 'why are you charging so much? How long did that take you? How much did the materials cost?'

I know customers say that to me sometimes, in an effort to get me to drop my prices. I just think they are idiots. If he is getting that much, it is because he has created a product that people want and he cannot keep up with the demand.

People spend more than what a Littman costs on a designer handbag. If I had the money I'd prefer a Littman to a Birkin bag.

Gordon Moat
10-Jan-2009, 12:37
I decided to test the concept by making my own last year. One issue I had with all these conversions was that they are not so user friendly for left eye shooters, due to their thickness. So I came up with a completely different solution that is thinner than the original Polaroid donor body, when measured with a Fuji Quickload holder in place.

Then I went further and milled a four way adjustable lens mount for it. A Schneider Xenar 135mm f4.7 was found and mounted, and it was ready to go. After using it a while, I decided that the downside of such a camera is the original Polaroid body. So I started work on a completely new design, which promises to even lighter and more versatile.

Anyway, I think these things are interesting, and carrying one around can start tons of conversations. They are not really that light, nor are they that easy to use hand held, though they are slightly simpler than other 4x5 cameras when used without a tripod. My suggestion to anyone considering getting something like this is to buy a used Polaroid 900 or 110, and carry it around for a while; if the weight is okay, then consider a modified version.

I did get feedback from a few people on this. The photo shows it with a Polaroid 550 back attached, which is the largest back for use on a 4x5 camera; regular film holders are much thinner and lighter. Progress is very slow with this sort of project. While I would like to make more, I am not in a position to do so at the current point in time.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Frank Petronio
10-Jan-2009, 13:30
Gordon -- you had that nice 1930s 9x12 folding camera too, which is kind of similar -- it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to develop a modern folder with new parts instead of relying on these old bodies, the only real complex thing is coupling the rangefinder. Then you could also use modern lenses that would still fold inside, maybe have some minimal movements, etc.

Gordon Moat
10-Jan-2009, 14:31
Hello Frank,

The Voigtländer Bergheil has sold, though I did get a few ideas from that. One approach I am starting with on my new materials camera project is adapting the old Polaroid rangefinder internals, though there might be other options. Getting a new rangefinder mechanism made would be better, though the cost would be much higher.

I have a 3D designer working with me on this, and he previously did some interesting work at Oakley (of RED camera notoriety). One issue is materials manufacture, especially things like handles and lock down parts. These need to be very common to most moving parts of the final design, in order to reduce parts cost. Rather than mill it myself, I will be relying upon others with CAD/CAM set-ups; the downside is that a small run is often necessary to conntrol costs.

The other problem I ran into with the Polaroid was interchangeable lens mounts. I did figure out a couple solutions, but felt they were not that workable, and only one focal length at a time would rangefinder calibrate. So to take a cue from Linhof and others, I think a two or three lens set-up would be better, though with the right solution even more lenses might be possible. Likely I will limit it to near 180mm to 210mm longest, since beyond that gets tougher to use hand held. Wish I could share some drawings, but for now I need to keep details under wraps.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Drew Bedo
11-Jan-2009, 13:44
Hello All,

I suppose that the camera we would all appreciate would be made by Mamya or Leica. I close my eyes and see an enlarged Mamya-7. Are there any other largish medium format bodies from the good-old pro-film days that could be converted? I mean, why not start with a GOOD camera body and machine away real aluminum and brass instead of plastic. How about Pentax 67, Mamya-7, Penticon-6, Norita, Bronica…..? What about going the other way and figuring out an add-on coupled, paralex corrected rangefinder/viewfinder for the Fotoman?

Gordon Moat
11-Jan-2009, 20:05
The main problem with adapting a rangefinder to some helical focus cameras is that the cam design would need to be incorporated into the helical. That would add complexity, which adds cost. An easier approach in many ways is to use a connection between the moving bed and the rangefinder, like a regular 4x5 with rangefinder, or more like a Linhof.

Cutting up old Polaroid bodies is how this started. I somewhat worked around that by merely removing parts, rather than modifying the camera body. While that other approach could have been done, I have found that a lighter and simpler construction could be done starting with raw materials, and making it mostly from aluminum.

Rather than Mamiya or Leica, I consider ALPA as more of a concept direction. Skeletal and minimalist, which I find elegant and functional. Obviously a 4x5 would be larger than an ALPA 12, and more complex with some movements. Rather than the cone solutions, I am working on a folding bellows equipped camera. Since I have an use several medium format folding cameras, I am working more in that direction.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Kuzano
11-Jan-2009, 20:50
Rather than Mamiya or Leica, I consider ALPA as more of a concept direction. Skeletal and minimalist, which I find elegant and functional. Obviously a 4x5 would be larger than an ALPA 12, and more complex with some movements. Rather than the cone solutions, I am working on a folding bellows equipped camera. Since I have an use several medium format folding cameras, I am working more in that direction.
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

One of the rangefinder mechanism that comes to mind is the rangefinder used in the Polaroid 600SE, which is the rangefinder used in the Mamiya Press systems, but for the larger film pack (longer standard lens 127mm like the Polaroid). Granted, it does work on a helical mount, but the helical ramp is consistent for a 127mm lens and the Mamiya/Sekor lens used in the 600SE is reputed to "just cover" 4X5, as is the 75 and 50 for that system. So, hmmm... a donor 600 .... Maybe in a box in the 5th wheel???

I'm thinking of this one because of the compact size of the RF mechanism itself, plus the coincidental focal length.

dazedgonebye
11-Jan-2009, 20:55
One of the rangefinder mechanism that comes to mind is the rangefinder used in the Polaroid 600SE, which is the rangefinder used in the Mamiya Press systems, but for the larger film pack (longer standard lens 127mm like the Polaroid). Granted, it does work on a helical mount, but the helical ramp is consistent for a 127mm lens and the Mamiya/Sekor lens used in the 600SE is reputed to "just cover" 4X5, as is the 75 and 50 for that system. So, hmmm... a donor 600 .... Maybe in a box in the 5th wheel???

I'm thinking of this one because of the compact size of the RF mechanism itself, plus the coincidental focal length.

Graflex XL series rangefinders might do as well.

Chris Dunham
11-Jan-2009, 21:11
Dean is building me a second Razzle at the moment and I suspect there will be another to follow that. Would I buy a Littman or Razzle if they were at Mr Littmans prices ? no.

Chris.

Frank Petronio
11-Jan-2009, 23:09
I'd think you would want a larger rangefinder in order to be more accurate?

Perhaps the simple, compact, light, cheap thing to do is to not have a built -in rangefinder and use a shoe-mounted separate one instead (like an early Leica did). It would allow you to have different scales mounted to the rail for each lens, and the moment spent transferring the rangefinder distance to the focusing against the rail mark would be minimal anyway.

Might be time for a new thread rather than continuing here....

Gordon Flodders
12-Jan-2009, 01:59
Hello All,
I mean, why not start with a GOOD camera body and machine away real aluminum and brass instead of plastic.

Except for the rangefinder cover, bellows and focusing knob, the 110B and the 900 are all made of metal :) but Frank is right, the auction has finished and Elvis has left the building.

Jim Noel
12-Jan-2009, 09:58
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

It absolutely is not worth it! I know two people who have wasted their money on them and sold them within a few months to get cash to buy something worthwhile.
:(

Gordon Moat
12-Jan-2009, 16:30
I suppose an accessory shoe rangefinder is an option, and I just was shooting with a 6x9 and 6x4.5 yesterday using that type of set-up. The best I have found so far are the Präzisa rangefinders made in the 1950s and 1960s, though they are not that easy to find in good used condition. A combined rangefinder/viewfinder is more useful. A coupled rangefinder is another even more useful level.

The old Polaroid bodies are cast aluminum of not so great quality. Many hinges and moving parts are riveted construction. Short of doing even more extensive modifications to a Polaroid body, you are still left with something compromised in size, movement capabilities, and lens mount area. To get more than a few millimetres of shift, or more than a couple degrees of useful tilt, it is far simpler to use Linhof Technika sized lens boards as the front basis for standard size. Compare that to the room left in a Polaroid 900 or 110, and it is much larger. The Polaroid bodies also have a fairly low tech stamped metal guide rail for the front standard and focus. Considering the Polaroid basis, the various modified versions are good enough, but I want to accomplish something better . . . and far lighter.

Ideally I would find a very long rangefinder base. My current prototype design is 250mm long across the top. The Polaroid 900 rangefinder working part is only around 156mm including a protective cover/housing. If there was a longer rangefinder, or if getting one made was economical, then I think that would be the best solution. Unfortunately a custom made rangefinder would double the target price, so I don't think it is a practical consideration.

Everything is coming together in a modular enough fashion that a version could be made without coupled rangefinder. Then with a few accessory shoe mounts, it could be possible to add a separate rangefinder and viewfinder. While this is simpler, the chance of focus error is greater. I think this approach is okay for roll film, but a bit tougher for sheet film; only because you could get away with using rollfilm without handling a darkslide; possible in 4x5, but more potential for problems.

There is still a question of a potential market. An ALPA 12 does not sell in great numbers. The DR. GILDE in even lower numbers. Then there was the Carbon Infinity, quite rare despite a very nice design. I will eventually make at least two cameras, but beyond that is still up to debate.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Chris Dunham
12-Jan-2009, 17:46
I don't think that either the 'quality' of the housing or range finder aspect of these types of cameras really warrants much inspection.

In real world use they are pretty hard to break - despite my best fumble handed efforts. Once I had exposed a few (quite a few) frames found that my guess of distances to subject was quite accurate and that given a reasonable f stop very few frames missed in terms of focus - composition also became more a felt operation. Having said that my shots with these camera types are not close range portraits.

Chris.

Gordon Flodders
17-Jan-2009, 01:04
Anyway, I think these things are interesting, and carrying one around can start tons of conversations. They are not really that light, nor are they that easy to use hand held, though they are slightly simpler than other 4x5 cameras when used without a tripod. My suggestion to anyone considering getting something like this is to buy a used Polaroid 900 or 110, and carry it around for a while; if the weight is okay, then consider a modified version.

Gordon, this is not strictly true. A certain website states that 'two and a half pounds of crap' is discarded from a 900 during conversion. This would nearly halve the weight?

Gordon.

Frank Petronio
17-Jan-2009, 07:06
Dean's Razzelock back quite a bit lighter than a similar Graflock back, like the Cambo and Crown backs that most people use.

I love the idea of an extra large RF baseline, it would be nice to have it be shoe mounted so it could be used on other cameras too. A coupled RF-VF would be wonderful but I doubt I would pay 2x for it, as I've learned the hard way, 4x5s and close portrait action are more a matter of luck than anything else. And at middle distances I can fiddle for an extra second or two.

Kuzano
17-Jan-2009, 08:51
An interesting option might be the Zeiss rangefinder mounted on all the later folding Polaroids. The one that flips up. It's reasonably self contained, using a lever out of the bottom if I recall. Might be interesting to see how that would couple.

There are thousands of them lying about on old Polaroids and dirt cheap.

Gordon Moat
17-Jan-2009, 12:46
Gordon, this is not strictly true. A certain website states that 'two and a half pounds of crap' is discarded from a 900 during conversion. This would nearly halve the weight?

Gordon.

Half of a lot is still a lot. I'm nearly two meters tall and work out with free weights every day, though when you consider what cameras weigh, these conversions are up there. I do know a photographer who walks around with two RZ67s slung around his neck, but I think that is the other extreme of what people tolerate in the pursuit of images.

My conversion lost vastly more weight than the original Polaroid 900 body. I would venture that it weighs the same or less than other conversions. However, I have found that I could cut off even more weight going with a dedicated design, and not a conversion.

To answer the other comments, going without a coupled rangefinder would indeed reduce cost, complexity, and make for slightly faster lens changes. Modifying an old rangefinder housing is one idea. A dedicated rangefinder is another. Since I have often used uncoupled rangefinders on old medium format folders, I think it is a good option. A rollfilm back is relatively quick shot to shot, though the approach with sheet film can often be more measured and deliberate. So I think it is important to consider how one works with the camera as a function of the ergonomics. An uncoupled rangefinder simplifies some aspects, though it would slightly slow down shot to shot pace.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Gordon Flodders
17-Jan-2009, 14:03
You could look at it this way, My Canon 5D with 28-135mm (no grip) weighs 3 3/4 pounds. That's heavier than a converted Polaroid 110B 4x5!

Gordon Moat
17-Jan-2009, 16:04
Well, my current target is under 3 pounds of weight, and even lighter, if the result is still strong and avoids flexing. Obviously current cameras with battery packs have grown more portly over time. My ancient Nikon FE is far lighter than many cameras made today, and it is largely metal.

One other thing on weight and balance. A Rollei 6008i is a fairly hefty medium format camera, yet add on the grip and the balance is quite good. Ergonomics play a big part in getting balance correct. Part of the inspiration for heavy and well balanced can be found in video camera systems, many of which allow a certain level of adjustment to accommodate people. The ALPA is well thought out in this regard too, with a grip system that is fairly user friendly, despite a lack of adjustments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Frank Petronio
17-Jan-2009, 16:13
SK Grimes made a simple 6x9 scale focusing camera, essentially an Alpa for 1/10th the price. They seem like the best bang for the buck and along with other things like that or the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders, which seem to really pack a lot of usefulness into an affordable off-the-shelf package.

Besides ISO 100 120 film might give 400 ISO 4x5 film a run for it's money, especially if you aren't framing the image tightly and do a lot of cropping. Just a thought -- like why bother so much if something is readily available?

Gordon Moat
17-Jan-2009, 18:03
One thing I want is selective focus by using tilt. So I figured out how to do that without changing the pre-focused distance. I have not found any cameras now on the market that accomplish that, or at least nothing close at any reasonable prices.

I mostly shoot ISO 100 transparency films on 4x5. When I go to my rollfilm back, then I often use ISO 200 and higher films. I guess that is the opposite direction. Glad you pointed out cropping, and that is a nice aspect of 4x5 film over 120 rollfilm.

Outside of that, I like the idea of a custom built camera that is light weight and ergonomic. I am guessing there might be a few people who would also like that. Quite possibly I can match or undercut the weight of an ALPA 12, while adding more movement capabilities.

Lastly I want to do this because I like the challenge. While there are a few nice medium format cameras on the market, none really offer the combination of features that I want to use. So the next step is making the ideas a reality.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

boyd32450
29-Jun-2009, 12:42
Well I just stumbled onto this thread the day my 110 conversion is being shipped to me from Steve Icanberry in southern California. I saw the Littman auction on ebay and went to his site. I was really impressed with the workmanship and the writeup but when I saw the price I was absolutely astonished!! I would have dropped my mouse if it wasn't sitting on the table already. Then I started t read about his claims of a patent. It was laughable....it like someone patenting the process of changing engines and restoring a '57 Chevy. I will most likely buy a Razzle in the near future if the 110 is as fun to shoot as I believe it will be. I have bought a good deal of merchandise from artisans and people making things in their home or small shop and believe me, attitude means alot to me and the fellow from Long Island has one that I feel does not warrant my doing business with him. I think the Checker with the paint job was a good example. $5,000.00 would go far in setting up a decent studio. Anyway I will be writing my impressions of Steves conversion after I have used it and am glad there are people doing these conversions who are reasonable in their expectations of what the end product is worth.

djonesii
29-Jun-2009, 21:40
What a small world .... I'm waiting on a package from Steve as well. I would have been happy with a Razzle if I thought that I could actually get one this year. Dean does not hold out much hope!

Steve has transformed a 900 for me with a 150mm Prinz lens, not the best, but I got a pretty good deal on it. From what I can tell, the set up will be more usable than my Speed. I know that folks can hand hold the Speed, and use the range finder, but as of now, I have not mastered that trick! For some reason, I cannot get the body release working with the lens, I guess it could be the missing solenoid.

Still, the combined rangefinder and view finder is closer to home with as I have an M6 and a Bronica 645 range finder.

I too will post some comments when I get the package.

Dave

boyd32450
29-Jun-2009, 21:48
Yeah the main reason I went with Steve is delivery time and personality....he is quite the character. I am going to order one of deans pretty soon I think but I know I will have to wait at least 6 mos to get it:mad: I have decided to go back to film for a while. Digital just doesn't quite get me what I had with my bladd. And besides I miss the stress waiting for "the picture of a lifetime " to either get lost by the lab or to be totally messed up or out of focus by yours truly:D

Gordon Flodders
1-Jul-2009, 03:07
Reading this item description is quite bizarre.

http://cgi.ebay.com/LITTMAN-45-SINGLE-VII-THE-ARABELLA_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ65Q3a12Q7c66Q3a2Q7c39Q3a1Q7c72Q3a1234Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem4398e6cf6fQQitemZ290328072047
QQptZFilmQ5fCamerasQQsalenotsupported

What does 'salenotsupported; mean?

Why does littman need to flog these cameras on an auction site?

Nathan Smith
1-Jul-2009, 07:46
That has to be the longest auction description I have ever seen.


Reading this item description is quite bizarre.

http://cgi.ebay.com/LITTMAN-45-SINGLE-VII-THE-ARABELLA_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ65Q3a12Q7c66Q3a2Q7c39Q3a1Q7c72Q3a1234Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem4398e6cf6fQQitemZ290328072047
QQptZFilmQ5fCamerasQQsalenotsupported
...

Ash
1-Jul-2009, 13:52
Littleman makes me laugh.

Gordon Flodders
2-Jul-2009, 01:33
I didn't know movie stars, film directors, and the rich and famous all got their camera gear on Ebay :confused:

rdenney
2-Jul-2009, 11:57
Reading this whole thread is like a history lesson in the difference between price and cost.

And buying a load of bravo sierra would not be seen as anything new among the narcissistic elite of Hollywood. Rather than think Littman evil for selling his stuff at such high prices, we should be grateful that he removes some ready cash from people likely to do worse things with it. Think of it as a tax on showing off.

When Angelina Jolie bought one for Brad Pitt, I had to laugh. But that was before I realized it was just a converted old consumer Polaroid. That's just amazing.

Rick "who thinks there may be an old Model 250 in the pile o' junque somewhere" Denney

JoeV
2-Jul-2009, 15:30
I have been entertained by Littman for years; he probably doesn't know how much of a public service he is providing.

I just wish he would discover the caps lock key toggles between two modes. Those photo.net rants of his belong in some sort of museum.

~Joe

djonesii
3-Jul-2009, 19:28
The package from Alpenhause arrvied. Its really nice. He sends along two Polaroids that confirm every thing is working. It arrived just after I had shot a bunch of family shots on E100G, since I'm still giving the lab my holders, I had to shoot some Fuji 160 NPS quick loads ... As near as I can tell, for reasonable shooting, the rangefinder matches the ground glass, and all is working well. As soon as I get the photos up on the web, I will post a link.

Dave

bbjorkum
4-Jul-2009, 13:01
I have always wondered why Littman has attached the Horseman back to a polaroid pack film holder. His cameras are always photographed in a way that makes it very hard to tell. But somehow it looks like he's bought a bunch of 3-1/4 X 4-1/4 format packfilm converted 110B's and then just sawed his way through the pack film holder.

Gordon Flodders
4-Jul-2009, 17:06
So it's a kind of Four Designs/Littman conversion in glad wrap? Pretty expensive wrap.

Gordon.

Drew Bedo
5-Jul-2009, 15:55
I have always wondered why Littman has attached the Horseman back to a polaroid pack film holder. His cameras are always photographed in a way that makes it very hard to tell. But somehow it looks like he's bought a bunch of 3-1/4 X 4-1/4 format packfilm converted 110B's and then just sawed his way through the pack film holder.

If you were to wade through all the threads here and on photo.net, then read his first patent, you would find that ...THAT is what he actually got the patent for!

bbjorkum
5-Jul-2009, 17:27
Oh. My. God. Had he only invented the polaroid back himself ...

Gordon Flodders
6-Jul-2009, 19:42
If you were to wade through all the threads here and on photo.net, then read his first patent, you would find that ...THAT is what he actually got the patent for!

After reading all that, what he actually got was a patent for BS.

bbjorkum
8-Jul-2009, 06:24
What's BS?

William McEwen
8-Jul-2009, 10:41
What's BS?

It's an abbreviation for mule fritters.

bbjorkum
8-Jul-2009, 12:50
Ah ... :-)

Drew Bedo
9-Jul-2009, 06:31
"BS"...In western-style line-dancing there is a step (and a song) called "The Cotton Eyed Joe" I would refer you to the lyrics of tate song. Maybe there is video onYouTube as well. Viewing the mechanics of the dance step would be a valuable aid in understanding... "BS".

Frank Petronio
9-Jul-2009, 07:02
I've always been a little PO'd that Littman bought a banner ad on APUG and suddenly it was a bannable offense to point out the obvious, i.e. he's nuts.

Viva la Dean Jones (Razzledog) and Alpenhaus and those other people doing 110 mods for realistic prices.

Scott Davis
9-Jul-2009, 08:19
Frank-

I think it was becoming a case of "please do not feed or tease the zoo exhibit". Not to worry, he earned himself a prompt exit from that site, and a ban from Photo.net too not too long after.

Drew Bedo
10-Jul-2009, 07:13
Frankly, I would really like to hear from a few photographers who use any of these converted Polaroids...without regard for the personality of the maker...whoever that might be. I would like to hear about what it is like to shoot this type of camera. How it is to travel with it. Is it more "packable" than light weight field cameras. What are the functional limitations or benefits (advantages) of this style of camera? What about supporting gear? Again: I don't care who made it...please just .tell us how you use it and why.
Cheers!

Frank Petronio
10-Jul-2009, 07:49
I am friends with Dean and I think his conversions are very clever and desirable. I've owned two but frankly, I've found from experience that a Crown Graphic is nearly as compact and much more rugged, especially with regards to the rangefinder mechanism. The Crown is also more versatile. It just in a less "sexy" box and its shape doesn't slip into your official bicycle courier's bag quite as smoothly.

All of the Polaroid rangefinders are prone to having their rangefinders go out of wack with vibration and travel; the front standard is weak and difficult to keep aligned, and the fifty-year old plastic housing is... like fifty-year old plastic.

How's that for deflating a few balloons?

I might as well also mention that the stock Yaserex lens is just as sharp and good as anything else, so I have to laugh at people who trouble themselves to get a "modern" lens.

djonesii
10-Jul-2009, 11:42
I would comment that on my Speed, I find the 135 really a bit wide for what I like, the 210mm is just right for my shooting style, and on my 4X5 conversion, I have a Prinz 150mm. If I could have found a 180mm that fit, I would have preferred that. Nothing to do with sharpness, every thing to do with focal length!

djonesii
12-Jul-2009, 17:16
These are some samples of what I have been doing with LF, some are from the Polaroid, some from the Speed ...

Some Samples (http://www.jonesii.net/2009%2007%20LargeFormat/index.html)

JOHN MOORE 1
23-Jul-2009, 13:47
I have been following these discussions for 8 years now.
At first there appeared to be some unclear and unresolved issues
which sparked my curiosity .

It seems to me that the people who own a Littman single
have moved on to enjoying their camera

I believe the answers who would interest a photographer
are provided by the pictures taken with the
cameras and who uses them

There may be a few celebrities who are easy targets
and who could be dismissed as choosing it
for frivolous reasons.

On the other hand I see mostly talented
professionals and amateurs
who have taken extraordinary pictures
Huge amount of great work .

The other side of the ledger?

The same ten people who's comments
I read back then and have not moved on
trying too hard to act as Littman mother in laws.

Scaring everyone away and appear to do so out of concern
about how Littman popularity affects them .

They are the only ones unable
to grasp the fact that they are the third wheelers .

I see how much that frustrates them
but their choice how they wish to use their time.

I look at the pictures taken with the razzle and
see a few Ok pictures which could have been taken
with just about any camera

and most pictures don't really impress me.

That's my 2 cents .

Gordon Flodders
23-Jul-2009, 23:17
Obviously you didn't look hard enough. If only he knew the number of guys using Razzles and they're right under his nose :eek:

Gordon.

JOHN MOORE 1
24-Jul-2009, 02:40
Obviously I should have just kept my mouth shut
just like everyone else who isn't interested in numbers of guys.

I say if it obvious you don't have to look that hard
to see a constant quality to pictures a
and
personally I am more impressed
by the number of pictures which are outstanding
and I'm told were achieved effortlessly
and it shows!

versus isolated pictures
because that is not really indicative

I would say more guys are using a speed.
A lot more guys have used a speed
and that doesn't address the fact
of a camera being better
.

Gordon Flodders
24-Jul-2009, 03:39
Obviously I should have just kept my mouth shut
just like everyone else who isn't interested in numbers of guys.

I say if it obvious you don't have to look that hard
to see a constant quality to pictures a
and
personally I am more impressed
by the number of pictures which are outstanding
and I'm told were achieved effortlessly
and it shows!

versus isolated pictures
because that is not really indicative

I would say more guys are using a speed.
A lot more guys have used a speed
and that doesn't address the fact
of a camera being better
.

Dear John, this doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure what you're trying to say :(
It really doesn't matter who uses what, everyone has a different opinion and
if the image quality is great and the camera didn't cost eight grand, who cares? ;)

rdenney
24-Jul-2009, 11:27
I look at the pictures taken with the razzle and
see a few Ok pictures which could have been taken
with just about any camera

and most pictures don't really impress me.

Are you saying that how much you are impressed by the photographs is a statement on the quality of the camera?

I don't recall anyone saying that good pictures could not be made with a Littman. But I think it would be rather easy to argue against the notion that only a Littman can make good pictures, as you seem to suggest. I think I've seen a few good pictures made with all sorts of cameras, both cheap and expensive.

Now, don't tell me that I'm just another Philistine because I want to challenge your suggestion that the camera is related to how much you are impressed by the resulting photographs. That would be an ad hominem attack, and I know that you would not want to use tools of argumentation about which you seem to be complaining.

Rick "finding it amusing that those who complain about debate often do so using the same or even worse tactics" Denney

Gardena
29-Jul-2009, 00:47
I am friends with Dean and I think his conversions are very clever and desirable. I've owned two but frankly, I've found from experience that a Crown Graphic is nearly as compact and much more rugged, especially with regards to the rangefinder mechanism. The Crown is also more versatile. It just in a less "sexy" box and its shape doesn't slip into your official bicycle courier's bag quite as smoothly.

All of the Polaroid rangefinders are prone to having their rangefinders go out of wack with vibration and travel; the front standard is weak and difficult to keep aligned, and the fifty-year old plastic housing is... like fifty-year old plastic.

How's that for deflating a few balloons?.



The main potential problem with these 110 conversion cameras is if the back is not aligned parallel with the lens standard. To make the conversion, the original back needs to be cut or milled away. Tolerances vary, but remember that this is folding strut camera and the alignment between lens and film plane has always been an issue for any camera of this type -- Zeiss, Agfas, Kodaks, etc.

What Frank says is absolutely true but the opposite of what his friend honks.
There was so much fighting and so much unpleasantness.

I looked into both cameras three years ago.prices were way lower on both sides

When Littman tried to deflate the balloons
all he got were insults and I read he is still being blamed here.
Look at what happens to the cost of living when there are wars


The inflation of the price was caused by the fighting .
Should one shouldn't blame the side who deflated all of the balloons upfront ?

Prices would have stayed low/would be lower.

Look at what has happened in the financial sector
those who inflated the balloons aren't being praised for their cleverness

Image quality can be greatly improved by the photographer
when time is not a factor thru effort.

Candor and effort are opposites because effort requires time .

The image quality of the pictures from the Littman camera
which is impressive and consistent is candidness


it is obvious who cares and why

The rest of the image qualities can be had with any camera
if time is not a factor and depending on who uses them .

Back in the day people wee making remarkable pictures
with more rudimentary cameras
perhaps nicer than anything made today

When speaking of technology and what is impressive
that would have to be about the lesser effort
where that becomes an important factor

What is the purpose of a camera
other than how it facilitates the resulting images ?

Everything else is the merit of the user
and affected by the particular circumstances of each shoot.

I dont think that the cameras without the so called wrap are 8000
and the one being crtiqued is 7000 and not 8000

walter23
29-Jul-2009, 00:59
I read an auction for a Littman once on ebay a couple of years ago, and it was full of weird, rambling, paranoid prose that went on for pages and pages.

Carsten Wolff
29-Jul-2009, 01:07
Is it just me? I'm wondering whether "Gardena" and "John Moore 1" are the same person...
Anyway. Having handled both the Littman and the Razzle, I'd go for the Razzle on price (and Dean sounds much easier to deal with). However, I agree with others here: If it has to be a handheld 4x5 option, I'd prefer e.g. the (Speed)-Graphic over either of these. Much more versatile and those Polaroid conversions may fold a bit flatter (and even that's probably perception with the 4x5 back sticking out), but they're still big, plasticky cameras limited to basically one lens. If I really wanted high quality handheld and film, as a professional option, I'd go, dare I say it, e.g. the Mamiya7 route.

Gardena
29-Jul-2009, 04:10
Is it just me? I'm wondering whether "Gardena" and "John Moore 1" are the same person...
Anyway. Having handled both the Littman and the Razzle, I'd go for the Razzle on price (and Dean sounds much easier to deal with). .

One can be as paranoid as one chooses
You look at a thread which has been active for 8 months
and the person who started it made 1 post criticising the red carpet attire and then never came back

I saw another thread to this effect on a different website this year and in that case
the person who started it was a competitor using his real name saying the exact same thing and also did not return .........

If what counts would be handling I would choose a digital camera and what I can understand in this whole confusion is that Littman made cameras in stages.

He says the older ones are flaky and when people here say they handled a Littman usually speak of an older Littman camera.

Everything is grouped by who makes what and called by the name of who makes it and you have to go thru hoops and minefields and willing to dig one of these from under the dirt piles while the dirt is being replenished .

Whatever opinion one may have on any subject I think that expecting Littman be easier to deal with while this standoff persists is hilarious !

Gardena
29-Jul-2009, 04:20
Is it just me? I'm wondering whether "Gardena" and "John Moore 1" are the same person...
Anyway. Having handled both the Littman and the Razzle, I'd go for the Razzle on price (and Dean sounds much easier to deal with). .

One can be as paranoid as one chooses .
You look at a thread which has been active for 8 months
and the person who started it made 1 post criticising the red carpet attire and then never came back

I saw another thread to this effect on a different website this year and in that case
the person who started it was a competitor using his real name saying the exact same thing and also did not return .........

If what counts would be handling I would choose a digital camera and what I can understand in this whole confusion is that Littman made cameras in stages.

He says the older ones are flaky and when people here say they handled a Littman usually speak of an older Littman camera.

Everything here is grouped bythe name of who makes it and not what is made.

and you have to go thru hoops and minefields and willing to dig one of these from under the dirt piles while the dirt is being replenished .

I seriously doubt you would see a discussion on cars where someone makes reference to a brand without mentioning the model- year etc.

That in itself would complicate things sufficiently in making things harder to deal with for that brand if it is rated on the old the newer efforts appear to have little merit.

Whatever opinion one may have on any subject I think that expecting Littman be easier to deal with while this standoff persists is hilarious !

Gordon Flodders
29-Jul-2009, 04:50
Is it just me? I'm wondering whether "Gardena" and "John Moore 1" are the same person...
Anyway. Having handled both the Littman and the Razzle, I'd go for the Razzle on price (and Dean sounds much easier to deal with). However, I agree with others here: If it has to be a handheld 4x5 option, I'd prefer e.g. the (Speed)-Graphic over either of these.

Just as well you prefer a Graphic, I ordered another Razzle, but I have wait nearly two years.

I agree these two remind me of somebody.


Gordon

JOHN MOORE 1
30-Jul-2009, 18:08
I ordered another Razzle, but I have wait nearly two years. Gordon

Dear Gordon:
We can see how much you like to keep inflating them balloons!
That one could not handle the pressure...
Please
The next time you put that much air into a balloon while we are here
Two words: breath mints.

Gordon Flodders
30-Jul-2009, 20:21
Dear Gordon:
We can see how much you like to keep inflating them balloons!
That one could not handle the pressure...
Please
The next time you put that much air into a balloon while we are here
Two words: breath mints.

Sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me at all. :confused:

GF.

Gardena
31-Jul-2009, 22:42
Early this year me an some other friends
received an email to an online camera sale
( not the auction site)in which they were offering
the first 4x5 Polaroid camera in History.
( first on january 2009)

I thought it was hilarious
what's was going on?

The guy who made it was claiming his camera
was the very first Polaroid 4x5 camera in History .

When I went to this guys website I see:

Here is The New 900 Series 4x5 Cameras
It is high time to add the newest engineering
concepts from Alpenhause!

"FOLDABLE! No need for unscrewing the front lens group to fold up the
camera! No One Else Does This! Exclusive From Alpenhause."

" NO ONE ELSE DOES THIS!!! ;)
EXCLUSIVE?

Can someone explain this to me?

alpenhause
1-Aug-2009, 13:20
Yes, I will explain it, The camera folds up without removing the front lens element group or even having to remove the lens and shutter, this remarkable feat is accomplished by special lensboards and internal clearances within the camera body. Does this answer your question Mr. Littman who is masquerading as "John Moore" and "Gardena"?
The actual mechanical details of this foldabilty I will not go into........

Gardena
1-Aug-2009, 17:47
Dear Mr Alpenhause:
Mr. Littman. isn't the one buying the product,

Why does a simple question about
claims made in advertising have to
deteriorate into a personal attack
if not as a smokescreen?

Do you feel your hatred of Mr. Littman
justifies playing your customers?

he isnt your customer

I may be wrong but I believe there is someone
you said was your friend and you ranted until
the forums ran out of space about a mutual
support and cooperation- loyalty .

You may have even praised Ingenuity
if im not mistaken
and now you apear to claim this ingenuity
for yourself in what may be a long time after the fact?



This person may have
or may not have done
what you say is a remarkeble feat
before you but I believe to have
read something to that effect

if a portrait camera with a 150mm lens
with no bellow extension past infinity -
unable to shoot a tight portraits
is an amazing feat-

My question was to see if it is true that this is your" exclusive" as you wrote and" no one else does this".?

Was it true when the offer of your camera
was madein January by a third party
using your words that it was as you claimed:


"The Limited Edition Alpenhause Camera
The first
4x5 inch Polaroid camera
in history"

alpenhause
1-Aug-2009, 20:02
Hi, I did not write the ad saying "First Polaroid 4x5 in history".
I am not aware of anyone claiming to be able to fit a lens such as the physically long and large 150mm F5.6 APO Rodenstock Sironar-N to a 900 or a 110B and be able to fold up the camera without removing the front lens group or the lens to fold up the camera.

Until such time that someone can prove to me otherwise This Modification is exclusively mine, That's it, flat out.

alpenhause
1-Aug-2009, 20:08
Hi, I did not write the ad saying "First Polaroid 4x5 in history", That ad in particular was written by the folks that purchased 10 custom cameras from me.

I am not aware of anyone claiming to be able to fit a lens such as the physically long and large 150mm F5.6 APO Rodenstock Sironar-N to a 900 or a 110B and be able to fold up the camera without removing the front lens group or the lens to fold up the camera.

Until such time that someone can prove to me otherwise This Modification is exclusively mine, That's it, flat out.

alpenhause
1-Aug-2009, 20:55
Hey people! isn't it quite obvious that it is entirely possible that "Gardena" and "John Moore1" are in reality William Littman? Remember "Oakwood"?

Just look at the long winded B.S. written, No helpful information to this fine forum offered by them that I am aware of.

Seems these two aforementioned people are extremely bothered over a certain entity over in Europe selling my cameras, is anyone else bothered over this issue? I don't think so....

Ok Folks! Watch this! Lots of long winded replies by you know who about this!

I am not going to play is insidious game on this forum anymore!

When real sensible people need real answers you will get them, I only hope the moderator catches what is going on and shuts this stupid Sh#t down!

Gardena
1-Aug-2009, 22:54
Dear Mr Alpenhause;

Why would anyone with nothing to hide
feel entraped by a simple question
which should be answered by the
advertising itself?

Nobody seems to mind? Only the Littman?
Are you saying people have to prove to you
that they are sensitive before expecting
to hear the truth?

You think anyone believes you dontknow
someone else claimed your socalled
remarkeable feat a long time ago?

How sensitive do you claim to be
has become the question

Should you be paranoid about secrecy
on camera foldability if people use them
to take pictures.

Nobody asked for a blueprint
Just the truth about what's on print

Masquerade is to use paranoia
about who is who instead of providing
the truth and then hope to get away
by trying the personality card once more
to get off the hook

Frank Petronio
2-Aug-2009, 00:06
Roswell, New Mexico

Loch Ness

The Bermuda Triangle

Atlantis

Yetis

The Holy Grail

Nasca Lines, Peru

Stonehenge

Littman

fuegocito
2-Aug-2009, 08:48
Hey Frank,

The difference is that there are life's sweet mysteries, then there are things that you just don't want/need to know:p or do you:rolleyes:

BTW, I have been secretly enjoying your portrait works:)

R


Roswell, New Mexico

Loch Ness

The Bermuda Triangle

Atlantis

Yetis

The Holy Grail

Nasca Lines, Peru

Stonehenge

Littman

Gordon Flodders
4-Aug-2009, 01:52
The loon now has FOUR arabellas? on the auction site at once. They must be multiplying by the minute.
If one isn't selling, why would he list three more? :p

Frank was right.

GR.

Gordon Flodders
5-Aug-2009, 02:52
This will knock Littman off his perch ;)

http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/search/label/polaroid%20110b%20into%20a%204x5%20rangefolder

At last, someone with engineering prowess.
Could this mean the of the Polaroid conversion as we know it?

GF.

Dektol
5-Aug-2009, 21:27
Myths Huh?

The Holy grail in such list?- that is demeaning and offensive.

here is a more appropiate list:

Roswell, New Mexico

Loch Ness

The Bermuda Triangle

Atlantis

Yetis

Nasca Lines, Peru

Stonehenge

A 4x5 Polaroid 110 series conversion prior to Littman
other than heresay for self promotion
__________________

The following is posted on Littman's ebay page:

Quote:
"Dear William;

I'm sending you this email to summarize our conversations on this subject
going back to the summer of 2000, when you first showed me one of your
4x5 cameras.

As I have mentioned earlier, I was the manager at Ken Hansen
Photographic, and run the large format
department from 1980-94. In 1994 I became the Manager at Calumet
Photographic in New York City, that lasted for 3 years.
and in 1997 I opened my own store, Photo Gizzmo. Inc..

For most of the 80's, Ken Hansen photographic was the most sought
after source by the discriminating photographers everywhere, for
anything photographic that is unique, unusual, exotic and
unconventional, for that, Ken Hansen is renowned in the photographic
community not only in New York, but world wide.

Ken Hansen Photographic was not only the source, but we were also
fully dedicated in the search for equipment that is in the forefront
of technologies, and There were many, like the Carbon Infinity 4x5
field cameras, the Zork line of accessories, Venca strobes, etc. Not
everything sold, but we considered it our obligation to present them
as a alternative to the mundane, and circulate it amongst our regulars
to get a feel for the market.

As far as your 45 Single camera - the conversion to
4x5, and of Marty Forsher, let me just say that Ken Hansen was very
close with Marty Forsher, he was well aware of Marty's
projects, I am certain that Ken would be one of the first to learn of
any new product, or any special conversion that was available and
offered to clients by Professional Camera Services.

I personally was not aware of any other camera that resembled yours
prior to your 45 Single , a conversion of a Polaroid 110 to 4x5, not
from anyone at Forsher's or anywhere else, since I was in charge of
large format and would speak to Ken on a regular basis, I find the
claim that it was produced first by Forsher, to be impossible to
substantiate.


When you came to show me the 45 Single for the first time, I felt it
was not only novel and unique, but also a great idea. And when

I showed it to some of my customers, who were my clients since

the Ken Hansen days, they

were all immediately responsive by agreeing that it was a great new
idea, a product that is not available up to now, and some have since
ordered your cameras.

It would have been logical, and it would only be reasonable to say,
that photographers would have responded in much the same positive
manner, if it were made available in the early eighties, and it would
have been sold with much less effort than many 4x5 press type cameras
like the Linhof Technika's. as this was pretty much the only option for
fast speed, hand held, high resolution 4x5 photography.

This is not to say that it was not possible that someone did do
something like it, and didn't properly documented, in such case their
effort can not be verified, and the claim to be "the first", the
inventor, or to have made it before you, is only here say.

I even showed your camera and discussed it in length with Steve
Grimes, at my Old store at Christopher Street, in the year 2000,
before his passing, he would have mentioned something if he has seen
it before. sounds like someone is trying to discredit you and
Marty Forsher.


Sincerely,
Louis Shu
Photo Gizzmo, Inc"Quote.

I agree! but these threads may also be ongoing common law trademark infringement-brand hijacking blogs.None of which is covered under the freedom of speech for posters or publishers

Bait & switch ? a.k.a Googlebomb ? the threads are populated by people who haven't used the new cameras could care less anyway or have no need for the subject other than using the name recognition to their advantage.

You see people object to something to then advertise their buisness having to do with the opinion posted- leave their buisness card behind. then you see people who say they are speaking on behalf of competitors and those who do and mask the fact and competitors using aliases .

Zoo exibits are not what they used to be!

Donald Miller
5-Aug-2009, 22:00
This self absorbed crazy idiot now has at least three alter egos.

Dektol
10-Aug-2009, 15:27
This self absorbed crazy idiot now has at least three alter egos.

WOW! can you imagine what that would cost? The guy must be rich!;) Self absorbed? NO!

When love(1) and duty (2) are one -grace(3) is within you? Self assured YES! .Not requiring approval from a lot of guys- having received the utmost approval for the right reasons from the right guys earns you the title of being a crazy idiot from needy people expecting ackcnowledgement from a lot of guys.... - a small price to pay !

djonesii
10-Aug-2009, 21:42
Dear all,

I have now used both my Speed and Alpenhaus in a studio setting. Both are equally good when focused via ground glass, and they both take about the same time.

It could be my poor technique, or bad alignment of the rangefinder, but I just cannot get the Speed in focus via the rangefinder. I know i can calibrate it at home, but just don't want to deal with it. Thus, when paying for a model, I have only used the speed on a tripod.

On the other hand, the Alpenhause is fine in almost all lighting conditions. However, when shooting low key, and the modeling lights are low, I do have some focus errors.

As a matter of personal preference, I like my 210mm Schnider more than the 150 prinz for portrait head and shoulders type work, and for full body, they are about equal.

Right now, I don't have a grafmatic back, but I think that will make the Alpenhause even better for studio shooting.

For landscapes, I can find no practical difference between the two.

I can assure anyone who has not seen one, that the alpenhause has limited movements, and can fold just fine with a copal shuttered 150mm lens. Mine is an off brand Prinz, but I'm pretty sure it's just a rebadged congo.

As soon as I get around to it, I will have a set of large format fine are figure up on the web, and share it with this site.

Dave

Gordon Flodders
11-Aug-2009, 01:58
There's a little trick I use when using the Razzle in very low light...turn up the modeling lights and focus, when the strobes fire the modeling lights switch off briefly. It has to be REALLY low light not to be able to use the rangefinder, providing the internals are clean and the mirrored glass still has a good coating.
That way I get perfect focus with the rangefinder every time. ;)


GF.

Gardena
11-Aug-2009, 15:02
I am friends with Dean and I think his conversions are very clever and desirable. I've owned two but frankly, I've found from experience that a Crown Graphic is nearly as compact and much more rugged, especially with regards to the rangefinder mechanism. The Crown is also more versatile. It just in a less "sexy" box and its shape doesn't slip into your official bicycle courier's bag quite as smoothly.

All of the Polaroid rangefinders are prone to having their rangefinders go out of wack with vibration and travel; the front standard is weak and difficult to keep aligned, and the fifty-year old plastic housing is... like fifty-year old plastic.





The main potential problem with these 110 conversion cameras is if the back is not aligned parallel with the lens standard. To make the conversion, the original back needs to be cut or milled away. Tolerances vary, but remember that this is folding strut camera and the alignment between lens and film plane has always been an issue for any camera of this type -- Zeiss, Agfas, Kodaks, etc.

it isn't rocket science to use a spacer block to measure the four corners of the cut and sand the plastic down to match, which would get his cameras within the same level of tolerances as any wooden field camera and probably some of the metal ones


Not sure why you think the front standard is weak? Mine still stands perfectly vertical on a cold morning after 49 years of abuse. Not many guys can say that.

The main problem with these 110 conversion camera confusion is that the so called"self absorbed crazy idiot " is speaking about a pro's thesis on parallelism - not prosthesis / enhancement for a guy's......big ego ... I.E. "Mine still stands perfectly vertical on a cold morning after 49 years of abuse"-

So in the end after going thru hoops the answer may be quite simple-a lot of ballooned- short fuse guy's egos challenged by pro's thesis ? This could finally provide a glimpse as to where the ballooned ego is situated for some and what personality stands for and what is being defended despite the obvious"Not many guys can say that"

The scientific explanation:= Littleman- little....../ Bigman- BIG.....BIG no need parallelism despite cold weather;)
Littleman must certainly= inferiority complex;)

In the end "self absorbed crazy idiot " is left with two choices = pamper egos or be accused of being self absorbed or hand out pampers .

The issue has never been about the personality of the maker but the personality of the buyers who need to keep inflating ego.. related balloons.

If some people aspire to be like these guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjIud8zYRbI


but for cameras? Their choice. Except they say theirs........can never - will never crash much less DEFLATE...?

What is the point of improving a camera to then have such " who cares cause I can brag till I'm rags "clientele?

That is how the party intended for the sexy box became a soap box and we know why the owners of one of the cameras aren't here . Respect those guys because they respect themselves - photography and the photographic community.

Gordon Flodders
11-Aug-2009, 17:38
The issue has never been about the personality of the maker but the personality of the buyers

I would say that is EXACTLY what this issue is all about. Anyone who has the nerve to place a fourty nine year old Polaroid wrapped in tinsel and said to be displayed only in the 'most impressive' of homes in the country for a cost of $8000 on an everyday auction site is deluded.
The photographers I know would much prefer a less conspicuous camera that gives an equally good result for a tenth of the price without having to deal with the rhetoric.

The personality of the maker (or apparent lack of it) has always been the sole point for this discussion.

JOHN MOORE 1
13-Aug-2009, 02:24
Dear Gordon;
what can I say?When you're right- You're right! Not all of us are created equal and how fortunate that you have been blessed with such a great personality.As far as I can see your efforts to convince people not to buy a Littman camera for the last 3 years seem to be the only internet proof that you exist- a wonderful existence ?

Nobody could say that accomplished photographers were first approached by Littman about his camera as the record shows it was the other way around.

Nobody could say truthfully that they continued to trust their important assignments to these cameras for pretentious reasons when they have explained why the cameras and how the cameras utility helped make the images easier to achieve.

Nobody could say truthfully that Littman approached the art world with his camera so that some of them would be considered as art. It was something which is documented as happening effortlessly

Nobody could say truthfully that Littman approached celebrities - rich people with his cameras so that some of them would be considered as art. It was something which is documented as happening effortlessly and they approached him.

For someone solely dedicating his entire internet activity to interfering with the standing of this camera-" knocking Littman of his perch" you appear to have none of the facts right despite the fact that the info is available to all.

the cameras displayed in such homes are not 8000 but start at 20G and more as per several articles in print and people buy them . if someone is delusional here that would be you?.here is an example

http://www.nyfamily-digital.com/nyfamily/200812/?pg=28

You think people cant see what you are trying to do?Some of these art cameras which have sold for a lot more are not even 4x5 or Polaroids.A.0000005 cent molded plastic fork from a 99 cent store may have a smother -better finish and it costs 0000005 cents.

I once stood less than 1 ft away from the mona lisa and trust me the brush strokes were not that smooth or impressive.

That was in the days when people respected art even if their opinions differed- before hecklers decided to make a name for themselves by taking a hammer and destroying the Pieta or requiring the Mona Lisa be placed behind a thick glass which doesn't let you see what it is really like.or before a pope had to ride in a glass cage to greet his audience and before a retard found out John Lennon was disseminating a message to rid oneself of possessions but had been financially compensated for his artistic talent and was living in luxury - deemed a traitor by a madman who undertook an obsessive quest to destroy him.

Of course it would appear unreasonable to compare the importance of such art milestones with the camera in question EXCEPT that in your case this seemingly unimportant camera that has absorbed all of your time and effort so that you would throw yourself between such camera and its audience asking them to accept what you say it is instead of the truth.

Of course a 49 year old polaroid isnt worth 8g just as true that the cost of an old unconverted Polaroid on the auction site is higher than the cost of all the metal used to make the most expensive view camera / most renowned in the market today.


Keith Harring scribbled a few lines on a dinner napkin in 1984-that napkin paid for the start of this camera project in the year 2000. cost of something versus sale price? Get a Life!

Another one of the guys in that 80's crew put a can of soup on a canvas framed it and got millions of dollars for it.

Gordon ; put a picture of a can of soup on a canvas and see how much you get for it!

Exactly!:)

Littman was an assistant to Peter Beard a photographer who's art photographs sell for millions of dollars- Littman's day rate as a photographer got to be tens of thousands of dollars at one point.

Everyone has a right to their opinion on what art is and what they are willing to pay for it but I don't think that your malicious misrepresentation of the facts has a place in a forum as photographers expect their work be compensated in excess of the cost of film and development as many have reminded here.

A de minimis - decorative re covering of an existing product isn't art just as brushstrokes on canvas are not valuable until those who rate art say it is.

People aren't paying those prices for a decorative recovering of a camera but because the concept plus the implementation has been accepted as art which is valued accordingly .

It would be hard to believe you and less conspicuous fit well in the same sentence when you spend all day drawing attention to yourself based on something which you claim should be of little interest to you or anyone else.

Less conspicuous? I would say if people consider a camera as attractive enough that they dont have to shame it by bagging it after use and instead it earns its place where they can look at it because it looks nice that is not a drawback.

Speaking of what isnt conspicuous is the endless list of photographs appearing in books that have been shot with these cameras- the endless lists of prints hanging in museums and art galleries shot with this cameras none of which should be conspicuous and isnt.

Littman makes cameras which are not conspicuous - you have been reading tis thread for 8 months now and you were reminded of that fact last week you expect to be credited with having a great personality for making such a huge effort to convince everyone of the opposite? Don't worry Gordon !-I don't think art gets you either!

Gordon Flodders
13-Aug-2009, 03:47
As you seem to have such intimate knowledge of this great artist, perhaps you should commence writing an autobiography. :p

GF.

djonesii
13-Aug-2009, 06:19
Dear all;

Due to my strong ability to scratch the living daylights of of Arista.edu 4X5 film, I decided to drop the last figure shoot done with my PHOTOGRAPHIC TOOLS at a pro lab. ( Yes, there is still one in Houston, yea, and a shameless plug for A-Z photo ). If there is any joy, I will get it and some MF format C41 back today.

At that point, we may actually be able to see some photos in this thread.

Dave

JOHN MOORE 1
13-Aug-2009, 15:17
Gordon :

49 year old Polaroid?- 49 posts to trash Littman?.after 3 long years-nothing else ever- anywhere ? Happy anniversary! Someone may write such a boring biography but I doubt anyone would waste their time reading it since your Horrorscope for spamlet version is a lot more colorful .

What would your cousin do to sell his cameras if he didn't have you soiling the Littman name first.I finally figured it out! you may be on to something on the wrap issue.Littman name is a sex typo wrap used by people offering conversions to do their customers when saying that any disparagement in products amounts to dreams by a deluded fool and if a court would rule the opposite you can say what you people always say that those who decide fell asleep at the wheel!:)

here is how it works;
First these guys say LITTMAN -LITTMAN -LITTMAN and everyone shows up to see what the fuss is all about .
Once they have soiled the wrap sufficiently it belongs in the waste bin and so you ;Gordon Flashy/ inconspicuous and others have a guy- a good guy and you say- TRUST ME!

The photographers you know? Gordon Flodders? How can that be? there is no email address to contact you on the forums which you have only posted to discredit Littman for 3 years -you basically don't appear to exist as Gordon Flodders outside these interferences .

Please do point us to the photographers who know you so intimately ha ha ha...Somehow it is this guys personality flaw that you and others have chosen his name in order to exist and so need to destroy his for profit and all the Littman gets is credit for handing out his name as if it were one of these
http://www.trojancondoms.com/

and thus considered to provide a valuable public service!

Gordon Flodders
13-Aug-2009, 15:59
This self absorbed crazy idiot now has at least three alter egos.

How true. The guy is a muppet.


GF.

JOHN MOORE 1
13-Aug-2009, 20:09
How true. The guy is a muppet.


GF.


Ladies and gentlemen ;We present Statler and Waldorf hecklers extraordinaire!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_T9YtA1mRQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IVFaRTJmmY&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJNxj1FdKuo&NR=1

If famous actors who are under constant abuse from hecklers can easily understand this type of scenario and have had no trouble sorting this rubbish out and decide accordingly they are not to blame- one could only hope some photographers would be just as clever .Equal results is a very subjective interpretation - What is obvious is that the so called equal results fizzled once people realized knocking Littman of his perch was not part of their purpose in life but a role instigated by people like Gordon and some who undertook extensive crusades now say taking the camera on vacation does not even justify the film expenditure.Others tell you to buy it despite the fact they dumped it and about those those who have used it - the so called equal results: Their work on medium format appears better composed- has better utilization of areas of importance -has more candor- more spontaneity has enough resolution etc etc. How's that for the economics?

Your search - somebody died and left Gordon Flodders in charge of something - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:

.Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
.Try different keywords.
.Try more general keywords
.Finally realize that the guy is just full of hot air
and beyond that there ain't nothin there!

Gordon Flodders
14-Aug-2009, 03:52
It has become plainly obvious to me that the puppet show may be soon over. In contrast to the Tinsel and tedium of the conversion discussed here (at great length) a fellow in Taiwan may have developed a serious alternative.
Instead of the high priced, overstated and now dated examples of what has been done to remake the older Polaroid 900 and 110B cameras, the four years of careful research by this new kid on the block may soon pay off.
If you're getting tired of all the rhetoric, then check out what some basic engineering knowledge and research can do.
No more emhasis will be placed on movie stars and directors, impressive homes and name dropping, just an honest conversion that will revolutionise the hand held 4x5.
Instead of animal skins and wooden veneers, there's real value to be had, based on hard work, as well as what looks to be a strong chassis fitted with silk bellows that will result in a camera that can accept no less than THREE interchangeable lenses.
I already own a Littman, a Razzle and a conversion by Alpenhause, as I'm quite nutty about this style of hand held camera. The new Byron 4x5 really has my heart pumping and judging by what he writes in his blog he's of the complete opposite mentality to the tiresome subject of this very long winded thread.

GF.

Check it out! http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/search/label/polaroid%20110b%20into%20a%204x5%20rangefolder

rdenney
14-Aug-2009, 10:34
I already own a Littman...

I read this and laughed for five solid minutes.

Maybe I missed it before. But now that I have seen it, that makes the rantings aimed at you seem much funnier in the context of being aimed at a customer.

Rick "are you and Brad Pitt buddies?" Denney

Drew Bedo
14-Aug-2009, 12:40
Now this DOES look good. Check out The Brtyon conversion/rebuild at:

http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/s...%20rangefolder

I have avoided reading the back-and-forth on this. I'm just interested in knowing how this type of camera works out for folks. A separate thread comparing just the cameras, not the personalities, would be appreciated.

Scott --
14-Aug-2009, 13:03
A separate thread comparing just the cameras, not the personalities, would be appreciated.

Good luck with that one... :rolleyes:

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
14-Aug-2009, 13:53
[QUOTE=Drew Bedo;497259]Now this DOES look good. Check out The Brtyon conversion/rebuild at:

http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/s...%20rangefolder

Page not found

Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog My Rangefolder cameras does not exist.

CatSplat
14-Aug-2009, 15:07
[QUOTE=Drew Bedo;497259]Now this DOES look good. Check out The Brtyon conversion/rebuild at:

http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/s...%20rangefolder

Page not found

Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog My Rangefolder cameras does not exist.

Bad link, here's the right one:

http://salihonbashome.blogspot.com/search/label/polaroid%20110b%20into%20a%204x5%20rangefolder

Archphoto
14-Aug-2009, 15:33
This guy makes some amaizing camera's........

Peter

Gordon Moat
14-Aug-2009, 23:21
Since I too have built up a Polaroid 900 conversion, through a vast amount of machining work on a mill, I have decided to comment. The biggest problem I found was that the original Polaroid body is just not that great. That led me to designing my own handheld 4x5 camera, with the only remaining Polaroid part being the guts of the rangefinder mechanism.

After a look through the images of the Byron, and from what I know of machining, it appears to be an elegant solution. I still am not much of a fan of the Polaroid shape and ergonomics, but I think the maker of the Byron have gone as far as possible improving upon the original design. I wish him the best of luck selling these.

Oh, just wanted to add that I have seen and handled a Littman. The finish is okay, and about at the level Polaroid would have produced; in other words not bad at all, until you consider the price; at that level my money would go towards an ALPA 12SW.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

P.S. - To John Moore I (1st?): it appears that English might be your second language. So just a suggestion, since I learned English as my second language: try trimming down your posts a bit to enhance clarity.

JOHN MOORE 1
14-Aug-2009, 23:33
[QUOTE=Gordon Flodders;497094]It has become plainly obvious to me that the puppet show may be soon over. In contrast to the Tinsel and tedium of the conversion discussed here (at great length) a fellow in Taiwan may have developed a serious alternative.
Instead of the high priced, overstated and now dated examples of what has been done to remake the older Polaroid 900 and 110B cameras, the four years of careful research by this new kid on the block may soon pay off.
If you're getting tired of all the rhetoric, then check out what some basic engineering knowledge and research can do.
No more emhasis will be placed on movie stars and directors, impressive homes and name dropping, just an honest conversion that will revolutionise the hand held 4x5.
Instead of animal skins and wooden veneers, there's real value to be had, based on hard work, as well as what looks to be a strong chassis fitted with silk bellows that will result in a camera that can accept no less than THREE interchangeable lenses.
I already own a Littman, a Razzle and a conversion by Alpenhause, as I'm quite nutty about this style of hand held camera. The new Byron 4x5 really has my heart pumping and judging by what he writes in his blog he's of the complete opposite mentality to the tiresome subject of this very long winded thread.

GF.

puppet;one whose acts are controlled by an outside force or influence.

Flodders ;

If you don't believe everyone but yourself is a puppet then for God's sake please tell them the truth and let them make an educated choice.

The freedom of speech is a beautiful concept when used in good faith.

Mr Flodders never bought a camera from Littman he once claimed to own an older model which is no longer representative of what the brand or name stands for today

Three years ago There was the introduction of the perfectible parallelism research- no skins - no movie stars- no wrap.
only any and all of the worlds best photographers and dedicated amateurs as customers- none of them were stupid to fight or feel the need to confront your false claims- you made it look as if NO one was using a Littman.

Flodders informed everyone then that he owned an older Littman - treated everyone as a puppet when he insisted they ignore the perfectible parallelism research and not acquire the new product by making comments which rated the new model on the performance of the old that started 3 years ago..

After 3 years of heated discussions on the merit of the new improvement which prove he didn't have it and told everyone not to seek out of admitted resentment he told everyone a year later" I think I have an older model".The truth is you knew that for a fact.

I invite Flodders not to treat everyone else as if his puppet- give people a choice by allowing them to decide based on the truth.

A year ago he informed everyone that he had sold the Littman again misusing the brand name to discredit what the product represented by then.

In doing so he treated everyone as if a puppet.his puppet!

As a member of the photographic community I thank you on behalf of the rest of us for your great methods on how to make friends and influence others.

You now say you own the Littman and again treat everyone as puppets by trying to influence their choices without regard to their right to choose based on the truth.

You own it? t you sold iT?- that it is an older model - you claim to be so above and beyond evry other human being that there is no requirement for you to ever tell the truth? I cannt beileve a single word of what you have written on this subject as every word- every post has been nothing but an attempt to discredit.

How little do you think of everyone else? The answer is sufficiently clear based on what is written and while it would be presumptious and unfair to judge peoples motivations for what they say and do making assumptions -there is no assumption when a prolific writer such as yourself claiming good writing skills makes a 3 year effort to put it all in writing.

Times change and in this day and age you cant expect an employee to blow you because you're the boss today that is considered as harrasment
In this day and age you cant knowingly misrepresent owning an older product as if it were a new one and use that to discredit a brand name and tell people not to buy it based on the performance of the old- that is harrasment.

JOHN MOORE 1
14-Aug-2009, 23:43
Gordon Flodders puppet master?
find someone who is interested in being your puppet!

To summarize

1)you stood between photographers and their right to make an educated choice based on technology when you told people to judge a Littman based on an old model- I don't think photographers have any desire of being your puppets!

2)you stood between photographers and their right to make an educated choice based on technology when you told people to
disregard the proven perfectible parallelism improvement based on what has been established to be false.

3) you are using the brand name to promote other products and what you are saying to accomplish that isn't true.

4) You have the right to favor any personality over another but asking others not to associate with a person or business based on what you know is false is against the law.

You were aware that the Littman was and is available without a fancy exterior you are reminded of that with every post and yet you respond with reference to the tinsel- How do you expect to believe you are not here as sombodys puppet? - There is a clear differentiation between the right to a persons opinion which I believe everyone agrees to even if at times it is respected in varying degrees to acting on a personal grudge to ask people to abstain from a relationship based on what is false. if a certain section of a clientele such as actors are people you don't find worthy of owning a camera you are reminded this is a camera selected by any and all of the worlds most accomplished photographers and documented as having being selected on its proficiency.

If someone wishes to be your puppet voluntarily that is called consentual- If people end up being manipulated without their knowledge using falsehood- that is considered to be abusive a breach of trust and it is not considered to be an admirable personality .

5) Just as 3 years ago you surfaced on these topics claiming to be determined to knock Littman off his perch sabotaging the success of the perfectible parallelism research and not telling the truth- You are still here telling everyone you are now closer to ending the puppet show and now you claim to have finally found the right weapon to accomplish that.

You are the one who has turned a thread reserved for people with a genuine interest so that people can learn what the product stands today into a long and winding opportunity to send people to buy something else- misrepresenting it has to be covered in tinsel and misrepresenting the technical aspect and if anyone dares remind you of that you escalate to defcon 3 -last man standing scenario

Littman doesnt want to be your puppet and is prepared to pay whatever price for his freedom he learned that from the French when those who wanted to treat them as puppets ordered them to be submissive or be killed-" end the puppet show" learned the hard way that the french are nobody's puppet

I cant afford to live in Paris but Im glad someone can enjoy it
I can no longer afford to own a Littman camera because of instances like this but Im glad those who own them enjoy them

Others dedicate their efforts to ensuring that if they cant control people as if puppets they say the puppet show will be ended. by using enlisted puppets of the kind who do the mocking over here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89eUBMGH-8&feature=related
or it should be burned down. perhaps some can understand why that will not be allowed to happen and why Littman known as an accomplished fashion photographer and after having worked as a technical consultant for many of the worlds top photographers who took his advice blindly and have always treated him kindly and with respect has no need to endure or tolerate impertinence from a few middle of the road - adequate at best photographers who insist nothing matters to them either way but dedicate their time to telling others how to think- hwt to purchase or not purchase. one should buckle to their pressures on the basis that they would potentialy purchase something? that is an invitation to leverage for life! if others need to live like that - thir choice but I know the perfectible parallelism would never have hapened if it was up to them- if they can live without it- littman can live with out them the problem is that doesnt apear to be enough as they keep trying to kill the so called puppet show

Littman has a moral duty to paying customers with which he has an understanding he will make a dedicated camera for their needs after verifying the camera would be a benefit for their work and they agree to make the required effort- have the motivation to pursue creative imagery. His only interest is being able to fulfil his obligation to such customers which he considers his peers. These tirades interfere with his ability to do his work unfairly.

Littman sold any and all cameras with a written contract specifying upfront that the cameras released earlier had tech dificulties in the front standard - that this was a research project and that the upgrade to correct that problem would be available for those who chose to obtain it at a later time.

I have no idea if Mr Flodders purchased the camera second hand but if directly or second hand the original owner had the duty to inform him that Littman's conduct was upfront and it would be up to him to seek the improvement if he wished to rate the product publicly in an effort to afect peoples choices as to purchasing the product.

If on the other hand he is a direct customer who is using an alias in the forums and had a contract in writing informing him of the issue and the 2 way nature of the project- agreement he had the right to choose not to seek the improvement but if he went on the forums asking people to rate the product on the old and was a direct customer the extent of the defamation would be impossible to defend -if he purchased it second hand he may have had an excuse in 2006 but after that he knew any imputation of performance made after would have required the improvement be present - claimed as requiring user intervention in maintenance I doubt any court anywhere would accept his conduct as being in good faith- fair or truthful.If people wish to advertise anything else that should have been be discussed elsewhere insetead of misapropiating the brand name abusively as is being done here until the puppet's unwillingness to buckle type personality excuse ends in last man standing scenarios when some 2 face tells everyone the surroundings no longer look so good that he cant understand what it is all about despite having asked the question for over 3 years it has to be considered these misapropiations - stealing headline tirades are of no use to the Littman camera and the so called" In contrast to the Tinsel and tedium of the conversion discussed here (at great length)" The nerve of the guy has no end as the only thing which has been discussed here is the staying power of him and his friends to misuse the brand name to their advantage and sooner or later they entirely move the sale to a competitors thread .
Live and let live? I dont think they say that is what they came here for - .

Jim collum
14-Aug-2009, 23:57
Mr. Littman,

As a neutral user of large format gear, and a potential customer.. .is there a reason why you use so many different names (John Moore 1, Dektol, Gardena), as well as refer to your self in the 3rd person? It's a little disconcerting. Regardless of what others are/are not saying about you and your product, you do both yourself and your product a disservice in the way you've been communicating here. It puts you in a less favorable light than anything said by others.

Just a FYI

Jim Collum

Gordon Moat
14-Aug-2009, 23:59
I seem to recall that the original Littman was banned from this forum. It wasn't his camera, it was his personality.
:D

Frank Petronio
15-Aug-2009, 00:45
So if I recover old Crown Graphics with alligator bits and muck around with their chrome trim, do you think Angie and Brad might buy one for $5-6K?

Gordon Flodders
15-Aug-2009, 02:44
Mr JOHN MOORE 1:confused: ...I have just stated a simple fact here. As far as I can see, the new Byron 4x5 exhibits a far more advanced design than anything Littman (or anyone else) has produced to date. I have no need for 'perfect parallelism' or whatever as my images are always consistently sharp corner to corner without need for any strut supports.
What really puzzles me is, what the hell does the acquisition of my camera have to do with you? It actually came from an individual in New York who had no further use for it.
Are there so few Littman cameras in the world that tabs can be placed on their owners? As I remember part of the deal was that I never reveal his name for fear of retribution, which seemed strange to me at the time.

I have simply stated that I am most impressed with the idea of the Byron. The mere fact that I would like to own one has absolutely NOTHING to do with you.
It has even less to do with Oakwood, Dektol, Gardena or any other phony alias that may be appearing here.

My advice to you is to MYOB. Then go order a Byron.

GF.

jb7
15-Aug-2009, 09:00
I seem to recall that the original Littman was banned from this forum. It wasn't his camera, it was his personality.
:D

I thought it was for using unfeasibly long paragraphs...

JOHN MOORE 1
15-Aug-2009, 13:08
confused: ...I have just stated a simple fact here. As far as I can see, GF.
Mr. Flodders ;
The only thing which you appear willing to allow others to see
is a continuous omission of the facts - half truths
in your posts in order to debase one product and benefit others unfairly.

You said yesterday that you own the Littman- said last year you had sold it- the simple fact would be one or the other n est pas?

Mr. Flodders; It is merely circumstantial that you purchased an object as personal property from a third party.
That object was sold to someone- whoever it may be who was aware it was an incomplete effort when he bought it and he chose to buy it anyway knowing it would work well for the most part- not to the most of its potential but there would be an option to take it to the next level at a later time.

You represent with your simple fact omissions that this" fellow" only told you to withhold his name and you gave him money and he gave you a camera.

The simple fact is`what you owned was title to an object which no longer represents what the brand stands for unless upgraded
but you made hundreds and hundreds of derogatory and debasing statements based on that object on proficiency when you say you had no needs- whatever- who cares approach to photography. Perhaps forums are intended for the needs of others as well. The camera was intended for those who would care-
For the most part an object may be purchased by someone who doesn't but unusual that he would misuse title to an incomplete effort to act as if the maker should consider him his client if the buyer of that incomplete effort believes the guy who sold it in good faith to someone who accepted it agreeing to upgrade it later ends up being publicly humiliated by insensitive imputations which are false by someone using the incomplete effort to impede- discourage any and all other Littman camera owners from upgrading their older cameras or seeking the newer models..

Quite a simple fact that you prefer would not be so obvious but the core of all your 3 year internet presence.

The problem is you have made it your only business to use the purchase in question publicly to hurt Littman's business- end "he puppet show".

There are now 600 Littman cameras- no 2 are identical. when you posted images of the one you owned years ago taking of some parts to attempt to conceal identity you forgot to consider that as these are as old as you say they are the metal edges get scratched- the cameras were photographed using chrome and when the pictures were placed on top of the other there was a perfect match.

There is no restriction on selling the cameras but there was an earlier restriction as there had been instances where competitors would purchase the cameras thru third parties for industrial espionage and a few months later you would find a thread where such competitor would show up with a camera including features his never had and having resolved tech difficulties
such competitor postings showed he had no previous understanding of.

Flodders - the so called fellow who sold you the camera appears had
a good reason to ask you to withhold his identity because if anyone reads your first posts on this subject the guy who sold you the camera would have had a good faith reason to believe he was selling something he no longer needed but you were buying a camera as a weapon to use against Littman

Like I said Flodders - you have a little connivance group going on which will agree with whatever you say- the rest are not your puppets and can see this is a thread using a brand name to unfairly transfer business to others using unfairness and misrepresentation.

You brought a competitors product to this thread in what appears to be admitted retaliation promising such engineering prowess will serve put an end to the so called puppet show or the end of the Littman camera which anyone would have no trouble believing is very much your whole business.

JOHN MOORE 1
15-Aug-2009, 13:26
Flodders;
Since you have made so many imputations against Littman on his improper use of the English language perhaps you can take a look at these 2 definitions

Dishonest;implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive,
Untruthful;discrepancy between what is said and fact or reality


No more emphasis will be placed on movie stars and directors, impressive homes and name dropping, just an honest conversion that will revolutionise the hand held 4x5. GF.



You spend 3 years boasting obviousness but you stand here unwilling to see that it is you and a couple of others who are placing the emphasis
on stardust and using half truth as an imputation that should be taken as a personality flaw - held against the maker and he who can only see what he chooses to- asks everyone to see only that -
now sees the conversion that will revolutionize the hand held 4x5- your business appears to be
the business of instigating revolution and overthrowing a so called puppet
and you are doing it have been doing it on threads which are titled with the Littman name.

[QUOTE=Gordon Flodders;497094] overstated and now dated examples of what has been done to remake the older Polaroid GF.QUOTE]

You accuse Littman of "overstated and now dated examples of what has been done to remake the older Polaroid"
But have the nerve to show up here to overstate a child's fantasy and say it will revolutionize....
Who is doing the overstating in a place where that would be against the law?

As a matter of fact you could not have accused Littman of overstating for 3 years because you never had the willingness to take a look first hand at what was stated- asked everyone else not to look either
you unfairly appropriate the right to tarnish someone who is recognized to have worked hard and honestly all his life
Perhaps 12 men and women would find that you acted to accomplish a goal that what you claim interests you would be perceived as nothing more than having the oil changed on a car you own- a subservient replaceable service offered by anyone- and the question is that what matters to you is your business until you embark on a 3 year quest to level the Plainfield using half truths.

People who offer things for sale are obligated to represent them truthfully and not using competitors threads for bait and switch
By posting that link here insisting that link would serve as a final solution to end the puppet show- Littman camera you have
taken this to a last man standing scenario.

What you have posted amounts to false advertising by that effort and most unfair that you continue to put a business in a position where it has no choice but to clarify misrepresentations made by others .

JOHN MOORE 1
15-Aug-2009, 13:28
Dear Mr Flodders:
HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE ON THE SO CALLED ENGINEERING PROWESS.

A) Held only by a center infinity stop has an unwanted swing of at least 5 degrees to right and left

B)Claimed provision to avoid parallelism error at base of struts amounts to saying someone's knees wont buckle because he has ankle braces- clearly a false claim. you confuse engendering prowess with DIY proficiency to make unrelated unconnected home made parts which may have a partial merit individually .
The train of thought which has attempted to equate repairmanship with ability to configure and that is why you find so many repairman telling you they could make a better car than those they have to fix but the fact is few ever have- millions of repairmen in history - very few of those so called better cars if any - ever.- and quickly forget to tell you their assurance forgets to mention that it didn't account for the economics that their approach is inexpensive because they can fix it every day at no cost and that is what they like to do-live for.- everyone else considers that what makes sense is not potentially one step away from a repair bench-TALK -TALK -TALK.

C) Lens interchangeability on a rangefinder camera requires also cam interchangeability for focus accuracy and parallax interchangeability for cropping. What is claimed as accomplished is therefore a false claim based on what the practical application of the camera can be.

D) The limited strength of front standard to accommodate weight and portability is admitted limited enough by mountains of testimony without the added torque which would be created by installing and removing lenses- lens weight and having no parallelism provision the interchangeability cannot be claimed as an accomplishment beyond the interchangeability in physical terms. perfectible parallelism in any configuration for the application has already been claimed - has priority and would not be able to be implemented at a later time by such effort or similar effort IN ANY COUNTRY in which laws are enforced nor could it be imported into countries in which laws are enforced Nor could an effort proceed to use the obviousness defense on parallelism at a later time when it is obvious they have no clue what parallelism is in the first place in 2009.

E) Aren't we all tired of being treated as puppets when it is obvious that some control freaks wish to influence us by insisting we should consider as obvious only what agrees with their vision but completely ignores that which is right in front of our eyes.

Apparently not! History is filled with hatred crusades instigated by fanatics- misguided idealism and rhetoric by people asking others that everything should be resolved based on bias. Look at what I'm holding in this hand- say it is true!- Look at what I'm holding in the other- say it is false or it will cost you! - we will ban you from the group- you will be deemed a non conformist puppet- not one of the good guys!- Proceed at your own risk!

F) Hundreds of years of large format camera making- many wood cameras yet you see the back of graflex and any other RF camera is metal.

Machining is a useful step of manufacturing but considered as a rough - primary step in the making of photographic products.
The record shows that when Graflex made the back for the Grafic the costs of accomplishing just one perfect enough were exorbitant for the day. they had to make many- many attempts and then precision grind endlessly until perfection was accomplished- Then and only then could they mold and then nobody had to ever look back because they didn't have to.

Nobody who is anybody in camera making has ever made any camera backs for these types of cameras by machining as the sole and final manufacturing step

Hundreds of years of large format camera making and everyone who knew- knows what they are doing agrees that the one variable which nobody should ever leave up to the quality of machining alone in a rangefinder camera not intended for use by he who makes it is the perfection of the film plane itself and the relationship of the glass back to that film plane.
Why? because it has to be true to existing film holders and universal expectancies.

True in this terms has no room for error otherwise (WHO cares )has to be the only answer you ever need to worry about.

Nobody disputes anyone's right to love their own cooking and how boring it would be if every time you sat to dinner you already knew what to expect- here it is the opposite

People have been bragging that they can do things better than anyone else since the dawn of time - nothing wrong with that
but when you are in a forum where photographers are aware that the German companies who make the highest precision lenses - technology which benefits from billions and billions of dollars of investments over hundreds of years plus the latest improvements plus specialized skilled labor- continuity of production due to cash flow- a clean and efficient and productive working environment have been unable to ever make 2 lenses of any kind to be exactly identical by precision grinding ever!

They can make better ones but not two identical having all the elements- all the time and all the knowledge therefore as a practical fool or puppet if you prefer I know that better not to shoot myself in the foot much less betray the trust of my customers by making home made camera backs for such application knowing that while you may maintain a within range quality nobody who has ever been in manufacture of backs believed it was a good idea to make the only thing in a camera that nobody intelligent thinks should be a variable - become a variable. in non rangefinder cameras the tolerances are not as strict.

So Mr. Flodders is correct- The Littman is in a way a puppet if you consider that respecting the opinions of those who merit respect is being controlled by outside influence- it is the right influence and it is consentual- that appears to infuriate a few who are determined TO ACT so that they have the pan by the handle - buyers market and for that it appears somebody in particular needs to get fried - perhaps the rest who have a different sensitivity and don't find leverage to be a justified
means to social climbing can understand for now. Once the courts make a ruling this type of scenario will be quite different
thread will be populated by people with first hand knowledge - free of potential common law trademark infringement so that the internet may serve in order to bridge distance gaps- information which is as true as possible and as free of malice as possible.
Hopefully those who don't know will want to learn instead of being the ones who always answer or focus on those things which interests them.

[QUOTE=Gordon Flodders;497094] judging by what he writes in his blog he's of the complete opposite mentality to the tiresome subject of this very long winded thread.QUOTE]

Someone professionally qualified to judge what that that person wrote in that blog seems to believe
that person is asking the reader for recognitions on accomplishments which are fictitious and carefully criticizing accomplishments which aren't and proven by making exaggerated assurances, and everyone would agree Flodders is doing the same by bringing that here for the same purpose. Opposite mentality? Where?
are you a mentalist?

Littman will certainly get one of those cameras for free ! if what is published in that blog today and included in a deposition
is determined by a Taiwanese court to constitute false claims in advertising that will certainly be the end of any puppetry- efforts to manipulate the course of buisness unfairly and so forth.- Flodders can take full credit for that.

By the way the correct spelling is =revolutionize :)

Gordon Moat
15-Aug-2009, 15:37
Hey Littman ... ah John Moore the First ... You should take it to court, and suffer the consequences. Your ranting here is driving away anyone who might even buy that overpriced Polaroid conversion of yours. That time in the sun for you is over. Get over it, and get over yourself.

Gordon Flodders
15-Aug-2009, 16:55
By the way the correct spelling is =revolutionize :)

I deleted the rest of the post as it is complete rubbish. I beg to differ sir..The correct English spelling of 'revolutionise' is with an 'S'. If you wish to detract from the Queen's English that is your prerogative.

I have no complaints with my older Littman, as after some minor adjustment, it continues to work just fine. You stated Littman has disowned all these older cameras, so that would mean they are no longer his responsibility. Does this mean I should now remove the 'pas par hazard' badge?

I have never encountered such an obnoxious person as yourself and I am sure Mr Littman would be most angry at the route you have chosen on his behalf.

If your attitude was adopted toward all recipients of a Littman camera, I could certainly understand why prospective buyers would wish to opt for an alternative.

GF.

Doug Dolde
15-Aug-2009, 18:31
$7K for that piece of junk? Only a fool would pay that or for that matter buy one at all.

JOHN MOORE 1
16-Aug-2009, 18:51
Solo sex -Lies and Video tape!


I think it's an early version. 19-Dec-2007, 22:15
he knew that for a fact more than a year earlier.


Amazingly I just sold my old Littman, seems the photos may have done it. 19-Dec-2007, 22:15
THAT WAS 2(twoYEARS AGO)

now he reiterates yesterday


I have no complaints with my older Littman, as after some minor adjustment, it continues to work just fine..

He has no complaints on the camera which he claims to owntoday now but has sold two years ago

If you wish to detract from the Queen's English that is your prerogative.GF.

People claim to have no problem seeing thru masks they can so easily see that who finally got so hot and bothered trying to knock Littman of his perch that your very very Identifiable use of the English language and the fact that nobody else has ever tried to knock Littman of his perch as much and as hard as your true persona has exposed you



QUOTE=Gordon Flodders;497613] You stated Littman has disowned all these older cameras, so that would mean they are no longer his responsibility. Does this mean I should now remove the 'pas par hazard' badge?GF.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has stated that Littman has disowned anything nor anybody Only you wish people to believe that- service is available to older cameras in their original configuration but were sold as part of an upgradable project- If the fellow who sold it to you had no further use for it is circumstantial in itself but Littman never agreed to sell a camera to anyone who would take an incomplete effort to sell it to someone else who then goes out of his way to make sure Nobody has further use for Littman and has/ is only using half truths to accomplish that.

QUOTE=Gordon Flodders;497613] If your attitude was adopted toward all recipients of a Littman camera, I could certainly understand why prospective buyers would wish to opt for an alternative.GF.[/QUOTE]

That is- appears to be your sole objective as none of that attitude has ever existed nor will exist except in the posts you have made to convince people of that and so I can say without any reservation that I have never encountered someone so dedicated to influencing others by not telling the truth

I don't think Littman has any use for your half truths but if your camera that you no longer own but say you do ever needs service - it is his duty to service it despite your amazing personality and with no regard to personality.

Those who attempt to validate their bias By adding" everyone here" to their comments refer to everyone biased-( the usual few) not everyone in the forum who should not be blamed nor be guilty by association for the resentment of a few and how they act on it.

djonesii
16-Aug-2009, 20:55
Dear all;

I have finished processing my first full fine art shoot with the Speed Graphic and the Polaroid conversion. This one happens to be an Alpenhause. However, I guess that a Razzle-Dog or a Littemann would have made little difference to the final outcome, If anyone out there are actually used both for taking photos, perhaps they can comment.

I would add, that I'm still in the learning phases with the camera, and it seems to me, that when focused correctly, the images are pretty good. From the tripod, the RF and the GG match pretty well. In the "line of fire" it's a bit more of a beast to use than the D300! I would say that I missed focus on some of the images.

It stands to reason, that these images are not work-safe, and that if naked females offend you, don't look, that's why it's password protected.

User = Guest;
pass = matrix.

http://www.jonesii.net/2009_07_18_LF_zoya/index.html

As it seems most un-usual in this thread, C&C welcome of the images made with either camera are most welcome.


Dave

Rodney Polden
16-Aug-2009, 22:16
I tried your user and password info. Found that Guest; (with a semi-colon) was accepted, but matrix was not accepted, either with or without the period after it. Perhaps you could verify the correct one. I'm glad you finally got to see some results from your work.

oh, and Mr L ..... medication and compassionate counselling can make a huge improvement in quality of life for those with multiple-personality disorder. Or maybe it's obsessive-compulsive disorder, really hard to tell.

Gordon Flodders
17-Aug-2009, 04:09
Could someone please explain to Mr Moore this is a different camera to the previous clunker, as that was a complete train wreck, held together with velcro and knobs of glue. Fortunately, this camera is in much better condition and functions quite OK.

I don't think that anyone has become hot and bothered about knocking anyone off his perch except for JOHN MOORE 1. Without any help at all he is doing a sterling job :D

GF

djonesii
17-Aug-2009, 06:23
Sorry that is was not clear,

The user is Guest ( capital G, and no puncuation at the end )

The password is matrix ( all lower case, and no pucuation )

Dave

Ash
17-Aug-2009, 06:36
People claim to have no problem seeing thru masks they can so easily see that who finally got so hot and bothered trying to knock Littman of his perch that your very very Identifiable use of the English language and the fact that nobody else has ever tried to knock Littman of his perch as much and as hard as your true persona has exposed you

Not much, if any, of your posts have made much sense. If you are trying to say that nobody else has tried to 'knock Littman off his perch', I think you'll find I have totally destroyed the grounds for Littman to attempt to defend himself on this forum.

Not only have I, as an educated Englishman maintained perfect grammar and spelling and called upon every error in prior posts, but all arguments proposed in Littman verse have been dissolved by reason.

I'd request you remove yourself from this forum for trolling, but I believe the majority of members here are having too much fun laughing at yet another persona of Littman attempt to defend himself.

CatSplat
17-Aug-2009, 10:15
Wow, this Littman character is a riot!

JOHN MOORE 1
17-Aug-2009, 13:42
Dear Ash;
I don't know why you assume that Littman has any animosity against you- if you have had an exchange on language use in the past - quite childish? how boring life would be if that were not allowed on occasion!

You cant really blame Littman on the English bit either since such beautiful Queen's English suffers competition from ALL the queen's girls. As it turns out when Littman was studying at ST Andrews he was distracted by very little use of the English language by these irresistible maidens who insisted in speaking to him in French ENCORE! ENCORE! ENCORE! or Italian COSI! DAI COSI- DI PIU! Littman may be a fool but he doesn't believe anyone can win an argument with an English girl- not for long at least and so in the spirit of self preservation he spoke to them in French!

English girls are toooo smart- too pretty- too sexy too witty and quite addictive I hope anyone could find an antidote and suggest the prescription instead of narrating the psycho drugs in their cabinets from that last meltdown they had



His classmates which had perfect English were running errands for these girls and then dispensed as if jesters using the excuse of the slightest English grammar mistake . these girls then slipped Ignoramus maximus / Missing Link into their chambers in the hopes of converting him into a gentleman but kept failing and the arrangement was quite irresistible!

The only thing Littman learned for sure is that English girls or any girl or any photographer who loves photography and what matters does not really like to kiss in public
So Littman knows kiss and tell= no love. Littman owners photography no preoccupation on kiss and tell on camera caca = mucho love of photography= Littman proud of such people with a higher purpose in life such as the creative aspect of images.

There was talk of Littman trying to invent a chase tittie belt but that was the worse mistake as it appears some people only get busy when they are told they cant do something- I think they call it reverse psychology! you may be closer to that kind of behavior than you care to consider, but anyway that is when Littman's days in the sun ended and he was taken in as a sex slave 30 years ago and then he found this camera passion and hasnt seen the sun since!

I am sorry that you assumed Littman considers you capable of such deception but if you would have only noticed the the use of The Queens English in question is used that way by those who declared independence from the Queen a long time ago after they decided to no longer be under her rule- a Colony and their English is quite beautiful as well- a bit more colorful some may say but very identifiable if only by the alteration of the order of the words utilized in comparison to what you would consider the Queens English.

" dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres!"
Dime quien anda contigo y quien habla bien de ti y quien es el?
Dime quien habla mal de ti y te daras cuenta que habla de el mismo!

Ash
17-Aug-2009, 14:53
Keep it up with the stories, it makes me laugh on Monday evenings.

Gardena
17-Aug-2009, 15:19
Mr. Littman,

As a neutral user of large format gear, and a potential customer.. .is there a reason why you use so many different names (John Moore 1, Dektol, Gardena), as well as refer to your self in the 3rd person? It's a little disconcerting. Regardless of what others are/are not saying about you and your product, you do both yourself and your product a disservice in the way you've been communicating here. It puts you in a less favorable light than anything said by others.

Just a FYI

Jim Collum



Dear Jim
What you say goes to the core of the issue-the clock has frozen- the fat lady has sung! and now it is a question you raise which is a concern which appears needs to be taken seriously - how Littman found himself in that position if he had a choice- the evidence shows otherwise-When a ruling is reached on that you will be informed.

Littman was Banned from this forum for having to fight / fighting with Petronio's friend
on the technical issues which Petronio confirms- his friend denies. Littman should have never had to fight- never had to show up here in the first place to then have to be banned for defending the truth loosing work time- causing delays to his paying clients.
Days in the sun? there were never any SINCE 2003- days under the wrong light will soon come to an end!

The choice is between tolerating the hemorrage or attempting toclarify it which is met with a last man standing ultimatum-I wish a perfect world was available or a choice existed.

history is filled with quests that never happened because of bias so while the research had to continue there was little choice but to tolerate the status quo namely because none of this can be resolved based on what people say if in the end you drowned half way because you had to fight obstacles which had nothing to do with your goals.

That scenario is over- the project made the required crossing at a huge cost and despite all the hoops that were thrown from over here and the other ... and since these guys make so much enphasis on the movies let me give you an example using a movie plot.

You might remember the movie the 5th element where they sent a supreme being to see if there was any love- any hope. Over here In this lowwwwwwwwww budget fiasco all they could afford is a puppet fool who came to remind the thing didnt only come in tinsel- they lauged at the puppets efforts to defend himself- the puppet reminded the tech aspect was/ is embraced by the best photographers- they insisted they dont need the tinsel/ nobody should buy it- end of puppet show- they dont need the tech aspect anyway Jim things will change and in the end it will be known if Littman had a choice as it appears the only choice offered is that he be perceived based on false imputations and if he dare defend himself that escalates to kast man standing- that doesnt look like live and let live to me- before you suggest what you would find best know that there is a lot that cant be disclosed without making accusations of criminal conduct which have to be made by authorities in the right place at the right time- In the meantime you live in a world in which you read that which you are permitted to and asked to judge accordingly.

Ash
17-Aug-2009, 15:49
I like that these trolls continue on the forum. "Gardena" has definitely committed Libel.

Gordon Flodders
17-Aug-2009, 16:04
Only a complete idiot would spit out rubbish like this. Attacking Mr Petronio is sailing dangerously close to the wind :eek:
Not sure who is the nuttiest here, JOHN MOORE 1 or Gardena and we already know that Dektol is poisonous.

GF.

Frank Petronio
17-Aug-2009, 16:27
I capitulate. I believe William Littman is a superior person and his camera design is the best ever. Everything Littman says is correct and logical. Of course he should hold a patent on modifying an existing plastic camera just like dozens of other people, because he did it using alien technology and lasers. I am saving my nickels and dimes and will sell all my Linhofs, Rolleis, and Leicas so that I can afford a Littman, because they are the best cameras ever.

You won Bill. Now please go away.

EdWorkman
17-Aug-2009, 16:33
Whhooooa
Look who's back in triple re-incarnation!
It is fascinating in a look-at-the-automobile-wreck sort of way, but the real reason I keep checking this immortal thread is to see a message from Elvis- gotta be one at this rate

Frank Petronio
17-Aug-2009, 17:33
Jeeeeeesus Kirk it's a trainwreck of a thread anyway, why block Elvis at this point? Isn't that like pissing into the Atlantic hoping to raise the tide?

Gordon Moat
17-Aug-2009, 17:45
Elvis has now left the thread .....
:D

Scott --
17-Aug-2009, 18:21
I'll never sing "Hound Dog" the same again... :p

Drew Bedo
18-Aug-2009, 12:05
After stepping back and doing a little review of this and a few other threads, it all seems to me that this subject is just a Tempest-In-a-Teapot. While these cameras are appreciated by those who have bought them (and I mean any of the Polaroid conversions from any of the makers). There really is not much general demand for them.

These cameras, and the controversy, have been showcased in the forums and reviewed in the mainstream camera press since, what… 2002 or so…nearly eight years. If a large format folding rangefinder camera (coupled range-viewfinder or not) was so desirable or useful, some established manufacturer or start-up company would be making an all-new camera.

I imagine a camera based not on refurbished Polaroid models, but new manufactured redesigned and scaled-up versions of any of the folding rangefinder designs from 1930s-1950s. If this was worth doing, Mamya could have done up a 4x5 Mamya 7-II. Hasselblad might have come out with a 4x10 rangefinder. If this was really worth doing, Footman could have done it instead of going belly-up.

If there was any real money to be made from this type of camera, there would have been one or more patent infringement or liable lawsuits to settle the controversy. Did I miss something…did anybody get sued in the past eight years?

These are handy cameras to use and capable of good photography if they fit your shooting style…not many serious complaints about the CAMERAS are out there. This is a forum about Cameras. With respect for all participants I ask: Can’t we please take all this mess to FaceBook or MySpace…or anywhere else?

With respect for all,

EdWorkman
18-Aug-2009, 14:59
Drew
[your] voice of reason has no place in this thread [smiley face here]
i say facey-space

Gordon Flodders
18-Aug-2009, 16:14
Drew,
I think the very fact that the number of views to this thread have exceeded 10,000 since it was first introduced gives a fair indication of the popularity of this type of camera. I favour the Polaroid body style as it is one of the only left handed cameras available.
The biggest problem is that the subject always gets hijacked by interruptions and references by a nuisance, so we never seem able to get to the point.

The original question was put forward about the infamous camera being listed on an auction site and whether the camera in question was worth it or not.

I really like the Polaroid body style as it's quite light weight and can be used with ease, unlike most clumsy 4x5's.
In my opinion these cameras have seen considerable negativity due to the antics of a 'would be' King (definitely no Elvis).
It would be great to have a serious discussion regarding the converted Polaroids without fear of constant insults, interruptions and diatribe, unfortunately due to an insane desire to be considered artistic, it's never going to happen. :mad:

GF.

rdenney
18-Aug-2009, 16:23
Drew,
I think the very fact that the number of views to this thread have exceeded 10,000 since it was first introduced gives a fair indication of the popularity of this type of camera.

Ya think?

Rick "thinking it's more like the crowd at the zoo's gorilla exhibit when the gorilla is out in view" Denney

Scott --
18-Aug-2009, 17:22
Ya think?

Rick "thinking it's more like the crowd at the zoo's gorilla exhibit when the gorilla is out in view" Denney

+1

Gordon Flodders
18-Aug-2009, 17:56
Ya think?


OK. The real reason for the number of hits has nothing to do with the camera at all.

Interest was obviously due to nut value. :D

GF

Ron Marshall
18-Aug-2009, 18:47
These cameras, and the controversy, have been showcased in the forums and reviewed in the mainstream camera press since, what… 2002 or so…nearly eight years. If a large format folding rangefinder camera (coupled range-viewfinder or not) was so desirable or useful, some established manufacturer or start-up company would be making an all-new camera.



Agreed; and it would sell for a hell of a lot less than 8000.

jack_hui
18-Aug-2009, 19:23
Hi all,

I just personally tried the new "Byron" camera last week in Hong Kong as a pre-production test. Other than some minor improvement need, what I can say is ... wonderful!!!

I didn't take much photo, but will do if I have time to develope the film (sorry, some photos were taken in my home, not good to post them out! haha!).

I don't know how it compare to Littman, as I never tried before, and I am not willing to buy it with $8k.

Jack

Gordon Flodders
18-Aug-2009, 21:32
Hi all,

I don't know how it compare to Littman, as I never tried before, and I am not willing to buy it with $8k.

Jack

Don't bother Jack. There's absolutely nothing to compare :D

GF.

Drew Bedo
19-Aug-2009, 16:11
Hello Jack,

Thanks for your remarks about the Bryon conversion/re-build. Pleas sShoot some posable images and share them with us.

Ivan J. Eberle
19-Aug-2009, 21:40
Do you think these guys shill bid against themselves, too?

Eric James
19-Aug-2009, 22:08
...triple re-incarnation!

Make that "quadruple" - as with The Unibomber, his "linguistic idiosyncrasies" give him away.

Gordon Flodders
19-Aug-2009, 22:12
I think you are totally right this is definitely a train wreck. So Let me get it straight
You like the Littman but you dislike what you feel is unfair and you decided to get busy and right the situation to make it more accessible? Confused because you say isn't worth it but sold one and bought a second one.


I bought the first camera cheap, it was pretty banged up. Second was a lot better and cost me only a few hundred. Not sure where you're coming from, so now I'm the one who is confused.
Is there some kind of ownership limit, surely not? I'd probably buy a third if the price was cheap enough, but right now I'm going to order a Byron :p

GF.

Gordon Flodders
20-Aug-2009, 00:30
You've tried several but I Haven't see any images you took so I asked you based on what I read here and I don't understand your antagonism. Im sorry

I have no antagonism at all, whatever gave you that idea? I have never posted any comparison images here, nor do I intend to, even when I have purchased a Byron. There's no difference in image quality between the Alpenhause, Razzle or Littman and how could there be, when basically they are all the same camera? Only the lens will determine the image quality, along with the skill of the user.

I do hope you're not personality number four. :eek:

GF.

Drew Bedo
20-Aug-2009, 14:01
Tom R.. I am interested. Please PM me.

For others interested in the issues facing photogaphers with a visual impairment I recomend checking out this Flicker group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/blind_photographers

My work is available from my website and on ArtSlant at:

http://www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/62474-drew-bedo

Cheeers to all

Ivan J. Eberle
20-Aug-2009, 15:35
There is a puppet out there that once lost his vision temporarily as a result of these wrecking trains and now that he has learned of your courage knows and can appreciate the value of your time.

Geppetto... is that you?
(This thread just keeps growing and growing and growing...)

Drew:apologies for the auto-quote button artifact

Drew Bedo
20-Aug-2009, 15:46
Ivan: I did not post that. Please credit the correct author.

Regards,

Gordon Flodders
20-Aug-2009, 17:17
Geppetto... is that you?


And we all know what Pinocchio was guilty of don't we? :D

GF.

Drew Bedo
20-Aug-2009, 19:37
Ivan: OOPS...now MY appology for not reading the whole post; its that kind of thread. Sorry.

Ivan J. Eberle
20-Aug-2009, 19:54
Drew, no worries. Just hoping you're finding this one as entertaining as the rest of us.

Nineteen pages of pure unadulterated Summer reading distraction, and counting...

Gordon Flodders
20-Aug-2009, 20:42
Apparently, a well known photo mag is about to feature the subject of all this furore and it's due out on August 21st, which isn't long to wait.
They'll be even more interesting reading for you! :p

GF.

alpenhause
21-Aug-2009, 02:21
Hey people! All I can say is WOW!
I am just amazed at where this subject is going and where it has been........

I am just taken aback and awestruck with the new developments....

Poor John Moore1, Gardena, Oakwood and a few long winded others (aka Littman) who was banned from the forum.

That nice young fellow in Taiwan with his new "Rangefolder" camera is quite unique and just goes to show that the dream is still alive and well!

One thing that really impresses me is Djonesii and the outstanding photos shot with one of my Alpenhause custom cameras, see: http://www.jonesii.net/2009_07_18_LF_zoya/index.html That just Hauls Ass! Too Cool! I really like that! I just for some reason or another am blown away! Great art!

I certainly want to thank all of you for your support!

Lots of new concepts are being dreamed up for this year and the next and I will be branching out a bit with new 6 X 12 format 120/220 film panoramic cameras featuring a strong influence and usage of Mamiya Press camera components with Schneider Angulon lenses and Mamiya lenses, These cameras will feature extremely easy and simple loading with automatic frame counters, How many Chinese Panoramic camera bodies do this?

Oh Well, I am just an old union heavy equipment operator that has had no work in that field for two years out here in Southern California, So I build custom cameras now for a living, I'm not getting rich but I am making a lot of people really happy and making new friends.

Here is my website, Http://Alpenhause.com I know it is not the most sophisticated website around but I spend more time building and improving my cameras than working with computers hence the more affordable pricing with fast delivery and customer services, speaking of services? I am most proud to offer repair service for your Polaroid 110, 110A, 110B and 120 models no matter who modified and built your camera, especially, in unfortunate cases of collision damage.

I am borrowing a catchy phrase from a well known ebay camera salesman in Washington state, and now I offer it to you all.....

"Now Get Out There And Take Some Pictures!"

djonesii
21-Aug-2009, 12:03
Steve;

Thanks for the nice words ..... I had a great time using the camera. I'm starting to get the hang of it. The 4X5 format is not the simplest way to shoot nudes, but the film gives some great tonal values. IMHO, much more interesting than the D300 conversions.

Dave

djonesii
21-Aug-2009, 12:14
Dave:I see 16 images but only one with the Speed Graphic. What sort of test is 15/1 and when I look at the picture of the girl leaning forward I see F.22 aperture or moreUnder those conditions I doubt any camera you mention would have made a difference and since you have named yourself after one of the cameras already it apears that mission is accomplished anyway and consistent with this 15/1 wrecking train .

Tom;

This set is by no way ment to be a test between the two. As I'm typing from work, it's better not to go look at the set, but if memory serves me, its about 1/2 speed, and 1/2 Alpenhause. But I could be wrong on the ratio. I would be very surprised if it's 15 to 1. Even if it is, the speed was shot w/ a 210 Schnider, and the Alpenhause has a 150mm Prinz. None of them were shot anywhere near F22, as I recall, they were all round F8-F11. The speed was shot off a tripod, and the Aplenhause hand held. The Speed was focused via ground glass, and the Alpenhause by range finder.

Given the setting, and the results, I'd say the images are pretty far from those of a train wreck.

Dave

Drew Bedo
21-Aug-2009, 12:35
Apparently, a well known photo mag is about to feature the subject of all this furore and it's due out on August 21st, which isn't long to wait.
They'll be even more interesting reading for you! :p

GF.

Gordon: What magazine? Is there any ethical or legal reason to withold the title of the publication? I would guess that quite a few would want to read the article (10,000 views).

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
21-Aug-2009, 12:50
Apparently, a well known photo mag is about to feature the subject of all this furore and it's due out on August 21st, which isn't long to wait.
They'll be even more interesting reading for you! :p

GF.

If the publication date is 8/21 (today) then apparently is the wrong word.

Gordon Flodders
21-Aug-2009, 15:57
I used the word 'apparently' because nothing concerning Littman is ever defined :p

If you check the auction site about which this whole thread is devoted, you will read all about it there (item 290339843148).

Please remember to hit F11 in order to view it correctly. ;)

GF.

P.S American Photo is the magazine.

Gordon Moat
22-Aug-2009, 13:14
That American Photo article was several years ago. I think Littman had a link to it on his website at one time. Quite likely that allowed him to boost prices and hype his conversion more. Anyway, did Littman sign up an account for his cat here? (Tom R)
:D :eek: :cool:

Jim collum
22-Aug-2009, 15:13
That American Photo article was several years ago. I think Littman had a link to it on his website at one time. Quite likely that allowed him to boost prices and hype his conversion more. Anyway, did Littman sign up an account for his cat here? (Tom R)
:D :eek: :cool:

There's a new article in this month's American Photo... Editor's Choice award for style... they talk about a $20,000 model (faux leopard skin bellows & tortoise shell attachments)

Ben Syverson
22-Aug-2009, 15:34
they talk about a $20,000 model (faux leopard skin bellows & tortoise shell attachments)
I'm waiting for the version with camouflage and pink rhinestones for $100,000.

Gordon Moat
23-Aug-2009, 00:55
Seriously, cameras as fashion items has been (over)done by Leica and a few others, but at least the cameras were of a fairly high quality. Probably the best, if you are into that sort of thing, was the special edition ALPA offered by fashion designer Paul Smith:

http://www.alpavision.ch/PS/
http://www.alpavision.ch/press/ALPA-GQ072003.pdf
http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=products/discontinued_products&detailpage=232

Even with the changes, and limited status, that Paul Smith ALPA came in under $20K. There was also a rare silver edition ALPA, which only sold 10 copies. All the ALPA cameras are very usable and extremely precisely made. They are much more precisely made than any Polaroid conversions. They also have a lifetime warranty.

I suppose someone with money to burn, and easily impressed, might cough up that much for a Littman, but I don't know anyone that fits that description. Also, if Littman really is selling his conversions for that sort of money, then WTF is he doing complaining about other Polaroid conversions that sell for 1/10 that price? Maybe we should call him P.T. Littman now.

Ben Syverson
23-Aug-2009, 12:01
Also, if Littman really is selling his conversions for that sort of money, then WTF is he doing complaining about other Polaroid conversions that sell for 1/10 that price?
Are you honestly trying to figure out Littman's tortured thought process?

It's pretty obvious to me that logic is the last thing on his mind.

Gordon Moat
23-Aug-2009, 15:03
I get the same feeling reading Littman's (and clones) rants as I do when I see a dead animal squashed on the road.

Kuzano
23-Aug-2009, 15:20
Rumor has it that Littman is approaching the pinnacle in fashion and collaberating with Paris Hiltons people to make a new fashion paradigm in the photography world with his Polaroid conversions.

His goal is to make the most outrageously famous splash in camera cosmetics, much as Paris roiled the fashion world with her recent "Cherry Fashion Statement".

It remains to be seen whether Littman will actually share credit and/or monetary results of the collaberation with Paris. Maybe the money, but has Littman ever shared fame?

However, as a vehicle for photography, the new camera will very likely suck in poor light.

Ben Syverson
23-Aug-2009, 15:51
the new camera will very likely suck in poor light.
Hahaha... nicely done.

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
23-Aug-2009, 17:26
The Littman has been rated as having been selected as the vehicle of choice for photography based on what experts consider the most important technical reasons over the one considered as the best view camera in history when opting for hand held use as per the quotes attached.Previously rated as the most responsive no other higher echelons exist. Who wants to talk about cameras with Paris?
and sounds very sexy.

Sorry Tom, Russell Hart may know some cameras but he obviously does not know the Master Technika. It is a coupled rangefinder camera and the finder is fully parallax corrected as well as field size corrected for lenses from 75/72mm to 360mm. And with the Anatomical Grip and the Multifocus Finder it is a hand holdable 4x5 camera.

But then so is the Wista RF. Except the RF has a coupled combined rangefinder/viewfinder and is also fully parallax corrected.

And both are fully capable of wide angle (Master Technika Classic accepts lenses as short as a 45mm and both can do macro up to several times life size (depending on the lens. And, of course, both have both front and back movements for tripod mounted view camera work).

Since both can use most lenses available for a view camera both can use whatever is the best lens, optically, for the job at hand rather then be limited to what can fit a camera designed for a different purpose. Both also have a full range of accessories to tailor them to the job at hand - be it hand held reportage or field or studio view camera work.

Best of all, neither costs as much as the one being auctioned off that started this thread.

Ben Syverson
23-Aug-2009, 19:20
The Littman has been rated as having been selected as the vehicle of choice for photography based on what experts consider the most important technical reasons over the one considered as the best view camera in history when opting for hand held use as per the quotes attached.

This is such a fantastic quote, Littman.

I have also heard that the Littman has long held the distinction of being regarded as having been judged favorably with respect to photography and the quality thereof by those who are widely acknowledged by others as persons of esteem in their respective fields when put to use for the principal factors accepted as paramount based on the ipso facto exemplars in each category of use yet is also suggested as being assessed as possibly having been evaluated as exemplary insofar as several metrics are concerned which have not yet been considered vis a vis cameras and photographic technology by parties who may be the most prominent yet encountered thus far.

Gordon Moat
23-Aug-2009, 21:36
Mr. Littman's cat Tom R nearly had a moment there, but looks to have been chased back to his litterbox by Mr. Salomon. Likely Tom R is licking his wounds now, or maybe his nether regions.

It is tough to imagine anyone, yet alone an editor of a photography magazine, proclaiming anything better than a Linhof. Perhaps Bob Salomon can convince Linhof to loan a Master Technika to Russell Hart, so that American Photo magazine might get properly acquainted with a finely crafted camera.

Jim collum
23-Aug-2009, 23:45
Mr. Littman,

I have no idea what you just said here.... and honestly, it's been your display of what might be considered slightly bi-polar behavior(normal people really don't take on 4 or 5 different personalities and continue to talk about themselves in the third person) that will keep me from buying what might be an excellent product. I'll be considering the Byron instead.

Whether you're able to recognize it or not.. you really do more harm to your product than all of those who have spoken up against it. American Photo really isn't the pinnacle of photographic journalism, and adding leopard skin to your bellows does nothing to enhance photographic quality.

I first saw your product years ago when it was simply a camera.. a tool to an end. When I look at it now, it really doesn't look like a camera.. but more like very gaudy costume jewelry. Someone might hang one on a wall.. .but i really can't imagine a photography using something like i just saw in the magazine.

Jim Collum


Dear Mr. Bob Salomon;


Equipment as viewed as an exectutive editor of the world's top photography magazine is at the service of creativity and therefore the opinions which are respected are those of the shooters which are considered most creative- who can remain novel day in and day out for half a century.

Italian Vogue gave Walter Chin a lifetime achievement award last year and he used the camera you represent and mention for decades.

Are you not aware that Russell Hart is a TOP of the TOP amazing and Award winning photographer and his opinion is the yardstick by which creative photography and the photography business and profession are run today?

http://www.russellhartphoto.com/

Let me just say that in my opinion the camera which you represent is the very best view camera ever made and Mr. Hart's confirmation that it is superbly made is something which most people who know the camera would agree with -to the extent that there is no requirement by the actual rep of that company to drop in on any and every camera discussion to remind people of what such proven trajectory is -as it is known to all . The cameras of the brand you represent has a manually adjustable mask in the finder which as you state correctly has a range of the focal lengths which you have listed but doesn't have automatic parallax compensation when one moves back and forth from a subject. or merely focus the camera I am not as familiar with the other camera you mention but will check it out.

It is also true that the camera you represent is handhold able and has been used as such and is usable in such way by many and certain by many more than any of the cameras being discussed here but many at the helm of the profession have made other choices for the reasons Mr. Hart has stated and what he knows first hand as The executive editor of the most prestigious photography magazine counts because he is not a pencil pusher but an amazing photographer who is in fact speaking of the choices by some of the Worlds best shooters .



Let me just add a most important factor which is that The camera you represent is a valid choice for lens interchangeability because it has both precision as a result of good engineering and what machinists call " meat" or the right amount of reinforcement and structure to the linkage and cam mechanisms to ensure that lens interchangeability is not merely limited to installation and removal but can retain good quality at all focal lengths.

The camera you represent is marvelous and any engineer would agree that it has the weight it has so as to enable the amount of functions it offers and that they can be reliable. It is either precision + meat or lean+adjustability. and the second cannot provide enough precision for lens Interchangeability. as such is in no way limited to front standard sturdiness and requires that precision be present throughout and the reason for which the camera after which this thread is titled is a fixed lens camera.

Anyone can see that as the rep for a lens company you would prefer a camera that generates more lens sales.
What Mr. Hart said is true- if he isn't aware of the other camera you mention who can blame him ? If you would provide data to the right sources it would be known not requiring it to be searched.
In any event I have never heard of anyone rating the Wista to be as good as the camera you represent so in the end his opinion is justified.


Mr. Hart is closely aquainted with the camera you represent for generations and the same can be said of many of the owners of the Littman who own both and have stated their prefrences

rdenney
24-Aug-2009, 01:14
Think of it this way, guys, if you could only manage to build a dozen cameras a year in between writing these paranoid stream-of-consciousness rants, isn't it cool that there are movie stars prepared to pay thousands for them?

This is a triumph of exclusivity over quality, and no blather from "Tom R", et.al., has yet been able to make the case for quality. But the Littman Collective Consciousness has invented a story to tell that apparently knows how to appeal to a certain class of rich goofball. (I'm assuming with a good bit of hope that any regular reader of this forum who might own one, other than one of the Littmans, of course, got it second-hand for an appropriate price.)

Anybody who complains about the price doesn't understand the difference between price and cost. Almost anything will find a handful of buyers no matter how ridiculous the price if it comes with a good story. And you gotta admire anyone who can tell a good enough story to add a digit to the price of a converted consumer plastic Polaroid.

Rick "who wishes he had the gift of extracting that kind of scratch from those who have nothing better to do with their money" Denney

Gordon Flodders
24-Aug-2009, 03:04
Dear Mr. Bob Salomon;

Are you not aware that Russell Hart is a TOP of the TOP amazing and Award winning photographer and his opinion is the yardstick by which creative photography and the photography business and profession are run today?


This is the most outrageous statement to appear on any photographic forum ever :eek:

GF.

jb7
24-Aug-2009, 03:08
Suppose we gave them the last word,
would this shameless self aggrandizement just go away?

Ash
24-Aug-2009, 03:40
And there was me thinking that Arnold Newman, Annie Leibovitz, David Bailey, Gregory Crewdson, David Lachapelle, Guy Bourdin et al were top top award winning photographers. To me, Russell Hart photographs look tripe.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Clearly another Littman personality has more knowledge than this community, let alone people who studied and have qualifications in art and photographic study.

Ash
24-Aug-2009, 03:46
A quick search on Google for articles and any mention of Hart reveals that he published a book aimed at "Dummies". Is that the audience from whence you came Tom R?

Ash
24-Aug-2009, 04:29
Unfortunately your response if of any accuracy goes to show you the state of the photography forums when the opinion of the most proficient is challenged by any punk hoping to get any attention they can by any means possible.;)

Like yourself?

jb7
24-Aug-2009, 04:30
Unfortunately your response if of any accuracy goes to show you the state of the photography forums when the opinion of the most proficient is challenged by any punk hoping to get any attention they can by any means possible.;)

At last-
something that (almost) makes sense...

rdenney
24-Aug-2009, 10:08
To Tom R, etc.,

I recommend highly a book that I think you would fine extremely entertaining. The title is A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole.

Rick "a little Boethius is good for the soul" Denney

Len Middleton
24-Aug-2009, 11:26
This thread seems like driving past a car wreck...

You know you really shouldn't look, but cannot help yourself...

There may be more in that analogy than I originally intended.

Dan Fromm
24-Aug-2009, 13:33
Y'know, we all of us know better than to hit a tarbaby.

Guillermo, don't scream "racism!" or "personal slur!" before reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby concise definition.

PenGun
25-Aug-2009, 14:22
Great fun. Being baffled by the thread I had a look.

$5000+ for a Razzle, there are several born every second these days.

Gordon Flodders
25-Aug-2009, 16:02
Great fun. Being baffled by the thread I had a look.

$5000+ for a Razzle, there are several born every second these days.

Where did you see a Razzle for that much? I always thought they were under $1000?

GF

Eric James
25-Aug-2009, 16:30
Where did you see a Razzle for that much? I always thought they were under $1000?

GF

KTU=#5, if that helps.

PenGun
25-Aug-2009, 18:01
Where did you see a Razzle for that much? I always thought they were under $1000?

GF

It's the equivalent of a Razzle eh'. They are about a grand.

rdenney
25-Aug-2009, 18:25
Awww. The gorilla went back into the cage.

Rick ":( " Denney

Gordon Flodders
25-Aug-2009, 19:10
Awww. The gorilla went back into the cage.

Rick ":( " Denney

Rest assured, he'll be back shortly, disguised as a Chimp. :eek:

GF.

jack_hui
21-Sep-2009, 02:26
The operation of "Byron" camera ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68C8YlnegOM&feature=autofb

if Littman really worth 8K ... how much does "Byron" worth? :D

Ash
21-Sep-2009, 04:33
That looks AWESOME. Makes me was to use my Razzle and see whether it's worth converting the back (or getting a Byron as well/instead).

Gordon Flodders
21-Sep-2009, 04:57
Perfectly designed and engineered, the camera Polaroid should have built. No snakeskin, tortoise or wood veneer, just pure functionality. When Littman's team of lawyers see this, they'll all want one. :p
Any Patent he had just went out the window.

GF.

jack_hui
21-Sep-2009, 09:18
Well, don't forget the Byron is "len interchangeable" .... from 90mm to 150mm !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djy4CXMXZls&feature=autofb

Frank R
21-Sep-2009, 11:48
The Byron looks well engineered but the film plane does not look like it has been moved back to cover 4x5. Won't the images suffer from vignetting?

Gordon Moat
21-Sep-2009, 15:43
I built a close fit 4x5 back camera a bit like the Byron. I don't know how much they have increased the internal sizes, but on my design the opening is 90mm by 120mm. Compare that to a Kodak Readyload, which is 92mm by 119mm, and I think the Byron should be able to be close enough that it is not an issue.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

salihonba
22-Sep-2009, 03:41
thank you guys' praise of Byron camera, I am trying to fulfill my own dream, and seems it is going to be fulfilled.
the opening was 95x120mm on prototype, it works fine, but since the fold of bellows will be blocked a bit by rangefinder transmit arm, I decided to reduce it into 90x120mm, and since there is 5mm in depth of the film holder, the projected image will be about 92x124mm.
thanks again. Daniel

jb7
22-Sep-2009, 04:33
Beautiful camera-
I love the sound on that video-
reminds me of somebody assembling a weapon in a movie...

salihonba
22-Sep-2009, 04:36
Beautiful camera-
I love the sound on that video-
reminds me of somebody assembling a weapon in a movie...

yes, for shooting something.

Anupam
22-Sep-2009, 13:14
Tick tock, tick tock. What are the odds that a guy who just signed up on the forum will proceed to slam this new camera with several incoherent 5 page rants?

PS: The Byron looks like a wonderful camera.

salihonba
22-Sep-2009, 16:39
hi anupam, I enjoyed reading you website about shutter testing with DSLR, great idea! and I hope to visit India someday like you did, but snap with Byron {@+@}, thanks for the praise.
I think my design is absolutely nothing to do with that famous "patent". :)

0rient Express
10-Oct-2009, 11:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01_w3JZhZ74

Chris Dunham
11-Oct-2009, 07:30
I'm on my second Razzle, love it !

Chris.

George E. Sheils
11-Oct-2009, 12:32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01_w3JZhZ74

Hi William!

Great to see you back (again) on this thread.

Not.

lambis
12-Oct-2009, 09:22
"A 8x10 Deardorff make you not a Paolo Roversi"

I havent really time enough to shoot with my Razzle but hier some first tests: http://www.apneaimages.com/blog/?page_id=119
I think those cameras are great just for those that shoot the way a Polaroid 4x5 likes.
Off course large movements is not there and the choise off lenses are not that big BUT who need all this. Those cameras are for one purpose only. Handheld.

The Byron to is a new & neat design. More lightweight and a new way to create a 4x5 Polaroid.

Is there out the ultimative Polaroid 4x5 camera? NO!! Not for me. but many are very very near to archieve it. From my point off view and as a photographer that shoot modles most of the time i wish mutch more and have to some ideas how we could improve the design off those beautys.

I wish i had one camera from every builder so i really see how those work in a serious
Photosession. Would be cool with a side by side test from a photographer :-)

Gordon Flodders
20-Oct-2009, 02:51
The Byron approach to the Polaroid conversion is innovative to say the least. It offers a new kind of compact 4x5 without the huge price tag.

It doesn't resemble a Christmas bauble either :p

Not sure what kind of photographer needs Royal titles, exotic wood laminates and animal skins decorating something that should be nothing more than a working tool.

GF.

Drew Bedo
21-Oct-2009, 19:54
Gordon: A friend of mine is a successful wedding photographer . . .all digital.One day, he made exactly your point to me. He handed me a new Pro model DSLR with expensive glass on it. I said "WOW!" He said, " Thats just a hammer to me" He would have spent the money on a 20x24 behemoth if that would get the money shots at a reception. A shelf in his studio holds retired "hammers": A Speed Graphic, A Nikon F-1, a Hasselblad and a Mamya-7. He sold several RB-67s. All are no longer useful as professional tools.

Gordon Flodders
23-Oct-2009, 04:14
Gordon: A friend of mine is a successful wedding photographer . . .all digital.One day, he made exactly your point to me. He handed me a new Pro model DSLR with expensive glass on it. I said "WOW!" He said, " Thats just a hammer to me" He would have spent the money on a 20x24 behemoth if that would get the money shots at a reception. A shelf in his studio holds retired "hammers": A Speed Graphic, A Nikon F-1, a Hasselblad and a Mamya-7. He sold several RB-67s. All are no longer useful as professional tools.

And I'll bet none of them ever suffered from dirty sensors and error messages either ;)

GF.

Drew Bedo
23-Oct-2009, 10:51
Hello GF;

My post was directed at supporting your point about cameras as tools, not film vs digital.

You can contact my buddy through his website at: www.pbyd.com. He will talk to anyone about film Vs Digital (he likes film, but digi is now required for pro nad wedding work). He has worked professionally in every format (except maybe Minox and ULF) with many brands of equipment.

He has gone digital because that is the tool-set that rings his register today. When the day comes, he will use mental telepathy . . .if that is the technology of image capture that works!

For me, I will continue to work with film in view cameras till I die. I enjoy the process itself.

Cheers to all!

Gordon Flodders
23-Oct-2009, 15:46
Drew, I wholeheartedly agree that a DSLR is the ideal tool for wedding photography, there is simply no doubt about it. I don't believe in the notion that there's a film v digital comparison either, just a different approach with a different look. Those of us who relish in using LF know that there's a dimension in a film made print that simply isn't there with an image taken digitally. Maybe it's the effects of LF lenses, I'm not sure. It is such a wonderful thing to be able to choose and use all methods of capture.

The point I was making was that if you do want to shoot 4x5 at a wedding, the rangefinder LF camera certainly allows the freedom to perform this trick admirably.

Whether or not such a camera has to be so elaborate as the Littman is questionable.
A plain jane camera of identical specification would equal it in performance without the $7000 price tag, (I think that was the original point of this thread).

Seven grand would buy a great DSLR :p

GF.

Drew Bedo
30-Oct-2009, 09:51
GF: We agree on this 100%. let me know if you are ever in Houston. Wee'l have coffee.

gevalia
30-Oct-2009, 13:40
Seven grand would buy a great DSLR :p GF.

You mean $7k would buy this years greatest DSLR.

Gordon Flodders
31-Oct-2009, 02:06
GF: We agree on this 100%. let me know if you are ever in Houston. Wee'l have coffee.

Sounds a great idea Drew!

It's funny that nearly a year down the track, the camera's price tag has suddenly risen to $9,900.
Guess we're all out of the recession well and truly. I see the new 'Redwood' model features some slithers of timber from the worlds most impressive species of tree and the skins of a (now naked) Python and Crocodile, I bet they were more than happy to contribute to such a good cause.

How odd that Mr Feore is shown using the camera tripod mounted when it's considered a hand holdable camera. Has anyone told him it's primarily designed to be used without support?

It would also be a nice touch if the many images on the latest Xbay listing actually came up, but as usual the attention to detail is of no real importance.


GR.

Drew Bedo
2-Nov-2009, 12:21
I'm angeling for a Byron for Christmas. I'd like to shoot clouds on the spur of the moment without dragging out my tripod. I'd like to pack a Fold-finder . . .I mean Range-folder and Grafmatic, on family designated non-photo trips.

Ruddy Roye
21-Dec-2009, 19:25
It has been over four years and it continues to pains my heart to see grown men behave in such a way towards William. What is more grieving is to know that while other makers of their 4x5 cameras do so as hobbies, William uses his modifications to his cameras as his means of making a living. Sabotaging his name on the internet ultimately prevents him from eating food. Why does it matter the cost of his cameras. If John Hancock wants to buy one, why is it the business of anyone else how much he charges. He justifies his cost by the craft and professional look of his cameras.
Usually its the guys who undercuts their competition that catches hell, never the other way around. It should be easier for everyone else to sell their cameras if William is selling his, $6000 more expensive than everyone else. I don't get it.
Only recently I saw a famous actor on set in California with his Littman under his arm taking portraits of his cast members. It is my favourite camera and it travels with me on every overseas trip.
I have used earlier models and now own a Littman Vl with the corrected parallelism. In my humble opinion, it is a much better camera than its predecessors. It is a lot more than than just a "bling-ed" up version of the earlier ones. It is a lot more than a basic transformation of the formats. I have seen threads where other makers have claimed that his upgraded camera is the same as the earlier models, accusations I am sure they are hoping will divert potential customers to their friends.
Each time I see these thread, (and I have purposely stayed away from them) I recognize the mere pettiness, overly exaggerated attempts at sullying his camera and absurd hints of scorn towards William.
But the more I read these threads, the more I see photographers using his cameras on shoots in NYC, most recently at the last fashion week held in Bryant Park.
For all who are inquiring, the camera is beautiful. It is made beautifully. You get the sense that it was painstakingly crafted, that someone spent time on your camera. The finder is one of its kind. I find it quite easy to handhold a portrait without any problems and the lens are stunning.
Tell you the truth, when I saw the prices on his website I was curious to see the kind of work he would put into the camera, but the price is justifies (in my opinion) because of its beautifully crafted piece and has more technological advantages than its predecessor.
I like the design and the idea behind the camera. I believe the camera was meant to please ones individual taste, and it is definitely one that everyone can quickly get use to.
I cannot understand why there seem to be a witch hunt to chastise a guy who makes a brilliant camera.

Jim collum
21-Dec-2009, 20:49
actually.. no one's said anything for the last 2 months.. what you *have* done though, is to guarantee that more will be said that William doesn't like... since besides yourself (nice images, btw, on your website .. if http://www.royephotography.com/ is you ), only William responds positively.

And I don't think the quality of the camera is ever an issue.. just the cost, and Williams verbage

Gordon Flodders
23-Dec-2009, 02:40
I cannot understand why there seem to be a witch hunt to chastise a guy who makes a brilliant camera.

The quality of the camera is not in question and it seems to me you are not fully aware of what has been going on behind the scenes for many years. Aside from the deranged ramblings and accusations that constantly appear on forums often under various aliases, everyone has become more than tired of a behaviour long considered quite objectionable.
The camera is no different to the many alternatives available, apart from the inflated price. When it's all said and done the Litt 45 is simply a converted Polaroid covered in fancy veneers, no more no less.
Polaroid actually made a 'brilliant' camera to begin with, they just utilised a film type unsuited to modern day use, hence its demise back around 1991. The fact that this guy can no longer 'eat' is not surprising, perhaps it's finally payback time. :D

GF.

Drew Bedo
24-Dec-2009, 12:24
Well, I shook every box . . .doesn't look like this will be a Byron christmass for me!

Gene McCluney
24-Dec-2009, 19:32
No sane person would buy one of these anyway.

Dan Fromm
28-Dec-2009, 04:37
He does trim rings for shutters too. Just what I always wanted, a decorative #0 (funny, I thought that 127/4.7s went in #1s) press shutter.

290385495162

Louis Shu
29-Dec-2009, 19:13
I have known William Littman as well as sold his cameras for the past nine years. I do agree that his tenacity in the defense of his products, is not helping him in winning friends, nor helping him market his cameras. However, please do not confuse his verbiage with his cameras. He is a good man and a dedicated quality-camera maker.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit William’s workshop. He showed me many of his custom made tools, alignment, and testing benches. He also showed me the various milling machines and lath that were used in the production of his Littman 45. William explained his design concepts; from his inception idea, to the current producton, and his plans for the future. He showed me all the steps required in constructing his current cameras. I had no idea the amount of work it takes in making one of his Littman 45’s. I was very impressed with his operation, and I can see why good engineering, precision, and quality comes at a cost. He is justified in asking the higher prices for his cameras.

I personally started selling his 4x5 cameras in 2000. To the best of my knowledge, William Littman was the first to market the 4x5 version of the Polaroid 110 camera. Once it was known, others started to copy his design but they used inferior components, and generally showed poor workmanship in their construction. The only notable aspect of these copies were their lower price. Shortly after the Littman 45’s introduction, William began to incorporate many new features into his camera. Upon request, he can build you a camera to be paired with a lens of your own choosing, which is coupled to both the R.F. and viewfinder frame line. He also has a series of upgraded cameras, with contemporary lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock. Tilting and macro capabilities are offered as an option, and even a hand-held version with a separate range finder was available. An improved R.F. assembly becomes standard in his cameras, which make his cameras more rugged and stable in the field. Most recently, a pair of newly designed front struts are added to his cameras, in order to maintain perfect parallelism of the film and lens planes, thus obtaining the sharpest image possible. Lastly, the custom “appearance group”, to make your Littman 45 camera into a “one-of-a-kind” work of Art, or just your own personal unique camera. These are just some of the features that were incorporated into his cameras due to his innovations over the years.

Just a word regarding the conversation that claims interchangeability of lenses and multiple infinity stops. I want to say that it will not work as claimed. Firstly, the Polaroid 110 camera does not have a front standard that is strong enough to support the weight and the constant mounting and dismounting of lenses. It also can not maintain proper alignments necessary for a sharp image, and even with shimming the lenses could not solve this problem. Secondly, fixed infinity stops without provision for adjustments is a gross error in design. As you all know, same focal length lenses by different manufactures, due to the differences in both optical design, and in sample variation, do not have the same nodal point. A fixed infinity stop will void its purpose unless used only with the intended lens. Just look at a Linhof Technika, a Crown Graphic, or a Toyo field; they all have adjustable infinity stops, and a front standard on a focusing track that are designed for that purpose.

I have been in large format camera retail for more than 30 years. I have seen most of what is out there, if not all. The Littman 45 is not intended for everyone, it was created for the photographer who appreciates a well made, light weight, and compact 4x5 R.F. camera that is fast and easy to use, that will provide the highest quality-image possible. As for justifying the price, please remember that William builds custom cameras one at a time, and he dedicates his complete time and effort into building just your camera. This old-fashioned style of production is what makes his cameras better than any others. So I ask you, isn’t that worth a little more?

LS

Jack Dahlgren
29-Dec-2009, 23:24
Why is it that those in favor of Littman sound like they are all the same person?

I guess his cameras attract a strong and unified following.

Gordon Flodders
30-Dec-2009, 01:10
He is a good man and a dedicated quality-camera maker.

To the best of my knowledge, William Littman was the first to market the 4x5 version of the Polaroid 110 camera. As for justifying the price, please remember that William builds custom cameras one at a time, and he dedicates his complete time and effort into building just your camera. This old-fashioned style of production is what makes his cameras better than any others. So I ask you, isn’t that worth a little more?



It would seem to me that a 'good man' would never consider the use of threats and intimidation, filibuster tactics or legal action, nor would he vilify all who dare modify a simple Polaroid 110B at a respectable price for the benefit of others. A 'good man' would never consider calling people at 2am insisting they surrender their non Litt conversions either to be used as 'evidence' or for inevitable destruction.

Litt was never the 'first' to convert the beloved Polaroid to the 4x5 format, as this operation was performed way back in the early seventies and there is solid evidence of this.

'As for the price', no manner of conversion, exotic covering, artwork, engineering, lens option or famous entity user can justify a cost of $9,900, as the current auction price now stipulates. A little more than what, a Silvestri?
There is no evidence to support the results from a Litt 45 are any better than anything else on the market and judging by the images I have seen, most appear to be of low resolution and rather soft, but this may be accredited to the user.

For those unaware of the current listing, check item 290384862948 on *bay :p

GF.

jack_hui
30-Dec-2009, 18:19
The first batch of Byron should be ready within the next few weeks, I hope we can justify the cost easily. I don't own Littman 45, but having to pay 7-8 times more for those "Patent", I would better stick with Byron.

seanriva
13-Jan-2010, 13:12
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), 2 H2 with a leaf back and 2 lenses, Nikon D2xs with the 70-200, Leica digi, my grandfathers sx-70's ( Film please!?) and 2 Littman 4x5's.

In all my years shooting and all the camera's I have been lucky enough to borrow/use and or own, the new Evolution of the Littman 4x5 is the Best. I am writting this post on forums that I hardly read/listen to in the off chance that this will help someone! (Other than the nerds whom like to argue on forums rather than shoot.)

I just got back from 2 weeks in the sticks, 7,000 feet altitude with no electricity for 4 day stretches. Being able to know my camera could not only perform but needlessly show me that it was it parrallel ( It so well built it takes a beating) and not need electricity and computers etc is so nice. Also not having my Gitzo's squeel due to the wieght of the Linhoff 4x5 let alone my back is always a posotive. 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.

Kirk Gittings
13-Jan-2010, 14:11
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