Originally Posted by
Oren Grad
More thinking-out-loud: Sketch out the geometry to figure out how much extension your envisioned expansion back is going to need, think about how much it's going to weigh, then add the weight of the 20x24 film holder that will be inserted in the back to make a picture.
Now think about how robust the construction of your rear standard is going to have to be to safely hold that weight. Consider not just the structure itself but also any retaining clips or other means of attaching the expansion back, how robust they will need to be and how securely they will need to be anchored.
My bias is that using a 16x20 reduction back on a 20x24 is going to be far safer - more physically robust, less prone to operational hassles and less risk of catastrophic failure - than using a 20x24 expansion back on a 16x20. But even 16x20 is beyond what I can handle as a field camera, so when I'm doing the reckoning I'm assuming a camera that will stay put in the studio, so that the size/weight penalty of using 20x24 as the base camera doesn't matter.
Bookmarks