Old 8X10 view camera and film holders

[campy]

Do these old Kodak and other view cameras of that era take regular film holders or do they have to use ones from that era also?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/172155844835...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[mdarnton]

Yup, that's a camera. More important than holders with that particular one is that if possible you want a camera like that which still has the back extension track, or you'll be stuck with shorter lenses forever. Your chances of finding one later are pretty close to (but not quite) zero.

Someone else will know better, but I believe that one does take modern holders. You are right that this is a question to ask.

[Chauncey Walden]

You are fine with modern holders but I would be more concerned with the condition of the bellows. I'm guessing there is enough bellows there on the front rail and the body rail for a 12 to 14 inch lens at infinity. Those are questions that could be asked of the seller (are the bellows light tight? what is the maximum bellows extension?).

[mdarnton]

Yes, the condition description seems, uh, "optimistic", doesn't it?

[Randy]

My Fulmer & Shwing 8X10, built in the late teens or early 1920's, will take modern holders but the camera back was designed to take a holder that is slightly longer and wider (by about 1/4") - and those are hard to come by. I have two. I have been using modern 8X10 holders in the camera for 20 years and have never had a light leak. I just make sure the holder is centered, as there is about 1/8" space at the bottom and both sides. If I am concerned at all because of the angle of the sun, I just keep the back covered with the dark cloth after inserting the holder.

[Leonard Robertson]

There is also a possibility this is a 7X11 Eastman, not an 8X10. This camera has two tabs at the top of the front standard to hold the front bed in the folded up position. The 8X10s I'm familiar with have a single tab in the center. It is difficult to see the area where the lens board mounts in any of the eBay pictures, but what I can see in the one picture looks like it could be the mount for the special 7X11 rectangular sliding lens board. I can't say if that is an 8X10 back on the camera or not. To me the proportions look a bit more long and skinny than 8X10, more like 7X11, but it is difficult to tell just from a photo. An 8X10 reducing back was available for the 7X11 camera, so it could be either.

If this is actually a 7X11 (and I can't say for certain it is) be aware the 7X11 is somewhat bulkier than the regular 8X10 Eastman, at least a couple of pounds (or more) heavier, takes a special lens board, uses a wider rear extension track than an 8X10, and if this back turns out to be a 7X11 rather than an 8X10, you will have trouble finding 7X11 film holders.

I'll be interested if anyone else looks at the eBay pics and sees a 7X11.

Len

[campy]

Thanks everyone I don't think I will bid.

[stawastawa]

It is certainly very similar to my 7x11, but there is no good picture of the front. to my eye, the lens board are on the front standard looks like a square and not a open at the sides.

[Tin Can]

I think it is a 7x11. I have one.

[Leonard Robertson]

Another thing I see that makes me think 7X11 is the hole just below the opening for the lens board. This is right where the lens board tightening knob is on a 7X11. One of the side views shows what might be the upper lens board retainer for a 7X11. But it is tough to really tell.

The sold price of $241.50 seems a bit high to me for an 8X10 with dubious condition bellows and no extension track, but I'm not current on Eastman selling prices. I do wonder if the bidders also thought it is a 7X11 and bid it up more than an 8X10 would go for. Unless someone on one of the forums bought it and confesses we may never know. If the buyer thinks he bought an 8X10 and the back is actually a 7X11 it will be somewhat of a surprise for him.

Len