First LF camera - Intrepid or MPP?

[barnacle]

My MPP Press has been going strong for seventy-odd years... it's tough as old boots but a heavy beast! It's a bit of a beggar to hand-hold...

The default lens, I *think*, was a 135mm so it's likely the cams won't work on a 150. I've never used either the range finder or the focal plane shutter, so they're a bit overkill for me.

With a 90mm lens, it's inside the body at infinity so no shift is really available there (and it's a little unsteady on that bit of the rack).

Neil

[LetterBeacon]

My MPP Press has been going strong for seventy-odd years... it's tough as old boots but a heavy beast! It's a bit of a beggar to hand-hold...

The default lens, I *think*, was a 135mm so it's likely the cams won't work on a 150. I've never used either the range finder or the focal plane shutter, so they're a bit overkill for me.

With a 90mm lens, it's inside the body at infinity so no shift is really available there (and it's a little unsteady on that bit of the rack).

Neil

Thanks for your reply - I think I'm pretty much sold on the MPP now. I doubt I'd use the rangefinder much as well - I loved the ground glass on the 4x5 I've used previously.

[LetterBeacon]

I read on the internet that the MPP Micro Press doesn't use an international back and has a proprietary system with special holders. Apparently the holder holds the film at a slightly different distance from the glass than a standard film holders.

I've only seen this claim once on the internet, so wanted to ask other MPP oweners if they'd experienced this too?

[AuditorOne]

I own a very nice Crown Graphic, a Speed Graphic, a Cambo SC Monorail and the Intrepid.

My own experiences have certainly been different than others.

In studio I use the Cambo SC. Simple, easy to use, all the movements I thought I would never use and all the accessories I could dream up on my own.

Out in the field I use the Intrepid. Very light but plenty sturdy, and comes with all the movements I was positive I didn't need, until I had them available.

The Crown and the Speed are very solid and extremely handy, but sit in their cases most of the time now.

If I could only have one I would probably keep the Intrepid and sell the rest. I am sure there are far better cameras available than the Intrepid, I have used a few myself. But what you get for the price makes the Intrepid a terrific value.

YMMV

EDIT - But 8x10 is a whole lot more fun.

[Jim Jones]

I read on the internet that the MPP Micro Press doesn't use an international back and has a proprietary system with special holders. Apparently the holder holds the film at a slightly different distance from the glass than a standard film holders.

I've only seen this claim once on the internet, so wanted to ask other MPP oweners if they'd experienced this too?

Probably on the old MPP user's webpage (unavailable now?) I read this. The company eventually changed to standard film holders. A MPP technical camera is well-designed and sturdy, but I haven't used mine or measured the "T" distance of the ground glass. The Speed Graphic family has the major features of the MPP except for rear movements, rotating back, and triple extension bellows.

[barnacle]

I have wondered in the past - but have convinced myself that occasional soft images are down to poor technique since I can produce pin-sharp images on occasion

I have some original MPP wooden holders designed for glass plates (of unknown thickness!) which have folded-metal film adaptors contained therein, but I use Fidelity film holders as a rule.

I will try and take some measurements on the flat table at work tomorrow.

Neil

[barnacle]

So, after some measurements... the ground glass holder on the MPP Micropress that I have has four reference flats on the casting facing the lens, and six on the opposite side which locate the glass. Seventy year's worth of wear has made things not-too-level, with the outer two flats (lens side) slightly thinner than the inner - presumably wear where the film holder slides past it.

The bad news: the distance between the glass and the reference is between 5.07 and 5.14mm.

I may have to do something about that - it will involve referencing the glass side and removing 0.2mm from the lens side flats, which are ~0.6mm high - but first I will check some of my film holders, with film.

Neil

[barnacle]

Measured the Fidelity holder: from the reference face to the backplate (i.e. back of film) is 4.81mm. Meh.

Something Must Be Done (tm).

Neil

[Jim Jones]

Barnacle -- you may be interested in this product: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Micro-Prec.../202065480321?.

[Jim Jones]

Barnacle -- The U. S. standard for the distance from the film holder to the backplate is 0.197" +/-0.007", so your measurement of the Fidelity holder is almost within tolerances. That distance in the MPP back is also almost within tolerance, but in the opposite direction. Perhaps the ground glass isn't perfectly seated against its locating flats. That discrepancy would be appalling to a fine machinist, but might never be noticed to a landscape photographer who usually shoots at f/22.