Back Movements on 7x17

[robert_4927]

One of the reasons I had Ron build my 8x20 in the expedition model was the geared rear axis tilt. I love that feature and have it on both the vertical and horizontal backs. It's nice dialing in the back tilt with geared movements and not having to come out from underneath the dark cloth to do it. And it's smooth, especially with that tall 20" vertical back, you can dial it right in. It is one Of Mr. Wisners" more ingenuous designs. Granted it is not necessary but nice. I got use to using it on my 8x10 pocket expedition after I bought it. At the time I didn't know of this little additional knob on the rear standard. I bought the 8x10 used and for a good price. I was just lucky because at the time I was new to large format. Boy have I learned alot since. But I guess I will put up with alot to get the features I want. I salute you for even considering trying to take on the task of building an ulf camera. For me it would require taking time away from my shooting and printing. and that's not an option for me. To put it simply, and as you may already know what I mean, I don't wrestle with these huge cameras because I so much as want to....I do it because I have to. ( a personal thing). If you decide to tackle this , Please keep us updated to the progress. Because as all of us ULF'ers are afraid to admit, we do have some what of an equipment fetish or we would have never made it to ULF. Good luck.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Bob - Yes, I remember the article and portfolio by Chris McCaw. I really enjoyed it at the time. Thanks for reminding me. I'll go dig out the issue and re-read it for inspiration.

Robert - My original 4x10 was a Wisner Tech Field and one of the best features of that camera was the geared back tilt. I doubt if I'm up to anything that sophisticated.

Also, I should clarify that when I say I might BUILD a 7x17 what I really mean is a might ASSEMBLE one. I'm not the type to re-invent the wheel. In the past, when I've tackled camera construction projects, I always borrow parts from other camera and combine them together, with a few pieces I make (the fewer the better) to get the combination I desire. If I attempt anything with 7x17, it will most likely be a similar amalgamation of bits and pieces from various donor cameras and custom made parts. For me, it seems like a more effecient and cost effective means to an end.

Kerry

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Kerry.

I'm building a 14x17 camera for location portraiture, so while my needs are far different from yours, I too am being forced to decide which movements I need, and where. My two most critical design features are extension, and rigidity, especially at the front standard, which will have to support some very big, heavy lenses at long extensions. The only front movement I've sacrificed to rigidity is swing. I will have tilt and swing on the rear. I haven't decided yet, wether I'll make a 7x17 reducing back, or just use a half-mask with my 14x17 back. I'm a big fan of reducing backs, and have a complete set for my Deardorff, from 3x4-8x10, but the expense of ULF holders will factor heavily in my decision making. Good luck with your project.

Jay

[John_4185]

but the expense of ULF holders will factor heavily in my decision making

Silly question from me: Is the 7x17 film holder size standardized (I think not)? It would seem that one has to tie his design to a ULF film holder's designer/maker's choice of dimensions. Given the awesome expense of that particular part, I would be tempted to dive into designing holders I could make myself.

That said, and given the long lenses for ULF and the kind of work done with it, it seems that only modest rear movements are needed; guestimating 12 to 15 degrees of tilt & swing, max.

[scott_6029]

I use mostly rear tilt and swing. Rear tilt because its easier, and I can focus at the same time (basically). The 'distortion' with rear tilt is minimal and rarely objectionable. It also solves possible vignettng with front tilt, which even with a 12" dagor, is not the easiest thing in the world to manage. Because of the wide angle of view, I use swing quite a bit as well. I would sorely miss these two options. Plus, its really easy to do on the phillips with the focusing knob right there.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Thanks again for all the great responses.

I did an experiment last night with my 4x10 camera. I racked the bellows out to 24" (which is about 1.4" longer than I need to infinity focus with my 600mm Fujinon C) and tried adjusting the front standard movements. My arms are long enough to do this and still observe the ground glass. It is a stretch and puts my face closer to the ground glass than I'd like. It would be really dificult to adjust the front tilt and loupe the groung glass at the same time.

For this reason, and concerns about lens coverage when using front movements, I'll probably compromise and at the very least include tilt on the rear standard, and possibly swing. This seems like a good compromise.

Kerry

[David Flockhart]

Regarding movements there is a beauty to a certain simplicity. I've been using a modified system for my 8x20 and 11x14 for several years and it works well. It is a Sinar P system that I mount those cameras onto. All the movemnts that one could desire at there.

I just received an old Korona 7x11 in like new condition that has only swing and axis tilt on the rear. The front has only rise and shift. Yet by tilting the camera I can emulate front tilt. I know that it is a compromise but it does make the adjustments very easy and within reach without scrunching my nose on the ground glass.

[John Banister]

I don't know that it would result in a camera that you'd want to use, but it seems to me that you
could maximize ease of construction without sacrificing movements by constructing a rear format frame and the corresponding bellows for a monorail camera. The movements would all be provided by the function carrier and it wouldn't cost too awfully much to get a machinist to make the dovetail (or other appropriately shaped piece of metal) to match the clamp that holds the rear frame on a piece of metal that you could then screw to the bottom of the frame you make.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

John - I don't know that it would result in a camera that you'd want to use, but it seems to me that you could maximize ease of construction without sacrificing movements by constructing a rear format frame and the corresponding bellows for a monorail camera. The movements would all be provided by the function carrier and it wouldn't cost too awfully much to get a machinist to make the dovetail (or other appropriately shaped piece of metal) to match the clamp that holds the rear frame on a piece of metal that you could then screw to the bottom of the frame you make.

Perhaps something like this:



That's my 4x10 ARCA-SWISS/Lotus hybrid (I call it a Lotus-Swiss). It works great and is a joy to use. When I first envisioned assembling a 7x17, that's exactly what I had in mind - only super sized. Then, I became seduced with the simple, sturdy and ultralight design of Patrick Alt's non-folding Alt View 410 WA.



As Patrick's 4x10 is almost two and a half pounds lighter than my 4x10 Lotus-Swiss, a 7x17 based on Patrick's design would no doubt be substantially lighter than a 7x17 monorail based design. But, then again, the monorail would offer full movements front and rear. I guess there's no free lunch. If you want to cut weight, you have to give up something.

Kerry