Deardorff Front Standard Modification....

[Capocheny]

Greetings...

This is a question for you shooters out there who use a Deardorff camera...

[Mine is the 4x5/5x7 version]

As you know, unlike some of the Ebony models (or perhaps, all of them), the Deardorff doesn't have separate rise/fall and tilt controls. As I was using mine over the weekend (with a Nikkor 240 f5.6 lens) I thought about how nice it would be to have the front standard modified in order to implement separate controls and lock-downs. It's not that I'm not okay with using the camera "as it is" currently but...

So, I contacted Richard Ritter who said that it would take a bit of work on the metal part... so, I'm under the impression that it can be done.

Has anyone else had such a modification done on their camera? And, if so... how did it work out for you? Any regrets?

Thanks in advance for any comments or insights on this.

Cheers

[E. von Hoegh]

Henry,
The Deardorff does have lensboard rise&fall-atleast my V8 does. Would it really make a big difference to have these modified?

[Capocheny]

Hi E,

Thanks for the quick note...

What I'm referring to isn't so much of the fact that it has rise and fall on the front standard. It has more to do with the fact that there is only one lock down mechanism for both rise/fall AND tilt.

Mine, like your V8, also has front rise/fall and tilt but they're not controlled (and locked down) separately.

So, my note was more about getting Richard to change the lock down mechanism...

The big down-side (and, it's not even a huge down-side at that) is that if you've set the camera up for a bit of front tilt and subsequently want to change the rise/fall... then this change tends to affect the tilt angle. On the Ebony, you can do both of these movements and lock them down independent of each other. In other words, under the same circumstance, you could go back and change the rise/fall without it affecting the front tilt. Do you know what I mean?

I realize that it's easy enough to get "use" to working these movements together but it's just an idea at this point to get the locking mechanisms so that they work independent of each other.

Cheers

[Jon Wilson]

Henry, maybe I am not be following, but I believe both of my deardorff V8s have a front rise lock down separate from the front tilt. Both of them were made since 1959. There is a screw nut on the right front of the standard which controls the rise of the lensboard and the two wing nuts on either side of the front standard for adjusting the tilt via the lock down mechanisms. Jon

[wfwhitaker]

I think Henry is NOT talking about the sliding lens panel, but the front standard itself which has only one locking mechanism for both tilt and rise/fall. It's true that while the sliding lens panel does offer limited front rise independent of tilt, loosening the locking knobs to adjust the tilt frequently results in the lens slipping and dropping down a bit. It's an annoying quality of an otherwise excellent design.

I'm sure there's no doubt that the front standard could be re-engineered to provide for independent locking mechanisms for tilt and rise/fall, but I doubt it would be inexpensive. Furthermore it would probably be detrimental to the resale value of the camera. Few buyers seem to want cameras which have been "messed with", even if by very competent folk.

My $0.02 is to leave it as is and learn to use it that way. Many fine photographs have been made with unmodified Deardorffs. Alternatively there are a lot of 5x7/4x5 cameras out there which do have independent movements. If the ergonomics become a major factor for you, then perhaps a different camera would be an easier and possibly cheaper overall route.

[Hans Berkhout]

If you loosen only one of the wingnuts, you can adjust tilt without too much risk of the lensboard dropping. I'd save rise/fall for last and try to limit it to the sliding lensboard.

[Capocheny]

Hi All,

Thank you all for your input on this...

Jon... Will is correct with respects to what I was referring to.

Will... thanks for your comments. Yes, you're correct in your assumption of what I was referring to. I do like this camera very much and really don't want to chase after another one even though the ergonomics is a bit annoying. As far as resale value goes... I'm not worried about that at all since it'll eventually end up being donated to one of the local photography schools.

If I'm understanding Richard correctly... the cost will run between $75 and $300, including some work on a rail issue I'm experiencing. So, the cost involved isn't entirely out of the question for me to proceed with this modification. At this time though... the issue will just be the turn-around time involved. I'm considering sending the camera to Richard during the winter months when I'm not taking it out into the field.

My posting is just a curiosity as to whether other Deardorff users have made this modification or not. And, if so... what they thought of the end result. In other words, are they happy with their modification.

But, I will definitely take your advice and really put it through its paces over the next several months (to see if I can get use to the thing as it currently is.) If I can't live with it... then I'll consider making the modifications at that time

Dan... contact Richard Ritter and pose the question to him. He's very responsive...

Hans... good points! I'll do the tilt movements first... and then follow with the rise/fall movements.

Makes good sense to me!

.

Thanks again to all of you for your suggestions/advice... this is still the all-time greatest LF forum - thanks to the contributions from folks like you!

Cheers