US Manufactering of a Precision View Camera

[Frank Petronio]

With all the engineers and craftspeople on this forum, I wonder what you think:

Starting with a precision camera system -- based on a Sinar or Arca-Swiss level of design and quality as a benchmark -- and building a small run of 1000 4x5 bodies, how would the current small-job shops in the USA do? Would they be capable of building a camera of as high quality and performance?

And would the cost be more/less/equal to European manufacturing?

And how would Chinese and Japanese manufacturing compare?

Would it be conceivable to design and spec a camera using Industrial Design software and subcontract the run to various specialty small shops? Doing it all CAD/CAM and prototyping at the beginning of production, following through and fitting each part at every step of the process?

Isn't this in essence what a guy like Keith Canham does? I wonder at what quantities he gets parts?

[Mark Sampson]

Well, nobody did that when there was a potential professional (studio) market for such a thing. In the USA, we made the Kodak/Calumet and the Graphic View when there was a market for monorail cameras. But think about it... first you'd have to have a different/better design for the camera than Arca, Sinar, Linhof, etc. Not easy! I'd guess that it would be possible to design the camera- but the cost of designing and producing the system to go with it, all those accessories, would drive the costs past Rolls-Royce to aircraft levels. Canham, Wisner, Phillips et al. have survived by making high-quality, relatively simple (if original and ingenious) designs.

[steve simmons]

Is there a question here. If you do not have manufacturing expereince you can't possibly understand how difficult and expensive it is to create, design and bring a new product to market. Yes, Keith does a great job but he has been in busienss for years. Others have tried more recently and have not been successful. Who is the guy on APUG who has been promising cameras for almost 2 years and even took money for them which he has had to refund. John Layton has had a camera 'in production' for at least two years and is still trying to get them to market.

One of the problems for mfg/sellers of new cameras is the atitude that one can just go to EBAY and get it cheaper. People will walk into a camera store and take up the employee's time getting a lot of help and then walk out and mail order the product or go to EBAY using the free knowledge that got from a sales person.

At this point in time I would not want to run a retail store or try and bring a new camera to market.

steve simmons

[CXC]

I think Peter Gowland managed to do that. Twice, actually, if you consider the TLR along with the monorail. Though it was quite a while ago, he has continued to tweak his designs over the decades. And his prices are quite reasonable.

Note that both designs are extremely specialist, you could say they aim to be the fastest (TLR) and the lightest (monorail) of LF cameras. You'd likewise need to find a niche you could dominate, to compete with the flood of used equipment that is only going to increase.

[Bruce Wehman]

Using Aerospace as a reference, the level of precision in a large format camera is what we call in the trade, “slop.” Which is to say, yes, as far as execution goes, it would be easy for anyone with a CAD and CNC background to do it. And considering that LF cameras are such a mature technology, with an abundance of prior art, the design wouldn’t be much of a challenge either.

The issue is profitability.

1000 cameras wouldn’t go far in covering the cost of tooling and setup, which would be the biggest up-front expense. You would have to somehow attract venture capital to a market that is already saturated

[FpJohn]

Hello:

The capacity is there if you look at firms such as RRS. If they made bellows frames and carriages they would be there as the other components are directed at at a larger market. ARCA Swiss started out, I understand, as a firm that made an optical bench.

yours
Frank Johnston

[Bruce Watson]

I was a mechanical engineer for 25 years in the USA. To answer your questions:

building a small run of 1000 4x5 bodies, how would the current small-job shops in the USA do? They would do fine, and produce excellent quality. This day and age, 1000 parts is a large order. With current computer controlled milling machines and lathes, the big manufacturing cost is the tooling (if any beyond the standard clamps and stops), then getting the tooling on the machine and registering it into position. After that, it's putting a blank in place and turning the machine tool loose to do its thing. I'm thinking that a more reasonable lot size is probably 10. Exact quantities would of course be negotiated with the particular machine shops in question.

Would they be capable of building a camera of as high quality and performance? Yes, of course. If they have computer controlled machine tools, well maintained. "Hand craftsmanship" is something to be avoided in a venture like this. American manufacturing is still right up there with the best in the world. It's not the cheapest. But you are going to have to make some decisions in balancing quality and price...

And would the cost be more/less/equal to European manufacturing? About the same, maybe somewhat less that Europe. Don't forget shipping costs and customs, which would raise your costs somewhat.

And how would Chinese and Japanese manufacturing compare? Japanese about the same in cost, perhaps a bit more, but the highest quality. They make some amazing machine tools, the Japanese. Still the best QA in the world from what I can tell.

Chinese will have lower cost and perhaps lower quality. A lot depends on who is doing the work and the machines they are using and the maintenance state of the machines. What labor there is, would be less in China. The machine tools are the question, and the care and attention to detail. That is, QA.

Would it be conceivable to design and spec a camera using Industrial Design software and subcontract the run to various specialty small shops? That's standard operating procedure. Done all the time. But the shops don't have to be very small - you need shops big enough to have decently high precision machine tools and a maintenance staff to keep them well maintained and capable of the high precision they are designed to deliver.

Doing it all CAD/CAM and prototyping at the beginning of production, following through and fitting each part at every step of the process? Doing it all in CAD/CAM is, um, old school. Doing it all with a 3D modeling package like Alibre Design is more likely. Then, you do your prototyping in software - the entire thing - clearances, fits, all of it. If it's a folder you see how well it folds in software and make adjustments as needed, long before you build the first unit. You can still build a prototype if you want, but it's much less important than it used to be. Depends on the experience and motivation of your engineers of course. But a properly engineered assembly doesn't need "fitting each part at every step of the process." That would just be a waste of your time.

Isn't this in essence what a guy like Keith Canham does? Yep.

I wonder at what quantities he gets parts? You could call and ask. He might tell you.

Basically, what you are describing is Canham and in particular Toho. I am sure that this is what Canham is doing with his new 20x24, and he's not making 1000 at a time, I assure you.

Now the question back for you - why would you want to do this? What's missing from the current crop of cameras that you need or want?

[Steve Hamley]

Mark and Steve's very valid comments notwithstanding, you'd be competing against the $1,000 used Sinar P which has a proven track record of excellence and tons of used parts. Because studios are going digital is why a Sinar P is selling for about 1/10th the purchase price. So that pretty much lets out selling a new studio rail for much more than $1,500.

Monorails (I assume this is what you mean when you say "precision") have never been very popular as field cameras with the possible exception of the Arca field monorails, so if you're building a field camera, you'd be competing against the $500 Sinar F-series and the Arcas.

The other option would be a precision press/technical camera like the Linhof Technika.

So yes, I think it could be done, but why? You could never compete with the number of high quality used name brand cameras flooding the market.

Now, if you're talking a precision wooden field camera (sort of an oxymoron), I think there is still a limited market for them that could be viable, difficulties as noted by Mark and Steve.

And just a side note, amateurs buy a lot of cameras and like to use what their favorite pros or fine art photographers use. Professionals like to use what they can get fixed in a day or two if something breaks. Under the small scale scenario above, can you FedEx a bellows or other part overnight or 2-day if needed? Keep in mind that lack of support is what caused a lot of Wisner's problems even at the non-pro level.

Steve

[paulr]

"first you'd have to have a different/better design for the camera than Arca, Sinar, Linhof, etc. Not easy! "

you might have an easy time coming up with a better design ... for you! but surprisingly few other people would find it better. we're such creatures of habit and opinion and idiosyncracy. what the succesful companies have done is come up with a design that's different enough and that appeals to enough people to be profitable. my dream camera, if someone isn't already making it, might have a market of one. two or three if i can find some other like-minded weirdos on the internet.

"Chinese will have lower cost and perhaps lower quality."

this might be changing ... if it hasn't changed already. many of their industrial complexes now have an unmatched combination of state-of-the-art european and japanese technology, and borderline third-world wages. leaving aside the ethical questions of supporting such an economy, it might be the place to go for price/performance.

[Joseph O'Neil]

You did not differentiate between monorails and field cameras. IMO, the bigger demand is for a field camera in today's market. If you use Ebay as a rough indicator of current market trends, you'll notice more monorails than field cameras are for sale. Or look at the used market amoung camera dealers - agian, good field cameras seem to get snapped up quicker.

I think monorails are eaiser to design and build than afield camera that has a wide range of movements. Doing so just in Autocad (or similar) will likely not cut it - you'll have to actually build one, and then test it out, see how it works in "real life". It's the silly little details such as knobs that are too small, or difficult to reach, rotating backs that are hard to change, and so forth, is what makes or breaks a camera. Or any consumer item for that matter.

After all that hands on R&D, you'll have to ask yourself, just what is your time worth?

good luck
joe