5x7 film plane specification and tolerance

[Peter K]

Is there a difference between Lisco or Fidelity? Is there a better (best) holder . . .Linhoff?

There is no difference in quality e. g. tolerances between Lisco, Fidelity and other modern holders. But some old wooden holders don't meet the specifications.

As I know Linhof double-holders, for plates and sheet-films, weren't aviable in 5x7" but only 13x18cm, 4x5", 9x12cm, 6,5x9cm, and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4".

[imagedowser]

There has been an article on holders in View Camera Mag ... can't find what issue, but May/June '01 has one on buying used holders... Toyo holders are ranked higher than most ... here it is ...March/April 1996

[Wally]

Wally: Thanks for the info. Now I am a little inscure about my gear.

When you say that not all holders meet spec, do you mean that quality controme varies from holder to holder within a brand, or do you mean that some brands are better than others? Is there a difference between Lisco or Fidelity? Is there a better (best) holder . . .Linhoff?

If your non-landscape shots (those not stopped down more than f16) are sharp for you then it's probably not something to worry about.

The main issue with film holders seems to be warpage. This is especially a problem for wooden holders, of course, but the metal ones can warp as well.

There's an article on the LFP home page: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/holders.html that discusses these issues.

As for which are best, the older Riteway holders seem to be held in the highest regard (those with the metal pulls), but I've had issues with at least one of each 'brand' (Lisco, Riteway, Fidelity - the three main makers - merged about 25 years ago).

[Wally]

There has been an article on holders in View Camera Mag ... can't find what issue, but May/June '01 has one on buying used holders... Toyo holders are ranked higher than most ... here it is ...March/April 1996

Oh, yeah. I've heard that too. I've never seen one.


// Wally

[Drew Bedo]

Sorry about hi-jacking the thread. Thanks for the Info on holders.

[Steve Barber]

That link gives 0.228" +/- 0.010" as the distance from the face of the holder to the surface of the film. ASA Z38.1.51-1951 gives it as the distance from the face of the holder to the surface of the septum.

The mislabeling of that row would account for the apparent disparity regarding that distance for a 4x5 film holder.

Where it is labeled "Depth to film surface", shouldn't it be labeled "depth to film holder surface"? I don't know the depth for the others, but isn't that depth for a 4x5 at 0.197" and the film thickness considered to be 0.007"? That would be consistent with the part I read where Wisner 4x5 cameras were set up to put the ground glass focusing surface 0.192" away from the film holder supporting surface or 0.190" (the nominal standard) plus 0.002" to allow for wearing down of that surface over time.

If the above is correct, then the label on the drawing "depth to film surface" is incorrect and it should, also, be changed.