question about Phillips/Chamonix design for short lenses

[Michael Roberts]

I'm building and modifying cameras, and I am intrigued with some aspects of the Phillips/Chamonix camera design.

Here's my question: how far forward does the rear of the camera slide? I haven't seen any photos of this, so if someone can post a photo--preferably of an 8x10 or larger, I would appreciate seeing it. Alternatively, if you know of a photo on the web, just point me to it. I've been to the Chamonix website and looked at some youtube videos, but haven't seen what I'm looking for.

I know from the specs that the 8x10 can accommodate as short a lens as 110mm, and it looks to me as if this is done with a combination of sliding the rear forward and setting the front standard back, but with some part of the base of the camera still sticking out in front of the front standard/lens.

I can only guess that the part of the base forward of the front standard is short enough that it does not enter the vignette the lens. It would be helpful to see a photo.

Thanks,
Michael

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am intrigued with some aspects of the Phillips...design.

Here's my question: how far forward does the rear of the camera slide? I haven't seen any photos of this, so if someone can post a photo--preferably of an 8x10 or larger, I would appreciate seeing it. Alternatively, if you know of a photo on the web, just point me to it...

It pays to explore the home page of this forum. Doing so leads to the following:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...eras/phillips/

I can't get to my Compact II right now, but, from the pictures and memory, those "feet" (as Dick Phillips refers to them) can be slid forward about two inches.

[vinny]

Sal, none of the pics of the phillips show how far the rear standard slides forward.

Michael,
Take a look a the pics of my build on my site. The "feet" are slotted as well as the base. There are pics of both. I can use a 90mm on my camera with my 4x5 back.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks for your quick response, Sal.

The pics from your link do not show what I am looking for--the rear of the camera positioned as close as possible to the front of the camera base.

However, the "feet" on the Phillips camera look to be considerably longer than on the Chamonix, as seen in this link: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/810.html

It looks like the original Phillips camera allows the rear frame to slide much closer to the front.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Vinny. I looked through your photos of your camera build. It still looks to me like the rear frame can only slide a little more than half-way to the front of the base:
http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!the base/zoom/c65q/image13gu

What am I missing?

[Michael Roberts]

Okay, some more looking at the Chamonix site turned up this: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/_images/57c.jpg

So, this is what I guessed must be the way the minimum bellows works--with some part of the base still out in front of the lens. Is this it, or can the amount of the base extending in front of the lens be minimized further?

[vinny]

With an 8x10, you can't compress the bellows much more than 90mm anyway and certainly couldn't use rise/fall (without bag bellows) at that point either. It likely does only slide halfway. I made mine so that is slides further forward than the chamonix design. At a point it doesn't matter because you'd be photographing the feet regardless. That's why the base has multiple holes to place the front standard in different positions.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, none of the pics of the phillips show how far the rear standard slides forward...

Select this one

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...compactII9.jpg

and magnify it. The star knobs, as I recall, are about one inch in diameter. The foot slot that threaded rod goes through looks to be around two knob diameters long behind the rod. The threaded rod is fixed in position on the base. Thus, there's about two inches of forward foot travel possible.

[Oren Grad]

I think I squished my Compact II down to focus a 90mm at infinity once, just to prove to myself that it could be done, but the shortest lens I've used in the field is 115. When you get that short it's a challenge to record a vertical composition without having the feet creep into the picture.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Oren. That kind of limitation is what I was wondering about.