Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Kuzano]

Interestingly, "back in the day", Peter Gowland made a fixed focus 4x5 aerial camera (about 1/2 down the page). The issue will be focal length. Depending on subject, you'll typically want no wider than normal and more likely 2x normal. Gowland's were made for somewhat wider lens. That's OK if shooting from helicopter or over "non-congested" areas where you can fly lower than 1,000 feet.

Which is why I plan on shooting from a Powered Parachute.... 35-40 MPH... Low and Slow.

[HMG]

Interestingly, "back in the day", Peter Gowland made a fixed focus 4x5 aerial camera (about 1/2 down the page). The issue will be focal length. Depending on subject, you'll typically want no wider than normal and more likely 2x normal. Gowland's were made for somewhat wider lens. That's OK if shooting from helicopter or over "non-congested" areas where you can fly lower than 1,000 feet.

I should add that the standard 4x5 model (built to order) cost $435 in mid 80s. That's equivalent to $965 today. Compare that to cost of a travelwide.

[plywood]

I should add that the standard 4x5 model (built to order) cost $435 in mid 80s. That's equivalent to $965 today. Compare that to cost of a travelwide.

Even at $149 (don't know whether Ben will be able to hold the unit retail that low) the TW 90 is an incredible bargain. If it ships with the pinhole cap for that price, even more so. When they finally get into regular production I think there is potential market demand for another 1000 cameras.

[Corran]

Maybe. I know a lot of students who would like to dabble with LF. However, they are a bit squeamish with the idea of a totally manual camera. I had a friend who is very smart and very capable who literally attempted to shoot LF 5 different times and managed to mess something up and get no images or fogged film or whatever every time until I carefully guided her through the entire process (this was for a class). She was so upset she never wants to use a LF camera again.

Some may also be put off by the 90mm focal length. Most of them have shot nothing but 50mm lenses on their 35mm camera of choice. The few that have gotten a LF camera have all found a Crown Graphic or similar with a 127-150mm lens. It would be cool if there could be some sort of extension piece to use a 127mm lens on the TW, but I imagine that isn't easily made due to vignetting.

[Steve Pitchford]

Gadfly & et. al,

Damn it! #517.

Oh well, what's a couple more weeks. Just hope my bus's don't get theirs first.

Happy trails,
SPitchford

[plywood]

@Corran,
If I wanted to start someone out with 4X5 I would use photo paper as a negative. Select Ilford grade #2 RC paper used at ISO 6. The advantages of paper is that it can be cut, loaded, and developed under safelight. Then, it can be scanned or contact printed or, enlarged with a front illumination enlarger. If that last route is taken you probably will have to build your own enlarger so you might not want to go that far.

The other advantage is that is about 1/4 the price to expose paper as a negative.
I would avoid DP paper as the image is a laterally reversed, mirror image.

This would let them dip their toe into the LF workflow without spending money on film and fumbling in total darkness trying to load a DDS for the first time.

[Corran]

With respect, I disagree with that approach. Too much trouble for really no gain at all in usability, except cost, which is not much when you are only shooting a few sheets as a learning experiment (or, use cheap x-ray film). Especially since the students I'm talking about have all shot, developed, and enlarged film already. But, to each his own - personally I have no interest in paper negatives and think it's a waste of time, especially when x-ray film is available., but that's just my opinion.

[plywood]

With respect, I disagree with that approach. Too much trouble for really no gain at all in usability, except cost, which is not much when you are only shooting a few sheets as a learning experiment (or, use cheap x-ray film). Especially since the students I'm talking about have all shot, developed, and enlarged film already. But, to each his own - personally I have no interest in paper negatives and think it's a waste of time, especially when x-ray film is available., but that's just my opinion.

That's the thing about paper negatives, there seems to be no middle ground, folks either love them or have no interest in them. Kinda like instant prints, while some will spend what I consider exorbitant amounts of money on them I find no use for them. Having no much money to spend probably influences my leaning toward using paper. Not that I wouldn't buy some film too, just would not use it too much.

About that front surface enlarger, that is one of my future plywood projects. I have a general idea on how to construct one.

One thing about paper, when you get to 8X10 it will allow you to try it out without breaking the bank. Without that option I would not even consider larger than 4 X5

[WayneStevenson]

It's been about a month since local pickups. Have these started shipping yet?

[koh303]

If it ships with the pinhole cap for that price, even more so.

Currently, its not shipping at all.