Don't be annoyed by it, make it just an infinity fixed focus camera experiment...Originally Posted by rdenney
Don't be annoyed by it, make it just an infinity fixed focus camera experiment...
Nope, it's no good.
You can reverse the rear standard and focus down to 47 with the lens and back on the same side of the tripod mount, but there is access to the film holder only from above, so only the vertical format is possible. There's just no other way with the 47. Even trimming the mounts isn't enough to make it work. And the 65 is not as easy as I remembered, either.
Then there's the issue of it not exactly being a camera I'm in love with anyway.
I think my best strategy is something like a Sinar F, which I can afford, and which should focus the 47 using a flat board, with bag bellows, of course. Should be a step up for me, too. Supporting several rollfilm formats is a requirement, as is a system view camera with lots of modularity and availability of bits on the used market.
The field cameras that do what I want are just too expensive and I don't go far from the car in any case.
Rick "resigned to the inevitable" Denney
If you want to shoot 2x3, give up on the Cambo, get a 2x3 camera. I use a 47/5.6 SA in a #00 on my Century Graphic. Fine combination if movements aren't required.
Okay...I thought I mentioned my target format was 6x12. And I certainly want movements for my other lenses.
I didn't mention that I don't want to rule out Quickloads. I still have that Polaroid 545, heh, heh.
I did almost buy a very complete Plaubel Peco Junior kit several years ago, but wasn't quite quick enough on the trigger at the San Diego camera store where I spotted it. Had I bought it, though, now I'd be bitching about how I want to do 6x12 with maybe a spot here and there of 4x5. You just can't please some people, heh, heh.
Rick "who already has a 45mm lens mounted on a Pentax 6x7" Denney
47 on 6x12? Someone likes it wide....
Are you trying to stick to roll fim for color? Is that why you don't just shoot 65mm on 4x5 instead (nearly equivalent FOV)?
Steve "who would be satisfied with 65mm" Maniscalco
You know I like it wide--I have and use 12mm on 24x36 format, and grouse that 45 is as wide as I can get for my 6x7. But it is somewhat of a special effect.
But so is 6x12, and I see the combination as a special effect for radically emphasizing the foreground. If I throw a 6x9 back on the camera, though, 47 isn't quite as radical--about like a 21 on small format. You are right in predicting that a 65 on 4x5 is about as wide as I'd want to go.
And, yes, I prefer to work in color. 4x5 color sheet film is a bit too intensive for me and I'd end up never getting anything done--same as before. If I have a couple of hours to make some photos, I'd rather spend that time making photos than loading and unloading holders (though I still have a couple of dozen 4x5 holders, probably with 15-year-old FP4 still in them). Plus, I'm clumsy with my hands and have never been good at loading film holders in a changing tent or bag without dust and fingerprints affecting the results. It was much better in a darkroom but I don't have one of those anymore (nor do I particularly enjoy working in one). For routine use, the price of Quickloads is a little daunting, but I see myself doing some of it.
What I'm realizing, and with seeming general agreement, is that I'm trying too hard to make a Cambo work as a medium-format view camera, which is apparently a little too far outside its design envelope, especially with short lenses. Looking at the construction of a Sinar F makes me think it would be a better compromise camera for these requirements, at least of cameras I can afford and maintain.
Rick "appreciating the discussion" Denney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks