weight of Rittreck View [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

flyboyx

28-Sep-2013, 21:08

they are tanks. good camera but a tank none the less. the good news is that these days they can be had on ebay for somewhere around the 300.00 range. if you shoot 4x5 only, i would go with something smaller and lighter. if you do intend to shoot 5x7, you won't find a better camera for the price i don't think. personally, i shoot 4x5 and 6x12 so i use a wista sp. i believe it is around 5 lbs or so. the going rate for this newer wista model is 3 times the cost of the rittreck you mention above. with 5 lenses, my back pack is full and heavy but manageable for a guy in decent shape.

depending on the type of shooting you do, there aren't many accessory choices for the rittreck. about the only thing i have seen are various backs for 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. if you intend to shoot 5x7 or bigger, this would be a good camera for you as long as you don't have to carry it too far.

if you are looking at this camera based on its price but intend to shoot 4x5, i suggest getting a wista "d" or "n". personally, i prefer the "d" model because it is the same camera as the sp but it does not have the swing movement on the front standard. the n model is the same as the vx but it also doesn't have front swing. the going rate is about the same as the rittreck at 300ish dollars. it weighs half as much (about 1/3rd smaller) and will accept all the accessories the newer wista metal folding cameras are designed to use. heck, i couldn't resist such a good deal. i just purchased another one off ebay this morning. great cameras, lots of movements, cheap prices. what could be better?

HeinrichVoelkel

4-Oct-2013, 01:02

@flyboyx: thank you for the info on the Wista camera line, great suggestions, I'm shooting 4x5 at the moment, but would like to upgrade to 5x7 for the next project, but still not sure about this 5x7 thing, cost is considerable higher and the quality gain????, I just don't know.

Regards
Heinrich

evan clarke

4-Oct-2013, 04:35

hi, i have one with all the backs that were made for it. 5x7 is almost twice the negative area of 4x5 and the aspect ratio really suits architecture and such. QT Luong did his entire National Parks project with 5x7 http://www.terragalleria.com/

HeinrichVoelkel

4-Oct-2013, 05:26

Hello Evan, do you use 5x7 frequently or do you rather reach for 8x10 if you want superior quality over 4x5? Curious.

flyboyx

6-Oct-2013, 18:14

5x7 is pretty awesome for a fact. It has some serious disadvanteges as you alluded to. Cost of film is crazy high compaed to 4x5. Equipment is bigger and heavier. Lenses are mor expensive. For me personally, 4x5 is big enough because every piece of eqipment I own needs to fit and be carried in my backpack. There is no way that will happen for me with a rittreck or likely any 5x7 for that matter because I have 5 lenses to carry as well.

Now and again I wish I could shoot 6x17cm. I guess I can buy a 5x7 back for my sp if I really get the wild hair up my rear. Then I would need a film back........

With all that said, if I did decide to switch to 5x7, I would get the lightest wood camera with as many movents as I could afford. Probably the price tag will be around fifteen hundred bucks for the camera alone to fit that bill.

Bogdan Karasek

27-Jun-2014, 20:39

SMBooth

27-Jun-2014, 22:43

Not to sell :)

Tin Can

27-Jun-2014, 23:11

Off topic, but my all metal Prewar 5X7 Linhof weighs 3480 grams with a Sironar-N 180mm in Copal shutter folded inside. Even room for a mounted filter and release cable. This one uses standard 5x7 DDS. The back does rotate and bellows go to 22 inches. It's in excellent condition and not for sale.

Just listing it for an example of quality and lightweight. I don't know why they made them so much heavier post WW II. Not necessary as far as I can tell.

Simon Benton

28-Jun-2014, 04:34

I have one - PM sent

Jim Noel

28-Jun-2014, 10:43

The Ritteck View sounds like the camera that I need. I have a Deardorff 8x10, with reducing backs to 5x7, 4x5, 3¼x4¼ and I have several of the various sized Speed and Crown Graphic (13) but I want a dedicated 5x7, no reducing backs, no elarging backs tp 8x10. Just a straight 5x7.

Anybody have one?
SInce you have an 8x10 Deardorff, why not a 5x7 Deardorff? Much quicker to get under the cloth and ready to make the image when cameras are similar. My old 5x7 has beenm neater for years now. I have owned, used and loved it for more than 40 years. I tried the 8x10 with reducing back but never liked it.

Panda00

1-Jun-2020, 12:00

Tin Can

1-Jun-2020, 12:11

The body is the same. Backs change format.

IMHO it is best as 5X7 as it is heavy for 4X5 and way clumsy as 8X10

Joseph Kashi

1-Jun-2020, 21:02

I just used my postage scale and weighed both of my Rittreck 5x7 kits with the factory 5x7 back and then also with the factory 4x5 back substituted for the 5x7 back. In both configurations, both Rittrecks weights 9 pounds 6 ounces, as others report above. No significant weight difference between using the 4x5 and 5x7 backs.

I then weighed my more or less ultra-light 5x7 folding wood camera that others on this forum note may be an MSK Osaka, which the Net suggests was made by Tachihara. With a substitute wood bottom plate and small Arca Swiss plate, that camera weights an even 5 pounds, but is much less rigid than the Rittreck.

That 4 pound - 6 ounce difference may or may not be a deal-breaker for you, just as the Rittreck's better rigidity may be important. After removing some focus rail stops, I am able to comfortably use a Rittreck with a 14" Red Dot Artar with Copal 3 shutter unless the subject is closer than about 7 feet. So, it's pretty useful with heavier lenses than can be accommodated on a wood 5x7.

Given that a decent quality Rittreck goes for $300-$500, it's a significantly better deal than the metal 5x7 Canham field camera, which costs about $3,200 new.

Joseph Kashi

2-Jun-2020, 01:09

I'm new to LF so have a newbie question about Rittreck View. Is the body the same for all sizes, just the back varying? It looks (Ebay) like 4x5's are quite a bit less, even when adding the cost of a 5x7 back - if that works! Can't find the answer anywhere. Thanks!

The Rittreck body is the same size whether the standard 5x7 back is attached or the 4x5 reducing back. Same size, same weight regardless of which back is currently attached. I have no experience with the enlarging backs but from what I've seen, they look a bit awkward.

B.S.Kumar

2-Jun-2020, 07:17

I've sold a fair number of Rittreck cameras, and briefly used one. As Joseph confirms, they are extremely rigid. A few people are concerned about the bellows extension, which is ~396mm. But from what I see on this forum, most people tend to use 240mm or 300mm lenses with 5x7, which are eminently usable with this camera. It is possible to use longer lenses with a Linhof Technika adapter and a set of extension rings on a Technika board.

The WP and 8x10 extension backs are okay, but not very easy to use, and then the limited bellows draw kicks in. However, the 6x10 back is a nice, if uncommon format. I have also seen a home-made 5x8 back.

Kumar

Tin Can

2-Jun-2020, 07:36

Things i like about my Rittreck 5X7

Very pretty all metal camera, mine came with a lens board adapter to use Linhof lens boards. Very handy, takes up almost no space too.

I also have the OE tilting lens hood, very strong useful design

I read somewhere, it was sold as a studio portrait camera with the very unusual feature, of Micro Focus rear tilt, perhaps to tune the eye iris focus perfectly after other adjustments

The folding metal GG hood is easy to use and keeps the folded camera GG safe from breakage

Bellows were/are available from Japan on frames until recently

Simon Benton

2-Jun-2020, 07:46

I have used the Rittreck View for many many years with the 5 X 7, whole plate and recently with the 6 X 10 back. I also have a 4 x 10 back that I adapted. I had an 8 X 10 back but it was clumsy and vignetted with longer lenses and I sold it. The 6 X 10 back is great to use. Camera is heavy but is rigid and as has been said is built like a tank.

Oren Grad

2-Jun-2020, 07:47

I don't know the source of this ad - probably one of the big monthlies like Asahi Camera or Nippon Camera. Note that there was a 6x9 rollholder adapter as well as the other formats, and that 6x10 and 8x10 were apparently not yet offered when this ad appeared.

204394

I had a Rittreck outfit with the 4x5, 5x7, yatsugiri (WP) and sort-of-6x10 backs. I say "sort-of-6x10" because the holders were enough smaller in both dimensions that it required two cuts to a sheet of 8x10 film to fit, not one, which was a nuisance.

Panda00

2-Jun-2020, 07:48

The body is the same. Backs change format.

IMHO it is best as 5X7 as it is heavy for 4X5 and way clumsy as 8X10

Thank you!

Chauncey Walden

2-Jun-2020, 09:36

Vaughan

3-Mar-2021, 04:17

I have the 4x5, 5x7, 6x9 rollfilm (a sliding back), and 6.5x8.5 (WP) backs. I haven't used the 4x5 or 6x9 backs but use the 6.5x8.5 almost as much as the 5x7. Yes, it is heavy but very stable. I have sent a PDF of the manual to quite a few folks on the list.

Hello Chauncey

I have just purchased a (*) Rittreck View with the 4x5 and 5x7 backs. I've started using it with 4x5 because film and holders were more immediately available, but 5x7 film and holders are in the mail as I type.

I'd appreciate if you could send me a copy of the manual for these cameras, they have many adjustments!

(*) I ended up with three (3) Rittreck View cameras! Only one has a bellows that is light tight, the other two have bellows that are in various stages of decay. The working camera came with a half-plate back, so I went looking for a 4x5 back and discovered that separately they seem to sell for about the same price as a whole camera with back, so I ended up with a second Rittreck with a torn bellows. I then found another camera with a 5x7 back that the seller thought was whole plate that was priced about half of what 5x7 backs alone sell for. Hence I ended up with three. My plan is to get a new bellows and get one of the other two working again.

Joseph Kashi

3-Mar-2021, 22:19

I've rebuilt two Rittreck 5x7 over the past two years, both with the help of a machinist friend. FWIW, the weight with the factory 5x7 back is 9 pounds 6 ounces. Looking over early issues of View Camera magazine, Wista was advertising new Rittreck 5x7 for sale as late as 1990.

The bellows on both cameras were questionable at best, so I replaced both of them with Rittreck pattern bellows made by the bellows people out of Hong Kong who advertise on EBay. Their bellows fit and work. The trick is that the front part of the bellows attaches to a smaller rotating piece of metal that in turn attaches to the front standard with some screws. Remove that and glue the front part of the bellows to it, then reattach with its screws.

The front standard on one Rittreck locks in place squarely but the other is off parallel by 1-2 mm. That causes some right side softness on negatives and the lack of good parallelism was not readily repairable working on the front standard - perhaps it was damaged or dropped at some earlier time. I found that the easiest workable solution was to just square it carefully using the rear swing and then scribe a new zero reference mark on the rear standard.

It's a bit of a heavy beast, about 3 pounds heavier than a similar 4x5 box, but not unreasonable for a 5x7 all-metal field camera with all movements except rear rise/fall. It is a solid camera.

One other trick that I learned is that it's possible to use a 14" lens on a flat board with the 5x7 Rittreck by removing the stops on the front rail. It's pretty unlikely that you will pull the front standard off and it's easy to remount if you do. By doing this, you can focus to about 10 feet with a 14"/360mm lens in Copal 3 shutter.

Rittreck made a decent dedicated compendium lens shade and a useful Technika board to Rittreck adapter.

Vaughan

4-Mar-2021, 17:19

One other trick that I learned is that it's possible to use a 14" lens on a flat board with the 5x7 Rittreck by removing the stops on the front rail. It's pretty unlikely that you will pull the front standard off and it's easy to remount if you do. By doing this, you can focus to about 10 feet with a 14"/360mm lens in Copal 3 shutter.

Rittreck made a decent dedicated compendium lens shade and a useful Technika board to Rittreck adapter.

Great tip regarding removing the stops. I think the chrome cover latch piece will prevent the front standard from being pulled off the track.

I managed to pick up both the compendium hood and the Technica adaptor board, both came bundled with other items I wanted (4x5 back and several flat lens boards). The hood becomes a bit unwieldy when the front standard has a heavy lens and significant till and swing have been set, but is otherwise excellent (and cheap too).

Vaughan

5-Mar-2022, 20:02

An update on my "Rittreck View 5x7" journey... particularly regarding the backs and holders.

An earlier post in the thread mentioned that Whole Plate and 8x10 backs are available but expensive: indeed the 8x10 backs alone are double or triple the cost of a camera with 4x5 back, but the whole plate backs are cheaper than the cost of a 4x5 back on its own. I guess this is due to the popularity and availability of 8x10 film (and holders) and the unavailability (and unpopularity) of whole plate film.

The good news is that (at March 2022) Shanghai GP3 is available in whole plate 6.5x8.5. GP3 isn't a lot of things, but it IS available and it is relatively cheap.

The Rittreck whole plate backs are available in two styles: a modern spring back that use modern-style double cut film holders, and a ye-olde lift-up glass back style that uses book-form glass plate holders (which often have adaptors for cut film). Both use an extension piece. If you intend to use whole plate film then the spring backs and double-cut holders are the most convenient. Just be sure you get holders that fit: the Rittreck back uses slightly wider holders than other cameras (despite most being made by Tachihara) so ideally buy the back and holders from the same seller and get them to confirm fit.

More good news: a second whole plate stock is available, that being dry glass plates made by Jason Lane. The old-style plate backs are even cheaper than the spring backs and no modification is necessary for using the holders with glass plates: just lift out the cut film adaptor and drop a glass plate in directly. (I just watched a YT video of somebody hacking a nice Riteway 4x5 double cut film holder to fit a glass plate: a small part of me died.) As with all these older non-standardised plate formats, make sure you can get holders that correctly fit the back.

Another interesting option for glass plates is that if the wooden bookform holder is a suitable size it's possible to plane the tongues from the sides to make them square so they will fit into the modern spring back.

I have ordered both Shanghai GP3 film and a couple of boxes of dry glass plates, and will post my experiences after they arrive. While waiting I have been rehearsing a workflow for using the glass plates and have already found a potential gotcha: the dark slides on the bookform holders are not removable (and hence not reversible) so its not possible to indicate exposure status with the face of the dark slide. Some other method will be required: I'm thinking maybe some tape on the outside? Your recommendations are appreciated.

Note that although being quite light, the whole plate backs have the volume of the rest of the folded camera.

John Layton

6-Mar-2022, 05:37

Tin Can

6-Mar-2022, 06:09

NO!

I have the 5X7 which is great as is!

I was told it was made for Japanese Portrait shooters

The odd rear Micro Tilt for fine focus portraits

It is really a Studio camera

I did shoot my second LF 5X7 neg EVER with one on location of my favorite Chicago bridge

Glad I did as the vantage point is now blocked

Something I've often wondered about the Rittreck relative to its weight...would it be possible to lighten it up a bit without compromising its strength/structural integrity? You know...remove a bit of metal here and there? Some well-placed holes?

Holes can be a good thing, if well-placed. Here is an example of well placed weight-reduction holes, the exact size and placement of which were determined using a Solid Works program, which enabled us to lighten the camera while actually adding strength:

225331

My thought about the Rittreck is that the camera could be "imported" into a solid modeling program, and then re-engineered to incorporate weight reduction holes. Make sense?

Joseph Kashi

6-Mar-2022, 16:08

Something I've often wondered about the Rittreck relative to its weight...would it be possible to lighten it up a bit without compromising its strength/structural integrity? You know...remove a bit of metal here and there? Some well-placed holes?

Holes can be a good thing, if well-placed. Here is an example of well placed weight-reduction holes, the exact size and placement of which were determined using a Solid Works program, which enabled us to lighten the camera while actually adding strength:

225331

My thought about the Rittreck is that the camera could be "imported" into a solid modeling program, and then re-engineered to incorporate weight reduction holes. Make sense?

I've rebuilt, and now use, two 5x7 Rittreck cameras, along with the 4x5 reducing backs for each. No question, it's heavy at 9 pounds, 6 ounces, but stable.

Offhand, like Tin Can, I cannot see where making any holes would effectively lighten the camera except in the shell, which is essentially the entire structural support system and which provides protection against dirt, weather, and damage when folded.

Where one could save a great deal of weight on this camera without sacrificing rigidity, structural integrity, or protective sealing of the folded camera would be to make the body shell and bed out of magnesium alloy, which is 33% lighter than the structurally equivalent aluminum and to honeycomb the thicker top and bottom plates of the apparently one-piece cast shell. Reesigning the front and back focus rail mechanisms on the bed would also help reduce weight as would shifting to a Toyo 45A-style compendium.

However, using more modern materials like Magnesium alloy would go a very long way in lightening the camera without a major retooling or redesign, probably reducing the weight of the 5x7 unit by at least two pounds, down to about 7.25 pounds, which would be much more manageable.

Any re-design would likely be expensive as the parts are largely die-cast, and making precision dies is costly, not something reasonably undertaken by a poorly-funded casual operation.

Wista, as corporate successor to Rittreck, might still have the dies, though. Rittreck 5x7 models stopped appearing in Wista's View Camera Magazine ads at the beginning of 1990, so the dies might still be around somewhere in Wista's back rooms.

Feanolas

19-Aug-2022, 09:27

I use a Rittreck and like it very much, but for the weight. I am also thinking about lightening mine. I have an ugly one (lots of corrosion on the back and ripped bellows) bought very cheap that will be going under the drill. I am planning to drill the bottom plate which is very thick and the sides and top of the body which do not need much structural rigidity. Maybe replace the back focusing rails with carbon rods, getting rid of the focusing knobs and just keeping a locking mechanism. Well, hopefully one day in the not-to-far future when I have some time to tinker !
John, if you decide to work on this idea, let me know.

Vaughan

19-Aug-2022, 19:17

What I would love is a bag bellows. It would need to be permanently fixed but these cameras are cheap enough to have one dedicated to short lenses.

Feanolas

22-Aug-2022, 14:02

What I would love is a bag bellows. It would need to be permanently fixed but these cameras are cheap enough to have one dedicated to short lenses.

Interesting idea, shouldn't be too difficult, front part is easy to remove, rear part is glued.
Take a Rittreck with a destroyed bellows and no back, they come up sometimes dirt cheap, and adapt a bag bellow or a shortened standard bellow. You can even get rid of the rear focusing mechanism, which would save a bit of weight !

Yet I am wondering what kind of lens you would use that requires such a bag bellows. I use sometimes a 90mm, at that bellow extension there is not a lot of movement offered by the bellows, but the lens coverage wouldn't allow much anyway, so the combo is adequate. My shortest lens with enough coverage to allow extensive movements is a Nikon 8/120mm, but at that extension there is almost no limitation (just checked: 25mm of rise and fall, plenty of tilt and swing).

abruzzi

29-Aug-2022, 08:23

As a side note--If you're like me and like to carry your cameras in a shoulder bag (backpacks don't usually work well for my uses) I did find the perfect bag for a Rittreck--the Domke 833.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/712112-REG/Domke_701_03A_F_833_Large_Photo_Courier.html

It has two narrow padded inserts. I put them at opposite ends. the camera fits nicely in between the inserts. One insert I fill with 2 or 3 lenses, the other with all the miscellaneous stiff like meter, loupe, linhof lensboard adapter. and the front pocket can hold 4, 5x7 film holders. Its heavy on your shoulders, but Domke sells a "postal" shoulder pad that works quite well.

Feanolas

30-Aug-2022, 13:55

As a side note--If you're like me and like to carry your cameras in a shoulder bag (backpacks don't usually work well for my uses) I did find the perfect bag for a Rittreck--the Domke 833.

I got me a messenger bag for laptop on aliexpress, well padded, two main compartments, the bigger one fits perfectly the Rittreck and there is some place for a lens or two, the second holds 6 holders, and small pockets in the front for miscellaneous accessories. Not a Domke for sure, but for $25, it fit the bill well enough. :)
I have a second small photo bag (old one) that contains additional lenses if needed.

abruzzi

30-Aug-2022, 15:27

I got me a messenger bag for laptop on aliexpress, well padded, two main compartments, the bigger one fits perfectly the Rittreck and there is some place for a lens or two, the second holds 6 holders, and small pockets in the front for miscellaneous accessories. Not a Domke for sure, but for $25, it fit the bill well enough. :)
I have a second small photo bag (old one) that contains additional lenses if needed.

Thats great if it works for you. Due to very bad knees, I need to operate out of a shoulder bag since I can't kneel down to pull things out of a backpack. A backpack would be less painful on my shoulders, but much more painful on my knees thanks to running into a badly driven F150 at 25mph on my motorcycle.

The Domke works great for me, though it can get a bit heavy. The Domke is essentially a messenger bag so it is a similar idea to what you have.

Feanolas

1-Sep-2022, 12:40

Thats great if it works for you. Due to very bad knees, I need to operate out of a shoulder bag since I can't kneel down to pull things out of a backpack. A backpack would be less painful on my shoulders, but much more painful on my knees thanks to running into a badly driven F150 at 25mph on my motorcycle.

I sympathize. Got in a frontal crash 6 years ago in my tiny Lotus Elise, both at 80 km/h... driver felt asleep! One's not on the winning side when tucked in a car half the weight of the oncoming: one knee busted, both feet, a wrist and a collarbone !

Have you tried one of these sling bags, like a Lowepro Slingshot? Could be a good option, don't know if it would fit a Rittreck though.

abruzzi

1-Sep-2022, 12:51

I haven't. I have seen the backpacks where you leave the belt attached and slide it around and enter it from the back side. They seem a bit clunky to use. The slingshot looks more usable and I've had other sling bags in the distant past (not camera bags, but school bags.) I'll definitely look into them next time I feel the itch for an improved bag. Thanks.

rfesk

1-Sep-2022, 15:33

I have been using a Galen Rowell Photoflex bag (the largest) for years with a Busch Pressman 4x5 outfit. It has a shoulder strap and waist strap. The flap folds away from the body when opened. You never have to put the bag on the ground.

They come up on ebay occasionally.

Vaughan

1-Sep-2022, 18:49

Have you tried one of these sling bags, like a Lowepro Slingshot? Could be a good option, don't know if it would fit a Rittreck though.

I have a couple of these Slingshot bags. A Rittreck View 5x7 might fit, but there isn't much padding and it wouldn't be comfortable. I've found the Slingshot bags are GREAT for everything else though.

My standard LF kit is a backpack with the Rittreck View camera and 4x5 or 5x7 back, dark cloth and a couple of lenses. A LowePro Slingshot is used for the light meter, cable release, filters, etc. A couple of 4x5 fit into the slingshot easily, but 5x7 and 8x10 get carried in a second Slingshot bag. If I'm using the Rittreck View with whole plate the back goes into another backpack with the WP holders. The tripod gets hand-carried.

Feanolas

3-Sep-2022, 07:10

Interesting, I have yet to use the additional backs. I have the 6x10, FP and 8x10. I ordered FP at Ilford ULF, so I will soon be able to use that one. 6x10 requires cutting an 8x10, I just got me a rotary cutter, so I will test this one. 8x10 does not seem very practical as it is very big and cumbersome.

Coming back to the subject of the thread, I did a quick computation of what can be save by lightening the structure (i.e. boring holes!). I came up with a total weight saving of about 500g (one pound), which represents 10% of the weight of the camera. Not very promising.
Someday in a (hopefully) not to far future, I will disassemble my ugly Rittreck and weight the different parts. I am convinced that the tubes providing the back extension are pretty heavy and replacing them with carbon tubes and removing the back focusing mechanism would be an easy way to save weight. I don't need the back extension often and a simpler system like on my Toyo-Field 45A would be enough.