PDA

View Full Version : Early Eastman 2 View Cameras - Why did the 2D get worse?



goamules
25-Apr-2014, 13:54
Rhetorical question, but did you ever notice how the progression of early No. 2 cameras got worse over time? The turn of the Century company products are marvelous. The first thing you notice about them is the glowing, rich mahogany and hand rubbed finish. Many parts are dovetailed with multiple layers for warp-proofing. Heavy, polished brass hardware abounds. The fit and finish of the rails is amazing, with a raised rail on one side and groove on the other side where the rail folds. Later, Eastman bought them out, supposedly to eliminate the competition, because they were too high quality. For a few years they remained the same, but then slowly the quality began to change. At some point, they began to wear the Kodak label, and they began to make the "D" model, signifying "Dark Wood." Kodak 2Ds are very utilitarian, and gone are the beautiful woods, the difficult to build features.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14011404914_446c7202d6_b.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5464/14011404884_47746a8347_b.jpg

This early Eastman (circa ~ 1909) has a lot of features that were soon to disappear. It has the "bump and groove" folding rail connection. The sliding front lensboard gives as much movement left-right as the rise gives. And the rise runs on two gear tracks (not one), with a gear on each side, connected by a solid rod. Trust me, my 8x10 2D slips a lot. This one cannot. The folding rail has two pins and catches (not one), to hold it securely in the folded position. The rear extension rail has two slotted brass catches, along with a pinned locking thumbscrew. One half turn, it's locked. The 2Ds have thumbscrews.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7179/14007760591_57cde3db3e_b.jpg

It took me a couple days to decide what should go on it, but what better lens than a Dallmeyer 3D? Small, light sized classic that won't break the front standard, yet still covers 8x10 with that Petzval look. But wait, you are saying, that's not a 3D in one of the pictures. You're right, the beauty of the Dallmeyer selection is it shares the same, standardized flange as the Dallmeyer No. 3 Triple Achromat I got in a trade with the wonderful late Sean McKenna. When I remove the center element, I get a nice soft focus. So 3 different lens looks, on one lensboard. Yep, that's one "disadvantage" of the old design - the complex lensboard slides in a nice dovetail. It's not easy to make duplicate boards.

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 14:03
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7240/14008206822_54c6d10aed_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/14011376035_3c849fe35d_c.jpg

1908 Eastman catalog here (http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1908centurydivekclp329.htm).

Tin Can
25-Apr-2014, 14:04
Thanks for that lesson. I rarely use my 7X11, 2, which has a bigger rear frame then a 8x10, 2. I have thought of selling mine, but you may have changed my mind. My kit is very complete, including 7X11 and 8X10 backs, splitters, 4 lens boards. OE case and holders. However my lenses are not period...

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 14:18
Well, my lenses aren't period either! 1867 Triple Achromat, and 1887 3D.

Bill_1856
25-Apr-2014, 15:06
You've made me very sad -- I've always thought that my 2D (5x7) was the cat's meow.

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 15:06
My hyperbole knows no bounds.

Roger Thoms
25-Apr-2014, 15:23
Thanks for that lesson. I rarely use my 7X11, 2, which has a bigger rear frame then a 8x10, 2. I have thought of selling mine, but you may have changed my mind. My kit is very complete, including 7X11 and 8X10 backs, splitters, 4 lens boards. OE case and holders. However my lenses are not period...

Yes your kit sounds very nice, I'd think very hard before selling it.

Tin Can
25-Apr-2014, 16:10
Roger, I thought you might see this.

I better keep it. It is very nice.

There is no trading up possible.

Garrett, your lenses could have been used on a 2, my modern ones are, well, too modern.


Yes your kit sounds very nice, I'd think very hard before selling it.

Roger Thoms
25-Apr-2014, 16:48
Roger, I thought you might see this.

I better keep it. It is very nice.

There is no trading up possible.

Garrett, your lenses could have been used on a 2, my modern ones are, well, too modern.

Randy, yeah I was going to say that you should think long and hard about selling your Eastman 2 7x11 as it is a very nice kit. If I do end up buying a 7x11 I'm inclined to get a 2D since I already have the 5x7, 6.5x8.5, & 8x10 2D's. Despite the 2D's short comings it would be kind of cool to have a complete set.

Roger

Mark Sampson
25-Apr-2014, 17:04
If the 2-D seems dumbed down, it was probably so Eastman could make a profit on it. That last 2% of quality costs a lot of money.

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 17:18
Hey, I should not have acted like the later No. 2s are 'bad', they aren't! I'm just a historian and lover of 19th century (or just after) craftsmanship, prior to the Industrial Age quashing the last remnants of handiwork. Wait....there I go again. The 2Ds are fine cameras. I have one in 5x7 and 8x10. I just like the older ones too!

I loved my Seneca Improved 8x10 too, but eventually sold it. When I got this Eastman, my first thought was to sell it. After cleaning and checking it, nope, too nice. I'm going to keep it. Anyone have a rear extension rail to sell me, with the pinned knob?!

Tin Can
25-Apr-2014, 17:23
I totally understand a collectors drive to complete a set. I have collected many different things over time. Tube radios, old VW, old Datsun, anything on 2 or 3 wheels, motorized or not. Vintage tools. I am fond of saying, if I was broke I would collect grains of sand and have a fine time of it! I have not met another enlarger collector yet...

I am working hard on my Horseman set and a few other oddities.

The Eastman 2 fell into my unsuspecting hands well before I even knew what it was and how rare a 7X11 is. It came in a buyout, which is the best way to get anything collectable. Buy the lot, for a lot less.

I encourage you to complete that 2D set, sounds like fun. Your last camera really tempted me also, but I bought more Horseman this month. Custom Horseman, very rare, one off. Playing with it tonight.


QUOTE=Roger Thoms;1133400]Randy, yeah I was going to say that you should think long and hard about selling your Eastman 2 7x11 as it is a very nice kit. If I do end up buying a 7x11 I'm inclined to get a 2D since I already have the 5x7, 6.5x8.5, & 8x10 2D's. Despite the 2D's short comings it would be kind of cool to have a complete set.

Roger[/QUOTE]

Tin Can
25-Apr-2014, 17:24
Sorry, no spare extension.


Hey, I should not have acted like the later No. 2s are 'bad', they aren't! I'm just a historian and lover of 19th century (or just after) craftsmanship, prior to the Industrial Age quashing the last remnants of handiwork. Wait....there I go again. The 2Ds are fine cameras. I have one in 5x7 and 8x10. I just like the older ones too!

I loved my Seneca Improved 8x10 too, but eventually sold it. When I got this Eastman, my first thought was to sell it. After cleaning and checking it, nope, too nice. I'm going to keep it. Anyone have a rear extension rail to sell me, with the pinned knob?!

Roger Thoms
25-Apr-2014, 17:57
Garrett, my 2D short comings comment was definitely tongue in cheek. Of coarse now I'll have to take a little closer look at the earlier Eastman #2's.

Roger

Leonard Robertson
25-Apr-2014, 18:00
goamules - So does your camera have a 7X11 back or an 8X10 back? The picture of the back looks more like 7X11 proportions, but it is hard to tell. As far as I know only the Eastman 7X11 had the wide sliding lensboard and two clips on top of the front standard to hold the folded-up front track. I suspect the front rise mechanism with two knobs is another 7X11-only feature, but I don't have an early 8X10 No. 1 or No.2 to look at, only a 2D. The 7X11 rear frame that the carrying handle attaches to measures roughly 12 3/4" wide. The 8X10 2D is about an inch narrower.

I agree the earlier cameras are much nicer to look at, but Eastman may have figured out the working photographers who bought them didn't care as much about appearance as we do today.

Len

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 18:17
Mine is a 8x10. It appears to be an original back.

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 18:34
Here are some of the features in the rear that I like.
1. Obvious screw for tightening swing
2. Elegant drop in catches for the back, not the later brass tabs that you have to feel to be sure the pins engaged the holes. These sit outside the pins, you don't have to worry about them.
3. Catch to stop from running off the rear is easy to disengage but simply lifting it up slightly, so you can run the rear standard to the bitter edge for folding. 2Ds have a difficult to manipulate catch.
4. Pinned rear extension I've talked about earlier. One quarter turn, it's on or off. Not screw...screw...screw.
5. Robust slotted rear rail catches, the rear rail has matching tabs that hook into the slots you cannot see. Strong.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/14033350653_359d0023df_c.jpg

Brassai
25-Apr-2014, 18:47
I think you've touched on the factors. In the late 1890s there were many small manufacturers popping up, each trying to find their market. Some were the bargain brand. Some were the value for the money brand (Seneca?) A few went after the premium market. Reading the early Century Camera catalogs I have to believe that was their strategy. Kodak seemed to buy out the more successful ones (Conley and Seneca got away from them!) No doubt there was a change in corporate philosophy with that too. Maybe they went from a proud owner wanting to build the best, to a division head wanting to show more return to his boss? Another factor might have been the cost advantages of mass production, but to get those required simpler designs. I also have to wonder just how much competition there was from European makers at that time, particularly German and English. There seems to have been an awful lot of Thornton & Pickard half plate cameras made. The English cameras are extremely finely finished-even the screw slots point the same way! But just maybe that's what kept the European makers at bay to some degree? The English were still using the old plate sizes and the Germans were metric. How easy would it have been to get film & dry plates in local American camera shops in all but the largest markets? As for ingenuity and craftsmanship, my 1908 Century Model 46 cycle camera compares very well to my Chamonix 045n, the product of another proud owner/maker.

evan clarke
25-Apr-2014, 18:55
Has anybody seen a Chamonix?.

goamules
25-Apr-2014, 18:57
Talking about Century, Eastman, and Kodak No. 2s here. But good points Brassai. These camera companies fit niches or levels, like the car companies later did. I think like Mark said earlier, they found they could still sell the cameras, if they were made a bit cheaper. Later, much later in the 1940s and 50s, Burke and James were still able to sell cameras painted Haze Gray, when Deardorff was sticking to natural wood and brass.

Interestingly the 1910 Eastman has more front rise, shift and rear swing and tilt than my later 1940s Kodak 2Ds. More movements....earlier.

Any way you look at it, the 1910s were probably the high point in American craftsmanship. For many products.

Brassai
25-Apr-2014, 19:16
Any way you look at it, the 1910s were probably the high point in American craftsmanship. For many products.

Can't the same be said of British cameras as well--Thornton Pickard, Sanderson, Watson etc.? On websites, several hardcore British collectors seem to go on & on about the finely crafted wooden T&P models such as the Royal Ruby, but show disdain for the metal cameras the company began making in the 1920s. The British cameras seemed to begin losing out when they made that switch, and the rise of the German cameras was well on its way by the late 1920s.

Brassai
25-Apr-2014, 19:18
Has anybody seen a Chamonix?.

Now you have. Mine was completely inspected. ;)

BarryS
25-Apr-2014, 21:26
Garrett--I'm almost sure you have a 7x11 camera with an 8x10 back. Eastman made both backs for the 7x11 View No 2. The 7x11 is a different animal and feels overbuilt compared to the other sizes. There are some hardware differences between the 2 and the 2D, but they seem minor for the most part. Some 2D's have the key lock for the rails and some have the screw. The 2D is just enough to do the job and nothing more. The dark stain was probably equal parts style and allowing Eastman to use more mismatched wood.

BarryS
25-Apr-2014, 21:30
Randy, yeah I was going to say that you should think long and hard about selling your Eastman 2 7x11 as it is a very nice kit. If I do end up buying a 7x11 I'm inclined to get a 2D since I already have the 5x7, 6.5x8.5, & 8x10 2D's. Despite the 2D's short comings it would be kind of cool to have a complete set.

Roger

If you want a complete set, you'll also need the 11x14 2D--you don't see them too often.

Mark Sawyer
25-Apr-2014, 21:42
The 2D was made for a long stretch, from the 1920's through the '50's, and had a few minor tweaks during its run. I still use mine occasionally, and regard it as one of the great 8x10 cameras.

I also really like the old British cameras mentioned by Brassai; an elegant and efficient design beautifully produced. In my mind, the Deardorff was an inferior version of those cameras. (That should start a fight!)

Roger Thoms
25-Apr-2014, 21:48
If you want a complete set, you'll also need the 11x14 2D--you don't see them too often.

Well, I've wondered about an 11x14 2D, but haven't seen one in any of the old catalogs I've browsed online. I'll be doing well to get a 7x11. May have to start selling a few things. :) 11x14 would definitely be pushing it for me.

Roger

Tin Can
25-Apr-2014, 22:42
I didn't know what I had, as mine came to me with only a 8x10 back. Later i noticed it was stamped inside the rear frame '7X11' and that got me thinking. I later found my 7X11 back and holders on the forums. The 7X11 rear box is definitely bigger than a 2D 8X10. I would have to get it out of deep storage to get dimensions.


Garrett--I'm almost sure you have a 7x11 camera with an 8x10 back. Eastman made both backs for the 7x11 View No 2. The 7x11 is a different animal and feels overbuilt compared to the other sizes. There are some hardware differences between the 2 and the 2D, but they seem minor for the most part. Some 2D's have the key lock for the rails and some have the screw. The 2D is just enough to do the job and nothing more. The dark stain was probably equal parts style and allowing Eastman to use more mismatched wood.

ruilourosa
26-Apr-2014, 03:11
What about the quality of the british made 5x7 (half plate) kodak specialist 2... really well built... in the 50īs...

goamules
26-Apr-2014, 05:42
Barry, perhaps you are right, and I have a 7x11 with an 8x10 back. It is built a little heavier than the other Centuries and Eastmans I've had in the era. I thought it was just a transitional type I hadn't seen before. But that may answer why it's so different, especially the sliding front lensboard.

Jac@stafford.net
26-Apr-2014, 05:51
An old friend of mine is a professional wood worker. I showed him a couple 8x10 wood cameras, one Kodak studio and a Century 1 field camera, asking him for comments regarding craftsmanship and he said, "Remember that most manufacturers of utility products considered wood just a common construction material. They did not spend much time matching for color and grain. I would not like to have to repair one of those cameras if aesthetics were important. The customer probably couldn't afford my effort."

My expectations of mass produced wooden cameras has not been the same since.

As for design and fit, the Century 1 field is good enough for me. It is the lightest 8x10 I have. The extension rail positions very well on pins, and has matching numbers with the main rail, and the wood looks to be from the same stock.

The Deardorff V8 is a monster, however the craftsmanship is excellent. In design it reminds me of my 1956 Harley FLH. I'd get rid of it if it were not close to museum quality.... just waiting for the days of divestment to find a new owner.

Tin Can
26-Apr-2014, 08:58
My Eastman View NO. 2 backs are 12.75 outside edge. A 2D is smaller there.

My 8X10 back is marked 7X11, but my 7X11 back is not marked. The 7X11 back is dark stain and the camera body and 8x10 back is light stain.

114388114389114390114391

goamules
26-Apr-2014, 09:32
Well I'll be a blue-nosed gopher! Thanks Randy and the others that were suggesting mine is a 7x11! Here is my back label.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/14021026805_897e7594f6.jpg

Leonard Robertson
26-Apr-2014, 10:21
Congratulations! Isn't this like finding out you have an entire camera you didn't know you had? ;)
So do you have holders that came with the camera, or do you need to head to eBay and look for 7X11s? I found some there which I'm rather sure were listed as 8X10 holders. Few eBay sellers will know what these are when they list them.

I had an 8X10 back that came in a lot of other equipment. One day I was digging through my junk, actually looked at the back and realized the proportions of the ground glass looked weird for 8X10. Then I must have seen the "7X11" stamping for the first time. I was aware of the Eastman 7X11 model already since I almost bought one at a camera swap a few years earlier. It had a leaky bellows and no holders and the seller was kind enough to talk me out of buying it. After I realized I had a 7X11 back I found a basket case 7X11 Eastman without a back on eBay for cheap. Awhile later I found another sad condition one with an 8X10 back, so I bought it to get the back. Unfortunately, both cameras still need minor woodwork and new bellows and neither came with extension rails. They are on my looong list of retirement projects.

Ilford shows both FP4 and HP5 in their upcoming special film run:

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/il20ullafouf.html

Len

Tin Can
26-Apr-2014, 10:52
I ordered Ilford FP4+ special cut 7x11 last year and it came so quick, it must have been in a warehouse.

goamules
26-Apr-2014, 16:32
No, mine is an 8x10 back, just marked 7x11.

Tin Can
26-Apr-2014, 16:55
So is mine. The 7x11 is not marked for size.


No, mine is an 8x10 back, just marked 7x11.

goamules
26-Apr-2014, 17:13
I think the fact they marked the 8x10 backs "7x11" indicates they were different, to fit the somewhat different camera than the 8x10. I need to try a normal 8x10 back on mine next, to be sure.

Tin Can
26-Apr-2014, 17:27
I read somewhere the rear standard is about an inch bigger, both x&y, which makes sense, as GG and DS are almost an inch wider.

goamules
27-Apr-2014, 07:27
I just measured an 8x10 2D and this Eastman 2, and the bodies and backs are definitely different sizes, and won't interchange. The body of the rear on the 8x10 is 11.5" square, the 7x11 is 12.5".

114428 114429

joselsgil
27-Apr-2014, 12:34
Anyone have a rear extension rail to sell me, with the pinned knob?!

Garrett,

What are the measurements of the track width for the rear extension? I have a keyed rear extension that I was attempting to trade for the screw on type, for my 8x10 2D. I have not had any offers, so I am thinking of selling this one and hoping to find the correct one later. I don't want to modify the extension rail to fit my 2D.

Louis Pacilla
27-Apr-2014, 13:39
Garrett,

What are the measurements of the track width for the rear extension? I have a keyed rear extension that I was attempting to trade for the screw on type, for my 8x10 2D. I have not had any offers, so I am thinking of selling this one and hoping to find the correct one later. I don't want to modify the extension rail to fit my 2D.

Hey Jose

I happen to be in the 7x11 Eastman 2 club so I can say for sure that the 7x11 extension rail is 9 1/2" so if your extension rail is to wide for your 8x10 2/2d then that's the one.


I may have to post a photo or two of my 7x11 Eastman 2 later today.

goamules
27-Apr-2014, 15:44
Yeah Jose, I'd be interested if it fits. I'm shooting the camera right now with some wetplates...PM sent.

joselsgil
27-Apr-2014, 16:26
Garrett,

Your PM box is full :(

And to answer the question. No, the 8X10 rear extension track rails are 7 1/8th inches, center to center. The extension rail itself is 8 1/2 inches wide.

goamules
27-Apr-2014, 17:18
She's a-workin!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101014-Collodion-Wet-Plate-Images&p=1133859#post1133859

goamules
23-Oct-2014, 08:25
Update - a kind friend is sending me a 7x11 back and holders. Now I'll need film. What are my options? Was any of that military roll film 7" wide? Or do I need to wait for the Ilford yearly special cutting sale? I'd prefer cheaper film, if possible, over 10 bucks a sheet or whatever I'm sure I'm about to discover.

Tin Can
23-Oct-2014, 08:32
Update - a kind friend is sending me a 7x11 back and holders. Now I'll need film. What are my options? Was any of that military roll film 7" wide? Or do I need to wait for the Ilford yearly special cutting sale? I'd prefer cheaper film, if possible, over 10 bucks a sheet or whatever I'm sure I'm about to discover.

7x17 X-Ray, but it also needs a 7" sliver cut for my 7x11 holders.

You get a bonus 5x7.

When I ordered Ilford 7x11 FP4 last year, during the cutting, it shipped immediately. It must have been in stock somewhere. It was fresh. Odd.

goamules
23-Oct-2014, 08:48
Thanks, I guess I'm going to have to get smart on x-ray film now. I know it's cheaper. I use all kinds of weird stuff (wetplate), so I should go for it.