617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

[SuperK]

Hello, comrades!
Panoramic photography is my hobby, I use 6x17sm Chinese noname (Gaoersi/DaYi mix) film camera with 90mm Fuji lens.

I not satisfied with the design of existing panoramic cameras.

Scale-focusing cameras (Fuji GX617, Linhof Technorama, Horseman 617...) has huge, expensive lens cones, and they are restricted by focal length.
Focal length restriction is the main problem for me. Nobody makes cones for lens shorter then 72mm, but I need 65,58 or even 47mm.
Cones become too big from 150mm focal lenght. here is Fotoman 617 with 400mm lens

http://mainlinephoto.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/400mm-lens-for-fotoman-617-a-first-whoo-hoo/

Changing cones on most of this systems is rather slow - there are four screws on each lens cone. Fuji GX seems easier to change the lens (two screws), but impossible to do this mid roll. Linhof has two screws also, but look at the price! Still, 72mm is the shortest.


Using view cameras like Ebony 617 or Shen Hao PTB 617 or Shen Hao TFC617 (http://www.shen-hao.com/PRODUCTS.aspx?i=199&id=n3 )is not for me! While changing lenses is faster and there seems to be no restrictions of using wide-angle lenses, still this cameras are too slow to shoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grdhe_Hs7hc
I don't like to use ground glass for each shot. So many joints and movements which I never need - make those cameras too complex and slow for me. I need fast and easy shooting.. I also affraid these wood cameras are not so precise as simple metall camera can be.

So.

I made a concept of my own. I want to hear your opinions.

I tried to make the camera very simple and fast to use, as common scale-focusing system, with enough general rigidity and precision. The main idea was to get rid of lens cones and to be free in lens selection. All-metall rail camera with belows. Please note, there are two variants of the camera - without removable film back, and with it.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General look
Here is the scheme with some main parts:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3937/14908998914_2a56a4d05a_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/superka_01/14908998914/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

It is a very simple all-metall rail camera.
It consist of ArcaSwiss-standart Rail and Front and Back Standarts shifting along the Rail on Carriages. Carriages are modified Arca Swiss clamps with strong screw and cheeks.
Front and Back Standarts must have rigid profiles, does not have any movements (I mean the movements of Large Format: Swing, Rise, Fall, Tilt) and are tightly attached to the Carriages. Maybe it's possible to create the Standarts with the Carriges as one part.
The Front Standart accept the Lens Boards with the lens and Focusing Helicoid. The Lens Board can be of one of most common type (Linhof, Sinar...) - about 100x100mm.
The Back Standart can be two variants: it can be film holder itself (var.1), or can accept the removable film holder (var.2). Multiformat possibility (6x12, 6x14, 6x17) would be nice, that's easy to provide.
There is Bellows between Front and Back Standarts.

Preparations
Now let's assume that user has three lenses: 65mm, 90mm, 150mm (for example), mounted on Lens Boards with Focusing Helicoids.
At first user has to do some preparations.
User now has to set four Stoppers (detends) on the Rail, which corresponds all three lenses at infinity focus. Four Stoppers create two ranges for moving Front and Back Standarts, providing three fixed positions of the Standarts.
The setup of the Stoppers undergoes with ground glass for checking focus (Focusing Helicoid must be set at infinity). That's all. Easy!

Shooting
After setting the Stoppers, user can focus for closer distances by scale on Helicoids, when needed.
To change the lens user has to move the Standarts to the corresponding Stoppers, and replace the Lens Board with Helicoid and the lens. You can see three positions of Standarts (65, 90, 150mm) moving between Stoppers, and focusing - on this video (changing lenses is not shown):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IfQCwW2E_U
If Back Standart is var.2 (film holder is removable) then user also can check focus on ground glass each time he needs.


Framing
I suggest to use collapsable sports frame viewfinder in cold shoe, similar to Graflex Sports Finder, with plexiglass attached to the metalic frame.
http://youtu.be/O2mlieFPWJY
The marks, corresponding the field of view can be put by user to plexiglass - on transparent adhesive film. For three lenses - three adhesives with frame marks must be glued - one upon other. For best visibility, frame marks can be different colors.
This kind of viewfinder is rather convinient and precise, and can help to keep the price of the system low. For example Horseman optical viewfinder costs more the 600$ for each lens and Linhof Technorama viewfinders - 1165$!
( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/145563-REG/Linhof_001302_90mm_Viewfinder_for_Linhof.html )
If the long rail would bother when framing with wide-angle lenses, then viewfinder must be possible to be placed on the right/left side of the camera (in cold shoe)

I don't insist on frame Sports Viewfinder. If it possible to make affordable optical viewfinder, or the accesory wideangle lens for smartfones + software providing frames - that's would be great! There is such software for iphone, combined with 0.5x wide-angle lens - Mark II Artist's Viewfinder. Another alternative is the mix of optical+frame finder with mask. Dr.Gilde has created this kind of viewfinder for GG-17 camera.


Lenses
I believe the simplicity of the camera can help to create affordable, versatile, user friendly and user adjustable camera. It should easy provide the usage of 58mm wide angle lens. I think that 47mm is possible too, at least on recessed lens board and without focusing helicoid - thus restricted to infinity or hyperfocal setup. Schneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 47/5.6 XL lens covers 16.6sm on f/22, so shooting this wide-angle will lead to some crop from 6x17, or shooting 6x14 or 6x12 is an alternative. The wide-angle lenses compability is easier to provide with Back Standart var.1
Arca-Swiss Rails can have different length to satisfy any user. More then three lenses can be used on the rail, but for this user would have to move the Back Standart (by unsrewing the carriage clamps) to another range between stoppers fifth and sixth.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3837/14587064095_f732432c21_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/superka_01/14587064095/)

Other schemes of placing Stoppers on the Rail are possible, any focal lenght range is provided.
Besides, user even can use additional Rail if one is not enough. I can't imagine this situation.
As I told this camera can be in two variants of it Back Standart. In my practice I reraly need the ground glass to select the composition and to focus, so I would prefer the first variant as it is simpler, but someone would prefer the second.

Rigidity
The simplicity must provide enough rigidity also, so there would be no need in hard case for this camera. A common camera bag will be sufficient. For safe transportation the bag with the camera in backpack, the Front Standart has adjustable metalic Protective Frame to protect the lens. In the short focal lenght setup, this frame is attached to Back Standart by screws. The frame can be removed, also. I think that this Frame can be used for Lens Hood attaching (such as this http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxNTk0/z/XRoAAOxyTjNSiyA4/$_12.JPG ), but I didn't think about it.
For hard transportation conditions one can disassamble the camera easily: take of the Bellows, and both Front and Back Standarts from the Rail.

Now I need your answer whether you like this concept and what do you think about it: will it "work", could this type of camera be interesting for some photographers, or nobody (except me) would ever want it?

[Dan Fromm]

Well, its what you want. I'm not ready to try 6x17, 6x12's my limit. I use a view camera, focus on the ground glass.

I understand why you want what's basically a point-and-shoot, but since I shoot from tripod y'r idea's point-and-shootiness would do me no good at all. One advantage of my approach is that I can use a wide range of focal lengths. Your design is, from my perspective, limiting.

Perhaps others will find it more appealing than I do.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[SuperK]

I understand why you want what's basically a point-and-shoot, but since I shoot from tripod y'r idea's point-and-shootiness would do me no good at all. One advantage of my approach is that I can use a wide range of focal lengths. Your design is, from my perspective, limiting.



Hi, Dan. Thanks for your reply. But why did you call it limiting here? 47-300mm perhaps are easily possible, I'm sure. It would depend on belows. View cameras also has some limits of below extend. I don't see any limits here.
You did understood the basic idea - right. It is Point-and-shoot camera. Though I shoot from tripod (except very rare situation, when tripod is not allowed) with my Chinese 617 camera, still consider the speed to be very important. I often find myself in the situations when its depends on the speed - whether I do the shot, or miss it. Especially in the city.
Would the Variant.2 with removable film back satisfy you?

[Lachlan 717]

Why not just put some masking tape and some hyperfocal markings on a Shen 617's rails and get a $150 zooming Chinese finder? Done. Rapid shooting P&S.

Also, I'm pretty sure that there's no point setting this up for a 47mm lens. It won't illuminate, let alone produce usable images on, 6x17.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Not to derail your thread but I have several surplus US Navy Panoramic 6x18cm 120 roll film backs I can sell. These are known to keep the film very flat.

[SuperK]

I thought about this method possibly with Shen Hao TFC617. I asked about this kind of usage of view camera one rather famous Russian photographer on forum, but he told me to forget about this, I don't know why.
Did you or someone else tried this? Does this method with wooden camera gives 100% precision and repeatability? I never tried wood view camera, I don't trust them, I afraid they are wobbly.
If the markings works fine, this could be a good solution. Thank you, Lachlan!

[Lachlan 717]

I do use this on all my cameras (Shen 6x17 and 4x5 XPO, as well as my 7x17). Makes for quick set up. I don't use it for point/n/shoot, though, just to get the body to the approximate extension prior to critically focusing it.

I'm building a new 7x17 camera, and I'm thinking of making a cam system for it. Hard to explain how, but it involves a small swing arm that will fit into a groove to lock the extension in place. It will be small enough not to get in the way when not in use and hardly visible. You could easily do this for critical and quick extension with this retro fitted to a Shen.

I think that you need to get over your mistrust of wooden cameras. After all, many of the great LF images were shot with them!!

[hoffner]

Super K - are your still living in the past? USSR does not exist anymore - the guy named Gorbachev took it to the cleaners in 1991. Your country is now known as Russia, as it used to be before Bolsheviks took it to their hands.

When it comes to the concept of your camera - try to make a frame viewfinder for 6x17 cm film format and 47 mm lens (heck even 65mm would suffer from the same problem) and you will see that your eye has not the capacity of seeing a scene so large without moving your head to the left or right - but then you are out of luck as the frame indication moves too.

While the concept has its merits it would need to be refined to make it an usable camera. The last advice - a public is a bad inventor.

[SuperK]

Thank you, Lachlan! Your post is very useful for me! Looks like I can be happy with Shen Hao TFC617.

[SuperK]

No, hoffner, I live in the Future! :)
Concerning viewfinder, you are right - I do have Graflex Sport finder, I do know that to observe the frame, I need to turn my eye left and right. That's sufficient to general framing only.
But some goes further - they attach peephole before the frames, so they can observe the whole frame at once and this kind of viewfinder is more precise maybe, though with heavy distortion.
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps "Mark II Artist's Viewfinder" software + iPhone is the best solution. The specs says that with 0.5x lens it covers up to 17mm in 135-frame equivalent. There is Technorama 612 pc II simulation in their specs, so I guess 47 for 617 is there.

[Lachlan 717]

FYI, the widest lens whose specified coverage is enough for 6x17cm is the Schneider 72mm SAXL. The Shen Hao allows you to use the 72mm. You might get illumination from slightly wider lenses (e.g.. 65mm); however, the edges will not be much good and the fall-off will be extreme.

Speaking of extreme, the 72mm is extremely wide on 6x17cm. You will need the CF if you're shooting Chromes with this lens on this camera.

[SuperK]

I use CF with my Gaoersi/DaYi 617 and 90mm. CF is must have. So there is nothing new for me.
Which Shen Hao 617 do you have?
Does Shen Hao allows to use 47,58mm lenses? I guess it should. If not on common lens board, then at recessed. Does it accept recessed lens board?
Its Film Back is multiformat and can be used in 6x12 mode (no 6x14 unfortunately), so why not using lens that wide? All of them covers 166mm at f22.

[Bob Salomon]

I use CF with my Gaoersi/DaYi 617 and 90mm. CF is must have. So there is nothing new for me.
Which Shen Hao 617 do you have?
Does Shen Hao allows to use 47,58mm lenses? I guess it should. If not on common lens board, then at recessed. Does it accept recessed lens board?
Its Film Back is multiformat and can be used in 6x12 mode (no 6x14 unfortunately), so why not using lens that wide? All of them covers 166mm at f22.

What 612 format? Full 612 like the Technorama 612 cameras (56 x 120mm) or the shortened 612 like the Sinar and Horseman, about 56 x 112mm?

[DrTang]

one big problem is those chinese helicals don't have a big 'throw'

they work for 75mm.. 90mm even..but that's about it

[SuperK]

What 612 format? Full 612 like the Technorama 612 cameras (56 x 120mm) or the shortened 612 like the Sinar and Horseman, about 56 x 112mm?

I don't have any Shen Hao or its back, so this question is for Lachlan. I just see the window for 6x12 frame numbers in Shen Hao film back.
I guess there are simple masks which can be placed in. One can modify these masks, maybe, to have a proper frame size.

[SuperK]

I don't think this is a big problem, at least for me.
Their throw is about 1sm.
The helical throw on my camera is about the same.
My 90mm lens seems to go forward for about 2mm when focusing to 3m mark. So there is a huge reserve for 90mm, because I never focuses closer then 3m.

[richardman]

47mm is really really wide, may be about 5mm-8mm in 35mm film term, depending on how you count. I think 90mm is probably plenty wide enough.

[Lachlan 717]

Again, the 47 and 58mm lenses will NOT cover 6x17cm. 72mm Schneider is the widest that will cover it with acceptable fall-off (with filter) and sharpness.

The windows on the film holder are for when you have the baffles inserted in the holder. Gaoersi, DaYi and Shen Hao provide baffles to crop both 6x12 and 6x15cm images (6 and 5 shots respectively per 120 roll).

Finally, Gaoersi and DaYi provide helical cones for 72mm lens. I know, as I have one for my DaYi.

[Old-N-Feeble]

The diagonal of 56x168mm is 177mm. The 47mm SAXL is rated at 166mm image circle but it illuminates larger so it should easily illuminate 6x17cm straight-on with minimal image degradation at the far ends. You'll surely need a center filter for most images.

[dave_whatever]

I once put my nikon 65/4 onto a recessed board and on my ebony at the time it would make infinity with the Dayi 6x17 back (the rear element of the lens almost touching the 6x17 back). From what I could see on the ground glass it was certainly illuminating the full glass, and stopped down the sharpness seemed OK at the very corners. I never shot with that combo though, it's is pretty bloody wide.

The stated image circle of the nikkor 65/4 is 170mm, which is not a million miles away from the real world diagonal of a 56x168mm frame (177mm). From what I've seen I could believe that the nikon could cover sufficiently and probably so could similar lenses with a stated 170mm circle (65/5.6 super angulon for instance). Or at the very worst should cover enough for minor cropping to get you the rest of the way. Given there are no other options for this wide on this format it's probably worth trying for anyone he'll bent on super wide 6x17 shots.

Of course you might find that the inevitable centre filter for 65mm on 6x17 might, if you're unlucky, cause a bit of vignetting and eat up some of that image circle.

[SuperK]

Lachlan, I didn't say 47-65 cover 6x17 (166mm at f22). I said it's not a problem. Shoot 6x14 or 6x12. If shooting 6x17 (when you didn't insert the masks) with lenses, you'll get some crop. Nothing wrong with using this lenses.
But still the questions remains.
1. Which Shen Hao do you use?
2. Does it accept 47mm in any way: common or recessed lens board? Of course you may not know this, I'll ask Shen-Hao.

[SuperK]

47mm is really really wide, may be about 5mm-8mm in 35mm film term, depending on how you count. I think 90mm is probably plenty wide enough.

Ha-ha, not even close! 47 is for 4x5. as you know. On 4x5 it's about 13mm equavelent. But on the 6x12 you have much "longer" equivalent, I guess about 18mm. That's wide, but that's what you need in interiors, old city courtyards...
for 6x12 lenses up to 38mm are used. But I don't want 38mm, that's crazy wide.

[Old-N-Feeble]

The diagonal of 56x112mm is 125mm... if you use the traditional method to calculate normal focal length. Using the same method for 135 format indicates normal is 43.3mm. To calculate 135 format equivalent of 47mm lens on 6x12cm you divide 47 by 125 and multiply by 43.3 which indicates 16mm.

Keep in mind the narrower the format the wider a lens will "look" if using the traditional method of calculating normal focal length. This is why I prefer to simply multiply the long side of the film by 1.25. Using this method yields a normal focal length of 140mm for 6x12cm (56x112mm) which I think is more accurate. Using this method to calculate normal for both 135 and 56x112mm formats indicates 47mm on 6x12cm is about the same as 15mm on 135 film.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Considering a center filter: The US military had an interesting kind of center filter for aerial lenses which used a multiple point 'star' of translucent Mylar (or something) in a clear filter. Some were quite large. Somewhere I have one and would post an image if my scanner were working, but I think you can imagine what it is like. There are very economical 4" diameter high quality center filters intended for the Metrogon aerial recon lens. I've no idea how either would perform on modern wide lenses.
--
Jac - worked once on anRAF air recon base. The toys we had!

[Lachlan 717]

1. Which Shen Hao do you use?

The very first one made.



2. Does it accept 47mm in any way: common or recessed lens board? Of course you may not know this, I'll ask Shen-Hao.

Don't know, as it doesn't cover 617. 72mm is super wide, and enough for me.

[angusparker]

Not sure who the camera would appeal to since it's pretty close to a rigid camera with cone and a dedicated 617 view camera. I don't think it has sufficient advantages in design over one or the other. It certainly won't be cheaper than the 6x17 back on a 4x5 for the dabbler segment. It won't have the P&S shoot simplicity and ruggedness of a Fotoman 617. Here are my 2 cents on the 6x17 options. I would add the strange but wonderful Noblex 617 is another option to consider.

http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2014/1/review-of-shen-hao-ptb-617

[Jac@stafford.net]

Angus expressed it well, in particular I agree, "It won't have the P&S shoot simplicity and ruggedness of a Fotoman 617" That is not to say that your effort has no merit because in process comes discovery, and discovery is good, for better and worse.

I know a very well published and granted photographer who has been using P&S 6x17 (Linhof) for most of his fifty year career. He shoots at only a few different distances. He almost never misses.

Best in your endeavor.

[richardman]

Koudelka right?!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Koudelka right?!

Stuart Klipper, a very different kind of work.
... and I like Koudelka's work very much.

[IanG]

I use a 75mm f8 Super Angulon on my 617 Gaoersi, I think of it as a natural standard lens for the format, it matches my TLR closely in terms of foreground, background perspective or my 5x4 camera with a 150mm lens.

My intention was to build a camera taking a 5x4 or 617 back using Graflex Speed/Crown parts, focus track & guides with a Super Graphic front standard to give me better movements, I've already adapted it to fit. I'd need to build a larger casing than a Graphic then the backs & bellows. However a recent purchase of two 7x5 Seneca View cameras gives me an easier option.

One Seneca the Improved View is complete, the other a City View has no back and ideally needs new bellows in addition it's missing the panel in the front standard that holds the lens board and attaches to the bellows frame, it's also missing the geared spindle and knobs for rise/fall. While I'd prefer to do a full restoration at some stage if I can find the parts in the short term I'm going to make a new panel that takes a Linhof/Wista lens board and a reducing back for 5x4 and a new back for 617. This will give me a camera that can be used for 7x5, 5x4 and 617.

The advantage of the City View body over the Improved View is the front trackbed is split to allow shift and can be taken apart - ideal when using wider angle lenses. It won't be point and shoot like the Gaoersi (or Fotoman mentioned earlier) but it will give me some movements. Most importantly I won't have to carry 2 cameras one for 5x4 and the other for 617.

Ian

[Drew Bedo]

Why not use one of the Polaroid conversions to 4x5 and mask the film with a dark slide cut to the aspect ratio you want? Whle its not 6x17 cm in size, the ease of range finder focusing and a self stowing fold-up camera would go a long way toward shooting in the style to which you aspire.

[IanG]

Why not use one of the Polaroid conversions to 4x5 and mask the film with a dark slide cut to the aspect ratio you want? Whle its not 6x17 cm in size, the ease of range finder focusing and a self stowing fold-up camera would go a long way toward shooting in the style to which you aspire.

I'd use a Super Graphic if I went down that route with 5x4 film, I use mine hand held. Ideally you need rise & fall to place the Panoramic section in the center of the image circle.

While making a new front panel for my City View this afternoon I did think of shooting 2.25"x7" on 7x5 sheet film, 2 per sheet. It would save taking a separate 6x17 back.

Ian

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have four of the US Navy Torpedo Camera Panoramic 6x18cm 120 roll film backs. Let me know if you're interested in one. I also have the frames to make ground glass focusing easy and accurate plus dust covers for the camera body for when the back is off of the camera. These parts are getting harder to find these days as the military surplus is drying up.

[richardman]

I always thought that someone should make a 6x14 or 6x15 folder camera. That would be totally awesome. Less bulky than 6x17, and more pan than 6x12/.

[Lachlan 717]

I always thought that someone should make a 6x14 or 6x15 folder camera. That would be totally awesome. Less bulky than 6x17, and more pan than 6x12/.

Agreed. And a great ratio. In line with 4x10/7x17/8x20.

Not to mention potentially easier to get lenses that cover (i.e. ultra wides).

[SuperK]

Not sure who the camera would appeal to since it's pretty close to a rigid camera with cone and a dedicated 617 view camera. I don't think it has sufficient advantages in design over one or the other. It certainly won't be cheaper than the 6x17 back on a 4x5 for the dabbler segment. It won't have the P&S shoot simplicity and ruggedness of a Fotoman 617. Here are my 2 cents on the 6x17 options. I would add the strange but wonderful Noblex 617 is another option to consider.

http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2014/1/review-of-shen-hao-ptb-617

As I told I was going to get rid of those cones. Which are heave, huge, expensive and slow to change on most system.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/2553/4536/1600/L1000028%20(3).jpg

I'm sure it's possible to make the camera rigid enough. And precise. If Lachlan717 says the marks "works" on Shen Hao railings, the stoppers would work great on metal camera.
But, perhaps, I need to get Shen Hao TFC617, It must satisfy me, if only it takes at least 58mm, 47mm - better. Waiting for reply from Shen Hao.

But why so many people suggest 4x5+film back? What's the point? Why buy bulky 4x5, and remember that not all of 4x5 can take 6x17 back, then search for 6x17back for it (Gaoersi, DaYi? Horseman for 1500$ ?), when Shen Hao already makes TFC617 with a nice film back perfectly suitable.

[Lachlan 717]

6x17 backs on 4x5" have (to me) irreconcilable limitations on lens selection.

I would suspect the you will have significant issues trying to use sub-72mm lenses on the Shen Hao 617 due to bellow compression. You might get it to focus, but you will probably not get any movements.

[SuperK]

Stuart Klipper, a very different kind of work.
... and I like Koudelka's work very much.

:eek: Woow! Thanks for telling! I didn't know.

[jb7]

I think that people are being a bit tough on you-
One reason not to use sheet film for a panoramic format is that it isn't roll film, I think that's reasonably self-explanatory.

I think the optical bench premise, using off the shelf Arca parts, is a good one and can be made to work. Given that you have a sliding rail, helicoid focusing might not even be necessary at all, especially using wider lenses. A 65mm lens, focusing between 1m and infinity, only needs a throw of around 6mm, most of that at the shorter distances. Perhaps a scale focusing device could be calibrated for each lens in the set? Perhaps something that can screw into the threaded end of some of the Arca rails available?

People do have a point about really short lenses though, for 6x17, the shortest lens is going to be the 72mm, shorter than that can be used, but with vignetting, and 72mm will make best use of the format, at the very wide end.

The model is nice, I think you should make it- If you plan on making the back, that will be the most difficult component. Using one of those surplus backs might give a head start... Interchangable backs are very useful when it comes to using different films, or using the same film in different lighting, but...

The idea of a 6x17 folding camera is a good one, in the sense that folding cameras occupy the least amount of space, given that the film is wound around the bellows. It's the most lightweight, balanced approach to using roll film, a very elegant approach.

I suppose the professionals aren't worried about elegance, as much as they are worried about performance under any given situation, hence the insistence on interchangeable backs...

When can we expect to see it?

[Corran]

I have shot my 58mm XL on 6x17 (Shen-Hao 617PTB). It covers, barely, and only if perfectly centered. With the CF the very edge of the sides get a bit cut off. Maybe 2-3mm each side.

The 47mm XL has the same coverage, from the specifications anyway. I put it on the camera and it seems to be the same as the 58XL in terms of coverage. Haven't actually tried it.

I like the concept, but, I wouldn't buy one unless it was cheap. I did setup my Shen-Hao for "handheld shooting" once, but screwed up the focusing (bumped it or something). I need to make proper infinity/20ft/10ft markings or something as mentioned and try again.

That said, I had more fun / better success using 35mm film in a 6x12 back (uh, 35x112?) with super-wide lenses. I used a 38mm XL* to much success. Of course you get sprocket holes - unless you buy unperforated bulk film! Much smaller, lighter, and easier to handle too, using that back on my Chamonix 4x5 or Linhof MT and a flash bracket as a handle for the Cham.

*In this configuration, it is equivalent to a 58mm on 6x17 (same angle of view). So it seems quite well suited to your usage.

[Lachlan 717]

Getting back to the design, why do you have both rail focus AND helical focus?

[SuperK]

Thanks, Joseph! Making the camera for film back which can be bought is a nice idea, I like it. I do understand that would make the designing and production much more easy.
In my concept each lens has it's own scale-focusing devise, mounted on lens board. The scale on those Chinese helicoids is different, depending on the lens. When you buy this helical on ebay, you must define the focal length. This focusing devices costs about 100$.
Concerning the camera - don't expect it soon (if I decide to make it), I'll be busy for a long time.
That's a good time for making your own camera now, due to CNC and 3d-printers. I'm a 3D CG-artist, that can help me somewhat.

[jb7]

My point was that you don't need a helicoid focusing device at all, given that you can position the lens along the rail, you can scale directly on the rail. I've used a helicoil on a 4x5 p&s, it really is less than satisfactory, if you need quick focus, there is a better way...

[SuperK]

Getting back to the design, why do you have both rail focus AND helical focus?

Oh, you misunderstood the main idea. The rail serves as main constructive element, holding Standarts. Standarts are moved by the rail quickly (rapidly!) for corresponding lens position, set by stoppers.
Focusing devices on lens board are used when you need to focus closer then infinity. Just as if it was Fuji GX617, Linhof 617, Fotoman, Horseman camera.
I replaced the rigid cameras cones (and their dissadvantages) with rail+belows.

[SuperK]

My point was that you don't need a helicoid focusing device at all, given that you can position the lens along the rail, you can scale directly on the rail. I've used a helicoil on a 4x5 p&s, it really is less than satisfactory, if you need quick focus, there is a better way...

I used stoppers for quick positioning the Standarts. But stoppers won't allow me to focus closer then infinity (lens must go forward for this) when I need this. You say me to use marks on the rail, or I misunderstood? Stoppers on the rail are faster and more precise, and secure.
About the helical. I use scale focusing on my Chinese DaYi/Gaoersi and I should say that I'm absolutely happy with this type of focusing and I never miss.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I used stoppers for quick positioning the Standarts. But stoppers won't allow me to focus closer then infinity (lens must go forward for this) when I need this. You say me to use marks on the rail, or I misunderstood? Stoppers on the rail are faster and more precise, and secure.

Two alternatives: 1. if you use round rails, you can precisely and cleanly mark infinity positions by using a small pipe cutter to make shallow surround marks on the rail or 2. make click stops using #1 with a small spring and steel ball in the standard.

[SuperK]

I have shot my 58mm XL on 6x17 (Shen-Hao 617PTB). It covers, barely, and only if perfectly centered. With the CF the very edge of the sides get a bit cut off. Maybe 2-3mm each side.

The 47mm XL has the same coverage, from the specifications anyway. I put it on the camera and it seems to be the same as the 58XL in terms of coverage. Haven't actually tried it.

I like the concept, but, I wouldn't buy one unless it was cheap. I did setup my Shen-Hao for "handheld shooting" once, but screwed up the focusing (bumped it or something). I need to make proper infinity/20ft/10ft markings or something as mentioned and try again.

That said, I had more fun / better success using 35mm film in a 6x12 back (uh, 35x112?) with super-wide lenses. I used a 38mm XL* to much success. Of course you get sprocket holes - unless you buy unperforated bulk film! Much smaller, lighter, and easier to handle too, using that back on my Chamonix 4x5 or Linhof MT and a flash bracket as a handle for the Cham.

*In this configuration, it is equivalent to a 58mm on 6x17 (same angle of view). So it seems quite well suited to your usage.

Whah, Corran! Thanks for your comment.
I was (and still) afraid that the markings on the Shen Hao railings can be not that accurate and can have some shift. But you use PTB version, so you need to Zero out your camera each time.
I also try to make the concept very simple, so it can be cheap. If I'll make it for removable film back, it would be Shen Hao film back.
Maybe it also can be used hand-held. Why not make a removable butt on the end of the rail :).

[Corran]

Certainly there are issues with the idea of marking the "stops" - not least of which is the variable standard placements, both front and back.

Usually when I've done handheld panoramic stuff, I don't ever change lenses - I just setup the camera at infinity and focus a little closer for roughly ~10-15ft, stop down to f/22, and hope for the best. The time with the 6x17, I was focused more like at 3ft, which didn't work out too well with subjects 50ft away!

Also, regarding the PTB, I've been having a ton of trouble with my 72XL and side-to-side parallelism. It's hard to focus at the extremes of the image circle, and so several times I've had images where the plane of focus was way out of whack due to the front / rear standards being not parallel, despite trying my best to align them. Probably the back is my thinking, due to their design. I have some ideas about how to "anchor" the standards on the Shen-Hao and Chamonix, and sometime next year I'm planning on commissioning a custom camera from Chamonix with some of these design ideas...

If you are interested, here are some of my recent blog posts with panoramic images and thoughts, especially regarding my experiments with 35mm film in a 6x12 back:
http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/search/label/Panoramic

[Jac@stafford.net]

Also, regarding the PTB, I've been having a ton of trouble with my 72XL and side-to-side parallelism.

As long as we are blue-skying ideas, if parallelism is an issue why not replace the bellows with three pieces of tubing that slide inside each other to telescope, guided along a single rail? Eliminate movements altogether.

Sorry for the poor quality pictures taken before good digital cameras were made. (Apple QuickTake 100). Photos show all steel and alloy 4x5 Printex cameras. It was fantastic when Kodak HSIE was still available.

http://www.digoliardi.net/printex-2.jpg
and another modified for 3" Biofon
http://www.digoliardi.net/printex-mod.jpg

This one uses one tube inside of the body extension. Your camera would use three tubes to allow different lenses. The lens 'board' is an aluminum disc exactly the size of a CDROM, attached by three screws which could be wing-nuts instead.

[Lachlan 717]

You can use a small block of wood to align the standards. As long as it's square (not difficult with a table saw) and thin/wide enough to fit under the bellows, you can wind the standards together. As long as one standard is not tight, it will swing into parallel as the standards wedge the timber together (hope that this makes sense!)

I do this following a similar issue with my 72mm as Bryan describes.

[angusparker]

As I told I was going to get rid of those cones. Which are heave, huge, expensive and slow to change on most system.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/2553/4536/1600/L1000028%20(3).jpg

I'm sure it's possible to make the camera rigid enough. And precise. If Lachlan717 says the marks "works" on Shen Hao railings, the stoppers would work great on metal camera.
But, perhaps, I need to get Shen Hao TFC617, It must satisfy me, if only it takes at least 58mm, 47mm - better. Waiting for reply from Shen Hao.

But why so many people suggest 4x5+film back? What's the point? Why buy bulky 4x5, and remember that not all of 4x5 can take 6x17 back, then search for 6x17back for it (Gaoersi, DaYi? Horseman for 1500$ ?), when Shen Hao already makes TFC617 with a nice film back perfectly suitable.

I'm certainly being a little tough. The larger cones over 150mm start to get ridiculous which is probably why most people stick with one short FL cone. A limitation but one that is worth it for the P&S and ruggedness. I find the Shen Hao PTB617 very easy to use but the TFC617 would be even easier to setup. Movements on roll film are overrated in my opinion with the possible exception upward shift for panoramic formats. The benefit of the bellows is being able to use many FL and having light weight. A back on a 4x5 is very limiting - something to stay away from.

[SuperK]

If you are interested, here are some of my recent blog posts with panoramic images and thoughts, especially regarding my experiments with 35mm film in a 6x12 back:
http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/search/label/Panoramic

Nice photos you have in the forest. What is clear here - is that 72mm doesn't look tooo wide in this space. 72 perfectly suitable, 65mm would be good too.

[SuperK]

I'm certainly being a little tough. The larger cones over 150mm start to get ridiculous which is probably why most people stick with one short FL cone. A limitation but one that is worth it for the P&S and ruggedness. I find the Shen Hao PTB617 very easy to use but the TFC617 would be even easier to setup. Movements on roll film are overrated in my opinion with the possible exception upward shift for panoramic formats. The benefit of the bellows is being able to use many FL and having light weight. A back on a 4x5 is very limiting - something to stay away from.

Nobody was tough here, that what I like in this forum :).
I do agree with you here. Thanks!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Ideally you need rise & fall to place the Panoramic section in the center of the image circle.

Ian

Why? If the camera swivels about the lens nodal point would that not be best?

[Lachlan 717]

Why?

For the same reason that other tech cameras need rise/fall: to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject. Some people need this (e.g. architectural shooters).

Swivelling around the nodal point will introduce distortion in verticals if you swivel up/down from horizontal.

[Taija71A]

For the same reason that other tech cameras need rise/fall: to keep the 'rear standard parallel' to the subject. Some people need this (e.g. architectural shooters)...

____

Incorrect 'Terminology' and/or thought...

If the Rear Standard of your Camera is Not 'Parallel to the Subject'... All of the 'Rise and Fall' in the world -- Will never make it 'Parallel to the Subject'.

(*Rear 'Rise and Fall' only corrects for Vertical Image Placement).
--
If you want to keep the Rear Standard 'Parallel' to the Subject... You of course would use 'Tilts' for Vertical Perspective Control and 'Swings' for Horizontal Perspective Control.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[Jac@stafford.net]

For the same reason that other tech cameras need rise/fall: to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject. Some people need this (e.g. architectural shooters).

Swivelling around the nodal point will introduce distortion in verticals if you swivel up/down from horizontal.

Only with wide lenses. No?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Only with wide lenses. No?

No... only "more so" with wide lenses. Even things in nature need rise/fall for proper imaging... groves of trees for example.

[Lachlan 717]

No... only "more so" with wide lenses. Even things in nature need rise/fall for proper imaging... groves of trees for example.


Correct.

Another example of where keeping the rear standard parallel to the subject is seascape. Tilting the camera will give a bulging or subsiding horizon if it is off-centre. Rise/fall prevents this.

[Colin Graham]

You can't correct lack of parallelism with rise and fall, but you can maintain it by using rise and fall to avoid tilting the camera up or down. "...to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject" implies that you are simply trying to maintain it, not achieve it.

[Lachlan 717]

You can't correct lack of parallelism with rise and fall, but you can maintain it by using rise and fall to avoiding tilting the camera up or down. "...to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject" implies that you are simply trying to maintain it, not achieve it.


Exactly right, Colin. I didn't write that rise/fall corrects parallelism; I wrote that it keeps it.

[Taija71A]

You can't correct lack of parallelism with rise and fall, but you can maintain it by using rise and fall to avoiding tilting the camera up or down. "...to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject" implies that you are simply trying to maintain it, not achieve it.

Correct!

[SuperK]

You can't correct lack of parallelism with rise and fall, but you can maintain it by using rise and fall to avoid tilting the camera up or down. "...to keep the rear standard parallel to the subject" implies that you are simply trying to maintain it, not achieve it.

Maybe I missed smth, but I didn't understand what is rear standard parallel to the subject. If shooting trees, or grass fields, or a man... how can you define the plane/line to which the rear standard must be parallel?

[Lachlan 717]

It's mainly got to do with converging lines. Particularly in architecture and product photography when you point the camera up/ down. By KEEPING the back parallel with these lines, you maintain them in parallel. Depending on what you're shooting, and how big the usable IC of the lens you have mounted, you can ease/lower either the front and/or rear standard(s) to change perspective and KEEP things aligned.

Grid lines help, as does a Torpedo level to ensure the rear is vertical.

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, keeping the back parallel to the horizon (as best as possible, which, in reality is keeping the camera back perpendicular to the horizon, albeit slightly curved) will minimise horizontal distortion (excessive "bending" of the horizon).

[Jac@stafford.net]

Maybe I missed smth, but I didn't understand what is rear standard parallel to the subject. If shooting trees, or grass fields, or a man... how can you define the plane/line to which the rear standard must be parallel?

A couple of spirit levels?

[Colin Graham]

Maybe I missed smth, but I didn't understand what is rear standard parallel to the subject. If shooting trees, or grass fields, or a man... how can you define the plane/line to which the rear standard must be parallel?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I don't recall anyone saying the rear standard must be parallel to anything. But some subjects have an apparent geometry that happens to line up nicely on plumb and level ground glass. Personally, I don't break out the calibration equipment when taking a photo of a tree.

For whatever it's worth, my post was only a response to Taija71A, who appeared to misunderstand the scope of Lachlan's post.