5x7 Plastic Camera Daydreams

[Larry Kellogg]

Given the imminent arrival of the TravelWide 4x5, I've started to daydream of seeing the design scaled up to 5x7. Some comments were made on this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?119121-Show-your-SPEED-GRAPHICs!/page6

specifically this from Oren Grad:

"In general, rigid-body LF P&S cameras make most sense for wide-to-ultrawide lenses, and the larger the format, the relatively wider it needs to be, because you'll be carrying around a rigid cone long enough to allow for infinity focus, and because as FL increases you need ever more travel for the helical to allow reasonably close focus. There's a listing right now on eBay for a Cambo Wide (4x5) that's been adapted with a cone for a 180, and it looks quite unwieldy.

I'd like a 5x7 P&S, myself."

There was a 5x7 Speed Graphic called the top handle 5x7, but I guess it never sold well and was eclipsed by the 4x5 Speeders. This camera weighs in at 6 1/2 pounds, without lens. A plastic 5x7 would be significantly lighter.

Is it worthwhile thinking about what it would take to produce a 5x7 plastic camera? Would we ever get enough backers for such a venture? Randy More says a 210mm lens would be the best choice for such a camera.

Anyway, have at it. I'd love to have a lightweight 5x7 option to add to my arsenal and would be willing to pay $300-500 for such a camera. Who else would be interested in such a camera?

[Larry Kellogg]

I know there was a HOBO 5x7 camera produced, but I think it was made out of plywood, definitely not what I want. Here is a thread on the HOBO 5x7 and 8x10 camera.

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/0064Me

[John Kasaian]

Peter Gowland built 5x7 point & shoot aerial cameras---a handheld aluminum box camera built around a 200 Nikkor M, IIRC. I've got the 8x10 version. These are certainly viable for terrestial photography. I also shoot a 5x7 Speeder hand held.
Big issue I see with 5x7 is the price & availability of film holders.

[Oren Grad]

I have an 8x10 Hobo with peephole finder and spring back. I had the camera modified with a usable GG and a focusing helical for the 120 SA that the camera was designed for. So it's no longer a fixed-focus box camera. It's fabulous: beautifully finished, compact, easy to carry and use. Surprisingly light weight, too. IIRC even with lens, it's less than what a 5x7 Speed weighs.

For a very small run, it might be substantially cheaper to commission someone to make a batch of wooden cameras than to pay for the mold(s) needed for a plastic camera, and it wouldn't necessarily be much heavier, especially with a wide or ultrawide FL. If conceived as a body plus cone - the construction of my Hobo - it could allow for different FL's, too. Imagine, say, a box with interchangeable cones for a 90, a 120 and a 180 or 210. I could be happy, and Randy could be happy. :)

It ought to be much simpler and cheaper to make a box than to build a folding camera with folding mechanism, focusing bed, bellows, etc.

[Larry Kellogg]

Yeah, but an aluminum camera is still be too heavy. What did it weigh?

I think there are enough film holders out there for the small group of people who would buy a 5x7 plastic camera. I must have thirty film holders.

My comment about what I would be willing to pay refers to the smaller audience for such a camera. We'll never match the 4x5 crowd in terms of numbers. The question is, could we come close to making it economical to produce the camera?

[Jac@stafford.net]

I know there was a HOBO 5x7 camera produced, but I think it was made out of plywood, definitely not what I want.

How about up-scaling the equivalent of a cherry and oak 4x5" with 47mm Super-Angulon? Has focusing helix, viewfinder and ground glass. Very light.

127796

The same could be made for 5x7". Being of cherry-wood would mean that economical make-upon-demand is feasible compared to making with expensive plastic mold setup. (I do not yet trust 3D printing.)
.

[Larry Kellogg]

I have an 8x10 Hobo with peephole finder and spring back. I had the camera modified with a usable GG and a focusing helical for the 120 SA that the camera was designed for. So it's no longer a fixed-focus box camera. It's fabulous: beautifully finished, compact, easy to carry and use. Surprisingly light weight, too. IIRC even with lens, it's less than what a 5x7 Speed weighs.

For a very small run, it might be substantially cheaper to commission someone to make a batch of wooden cameras than to pay for the mold(s) needed for a plastic camera, and it wouldn't necessarily be heavier, especially with a wide or ultrawide FL. If conceived as a body plus cone - the construction of my Hobo - it could allow for different FL's, too. Imagine, say, a box with interchangeable cones for a 90, a 120 and a 180 or 210. I could be happy, and Randy could be happy. :)

It ought to be much simpler and cheaper to make a box than to build a folding camera with folding mechanism, focusing bed, bellows, etc.

So, what does your 8x10 HOBO weigh? Any idea about the weight of 5x7 HOBO? I still think that wood is too heavy, and I've worked with the stuff, although I like the idea of different cones for different focal lengths. The TravelWide guys avoided the whole problem of having a heavy back by having no back at all, except for the film holder. Could we somehow produce just the cones for fixed focal lengths, with no focusing helical?

I would participate with others in commissioning a batch of cameras, although I question whether we can get enough people to cover the cost. Could we get a design that could be printed on a 3D printer, using a light tight plastic that Ben referred to in one of his posts?

[Larry Kellogg]

How about a cherry and oak 4x5" with 47mm Super-Angulon? Has focusing helix and viewfinder. Very light.

127796


Cherry and oak, I've worked with them both in a professional cabinetmaker's shop. Beautiful, but not light enough for me to carry around the streets of New York.

Quantify "very light". What does it weigh? ;-)

[Oren Grad]

There's a wonderful tradition of home-brew wooden box cameras, some of them beautiful as well as functional, as Jac's example. I'm all thumbs in the shop myself, alas, but if the cost could be kept within reason by batching a group of orders, I'd be happy to pay someone who knows what he's doing. Again, allowing for parts-making efficiencies from being able to run a batch at one time, I'd think this ought to be doable for somewhere in the mid-hundreds of dollars, maybe even including such frills as interchangeable cones and a real spring back with GG.

[jp]

I've got a gowland 4x5 aluminum aerial camera. It is VERY light. It does not focus though. It's a worthwhile material better suited to modest production.

[Oren Grad]

Just weighed my 8x10 Hobo. It's 6 lb, 14 oz. with leather hand strap, 120 Super Angulon and helical mounted. With suitable choice of lens, a 5x7 version ought to be less than half of that.

The helical has been the biggest problem for the Travelwide. It would probably make sense to assume that a 5x7 camera would include a cone, but buyers should acquire separately whatever helical they want to use, whether it be a schmancy dedicated Schneider or Rodenstock helical, a Fotoman clone or one of those generic Chinese ones that show up on eBay now. FWIW, the helical on my 8x10 Hobo is a Fotoman, with distance markings for the 120mm FL.

[Larry Kellogg]

I've got a gowland 4x5 aluminum aerial camera. It is VERY light. It does not focus though. It's a worthwhile material better suited to modest production.

Sorry to be a broken record, what does it weigh? ;-)

I think our best bet is to try to convince Ben and Justin to scale up their design, after they've shipped all their TravelWide cameras, but I think they're not going to want to think about other camera models for a long long time., if ever. We would have to create another KickStarter campaign, put up our money, and then not complain for however long it took to produce this camera. I'm willing to wait years.

Still, if people are interested in having some aluminum boxes made, I might be interested. I still think the thing would be too heavy for my taste. I don't own a car, whatever I shoot with, I carry.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Cherry and oak, I've worked with them both in a professional cabinetmaker's shop. Beautiful, but not light enough for me to carry around the streets of New York.

Quantify "very light". What does it weigh? ;-)

I don't know how I can tell. It won't even register on my fishing scale.

[Larry Kellogg]

I don't know how I can tell. It won't even register on my fishing scale.

LOL. Anything is portable as long as you put a handle on it, as my father used to say. The "portable" thing he created was usually some steel box.

[Jac@stafford.net]

LOL. Anything is portable as long as you put a handle on it, as my father used to say. The "portable" thing he created was usually some steel box.

I cannot imagine how feeble a person must be to find the camera in question heavy. I will try to find a postage scale.

I can imagine you schlepping your flyweight plastic 5x7 all over town all day with enough holders to last. Crazy. Why not a 6x17 roll-film camera? I know a fellow who carries his all day, under all conditions. He's 75 years old.
.

[Larry Kellogg]

I cannot imagine how feeble a person must be to find the camera in question heavy. I will try to find a postage scale.
.

Ha, please report back on your findings. The burning question is whether you dovetailed the corners, used a finger joint, or joined them with a biscuit cutter. If I was renting space in my friend's cabinetmaking shop, I might volunteer to build some of these things, but, alas, they closed up due to economic pressures. At least I escaped with all my fingers intact, no small feat when working with planers, jointers, table saws, and band saws.

[Larry Kellogg]

I cannot imagine how feeble a person must be to find the camera in question heavy. I will try to find a postage scale.

I can imagine you schlepping your flyweight plastic 5x7 all over town all day with enough holders to last. Crazy. Why not a 6x17 roll-film camera? I know a fellow who carries his all day, under all conditions. He's 75 years old.
.

Sorry, 6x17 is a weird aspect ratio in my mind, while 5x7 is perfect. Besides, I have a beautiful Durst 138S 5x7 enlarger that is crying out for more 5x7 negatives. Josef Sudek, the Czech photographer, had one arm and schlepped around an 8x10 view camera. It's not that I can't do it, it's just that I would rather not maim myself by doing it all the time.

[Steve Goldstein]

I think our best bet is to try to convince Ben and Justin to scale up their design, after they've shipped all their TravelWide cameras, but I think they're not going to want to think about other camera models for a long long time., if ever. We would have to create another KickStarter campaign, put up our money, and then not complain for however long it took to produce this camera. I'm willing to wait years.

That's an interesting idea. You should forward it to Ben in the event he doesn't see this thread. Perhaps the more difficult bits of the Travelwide, like the helical assemblies, could be reused for a 5x7 version. Parts commonality would reduce the scope of a new design, and probably also reduce the number of new problems that would arise in its execution. I don't know if the helical opening can be enlarged to handle Copal 1 shutters or what other limits might arise with the current design, but it certainly seems like a sensible starting point.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Ha, please report back on your findings. The burning question is whether you dovetailed the corners, used a finger joint, or joined them with a biscuit cutter.

None of the above. The body is one piece of cherry, planned and the rear/inside was machined hollow. Given it uses a 47mm S/A, it is all quite thin. The ground glass holder is thin, strong cherry dovetailed corners. Frankly, I'm puzzled by your perception.

[Larry Kellogg]

None of the above. The body is one piece of cherry, planned and the rear/inside was machined hollow. Given it uses a 47mm S/A, it is all quite thin. The ground glass holder is thin, strong cherry dovetailed corners. Frankly, I'm puzzled by your perception.

Ah, ok, I guess it's just that I've been spoiled by the dream of the TravelWide, such that every other material is too heavy. It would be wonderful to have a cherry camera that turns redder as it is exposed to sunlight, but it wouldn't be a camera that I would shoot in the rain, something I like to do. That camera looks like a fine piece of furniture, I already have that kind of eye candy with my Wisner. I want a utilitarian plastic box that doesn't attract too much attention.

[djdister]

I could go for a plastic 5x7 too - so if mold costs are too high, why not piece it together out of ABS plastic sheeting?

[Ben Syverson]

I'd have to make some sketches, but I think you could create a simple 5x7 extension back that would slip into the Travelwide… It might put the focal length in the 125-150mm range, so not very wide. The close focus wouldn't be great, because 20mm of extension would be a shorter throw at a longer focal length. It would work for landscape but wouldn't be ideal for portraiture.

The tooling on the back would probably be in the $5,000-8,000 range depending. It would help if you were willing to use a simplified holder attachment system (think ball bungees). It's a large part, so the per-part price wouldn't be great—maybe as high as $8. All told, it could be $10,000 to run about 100 parts, but that's still only $100 per unit. For a specialty photo accessory, that's not too terrible.

Oh boy. I can't think about this right now.

[Larry Kellogg]

Too late, Ben, you've already solved the case, like Sherlock Holmes. ;-) The 4x5 TravelWide would be for portraiture, the 5x7 for landscape, not a bad idea, really. Sweet.

[John Kasaian]

Sorry to be a broken record, what does it weigh? ;-)

I think our best bet is to try to convince Ben and Justin to scale up their design, after they've shipped all their TravelWide cameras, but I think they're not going to want to think about other camera models for a long long time., if ever. We would have to create another KickStarter campaign, put up our money, and then not complain for however long it took to produce this camera. I'm willing to wait years.

Still, if people are interested in having some aluminum boxes made, I might be interested. I still think the thing would be too heavy for my taste. I don't own a car, whatever I shoot with, I carry.
What does it weight? The 5x7 about 5#. The 4x5 a little less, the 8x10 a little more. These r the aerial models. Gowland also offered helical focusing as an option so you weren't stuck in infinity.

[angusparker]

Another option would be to take the 8x10 Harman Pinhole for $433 add a helical, lens, ground glass and be happy with an 8x10 P&S...... http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1174106-Harman-Titan-8x10-Pinhole-Camera-Kit. My guess is there are relatively few people who want a 5x7 Travelwide due to the larger cone, weight and hard to find film holders. But a modified 8x10 Harman might have some demand if the helical / lens selection could be worked out. The Harman comes with a 150mm cone, so you could add 10-30mm in helical/spacers. Something like the tiny Fujinon A 180/9 would work a charm. Having owned a heavy Fotoman 4x5 P&S with a 135mm lens / cone I can tell you I didn't use or like it that much. The Travelwide being small / lighter and cheap seems like it hits a sweet spot.

[Larry Kellogg]

I don't want to bear the cost of 8x10 film, I don't have an 8x10'enlarger, and 8x10 holders are too heavy to be practical to carry around. 5x7 is still workable, 8x10 is too much, in my opinion. I see plenty of 5x7 holders, and have bought quite a few in the last year.

I'm happy to hear that we might be able to adapt the TravelWide and would only have to beat the bushes to come up with 100 people to shoulder the costs, just 10% of the original number of backers. That's good news to me, and quite unexpected.

[angusparker]

I don't want to bear the cost of 8x10 film, I don't have an 8x10'enlarger, and 8x10 holders are too heavy to be practical to carry around. 5x7 is still workable, 8x10 is too much, in my opinion. I see plenty of 5x7 holders, and have bought quite a few in the last year.

I'm happy to hear that we might be able to adapt the TravelWide and would only have to beat the bushes to come up with 100 people to shoulder the costs, just 10% of the original number of backers. That's good news to me, and quite unexpected.

Just an alternative idea.....

[John Kasaian]

Why couldn't you adapt a 5x7 extension back on a TravelWide?

[Jac@stafford.net]

I don't want to bear the cost of 8x10 film [...] and 8x10 holders are too heavy to be practical to carry around.

You could wear one on the front of your chest, one on the back. Put advertising on the slides. Rent out as a sandwich man.
.

[JoeV]

None of your ideas are crazy enough. Here's crazy: a plastic, one-shot camera that also serves as its own developing tank. You sit down in your local Starbucks, order your venti latte and pull out a few small plastic bottles from your bag. Develop, stop, fix and a cup of water from the barista for rinse. Shoot Harman Direct Positive paper (I still have some), squeeggee it dry with coffee stir sticks and Bob's yer ... Oh, nevermind.

~Joe

[Larry Kellogg]

JoeV, that sounds like the box cameras they have in Afghanistan. It's been done, see here:

http://afghanboxcamera.com

John, read Ben's post. Ben thinks he can do an extension back.

Anyway, the title of the thread did say 5x7, not any other size.

Here are a couple of links about 5x7 extension backs:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?8506-4x5-to-5x7-extension-back

And

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00EdVe

So, really, we can do this as long as we pick the right lens and avoid bellows cutoff?

[mdarnton]

I had previously thought of building a light (3mm box) birch-ply camera around a 75/5.6 and 5x7 (as Ramiro Elena did- https://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/13082190464/ - the back is two pix over to the right), but now I'm thinking of 115/6.8 + 8x10. If I do it, either way I'm going to get some sort of Chinese helical. But then the Travelwide became a thing, so I'm waiting for that to see if I really do use it or not before I sink energy into making something larger.

[jp]

Sorry to be a broken record, what does it weigh? ;-)

The postal scales say it (Gowland aerial 4x5) weights 3 pounds and 5.6 ounces. I think much of the weight is from the solid plastic handles and the spring back/gg.

[John Kasaian]

You could wear one on the front of your chest, one on the back. Put advertising on the slides. Rent out as a sandwich man.
.

LOL! I always knew there had to be a way to make a buck with an 8x10:rolleyes:

[Winger]

I just bought some 5x7 holders with the idea of making a pinhole camera. I'm getting a Travelwide, so I like the idea of the extension to it. Ben, get off the ledge, we can wait 'til you've recovered. So probably count me in.

[Larry Kellogg]

I just bought some 5x7 holders with the idea of making a pinhole camera. I'm getting a Travelwide, so I like the idea of the extension to it. Ben, get off the ledge, we can wait 'til you've recovered. So probably count me in.

Well Bethe, we're certainly going to need as many people as possible to make the extension back a reality, about a 100 people from what Ben has posted. I think we're at about six backers right now, LOL.

Still, this has to be a lot easier to make happen than a dedicated 5x7 plastic camera. I don't think we would ever get enough people to fund that project, although I would love to be proven wrong.

[rfesk]

I just posted photos of my 5X7 P&S on the DIY forum. It seems the heaviest part is the lens and Chinese made focus mount.

[David Karp]

I'd have to make some sketches, but I think you could create a simple 5x7 extension back that would slip into the Travelwide… It might put the focal length in the 125-150mm range, so not very wide. The close focus wouldn't be great, because 20mm of extension would be a shorter throw at a longer focal length. It would work for landscape but wouldn't be ideal for portraiture.

The tooling on the back would probably be in the $5,000-8,000 range depending. It would help if you were willing to use a simplified holder attachment system (think ball bungees). It's a large part, so the per-part price wouldn't be great—maybe as high as $8. All told, it could be $10,000 to run about 100 parts, but that's still only $100 per unit. For a specialty photo accessory, that's not too terrible.

Oh boy. I can't think about this right now.

Ben, you are nothing if not game! :-)