Minimum field camera movements?

[Fr. Mark]

Sorry if this topic has been covered many times already, I did not find those threads.

Last LF camera I built was too ambitious/complicated. And, predicated on a 10 pound, monster f3.6 18" projector lens, and using mainly materials on hand, etc. it works, but it's a hard thing to love to use.

This time I think I want to build more for portability so I'm more encouraged to go hiking with it. But, I'm not going to obsess about weight because I want contact prints when I'm done so this will be at least a 5x7, possibly whole plate (no holders yet), 8x10 or maybe 14x17 (also no holders).

Camera will be used for an array of subjects: landscapes, portraits, buildings (but no crazy wide angle lenses).

What are minimum movements you think make a field camera worthwhile? Why?

Or, what is sweet spot between complexity/ease of construction/flexibility/weight/cost.
I'm not inclined to use gears for this build. I don't have high precision wood tools or metal tools (though I'd take donations of them...). I don't think I want to get too exotic in materials either. Wood/plywood/aluminum sheet/extrusions at hardware stores.

Comments on materials choices and designs welcome but foremost question is "which movements?"

Thanks.

[Oren Grad]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?119072-Field-Camera-Which-Movements-Would-You-Consider-ESSENTIAL

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?88775-required-movement-for-landscape-work

[Kevin Crisp]

In a camera this size, the minimum for me would be front rise and front tilt.

[Peter De Smidt]

Front rise, rear tilt, front tilt, variable extension.

[Fr. Mark]

Variable extension means what exactly? There has to be some length change just to focus. Do you mean something like add on rails for a monorail camera or a tailboard extension?

[John Layton]

Absolute minimum for mostly treeless landscapes would be a bit of front (typically forward) or rear (typically backward) tilt. If the camera folds then base tilts can be built into the "folding" dynamic, allowing for further sturdiness/simplicity. Furthermore, base tilts are not as limited by lens coverage as are axial tilts. Downside of base tilts is that they introduce more distortion than do axial tilts.

You did mention buildings...so you would need some front rise and/or rear fall. This would obviously apply for landscapes with trees also, in a similar fashion, although trees, being a bit more "organic," don't require, IMHO, as much constant attention to lateral movements (rise/fall/shift), as do buildings.

At some point, you may be very frustrated not to have just a little bit of swing...especially in doing landscapes with uneven foregrounds. (you can't do that thing, if you don't have that swing!) sorry!

Also...do keep in mind that when you get into 8x10/14x17 territory, and especially then in using longer lenses and/or closeup induced long bellows extensions, you may find the long reach to front controls a bit inconvenient, or even downright uncomfortable/nearly impossible - so do consider the advantages of rear camera movements!

[mdarnton]

I think the guys who made the original view cameras 100+ years ago got it right: front rise and a bit of fall, and shift; back swings and tilts. With these you can manage a lot, including a roundabout version of front swing and tilt. I don't know that adding front swings and tilts would add too much weight, though. Back rise, fall, shift are probably totally bonus and not needed.

Once I really understood back swings and tilts, I sort of stopped using front swings and tilts as much. They're pretty clever.

[Peter De Smidt]

By "extension" I just meant the ability to change the distance between the lens and the ground glass, as opposed to a "fixed focus" camera.

[LabRat]

As mentioned above, for landscape use, some rise, fall, shift are useful, but often not a pressing need, as most rollfilm cameras don't have any and we don't think of it so much when using them... But LF photogs see a pix of a camera that can tie it's bellows into a knot and salivate, so we have a weakness... In commercial or studio work, these can be very useful to tilt focus planes to allow longer (important) planes to be in focus and finding the f-stop that allows anything sticking out of those planes to still be in focus (like on a set tabletop with items sitting on them, etc)... Or shooting something on (and +) a wall at an oblique angle... It breaks that "flat-plane-in-front-of-the-camera-only-in-focus" effect (unless a lens is severely stopped down to try to minimize that plane "effect"...) Or to create or correct distortions, etc... (Many cameras have more movements that many photogs will ever use...)

The sensible thing to do if you design a camera is to carefully note the movements you normally use with your other cameras, and try to build them in to your project... It will ease the design/construction complexity, and can lessen the weight and make for a more rigid camera... But leave it simple enough to be able to add/upgrade movements later as required (like a tilt/swing front lensboard add-on)...

But here's some basics I like in a LF camera;

-Camera is a reasonable weight/size that transports/sets-up quickly/easily...

-Camera opens and zeros out consistently...

-Camera locks well without creep/wobble, yet moves smooth when unlocked... Stays steady, and balances well... Smooth focusing from front or rear standards...

-Movements can be operated from the rear while viewing GG (and under the cloth) and can be re-zero'ed and amount of movements can be determined by touch... (Be able to operate the camera functions without looking at them...)

-You can change the balance point of the camera for different set-ups... You can add a second tripod or support...

-You should be able to loosen one movement, operate it a little, and re-lock it down without disturbing the other movements you added... (With independent movement locks...)

-Being able to add a movement with as little overall re-focusing as possible is a big+++... (So you can try a little of this or that to see how it works... I like on-axis tilt cameras...)

-To have locks/controls not have so much force on them, so if you release them, something wants to fall with some force (like a FS that wants to fall forward or down when released and the camera is aiming down) or requires strong fingers to raise... Balances a heavy lens well/securely... And nothing that can pinch/cut you anywhere...

-Has a connection point near lens for a swing-away shade, accy,or filter holder...

-Gives you plenty of room in front to operate lens controls, and use cable releases/sync cords, filters, etc... Has enough clearance from front bed/rail for WA use...

-Lensboards that are simple/cheap/easy to make... Make adapters for your other common lensboards so they can be used also...

-Has enough room around the GG area for easy holder loading, and easy/non-stressful holder insertion (without moving the rest of the camera)...

Etc.... (Quick, someone stop me!!!!!!)


Keep these in mind for design...

Steve K

[aclark]

The minimum camera movements you will be happy with obviously depend on what you photograph in the landscape, and your style of photography. Because I didn't know what I was doing, I made my first 5 x 4 camera with a full range of movements. The only one that got used regularly was front tilt. So in the interest of simplicity, rigidity, and lighter weight I eventually built another camera with front tilt only. And because I didn't feel in any way handicapped by this, I later built another with front tilt only. This was an ultra lightweight job, with everything pared down to the minimum. It weighs 2lb.but is very rigid. I made it from lime (basswood in the US, I believe ) and 1.5mm birch ply. Lime is a pale, featurless wood so doesn't look much, but it is lightweight, very stiff for its weight , dimensionally stable, and doesn't vibrate very readily. So apart from its plain looks , is an ideal wood for camera building. It bruises easily, so would never be used commercially. Lime helps to get to the sweet spot that the OP asks about. I think the other thing that allows you to hit the sweet spot by making something that is very light and at the same time rigid, is to go for a non-folding design.. This increases rigidity, and reduces weight.

Alan

[Doremus Scudder]

Great responses so far. Just some thoughts on front and rear tilts/swings from me.

Since the back position determines the perspective rendering, positioning the back relative to the subject is important (e.g., parallel to buildings or trees to eliminate convergence). However, you coould do that with your pan/tilt tripod head, and eliminate the need for these movements on the back. Tilts and swings on the front will be lighter and won't need to be as robust (unless your using monster lenses!), so you could save some weight by eliminating back movements and having them only on the front.

That said, it is really convenient to have swings and tilts on both front and back. Add to that front rise and a bit of fall and shift on one of the two standards and you have the package that I consider to be "basic." Many cameras have no shift feature, but I find shift indispensable, so I would include it.

There are some drawbacks to not having swings and tilts on both standards. One would be in the case when you have your camera set up and then wish to tilt/swing the back. You would have to then reposition the back with the tripod head and then re-frame, etc. using the front movements.

Having tilts and swings on both standards also allows you to use the "point-and-tilt/swing" technique to get more rise/shift if you need it. When using a field camera for architecture (which I do often), this ability comes in very, very handy. With tilts/swings on just one standard, you will not be able to take advantage of this trick.

Best,

Doremus

[Mark Sawyer]

Regarding design, study the B&J 8x10 Commercial View. It has rise, fall, and shift, plus generous swing and tilt, at the front and the rear, in a simple, elegant design.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, the minimum field camera is probably the Crown Graphic. Practically speaking, all it offers in the way of movements is front rise.

[Fr. Mark]

Does the non-folding approach really offer anything v. a minimalist monorail? particularly if you can easily add segments to the rail so it doesn't have a rail sticking out when compressed for transport?

At what size film does a monorail lose compared to a flatbed approach? For hiking/bulk? these things don't always scale linearly.

Anyone seen people adapt Sinar parts to odd sizes of film holders? As far as I know they only did 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. I saw on the auction site that Glenview has Sinar Compatible conversion to 8x10. Pricey and "interesting" collection of parts.

Currently, I'm leaning toward the idea of flat beds with all movements front, base tilt back and maybe a little swing in back. I think I can see how to build it that the swing when locked it'd be rigid: bolts at each end with a little travel in curved or wide slots as opposed to a central pivot which is hard to keep from rotating.

What do you see as advantages for front or back movement for focus?

As cameras get bigger its not hard to get to where no human could operate the front controls while looking at the ground glass unless there were some sort of "remote control." I could imagine wanting 3, maybe 4 (more?), feet of bellows on 14x17...

I guess this is why the Chamonix/?Ritter? type design has a central gear for focus of the front along with the fact it is easier to move the front than the back and keep the camera rigid while you put in the film holder?

At a certain point though, even without artillery-piece-sized lenses, does a fixed front and all movements back make more sense? I know back movements change perspective.

Thanks. This is been helpful so far.

[LabRat]

Yes, instead of a front rise, one could use a back fall, but the practical problem is size/space on the rear of the camera... The larger standard is the rear, and they are placed near the bed/rail area to save space (to keep camera more compact) and provide just enough ample clearance for the lower RS + bottom bellows there, so not much room for fall... So they let the front rise upward... (Sorta the same, but very slightly different...)

You could engineer the front rise/fall/shift like one of the older cameras that have sliding lensboard mounts/holders to save some mechanical work...

Front/back focus is VERY useful when doing close-up work, where you don't want to change the lens to subject distance by moving the FS... (I usually focus using the rear standard, on a camera so equipped...)

Steve K

[Vaughn]

Um, the minimum field camera is probably the Crown Graphic. Practically speaking, all it offers in the way of movements is front rise.

That strange back-tilt of the front standard can become front tilt when you drop the bed. I have heard that it does not work as well with short lenses, though.

Going the minimum, I could survive with just back tilt (and it could be base tilt to save weight) and full movements on front. I would occasionally miss not having more back movements, but only occasionally. I am working with a 5x7 camera now w/o back movements...a PITA sometimes.