question about Phillips/Chamonix design for short lenses

[Michael Roberts]

I'm building and modifying cameras, and I am intrigued with some aspects of the Phillips/Chamonix camera design.

Here's my question: how far forward does the rear of the camera slide? I haven't seen any photos of this, so if someone can post a photo--preferably of an 8x10 or larger, I would appreciate seeing it. Alternatively, if you know of a photo on the web, just point me to it. I've been to the Chamonix website and looked at some youtube videos, but haven't seen what I'm looking for.

I know from the specs that the 8x10 can accommodate as short a lens as 110mm, and it looks to me as if this is done with a combination of sliding the rear forward and setting the front standard back, but with some part of the base of the camera still sticking out in front of the front standard/lens.

I can only guess that the part of the base forward of the front standard is short enough that it does not enter the vignette the lens. It would be helpful to see a photo.

Thanks,
Michael

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am intrigued with some aspects of the Phillips...design.

Here's my question: how far forward does the rear of the camera slide? I haven't seen any photos of this, so if someone can post a photo--preferably of an 8x10 or larger, I would appreciate seeing it. Alternatively, if you know of a photo on the web, just point me to it...It pays to explore the home page of this forum. Doing so leads to the following:


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/cameras/phillips/

I can't get to my Compact II right now, but, from the pictures and memory, those "feet" (as Dick Phillips refers to them) can be slid forward about two inches.

[vinny]

Sal, none of the pics of the phillips show how far the rear standard slides forward.

Michael,
Take a look a the pics of my build on my site. The "feet" are slotted as well as the base. There are pics of both. I can use a 90mm on my camera with my 4x5 back.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks for your quick response, Sal.

The pics from your link do not show what I am looking for--the rear of the camera positioned as close as possible to the front of the camera base.

However, the "feet" on the Phillips camera look to be considerably longer than on the Chamonix, as seen in this link: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/810.html

It looks like the original Phillips camera allows the rear frame to slide much closer to the front.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Vinny. I looked through your photos of your camera build. It still looks to me like the rear frame can only slide a little more than half-way to the front of the base:
http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!the base/zoom/c65q/image13gu

What am I missing?

[Michael Roberts]

Okay, some more looking at the Chamonix site turned up this: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/_images/57c.jpg

So, this is what I guessed must be the way the minimum bellows works--with some part of the base still out in front of the lens. Is this it, or can the amount of the base extending in front of the lens be minimized further?

[vinny]

With an 8x10, you can't compress the bellows much more than 90mm anyway and certainly couldn't use rise/fall (without bag bellows) at that point either. It likely does only slide halfway. I made mine so that is slides further forward than the chamonix design. At a point it doesn't matter because you'd be photographing the feet regardless. That's why the base has multiple holes to place the front standard in different positions.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, none of the pics of the phillips show how far the rear standard slides forward...Select this one


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/cameras/phillips/compactII9.jpg

and magnify it. The star knobs, as I recall, are about one inch in diameter. The foot slot that threaded rod goes through looks to be around two knob diameters long behind the rod. The threaded rod is fixed in position on the base. Thus, there's about two inches of forward foot travel possible.

[Oren Grad]

I think I squished my Compact II down to focus a 90mm at infinity once, just to prove to myself that it could be done, but the shortest lens I've used in the field is 115. When you get that short it's a challenge to record a vertical composition without having the feet creep into the picture.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Oren. That kind of limitation is what I was wondering about.

[ic-racer]

With the Shen-Hao (also Phillips style) I can easily focus a 125mm. The Shen-Hao also has front base tilt, not found on other "Phillips-Style" cameras. This, of course, would allow the front and rear standards to meet if desired.

[Hugo Zhang]

Maybe this image will help?

[Oren Grad]

Here's a quick-and-dirty snapshot of my late-production Compact II with the front standard in the rear-most socket and the feet pushed forward as far as they will go. This puts the bearing surface for the lensboard 95mm from the front of the ground glass, which is close enough for some 90's on a flat board, but not all. Note that in this configuration the feet extend about 28mm beyond the baseboard and the focusing bed, and so become the limiting factor for unobstructed field of view.

145558

[Michael Roberts]

Maybe this image will help?

Thanks Hugo and Oren, but no. Maybe I wasn't clear. This is the opposite of what I'm talking about--everything (i.e., the rear frame and front standard) is shown as far as possible to the rear of the camera base.

What I am inquiring about is how far the rear of the camera can be positioned to the front of the camera base.

I'm pretty sure in the position shown, the front of the camera base will vignette an image made with a very wide lens.

As you all know, there are two issues with regard to using very wide angle lenses:
1. how much the bellows will compact/how short the minimum distance is that the camera design allows between the film plane and the lens--this is what these last two photos show, and

2. how close to the front of the camera base/rail the rear of the camera can be positioned (so that the front of the base/rail does not intrude into and vignette the wide angle image)--this is what I am inquiring about.

Thanks,
Michael

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks Hugo and Oren, but no. Maybe I wasn't clear. This is the opposite of what I'm talking about--everything (i.e., the rear frame and front standard) is shown as far as possible to the rear of the camera base...Incorrect. Both Oren's and Hugo's pictures show their cameras' rear frames pushed as far forward as possible and their front standards placed as far rearward as possible.


...What I am inquiring about is how far the rear of the camera can be positioned to the front of the camera base...Chamonix uses feet that are substantially shorter than the base; Phillips' feet are almost as long as the base, thereby permitting more rear extension than Chamonix. Since the Phillips' feet, when zeroed, appear to end about one inch from the base's front (see this image: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/cameras/phillips/compactII9.jpg), Oren's measurement of 28mm quantifies what you asked for. I estimated two inches from memory and this site's static page images. It turns out to be just about that much i.e. 28mm plus the one inch zeroed gap in front.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks Hugo and Oren, but no. Maybe I wasn't clear. This is the opposite of what I'm talking about--everything (i.e., the rear frame and front standard) is shown as far as possible to the rear of the camera base.

What I am inquiring about is how far the rear of the camera can be positioned to the front of the camera base.

As Sal said, this is indeed the answer to your question. You can move the front standard much further forward by mounting it in the front-most socket, but then you're stuck with a much longer extension from the GG, because the rear standard is as far forward as it will go. It hits a hard stop at the position I showed.

But also, I think you may be overestimating how much of a constraint this is, at least compared to other current field camera designs. I'm pretty sure that with care one could reliably use 110 for horizontal pictures, which is pretty extreme for 8x10, and probably at least as wide as 120 for verticals, which is also pretty extreme. I don't know of any modern lenses shorter than 110 that can reasonably be described as covering 8x10 at distant focus.

As you've seen, the details of the different Phillips-style cameras vary; exactly how far wide you can push it will depend on the exact dimensions of the different components of the particular camera, how far forward the front element of the lens sits (big-coverage wides tend to have big front cells with front elements relatively far forward), and fiddling the focus and the position of the feet just so, to optimize.

If you're dead set on exercising all of your Hypergons on a platform that's stable and secure, the answer is to configure a monorail with a bag bellows and everything shoved to the front.

[Drew Wiley]

My Phillips 8x10 will only directly accept lenses down to 150, though that if way way shorter than any lens I intend to use on 8x10. One could use a recessed board
for something shorter; but the bellows would be miserable scrunched, and you'd get mechanical vignetting from the camera bed unless you tilted it downwards and
readjusted the standards.

[Keith Pitman]

Michael,

I have a Chamonix 8x10. Give me a call, PM or email if you want to come by and fiddle with it and make your own measurements.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I estimated two inches from memory and this site's static page images. It turns out to be just about that much...OK, I've now excavated to my (1998-vintage, with a slightly different base shape -- angled corners in front) Compact II and checked it. The attached image shows what I suspected, not surprising since Dick's cameras were never metric designs. The farthest one can push its rear feet forward is exactly two inches.

Note that the distance from ground glass to lens board in this, the most compressed possible configuration, is 120mm. That's also not surprising, since Dick "sees" with a 120mm Nikkor SW, which has a flange focal distance of 130.7mm, on 8x10. In fact, it's the only large format lens he kept to go with his personal 8x10, an early Explorer.

[Oren Grad]

Note that the distance from ground glass to lens board in this, the most compressed possible configuration, is 120mm. That's also not surprising, since Dick "sees" with a 120mm Nikkor SW, which has a flange focal distance of 130.7mm, on 8x10. In fact, it's the only large format lens he kept to go with his personal 8x10, an early Explorer.

Yes, the first time I met Dick he had the 120 Nikkor SW on his camera. In later production he moved the rear-most socket on the focusing bed further back - or added another socket, I don't recall for sure - specifically to accommodate users of the 110 Super-Symmar XL.

[Oren Grad]

If you're dead set on exercising all of your Hypergons on a platform that's stable and secure, the answer is to configure a monorail with a bag bellows and everything shoved to the front.

Or, of course, build a dedicated ultrawide camera, either box camera or short-bed bellows camera.

[Michael Roberts]

Okay, all good information, and I thank you all for your replies. Thanks Sal, for pointing out my error. Thanks Hugo and Oren for posting the pictures I requested.

I'm really surprised the rear frame cannot be located any further forward than this, but your replies confirm that in practice this is not a limitation to using very wide lenses.

Keith, I may take you up on your offer after work and travel calms down in a few weeks.

Best,
Michael

[jumanji]

I have an 8x10 Chamonix and I couldnt use a 125mm lens. Had to borrow my friend's Agfa 8x10 and made a recessed board.

[Uncle Jim]

Gentlemen,

I believe that all of you have missed the point, that being that the rear frame is unable to slide forward on the feet that it is attached to. This is inherent in the design, and I have seen no one make an attempt to change this, and don't know if it is even possible. Perhaps some bright individual out there could correct that deficiency and the question would then be mute.

Keep Well,
uncle jim