Prototype box camera

[bobbotron]

Hey everyone. I had some fun on Labour Day and put together a really basic box camera so I could use a 65mm angulon lens (I didn't want to find a super recessed mounting board for my bender 4x5, and this seemed like a fun project.) Wanted to keep things light and chipper, this has been a fun, silly project.

Here are some photos of it - I didn't do any math to figure out correct depth, so I keep shortening it to be able to focus further away. When I get to my cabin, I'll be able to do a proper shortening with my table saw. Good fun! I'll have to make a proper box at some point, break out my finger joint jig.

https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8143/29375269012_2e8fa6fce8_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/LKMW4o)

1st photo taken with it
https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8213/29233719850_7b6ab3758c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/LxhsqA)

Shortened the box, 2nd photo. Some light leaks from the midday sun, something to sort out in time
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8446/29498558416_acabe10f06_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/LWFPGL)

4th photo, more shortening since, at the limits of what I can do with my dull hand saw
https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8199/29498550566_e5701f2d02_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/LWFMnq)

[Peter De Smidt]

Fun project!

[Dan Fromm]

You don't need no steenkin' math unless you drink the hyperfocal focusing koolaid. You also don't need no steenkin' cut and try.

If the lens is a 65/8 SA, flange-to-film distance at infinity is 70.5 mm. If a 65/5.6, and I don't think it is, 71 mm.

You do need to be able to measure.

[bobbotron]

You don't need no steenkin' math unless you drink the hyperfocal focusing koolaid. You also don't need no steenkin' cut and try.

If the lens is a 65/8 SA, flange-to-film distance at infinity is 70.5 mm. If a 65/5.6, and I don't think it is, 71 mm.

You do need to be able to measure.

This isn't actually a fixed focal length, I can focus it back and forth with those screws on the side. Amusingly, I couldn't find the info you just posted so succinctly so cut and try it was. It's hard to find info on LF gear online. I think I learned more this way, and it's been fun.

Anyway thanks, I was planning on getting to around 65mm. It is a f8, so I'll get it to 70 once I get it to my table saw.

[bobbotron]

You don't need no steenkin' math unless you drink the hyperfocal focusing koolaid. You also don't need no steenkin' cut and try.

If the lens is a 65/8 SA, flange-to-film distance at infinity is 70.5 mm. If a 65/5.6, and I don't think it is, 71 mm.

You do need to be able to measure.

This isn't actually a fixed focal length, I can focus it back and forth with those screws on the side, it's two boxes that fit together. :-) Amusingly, I couldn't find the info you just posted so succinctly so cut and try it was. It's hard to find info on LF gear online. I think I learned a bit this way, and it's been fun.

Anyway thanks, I was planning on getting to around 65mm. It is a f8, so I'll get it to 70 once I get it to my table saw.

[bobbotron]

This isn't actually a fixed focal length, I can focus it back and forth with those screws on the side. Amusingly, I couldn't find the info you just posted so succinctly so cut and try it was. It's hard to find info on LF gear online. I think I learned more this way, and it's been fun.

Anyway thanks, I was planning on getting to around 65mm. It is a f8, so I'll get it to 70 once I get it to my table saw.

Thanks Dan, this was incredibly helpful. My focusing screen is pretty terrible at the moment (need to grind some glass). I think I'm actually at the right amount of extension now, give or take a half inch. What's that saying, measure twice cut once? Or as I almost did, cut twice, throw it out? :D

[Dan Fromm]

The one place to go (he says modestly) for directions to information on LF lenses: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!1005&authkey=!ACp3Kf30SHN3MwY&ithint=file%2cdocx

The lens' focal length is fixed. I think you meant to say that your box isn't fixed focus. Some similar cameras are. See, e.g., http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/burke-james-sw-orbitar-4x5.139957/#post-1828281

[Drew Bedo]

Next time try starting with a couple of "ACID" brand cigar boxes from Drew Estate. They are made from pretty thick mahogany with finger jounts that look great. The best part is that all markings ar applied with glued on labels. Nothing is carved into the wood.

I have at times pealed the labels and refinished the wood with Tung Oil varnish for a gift box.

[el french]

Thanks Dan, this was incredibly helpful. My focusing screen is pretty terrible at the moment (need to grind some glass). I think I'm actually at the right amount of extension now, give or take a half inch. What's that saying, measure twice cut once? Or as I almost did, cut twice, throw it out? :D

The saying is: If it's too short, nail another piece on. If it's too long, I don't know what the h*ll to do.

[Randy]

Next time try starting with a couple of "ACID" brand cigar boxes from Drew Estate. They are made from pretty thick mahogany with finger jounts that look great. The best part is that all markings ar applied with glued on labels. Nothing is carved into the wood.I posted elsewhere on the forum my attempt with a cigar box camera (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?45775-Show-us-your-home-made-camera&p=1348487&viewfull=1#post1348487), but I now feel my mistake was using a Grafloc back because of the added size and weight. I am looking for a smaller cigar box and will fashion a back similar to the type of back on the Travelwide.

[maxotics]

I'm looking forward to what you do Thanksgiving! Great stuff!!!!

[bobbotron]

The saying is: If it's too short, nail another piece on. If it's too long, I don't know what the h*ll to do.

The saying around here is "measure twice, cut once." A good friend had a corollary (?): "measure once, cut twice, throw it out the window."

[MAubrey]

The saying around here is "measure twice, cut once." A good friend had a corollary (?): "measure once, cut twice, throw it out the window."

I've always said that I "cut twice and measure once--in that order!"

[Pfsor]

You don't need no steenkin' math unless you drink the hyperfocal focusing koolaid. You also don't need no steenkin' cut and try.

If the lens is a 65/8 SA, flange-to-film distance at infinity is 70.5 mm. If a 65/5.6, and I don't think it is, 71 mm.

You do need to be able to measure.

Unfortunately Dan, you need a little bit more than just to measure - while it is true that lenses have their nominal flange focal length declared in their specifications it is also a fact of life that the actual flange focal length often varies with some percentage from the declared value.
Primitive as it is, the OP's box camera still needs some means of fine tuning of the lens position against the gg. Even more so when he uses 65mm lens where the plan parallelism is of importance and difficult to establish between the lens and gg standard.

For that I give credit to the OP that he incorporated this feature to his primitive camera box (or box camera?).

[Dan Fromm]

Shims, pfsor, shims. If, that is, he provides a ground glass.

[Pfsor]

Shims, pfsor, shims. If, that is, he provides a ground glass.

Unfortunately not, Dan. Shims only work when the rest of the standards is plan parallel. Therefore independent fine tuning of the OP's design works better. It is the common practical problem when building this kind of cameras - the box needs some means of continuous fine focusing at infinity, otherwise it's all a try and guess game. Amateurs often forget this point and come to it when all the measuring and cutting is practically inefficient.

What is more, even if you managed to build the box with its standards exactly plan parallel (almost impossible when the box is made with nails and wood) it is very impractical to measure the exact thickness needed for the shims. It's just a trial at best.
One who has been there and knows, yours sincerely, Pfsor.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Make the box a little too short. Then cut straight through it. Place a large, compliant rubber/composite band around the slit. Using three 1/4" (or smaller) bolts and t-nuts on the outside; bridging the slit will give you a means to expand the band, adjust the back plane on three axis.

The bridge parts can be wood parallel to the slit, just large enough for T-Nuts on one side. A washer under the bolt head protects the wood. ROUGH DRAWING. Ignore scale.

154855 j

[Pfsor]

The bridge parts can be wood parallel to the slit, just large enough for T-Nuts on one side. A washer under the bolt head protects the wood. ROUGH DRAWING. Ignore scale.

154855 j

Unless you have strong springs between the two standards you have to use more nuts on the bolt than just one to secure the distance between the two standards.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Unless you have strong springs between the two standards you have to use more nuts on the bolt than just one to secure the distance between the two standards.

So put springs, half compressed, over the bolts between the nut blocks.
(and remember that the rear nut is a t-nut)

154870

[Randy]

When I made mine out of cigar box, I didn't even consider keeping lens stage exactly parallel with the film stage...I am to stupid to live.

[Dan Fromm]

When I made mine out of cigar box, I didn't even consider keeping lens stage exactly parallel with the film stage...I am to stupid to live.

I'm not sure about that. You certainly aren't paralyzed by perfectionism.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm not sure about that. You certainly aren't paralyzed by perfectionism.

So true. I know how crippling it is to be a perfectionist. Nothing is ever finished, but worse, it is never good enough.

'Adequate' is my mantra now.

[Randy]

Well, I can tolerate uniform softness, but out of focus on one side, sharp on the other is unacceptable. But I guess that will only show up if shooting the face of a building at wide aperture...I guess.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Well, I can tolerate uniform softness, but out of focus on one side, sharp on the other is unacceptable. But I guess that will only show up if shooting the face of a building at wide aperture...I guess.

Compromise is not necessary if you make the camera right.
.

[bobbotron]

When I made mine out of cigar box, I didn't even consider keeping lens stage exactly parallel with the film stage...I am to stupid to live.

I consider my camera to be a the holga of 4x5 cameras, I am not so concerned with this. :P I am having a heck of a time developing Arista 400 as anything but a muddy mess, but I can focus it now. Pretty happy with how my ground glass turned out.

[bobbotron]

This is a super neat idea, I like it Jac!


Make the box a little too short. Then cut straight through it. Place a large, compliant rubber/composite band around the slit. Using three 1/4" (or smaller) bolts and t-nuts on the outside; bridging the slit will give you a means to expand the band, adjust the back plane on three axis.

The bridge parts can be wood parallel to the slit, just large enough for T-Nuts on one side. A washer under the bolt head protects the wood. ROUGH DRAWING. Ignore scale.

154855 j

[bobbotron]

Compromise is not necessary if you make the camera right.
.

I distinctly set out to make camera #1 without worrying about perfection, this was just a fun way to spend an afternoon and workout some basic concepts in my head. I have a lot of various wood and sheet goods, some more attention will be paid to camera #2.

[Jim Jones]

Unfortunately not, Dan. Shims only work when the rest of the standards is plan parallel. Therefore independent fine tuning of the OP's design works better. It is the common practical problem when building this kind of cameras - the box needs some means of continuous fine focusing at infinity, otherwise it's all a try and guess game. Amateurs often forget this point and come to it when all the measuring and cutting is practically inefficient.

What is more, even if you managed to build the box with its standards exactly plan parallel (almost impossible when the box is made with nails and wood) it is very impractical to measure the exact thickness needed for the shims. It's just a trial at best.
One who has been there and knows, yours sincerely, Pfsor.

Shims work fine. I suspect some very precise cameras with high speed lenses set infinity focus with shims. As for plane parallel sides to the box, a table saw with a true running blade and a firmly mounted fence take care of that. If the sides are cut a trifle long, after assembly the same set-up can take the box length down to size a few thousands of an inch at a time. Finger joints are great if one uses fine wood for the sides. Plywood, screws, and glue seem more logical although less elegant. Please, no nails unless you are a Holga fan.

[Pfsor]

I consider my camera to be a the holga of 4x5 cameras, I am not so concerned with this.


Shims work fine. I suspect some very precise cameras with high speed lenses set infinity focus with shims. As for plane parallel sides to the box, a table saw with a true running blade and a firmly mounted fence take care of that. If the sides are cut a trifle long, after assembly the same set-up can take the box length down to size a few thousands of an inch at a time. Finger joints are great if one uses fine wood for the sides. Plywood, screws, and glue seem more logical although less elegant. Please, no nails unless you are a Holga fan.

Sounds like someone paralysed by perfectionism :)
It's not that shims could not do the job. It's that measuring their required exact thickness is nearly impossible for an amateur and a guess and try approach doesn't work well when comparing sharpness on the gg with different shims used. Try it if you don't believe me.

But you know what? Make a camera yourself with the advice you give and tell us then how it worked. That's what I do. But first look at the screws the OP uses to assemble his camera box with before you start to look down at nails on Holga fans cameras.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sounds like someone paralysed by perfectionism :)
It's not that shims could not do the job. It's that measuring their required exact thickness is nearly impossible for an amateur and a guess and try approach doesn't work well when comparing sharpness on the gg with different shims used.

Use aerial focusing rather than ground glass. The camera was all alloy, plane parallel, measured with good instruments. Of course it was easiest in this case because it was a sky camera (http://www.digoliardi.net/skc/skc1.jpg) focused to real infinity. To finesse focus to correct for different ambient temperatures, a fine focusing helix does the trick, although it's over-the-top.


But you know what? Make a camera yourself with the advice you give and tell us then how it worked.

After you, Sir.

[bobbotron]

The bigger problems I need to address with this are the potentially slow shutter and light leaks. I have the weekend to myself and my table saw at home, I think I'll probably create a whole new one instead of trying to fix this one.

[Dan Fromm]

Shims work fine. I suspect some very precise cameras with high speed lenses set infinity focus with shims.

Suspect no longer, here's an example. The A.G.I. F.135 aerial camera. The camera body is a beautiful and very lightly machined die casting. The lenses, two 38/4.5 Biogons in A.G.I. leaf shutters, mount solidly to the casting's central plane. I've dismantled nine (9) F.135s and obtained two spare lenses ready to be mounted. Each lens was marked in pencil with its measured focal length and flange-focal distances, each lens had a shim, marked in pencil with its thickness to 0.01 mm and the lens' serial number.

[Randy]

I set infinity focus on mine with shims - I used what material I had on hand, which is usually what I do - I used cork gasket material, about 1mm thick.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I set infinity focus on mine with shims - I used what material I had on hand, which is usually what I do - I used cork gasket material, about 1mm thick.

I did the same with version one of my 4x5 super-wides .... but the gasket compressed over time. Happily mine has a focusing helix which can make up the tiny error. (Tiny to the eye, big in the darkroom.) :)