My perfect fixed lens LF camera - decision 1, the lens.

[adrianlambert]

I’m new here so firstly a big hi to all!

I’d like to build what to me would be the perfect large format camera. Lightweight, compact, rangefinder, wide-standard lens. What I’m searching for as a starting point though is a 95mm - 105mm lens in a helicoid, that covers 4x5 without movements. Maybe the Mamiya Press 100mm? Anyone know this lenses circle? I hear the 75mm and 127mm both cover the 160mm but the 100 is faster so I’m guessing it might be too small. Any others that might, say from old 2x3 press cameras that could still record a decent image on modern film - ie good contrast and resolution?
Thanks

[Pfsor]

Mamiya Press lenses don't cover (at infinity) 4x5 film format. Google is your friend.

[aclark]

A few years ago I built a fixed-focus 5x4 box camera using a 90mm Schneider Super Angulon lens. Lens to film-plane distance was worked out to give D.O.F. from infinity to just a few feet away when the (F64) lens was stopped down to f45. The camera back has ground-glass, which is only used for composing the photograph.
Very light weight and compact. Quick and easy to use and I have had some very pleasing results with it.
Slightly different to what you have in mind, but maybe worth considering.

Alan

[adrianlambert]

Mamiya Press lenses don't cover (at infinity) 4x5 film format. Google is your friend.

Google is indeed my friend and google says different. Actually this guy says differently but google helped my find him. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156421 plus others that I've found.

[xkaes]

The Fujinon NW f5.6 105mm just covers 4x5 and would be perfect for your purposes. It is multi-coated, small & light, with a 46mm filter thread and a fast 5.6 aperture. You could simply fix the lens at the hyperfocal distance, add an appropriate viewfinder to the upper left corner (easy to get), and drop the ground glass. The DOF will very VERY wide. And, you could later decide to add a helicoid to the lens and add a rangefinder to the top.

[adrianlambert]

The Fujinon NW f5.6 105mm just covers 4x5 and would be perfect for your purposes. It is multi-coated, small & light, with a 46mm filter thread and a fast 5.6 aperture. You could simply fix the lens at the hyperfocal distance, add an appropriate viewfinder to the upper left corner (easy to get), and drop the ground glass. The DOF will very VERY wide. And, you could later decide to add a helicoid to the lens and add a rangefinder to the top.

Precisely where I'm currently at, except I was looking at the 105mm CM Funijon W which is an updated version albeit with a 67mm filter thread. Adding a helicoid seems pretty straight forward, you can get them off of eBay these days but before I went down this road the Mamiya 100mm or something similar already in a helical mount would be slightly simpler.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[Pfsor]

Google is indeed my friend and google says different. Actually this guy says differently but google helped my find him. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156421 plus others that I've found.

I don't know about your reading comprehension skills but the link you give says very clearly contradicting info. Hardly a proof to be used. That should be a warning sign to you. Have a look at this link https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-80176.html and you will see it said more clearly. Google is very often a friend you cannot trust with all it says and to choose you need to think twice.
If you want look also at the testimony of those who wanted to use Mamiya Press lenses for 6x12 film format. I did, because I built several cameras for this format. None with a Mamiya Press lens - for quite a comprehensible reason... (and I own the Mamiya Press camera system with many cameras and lenses...)

[adrianlambert]

A few years ago I built a fixed-focus 5x4 box camera using a 90mm Schneider Super Angulon lens. Lens to film-plane distance was worked out to give D.O.F. from infinity to just a few feet away when the (F64) lens was stopped down to f45. The camera back has ground-glass, which is only used for composing the photograph.
Very light weight and compact. Quick and easy to use and I have had some very pleasing results with it.
Slightly different to what you have in mind, but maybe worth considering.

Alan

Thanks Alan, I've considered that too and may well revert to it but I'm not at all fond of lenses that display wide angle distortions, at least for this purpose. I'm actually an architectural photographer so I use wide angles a lot - I guess that's part of the appeal of moving away from those lenses.

To give a better idea of my goal, I have a Makina 67 which I love except for the slightly too long a lens. I'd love to get that right but for a 4x5. A Chamonix Saber might be ideal if the lens was right but they're hens teeth!

[Pfsor]

I’m new here so firstly a big hi to all!

Maybe the Mamiya Press 100mm? Anyone know this lenses circle?
Thanks

Care to say which Mamiya Press 100mm lens you speak about? The f2.8 or f3.5? Google is your friend.

[xkaes]

Precisely where I'm currently at, except I was looking at the 105mm CM Funijon W which is an updated version albeit with a 67mm filter thread.

I currently use the Fujinon CM-W 105mm, after I sold my NW 105mm. I only sold the NW because the CM-W has a LITTLE bit more movement. I need that -- you don't. The one thing I DON'T like about the CM-W is the LARGE, built-in lenshade/67mm filter holder. It doesn't increase the weight of the lens, but it nearly doubles the size. I guess Fuji thought it made the tiny lens "look" better. Otherwise, they are the same lens -- both multi-coated, etc. -- but the NW will probably be less expensive, and perhaps easier to find. So the filter size -- assuming you plan on using filters -- might be a concern for you.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

[ic-racer]

I’m new here so firstly a big hi to all!

I’d like to build what to me would be the perfect large format camera. Lightweight, compact, rangefinder, wide-standard lens.
Thanks

172141

[Dan Fromm]

I’d like to build what to me would be the perfect large format camera.

Buying good enough will cost less than designing and making the best possible.


Lightweight, compact, rangefinder, wide-standard lens.

Y'r rangefinder requirement is a killer, especially if you want to use more than one lens. I take it that you want to use a coupled rangefinder. Have you looked into rangefinder designs and thought about how to make one?


What I’m searching for as a starting point though is a 95mm - 105mm lens in a helicoid, that covers 4x5 without movements.

Why a helicoid? There are good reasons why nearly all 4x5 cameras with coupled rangefinders focus by moving the front standard. Their RFs convert the standard's displacement forwards from the lens' infinity position into focused distance.


Maybe the Mamiya Press 100mm? Anyone know this lenses circle?

As has already been pointed out, the Mamiya press system has two 100 mm lenses. The f/2.8 is a fast double Gauss type that won't cover 4x5. The f/3.5 is a tessar type that won't cover 4x5. You've already been told that a 100 or 105 f/5.6 plasmat type from, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon or Rodenstock will just cover 4x5. Schneider's 100/5.6 Symmar-S won't. You'd be better off with a 90 mm ultrawide.


I hear the 75mm and 127mm both cover the 160mm but the 100 is faster so I’m guessing it might be too small.

Have your hearing checked.


Any others that might, say from old 2x3 press cameras that could still record a decent image on modern film - ie good contrast and resolution?

Normal lenses from 2x3 press cameras can still record a decent image on modern film, but not on 4x5. None was made to cover 6x12, let alone 4x5, and none will.

If you want to make a 4x5 Leica, by all means go ahead. But don't underestimate how much you'll have to learn to do the job and don't expect to do it on the cheap. And understand that the camera with focusing apparatus and couple RF is the big problem. Choosing a lens or lenses to use on it is trivial.

[xkaes]

I sort of agree.

You could make an inexpensive 4x5 "street machine" with a 105mm lens fixed at the hyperfocal distance. No focusing needed because basically everything will be in focus. You don't even need a viewfinder.

Want more sophistication? Just add a simple viewfinder -- quick, easy, cheap.

Want closer focusing capability for some odd reason? Put the lens in a helicoid mount and add an UNcoupled rangefinder -- quick, easy, cheap -- but I don't know why you would want to complicate a simple, easy "street machine". You would be able to drop the simple viewfinder, but you would need to figure out and mark the helicoid for the distance that the rangefinder produces. The whole process goes against the idea of a "street machine" -- but it would work OK. Just don't be surprised when your subject has disappeared.

Perhaps a better idea would be to drop the rangefinder and just add one mark in the middle of the helicoid for "group". For distance shots, set the helicoid for infinity. For close-ups, set it to maximum.

[Tin Can]

I use my Travelwide for this purpose. 2 or 3 film holders. One in camera, 2 in pocket. No GG. I use the wire 'sportsfinder' it came with. Tiny lens.

I have the helicoid marked with tape at 3 and 5 ft. I use flashbulbs in a pocketable Heiland Foto-Mite. Guide numbers.

No tripod, no lightmeter, no rangefinder, no tape measure. Quick and easy. The camera is well protected and invisible in a kids soft sided lunch box.

[adelorenzo]

Check out the Mercury Camera if you haven't already, that should help give you some ideas for your build.

[Randy]

Here was my attempt - cigar box camera (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?45775-Show-us-your-home-made-camera&p=1348487&viewfull=1#post1348487).

[adrianlambert]

Care to say which Mamiya Press 100mm lens you speak about? The f2.8 or f3.5? Google is your friend.

I’m not bothered which, just looking for any with an image circle large enough for 4x5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[adrianlambert]

I currently use the Fujinon CM-W 105mm, after I sold my NW 105mm. I only sold the NW because the CM-W has a LITTLE bit more movement. I need that -- you don't. The one thing I DON'T like about the CM-W is the LARGE, built-in lenshade/67mm filter holder. It doesn't increase the weight of the lens, but it nearly doubles the size. I guess Fuji thought it made the tiny lens "look" better. Otherwise, they are the same lens -- both multi-coated, etc. -- but the NW will probably be less expensive, and perhaps easier to find. So the filter size -- assuming you plan on using filters -- might be a concern for you.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

Ah ok. I’ve found 2 cm-w lenses but no NW lenses. I’ve read through sub club. I was working on the premise that edge falloff and sharpness would be better on newer version. The size difference hadn’t gone unnoticed though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

If you can find a NW you won't be disappointed.

[xkaes]

Ah ok. I’ve found 2 cm-w lenses but no NW lenses. I’ve read through sub club.

I'm glad you mentioned this. The photo of the NW was not showing up on the SUBCLUB, but I've corrected that, and they both show up now. The two pictures make the difference in the lenses more clear.

[Tin Can]

I like this also. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?45775-Show-us-your-home-made-camera&p=1360865&viewfull=1#post1360865

I think Bryan a member here bought.

[Dan Fromm]

Ah ok. I’ve found 2 cm-w lenses but no NW lenses. I’ve read through sub club. I was working on the premise that edge falloff and sharpness would be better on newer version. The size difference hadn’t gone unnoticed though.


For most lenses, including the ones we've discussed here, cos^4 bites equally hard. There's no magic that reduces optical vignetting. Since you're thinking about a camera with no decentering movements, there's no practical difference between a lens that covers 162 mm and another that covers 174 mm.

[xkaes]

My quick estimates -- depending on your acceptable circle of confusion -- for a 105mm lens at f5.6, set at the hyperfocal distance, everything from six feet to infinity would be in focus. At f11, it would increase to three feet to infinity.

Do you really need a helicoid?

[adrianlambert]

If you can find a NW you won't be disappointed.

I’ll hang out for the NW then, thank you. The size looks much better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[adrianlambert]

My quick estimates -- depending on your acceptable circle of confusion -- for a 105mm lens at f5.6, set at the hyperfocal distance, everything from six feet to infinity would be in focus. At f11, it would increase to three feet to infinity.

Do you really need a helicoid?

Quite possibly not then. I’m going to be focussed at between 6 meters and infinity but I am inclined to reject images that aren’t tack sharp so I’m inclined to think a little bit of travel will help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[adrianlambert]

Ok. I’ve got my lens decision made. Thanks especially to @xkaes but also to others for the information experience and opinions. I’m now on the look out for a Fujinon NW 105mm f1:5.6.

I am not wedded to a coupled rangefinder but know that focusing on GG won’t suit what I’m going to use it for. My thoughts were to maybe make use of an existing system like the one in the Polaroid 180/190 or the chamonix Saber which was modified to suit the buyers choice of lens.

I agree that the choice of lens is trivial compared to the other challenges that this project will throw up but it is nonetheless the most important decision for any camera that isn’t going to have interchangeable lenses. That said maybe if I go for an uncoupled rangefinder I could use other lenses although as mentioned I’d probably only want to go as wide as a 90mm and only then if some object stopped me taking a few steps back from where the 105mm would dictate I stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

Quite possibly not then. I’m going to be focussed at between 6 meters and infinity but I am inclined to reject images that aren’t tack sharp so I’m inclined to think a little bit of travel will help.

SIX meters is 20 feet!

You've got two roads to travel. #1 -- Just a lens fixed at the hyperfocal distance. Stop down a little -- should you ever need to increase DOF (or sharpness -- however you define that, is another issue), or #2 -- add a helicoid and complicate your life. I'd start out with #1 -- a plain, fixed lens, and only add a helicoid if you are unsatisfied with the results open wide or stopped down. My bet is that you won't go to the trouble of a helicoid.

[EdSawyer]

The chamonix saber is a superb machine, I enjoy mine a lot. That said I don't think it can accommodate a lens as short as a 105mm. I have it with an Apo Symmar 120mm which is what it was designed around. It's a great fit, about 40mm equivalent in 35mm film terms. The rangefinder is extremely useful.

If you can live without the rangefinder, the Cambo Wide with a 90mm (I prefer Nikkor 90/8) is another good choice. It has helicoid focusing.

You could probably make a Crown Graphic with a Kalart mate up to a 105mm lens and have rangefinder coupled focusing in a small/light package. Plus the lens would fold up inside which is handy.

-Ed

[adrianlambert]

The chamonix saber is a superb machine, I enjoy mine a lot. That said I don't think it can accommodate a lens as short as a 105mm. I have it with an Apo Symmar 120mm which is what it was designed around. It's a great fit, about 40mm equivalent in 35mm film terms. The rangefinder is extremely useful.

If you can live without the rangefinder, the Cambo Wide with a 90mm (I prefer Nikkor 90/8) is another good choice. It has helicoid focusing.

You could probably make a Crown Graphic with a Kalart mate up to a 105mm lens and have rangefinder coupled focusing in a small/light package. Plus the lens would fold up inside which is handy.

-Ed

Thanks Ed, yes, I'm reading that they allowed people to choose between 120 and 150mm focal lengths. I'm very jealous of you all the same, it does looks like a beautiful bit of work and so functional. Interesting that you say it's a 40mm equivalent too. Some equivalency calculations put it as a 32mm equivalent which is precisely what I'd like to achieve. I guess that's a corner to corner calculation which to me seems irrelevant as what I'm trying to avoid is a wide angle look when I've got critical aspects at the frame edges. I'm hoping 105mm (as I've never used this FL) will come in looking a tiny little bit wider than a 35mm lens on the 135mm format, but with the added height (because I'll shoot landscape).

The thought of trying to get/make a good matching cam for the crown graphic - or the easier to locate in the UK, MPP Micro-technical VIII has crossed my mind but because I'm looking for something that is a one trick pony it feels like a little bit too much. Not written that idea off just yet though.

This camera http://dirkfletcher.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/i-had-been-struggling-with-this-camera.html by Dirk Fletcher holds a lot of appeal with me though, in fact I've already got the Harman Titan https://www.ilfordphoto.com/harman-titan-4x5-pinhole-camera rear DD holder in case I should try something similar... I'm wondering about the focus rack of Dirk's camera being cut shorter and mounted further back to project the cone of the harman titan back and forth from a less protruded position, meaning a camera that is slightly larger and slightly heavier than Dirk's other Harman Titan mod here http://dirkfletcher.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/ultra-lightweight-4x5-point-and-shoot.html It'd be a hybrid of the two concepts meaning a focusable 105mm lens, uncoupled rangefinder bolted on and suitable vf, also bolted on. I'd probably have to sacrifice a DD to have a ground glass for the odd shot here and there plus the calibration of any distance scale.

Following on from the hyperlocal distance post yesterday, I've done some reading and gotten the impression that in this brave new world of massive gallery prints, the old way of calculating hyperlocal on 4x5 might be a little off the mark for my needs. I think a smaller COC number would be needed as many peoples expectations of prints has gone up with the advent of digital technology. Obvs my goal is that it's all handled in camera - in hand, very quickly. Therein lies the challenge, hence some quite specific starting points.

Worth mentioning as background that I'm a father with a young family and the only projects I've been able to do in recent years have been ones where I can whip a camera out and shoot what I see with as many decisions having been made before I leave the house as possible, meaning I avoid getting bogged down when the moment comes. I'd describe the shots I'll be taking as ones that would ordinarily be taken at a more measured pace, but in my case it'll be "stop the car now, I've seen a photograph!" to which the family will start to groan and mither me to hurry up!

[Havoc]

Dangerous thread this one. Have been thinking along those lines for some time. Mostly because I like the idea of not having to shoot a roll before seeing a result. Have been collecting parts so far. Already have a couple of helicals of a Mamiya 65 and 90. Plenty of good ideas so far.

[Dan Fromm]

Havoc, OP, do you want to futz around with gear trying to make it and then trying to make it work well enough or do you want to take pictures? At today's prices for used equipment, buying is more economical and faster than making. But if you like tinkering, go to it.

OP, some 4x5 Crown and Speed Graphics have Kalart rangefinders. These work with only one focal length, changing focal length requires adjusting the RF. A Kalart can be adjusted for a 105 mm lens. If you want to tinker, by all means tinker. But if you want to take pictures buy a Graphic.

[Havoc]

As an engineer I like tinkering and making plans just as much as making photos :D It is something else than making live steam locs which is what I normally do in the workshop but I'm not yet to the point to try and turn a helical.

Seriously, I got a 75mm just to do what is proposed in this thread and started on a housing. So far I only used it as a pinhole. Most parts I get out of bins at fairs for a bit of loose change. But as you say, to make photos I got a Wista 45SP (and about 30 other cameras from 16mm to 6x17). Needs some work but already usable.

[xkaes]

Anyone using a "street machine" should forget about "absolute sharpness" and well as the COC. There are more important things to be concerned with -- just ask Man Ray:

>>> In terms of tools, when asked what type of camera he used in 1967, he replied: "None ! I have to modify them all. My cameras are all of my own design. I take lenses apart and put them together again and put them on cameras that were not meant for them." <<<

[adrianlambert]

I don’t *want* a camera, I *want* tack sharp prints at 1m high that depict scenes with as much useful context as possible when I’m standing between 6m and 60m away from the plane of focus, and without the distraction of warping at the edges of the picture. The complicating thing is that I need a camera to make those prints that I don’t already have; and I’ll need to be able to carry that camera anywhere; and I’ll need it ready to shoot at the drop of a hat - so it’ll certainly need to be a camera that is well tuned to the job. The Saber certainly comes as close as I’ve seen but even if one did come up for sale, it still doesn’t have the right lens - so as far as I’m aware I can’t possibly buy this camera that I want. In spite of bugger all experience in constructing cameras the only obvious solution appears to be that I’m going to need to build it. To do that I’m going to need new knowledge and new skills. I asked for help to solve one core problem in this thread and I got some useful information, but most fantastically I got my first solution. For that I dip my head to you all. Now the 105mm Fujinon NW lens has been purchased I will look to the next problem and seek a solution to that. If I do this enough times I will get to make my photographs. That’s the goal after all isn’t it, not the camera.

I’m bloody well going to give it a good try anyway! :)

[Jac@stafford.net]

In spite of bugger all experience in constructing cameras the only obvious solution appears to be that I’m going to need to build it.

So you find it better to re-invent a camera with whatever skills you have - likely less than a seasoned expert - based upon the second-hand advice of keyboard impressionists. Good luck. Keep us informed with evidence.
.

[xkaes]

I don’t *want* a camera, I *want* tack sharp prints at 1m high that depict scenes with as much useful context as possible when I’m standing between 6m and 60m away from the plane of focus, and without the distraction of warping at the edges of the picture. The complicating thing is that I need a camera to make those prints that I don’t already have; and I’ll need to be able to carry that camera anywhere; and I’ll need it ready to shoot at the drop of a hat

If you want "tack sharp" pictures, you'll need a tripod -- at ANY shutter speed -- which in my mind, makes "drop of a hat" impossible. My hat hits the ground before I spread one tripod leg.

Your only option is to illuminate every picture with an electronic flash at 1/20,000 of a second.

[adrianlambert]

No, I’m tuning a camera to my specific needs and style. And who are you if not a keyboard impressionist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[adrianlambert]

If you want "tack sharp" pictures, you'll need a tripod, which in my mind, makes "drop of a hat" impossible. My hat hits the ground before I spread my tripod legs.

I have 6 tripods to choose from. What is this place?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jac@stafford.net]

No, I’m tuning a camera to my specific needs and style. And who are you if not a keyboard impressionist?

Your needs and style are likely covered with no, or minimal and easily made compromise within the hundreds of cameras already built. Consider broadening the scope of your information, your knowledge.

Who am I? Search and be happy - or not if you prefer.
.

[adrianlambert]

Your needs and style are likely covered within the hundreds of cameras already built. Consider broadening the scope of your information, your knowledge.

Who am I? Search and be happy - or not if you prefer.
.

(How naive of me to have thought this forum would be a place where all people would come to cordially ask, discuss, and share.)

I looked and I saw only the word retired. You obviously keep your cards closer than the retired statistician bloke. So I’m no more knowledgeable. Or interested unless you’re a retired documentary photographer or product designer? Ah, is that how you know so much about what’s best? That’s not true. Actually I would like to know what you did for a living. It’s such a huge part of our lives and therefore To many a big part of our sense of who we are. So always a valuable thing to share. The statistician has compiled an exemplary site about the fujinon Lf lenses. Easy to navigate and extract information critical for making a decision from. Much credit to him. I found it to be quite honestly one of the most pleasant internet experiences I’ve had in a very long while.

So anyway, I’ve searched and read and read and searched and I’m now very very confident that short of commissioning a Polaroid conversion person to tune me up a Polaroid 900 which despite weighing a good few Kgs is admittedly an appealing prospect, there are exactly zero large format cameras tuned the way I want one. There are many cameras that are capable of achieving what I want. I already own such a camera but I wouldn’t take it out and use it as I’ve described in a month of Sunday’s because it’s designed, as so many of them are, to do other things much better. I’d say these Polaroid conversions including the Saber are the exception to this rule and a growing one amongst enthusiastic ambitious young photographers. Sadly I’m not so young anymore but three out of four isn’t too bad.

Look at modern culture surrounding photography. I’m not talking HDR and instagram selfies. Not that those don’t have cultural value of course. I’m talking about cultural discourse and documentation - the ongoing desire of a photographer to document and monitor our ways of life. Now look at the way it’s displayed in modern galleries, I’m not talking about 16x20” prints in deep mount boards, not that those don’t have a wonderful aesthetic. I’m talking large format prints mounted on aluminium and such like. It seems that in part because of these two things combined that what modern photographers want out of LF cameras is changing. That’s why Polaroid’s and the wanderlust Camera project are engaging with young photographers. What I’m proposing here is only a small evolutionary step away, but still one that is born out of our shared photographic experience.

Anyway as always I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong by any person who has the experience to know how best to use good information. Knowledge combined with experience is the holy grail of course but when either one or the other is lacking on any subject, a bit of humility will go a long way in making up for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[EdSawyer]

I have a lot of similar needs and such, as far as shooting and results go. I have a lot of 4x5 cameras, and have tried others as well. Here's what I think will work the best.

(aside: 105mm is going to feel somewhat wide I think. 120mm feels wide-ish normal, not as wide as 35mm on 35mm film, more like 40mm as I had mentioned. I haven't shot 105mm on 4x5 but I have shot 90mm a lot, and it feels wide, with some corner-pulling type distortion, feels like a 28mm or wider on 35mm film. I think you might find 105mm a bit wide for your taste if you don't want any of that sort of geometric distortion in the corners. )

1st: Saber. It's a great piece. There's a reason they are expensive. Buy once, cry once. It's worth it, I'd get one again in a heartbeat, it's the lightest/smallest 4x5 I have ever seen (when folded up, with a grafmatic). The rangefinder is the key to the speed here, no real need for ground glass if you are at least shooting at f/11 or smaller.

2nd: Crown Graphic with Kalart. It can be calibrated to the 105mm and can be spot-on, so you can trust the rangefinder. Again, this will help the speed a lot. (And you can definitely get sharp hand-held photos on 4x5.). It folds up quite compact, very versatile, rather light weight too. Get the version with the Graflok back.

3rd: Polaroid Byron: I haven't used one of these, but it is by far the best of the Polaroid 900-style conversions. Not cheap but can be made to suit your needs very well I'd think. It's the only 900-type polaroid conversion I'd consider worth pursuing. The rest are too compromised in many ways, and that includes DIY versions.

4th: Some sort of custom Cambo Wide type, fixed cone helical or bellows-based camera. There's many varieties of these, from the DIY Fletcher type stuff, to an actual Cambo Wide, to the Fotoman and other chinese versions. The downside is no coupled rangefinder on any of them, so you are either guesstimating focus (which can work ok on say a 65mm lens, at f/16-f/32, but not so easy with a 105mm at wider apertures). This cuts down on speed-of-use a lot, since you mostly need to use GG to focus. If going the DIY route, expect to spend a fair bit of time building something to a high-level of precision, even stuff like calibrating focus and curing light leaks can be a huge pain in the ass and take a lot of time.

If money is not a big problem, spend the $1500-ish and get a Chamonix Saber with the 120mm and see how you like it. They are in enough demand you could easily resell it and not lose any $. Chamonix might even be able to fit it with a 105mm for you, it's worth asking them if it's possible.

Good luck.
-Ed

[xkaes]

... And you can definitely get sharp hand-held photos on 4x5. Ed

I agree, but Adrian started out wanting a "decent image" which later became "tack sharp". In short, "good enough" is left undefined, and I gave up playing guessing games years ago. For "decent image" a 105mm fixed at the hyperfocal distance -- with or without a viewfinder would work. Simple, cheap, and easy. For "tack sharp", add a tripod, rangefinder, and helicoid. Say goodbye to simple, cheap, and easy.

[Corran]

I like this also. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?45775-Show-us-your-home-made-camera&p=1360865&viewfull=1#post1360865

I think Bryan a member here bought.

I bought a previous camera from Dirk that was 2x3, that one I think Dirk still has. Haven't seen him around lately.

There's a lot of the typical posts going on in this thread...I don't feel like parsing through it all but to the OP if you want to get down to shooting I would recommend getting a converted Polaroid with coupled RF with whatever focal length you are looking at (they can be modified to fit 90mm through 150mm or so). I have a Polaroid 900 with 135mm f/3.5 lens and for street/documentary it is very good. I retired it for a while in favor of a Linhof but the Polaroid is smaller, lighter, folds up with the lens, has a combined RF/VF which is way better to use quickly than the Linhof (or other press cams), and didn't cost as much as a Linhof either. A Speed Graphic is good too, especially if you want/need faster shutter speeds (action).

I've used all three options for various types of images:

Sports/Action with the Speed Graphic:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EO8XUiHDpU8/UJJM9cfU5tI/AAAAAAAABSo/-7Zse7QDLYo/s600/Untitled-2s.jpg

Documentary with the Polaroid 900:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-13i9tLdYX6E/Ui6W4AO76XI/AAAAAAAAD1U/Kywe5F7vDuU/s600/kj-1403s.jpg

Portraits/Handheld with the Linhof Technika:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rTDywzecUJw/UlhAwyWSkWI/AAAAAAAAD94/Ghfjmvmk89s/s600/awa-1672-12x16s.jpg

[adrianlambert]

I have a lot of similar needs and such, as far as shooting and results go. I have a lot of 4x5 cameras, and have tried others as well. Here's what I think will work the best.

(aside: 105mm is going to feel somewhat wide I think. 120mm feels wide-ish normal, not as wide as 35mm on 35mm film, more like 40mm as I had mentioned. I haven't shot 105mm on 4x5 but I have shot 90mm a lot, and it feels wide, with some corner-pulling type distortion, feels like a 28mm or wider on 35mm film. I think you might find 105mm a bit wide for your taste if you don't want any of that sort of geometric distortion in the corners. )

1st: Saber. It's a great piece. There's a reason they are expensive. Buy once, cry once. It's worth it, I'd get one again in a heartbeat, it's the lightest/smallest 4x5 I have ever seen (when folded up, with a grafmatic). The rangefinder is the key to the speed here, no real need for ground glass if you are at least shooting at f/11 or smaller.

2nd: Crown Graphic with Kalart. It can be calibrated to the 105mm and can be spot-on, so you can trust the rangefinder. Again, this will help the speed a lot. (And you can definitely get sharp hand-held photos on 4x5.). It folds up quite compact, very versatile, rather light weight too. Get the version with the Graflok back.

3rd: Polaroid Byron: I haven't used one of these, but it is by far the best of the Polaroid 900-style conversions. Not cheap but can be made to suit your needs very well I'd think. It's the only 900-type polaroid conversion I'd consider worth pursuing. The rest are too compromised in many ways, and that includes DIY versions.

4th: Some sort of custom Cambo Wide type, fixed cone helical or bellows-based camera. There's many varieties of these, from the DIY Fletcher type stuff, to an actual Cambo Wide, to the Fotoman and other chinese versions. The downside is no coupled rangefinder on any of them, so you are either guesstimating focus (which can work ok on say a 65mm lens, at f/16-f/32, but not so easy with a 105mm at wider apertures). This cuts down on speed-of-use a lot, since you mostly need to use GG to focus. If going the DIY route, expect to spend a fair bit of time building something to a high-level of precision, even stuff like calibrating focus and curing light leaks can be a huge pain in the ass and take a lot of time.

If money is not a big problem, spend the $1500-ish and get a Chamonix Saber with the 120mm and see how you like it. They are in enough demand you could easily resell it and not lose any $. Chamonix might even be able to fit it with a 105mm for you, it's worth asking them if it's possible.

Good luck.
-Ed

Thanks Ed for the cordial and thoughtful response. I’m really hoping that I’ve got the right lens because there’s no 35mm equivalent that I’m aware of but I know that 40mm is too tight and 35m is great but even them sometimes slightly too tight. But that 28mm is too wide. I know equally from my experience that 90mm is too wide and that 135mm is too tight. It’s a bit of a stab in the dark but comparing horizontally equivalent focal lengths on a 135 camera I’m pretty sure I’ve go it right. I won’t have objects close to me that are at the edge of the frame in my shots so any distortion I’m hoping would be acceptable.

Money isn’t quite no object but I do like the idea of talking to chamonix about the 105mm. I’ll email them tomorrow. For a number of reasons I’d like to steer clear of cameras with any lens movements. I know I’ll be too tempted to use them and for the usage that I have in mind, it wouldn’t be apt.

I’m glad you agreed that shooting 105mm would require some focusing. I couldn’t imagine using a lens of that length, fixed at the hyper-focal position, and expecting great things. It might be a little bit on the wide side but it’s still ~105mm out and that’s a pretty long way. Zone focusing could be a goer though but again not ideal.

You’re getting me thinking about the Byron conversion again though!

[adrianlambert]

I agree, but Adrian started out wanting a "decent image" which later became "tack sharp". In short, "good enough" is left undefined, and I gave up playing guessing games years ago. For "decent image" a 105mm fixed at the hyperfocal distance -- with or without a viewfinder would work. Simple, cheap, and easy. For "tack sharp", add a tripod, rangefinder, and helicoid. Say goodbye to simple, cheap, and easy.

“Tack sharp” lies within a subset of “decent image” does it not? I’ve gotten a lot of “tack sharp” hand held 6x7 trannies over the years on longer focal lengths than 105mm - many of which have been drum scanned to Reveal the grain structure clearly enough to see what’s what. Hyperfocal is good for only modest enlargements. Great for street. Amazing for Instagram. Substandard for large format prints. You are the only person to repeatedly talk about simple, cheap, and easy in this thread. I wish it were going to be easy but I knew it wouldn’t be. Btw I have a couple of friends that are respectively a CAD designer and a tool maker. I’m expecting to be owing a few favours to them before this is completed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

“Tack sharp” lies within a subset of “decent image” does it not?

Welcome aboard. Defining words and terms helps us help each other, better. One man's ceiling is another man's mirror.

[adrianlambert]

Ok good. Maybe we can dispense with the ‘google is your friend’ and “2nd hand keyboard impressionists” rubbish now.

Some folks here need to get their social skills up to spec when it comes to new folks.

So, the 105mm lens arrives in a few days. I’m excited to put it on my sinar and see how it fairs before the next step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[EdSawyer]

If you do get a Byron, let us know how you like it. I have long been interested in those, they seem like a nice solution and well engineered. Given the cost and timeilne, they are not that common, esp. on the secondary market. Probably at least as rare (if not more so) than the Saber.

[adrianlambert]

If you do get a Byron, let us know how you like it. I have long been interested in those, they seem like a nice solution and well engineered. Given the cost and timeilne, they are not that common, esp. on the secondary market. Probably at least as rare (if not more so) than the Saber.

I have a feeling that having a fair amount of the required parts for a Harman titan type mod I’ll go there first. If the focusing isn’t satisfactory then I’ll be on the saber/Byron path. I’m going to test out the 105 on my sinar first and make sure I’m right as far as it’s field of view goes. This process will take a while I suspect. Maybe a year but it’ll be a lifer when (if) I get it right.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DrTang]

those Angulon 90's are very small and cover

maybe just buy one of those travelall cameras.. they seem like what you want

[Pfsor]

I’m going to test out the 105 on my sinar first and make sure I’m right as far as it’s field of view goes.


For that you can use a viewing frame without your sinar and without a lens. In fact, you could use it to determine if you like the 105 or else before you even buy it.

[adrianlambert]

those Angulon 90's are very small and cover

maybe just buy one of those travelall cameras.. they seem like what you want

Thanks but I’ve used 90mm lenses and know they’re too wide for me. You might mean the travelwide cameras? I got the impression that the focussing system wasn’t very durable. Agreed though, they do come very close to fitting the bill. I saw one sell recently on eBay for a surprisingly large amount of money though. Although maybe it had a lens with it now I think about it! They didn’t seem to have any kind of shop to buy them from when I last looked. It could be worth looking into more closely though if I can establish a reliable focusing strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[adrianlambert]

For that you can use a viewing frame without your sinar and without a lens. In fact, you could use it to determine if you like the 105 or else before you even buy it.

Thanks Pfsor. Is that where you take a matte and hold it near your eye? If so how do I accurately establish that you I’m not looking at a representation of a 90mm or a 120mm? I’m being pretty pedantic with this lens selection I know but I want to get it right.

Edit: to clarify I know I could do some maths and measure a distance from my eye but in practical terms how can I be accurate on the hoof. I thought those were better suited to deciding whether you should pull out a 65mm a 90mm or a 150mm rather than for fine tuning those selections.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Tin Can]

Thanks Pfsor. Is that where you take a matte and hold it near your eye? If so how do I accurately establish that you I’m not looking at a representation of a 90mm or a 120mm? I’m being pretty pedantic with this lens selection I know but I want to get it right.

Edit: to clarify I know I could do some maths and measure a distance from my eye but in practical terms how can I be accurate on the hoof. I thought those were better suited to deciding whether you should pull out a 65mm a 90mm or a 150mm rather than for fine tuning those selections.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

There are Apps for this question. I had them on my last iPod, but not now. They work well and show many lenses and formats. Just now I found one for movie cameras and iOS. No LF. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cameras-formats/id890528993?mt=8

If you are App type guy, you may find them.

[adrianlambert]

There are Apps for this question. I had them on my last iPod, but not now. They work well and show many lenses and formats. Just now I found one for movie cameras and iOS. No LF. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cameras-formats/id890528993?mt=8

If you are App type guy, you may find them.

Yeah that struck me too. I found this: The Photographer's Transit by Crookneck Consulting LLChttps://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/the-photographers-transit/id668449546?mt=8
It uses google street view rather than the camera and it doesn’t crou


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tin Can]

Yeah that struck me too. I found this: The Photographer's Transit by Crookneck Consulting LLChttps://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/the-photographers-transit/id668449546?mt=8
It uses google street view rather than the camera and it doesn’t crou


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's a nice one. Same people made one I was using. There are simpler ones that use your iPhone camera.

[Pfsor]

Thanks Pfsor. Is that where you take a matte and hold it near your eye? If so how do I accurately establish that you I’m not looking at a representation of a 90mm or a 120mm? I’m being pretty pedantic with this lens selection I know but I want to get it right.

Edit: to clarify I know I could do some maths and measure a distance from my eye but in practical terms how can I be accurate on the hoof. I thought those were better suited to deciding whether you should pull out a 65mm a 90mm or a 150mm rather than for fine tuning those selections.



Yes, you understand. And don't worry, they are as precise as precise needs to be. Take my word for it. You measure a string of the length of your desired focal length and you see precisely what you get. The advantage is you can make the viewing frame the exact film frame dimension, not just the nominal 4x5.
And the viewing is very precise. I know because I was walking with a viewing frame each time before I constructed a new camera. If the viewing frame has a larger frame you can very easily judge even the aesthetic composition, it's a real eye opener in such a case.

[adrianlambert]

Yes, you understand. And don't worry, they are as precise as precise needs to be. Take my word for it. You measure a string of the length of your desired focal length and you see precisely what you get. The advantage is you can make the viewing frame the exact film frame dimension, not just the nominal 4x5.
And the viewing is very precise. I know because I was walking with a viewing frame each time before I constructed a new camera. If the viewing frame has a larger frame you can very easily judge even the aesthetic composition, it's a real eye opener in such a case.

That sounds like a really useful technique to grasp. I’ll look into it. Thanks Pfsor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[EdSawyer]

forget the travelwide, it's a piece of crap and way overpriced on the secondary market. the Cambo Wide is the one to have in that type of camera. (fixed cone, helical focus).

[Jac@stafford.net]

For a viewfinder consider a Graflex top mounted sports-finder. The view frame can be masked to suit, if necessary, some have parallax correction on the rear sight, they mount nicely into a long flash shoe, and they fold out of the way.

[xkaes]

forget the travelwide, it's a piece of crap and way overpriced on the secondary market. the Cambo Wide is the one to have in that type of camera. (fixed cone, helical focus).

There's a used Travelwide 4x5" pinhole with helicoid on you know where right now for $30. It might be crap, but that's close to free -- and it could easily be modified to hold a 90mm. That's way less than a Cambo Wide.

[Bob Salomon]

There's a used Travelwide 4x5" pinhole with helicoid on you know where right now for $30. It might be crap, but that's close to free -- and it could easily be modified to hold a 90mm. That's way less than a Cambo Wide.
And as soon as the mount breaks it is worse then free! Look for a real camera!

[John Layton]

lots of kibitzing in the kitchen this Thanksgiving morning...but this is the best advice I've heard all day! Thanks Bob!

[xkaes]

And as soon as the mount breaks it is worse then free! Look for a real camera!

The FIVE current bidders on the Travelwide apparently are unaware of their peril. FYI, I'm not one of them!

[Tin Can]

Just like any broken camera/box, a broken Travelwide can easily be used as a Pinhole camera with some glue or tape.

Hack it and make it a learning experience for a novice.

[adrianlambert]

Just like any broken camera/box, a broken Travelwide can easily be used as a Pinhole camera with some glue or tape.

Hack it and make it a learning experience for a novice.

Well said. God help the buyer if they come here and find themselves in conversation with some of these members. It’ll be the end of any dreams of LF for sure. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

Just like any broken camera/box, a broken Travelwide can easily be used as a Pinhole camera with some glue or tape.

Hack it and make it a learning experience for a novice.

The one up for auction IS a pinhole version, but it could EASILY be converted to hold a 90mm lens. And with an extension or recessed board could accommodate similar lenses. I'm going to watch it, just to see what it sells for. There are five days left. I was tempted, but I already have pinholes for my 4x5s -- http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/mygear.htm

[xkaes]

This is completely new to me, but it has been mentioned on another thread. It is the Harman Titan 4x5 -- made by Walker cameras. Looks similar to the Travelwide. It's a pinhole, but appears that a simple modification would allow a shutter to be added on the front. The interchangeable, solid, ABS "bellows" is available in 72mm (the Fujinon SWD 65mm has a flange focal length of 72mm), 110mm, and 150mm lengths so different lenses could be used -- with or without a helicoid.

http://www.walkercameras.com/harman_titan_4x5_pinhole_camera.html

https://shop.lomography.com/en/cameras/pinhole-cameras/harman-titan-pinhole-camera

Has a shoe -- so a range/viewfinder could be added -- as well as some other features (standard 4x5 film holders), tripod socket (for a handle?), etc.

While it won't be under my Christmas tree, maybe Santa will bring you one.

[John Layton]

Coffee's not quite ready so I'm still more or less asleep...but that Harmon product looks like it might be hackable - or build something similar. Then create some kind of simple mechanism...like two mechanical-travel stops...for a two-zone focus. Lens panel would slide between two stops. Sliding distance would be minimal considering a wide angle lens - so should be possible to create something like two shallow nesting wood frames with black felt to keep out light. Maybe "far" setting to encompass infinity very sharply by around f/11 if you are planning to include some handheld work - and "close" set at somewhere like 10 feet. This would assume a 90mm lens...and your mileage might very based on your shooting habits. Oh...I just heard the coffee machine beep. Gotta go!

[John Layton]

I'm back. The reason for only two focus positions is that you could do this very simply...yet precisely. Sounds important as I seem to remember the term "tack sharp" showing up somewhere on this thread. If it were me...I'd also incorporate a rear short bellows into a shallow rear frame, which would nest tightly against a middle frame for quick work - but would also allow for a combo of simple rear movements and additional closer focussing. For an idea of this look at a Linhof Technika back. Again...this could be simple, precise, and compact. I'm suddenly inspired...gotta do this!

[Corran]

Dirk, a member here, has already modded that camera:

https://dirkfletcher.squarespace.com/cameras/

[xkaes]

I don't know why this is happening to me, because I'm not interested in these types of cameras, but I just ran into the DAYI 4x5 camera. It definitely falls into this P&S category. Given the price, I assume it has more bells & whistles, flexibility, etc. Maybe it even makes coffee in the morning.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dayi+4x5&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

Looks like we need a list/page somewhere on the numerous LFPS cameras -- or is there one already?

[adrianlambert]

I'm back. The reason for only two focus positions is that you could do this very simply...yet precisely. Sounds important as I seem to remember the term "tack sharp" showing up somewhere on this thread. If it were me...I'd also incorporate a rear short bellows into a shallow rear frame, which would nest tightly against a middle frame for quick work - but would also allow for a combo of simple rear movements and additional closer focussing. For an idea of this look at a Linhof Technika back. Again...this could be simple, precise, and compact. I'm suddenly inspired...gotta do this!

Rear short bellows sounds like a great solution. I was thinking of a short extension behind the Harmon Titan cone hacked from the focus rack of a medium format press camera so not totally dissimilar.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[adrianlambert]

I’m currently testing a camera I bought off of eBay. It’s a Polaroid 250 hack with a Fujinon 120mm lens. A bit longer than I’d hoped for but it’s rangefinder seems to be very accurate so it’s very much a working p&s large format. The maker seems to have resolved the slight crop that I understand the Chamonix Saber has. So it’s a full frame 4x5 image. I’ve inquired with the maker as to whether he thinks a 105mm could be installed with a modified rf cam. His response was quite promising as he two likes that focal length and had considered this so is now doing the calculations as to whether it is feasible. The camera I’ve purchased off him is the 12th he’s built so seems to be refined enough to lead me to think that if anyone can do it he can so I’ve offered him a commission and a lens to build it if it’s at all doable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Jac@stafford.net]

I’m currently testing a camera I bought off of eBay. It’s a Polaroid 250 hack with a Fujinon 120mm lens. [...]

Thanks for the update, Adrian!

[EdSawyer]

The saber doesn't have a crop so much as just a slightly different edge treatment to the negatives. Still full 4x5 image, really.

I saw that one on ebay, it looked like basically a copy of the Saber, and pretty well done for a DIY type piece. I think it's a 125mm fuji lens though, not a 120 right? That might have something to do with it.

I would be surprised if a 105 works without modifying the struts somehow, or using a majorly recessed lensboard, but maybe. Keep us posted.

(I have a Saber with 120 apo symmar, and enjoy it a lot)

-Ed

[adrianlambert]

The saber doesn't have a crop so much as just a slightly different edge treatment to the negatives. Still full 4x5 image, really.

I saw that one on ebay, it looked like basically a copy of the Saber, and pretty well done for a DIY type piece. I think it's a 125mm fuji lens though, not a 120 right? That might have something to do with it.

I would be surprised if a 105 works without modifying the struts somehow, or using a majorly recessed lensboard, but maybe. Keep us posted.

(I have a Saber with 120 apo symmar, and enjoy it a lot)

-Ed

You are quite correct. It is a 125mm Fujinon NSW f5.6 lens. The flange distance according to http://brucebarrett.com/large_format/LF_Lens_Coverage.html is 120mm. The Fujinon 105 NSW that I have is listed as having a 100mm flange distance. So that’s a 20mm recessed lens board compared to the current lens?

I have to say that this camera feels great. Lightweight but stable. If it weren’t for the festive season I’d have found time already to process the 4 sheets I shot a week and a half ago to see how it’s RF is working. The one issue is that the springs that secure the DD are tensioned a little too tightly so it requires a bit of a knack to get the DD out again. Also maybe a denser wood might have facilitated a better finish on the GG insert but I’m not too bothered as I just want it as a tool rather than as a display item.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

You are quite correct. It is a 125mm Fujinon NSW f5.6 lens. The flange distance according to http://brucebarrett.com/large_format/LF_Lens_Coverage.html is 120mm. The Fujinon 105 NSW that I have is listed as having a 100mm flange distance. So that’s a 20mm recessed lens board compared to the current lens?


The numbers cited are for the NW lenses, not the NSW lenses. The NW lenses are often called NWS lenses, and the NSW lenses are often called NSWS lenses, which leads to endless confusion.

[adrianlambert]

The numbers cited are for the NW lenses, not the NSW lenses. The NW lenses are often called NWS lenses, and the NSW lenses are often called NSWS lenses, which leads to endless confusion.

I recall that from your website. I’m quoting from the list whereas my lenses state NW I think. So am I correct with the numbers or still misunderstanding this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

The numbers you cited are correct, but the lens designation is off. The designation on Bruce's site are correct. It's easy to type NSW when it should be NWS. I do it all the time.

Fuji messed things up after their W series. They updated the lenses and called them "NW" even though the lenses are still marked "W" and the boxes are marked "NWS" for "New Wide Series". And when their SW series -- "Super Wide" -- was updated, it became "NSW" for "New Super Wide".

Totally confusing. NWS vs NSW -- very similar but completely different.

[adrianlambert]

The numbers you cited are correct, but the lens designation is off. The designation on Bruce's site are correct. It's easy to type NSW when it should be NWS. I do it all the time.

Fuji messed things up after their W series. They updated the lenses and called them "NW" even though the lenses are still marked "W" and the boxes are marked "NWS" for "New Wide Series". And when their SW series -- "Super Wide" -- was updated, it became "NSW" for "New Super Wide".

Totally confusing. NWS vs NSW -- very similar but completely different.

Ah thanks. I’ll probably not retain that but I’ll do my best!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro