360mm Lenses for 8x10

[sperdynamite]

What was the design impetus for 360mm lenses for 8x10 when 300mm was so close relatively? I think some of my favorite 8x10 photographers used 360s, but I personally have only had the opportunity to use 300mm or 250mm lenses.

I'm planning on purchasing an Intrepid 8x10 II and I'm building a kit out. I'm going to pick up a Fuji 250/6.7 and likely a Fuji or Schneider 360 Plasmat. However I've shot some wonderful 300mm lenses too. If I had to guess, a 360 just gives you a little more umph when it comes to a close portrait, and a little less distortion in faces. Similar to the difference between a 50mm lens and a 58mm.

Is that about right? Do you have a favorite 360mm lens? I'd love to see images or hear about experiences.

[Luis-F-S]

I have both 12" and 14" Dagors. The 14" is the MC in black Compur, the latest one made which I bought new in 1988. When I photograph, I nearly always use the 12" Golden Dagor instead of the 14". If you insist on a 14" I'd get a Commercial Ektar NOT a modern plasmat! For portrait distances, you can always use a 14" Artar if you really need that length. L

[Vaughn]

I use a Fuji W 360mm lens -- for both 8x10 and 11x14 (needs to be at least f22 to cover 11x14 well). It is a big beast, though...something to consider. All landscapes, so not familiar with portraits with the 360mm. A Fuji W 300mm and the Fuji W 250/6.7 are my main 8x10 lenses.

[Eric Leppanen]

When I shot 8x10 in the field I used a Fuji 360A f/10, which is the cat's meow for a field 360 (small and light with lots of coverage and a relatively low vibration Copal 1 shutter) if you don't mind paying a small fortune. I also used for awhile a huge 360 Sironar S f/6.8, which I preferred optically (a smidge sharper with a bit more contrast, although to be honest there's not enough of a difference with the Fuji to reflect in most real world prints). Focusing 8x10 with a f/5.6 or f/6.8 lens is a lot of fun (and makes sunrise focusing easier) so I liked to use the huge plasmat when I wasn't too far from the car.

Large lenses with Copal 3 shutters introduce significant shutter kick which a lightweight camera such as the Intrepid may not like very much.

I've owned a couple copies of the APO Symmar 360 over the years, for some reason I didn't find them quite as sharp as either the Rodenstock or Fuji.

I shoot LF for mostly landscapes and architecture. I don't do LF portraiture.

[Mark Sampson]

In the days of LF studio photography, there was a market for many focal lengths.
When I used 8x10 for personal work, I preferred a 14" lens for its perspective- a 12" lens was just too close to my preferred 10" Wide Field Ektar. That's just me. (On the job, we used a 12" Schneider Symmar-S with superb results.)
For your purposes, I'd look for 14-3/4" Ilex-Calumet Caltar (one of which I also used on the job). A very fine lens that is under-appreciated and may not be too expensive.

[Alan9940]

Don't know about the Mark II version of the Intrepid 8x10, but I have a Mark I and I wouldn't dream of mounting either of the two 360mm Plasmat's I own on it. I use a Fuji 360 A.

[John Kasaian]

I started out with a 14"/360mm because it was the only second hand lens in a shutter that covered 8x10 which I could afford purchase :o
If I lost all my lenses tomorrow, except for one, I could get along nicely if that one lens were a 14"/360mm

[neil poulsen]

I have both 12" and 14" Dagors. The 14" is the MC in black Compur, the latest one made which I bought new in 1988. When I photograph, I nearly always use the 12" Golden Dagor instead of the 14". If you insist on a 14" I'd get a Commercial Ektar NOT a modern plasmat! For portrait distances, you can always use a 14" Artar if you really need that length. L

Luis,

What's your rationale behind some of these recommendations. For example, WHY do you recommend a Tessar design over a 14", modern Plasmat design? Why would you select a Golden Dagor 12" over the Kern f8? (I gather that your 14" Dagor is the f8.) Etc.

[Bernice Loui]

Intrepid 8x10 MK2 list a weight of 2.5 Kg, Schneider 360mm f6.8 Symmar in Copal shutter list a weight of 1.6 kg.

What might be the consequences of this?


Bernice

[Vaughn]

FYI...My Fuji W 360mm weighs 1.6 kg with metal Sinar lensboard and both caps on.

[Tin Can]

At least 4 of us have bought a no name 360mm NOS barrel lens on eBay.

Yet none of us has posted any image.

I hope to shoot it soon.

No PM's please.

[sperdynamite]

I have both 12" and 14" Dagors. The 14" is the MC in black Compur, the latest one made which I bought new in 1988. When I photograph, I nearly always use the 12" Golden Dagor instead of the 14". If you insist on a 14" I'd get a Commercial Ektar NOT a modern plasmat! For portrait distances, you can always use a 14" Artar if you really need that length. L

Can the shutter on the commercial Ektar be repaired?

Also I shoot mostly color (patiently waiting for 8x10 E100). Would this lens do as well with Color as a Fuji 360/6.3?

[Thom Bennett]

I found a 360mm Commercial Congo to replace my 14" Commercial Ektar. Tessar design and in a "modern" Copal 3S shutter. Very nice lens. I think the Osaka Commercial was the same lens. Small and light compared to the plasmats.

[Mark Sawyer]

Do you have a favorite 360mm lens?

Oh, I have a dozen or more favorite 14-inch-ish lenses... :rolleyes:

In modern lenses for portraiture, the Commercial Ektar is the favorite, for good reason. But there's an Ilex/Caltar version of the same thing, usually for less, and just as nice.

But when you go back to the "real" portrait lenses... there are reasons Wollensak recommended every studio with an 8x10 have a Velostigmat Series II, a Verito, and a Vitax, all in the same approximate focal lengths. And then there are the Cooke Portrait lenses... And the Imagons, and Kodak Portrait Lenses, and all the other achromatic doublets... Oh, and the Euryscops, and the...

[Alan9940]

Intrepid 8x10 MK2 list a weight of 2.5 Kg, Schneider 360mm f6.8 Symmar in Copal shutter list a weight of 1.6 kg.

What might be the consequences of this?


Bernice

Don't really understand the question here... The 360/6.8 Schneider Symmar-S is a MASSIVE lens with a front element the size of a small dinner plate! Some of my best images have been made with that lens, but it ain't easy to carry around along with everything else needed for 8x10.

[Alan9940]

Can the shutter on the commercial Ektar be repaired?

Also I shoot mostly color (patiently waiting for 8x10 E100). Would this lens do as well with Color as a Fuji 360/6.3?

If I'm not mistaken--been a long time since I've owned a Commercial Ektar--most of these lenses were mounted in Ilex shutters. Carol Flutot is a genius with these shutters. FWIW, back when I had a 14" Commercial Ektar I didn't find it as much to my liking as the 14" Plasmat I replaced it with. I will admit that the Ektar drew a particular kind of image that probably can't be duplicated, but... Btw, my work is all B&W.

[MAubrey]

Don't really understand the question here... The 360/6.8 Schneider Symmar-S is a MASSIVE lens with a front element the size of a small dinner plate! Some of my best images have been made with that lens, but it ain't easy to carry around along with everything else needed for 8x10.

The first time I saw a Symmar-S 360mm in person, I shocked to find that its was physically larger than my older Symmar 360mm f/5.6, despite being slower!

[neil poulsen]

For a long time, I had a 360mm Symmar lens. That thing was so large and heavy to carry; I finally sold it.

I currently have a 355mm G-Claron lens. Much lighter and smaller.

[Bob Salomon]

The first time I saw a Symmar-S 360mm in person, I shocked to find that its was physically larger than my older Symmar 360mm f/5.6, despite being slower!


Was it slower or was the opening in the shutter too small to allow 5.6?

[Drew Wiley]

The short answer is that you're going to get a significantly larger image circle in most cases using a 360 vs 300 of similar design, allowing greater movements. My favorite and most versatile is the Fuji 360 A; but these are now very hard to find. The 355 G-Claron is a more common similar design, but heavier due to the big no.3 shutter. My Kern 14" Dagor has a somewhat different personality; but these are "cult lenses" which tend to be quite overpriced these days. I have a couple other 360's too. As an aging backpacker, I wouldn't want a heavy 360/5.6 studio plasmat. The only 300 I use is a Nikkor M - it's a wonderful piece of glass for 4x5, but in 8x10 format it's limited to very conservative movements. A Fuji A 300 would be wonderful; but I prefer the narrow perspective of 360.

[Alan9940]

A Fuji A 300 would be wonderful; but I prefer the narrow perspective of 360.

Same here. My 360mm Fuji A will be with me 'till the end! And, as an aging backpacker myself ya just can't beat the small size of that lens.

[Bernice Loui]

This was a question for OP to ponder as a 360mm Symmar and similar modern Plasmat is HUGE compared to the Intrepid 8x10 camera, IMO is too flimsy for a lens like this. Historically, I've used big Plasmats like this in studio on a 8x10 Sinar F2 or P. Taking a lens like this outdoors specially on a hike would be a curious and likely eventful journey with the Intrepid 8x10.

As for big Plasmats and their relatives, they are just not my style. For studio table top work, an APO Artar, APO ronar and similar "process lens" produces better images and is a LOT smaller and easier to deal with. For other types of Images, I'll stay with the Kodak Ektar or Commercial Ektar while they do not have the punchy contrast of a modern multi-coated Plasmat, they offer a contrast and color rendition that IMO is superior to the modern Plasmat if that is the look you're interested in. As for problems with Ilex shutters, get them in a barrel then used them with a Sinar shutter and the problem with older shutters simply goes away.


Bernice






Don't really understand the question here... The 360/6.8 Schneider Symmar-S is a MASSIVE lens with a front element the size of a small dinner plate! Some of my best images have been made with that lens, but it ain't easy to carry around along with everything else needed for 8x10.

[MAubrey]

Was it slower or was the opening in the shutter too small to allow 5.6?

The physical housing of the glass of the Symmar-S 360mm is just larger, the f/5.6's compound #4 is, of course larger, than a copal #3. But the Symmar-S has a 120mm filter thread, while the older Symmar is a "mere" 105mm.

[Pere Casals]

If I had to guess, a 360 just gives you a little more umph when it comes to a close portrait, and a little less distortion in faces. Similar to the difference between a 50mm lens and a 58mm.

It is considered that 3m is a good distance for a portrait, as we shot closer we start making a "nose job". Simply the focal has to deliver the framing we want at some 3m, or what we want for the perspective.

With a 300mm we can make the same work than with a 360mm if we crop and discard one inch in each side, this won't harm Image Quality because a 8x10 negative has an insane overkill of that.

Another choice is using a 5x7 reduction back, with the 300mm we'll have a similar shot than with a 360mm (or a 400mm) in 8x10.

Reduction backs have a bonus, our lens kit is more flexible...


Regarding tessar vs plasmat... Tessars have an smoother bokeh than plasmats, but for studio portraiture this may be a bit less important as we may use a uniform background. Outdoors... importance of bokeh can be higher, as we may have distracting backgrounds and then a better bokeh may help.

[Tin Can]

8X10 is not overkill for contact prints. Nor is any larger size.

Some even include the rebate.

If scanning Pere may be correct.

[Bob Salomon]

It is considered that 3m is a good distance for a portrait, as we shot closer we start making a "nose job". Simply the focal has to deliver the framing we want at some 3m, or what we want for the perspective.

With a 300mm we can make the same work than with a 360mm if we crop and discard one inch in each side, this won't harm Image Quality because a 8x10 negative has an insane overkill of that.

Another choice is using a 5x7 reduction back, with the 300mm we'll have a similar shot than with a 360mm (or a 400mm) in 8x10.

Reduction backs have a bonus, our lens kit is more flexible...


Regarding tessar vs plasmat... Tessars have an smoother bokeh than plasmats, but for studio portraiture this may be a bit less important as we may use a uniform background. Outdoors... importance of bokeh can be higher, as we may have distracting backgrounds and then a better bokeh may help.

Foreshortening, not distortion.

Why not practice writing foreshortening after you look up the difference between it and distortion!

[Pere Casals]

8X10 is not overkill for contact prints. Nor is any larger size.

Some even include the rebate.

If scanning Pere may be correct.


Yes... I think the same, 8x10 is an small format for contacts... If shooting 8x10 one has two primary choices: using a very big enlarger or using a larger camera for larger contacts. Two alternatives are scanning or shooting 5x7 that requires a moderate size enlarger.

I love 8x10, but I find that's too large for enlarging and too small for contacts. So 810 hybrid makes more sense than with 45 or 57...

810 advantage is that scanning it's easy, a cheap V850 flatbed extracts an insane amount of Image Quality from a 810 negative, beyond 300MPix effective, which ends in a powerful combination. It's more expensive shotting 4x5 and drum scanning 4k dpi, that may cost $60.

[Pere Casals]

Foreshortening, not distortion.

Why not practice writing foreshortening after you look up the difference between it and distortion!

Bob, thanks, I'd add "foreshortening" to my English vocabulary.

Anyway I'm not guilty :), I've not wrote distortion, it was OP...

I wrote "nose job", that's foreshortening !!!

[Tin Can]

Pere,

Some do not want to scan for screen display, nor do all want to print digitally.

I am trying to maintain my process at 1970 and before technology level.





Yes... I think the same, 8x10 is an small format for contacts... If shooting 8x10 one has two primary choices: using a very big enlarger or using a larger camera for larger contacts. Two alternatives are scanning or shooting 5x7 that requires a moderate size enlarger.

I love 8x10, but I find that's too large for enlarging and too small for contacts. So 810 hybrid makes more sense than with 45 or 57...

810 advantage is that scanning it's easy, a cheap V850 flatbed extracts an insane amount of Image Quality from a 810 negative, beyond 300MPix effective, which ends in a powerful combination. It's more expensive shotting 4x5 and drum scanning 4k dpi, that may cost $60.

[Pere Casals]

Some do not want to scan for screen display, nor do all want to print digitally.

Me, one of them...

...but I've no 810 enlarger yet

[Tin Can]

Come here and get one!


Me, one of them...

...but I've no 810 enlarger yet

[Pere Casals]

Come here and get one!

Randy, thanks, but I'm around 7500km far !!!

[Alan9940]

This was a question for OP to ponder as a 360mm Symmar and similar modern Plasmat is HUGE compared to the Intrepid 8x10 camera, IMO is too flimsy for a lens like this. Historically, I've used big Plasmats like this in studio on a 8x10 Sinar F2 or P. Taking a lens like this outdoors specially on a hike would be a curious and likely eventful journey with the Intrepid 8x10.

I use my 360/6.8 Schneider Symmar-S on a Deardorff 8x10. This camera has no problem holding this heavy lens. However, I typically use both this camera and this lens when working from the car and my subject is not far away. I agree that a 3.5 lbs lens would be an issue on the Intrepid.

[Peter De Smidt]

Ben Horne seems to have no problem backpacking with his 300 f/5.6 plasmat.

[Bernice Loui]

This idea-topic of using the lowest possible weight camera and BIG lenses appear to come up more and more on LFF in recent times. It appears so many who are curious about sheet film VC images want the lowest weight camera, smallest possible lens with ginormous image circle, super contrast with super LPM resolution with a huge full aperture... All of which is not possible due to the harsh realities of the way Nature really is. More often than not, these fantasies of desirable features do not aid in expressive image making.

Having been at this LF game for decades, there is no substitute for a precise, stable camera that can properly support any lens within reason which could be several pounds if needed. This basic foundation of what a stable platform of a view camera is not possible with a flimsy 3 pound 8x10 of any maker, any brand, any design, any materials used. There are very real advantages of a view camera with weight, stability and durability when it comes to using BIG lenses. This does not mean a 3 pound 8x10 is a bad thing, it simply means accept the very real limitations of what a 3 pound 8x10 is capable of and work within these limits. Nothing more, nothing less.


Bernice




I use my 360/6.8 Schneider Symmar-S on a Deardorff 8x10. This camera has no problem holding this heavy lens. However, I typically use both this camera and this lens when working from the car and my subject is not far away. I agree that a 3.5 lbs lens would be an issue on the Intrepid.

[Vaughn]

That, and the fact that getting a 360mm lens that weighs half of my present lens makes little difference in the total amount of weight of the my present system. And I must consider that an f5.6 (or f6.3) lens is much easier to use than a f9 or f11 lens in the low light I often photograph in. To each their own...

[Phil Hudson]

Ages ago I bought a new 350/11 Schneider Apo Tele Xenar (not really a telephoto lens) which is surprisingly light in a Copal 1 and easy to use on a wooden 8x10. Despite being f/11 it is easy enough to focus in most common lighting conditions. I don't often see them now but if one pops up you might consider that.....

[Drew Wiley]

Talk comes cheap. How much backpacking with a view camera have some of you actually done? I've done well over 10,000 miles carrying packs up to 90lbs with view camera gear, much of it in very steep terrain. Heavier camera and lenses do NOT necessarily give you a sharper picture at all. It a matter of appropriately matched gear. A big heavy clunker studio plasmat just puts more stress on the front standard, which in turn mandates a much more rigid heavier camera, which in turn requires a bigger tripod. I could configure my Sinar with heavy P-components, but it wouldn't give me a tad better actual images than my significantly lighter F or Norma versions. In fact, they'd probably come out worse due to being harder to stabilize. Likewise, my 360 Fuji A in no. 1 shutter is going to be way more stable on a front standard than some big studio 360 in a no.3. It's highly precise for 4x5 and even roll film backs, and not just big 8x10 cameras. But it's better corrected than any conventional plasmat anyway. Yeah, I had my teenager days in my 40's and early 50's when I thought I could handle any pack weight day after day. But once I got rid of those huge ole clunker lenses and replaced them with tiny little f/9 lenses, I not only found out I suddenly had more room in my pack for special amenities like food, but actually had obtained better optics. Dim light is never an issue with focussing. My 450 Fuji C is f/12; no issue, plenty bright. But I don't know where you're coming from, Bernice - it's hard to think of a 3lb 4x5 unless its a Toho or Gowland. Ultralight 8x10's start in the 7 to 8 lb range. My own lightwt 8x10 is the original Phillips folder, and I'm confident stating it's more stable than a Dorff weighing twice as much. Times have changed; with a bit of material science innovation you can have your cake and eat it too, in terms of both lightness and stability.

[Vaughn]

I certainly have not backpacked with my Zone VI 8x10 (except for once...a combination horse/foot adventure). 4x5 and 5x7, yes. I can still carry the 8x10 all day (slowly with lots of rest while taking photographs, and time spent admiring the views), but until recently, I could not afford to buy lightweight 8x10 gear, and now it is a little late to go that route. Backpacking on that scale is no longer an option.

I am heading out this Thursday for 3 nights into the local mountains (Russian Wilderness) and debating to take the 5x7 or just the Rolleicord. Unusual hike for me -- large crowd of fellow 'mountainmen' (folks I have known for decades from our tree planting/land restoration days). A short hike in, then base camp. More of a Summer Solstice celebration than a wilderness experience...otherwise I prefer solo.

Maybe the 5x7, the Fuji W 180/5.6, and 8 loaded holders. If I can't get one great image out of 16 pieces of film over 4 days, I shouldn't take the camera! But the ease and fun of the Rolleicord is tempting! I could probably toss it is with the 5x7 -- the 'cord is a light little camera, but that seems excessive and mentally, one might detract from the other.

PS: the Intrepid 8x10 II camera is listed as a 5.5 pound camera (2.5 kg).

PS#2: I have used lenses from f5.6 to f11 (RD Artars) deep under the redwoods in the late afternoon during overcast weather. F11 is doable without pain (but with minor cursing), but it is so much nicer to see the corners when the GG is 4 times as bright with the f5.6. I am using the standard GG -- probably brighter ones out there.

[Drew Wiley]

My 360 A Fuji weighs just 465g - less than a third of the weight of the 360 W! I wouldn't even think of putting the W on my 4x5 Sinar monorail due to both all that extra weight and the greater vibration of the big shutter at that bellows length, especially if a 6x9 back was involved. But I get precise results with the A even when the greater mass of my 8x10 is not involved. It's also better hue and close-range corrected; they call em their Super-Plasmats for a reason. But hard to find and expensive in that focal length. Even the vibration from the Compur 3 shutter on my first 14"Kern dagor affected Sinar shots. You could feel the buzz if you held a fingernail to the rail. I replaced it with the previous model of Kern 14" in Copal 3 shutter - much softer, but still too heavy overall for the front standard of my Sinar. Fine on my 8x10 Phillips folder. ... But with respect to what Neil queried, if you're contemplating ULF use rather than 8x10, putting similar design lenses into smaller shutters introduces a bit of mechanical vignetting and reduces the overall image circle - not the best part of the image circle, but the maximum usable, which contact printers might use, but not people who enlarge and need more critical edges and corners. For example, the Kern Dagors in no.3 have less overall image circle than some older dagors of similar focal lengths in no.4 and 5 shutters. Likewise, the Fuji 360 A in no.1 shutter has PLENTY of image circle for 8x10 use, but not as much as the similar 355 G-Claron in a no. 3 shutter, which some ULF shooters use. Tessars generally have less image circle per design limitation. But dagors in particular, followed by tessars, have less air/glass interfaces than plasmats, so in certain cases are capable of exceptional color and tonality performance. My multicoated 14" Kern dagor had the highest contrast and color saturation of any lens I have ever used, in any format - too much contrast in fact to be practical for the typical chrome shooting I did back then, so I replaced it with the single-coated Kern which I presently own, as well as for sake of the shutter change. Nikkor M's are nearly as contrasty, being late multicoated tessars with only six air/glass interfaces; but my 300 will barely cover 8x10, so I use it almost exclusively for either 4x5 or roll film backs. The 450 M has quite a bit of coverage; but in that category I'm satisfied with my much lighter Fuji 450C. Lenses can be discussed endlessly. I use an old Zeiss 360 tessar in barrel for sake of its better background blur characteristics than my other view lenses; but it's otherwise extremely sharp, with excellent tonality.

[Drew Wiley]

Cameras per se - Vaughn, some of those super-light 8x10's are versions with a fixed horizontal back - you can't rotate it to vertical. There was a comparable Phillips option like that early on.

[Vaughn]

Cameras per se - Vaughn, some of those super-light 8x10's are versions with a fixed horizontal back - you can't rotate it to vertical. There was a comparable Phillips option like that early on.
I really like the concept of the Shen Hao 5x7 non-folder (TFC57-A)...except for the horizontal-only configuration. But my 5x7 Eastman View No.2 is working well for me...even with the lack of front movements. It is a semi-nonfolder (the front rail folds down) at 8.75 pounds with the sliding block and FujiW 180mm lens. The sliding block is about a half pound, plus a little, but nicely stiffens up the camera body and rail, so I will not leave it at home.

[paulbarden]

Can the shutter on the commercial Ektar be repaired?

Also I shoot mostly color (patiently waiting for 8x10 E100). Would this lens do as well with Color as a Fuji 360/6.3?

The 14" Commercial Ektar is an exquisite lens for both color and B&W work, and yes - the shutters these come in can almost always be serviced. They're one of the simplest shutter designs there is.

[Alan Gales]

I found a 360mm Commercial Congo to replace my 14" Commercial Ektar. Tessar design and in a "modern" Copal 3S shutter. Very nice lens. I think the Osaka Commercial was the same lens.

Same lens, different name. Both in 3s shutter. Designed to copy the 14" Commercial Ektar from what I heard.

[Drew Wiley]

Commercial Ektars have their own look - generally less contrasty than current multicoated lenses. They're also pretty big. Don't forget Fuji L tessars - thicker elements and heavier than Nikkor M's, but kinda intermediate in rendering and weight. Osaka Commercial was not a rebranded Commercial Ektar but an independent lens line made for Ken Bromwell, mostly 4-element dialytes rather than tessars, perhaps from the same factory as Congo, but I'm not sure. Some Caltar lenses were re-branded actual Ektars. Only certain Ektars were tessar formula, especially the wider f/4.5 ones; a lot were themselves air-spaced dialytes. Modern Fuji and other major brand multicoated plasmats are going to be more contrasty with sharper edges. My concern with using certain older lenses in Acme and Ilex shutters would be whether or not they're predictably accurate enough in speed for chrome films. There's not a lot of forgiveness for exposure error in that category; and 8x10 color film is getting damn expensive. I wouldn't want to waste any shots.

[Bob Salomon]

Commercial Ektars have their own look - generally less contrasty than current multicoated lenses. They're also pretty big. Don't forget Fuji L tessars - thicker elements and heavier than Nikkor M's, but kinda intermediate in rendering and weight. Osaka Commercial was not a rebranded Commercial Ektar but an independent lens line made for Ken Bromwell, mostly 4-element dialytes rather than tessars, perhaps from the same factory as Congo, but I'm not sure. Some Caltar lenses were re-branded actual Ektars. Only certain Ektars were tessar formula, especially the wider f/4.5 ones; a lot were themselves air-spaced dialytes. Modern Fuji and other major brand multicoated plasmats are going to be more contrasty with sharper edges. My concern with using certain older lenses in Acme and Ilex shutters would be whether or not they're predictably accurate enough in speed for chrome films. There's not a lot of forgiveness for exposure error in that category; and 8x10 color film is getting damn expensive. I wouldn't want to waste any shots.

Ted Bromwell

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - Ebony really had the goods when it came to non-folding cameras (folders too). Out of business now; but truly the top of the line in wooden cameras. I've always coveted a Canham walnut 5x7 - it's the sweet spot in his lineup, and only 6-1/2 lbs. But I just didn't have the economic will to have 3-pin register system ordered up from Condit when they were still in business themselves. Their 5x7 masking system is really just the 5" punch for 4x5 used on the short side for 5x7 film. 8x10 gives way more control, and there were various options. This was a big deal color printing. I made another RA4 print this afternoon which was originally an 8x10 Provia chrome, then after some complex masking was turned into an Astia master printing duplicate, then when Cibachrome died, I made yet another contact onto 8x10 color neg film as an internegative. The detail and color are absolutely wonderful, even in a full 30x40 inch print. But the original Provia shot was triacetate film, which is not dimensionally stable, so way down in one corner someone might spot a bit of mask offset mis-registered if they look carefully. One Kodak E100G came out on stable polyester base, I switched to that. ... But its amazing what a bit more well-thought out weight will provide. My Ebony 4x5 folder is only a quarter pound heavier than the true lightweights like Wisner Expedition or Nagaoka, but WAY more stable, with WAY better hardware (machined titanium). But I couldn't afford one at today's prices. ... and yes, Bob, Ted Bromwell. I've talked to him in person a number of times - honest and straightforward, no-nonsense.

[Mark Sawyer]

Only certain Ektars were tessar formula, especially the wider f/4.5 ones; a lot were themselves air-spaced dialytes...

There were quite a few Ektars using quite a few designs, (Ektar was a catch-all trade name for Kodak), but the Commercial Ektars were all f/6.3 Tessars. There was also an Ektar f/4.5 that was a Tessar, but there may have been other f/4.5 Ektars that weren't Tessars. But Kodak only 14-inch (355mm) Ektar lens was the Commercial Ektar

[Vaughn]

My 4x5 is the Gowland PocketView marketed by Calumet...2.5 pounds with the Caltar IIN 150/5.6 on it (bought new for $200, and lens $220). Talk about light, but with a little care, it is a sweet machine. I used it on a 7 pound Gitzo Studex/Gitzo Ballhead No.2, the tripod weight gave it good stability. It is the camera (and pod) that traveled with me for 6 months on a bicycle and 11-day backpacks down into the Grand Canyon. I used it recently on a 2.5lb tripod...it is a SOB to work with. I could still get steady images with it, but the set-up wanted to move every which way while under the darkcloth, inserting holders, etc.

No revolving back, so I turned the whole camera on its side for horizontals. I keep it in the vertical position, but one can go either way. One can remove 4 screws and flip it back and forth between vert and hort, but one time in the field I dropped one of the screws in the creek, so stopped doing it.

An Ebony 57SU would be a fine machine to use! $$$$$$

[Bernice Loui]

Before the 14" Commercial Ektar, there was the 14" Eastman Ektar, essentially the same lens but not Luminized aka anti reflection coated.


Bernice



There were quite a few Ektars using quite a few designs, (Ektar was a catch-all trade name for Kodak), but the Commercial Ektars were all f/6.3 Tessars. There was also an Ektar f/4.5 that was a Tessar, but there may have been other f/4.5 Ektars that weren't Tessars. But Kodak only 14-inch (355mm) Ektar lens was the Commercial Ektar

[Bernice Loui]

The entire "contrasty thing" is why I've absolutely stop using modern multi coated Plasmants, that look was driven by the need of commercial photographers for ad and similar work. It is very much a personal style and preference thing. As an extension to this, I've gone back to using a 115mm f6.8 Rodenstock Grandgon in place of the 110mm f5.5 Schneider Symmar XL (also caused the 150mm f5.6 SSXL to become parked by a 165mm f6.8 Scnheider Angulon). While the 110mm SSXL has higher contrast resulting in "visually" sharper subjectively, the overall rendering of the 115mm Grandagon is preferred. Poking into the eyes of the viewer to get an response by using high contrast, high visual impact images grows tiresome over time viewing these images. They can be effective for a short time, but become a visual boring experience over time.

Solution for the shutter as been mention countless times here is to use a Sinar shutter with these vintage lenses in barrel or shutter. This absolutely flatten the shutter problem and preserves the round iris commonly found on vintage lenses. This is likely not important to image makers who commonly use a taking aperture of f22 and smaller, for others, it is of prime importance.

The "3 pound" camera reference is pointed to the idea-fantasy of always wanting the lowest weight view camera with the largest film format. This is IMO, total nonsense as weigh in the proper places results in stability which can go a long ways to stopping camera movement during film exposure. One other very significant reason for the preference towards a monorail over any flatbed camera has to do with ability to adjust the weight balance of the camera loaded with lens then set up on the tripod. Given the majority of flatbed cameras have essentially a fixed rear and tripod mount, once the bed and bellows is extended to be used with a longer focal length lens, overall camera balance is a problem resulting in camera-setup stability problems. For a monorail, the front -vs- rear standards can be easily moved and adjusted with the lens and bellows extension to be used achieving a good balance for the camera-lens and overall set up. This is a often little appreciated aspect of using a monorail camera with
various length rails that can be added to subtracted as needed.


Bernice









Commercial Ektars have their own look - generally less contrasty than current multicoated lenses. They're also pretty big. Don't forget Fuji L tessars - thicker elements and heavier than Nikkor M's, but kinda intermediate in rendering and weight. Osaka Commercial was not a rebranded Commercial Ektar but an independent lens line made for Ken Bromwell, mostly 4-element dialytes rather than tessars, perhaps from the same factory as Congo, but I'm not sure. Some Caltar lenses were re-branded actual Ektars. Only certain Ektars were tessar formula, especially the wider f/4.5 ones; a lot were themselves air-spaced dialytes. Modern Fuji and other major brand multicoated plasmats are going to be more contrasty with sharper edges. My concern with using certain older lenses in Acme and Ilex shutters would be whether or not they're predictably accurate enough in speed for chrome films. There's not a lot of forgiveness for exposure error in that category; and 8x10 color film is getting damn expensive. I wouldn't want to waste any shots.

[Vaughn]

...For a monorail, the front -vs- rear standards can be easily moved and adjusted with the lens and bellows extension to be used achieving a good balance for the camera-lens and overall set up. ...Bernice
The sliding block of my Eastman View No.2 does a nice job of this -- and stiffens the connection between the main camera body and the front 'rails'.


The entire "contrasty thing" is why I've absolutely stop using modern multi coated Plasmants
I believe you are saying that the contrast of the MC plasmats can not be reduced (through film development and/or printing) to give the same feeling of contrast native to other lens types. Correct?

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe I should start looking for investors in my helium-filled bellows patent. The bigger the view camera, the lighter it is!

[Vaughn]

Maybe I should start looking for investors in my helium-filled bellows patent. The bigger the view camera, the lighter it is!
One would think our hot air would be sufficient!:cool:

[Drew Wiley]

Good idea, now that helium is in short supply.

[sperdynamite]

I will likely be ordering a Bellatrix Gibellini soon, and I have to choose a first lens.

The 14" Commercial Ektar looks like a marvelous optic, but I do worry about the shutter for chromes. I will be shooting E100 and Provia as much as I can.

I'm thinking the Fujinon 360/6.3 might be a good option for me. I'm open to more recommendations, however. Am I right in assuming there is little significant difference between the Schneider, Nikkor or Fuji Plasmats of the era?

[sperdynamite]

I will likely be ordering a Bellatrix Gibellini soon, and I have to choose a first lens.

The 14" Commercial Ektar looks like a marvelous optic, but I do worry about the shutter for chromes. I will be shooting E100 and Provia as much as I can.

I'm thinking the Fujinon 360/6.3 might be a good option for me. I'm open to more recommendations, however. Am I right in assuming there is little significant difference between the Schneider, Nikkor or Fuji Plasmats of the era?

[Peter De Smidt]

That's, a 360 f/6.3, going to be a monster lens on a light camera.

[Bernice Loui]

Light weight camera often implies outdoor images. If this is the case, would a lens with a full aperture of f5.6 or f6.3 really be needed? For most 8x10 folks taking outdoor images, their taking aperture will typically be f22 and smaller. This negates the advantage and real need for a full aperture of f5.6 or f6.3. Add to this, light weight field cameras lack the precision of something like a Sinar P which has the precision and stability to easily use lenses with a full aperture of f5.6 or larger with ease. Beyond the camera precision and stability problem, there is the problem of precise alignment each time the lightweight camera is set up.

There is also the problem (which has been discussed lots recently on LFF) of keeping a sheet of 8x10 film flat in the film holder and more problems related to dealing with big sheets of film.

Also discussed was how these 8x10 images will be used post process, optically printed in a traditional wet darkroom or scanned to digits?

Point being, do you really need a lens with a full aperture of f5.6 or f6.3 given these very real limitations? There are variety of f9 and smaller full aperture lenses in a copal or similar shutter that could prove to be a better choice for a 8x10 lightweight camera. Yes, a larger full aperture can make focusing easier, if the other problems induced by a large full aperture lens is worth the problems created.

Only you can decide this, but keep in mind the very real limitations of the 8x10 film format and any 8x10 light weight camera.

Personally, the choice for color transparencies would be a Kodak Ektar due to it's excellent color rendition and color balance, tonal and contrast rendition which is lower and helps to reduce the inherent high contrast of color transparency film and overall optical performance. Others will absolute dis-like lenses like the Kodak Ektar (Tessar made with low dispersion lanthanum glass) due to their lack of "punch and snappy" color-contrast. Again, only you can decide and make this choice.

Shutters are a side issue, yes a big Ilex# 5 often tops out at 1/30 second while a Copal, Compur and similar# 3 shutter tops out at 1/125 second, do know the Ilex# 5 has a LOT bigger shutter opening than a # 3 shutter resulting in a slower max shutter speed. Accuracy is not too big an issue if the shutter has been serviced and calibrated. If low shutter speed is an issue for using large taking apertures, apply ND filters as needed. What is more common, longer or slower shutter speeds are more useful and important for big sheet film than max shutter speed.

There was a time when I had a Sinar digital shutter which had the same size shutter opening as the manual Sinar shutter except it had a max shutter speed of 1/500 second. Quite amazing for a shutter with such a large opening.... Never once was any imaged taken at 1/500 seconds over the years this Sinar digital shutter was used. Turns out, the most common shutter speeds are 1/30 second and much slower.


Bernice

[Tin Can]

As Vaughn wrote, some shoot in low light outside needing fast glass. Some also have glaucoma.

I have a couple cameras with lightweight Packard shutters for use with barrel lenses or failed shutters.

I would trade broken shutters for barrel mounts in a moment.

[Peter De Smidt]

Not all long f/5.6 lenses are huge. Cooke Series VI, Aviar....

[Bernice Loui]

My solution to this problem has been for decades now, use a Sinar shutter with barrel lenses. Schneider Xenar with a full aperture of f4.5 or Kodak Commercial Ektar with a full aperture of f6.3 or Kodak Ektar with full aperture of f4.5. Using 5x7_13x18 film format helps by reducing camera, lens size weight an overall bulk of the entire system.

IMO, barrel lenses with a calibrate accurate and reliable Sinar shutter is absolutely superior to a pile-O-lenses in shutters which adds bulk and other problems. And the Sinar easily has enough precision and stability to use these f4.5 lenses at full aperture with few if any problems. Over the decades of doing this view camera stuff, camera limitations is not acceptable for the lens and image making demands required to achieve the image in mind.


Bernice




As Vaughn wrote, some shoot in low light outside needing fast glass. Some also have glaucoma.

I have a couple cameras with lightweight Packard shutters for use with barrel lenses or failed shutters.

I would trade broken shutters for barrel mounts in a moment.

[Bernice Loui]

Example, 13-1/2" f4.5 Cooke Avair, solid brass barrel, Burke & James coated-adjusted... 5.1 pounds on Sinar lens board. Kitty optional.
192612


Focal length / full aperture = diameter of lens, or 360mm divided by 5.6 equals about 64mm.
way over simplification but enough for this example.

-Basic lens element size is directly related to focal length and full aperture-


Bernice


Not all long f/5.6 lenses are huge. Cooke Series VI, Aviar....

[Mark Sawyer]

On physical size, a lot depends on the design, which determines element size beyond just aperture size. All need about the same size interior diameter elements near the aperture to get that 1: 5.6 f/stop ratio, (yeah, I know, "measured through the entrance pupil", but close enough). Tessars and triplets use the same diameter elements throughout. Plasmats have larger front and somewhat larger rear elements. Super Angulons have much larger front and rear elements. Bigger elements and the bigger barrels they require add weight.

[Drew Wiley]

Who needs an f/5.6 view camera lens? I haven't even owned many of those for the past thirty years - sold em all - and it hasn't caused me to forego a single image. Smaller aperture lenses are not only easier to correct, optically, but are a lot lighter and more portable to carry. I did keep a fast 90/4.5 Nikkor SW for my architectural shooting kit. That bigger aperture is useful for shots though dense filtration including a CF and sometimes strong contrast filter attached too. But I haven't used it more than once in the past ten years. I have a 3.5 Nikkor 105 M tessar; but its tiny and dedicated to 6x9 roll film backs, and won't cover 4x5. And yeah, let's see... have a 125/5.6 Fuji W that's also very petite. Anything longer, all f/9 to f/11.5. I'll never go back to big clunker studio lenses. ... Otherwise, I simply can't imagine using a single common shutter like the Sinar shutter for the kind of work I do. Put all my eggs in one basket? If that one shutter fails, so does the whole trip. When you work out in the weather in rough terrain year after year, better have a backup plan. Studio option and realistic wilderness options often differ.

[neil poulsen]

. . . The 14" Commercial Ektar looks like a marvelous optic, but I do worry about the shutter for chromes. I will be shooting E100 and Provia as much as I can. . . .


If you know the actual speeds in milliseconds (versus commonly misleading fractions), you can determine aperture corrections to adjust for errors in speed. I do this for all speeds in all my lenses and could do the calculations.

It may be obvious but is worth mentioning that Ektars were originally color corrected for Ektachrome film.

[Drew Wiley]

Speaking of the other use of the term Ektar, when you shoot that particular version of Kodak color negative film, it really helps to be as precise with it as with chrome exposures. You might seem at first to get away with more; but if you shoot from the hip, the color will be off somewhere. The first thing to do after you buy a box of either chrome film or Ektar is to throw the term "latitude" into the garbage can. But as per lenses - I check all my shutter speeds and annotate any deviance from the marked speed on the front of the lens board as a xerox-shrunk note behind weatherproof clear tape.

[Mark Sawyer]

...I check all my shutter speeds and annotate any deviance from the marked speed on the front of the lens board as a xerox-shrunk note behind weatherproof clear tape.

Alas, those shutter speeds wander. The marked 50th may be a 20th today and a 40th tomorrow... :(

[Drew Wiley]

Mine don't wander. All my current lenses are now in modern Copals, except of course barrel lenses. The highest speeds of Copal shutters are almost always off; but view camera photographers rarely use those. None of the lower speeds are off by more than 1/3 EV on any of my current lenses, and the amount as well as direction of "off", slower or faster, for a specific lens, seems about the same year after year. Of course, you want to test the same speed multiple times for statistical variation. I record the high, low, and the most common reading. Usually it's within 1/6 EV - pretty darn reliable cumulatively, except again, if you're up around 1/500th, where things get unpredictable. You also need to consistently test at your most commonly used f/stop for a given lens; because it can make a bit of difference otherwise. But there were any lens in my set even remotely as wild as what you describe, Mark, I'd never shoot it unless long-exposure lenscap style like a barrel lens. I cut my teeth on chrome films, which simply aren't very forgiving.

[Greg]

Mine don't wander. All my current lenses are now in modern Copals, except of course barrel lenses. The highest speeds of Copal shutters are almost always off; but view camera photographers rarely use those. None of the lower speeds are off by more than 1/3 EV on any of my current lenses, and the amount as well as direction of "off", slower or faster, for a specific lens, seems about the same year after year. Of course, you want to test the same speed multiple times for statistical variation. I record the high, low, and the most common reading. Usually it's within 1/6 EV - pretty darn reliable cumulatively, except again, if you're up around 1/500th, where things get unpredictable. You also need to consistently test at your most commonly used f/stop for a given lens; because it can make a bit of difference otherwise. But there were any lens in my set even remotely as wild as what you describe, Mark, I'd never shoot it unless long-exposure lenscap style like a barrel lens. I cut my teeth on chrome films, which simply aren't very forgiving.

Agree 100%. As I acquired lenses in shutters, fired them off at 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 second. If they sounded accurate to my ear, I just used the lens as it was. If not, had it cleaned and calibrated (CLA the term I believe). For my type of photography can't remember ever using a shutter speed faster than 1/15 (f/64 school). FYI: I only shoot B&W.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Alas, those shutter speeds wander. The marked 50th may be a 20th today and a 40th tomorrow... :(

I chart all my shutters and determine the standard deviation. So I know where the median is and also how much they deviate from the median. I get few surprises. The majority are quite consistent.

I have three Norma shutters in my studio. They have jeweled bearings like a fine Swiss watch and are all quite accurate, I've never felt the need to take a backup into the field, these have worked for me for nearly forty years.

[neil poulsen]

I chart all my shutters and determine the standard deviation. So I know where the median is and also how much they deviate from the median. I get few surprises. The majority are quite consistent. . . .

I do the same, except that I calculate the mean and SD. Speeds may not be accurate, but by and large, they are consistent.

[Bernice Loui]

All mechanic shutters vary their shutter speed per cycle. Exception to this are electronic shutters. The most accurate shutter I've ever used is the Sinar Digital electronic shutter. That said, first mechanical Sinar shutter was purchased about three decades ago, had it serviced by the Sinar folks post initial purchase. Since them it has measured accurate per cycle and has never failed or every had a problem over thousands of shutter cycles. Reliability, durability is just not an issue with a know good condition Sinar shutter. That said, have two more as back up..

Back in the color transparency days, the way to achieve repeatable and fraction of a f-stop exposure accuracy, use a high quality strobe lighting. This essentially take the shutter variations out of the film exposure set up. Having been and done the outdoor color transparency decades ago, constantly changing outdoor light can be a real issue causing significant differences in film exposures on top of any variations in shutter speeds per cycle.


Bernice




I chart all my shutters and determine the standard deviation. So I know where the median is and also how much they deviate from the median. I get few surprises. The majority are quite consistent.

I have three Norma shutters in my studio. They have jeweled bearings like a fine Swiss watch and are all quite accurate, I've never felt the need to take a backup into the field, these have worked for me for nearly forty years.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have three Norma shutters in my studio. They have jeweled bearings like a fine Swiss watch and are all quite accurate, I've never felt the need to take a backup into the field, these have worked for me for nearly forty years.

But you have to take a Sinar Norma out in the field...

[Bernice Loui]

Which I've done many times. Before this it was a Sinar C or Sinar F. Don't do any kind do any hiking which puts a very different take on the type and location of images made. That said, have zero reservation of taking a Sinar any where outdoors in hot-cold, rain, or ocean spray or etc... Not into "pampering" cameras. They must function and perform as expected under real world conditions. If they do not hold up, they get ditched for a camera that works as needed.


Bernice


But you have to take a Sinar Norma out in the field...

[Daniel Unkefer]

But you have to take a Sinar Norma out in the field...

No you don't. You can attach it to any wooden board. Seen it done many times.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I do the same, except that I calculate the mean and SD. Speeds may not be accurate, but by and large, they are consistent.

Yes I completely agree with this from direct experience.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, strobes are real convenient if big rings are welded to the cases for attaching a rope and pulley system to help you get it over the bergschrund at the top of the glacier. Merely repeat that numerous times for your batteries and lighting stands etc. But you can save a lot of wt just by flying a kite in the usual afternoon lightning storm, and automatically trigger the flash holding it's cord in one hand, and the wet kite line in the other. No need to even pack a kite - one of the softboxes will work fine in a 60mph wind.

[Mark Sawyer]

No you don't. You can attach it to any wooden board. Seen it done many times.

Except that's not what the poster said he does. The Norma is hardly the ideal field camera.

[paulbarden]

The entire "contrasty thing" is why I've absolutely stop using modern multi coated Plasmants, that look was driven by the need of commercial photographers for ad and similar work. It is very much a personal style and preference thing.

Bernice

All of my favorite lenses are un-coated, with one exception: the 12" Kodak Ektar f4.5, which is exquisite in its rendering. IMO there is such a thing as "too sharp, too contrasty".

[Drew Wiley]

The Norma is a WONDERFUL field system. But note that I stated "system". When it comes to full 8x10, my Phillips folder fits into my pack far more easily. Scale the Norma down to 4x5, and it's my favorite 4x5 for field use, though in that case too, I often have to substitute a folder when saving space and wt is a priority, like for an upcoming 2 wk backpack trip. If I was still in my 40's I wouldn't hesitate to take the Norma on a trip like that. But being almost 70, I like the luxury of eating better, with more room available in the pack for food.

[Greg]

The Norma is a WONDERFUL field system. But note that I stated "system". When it comes to full 8x10, my Phillips folder fits into my pack far more easily. Scale the Norma down to 4x5, and it's my favorite 4x5 for field use, though in that case too, I often have to substitute a folder when saving space and wt is a priority, like for an upcoming 2 wk backpack trip. If I was still in my 40's I wouldn't hesitate to take the Norma on a trip like that. But being almost 70, I like the luxury of eating better, with more room available in the pack for food.

Drew,
Was wondering what tripod & head combination you use when backpacking. They have been my Achilles heel as to saving weight and not sticking so far above my backpack so as not to catch up on overhanging branches. The trails that I hike in New England are commonly overgrown and when bending down, the top of the tripod snags up and has pulled me down more than once.
thanks

[Bernice Loui]

Which can be made easier to transport if the standard camera rail is shortened. This Sinar rail has been cut down then modified on a lathe/milling machine to the specific length to fit into the Pelican 1610 case (which has two special plastic sockets to hold the rail ends on place). Two six inch rails can be added on one or both ends as needed allowing the set up to be used with up to 19" or 480mm focal length lenses. The shortened rail Norma is simply put into the Sinar rail clamp, one six inch rail installed, camera standards and bellows extended and the camera is essentially ready to use. Sinar shutter and one lens lives with the collapse and transported as shown. Setting this up is quick and easy as with take down. This is evolution of a Sinar after using this system for a few decades outdoors.
192664


Bernice




The Norma is a WONDERFUL field system. But note that I stated "system". When it comes to full 8x10, my Phillips folder fits into my pack far more easily. Scale the Norma down to 4x5, and it's my favorite 4x5 for field use, though in that case too, I often have to substitute a folder when saving space and wt is a priority, like for an upcoming 2 wk backpack trip. If I was still in my 40's I wouldn't hesitate to take the Norma on a trip like that. But being almost 70, I like the luxury of eating better, with more room available in the pack for food.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48114348856_5a09b13a69_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2giGBCU)5x7 Norma 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2giGBCU) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

My 5x7 Norma that I am finally going to start using.

OP: What is my fave 360mm lens? That would be my Norma specific Plasmat Schneider 360mm F5.6 Symmar. It is in automatic iris configuration with Norma cables leading into the rear standard. Nearly as fast to operate as a reflex camera, in some respects.

I plan to haul this out in the field on a wooden tripod.

I have also used Normas in the field (4x5 and 8x10) for many decades. 5x7 is new to me.

It has been patiently waiting for twenty years in my studio, for me to have the time to go forward with my using it.

[Tin Can]

Do all Norma backs work with the Sinar Shutter rear cable fail safe?

[Daniel Unkefer]

All the Norma backs have a lever that is actuated, when a plate holder is inserted in the rear standard.

It closes the Norma Shutter, and resets the shutter mechanism. So, just that fast, pull the slide and shoot.

4x5 and 8x10 work the same as the 5x7.

[Tin Can]

what i wanted to know

Thank you!


All the Norma backs have a lever that is actuated, when a plate holder is inserted in the rear standard.

It closes the Norma Shutter, and resets the shutter mechanism. So, just that fast, pull the slide and shoot.

4x5 and 8x10 work the same as the 5x7.

[Bernice Loui]

That second cable connected to the rear standards film holder end is to close the Sinar shutter blades to allow timed shutter cycling, not really a fail safe.

All the Norma rear film backs here (4x5 & 5x7) have the fitting for that cable.


Bernice


Do all Norma backs work with the Sinar Shutter rear cable fail safe?

[Tin Can]

Good info. I see the rear cable socket on Norma now.

I did not like my P. It always snapped my fingers. Especially with the way too big 5x7 metering back

Sold a whole set here years ago


That second cable connected to the rear standards film holder end is to close the Sinar shutter blades to allow timed shutter cycling, not really a fail safe.

All the Norma rear film backs here (4x5 & 5x7) have the fitting for that cable.


Bernice

[Daniel Unkefer]

The cable should close the shutter when a plate is inserted. That is in the Norma instruction book.

The cable length into the shutter is adjustable, with an adjustment on the shutter cable adapter (which screws into the shutter and has a bayonet quick release fitting).

Of course you have to test with your specific plates, and adjust if necessary, to make it all work.

In all my years of Norma use, I've not used the cable much. But it does work.

[Tin Can]

I wonder if I could convert my main studio camera.

But before drilling and tapping a Linhof, I will wait to see a Norma in my studio.


The cable should close the shutter when a plate is inserted. That is in the Norma instruction book.

The cable length into the shutter is adjustable, with an adjustment on the shutter cable adapter (which screws into the shutter and has a bayonet quick release fitting).

Of course you have to test with your specific plates, and adjust if necessary, to make it all work.

In all my years of Norma use, I've not used the cable much. But it does works.

[Bob Salomon]

I wonder if I could convert my main studio camera.

But before drilling and tapping a Linhof, I will wait to see a Norma in my studio.
Linhof made Kardan backs with the cable release socket on their GT, GTL, TL, etc. models.

This will fit all Linhof Kardan models, except the Standard, made since the Kardan B series.

Most Wista wood and metal field cameras also have this feature on their backs to automate their Wista shutters.