PDA

View Full Version : Art Panorama 6 x 17 back - anyone familiar?



Robert McClure
7-Jul-2006, 06:14
There's another 6x17 rollfilm back on ebay right now from the company in Hong Kong. I have seen this before but am not terribly familiar. Anyone bought one? Was very curious about the company, its responsiveness, how you paid, how long to receive, and - of course - what about the back? Any good? I am assuming the Keith Canham's $1100.00 back as a sort of benchmark here. You comments greatly appreciated!

Robert



http://cgi.ebay.com/Multi-format-6x9-6x12-6x17-film-back-holder-4x5-cameras_W0QQitemZ300004731192QQihZ020QQcategoryZ107927QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Steve Barber
9-Jul-2006, 02:39
There's another 6x17 rollfilm back on ebay right now from the company in Hong Kong. I have seen this before but am not terribly familiar. Anyone bought one? Was very curious about the company, its responsiveness, how you paid, how long to receive, and - of course - what about the back? Any good? I am assuming the Keith Canham's $1100.00 back as a sort of benchmark here. You comments greatly appreciated!

Robert



http://cgi.ebay.com/Multi-format-6x9-6x12-6x17-film-back-holder-4x5-cameras_W0QQitemZ300004731192QQihZ020QQcategoryZ107927QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem




I am not familiar with this particular back. The one I have, which is similar, is marked "DAYI". It also has a logo using the capital letter "D" with a capital "Y" inside it. Someone else referred to this as a "Da-Yi" and the logo gives credence to that. All this is on a plate attached with small screws to the back cover, so it would be very easy to attach whatever plate any marketer might want to use with whatever name he might want to use on it. I don't know whether the one marketed under the Shen-Hao name is the same or another variation. I bought mine from Badger and they referred to it as a "Shen-Hao", but that name doesn't appear on it. However, mine uses aluminum castings where the one you linked to on eBay appears to use a lot of stampings.

As for Canham's motorized 6x17 roll film back, so far as I know, that can only be used on a 5x7 where this is made to be used with a 4x5 format camera using a Graflok back as you would find on a later Speed or Crown Graphic. Canham's unit appears to be a much more complex, high tech sort of rig. In the end, though, I am not sure it would be any easier to use than this, except that it will wind the film for you. There would also be the issue of film flatness, which Canham has addressed. Whether his would be better than this unit or mine, in that regard, I can't say.

The big difference between the Canham and either this or the one I have, would be that any lens that would cover a 5x7 would work with the Canham. So, a person having a 5x7 could use any of his lenses for that camera with the Canham 6x17 unit. With these, the lens has to have more coverage than most 4x5 lenses in the shorter focal lengths and, because the housing places the film plane further away from the camera back, you cannot use a lens much longer than 90mm and still get a full 6x17 frame. You are still using the 4x5 opening and it will vignette the image as the lens is moved further away to focus a longer lens. A 135mm will only slightly vignette where a 210 will be so reduced that you will only get the equivalent of a 6x12 image, not a 6x17. At the other end of the scale, lenses much shorter than 90mm can’t be used, even if they would cover, because you can’t compress the bellows enough to focus them, much less have any movements with them.

I use mine in a Crown Graphic with a 90mm Schneider f8 Super Angulon and a graduated neutral density center filter which is just left in place and used always. I only use slide film and the filter is required for that. Without it, the light fall off from the center is very objectionable. I have seen where people claim they don't need it for print film and that it is not a problem with smaller apertures, but the center filter eliminates the problem and I prefer it. I also get good results with the 135mm Schneider f4.7 Xenar that came with the camera. In fact, I probably use it more than the 90mm and it does, as I said, slightly reduce the overall image width below 17cm due to some vignetting even when focused at infinity. I also use a 210 Artar with it, but, again, as I said, this will not allow more than about a 6x12 equivalent image when focused at infinity.

At first, these conversion units seem pretty industrial and clunky. But, ignoring the added weight and bulk, they are well built, simple and easy to use. I think the lens that is used with them will have more to do with the image quality that is obtained than the conversion unit itself. In other words, film position and flatness doesn't seem to be a problem. My biggest complaint has to do with an inherent characteristic, which is that the taking unit and the focusing unit have to be used separately. You can't just focus and insert a filmholder, remove the darkslide and take a picture. Also, if I don't wind the film forward immediately after taking the picture, I get confused as to whether the film needs to be advanced the next time I get ready to take one. With the constant changing back and forth between the focusing unit and the taking unit, remembering the dark slide position and winding the film, you have a lot of opportunity for mistakes. A roll of 120 is good for four 6x17 images and the unit will allow taking smaller 6x15 or 6x12 images, if you want, depending on which window you align the numbers printed on the film backing with and what numbers you use. The other inconvenience, of course, is that you can not readily change film types in the middle of a roll.

My reason for getting mine was because, for some things, my XPAN will not produce a large enough image and all of the “real” 6x17 cameras are expensive. I already had a Crown Graphic and the lenses, so adding the conversion unit gave me a 6x17 camera for little extra money. The conversion units fit inside a pair of shoe bags and the whole lot goes in a Haliburton case giving me as compact and convenient a 4x5 outfit as you can get and a 6x17 camera, as well.

From the pictures shown, I doubt the auction item is new. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to damage one of these and just about impossible to wear one out. Also, the list of cameras usable with it is only correct if the one used has a Graflok back. The new, retail list price is only about 600.00USD and this one should go for considerably less than that. All in all, if you already have a usable lens and 4x5 Graflok back, it should be about as inexpensive a way to get a 6x17 as you will find.

Now, after going through it, I think that I would just as soon use cut down dark slides in my view cameras as fool around with the conversion units and roll film. In the 4x5 camera, a cut down dark slide would produce two images with the same aspect ratio as my XPAN and still twice as large. That would solve the problem of the need for a larger image than the XPAN's while keeping the film size down to something that would fit in my enlarger. And, if that were not large enough, a half sheet of 8x10 will easily produce an image with the same aspect ratio and even larger than a 6x17. I can get all of that for the price of two dark slides, one 4x5 and one 8x10. All the lenses for either camera would work, I could still use all the movements the camera is capable of, as well, and I don’t have to have a camera with a Graflok back.

So, if you still want a conversion unit and the auction goes against you, why not buy my “DAYI”? It is in at least as good condition as what is on offer with eBay. :)

Robert McClure
10-Jul-2006, 06:55
Steve,

Thanks for your highly informative response. I appreciate your taking the time. What would a back like yours go for? What sort of mileage?

Isn't it true that the compromise design of the DAYI and the "Art Panorama," allowing them to be used with short lenses on 4x5, has these relatively heavy devices extending out pretty far from the back standard to avoid vignetting - this seems to become a bit unwieldy as a trade-off for the ability to use 4x5 cameras.

Thanks,
Robert

bdeacon
10-Jul-2006, 12:06
I have the same DAYI back as Steve and I couldn't have described it better myself. For me, the ability to shoot in the 6x17 format was well worth the $600. As you mentioned Robert, the weight and bulk of the back sticking out the back of your camera does make it a bit unwieldy and requires one to really lock down the camera. However, this hasn't seemed to interfere with my ability to use the back or to get the shots I want with it. One other thing to keep in mind is that if you shoot Quickloads like me, your 6x17 images (after purchase and processing) will cost about half of what the 4x5 sheets cost.

Brett

Steve Barber
10-Jul-2006, 14:07
Robert:

The new retail list price is about 600.00USD and the only two completed listings I saw on eBay are shown on the following links. I put the comment at the end as a joke, because, after reading what I wrote before, I had added the next to the last paragraph figuring that I had talked you, me and anyone else out of having one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/DAYI-Panoramic-f...QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Shen-Hao-617-Art...QQcmdZViewItem

The conversion unit extends the film plane out about 2 inches away from the camera back and it really isn’t noticeable. The only problem, as I wrote above, is that avoiding the vignetting is dependent on the lens being back that same two inches closer to the camera back opening of 4x5 inches so that you can end up with a frame that is close to 7 inches wide. If the lens is moved further forward, as it must be for a longer focal length lens, you will have the width of the frame vignetted while the height remains unaffected. Given a long enough focal length, about 210mm, the frame width will be reduced to the 5 inch width of the camera back, or, about the equivalent of a 6x12 format instead of 6x17. If that is intended, then you would use the window and spacing for that format and get more frames per roll of 120 film. Also, no, you cannot use 220, because you need the printed numbers on the paper backing to determine the spacing (and keep the light from the windows off the film :) ).

Anyway, it does a good job of converting a 4x5 to a 6x17 within its limitations and, I will admit, the roll film does have it advantages. Not the least of which is that it can be loaded like a normal camera, so film holders and a changing bag are not necessary.

Frankly, I have written more than I meant to and still ended up ambivalent about keeping it or selling it. Also, because of more than one inquiry and the fact that I should really put it on the classifieds if I am seriously offering it here for sale, I am going to list it there and the first $400.00 plus shipping gets it. If anyone wants it at that price, fine, and, if not, that will be fine, too. I am not sure what you mean by mileage, but I bought it new and it still looks it. I guarantee you will never wear it out.

Steve

David A. Goldfarb
10-Jul-2006, 23:23
I've also posted about the DaYi 6x17 back here and on APUG. A search should turn up a few relevant threads here with links to the APUG threads, where I've posted some sample images.

I found that a 210mm lens produces an usable image more like 6x15cm, but it may be different with different camera and lens combinations. To use the full image area, the range of lenses is 72-150mm. This sounds like it would be a restriction, but if you look at the lenses available for standalone 6x17 cameras, it's about the norm. A Linhof Technorama can take a 210mm lens, and the Canham back with a 5x7" camera provides really unlimited flexibility.

I've used mine on my Linhof Tech V, Sinar F and Sinar P. A camera with a sturdy back is recommended with this sort of thing.

Practically--I tend not to travel with it. It's easier just to bring a 65mm and/or 55mm lens, shoot 4x5", and crop. I do shoot it around town, though, and I find it quite a handy thing.

Stewart Skelt
11-Jul-2006, 02:53
Hi, I use one of these Art Panorama backs, with a Horseman 45FA. I am very glad I bought it. The build quality is a bit "agricultural", but on the plus side it is very strong. On a recent overseas trip I packed it in my hold baggage with no problems at all. I can only just use it with a 90mm, as I have to move the front standard so far back that it doesn't quite grip the focussing rails - that would not be a problem with a monorail, I guess. And a bit of light falloff also with the 90mm, but not so much that I feel impelled to buy a centre-weighted ND filter. There is mechanical vignetting with a 210mm that turns it into more like a 6x15. A 300mm is not possible. But between 90 and 210 it is great. I will try and attach a link to a photo taken with this - it won't allow you to gauge the image quality but as far as I can tell under a loupe it is as good as pictures taken with the conventional 4x5 back.

Here is the link:

http://www.netspeed.com.au/sgskelt/belvedere1.jpg