Argentum cameras

[stompyq]

I know there has been some talk of these. Just wondering if any one has tryied them out yet.

http://www.argentumcamera.com/_angol/html_pages/home.htm

[Jimi]

I am waiting for mine (5x7 Excursor) to arrive within a few days' time. I may post some first impressions about it, if there's any interest.

[Ted Harris]

Jimi, please do post. There is a lot of interest in these cameras. KerryThalmann and I have been trying to get more infomation so that they can eventually be reviewed in View Camera magazine.

[stompyq]

Ted. it'll be great if there's a article on these cameras on VC, and jimi we're all anticipating your review

[Jimi]

I fetched the camera at the post office late this afternoon. Here are a few pictures, nothing to write home about. I'll get some better ones during daytime and post them tomorrow. Initial impressions are favourable: a sturdy, no-frills camera which is very light (weighing in at 1.3 kg). As this particular camera is the basic Excursor (and that's basic - only rise/fall and tilts on both standards) configuration, I think the more advanced models will be very nice to work with. Controls (only sliding variety, no gearing at all) are nice and tight, with well-sized washers.

The Excursor is aimed towards wide-to-normal lenses, with a maximum extension of 270 mm for this particular camera. If one needs more than this extension or more movements, it would be better to get the Explorator. Overall, the building techniques are basic, there are no finger joints and the aluminium is either profiles or flat parts. The rear standard is basically a mitered box with reinforced corners. Nothing fancy, just well excuted work.

The leftmost photo is the front, with the wooden lensboard (metal ones are also made) and my Conley attached to it. The lensboards are straight squares, with no bevels. The middle picture shows the removable, horisontal back. The groundglass is bright, it looks like it is etched. In the rightmost picture you can see the bottom part, with the tripod bushing. As compared to the photos on the Argentum website, this is a different approach. Earlier models seems to have had more wooden parts in the bottom.

I will post more detailed shots, but feel free to ask questions.

[stompyq]

Looking forward to a feild test jimi.

[Ash]

I wonder if they could manufacture one of their 4x5 'rear' panels to fit the Kodak Ground half-plate camera??

Possibly cost as much to source one over here I guess?

[Aaron van de Sande]

that would be interesting if he could produce a bare-bones 7x17 like this for 1500$ .

[Nick_3536]

I asked about an 11x14. Never got to price because weight became an issue. OTOH I wasn't looking for bare bones. Still I get the impression he'd rather build it well then skimp and make something light. So I'd expect even a bare bones to be heavy.

[Aaron van de Sande]

The excursor 8x10 is only 2kg due to the minimalist design. That's pretty light.


I asked about an 11x14. Never got to price because weight became an issue. OTOH I wasn't looking for bare bones. Still I get the impression he'd rather build it well then skimp and make something light. So I'd expect even a bare bones to be heavy.

[Nick_3536]

The 11x14 was going to be heavier then 8kg if IIRC. I was hoping it would be less then that.

[Justin Cormack]

The 11x14 was going to be heavier then 8kg if IIRC. I was hoping it would be less then that.

Thats more than I would hope too. Is that for one that would do horizontal and vertical (ie effectively 14x14)? A landscape only wide angle only 11x14 that weighed 4kg would be a nice thing.

But not now - already ordered a smaller Argentum.

[Nick_3536]

I wanted a fairly full featured camera. What I really wanted was something lighter then my Ansco 8x10 which isn't much less then 8kgs. The plan was to use the 11x14 with an 8x10 reducing back most of the time but have the 11x14 back for when I wanted an 11x14.

It was going to end up heavier then I wanted. Now I wanted a reasonable range of bellows. Short enough for 8x10 wide but still long enough to go 450mm plus. I also wanted most movements. I'd assume something simpler would be lighter but still a good bit above the 8x10s they sell.

[Aaron van de Sande]

I can see why you would want to rotate the back with 11x14 but I don't think I would really want to with a 7x17. Maybe I will email him and see what he can do.

[Jimi]

Due to the weather not being very cooperative (high winds and rain) during the last few days, I haven't been able to do any tests outside. And the film (Kodak) that I ordered hasn't shown up either...

But in the meantime, I made a few more photos. These are also posted over on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/35402-5x7-argentum-arrives.html).

Number 1 shows the underside and part of the construction here. Number 2 shows the camera fully extended. As you can see from this, the camera has rear focus, and this limits the amount of extension that can be made without getting a camera that is unstable. Something like a 240 mm lens would be useful but nothing beyond that. Photo number 3 shows minimum extension and here a 120 or 125 mm lens would be the limits of usefullness. Number 4 shows the removable groundglass, while number 5 shows the camera with the groundglass fully removed. Note that the filmholder is only possible to insert from the righthand side.

Photo number 6 shows the Conley lens provisionally mounted on a lensboard. The inside of the bellows is made out of a synthetic/plastic material. Number 7 shows the details of the knob and the washers. Depending on position on the camera, there are either metal, plastic or both types of washers to go with the knobs. Everything locks down nicely. In the photo of the front (photo 8) you can it is lined with felt where the lensboard goes. Lensboards supplied are either metal or wood, and these can be predrilled if you want to.

Finally, another detail in photo number 9 is the small springs (midsection) in the parts that holds the groundglass or filmholder. They ease the sliding in and out, and lessens anything rattling around. Time will tell how these springs will hold up. Number 10 shows the level on the rear standard. I am not sure I like this position of the level, I would prefer a round one on the top instead, but that's no big deal. And it would be possible to retrofit one, if I want one in the future. This photo also shows a bit of the woodwork (top part). All cherry wood is waxed but not varnished with a gloss. Combined with the aluminium, it looks nice and understated.

[Jimi]

A few more photos...

[Jimi]

... and the last three ones. As always, I am open to suggestions, etc.

@Ash: I think it would be possible to get a new groundglass frame for your camera, but I suppose it would run close to 70 euros with the shipping, so that doesn't make much sense, I guess...

[C. D. Keth]

... and the last three ones. As always, I am open to suggestions, etc.

@Ash: I think it would be possible to get a new groundglass frame for your camera, but I suppose it would run close to 70 euros with the shipping, so that doesn't make much sense, I guess...

I'm unclear about one detail. Do you have to remove the groundglass frame to fit a holder, or do those springs stretch enough that you slide holder under the groundglass like a usual back? The springs look a bit chincy in the photo. Please tell me they are stronger than they look.

[Ash]

Chris, it depends on which version you ask for. The site shows two varieties. A more classic removable GG, or a Spring-Back type

[Jimi]

I'm unclear about one detail. Do you have to remove the groundglass frame to fit a holder, or do those springs stretch enough that you slide holder under the groundglass like a usual back? The springs look a bit chincy in the photo. Please tell me they are stronger than they look.

Yes, on my particular camera I have to remove the groundglass part to insert the filmholder. There are other variations of this camera that has the usual back where you can slide the filmholder under the groundglass. The springs in my camera are just there to ease the insertion of the filmholder or groundglass, and to keep the metal rails from rattling around. They are strong enough for this purpose, as far as I can see. Only time will prove me right or wrong.

[false_Aesthetic]

Am I seeing correctly, do these cameras only only 1 orientation for the back -- vert. or horiz. but not switchable b/n the 2?

[Jimi]

This particular camera does only have a horisontal back, yes. Mine is called a "Excursor I h" and AFAIK it is also a possibility of getting an "Excursor I v" (vertically oriented back). Neither of these two variants have an adjustable back.

In addition to the two variants mentioned above, you can get one with the adjustable back.

As each of the camera is built to the customers own specification and needs, it could be done in virtually any size or form.

[alec4444]

that would be interesting if he could produce a bare-bones 7x17 like this for 1500$ .

Agreed that would be very interesting.......dare we ask?

--A

[merlo.luca1961@libero.it]

Does anyone know what type of lensboard are these cameras taking ?

[Aaron van de Sande]

980 euros + vat.
~4kg in weight.
He has a 1 1/2 year backlog. I can wait though for that price!


Agreed that would be very interesting.......dare we ask?

--A