Converting a 4x5 view camera to a......

[omanoman]

hi Guys,

Is it possible to convert a 4x5 view camera into a 4x5 handheld camera with a helciol mount.

Seems rather simple, wouldn't you just attach both the rear and front plates of a view camera together, seal for light leaks, then attach a helcoil mount to whatever lens board you have and attach lens? offcourse you would have to atleast work out distances for lens to film plane etc.

And are there any shiftable lens boards that you can attach to most view cameras.

Want to find a inexpensive way to make a camera that has ability to shift, a variety of backs, and is portable enough to handhold. Any ideas.

For something that was similair to what l was thinking have a look here
http://cgi.ebay.com/Handy-TOYO-WIDE-4x5-field-camera_W0QQitemZ130098532497QQihZ003QQcategoryZ107929QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks in advance.

Oman

[Bob Salomon]

You slide off the front or the rear standard from a Linhof Kardan, B, 45S, JBL, GT, E, M, RE.

You put the ground glass back on one side of the standard and the lensboard on the other side.

Rodenstock and Schneider both make Helicoids with distance and DOF scales for each of their lenses in 0 shutter. They mount to Linhof Kardan boards with a 3 hole.

If you need added extension you would have to either have cones made - expensive, or use Wista Extension Sets. To use the Wista Extension Sets you would also need a Linhof Kardan to Technika adapter board.

Now. How do you plan tio view the scene? Ground glass or with a view finder? If with a view finder then you would have to use the front standard of the Kardan as that has an accessory shoe on it.

Using these standards you would have 3.3" of rise that can be exteded to 6.6" with an accessory. 5.5" of shift, 360° of swing and 75° of center tilt.

The only thing you would have to "make" is a plate to accept a grip. The Linhof Anatomical Grip comes with a plate with 2 mounting holes in it along with 2 screws. You could just drill and tap 2 holes to mount this plate. The Grip slides onto the plate.

[GPS]

If you want to use shifts your viewfinder will not be too useful, unless you want to carry a set of preset viewfinder masks...

[Ash]

If only the Dagor I have didn't have a broken helical mount, I'd be way ahead of you :D

[Paul Droluk]

Rodenstock and Schneider both make Helicoids with distance and DOF scales for each of their lenses in 0 shutter. They mount to Linhof Kardan boards with a 3 hole.

If you need added extension you would have to either have cones made - expensive, or use Wista Extension Sets.

Now. How do you plan tio view the scene? Ground glass or with a view finder? If with a view finder then you would have to use the front standard of the Kardan as that has an accessory shoe on it.

The only thing you would have to "make" is a plate to accept a grip. The Linhof Anatomical Grip comes with a plate with 2 mounting holes in it along with 2 screws. You could just drill and tap 2 holes to mount this plate. The Grip slides onto the plate.

Fotoman makes two (2) different Helical Focus Mounts. One short (HFM-S, same extension as the Rodenstock) and one long (HFM-LT) with an additional 10mm of extension. Both accept #00, #0, or #1 shutters, and have calibrated distance and DOF scales.

We also have many different Cones available, which could easily be affixed to your lensboard if you require additional extension.

Grip? We have two, but we would have to see if your standard could accept them.

We also sell accessory shoes, complete with springs and mounting screws, as well as dual axis bubble levels.

In the end, you could pretty much do anything you wanted to.

[GPS]

hi Guys,

Is it possible to convert a 4x5 view camera into a 4x5 handheld camera with a helciol mount.

Seems rather simple, ....
Want to find a inexpensive way to make a camera that has ability to shift, a variety of backs, and is portable enough to handhold. ....Oman

But if you buy the view camera, the helicoid mount, the variety of backs - what in the end do you want to build in an inexpensive way?

[omanoman]

You slide off the front or the rear standard from a Linhof Kardan, B, 45S, JBL, GT, E, M, RE.

You put the ground glass back on one side of the standard and the lensboard on the other side.

Rodenstock and Schneider both make Helicoids with distance and DOF scales for each of their lenses in 0 shutter. They mount to Linhof Kardan boards with a 3 hole.

If you need added extension you would have to either have cones made - expensive, or use Wista Extension Sets. To use the Wista Extension Sets you would also need a Linhof Kardan to Technika adapter board.

Now. How do you plan tio view the scene? Ground glass or with a view finder? If with a view finder then you would have to use the front standard of the Kardan as that has an accessory shoe on it.

Using these standards you would have 3.3" of rise that can be exteded to 6.6" with an accessory. 5.5" of shift, 360° of swing and 75° of center tilt.

The only thing you would have to "make" is a plate to accept a grip. The Linhof Anatomical Grip comes with a plate with 2 mounting holes in it along with 2 screws. You could just drill and tap 2 holes to mount this plate. The Grip slides onto the plate.


Thanks bob for your help, cant wait to get started, when it comes down to it, could probably go out and buy a silvestri bicam or something like it, but want have something different, something l created, as well as save a little (lot) od cash.
Thanks again.

[GPS]

You slide off the front or the rear standard from a Linhof Kardan, B, 45S, JBL, GT, E, M, RE.

You put the ground glass back on one side of the standard and the lensboard on the other side.
...
Using these standards you would have 3.3" of rise that can be exteded to 6.6" with an accessory. 5.5" of shift, 360° of swing and 75° of center tilt.

I just don't get it - once off the rail, what will held both standards together? And how will you get the 360° of swing?

[Bob Salomon]

I just don't get it - once off the rail, what will held both standards together? And how will you get the 360° of swing?

Each standard accepts the back on one side and the lensboard on the other side. The Standards can swing 360° but that would not be any use when the standard is used alone, hand held.

Essentially what I described would make the discontinued Linhof Technar with the addition of rise/shift/tilt.

[Bob Salomon]

[QUOTE=Paul Droluk;232450]Fotoman makes two (2) different Helical Focus Mounts. One short (HFM-S, same extension as the Rodenstock) and one long (HFM-LT) with an additional 10mm of extension. Both accept #00, #0, or #1 shutters, and have calibrated distance and DOF scales.

Paul, Rodestock helicoids, off the shelf, are the correct length for the focal length lens they are designed for and have the proper focusing and DOF scales for the lens that they are made for. These are not universal helicoids. They are specific to the focal length. Therefore they always focus accurately.

The focus mount and scales on the one for the 28mm Apo Sironar Digital HR is quite a different length then the ones for the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm, 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 100mm, 120mm, 105mm, 135mm and 150mm lenses.

Rodenstock also makes a universal helical called the Modular Focus Mount which accepts 25mm long adapter rings to extend its length. They accept enlarging lenses, C mount lenses and mount to T2 mounts, C mounts or Leica thread mounts. Since they are universal they do not have scales. But they do have a focus lock.

Schneider also has helicoids similar to Rodenstock's.

[GPS]

Each standard accepts the back on one side and the lensboard on the other side. The Standards can swing 360° but that would not be any use when the standard is used alone, hand held.

Essentially what I described would make the discontinued Linhof Technar with the addition of rise/shift/tilt.

Exactly. So if you use just 1 standard you have no swing at all (even if you used 2 standards how could you have 360° of swing?). If you use just 1 standard how will you get the Schneider helicoid focus mount correctly focused to the infinity? A home made spacer? But then it doesn't just simply fit to the Linhof Kardan board as you suggest.

[GPS]

[QUOTE=Bob Salomon - HP Marketing;232466...
Paul, Rodestock helicoids, off the shelf, are the correct length for the focal length lens they are designed for and have the proper focusing and DOF scales for the lens that they are made for. These are not universal helicoids. They are specific to the focal length. Therefore they always focus accurately.
...
.[/QUOTE]
They are the "correct length" in connection to which standard holding a film back?

[Bob Salomon]

They are the "correct length" in connection to which standard holding a film back?

They are the proper length to focus to infinity when the helicoid is at the infinity setting.

With longer lenses you may need a tube to get the correct flange focal length distance at infinity. Those distances are published by Rodenstock and Schneider so they are easy to figure out if you need an extension. You should not need a recessed board but they are also available for the Kardan.

[GPS]

They are the proper length to focus to infinity when the helicoid is at the infinity setting.
With longer lenses you may need a tube to get the correct flange focal length distance at infinity. Those distances are published by Rodenstock and Schneider so they are easy to figure out if you need an extension. ...

Wait a moment again. The helicoid mount, set at infinity, must be in the right flange focal distance from the film plane. As you don't put the mount right on the film it must have a board to go on. The board changes the flange focal distance. With all lenses you must know the distance - only together with the board (or a spacer) you can get the proper infinity setting. If Rodenstock publishes the distance, that's good. So can Fotoman helicoid mount be correctly set at infinity with the correct board thickness. In both cases you need to make the board - spacer so that it's thickness is correct. In both cases you have to add the spacer's dimension to the helicoid dimension. In both cases the helicoid will then correctly focus at infinity, etc.

[Bob Salomon]

Of course it needs a board. I mentioned that a long time ago in this thread.

[Henry Carter]

If it is so simple to do this from (mostly) existing Linhof parts, then why has Linhof not revived the Technar?

As this thread demonstrates, there is clearly ongoing interest in hand-holdable wide angle 4X5 cameras. Have you ever seen the feeding frenzy that occurs when a used Technar appears on the auction site?

Perhaps Bob could point this thread out to Linhof, as I am sure that there is some interest in Munich regarding the future of the Technar. Did Linhof not make a prototype of a new Technar prior to the last Photokina?

[Bob Salomon]

If it is so simple to do this from (mostly) existing Linhof parts, then why has Linhof not revived the Technar?

As this thread demonstrates, there is clearly ongoing interest in hand-holdable wide angle 4X5 cameras. Have you ever seen the feeding frenzy that occurs when a used Technar appears on the auction site?

Perhaps Bob could point this thread out to Linhof, as I am sure that there is some interest in Munich regarding the future of the Technar. Did Linhof not make a prototype of a new Technar prior to the last Photokina?

Because no one bought the Technar when it was available. That is why it went out of production.

But it would be fairly easy to cobble one together from a Kardan. In fact, one Kardan would give you 2 standards so you would be on the way to making 2 Technar type cameras.

[GPS]

Of course it needs a board. I mentioned that a long time ago in this thread.

Because it needs a board of a certain (and only of this!) thickness in order to focus exactly to infinity it doesn't present any advantage in comparison to the Fotoman helicoid mount. The Fotoman can also be focused at the infinity and have the correct scale with the correct board thickness. I mentioned that ago in this thread.

[Gordon Moat]

It would help if there was something to see of what Bob Salomon is describing. A look at the Linhof website led me to this image:

http://www.linhof.de/english/images/zubehor/zubesystem-500.jpg

Seems that the larger Kardan boards and the standards look the same size. Are these some of the parts being discussed?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[GPS]

What is necessary to know is for what board the Rodenstock or Schneider focusing mounts are calculated. If it is not the Kardan standard then to put them to use demands as much work as making the camera from Fotoman parts.

[MJSfoto1956]

It would help if there was something to see of what Bob Salomon is describing. A look at the Linhof website led me to this image:

http://www.linhof.de/english/images/zubehor/zubesystem-500.jpg

What is shown in that diagram is the now discontinued, and hard-to-find, Technar handheld camera that Linhof offered for a while. As you can imagine, it was crafted out of existing Linhof parts borrowed from both the Technika line (i.e. the handle) and the studio line (i.e. the frame and the back). The missing part would be the lens cone which would have to be custom machined by someone like S.K. Grimes.

So in theory all you would need to make your own "Technar" would be:

an old Linhof studio camera w/ back (these are plentiful on eBay)
a Linhof anatomical grip ($50-$150 on eBay)
a lens with helical focusing mechanism appropriate for that lens
a custom lens cone

and some elbow grease!

[GPS]

...
So in theory all you would need to make your own "Technar" would be:

an old Linhof studio camera w/ back (these are plentiful on eBay)
a Linhof anatomical grip ($50-$150 on eBay)
a lens with helical focusing mechanism appropriate for that lens
a custom lens cone

and some elbow grease!

Not all old Linhof studio cameras have a hot shoe for the viewfinder as Technar has. For that you would need to call Fotoman - they sell it. Thanks heavens for that, I was always taking them from old SLRs...

[Gordon Moat]

Certainly doesn't seem that tough. I have access to machining equipment for small parts; anything bigger could simply be done at one of several local machine shops for near $100 (given good plans with dimensions). There are also helical focus solutions from a few companies, including several selling through EBAY. I might be more inclined to build a box extension than having a cone machined, despite that a cone might be better looking. A box extension would be simpler to construct (aluminium).

What I wonder about is whether Linhof was the only company that made standards that took either a lensboard or back on either side. Do Sinar cameras work like that? What about Horseman or Toyo?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[GPS]

The aluminum box is a cheaper solution but it gives the camera a much bigger dimension. Then there is the handle - if you attach it to the frame, you have to rig it. But all this still won't give the camera with shifts that was asked for...

[GPS]

What I wonder about is whether Linhof was the only company that made standards that took either a lensboard or back on either side. Do Sinar cameras work like that? What about Horseman or Toyo?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

The Arca Swiss (at least the 6x9 metric) has the same possibility.

[Gordon Moat]

Adjustable shift would be tougher. This would require a machine shop. The only lower cost option I can imagine would be an offset lens mount, much like ALPA offer as an option; the downside being a fixed amount of shift built into the mount.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[GPS]

The fixed amount of shift doesn't need to be bad. I have made a camera with a permanent rise - just for tree pictures and when using it I always wonder how's that possible it's just the right amount of rise for each tree I see..;-)

[Bob Salomon]

[QUOTE=Gordon Moat;232548]offset lens mount, much like ALPA

That is also what the Linhof Technorama 612 has. 8mm of offset when the camera is horizontal. None when it is held vertically.

[Gordon Moat]

A bit of looking at images on EBAY seems to indicate that some Cambo, some Horseman, and a few other cameras have rear standard that could mount a lensboard. Simply removing the bellows, then attatching a lensboard. That would at least get a project started, though all the details would consume lots of time and effort.

If a lensboard could be mounted at a regular, or 90º rotated position, then a fixed shift would work. The other alternative would be a rotating back, which would allow shift, or rise/fall, depending upon offset lensboard to back orientation. Doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea at all.

Obviously a viewfinder arrangement might be tough with shift. However, something that is at least close, or has markings that are close, might work okay. Then the only other part is a grip, with the previously mentioned Linhof grip seeming to be a good choice, or the Fotoman parts for something new.

There are a few EBAY sellers with Linhof Technika style boards with a helical attatched. Another source would be Fotoman. Calibrating everything would be tougher, though not impossible. Surprising these things never came up in that previous discussion on this forum.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[GPS]

...
There are a few EBAY sellers with Linhof Technika style boards with a helical attatched. Another source would be Fotoman. Calibrating everything would be tougher, though not impossible. Surprising these things never came up in that previous discussion on this forum.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Gordon, as you yourself suggest, it really takes a lot of time and effort and some knowledge too. When you go to the details, it starts to reveal more subtle problems to solve. With all these parts together - how will you solve the elementary problem of plan parallelism? Once you start to think that it's enough to "add a spacer" you have to see how can you put the spacer in a way strictly parallel to the film plane. And the spacer itself must be at the exact distance from the film plane - something not evident at all if you don't know exactly the distance. It's hard to measure something from a film plane... Just have a look at Linhof Technorama cameras - their film rail is polished for the exact precise position and shape.
To put parts together is the easy part - to put them precisely and exactly for perfect function is a much different task.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello GPS,

Consider wooden view cameras that allow the front and rear standards to swing or tilt. Many have detents for zero position, yet some do not on all positions; for example the swing on my Shen-Hao is not detented to zero. In other words, there are probably less parallel than something that is machined to fit.

An assumption would be that a donor rear standard would be somewhat precise. Making a box that is parallel (or super close) would not be that tough to accomplish. The distance measurement data would start with published lens data from Nikon, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Schneider. Then it would be measuring tools, starting with a dial caliper, though perhaps some might want to use a depth micrometer. Anyone attempting this would likely need to have these measuring tools; I still have many from when I was making custom parts for roadracing motorcycles.

The other aspect is the desire to mostly use shorter lenses. Considering that guess focusing, or even a helical with numbers on it, is just not that precise anyway, then error needs to be within the DoF for the desired lens. In practice, I use an uncoupled rangefinder for my old folder cameras (6x4.5 to 6x9) and the numbers on the front cells. With my old folder camera shots, it has been rare for me to get out of focus images, even wide open at f4.5 with fairly normal (not wide angle) lenses. My folder cameras were calibrated with an old 35mm Nikon screen taped onto the open back (very crud, but these were cheap cameras), then set for a distance of 3m for accuracy. Just to use an example, a 90mm f5.6 large format lens has about 0.5m DoF at near 2m distance, and DoF only increases with camera to subject distance.

Probably obvious that such a system might not be that great an idea for selling to others. Those slight differences between lens manufacturers for flange to focal distance would mean several slightly different spacer boxes . . . definitely not a practical solution beyond a few more common lenses. Restricting to one lens manufacturer's measurements would be even tougher on potential sales. Therefore, this type of soluton would better suit someone who only wanted to make one or two of these cameras.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[GPS]

Yes Gordon, the view cameras sometimes don't have zero detentes etc. But you focus them with a Lupe and you see the bad focus (at least you try). A handheld camera has the imprecision inbuilt once for ever - and there is no easy way to correct a slightly nonparallel cone, or its placement etc. once in its place. For the shorter focal lengths the problems come also with the small depth of focus - the plan parallelism is then much more important. Some kind of problems (parts precision and the precise assembly) must be solved with a clever construction rather than trying to imitate professional manufacturing methods. All in all, a good camera building is possible but certainly not easy.

[Gordon Moat]

Not to come across as picky, but handholding a camera while guess focusing, no matter how good it was made, simply cannot be as accurate as most cameras on a tripod focused using a loupe on the ground glass. However, the point of a handheld 4x5 is to escape the tripod and ground glass focus. Regardless of manufacturing accuracy, luck will be involved in getting precise focus and absolute best results.

On the subject of precision, a mock-up could be made to test the validity of a concept. When basic ideas prove possible, then precision could be handled by any competent machine shop. Maybe I am lucky in that San Diego has tons of these places, mostly left over from the collapse of the local defense industry in the 1990s. Provide any of these places accurate measurements, and they can build your design, often for quite low cost. Want to make the cost even lower, create a basic shape, then have them fine tune it to parallel, probably cutting an hour off labour.

Okay, so let's say you live in the suburbs, don't have a machine shop anywhere close, and lack some precise meauring tools. Then I don't think something like this should be attempted. Just buying measuring tools and a few metal working tools could run a few hundred dollars (or more). Then there is the matter of someone not having experience using such tools, or figuring out how to design proper parts to make everything work. In such a situation, those individuals should find a solution they can purchase, either Gaoersi or Fotoman should provide much nicer solutions. Those who want something cheaper should get something like a Crown Graphic.

I don't want people to be misled into thinking this would be easy when some basic knowledge is needed to accomplish the task. Just like anyone could buy tools and workshop manuals, without some basic mechanical knowledge and ability, the average person will not be able to set Desmo valvetrain clearances, nor rebuild an engine . . . so building a camera is not much simpler than working those things. I already am capable of working on complex things, already have most of the necessary tools, so this is why I think it is not that tough; for some others it very well might be quite difficult.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Paul Droluk]

[QUOTE=Paul Droluk;232450]Fotoman makes two (2) different Helical Focus Mounts. One short (HFM-S, same extension as the Rodenstock) and one long (HFM-LT) with an additional 10mm of extension. Both accept #00, #0, or #1 shutters, and have calibrated distance and DOF scales.

Paul, Rodestock helicoids, off the shelf, are the correct length for the focal length lens they are designed for and have the proper focusing and DOF scales for the lens that they are made for. These are not universal helicoids. They are specific to the focal length. Therefore they always focus accurately.

The focus mount and scales on the one for the 28mm Apo Sironar Digital HR is quite a different length then the ones for the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm, 65mm, 75mm, 90mm, 100mm, 120mm, 105mm, 135mm and 150mm lenses.

Schneider also has helicoids similar to Rodenstock's.

Fotoman HFM's are precisely calibrated and marked for a given focal length as well. Of course you still have to match the FFD of the lens with the lens flange to film plane distance, and then calibrate the HFM to the finished assembly. To make this easier, we incorporated a FULL +/- 1mm of adjustment capability into our HFM, rather than the =/- .5mm of the ROD or SCH.

[Paul Droluk]

Adjustable shift would be tougher. This would require a machine shop. The only lower cost option I can imagine would be an offset lens mount, much like ALPA offer as an option; the downside being a fixed amount of shift built into the mount.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

This idea works quite well. We recently made two custom off-set Cones for a clients 617 camera. No Reason it couldn't be done for 4x5 Cones as well, and the off-set could be any amount you would desire.

Earlier it was mentioned that Cones are expensive. Everything is relative of course, but our Cone for a 90mm lens, for example, is just over 100 dollars. Depending on the combined depth of both standards it's likely that a shorter Cone would actually be chosen, which would be considerably cheaper.

[GPS]

Not to come across as picky, but handholding a camera while guess focusing, no matter how good it was made, simply cannot be as accurate as most cameras on a tripod focused using a loupe on the ground glass. However, the point of a handheld 4x5 is to escape the tripod and ground glass focus. Regardless of manufacturing accuracy, luck will be involved in getting precise focus and absolute best results.

On the subject of precision, a mock-up could be made to test the validity of a concept. When basic ideas prove possible, then precision could be handled by any competent machine shop. ...Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
An Alpa can be much more accurate than a view camera. When you take a picture at infinity (to make the example simple) the Alpa will win because of the precise parallelism of its parts and the precise flange focal length. But if you build such a camera yourself it can be much less precise than the view camera - because of the bad parallelism and the incorrect FFL. And surely you can have the parts built with high precision - still the result can be miserable because of the differences in the measured - designed - and the actual dimensions needed. It's nice to think that your Nikon 90mm demands 87.5mm flange focal distance and that your parts are made to 0.005mm precision when in fact the FFL was taken from a brochure and the real specimen is 0.3mm different! Unless you have put it at the right distance from the film you won't see it! And how to measure the right distance from the film plane, once you have the lens at the right distance? Put a caliper against the film - it won't hold there... Those are real problems whose solution you have to know before you get your parts - made with 0.005mm precision - home. You can regulate the view camera - the hand held one is regulated just in your plans before you get the parts done.
I don't think you cannot build cameras (I did) but that you must have enough knowledge with the practical manufacturing and design problems. Which you probably know...

[GPS]

[QUOTE=Bob Salomon - HP Marketing;232466]

Fotoman HFM's are precisely calibrated and marked for a given focal length as well. Of course you still have to match the FFD of the lens with the lens flange to film plane distance, and then calibrate the HFM to the finished assembly. To make this easier, we incorporated a FULL +/- 1mm of adjustment capability into our HFM, rather than the =/- .5mm of the ROD or SCH.

That's exactly what I meant - the +/- 1mm adjustment is necessary because the FFL values are not as precise as declared. The adjustment is the design necessary to overcome the differences between the actual and the designed measures.

[Gordon Moat]

So rather than stating why something is too difficult, provide a solution to get within that 1.0mm range. That is also quite different than having something made within 0.025mm tolerances (which is fairly easy in machining operations). How I would accomplish that is having something be too long, then removing the excess material to get the matching flange to focal distance. The first construction would be adding to the published specifications, then the material removal would be a many step process to reach a solution distance allowing helical calibration (which is another step). Obviously none of this is quick and easy, but I am not so negative to think it is impossible to accomplish (and I don't consider myself an optimist).

Using my 6x9 crude technology folding camera as an example, I do have lens mounting shims with all the parts I have for these. Some similar shim material could be used on a project camera, depending upon how a mounting system is devised. The trouble with focus error is more an issue at close focus, than at infinity. As the camera to subject distance increases, so does DoF. It would be more likely to guess focus incorrect at close distances, and get a soft looking result, than anything that might happen at infinity focus (or approaching that distance).

It still needs to be pointed out that there is a huge difference between building one camera, and creating something that could go into regular limited production. Most people wanting hand held 4x5 cameras would be better off starting with a Gaoersi or Fotoman, or buying a used Crown Graphic, than they would with attempting to make their own. Though consider how cool it would be to build your own, and that might be the draw for attempting it.

All this discussion is great, and hopefully gives the OP (and others) some ideas of what they would need to do to accomplish this. What has yet to be discussed is cost. Paul of Fotoman mentioned their cone prices, and I think those could be near (or less than) the cost of having a custom made part. Buying a helical is certainly an option, as would be buying a finder of some sort. The other parts, like a donor camera or rear standard parts, could be found used. I would still guess a project cost near $300 to $600, not including a lens. Add to that the cost of measuring tools, or tools to do adjustments, though unless someone already owns that I stuff, I question the wisdom of attempting to construct a camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Paul Droluk]

To anyone who want's to try building their own personalized 4x5 Point & Shoot...

we have a fair amount of expertise in this regard, and would happily assist anyone who would like to give it a try. With the correct forethought, it wouldn't be terribly difficult. Using the approach that's being discussed, all we would need to know would be the distance from lens board to the film plane, and the specific lens that was to be mounted. With that information, we could provide a simple list of required components to put it together with enough precision so that the HFM could provide the final FFD adjustment.

Buy the components from us, or do-it-yourself, it really doesn't matter. The important thing is that P&S 4x5 shooting is fun and makes a lot of sense in many situations. Think about it... every great pic ever taken without the benefit of movements would likely have been more useable (maybe even better) if it had been captured on larger film, regardless of format.

[GPS]

So rather than stating why something is too difficult, provide a solution to get within that 1.0mm range. That is also quite different than having something made within 0.025mm tolerances (which is fairly easy in machining operations). How I would accomplish that is having something be too long, then removing the excess material to get the matching flange to focal distance. The first construction would be adding to the published specifications, then the material removal would be a many step process to reach a solution distance allowing helical calibration (which is another step). Obviously none of this is quick and easy, but I am not so negative to think it is impossible to accomplish (and I don't consider myself an optimist).
...
Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
Gordon,
first of all, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not under you commands. Therefore I won't present you "solutions" so that you could just simply do what others have find with their effort. Sorry for that. Secondly - if you read more carefully my post you can see that nowhere did I say - "it is too difficult" (quite the contrary - I said I have built cameras!) - those are your words. If you want to discuss in an honest way then don't put in the other's mouth words they don't say.
Thirdly, as to your "solution" of making a body and shaving it after to the right dimension - this is the least pleasing method from the practical point of view. In no moment will you know how much exactly would you need to shave off. And at the end, not having this knowledge, if you shave off too much - will you start the building all over again with the same method to come, perhaps, to the same result?
There are better solutions to it. One of them is the adjusting method Paul Droluk uses in his cameras. Still, the amateur camera builder faces other problems he doesn't not...

[GPS]

...
Using my 6x9 crude technology folding camera as an example, I do have lens mounting shims with all the parts I have for these. Some similar shim material could be used on a project camera, depending upon how a mounting system is devised. The trouble with focus error is more an issue at close focus, than at infinity.
...
Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
Using shims, even if possible, is not always practically efficient. How will you calculate their thickness? How will you adjust their thickness to the right dimension? It's the same problem as the shaving method, just in the opposite direction.
The trouble with focus error is, contrary to your statement, more at infinity than at the close focus. If the infinity is not correctly focused (with the exact FFL and the parallelism) you will never have pictures correctly sharp at inifinity (because of the limits of depth of focus). At close range the depth of field will mask the focus error at infinity and you will never discover it.

[GPS]

To anyone who want's to try building their own personalized 4x5 Point & Shoot...

we have a fair amount of expertise in this regard, and would happily assist anyone who would like to give it a try. With the correct forethought, it wouldn't be terribly difficult. Using the approach that's being discussed, all we would need to know would be the distance from lens board to the film plane, and the specific lens that was to be mounted. With that information, we could provide a simple list of required components to put it together with enough precision so that the HFM could provide the final FFD adjustment.

Buy the components from us, or do-it-yourself, it really doesn't matter. The important thing is that P&S 4x5 shooting is fun and makes a lot of sense in many situations. Think about it... every great pic ever taken without the benefit of movements would likely have been more useable (maybe even better) if it had been captured on larger film, regardless of format.

I have to congratulate you Paul, for this approach, quite original. There are not many firms that would happily sell components of their cameras to amateurs! Indeed, with the help you provide the amateur camera building can be much easier. Even if, in the end, if you just want to build a camera that does the same thing as a Fotoman camera, you will always get a better quality if you simply buy a Fotoman camera. But there are other cases and fields where the amateur camera building make more sens than buying a Fotoman. Anyway, the Fotoman becoming a kind of "Edmunt Scientific" is a very good news for camera builders!

[Gordon Moat]

Hello GPS,

No need to apologize. If I misunderstoof your words or tone through your typing methods or style, I apologize in advance. Quite simply you come across as very negative at times, and not just on this thread. Perhaps I can be too enthusiastic or optimistic, so again I apologize if I am wrong in this opinion of you. Absolutely no problem if you don't want to make suggestions either, and I will not push you to do that. So no battles nor arguements necessary. Now on to some questions.
:cool:

Shim material can be found in calibrated sizes sold as shim stock. Even if one did not want to buy it that way, any material could be measured with a micrometer, so no guessing involved. Given proper measuring tools, a great level of accuracy is not too difficult to attain. It is good you have pointed this out, and I agree that it is very important to get very accurate measurements. Probably my most critical measuring and constructing situation was designing locating spacers for the front braking system on a roadracing motorcycle; after working out a few mock-ups, a machine shop did the final parts to a tolerance of 0.0001" at all mounting surfaces. Locating four pot brake calipers near full floating discs is probably more critical in measurement than building a camera, but the level of accurate measurement could equally be applied to camera construction.

I only have two camera projects I have worked on, other than several restorations. One is a 6x9 from various source parts, and the other (not yet completed) is a superwide 6x6 with Nikon F mount. The 6x9 uses shimstock on the lens mount to accurately position the lens/shutter unit. It might be that I was just super lucky getting shims to work, and I do agree that an adjustable mount would be easier to configure. The downside of the shim solution on my 6x9 was that I needed to partially disassemble the camera each time I changed shim thickness, then recheck each change; so no it is not efficient and can eat up lots of time. The starting point was the available flange to focal plane distance, though the measurement was done to a ground glass, and not onto film on the pressure plate. A good reference might be Erwin Puts discussions about film curvature, film gates, and film positioning in his comments about the Konica Hexar RF; it would seem there is a great deal of room for film to position fore and aft regardless of design.

I have access to an 8 way milling machine (Sherline) for shaving off material to get an exact amount of material removed. This is not a CNC, and does not include a DRO, but with enough patience and careful measuring does quite nicely. The other item I have access to is a surface table, which can be used for truing a flat surface; think truing a cylinder head on a motorcycle. Anyway, all those things could be avoided either by paying a machine shop to construct a part, or buying parts, such as the Fotoman items. Considering how little a cone costs, compared to your time, or paying a machine shop, it really does seem the Fotoman parts are a great starting point.

When I read through that set-up article on the Gaoersi, the procedure for adjusting the helical mount position was determined by viewing an image on a ground glass. Is this too sloppy a measuring technique to work accurately at infinity focus? Assuming nothing moved during measurement, how would that be different than putting a lens on a view camera, focusing at infinity using the ground glass, then measuring the distance to the ground glass? This would basically ignore the published flange to focal plane distances for lenses, but it could still be compared to published data.

Fotoman have 1.0mm of adjustment in their helical mount; does that imply lens specifications are off by almost that much? Does it mean that Fotoman lens cones are only in that tolerance range? Or is there some combination of those factors? I would guess that Fotoman parts come off a CNC mill, and expect a high level of accuracy, though I have no idea on their tolerances. I don't doubt that lenses might be more variable than published data, and that probably should not be surprising to anyone.

I hope going through all these aspects gives people (and the OP) some ideas of methods necessary to consider in a camera project. Again, I don't want to make it seem like it is too simple, nor to I want to discourage anyone from attempting to construct a camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[GPS]

Well Gordon, I'm not really interested in some classifications of optimism on someone's scale (in fact I'm an incorrigible optimist myself, believe it or not). Neither do I see speaking about practical problems as something negative. It's rather that technically unrealistic comments can be sometimes put in more realistic light. When someone chimes in speaking about 360° swings when there is no swing at all, I see such comments as plainly misleading if not nonsensical - and I chime in to show it. I don't see that as negative, but misleading is. Don't apologize for anything - for me it's just a technical discussion and they are interesting if they keep the path of correct logic.

Anyway, to get to a more useful point - your shims solution can work or not too well or not at all, all depending on the concrete examples. If you can put shims under the lens, it could be done. Often you don't have shims of the necessary shape and then it's not practical. Another big problem you touch yourself - the need for constant disassembly when using the shims method. In some cameras the disassembly itself would be a source of imprecision or could be very impractical, even horrific. Not to speak about the need of parallelism which is added to the problem of the right FFL...
Yes, the measuring from a gg is more practical than from the film surface yet there is the need to put the gg at the same position as the film - something far from being always easy. And yes, if you measure from the gg you can get the correct infinity focus (Gaoersi in your example), sure. I used this method on all my home built cameras - even if it took between 3 - 6 hrs each time. But then the focusing was also checked and rechecked on the parallelism too. Using a continual step-less adjustment is ideal, superior to shaving or shims.

The lens specifications as to their FFL - an interesting question. I think I even read somewhere that it could be about 3mm! I just never cared because I used constructions that allowed me to adjust the lens whatever its FFL.
Much could be said about amateur camera building. It's a highly interesting topic (for me at least) and often an underestimated one. Buona Pasqua et tanti auguri!

[Bob Salomon]

"When someone chimes in speaking about 360° swings when there is no swing at all,"

Damm you are an obstinate SOB.

A KArtdan camera standard has 360° of swing. If you remove it from the rial above the swing point it has no swing. If you remove below the swing point then the swing mechanism remains intact. Should one be clever enough to put a tripod socket in the part that includes the swing mechanism then the camera can turn on the tripod a full 360° should one want to point the camera in another direction then forward. Should one mount the grip at that point then the photographer can look in one direction and shoot in another using the reflex hood for the Kardan.

As to the distance from the mounting flange to the film. Rodenstock specifies that distance. The Kardan standards each accept the lens board on either the front or back side of the standard and the 45 Universal Kardan Back on either side of the standard. Therefore it is very easy to put a board and a back on a Kardan's standard. Either the front or the rear one. Buy two Universal Kardan backs and 2 lensboards and one Kardan and you could make 2 handholdable Technar type cameras.
As for the flange focal distance the maker will have to shim or extend the lensboards for the specific lens/mount they use. But the number required for extending or shimming is easily available.

The last customer to make custom mounts recently sent us this note
" We designed a lens mount using the first lens we received and found that 5 others focused properly using this mount. We had to shave approximately 0.0025" from the mount to get 3 of the 4 remaining lenses to focus."

So this may give you some idea of the accuracy required. In this users case he is using a 60mm Digital HR in Copal shutter.

"Not all old Linhof studio cameras have a hot shoe for the viewfinder as Technar has. "

All KArdan cameras made after the 45S has a shoe on the front standard and the 45S has the depression on the front standard for the Linhof shoe. The Linhof accessory shoe is available as a part from Linhof service.

The B, JBL, Super Color, GT, GTL, GTi, E, M, Re, TE, L, TE-L, TL and maybe the ST-E all came with the shoe.

[Dave Parker]

Damm you are an obstinate SOB.




Bob,

Now THAT Is funny!

LOL

:D

[GPS]

"When someone chimes in speaking about 360° swings when there is no swing at all,"

Damm you are an obstinate SOB.

A KArtdan camera standard has 360° of swing. If you remove it from the rial above the swing point it has no swing. If you remove below the swing point then the swing mechanism remains intact. Should one be clever enough to put a tripod socket in the part that includes the swing mechanism then the camera can turn on the tripod a full 360° should one want to point the camera in another direction then forward. Should one mount the grip at that point then the photographer can look in one direction and shoot in another using the reflex hood for the Kardan.
...

Hi Bob,
before you start to use name calling again - how about the intelligence of your remarks? A camera that you can turn on a tripod 360° is a camera with 360° swing for you? I wonder what a camera cannot be turned 360° on a tripod. You don't need the swing mechanism for that, have you noticed?
In your previous post you said that the camera made with one standard has no swing at all. Well, if you take the camera on a trip round the Mediterranean you can call it - with your logic - a 360° Mediterranean swing capability camera.
In fact, a flat pancake camera that was described has no swing at all.

[GPS]

"When someone chimes in speaking about 360° swings when there is no swing at all,"

Damm you are an obstinate SOB.

...
As to the distance from the mounting flange to the film. Rodenstock specifies that distance. The Kardan standards each accept the lens board on either the front or back side of the standard and the 45 Universal Kardan Back on either side of the standard. Therefore it is very easy to put a board and a back on a Kardan's standard. Either the front or the rear one. Buy two Universal Kardan backs and 2 lensboards and one Kardan and you could make 2 handholdable Technar type cameras.
As for the flange focal distance the maker will have to shim or extend the lensboards for the specific lens/mount they use. But the number required for extending or shimming is easily available.

The last customer to make custom mounts recently sent us this note
" We designed a lens mount using the first lens we received and found that 5 others focused properly using this mount. We had to shave approximately 0.0025" from the mount to get 3 of the 4 remaining lenses to focus."

No need to repeat yourself, Bob. We already know that you can put a board on a Kardan's standard. The problem is not there. The problem is to make the correct spacer for it - Rodenstock numbers are not specific to a Kardan's standard. They are the FFL numbers. Even if you know the number you still have to decide how you will measure and from where the dimensions for the spacer you want to make.

.

No need to repeat yourself, Bob. We already know that you can put a board on a Kardan's standard. The problem is not there. The problem is to make the correct spacer for the focusing mount - Rodenstock numbers are not somehow specific to a Kardan's standard. They are just the FFL numbers. Even if you know the number you still have to decide how you will measure and from where the dimensions for the spacer you want to make.
And exactly the same thing you can do with a Fotoman helicoid focusing mount. That has already been explained too. In this sense the Rodenstock and Schneider mounts are not superior to the Fotoman's mount.

[GPS]

...
The only thing you would have to "make" is a plate to accept a grip. The Linhof Anatomical Grip comes with a plate with 2 mounting holes in it along with 2 screws. You could just drill and tap 2 holes to mount this plate. The Grip slides onto the plate.

You forgot the most important part to make - the correct spacer for the focusing mount - with all the problems that come with its manufacturing and designing...

[Paul Droluk]

A point about tolerances...

everything manufactured has an allowable tolerance specified by the maker. The tolerance level chosen is usually the most economical one, which allows for the product to perform as designed in the anticipated application. Increasing the tolerance beyond this point serves no practical purpose, and increases the cost of production.

At Fotoman, we establish a tolerance level for any given component based on this principal. One item may require a tolerance of + 0.00mm , - 0.01mm, while another may only require +/- 0.05mm, the cost for the latter being substantially lower than the former.

As regards the tolerance for FFD... both Schneider and Rodenstock employ a allowable manufacturing tolerance for this parameter of +/- 0.005 % (1/2 of 1%). Neither Nikon nor Fuji answered our numerous queries, so while we don't know for sure... we have assumed them to be comperable. Almost 1000 cameras later, and our assumption appears to bare out.

Fact of the matter is though, with modern CNC controlled machine tools and good maching practice, the actual deviation from the mean is usually much closer than the allowable deviation (tolerance).

The reason we incorporate +/- 1mm of adjustability into our HFM, is to allow for those lenses that do deviate at, or close to, the allowable limit, AND to allow for the potential stack-up of tolerances. For example... a given lens with a stated FFD of 180mm could in reality be anything between 179.1mm and 180.9mm.

[Dean Jones]

I guess this seems a little strange to me, either that or I'm missing the point? Building a custom camera is not rocket science, nor is it difficult.
The main difference is that when I build a camera I select or receive a lens first, then build a camera around it. To build a body and expect a wide range of lenses, however similar in spec to fit later on, is rather like putting the cart before the horse.
Every lens has it's idiosynchrocies and rarely are two identical lenses the same, although you can be lucky. Even shutters vary in construction to throw further complications into the equation.
Even though I've only built ten 6x17's, I've never experienced a focus problem. I use a simple Chinese made helical focusing unit that resembles the type used on a Sylvestri.
They are scaled to the focal length of the lens, i.e. 90mm. Providing the infinity focus is correct, it follows that all lesser distances will be correct too.
A word about machining.........it is safe to say that if all surfaces are parallel, there cannot be any problem, so the use of shims is uneccessary and a hassle, other than to assure that the infinity focus is correct. The only sure way to achieve correct focus is with a ground glass screen and a decent loupe, measurements are a waste of time IMHO. The only true method is to shoot a few frames, (especially true with the 6x17 format, but applicable to 4x5 and larger), scan it and then check each corner for sharpness with a loupe. Chances are there won't be any problem.
My first Obsession 617's had NO helical, only fixed hyperfocal focus calculated by using a DOF scale downloadable from the net.
Everything I shot at f22 was sharp right down to six feet. Proof of this was a huge enlargement to 100 inches across, which was so sharp that I could see a guy sitting at his desk watching his computer monitor through an office window on the twelth floor of a building a quarter of a mile away.... couldn't quite see the colour of his tie though.
The lens was nothing special, a Caltar W11 90mm f8 MC to be exact.
Seems to me there's too much math and not enough construction happening here......I mean I have seen extremely sharp negs from a very wobbly wooden LF camera in need of restoration that had no zero detents. Tolerance of .01mm is ridiculous, you won't even see it, nor will it make any difference.
Unless you are going to utilise a range finder that's made to suit the lens in question, you will have to employ a ground glass screen and a quality loupe. You can also measure the distance of your stride. I have measured the joins in the sidewalk (pavement) and strode along until I get used to stepping in meters or yards or whatever, then apply it to the distance scale on the helical. I start by measuring the distance to the film plane at infinity of the lens/shutter assembly in an old monorail, then apply that distance to the mechanics of the proposed camera, but you need the lens first, not last. :eek:
Utilising standards from an old monorail is a great idea, but once the lens focal length becomes greater than 90mm, close focus becomes uncertain, unless there's a rangefinder to calculate fast and accurate focus, especially if hand held. :)

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/

[GPS]

Some good points there, Dean. Indeed, building a camera needs first of all some "philosophy" i.e. proper thinking about the lens used in it (and also the format in use). Those are the principle points in camera building consideration and much could be said about it. The camera should be built around the lens, the lens should not just be added to the body -taken more in the sense of the construction design and the cameras intended use rather than in the actual manufacturing.
Also, the manufacturing tolerances really don't need to be excessive, they can even be crude by some standards - under one condition: that you have some kind of adjusting the correct FFL and the parallelism of both standards. The methods and the need of achieving the correct parallelism depend on the camera construction. Usually a box camera is more difficult to make with the correct parallelism, even if machined because small errors can be added depending on the construction.
Using the gg for adjusting the correct FFL is indeed easier that any calculations. Great care must be taken in regard to the correct gg placement though.
An amateur knowing well what he's doing can come with better much cameras than those on market. Better because adjusted to his specific photographic needs, exceeding the pro cameras in just the specific areas of interest. I have cameras that no other camera on market can match - cameras that measure the scene TTL and on a whatever part of the scene, cameras that are ether lighter than anything on the market, more simple in use, with longer focal length than anything of its kind on the market, etc. - and all that home built with just a drill, a hacksaw, files and a set of digital callipers. All of them gain me money in stock agencies. Believe who can.

[Frank Petronio]

I think I started a couple of these types of threads before, because I wanted to try a Technar or some sort of light P&S 4x5.

And while I wouldn't turn down the gift of a Technar/Handy/Fotoman/Razzledog by anymeans, I have tried enough of these types of cameras (Handy/Razzle/various Graphics with wide lenses) to realize that simply having a compact 4x5 is only a small part of the gear needed to successully make pictures in the field.

Once you add film holders, meters, and all the extra stuff... it seems like the size of the camera is a lot less important. And for a couple of extra pounds and inches you gain a lot more flexability. And frankly, a rangefinder equipped Technika or a nicely set up Graphic is a lot more versatile... sticking a $1000 Grandagon or XL lens onto a Graphic may not be as sexy, but you'll still have a $1000 lens on a shiftable light tight box... that will make as great a photo as anything expensively custom-machined to the tightest tolerances.

One thing that often gets overlooked is the actual handholding part. Some of the cameras, like the Sinar Handy, seem to expect that you have three hands in order to change the film holder and make that second shot. The classic press cameras -- Graphics and Linhofs -- are really nice to work with handheld, the film holders and viewfinders allow for a smooth workflow. Dean's 110 conversions, with his special spring back, are also very good in this regard.

And finally, while the "off-the-shelf" hand cameras like the Fotoman seem relatively expensive for what they are (and the Silvestri/Cambos/European versions are out of sight!) if you add up the price of doing it yourself, you'll find the off-the-shelf solutions are priced at exactly the right point to justify their existence ;)

[GPS]

...

And finally, while the "off-the-shelf" hand cameras like the Fotoman seem relatively expensive for what they are (and the Silvestri/Cambos/European versions are out of sight!) if you add up the price of doing it yourself, you'll find the off-the-shelf solutions are priced at exactly the right point to justify their existence ;)

You would be probably surprised if I told you that long before any Fotoman existed I built my own 6x24 roll film camera with 300mm lens - for about $ 40 for the material (!), excluding the lens, of course... I could buy several Fotoman cameras just for the money from pictures made with this camera. That's yet another advantage of home built cameras - they can cost next to nothing, provided you already have the lens.

[GPS]

I think I started a couple of these types of threads before, because I wanted to try a Technar or some sort of light P&S 4x5.

And while I wouldn't turn down the gift of a Technar/Handy/Fotoman/Razzledog by anymeans, I have tried enough of these types of cameras (Handy/Razzle/various Graphics with wide lenses) to realize that simply having a compact 4x5 is only a small part of the gear needed to successully make pictures in the field.

...;)

There you're touching yet another interesting point of the camera building philosophy. You can either strive for a "do-it-all" beast or you can decide for the opposite approach - a "one task only" camera. Both types have their great advantages. If you have a car that can hold safely many different cameras, you can always choose just the type that will exactly match your actual photographic need. In the trunk of my SUV I have a steel box, with at least 4 cameras all the time inside. To grab the right tool is often easier than fiddling with a camera that is not specifically made for the tasks of your actual photography.
Thus I have home made cameras that are designed specifically for e.g. Sun photography, weather photography (needs a camera capable to react at quickly changing conditions), tree photography, light cameras for field trips and many others.
Using a camera specifically built for the given type of photography can often make a difference between a taken picture or a lost one.

[Gordon Moat]

Since I am the person who mentioned the box idea, I suppose I should explain a bit. Think of this as a block of material cut into the shape of a box, not four flat pieces of metal welded together. If you look through the ALPA website, their box shaped mounting system is the inspiration of why I think that is a good idea. Of course, a cone solves the same purpose, but has a different look and shape to it. The other interesting ALPA made items are their macro extension boxes, which gives me the idea that something similar might be possible to set-up one camera to use two different lenses.

Thanks Dean and Paul for discussing tolerances further. I feel a high level of build accuracy is a nice starting point, and it is within reach of anyone near a machine shop. Is parallelism over-stressed?

To expand a bit on the shim set-up I used on my 6x9, these were circles of materials of measured and known thickness. I would not think of trying to shim one corner of a four cornered mount, such as a box shape. However, the shims worked fine on my 6x9 at the lens mount. It does seem that an adjustable helical mount would be a far easier set-up than dealing with shims.

When I consider setting the valve clearances on my Ducati, that is all done with shims (and closing cam shims are measured to 0.01mm to 0.03mm clearance). Ducati closing cam shims are not sold in perfectly exact sizes, so often some adjustment is needed, usually by removing some material (surface plate, very flat file, very flat abrasive surface, et al). Anyway, a Ducati is not a good example of convenience, especially compared to a screw and locknut adjustable valvetrain, but it is a good example of precision. I think Dean's post above puts a level of questioning into whether that level of precision is necessary when building a camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[klausesser]

You slide off the front or the rear standard from a Linhof Kardan, B, 45S, JBL, GT, E, M, RE.

You put the ground glass back on one side of the standard and the lensboard on the other side.

Rodenstock and Schneider both make Helicoids with distance and DOF scales for each of their lenses in 0 shutter. They mount to Linhof Kardan boards with a 3 hole.

If you need added extension you would have to either have cones made - expensive, or use Wista Extension Sets. To use the Wista Extension Sets you would also need a Linhof Kardan to Technika adapter board.

Now. How do you plan tio view the scene? Ground glass or with a view finder? If with a view finder then you would have to use the front standard of the Kardan as that has an accessory shoe on it.

Using these standards you would have 3.3" of rise that can be exteded to 6.6" with an accessory. 5.5" of shift, 360° of swing and 75° of center tilt.

The only thing you would have to "make" is a plate to accept a grip. The Linhof Anatomical Grip comes with a plate with 2 mounting holes in it along with 2 screws. You could just drill and tap 2 holes to mount this plate. The Grip slides onto the plate.


Hi Bob!

That´s funny: i´m just building a handheld superwide 4x5 from a Linhof-Kardan frame, 4x5" back, the Linhof-grip and 75mm and 90mm Super Angulons. I also have the Schneider focusing mounts for both lenses and a Linhof universal finder.
What i was looking for are the extension-tubes - with them i would have a complete Linhof-Technar :D

Now youre coming up with that Wista-idea . . that´s exactly what i was missing.
Though i own a 4x5" Wista Field i didn´t realize they have these extensions . . :rolleyes:

thanks a lot and best from mGermany, Klaus

[Paul Droluk]

Since I am the person who mentioned the box idea, I suppose I should explain a bit. Think of this as a block of material cut into the shape of a box, not four flat pieces of metal welded together. If you look through the ALPA website, their box shaped mounting system is the inspiration of why I think that is a good idea. Of course, a cone solves the same purpose, but has a different look and shape to it. The other interesting ALPA made items are their macro extension boxes, which gives me the idea that something similar might be possible to set-up one camera to use two different lenses.

Thanks Dean and Paul for discussing tolerances further. I feel a high level of build accuracy is a nice starting point, and it is within reach of anyone near a machine shop. Is parallelism over-stressed?

Gordon, the need for maintaining close parallelism can not be overemphasized. I addressed this only inclusively in my comment on "good maching practice". Fact of the matter is one should strive to maintain a parallelism of no more than 0.02mm across the entire film plane. While it could be argued that at typical shooting apertures the Depth of Focus at the image plane compensates to some degree for deviations in parallelism, some benchmark tolerance should be employed... 0.02mm is the benchmark we use.

As for the "box" concept... a "box" is indeed much easier to execute than a more complex Conical form, and as such would be better suited to non-production environments. The "box" form, however, does add considerable mass and weight as opposed to a Conical form in this instance... due to the fact that the image forming rays clearly parrallel the conical form.

[erie patsellis]

What I wonder about is whether Linhof was the only company that made standards that took either a lensboard or back on either side. Do Sinar cameras work like that? What about Horseman or Toyo?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Gordon,
I know the Toyo 45F does, on both sides of both standards, the E does, but only on the back and lensboard sides, bellows are fixed.

And as an aside, IMHO, a tapered box would be a good compromise between weight and ease of fabrication.

erie

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Erie. Surprising that you mention Toyo, so I searched a little and found:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130098532497&rd=1&rd=1

I have no idea who put this together, and don't know this seller. Probably this auction will be over by the time most people read this, and I don't think EBAY archives past information for long. Hopefully a few people at least get to see it in pictures.

I don't like the price that much, since it is already assembled and somewhat unknown. However, it does seem that a modular rear standard, or even some way of connecting a similar size front and rear standard together would be an interesting solution. Probably many more cameras that could have the front and rear standards connected using some material.

The two reasons for a box have to do with inspiration and supplies. It is easy to get blocks of aluminium, and I have rarely seen cones; so start with a block and end with a block. The other reason is the concept of box mounts for the ALPA 12; though many 4x5 cameras already use a rough box (rectangular) shape.

Definitely many things to work out. The advantage of construction is a unique device with capabilities you desire. The downside is that it might cost more than modifying a Gaoersi or Fotoman to do what you want. Of course there is also an issue of time, and likely not a fast way of getting a unique camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[erie patsellis]

Interesting, I have at least a complete 45E or two lurking in a box....now where to find an affordable focusing mount??? (even the fotoman is out of my budget right now)

erie

[Struan Gray]

erie, I have seen homebuild projects that used the focussing helicoid from one of those cheapie 500 mm lenses for 35 mm use. You won't fit a Super Angulon XL in there, but one of the small press 90 mm like the Wollensak wide angle Raptar would work well.

Another option would be a junked MF lens. On the European eBays it seems as if a number of pro repair and service shops are selling off their inventory. eBay.de for example has a regular trickle of Hasselblad lens barrel assemblies. With these you would be getting a brand new, mechanically perfect focussing mount, with no need to worry about, say, importing fungus.