Gran View 4x5

[dazedgonebye]

Ok, I just made a semi-impulse buy of a Gran View 4x5 camera.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=150336478498

I haven't been able to find out much about it. The knocks I read are that the construction is not stellar and the focusing is very rough.
I know lots of folks would just build their own point and shoot, but I was pretty sure that wouldn't work out for me. Anyway, I paid about $175 for it and now I'll be saving/looking for a 75mm lens.

Any comments on this camera? Have I done alright or have I bought myself useless trouble?

[Gem Singer]

You just wasted $175.00.

[dazedgonebye]

You just wasted $175.00.

It's that hopeless?

[Ed Richards]

If it is light tight, the back works, and there is a way to attach a lens, it might be fun. You can buy a 75 for less than 300 from KEH.

[Archphoto]

If you wanted a point and shoot wide angle 4x5, now you got one.
Now a 75mm SA or Grandagon and a CLA for the focussing mechanism and you should be ready to try it out.

If you are planning to mount the 75 yourself: check-out micro-tools (http://www.micro-tools.com) for some lithium based grease and do the CLA your self, there not that many parts in that camera anyway.

Good luck !

Peter

[dazedgonebye]

If it is light tight, the back works, and there is a way to attach a lens, it might be fun. You can buy a 75 for less than 300 from KEH.

I'm assuming that's the case. I figured I'd have a hard time assembling the parts and putting them together for much less than that. Focusing helicals seem particulary hard to come by without spending over $125 for a cheap one.

Here's hoping.

[dazedgonebye]

If you wanted a point and shoot wide angle 4x5, now you got one.
Now a 75mm SA or Grandagon and a CLA for the focussing mechanism and you should be ready to try it out.

If you are planning to mount the 75 yourself: check-out micro-tools (http://www.micro-tools.com) for some lithium based grease and do the CLA your self, there not that many parts in that camera anyway.

Good luck !

Peter


I should think that part would be simple enough for me. I think there are 2 moving parts total.

[Gem Singer]

What do you plan on using for a viewfinder?

I don't see any good quality 75mm. lenses for less than $400 on KEH's website.

[venchka]

Seems like the alternative would be a Fotoman with a 75mm lens. How mich do they sell for used?

Viewfinder? Heck. With a 75mm lens just make sure you are looking at the film holder. Close enough should be good enough. Stick a level in one of the shoes and fire at will.

[dazedgonebye]

I have a couple of 21mm finders for 35mm cameras. I could perhaps mask one of them off to 4x5 proportions with a little black tape.

I'm sure a Fotoman is a much better made camera, so I don't think I can compare prices. On the other hand, functionaly, we're talking about pretty much the same thing.

The lens is another matter. I need to look around and see what I can sell. I've got a couple of small things in mind, but not enough.

[Ed Richards]

75 F8 SUPER ANGULON SYNCHRONIZED FOR FLASH COMP B (4X5)(34 MOUNT) LARGE FORMAT VIEW LENS - $286, bargain condition, but that is pretty good at KEH. Send them what you want to sell and they will give you an extra 10% off the price of the equipment you want to buy.

[Oren Grad]

The Wayback Machine is wonderful:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040414101857/www.granview.com/sbreview.html

If you follow the links at the bottom of that page, you'll find that much of the old Gran View website survives in the archive.

[walter23]

You just wasted $175.00.

Looks functional to me. It's a black box, and you put a lens on one end and a film holder on the other. How bad could it possibly be? Even if there are problems I'd imagine it'd make a good platform for minor modification... you could install a new focus helical, repair light leaks (if any), etc.

[dazedgonebye]

The Wayback Machine is wonderful:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040414101857/www.granview.com/sbreview.html

If you follow the links at the bottom of that page, you'll find that much of the old Gran View website survives in the archive.


Hey thanks. I had no idea how to find all of that.
Seems it was a $1000 camera brand new. Ow! No competion from Fotoman and others at the time I guess.

[GPS]

Looks functional to me. It's a black box, and you put a lens on one end and a film holder on the other. How bad could it possibly be? Even if there are problems I'd imagine it'd make a good platform for minor modification... you could install a new focus helical, repair light leaks (if any), etc.

How bad could it be? Very bad. Bad enough. If the camera doesn't have strict plan parallelism between the lens and the back, so important for such a short focal length (with this cheap construction a very probable case) everything else goes out of a window - the sharpness, the contrast, the possibility to focus correctly, etc.
A new helical? How would he adjust for the change of FFD? Etc... Unfortunately, a camera is more than a black box with film and a lens on its ends. Were it so, we could use a shoebox... with a minor modification, of course:)

[jb7]

Looks functional to me too-
certainly not automatically a waste-

I use an Arca, with even shorter lenses,
and I'm quite sure it's not strictly parallel every time I use it-

I've also just made a P&S and it's guaranteed not to be straight-

If I had to reject cheap as being not good enough,
I'd never shoot a sheet of film-

Enjoy your camera, perhaps spend some time setting it up-
The film is large, and 75mm isn't that short-
Would be interested in coming back to this to see how you get on-

I'd be quite surprised if the pictures were as disastrous as some would like to predict-


joseph

[GPS]

By all means, Joseph, you can take pictures even with a pinhole camera, made of a shoe box and not even with a precise hole in it. It all depends, doesn't it..?

[walter23]

Of course, but you can always shim that kind of problem to fix it. This is LF photography - it's not like we've got an SLR mirror system or rangefinder to complicate things (though GG registration with film is obviously important but pretty easy for any manfacturer to pull off well enough). You do check the ground glass with your loupe before shooting, right? Remember we use tilts all the time with this format and the resolving power of our loupe is pretty much the limit of our focus accuracy in these situations.

And the enlargement factor is lower than with small formats, so slight tilt-induced focal change may not be as important as with 35mm or MF.

In any event if it's obviously fine on the ground glass it'll be fine on film.

If you want to just use scale focusing then your concerns would be more important, but this thing does have a real ground glass, unlike the other similar cameras.


How bad could it be? Very bad. Bad enough. If the camera doesn't have strict plan parallelism between the lens and the back, so important for such a short focal length (with this cheap construction a very probable case) everything else goes out of a window - the sharpness, the contrast, the possibility to focus correctly, etc.
A new helical? How would he adjust for the change of FFD? Etc... Unfortunately, a camera is more than a black box with film and a lens on its ends. Were it so, we could use a shoebox... with a minor modification, of course:)

[dazedgonebye]

If I had to reject cheap as being not good enough,
I'd never shoot a sheet of film-

joseph

If I were inclined to tatoos, something like this would be appropriate.

[jb7]

By all means, Joseph, you can take pictures even with a pinhole camera, made of a shoe box and not even with a precise hole in it. It all depends, doesn't it..?


Yes, I suppose it does all depend-

I must admit, i haven't seen this camera, while you talk as if you've used one,
and haven't been impressed-

There's a lot of speculation for something that hasn't even been delivered,
and doesn't even have a lens,
or even a skewered piece of tinfoil.

I can't wait to read the review, when it eventually turns up-

[GPS]

Of course, but you can always shim that kind of problem to fix it. This is LF photography - it's not like we've got an SLR mirror system or rangefinder to complicate things (though GG registration with film is obviously important but pretty easy for any manufacturer to pull off well enough). You do check the ground glass with your loupe before shooting, right? Remember we use tilts all the time with this format and the resolving power of our loupe is pretty much the limit of our focus accuracy in these situations.

And the enlargement factor is lower than with small formats, so slight tilt-induced focal change may not be as important as with 35mm or MF.

In any event if it's obviously fine on the ground glass it'll be fine on film.

If you want to just use scale focusing then your concerns would be more important, but this thing does have a real ground glass, unlike the other similar cameras.

To shim the problem away, it's easy, isn't it? Sure, in words it is. To do so practically is a different game... The devil is in details, as always. How would you measure the needed value for the shims? What a tool would you use? From where to what would you measure it...etc. Just try to cope with these practical questions to see how "easy" for an amateur it is...:)
But even shimming for a different helical won't correct the problem with incorrect plan parallelism... even your use of a loupe won't make things easier - it's just yet another imprecision added to your problems, etc. etc. And the eventual tilt is worse just because of the LF as it makes a greater difference on the edges etc.
Sure, for manufactures it's easy - Linhof polishes even the film gate to the values of 0.001mm to get it right in some if its cameras. Easy, isn't it? And then there is the Grandview manufacturer that takes it even easier - it just molds a piece of plastic to get it right. They left the problems for the ideal customer who will - easily - shim the problems away...:)

[dazedgonebye]

I would never attempt corrections of this sort. I haven't the time, inclination or skills. Further, it's not likely I'd notice the difference. I probably introduce 10 times the potential error we're discussing here with bad scanning. :eek:
After all the effort to make things in the camera perfect, I'd just end up shoving in a 30 year old film holder and where would all the precision get me?

I admire the effort that so many large format shooters put in to getting the last bit of sharpness and quality out of their images, but that's jut not the way I'm wired. I know it sort of begs the question, "Why go through the trouble of shooting large if not to take advantage of all that potential?" Well, the truth is it's easier to get a great looking 11x14 out of a pretty good 4x5 negative than a pretty good smaller negative. Besides, I just enjoy the process.


To shim the problem away, it's easy, isn't it? Sure, in words it is. To do so practically is a different game... The devil is in details, as always. How would you measure the needed value for the shims? What a tool would you use? From where to what would you measure it...etc. Just try to cope with these practical questions to see how "easy" for an amateur it is...:)
But even shimming for a different helical won't correct the problem with incorrect plan parallelism... even your use of a loupe won't make things easier - it's just yet another imprecision added to your problems, etc. etc. And the eventual tilt is worse just because of the LF as it makes a greater difference on the edges etc.
Sure, for manufactures it's easy - Linhof polishes even the film gate to the values of 0.001mm to get it right in some if its cameras. Easy, isn't it? And then there is the Grandview manufacturer that takes it even easier - it just molds a piece of plastic to get it right. They left the problems for the ideal customer who will - easily - shim the problems away...:)

[EdWorkman]

GPS has repeated very negative comments, but I haven't seen any specifics.
Are these complaints based on experience with an actual Gran View?;personal grudge against the folks behind it? ;A bad day at the office? ;Dyspepsia?.
So far I see the complaints as exaggerated and without factual support, and the repetition leads to loss of credability. I really would like to read specifics how the design intent of Gran View failed, if it really did. Wrong kind of plastic that won't hold shape and/or dimension? Good parts that don't fit ??? As it seems many folks are quite happy with old wood view cameras and the results obtained therewith the comparison to super critical Linhof specs seems odd and pointless.
So what's the story here ??

[venchka]

... Besides, I just enjoy the process.

There you go. Close enough is plenty good for me too.

[Gordon Moat]

Interesting choice. Roger Hicks praised one of these in his book about rangefinder and viewfinder cameras. I think your biggest difficulty would be getting the distance scale calibrated to a 75mm lens, though with some care and patience it would be possible to get usable accuracy. Remember that handheld and close shooting distances are where you are more likely to get focus error. Anyway, even if you split the camera into parts to use separately, I think you got a good deal out of this.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[dazedgonebye]

Interesting choice. Roger Hicks praised one of these in his book about rangefinder and viewfinder cameras. I think your biggest difficulty would be getting the distance scale calibrated to a 75mm lens, though with some care and patience it would be possible to get usable accuracy. Remember that handheld and close shooting distances are where you are more likely to get focus error. Anyway, even if you split the camera into parts to use separately, I think you got a good deal out of this.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

The listing said it was for a 75mm lens. I've read hints and bits about adjusting it to the lens, but I'm afraid I'll have to figure that part out as I go.
No doubt I'll be back asking questions and begging help.

[GPS]

I would never attempt corrections of this sort. I haven't the time, inclination or skills. Further, it's not likely I'd notice the difference. I probably introduce 10 times the potential error we're discussing here with bad scanning. :eek:
After all the effort to make things in the camera perfect, I'd just end up shoving in a 30 year old film holder and where would all the precision get me?
...



The listing said it was for a 75mm lens. I've read hints and bits about adjusting it to the lens, but I'm afraid I'll have to figure that part out as I go.
No doubt I'll be back asking questions and begging help.

Unless you have the original 75mm lens type you surely will end up with a headache. Somebody realized that the only part of this camera having value for one was the lens itself and sold the rest, I'm afraid. Good luck!

[EdWorkman]

Still no specifics GPS ?????
IIRC the Gran View was not advertised as specific to one lens- they said it was an easy thing to set the helical for the buyer's lens in two steps .....
Coulda been advertising..... But does GPS actually know anything about this or is it just an expert with opinions?

[jb7]

Again, things are probably not as bad as GPS makes out-
according to Oren Grad's very helpful link,
the lens mount is a double helical-
infinity focus is found on the first helical and locked off-
described as a one time operation, and very simple to do,
then the second helical is used to focus.

It does mention a special tool to perform that operation,
I'm guessing that won't come with your camera,
but I'm sure a workaround will be possible...

I know I'd be sure to find a way-

I would imagine that once the flange focal distance is found and locked in, that any 75mm lens would behave like a 75mm lens regarding extension, marked distance, and focus, but I'm an optimist until proved otherwise.

Quoting from the linked article-


The body, lens cone, and grip are made of thick, rigid plastic, either molded or fabricated and glued and (where necessary) screwed.

so the jury is out about exactly what it is, until you get it in your hands-
even moulded plastic is sometimes precision machined.

The material itself is not specified- but moulded ABS is still used today for camera construction-
the Walker Titan being a very well regarded example-
even if, for some, the use of 'plastic' automatically relegates a camera to junk status-

Again, I'd wait and see what you've got before deciding to bin it...


joseph

[Oren Grad]

"75mm" lenses can vary in actual focal length, so the markings on the helical are not necessarily going to be accurate. But the camera allows for GG focusing and seems to have come with the magnifier widget to boot. So as long as the cone and helical allow for infinity focus with the lens you want to use, and so long as the alignment of the back isn't wildly out of whack, you should have a usable camera.

Whether it's to your taste and whether it'll work well enough for specific tasks you have in mind is something you'll settle only by diving in and giving it a try. Hope you have fun - keep us posted on your progress!

[venchka]

Let's open another can of worms wherein the "experts" quote all manner of formulae and work through myriad caluculations to prove otherwise.

Given 4x5 film.
Given 75mm lens.
Given f/11 to allow shutter speeds suitable for hand holding.
Checkng the first DOF calculator that GOOGLE found. I know, it's rubbish. The One True DOF Calculator is located ...provide link here....

Subject distance: 16.6 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 8.29 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

In front of subject 8.3 ft
Behind subject Infinite

Hyperfocal distance 16.6 ft
Circle of confusion 0.1 mm

So, our intrepid Gran View owner focuses once at 16'-17' and forgets it.

Bill Murray was right. Focus a 75mm lens? "It just doesn't matter."

[dazedgonebye]

Unless you have the original 75mm lens type you surely will end up with a headache. Somebody realized that the only part of this camera having value for one was the lens itself and sold the rest, I'm afraid. Good luck!

I don't believe, from their cached web site, that they offered lenses, so I don't believe it was built for one specific lens.
It's a shame I don't have a 75mm lens yet. It'll be some time before I'm able to relate the actual experience.

[GPS]

I don't believe, from their cached web site, that they offered lenses, so I don't believe it was built for one specific lens.
It's a shame I don't have a 75mm lens yet. It'll be some time before I'm able to relate the actual experience.

Indeed, they left it to the customer to fine focus the lens at infinity. Which cannot be done in the center of the gg only but on all the four corners too, to check the parallelism. Although they boast precise parallelism and a hi tech material for the focusing helical I believe that the seller was very honest in its description of this camera. You'll see - after all, even Holga can take pictures and many are satisfied with it.

[Gordon Moat]

Based upon your assumptions GPS, how far off do you think this camera should be? I would guess less than 0.5mm, but what do you think? Also, do you know the seller?

[John Whitley]

Wow, GPS. That's an awesome combination of FUD and a can't-do attitude. How do you even get out of bed in the morning with so much glass-half-full?

Here's some antidote for that: it looks fairly straightforward to get this camera setup for use and have some awesome fun shooting with it. If it's intended as a handheld point-and-shoot, we're already not exactly gunning for lofty Group f/64 ideals, now are we? The value of a tool is often in how much it inspires us and how its nature engages our creativity, not just in paper measures of technical excellence.

[venchka]

My money is on Steve. He does good work. He can find a way to make this camera work. Somebody got a decent 75mm lens for a good price?

[jb7]

Wow, GPS. That's an awesome combination of FUD and a can't-do attitude. How do you even get out of bed in the morning with so much glass-half-full?

Here's some antidote for that: it looks fairly straightforward to get this camera setup for use and have some awesome fun shooting with it. If it's intended as a handheld point-and-shoot, we're already not exactly gunning for lofty Group f/64 ideals, now are we? The value of a tool is often in how much it inspires us and how its nature engages our creativity, not just in paper measures of technical excellence.



Yes-
that's what I meant to say...

[GPS]

From Photo.net -

"Wayne Firth , Jun 22, 2000; 01:16 p.m.

I have a Gran View. It's a nice idea but the camera is sort of like someone's arts and crafts project. It really is an expensive piece of plastic. Now that I have said this, I suppose that I will never be able to sell the one I have. The helicoil is a very crude affair. It's not smooth at all. It comes with a wrench so you can adjust it to the infinity point of the specific lens that you are using. From there it is scale focus. Everything is made out of ABS plastic. It might make a good walking around camera if you could use a grafmatic but you can't. The back is made in way that will only accept regular holders. It also has a grip that is not made for human hands and is not adjustable.
... "

But of course, there are those who like even Holga cameras and are happy with it, it all depends... Who cares?

[dazedgonebye]

From Photo.net -

"Wayne Firth , Jun 22, 2000; 01:16 p.m.

I have a Gran View. It's a nice idea but the camera is sort of like someone's arts and crafts project. It really is an expensive piece of plastic. Now that I have said this, I suppose that I will never be able to sell the one I have. The helicoil is a very crude affair. It's not smooth at all. It comes with a wrench so you can adjust it to the infinity point of the specific lens that you are using. From there it is scale focus. Everything is made out of ABS plastic. It might make a good walking around camera if you could use a grafmatic but you can't. The back is made in way that will only accept regular holders. It also has a grip that is not made for human hands and is not adjustable.
... "

But of course, there are those who like even Holga cameras and are happy with it, it all depends... Who cares?


Well, at least I went in to it fully informed. I read the bit you quoted from a google search before I bought.
I don't care about it not taking grafmatic backs. Ok, to be honest, that would be nice, but really it is a non-factor.
The handle does look awkward as hell and I think I must be the only right handed person in the world that would rather have the handle on the right.
Plastic ceased to be a dirty word many, many years ago.

We'll see.

[GPS]

Well, at least I went in to it fully informed. I read the bit you quoted from a google search before I bought.
I don't care about it not taking grafmatic backs. Ok, to be honest, that would be nice, but really it is a non-factor.
The handle does look awkward as hell and I think I must be the only right handed person in the world that would rather have the handle on the right.
Plastic ceased to be a dirty word many, many years ago.

We'll see.

Surely you'll see. And you know you don't even need to justify your buy to me as I have no horse in the race...:) Good luck!

[EdWorkman]

So GPS could come up with an actual fact after all- even if cribbed from another site.
Way to GO!!!!! it proves EVERYTHING you've been writing, down to the last .0001mm
So it's plastic and takes normal holders..................
ooooooooooooOOOOooooo Scary!!!

I want the 8x10 at a comparable price to the 4x5 discussed here. Anyone?

[Gem Singer]

It doesn't make sense to me to purchase a LF camera that only uses a single focal length lens (75mm in this case). It takes a major modification (changing helical lens mounts) to utilize various focal lengths on the Grand view.

The main advantage of a view camera is it's ability to control perspective by means of movements. This camera has no movement capability.

The camera is designed to use 4X5 film holders. From my point of view, it would seem to be more practical to use a medium format roll film camera with lenses from wide to long.

[Gem Singer]

"I want the 8X10 at a comparable price to this one"

Keep your eyes peeled for a previously owned 8X10 Hobo camera from Bostick-Sullivan.

That camera was also a flop. You might be able to pick one up cheap.

[dazedgonebye]

It doesn't make sense to me to purchase a LF camera that only uses a single focal length lens (75mm in this case). It takes a major modification (changing helical lens mounts) to utilize various focal lengths on the Grand view.

The main advantage of a view camera is it's ability to control perspective by means of movements. This camera has no movement capability.

The camera is designed to use 4X5 film holders. From my point of view, it would seem to be more practical to use a medium format roll film camera with lenses from wide to long.

This is probably why Fotoman was a flop too. No one wants a large format camera without movements.

[EdWorkman]

It never was supposed to be, nor ever will be a view or field camera. It is simply "point and shoot" [gone insane?]. The comparison is to , say, the Fuji 617 [ no, not the gX617 ] which is a scale focussing point and shoot panoramic, that I have enjoyed for over 20 years. I do not pose to be an artiste, just have had a lot of fun doing things not intended. It started with a project Kodak 2D that had a B&L Protar 7a without a pointer on the aperture thingy, trashed bellows and a few holders mostly leaky. After help with the thingy and a new bellows, I built [ not crafted] a stout tripod out of vertical grain douglas fir 2x3s, leftovers and surplus hardware from one of the salvage stores that thrived in the San Fernando Valley when airplanes were still made therein. So I threw it in the back seat on a desert trip and when I ran across a train suitably stationary in the siding at Ansel [ hmmmmmmm ??] I loaded some film in a holder under a jacket in the back seat of the Mazda and toted the outfit into the sagebrush sufficient to get a wide view. Having the dumb luck of a person who knew no better, it worked nicely. So when I looked at my nice neg, I noticed that there was an awful lot of wasted film in the blank sky and set about to mock up some kind of 120 film holder adapter back- besides, i was too ADD to sit in the dark to tray process sheet film. So I ended up hacking a Kodak 1A folder, cuz it had the spool holders and winding key that I couldn't figure out how to execute. It no longer folded but now could shoot three 2''x9'' exposures on 120, using hyperfocus with a Caltar 115. i use the term HACK above and that may be charitable, as I used a razor saw, Xacto knives, files, and eventually solved the light leaks with lots of black photo tape.
I guarantee accuracy to at least the nearest 1/16 inch, maybe two.
I probably made, in all, 3 to 6 negatives that worked pretty well. As those were culled from MANY I concluded that I just couldn't envision that much view, so I rebuilt the box. I removed the rise that I had inadvertently built in when I reduced the film gate to 120 from 116 and extended the box to use a 203 Optar that I inherited. The Optar seems to work, It has enough IC but I can't decide what the sharpness limitations really are. I enlarge the B&W ones that I think are good enough on 8 to 10 by up to 42 inch prints using a Beseler 8x10 and Roscoe filters. I did buy a 210 Symmar to try but haven't faced up to that challenge, and I have a coupla other choices as well, so I have soft pencilled a scheme to make interchangeable box fronts to enable point and shooting of various focal lengths a la' the GX 617, without the helicals [or class]. Mostly I shoot in sunny f16 light, at no less than 1/200 [ well the Graphex dial sez 1/400] at f22 if possible with Ilford 3200 at EI 1000, TriX at EI 500 or Color neg at 800 ish. My subjects are almost entirely moving trains [ crowd moves back to a safe distance here, and small children are snatched back by their mothers], but I admit to shooting the flower fieloldren are snatched back by their mothers], but I admit to shooting the flower fields in Lompoc and the wild Lupines near-far next door [but that was with the Fuji] In short, everything contrary to LF precepts, good practices and myths.

Another project that has been agonizingly slow to finish is a self-casing 8x10. It's actually very close, just a coupla potentially frustrating things to finish , and I'm beyond being a youth that can "just do it" . My intent is to have a hand held scale focussing. When I concluded that couldn't justify the cost of real racks and pinions and that my skill aren't insufficient, I got a junker B&J 5x7 and have created a camera that now has a box with bellows, a front standard with swing, tilt, rise, takes 4x4 speed lensboads. The front door braces are still unfinished, account I gotta tap holes for knobs I don't have yet to affix them to the bed [ if that works I'll have a drop bed to allow short lenses, even if I can't "see" with them]. And I haven't decided how I can make the spring backs [that fit the 2D 8x19, 5x7 and 4x5] interchangable AND light tite. And if I can overcome retirement-age depression, I'll work more on the 7x17 box.

blahblahblah- My point is, i have been encouraged by the folks on this site that are having fun- like Jim Galli and Eddie Gunks and Ken Lee and Vaughn and Walter and many more- THey are doing things that I know I can't do or that i never want to do [ like Frank Petronio :>))) ] - But all of them are positive in their attitude and helpful, else why would I even THINK about a 7x17 using a lens bought from Jim that needed waterhouse stops [ that I now have DONE !!and I belive the film holder mock-up can be executed - just need to figure how to get a light trap to work]

I have written waaaaay too much, and will go take a liedown now.
Keep it enjoyable worthwhile, fun even.

[jb7]

That was fun, and enjoyable, and generous-
Thank you for that-

Have you thought of using a Holga?
because none of that stuff sounds like a Linhof...

[Gordon Moat]

GPS would never buy anything plastic, unless it had a Canon logo on it.
:D ;)

[dazedgonebye]

The Gran View has arrived!
Initial impression....

Yep, that handle is at a strange angle, but I think I'll manage a good grip.
The focusing helical is clunky. Adjusting it is simple, but it will involve a good bit of trial and error.
The flocking inside the lens cone is sort of furry, and the fur is coming loose. I see problems with specks on the glass and worse, on the film. I'm thinking I'll remove most/all of it and use paint instead.
It's nice and light...plastic is a feature, not a bug.
It allows for rise and fall in the vertical orientation, which I may make use of.
The cold shoes are very nice, with a locking mechanism to retain whatever is mounted. I've dropped enough viewfinders to appreciate this feature.

My first concern is finding a lens. The mounting hole looks to be about 42mm. A quick look at a few lenses shows most 75mm to be mounted in a smaller hole. Not sure how I'll handle that.

[venchka]

Copal #1 hole to Copal #0 lens: make a donut from a sheet of aluminum. O.D. large enough to attach to the camera. I.D. sized for a Copal #0 shutter. Piece of cake.

[dazedgonebye]

Copal #1 hole to Copal #0 lens: make a donut from a sheet of aluminum. O.D. large enough to attach to the camera. I.D. sized for a Copal #0 shutter. Piece of cake.


That's what I figured. There are 3 recessed screws holding the current mount together. I could attach the aluminum sheet using those.

[dazedgonebye]

Progress report.....

I tried to mount a release cable in the handle, but there was nothing to retain the top of the cable...it just flopped around in the handle. So, I took the handle off and found that under the rubber grip was a simple bit of landscape pvc pipe. I found a bit of rubber hose and glued it inside of the pipe. That gives something to grip the release cable. That's all put back together now.
Next, the flocking was flaking off and leaving debris on the ground glass and soon the film. I scraped all of that out and painted with flat black.
The mounting hole is copal 1 and I need copal 0. So, I cut a piece of aluminum in to a round disk and mounted it under the current mount, using the existing screws. Then I cut a copal 0 sized hole in the disk.
At the moment, my 90mm is mounted to the camera, just to see that it all works. The 75mm should arrive any day.

[ChrisN]

Good progress!

[dazedgonebye]

Ok, here it is in all its glory.
Pardon the ugly bit of aluminum that the lens is mounted on. An aluminum donut was the only way I could figure to mount that lens.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3484353736_503a9b87d3_o.jpg

Now if I can get it set to infinity and get it to stay where I set it, we'll be good to go.

[venchka]

Cool. I know it will make awesome photos in your capable hands.