47mm SA on Cambo/Calumet 45

[rdenney]

A while back I decided to pull the view camera out of the closet and use it with the 6x9 format using a roll-film back. I had obtained, for a good price, an older 47/5.6 Super Angulon in a Compur 00 shutter, and mounted it in a Cambo recessed lens board. The camera is officially a Calumet 45N or NX--I really don't know. I have it on a short rail with a bag bellows.

If I reverse one of the standards, mount both standards on the same side of the tripod attachment, and mount the back on vertically (to clear the goalposts), I can just--almost--get it to focus at infinity. I have to hang the camera sideways on the tripod to get a horizontal format, which is, of course, not really acceptable for practical use. I gave up on the project at the time, but not I'm reviving it this time for the 6x12 format.

I have never seen a Cambo lens board with a deeper recess than the standard recessed board, but a board with a centimeter or two of additional recess would make this combination really work. Yes, I would have to use tweezers to adjust the lens settings, but I just about have to do that now with that tiny shutter.

A search of the archives revealed one person who recommended one of these cameras for lenses starting with this one, and I'm wondering is there is something simple that I'm missing as to how to make it work.

Advice appreciated.

Rick "wide-angle freak" Denney

[dazedgonebye]

My cambo board seems to be recessed about 32-33mm (crude measure).

[BrianShaw]

I think Cambo only made one recessed board.

The only thing you might be missing is verification of the correctness of the one person who said a 65 can be used. But I've read that too, on photo.net. I've never used anything wider than a 90 and I find that mildly constraining at infinity. I've read about "lots of people" who have used 75s and I even know one who has. I believe that can be done because my buddy actually did it. The 65... or smaller... I remain skeptical. It sounds like a major challenge. Good luck!

[rdenney]

I think Cambo only made one recessed board.

The only thing you might be missing is verification of the correctness of the one person who said a 65 can be used. But I've read that too, on photo.net. I've never used anything wider than a 90 and I find that mildly constraining at infinity. I've read about "lots of people" who have used 75s and I even know one who has. I believe that can be done because my buddy actually did it. The 65... or smaller... I remain skeptical. It sounds like a major challenge. Good luck!

Actually, 65 is pretty easy, and not constraining at all (except for the recessed board). I really think I could use the 90 on a flat board with bag bellows. With the 65/5.6, movements are not abundant, but focusing it isn't a problem.

It's the 47 that's running hard up against limits. I know there won't be any room for movements at 6x12. I just don't want to have to include infinity only by virtue of depth of field, heh, heh.

Rick "who will experiment more" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Rick "who will experiment more" Denney

It must be true!

Brian "who doesn't experiment enough" Shaw :D

[GPS]

...
It's the 47 that's running hard up against limits. I know there won't be any room for movements at 6x12. ...

Rick "who will experiment more" Denney

Thanks goodness there won't be movements. At this short focal length and this long film format the movements require some very precise mechanics on the camera side. Although, some people like even Holga, of course...

[lenser]

Rick,

I don't know if you want to go to this extreme, or if it is even possible with the N or NX.

I've got a Cambo SCX that I had modified years ago because I wasn't getting the movements I wanted with my then widest lens, a 90mm Caltar II and the bag bellows.

I hate the recessed boards since my fat fingers don't want to work in those tight confines (and the front cell of the Caltar is big and very hard to get around), so I had a friendly machinist actually carve out a large arc of the base of the front standard so that the curve of the rear standard could snug up into the newly created space.

It worked like a charm, had no bad effects whatever on the normal shift and swing functions and allowed me to focus well beyond infinity with the 90mm which meant that at infinity, I had the very free movements that I wanted with a standard flat board.

If you can do that with the N or NX, that would give you tons of room for infinity focus with the 47SA and allow movements as well.

I can easily use my SCX with my 58XL on a flat board at infinity with plenty of movement and my 47SA (before I sold it) in a recessed board, also with lots of movements.

Just examine the camera VERY carefully before embarking on this modification so you don't cause a malfunction of he movements you want to preserve.

Tim

[rdenney]

I don't know if you want to go to this extreme, or if it is even possible with the N or NX.

I've got a Cambo SCX that I had modified years ago because I wasn't getting the movements I wanted with my then widest lens, a 90mm Caltar II and the bag bellows.

The SCX seems to be the forerunner of the current Legend, which has much fancier standards than mine. Mine looks exactly like the current SC2. But I think I see the approach you took. I'm not above cutting away stuff that's in the way. I'll look more closely this evening.

Rick "keep those cards and letters coming" Denney

[rdenney]

Thanks goodness there won't be movements. At this short focal length and this long film format the movements require some very precise mechanics on the camera side. Although, some people like even Holga, of course...

You don't think that even with 6x12 there's no use for a bit of downward tilt to bring the ground in focus? With a 47mm lens, it doesn't take much, but I don't think it's so little my fingers can't manage it, heh, heh.

Rick "who might, however, be annoyed by the detent" Denney

[GPS]

You don't think that even with 6x12 there's no use for a bit of downward tilt to bring the ground in focus? With a 47mm lens, it doesn't take much, but I don't think it's so little my fingers can't manage it, heh, heh.

Rick "who might, however, be annoyed by the detent" Denney

Don't misunderstand me - while there can be some "use for a bit of" tilt or other movements, this small bit is more critical than for a longer focal lens thus more demanding on the camera precise mechanics. That was my point. A small watch is more difficult to make than a bigger one from the mechanical point of view.

[GPS]

...
Rick "who might, however, be annoyed by the detent" Denney

Don't be annoyed by it, make it just an infinity fixed focus camera experiment...:)

[rdenney]

Nope, it's no good.

You can reverse the rear standard and focus down to 47 with the lens and back on the same side of the tripod mount, but there is access to the film holder only from above, so only the vertical format is possible. There's just no other way with the 47. Even trimming the mounts isn't enough to make it work. And the 65 is not as easy as I remembered, either.

Then there's the issue of it not exactly being a camera I'm in love with anyway.

I think my best strategy is something like a Sinar F, which I can afford, and which should focus the 47 using a flat board, with bag bellows, of course. Should be a step up for me, too. Supporting several rollfilm formats is a requirement, as is a system view camera with lots of modularity and availability of bits on the used market.

The field cameras that do what I want are just too expensive and I don't go far from the car in any case.

Rick "resigned to the inevitable" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

If you want to shoot 2x3, give up on the Cambo, get a 2x3 camera. I use a 47/5.6 SA in a #00 on my Century Graphic. Fine combination if movements aren't required.

[rdenney]

If you want to shoot 2x3, give up on the Cambo, get a 2x3 camera. I use a 47/5.6 SA in a #00 on my Century Graphic. Fine combination if movements aren't required.

Okay...I thought I mentioned my target format was 6x12. And I certainly want movements for my other lenses.

I didn't mention that I don't want to rule out Quickloads. I still have that Polaroid 545, heh, heh.

I did almost buy a very complete Plaubel Peco Junior kit several years ago, but wasn't quite quick enough on the trigger at the San Diego camera store where I spotted it. Had I bought it, though, now I'd be bitching about how I want to do 6x12 with maybe a spot here and there of 4x5. You just can't please some people, heh, heh.

Rick "who already has a 45mm lens mounted on a Pentax 6x7" Denney

[dazedgonebye]

47 on 6x12? Someone likes it wide....
Are you trying to stick to roll fim for color? Is that why you don't just shoot 65mm on 4x5 instead (nearly equivalent FOV)?


Steve "who would be satisfied with 65mm" Maniscalco

[rdenney]

47 on 6x12? Someone likes it wide....
Are you trying to stick to roll fim for color? Is that why you don't just shoot 65mm on 4x5 instead (nearly equivalent FOV)?

You know I like it wide--I have and use 12mm on 24x36 format, and grouse that 45 is as wide as I can get for my 6x7. But it is somewhat of a special effect.

But so is 6x12, and I see the combination as a special effect for radically emphasizing the foreground. If I throw a 6x9 back on the camera, though, 47 isn't quite as radical--about like a 21 on small format. You are right in predicting that a 65 on 4x5 is about as wide as I'd want to go.

And, yes, I prefer to work in color. 4x5 color sheet film is a bit too intensive for me and I'd end up never getting anything done--same as before. If I have a couple of hours to make some photos, I'd rather spend that time making photos than loading and unloading holders (though I still have a couple of dozen 4x5 holders, probably with 15-year-old FP4 still in them). Plus, I'm clumsy with my hands and have never been good at loading film holders in a changing tent or bag without dust and fingerprints affecting the results. It was much better in a darkroom but I don't have one of those anymore (nor do I particularly enjoy working in one). For routine use, the price of Quickloads is a little daunting, but I see myself doing some of it.

What I'm realizing, and with seeming general agreement, is that I'm trying too hard to make a Cambo work as a medium-format view camera, which is apparently a little too far outside its design envelope, especially with short lenses. Looking at the construction of a Sinar F makes me think it would be a better compromise camera for these requirements, at least of cameras I can afford and maintain.

Rick "appreciating the discussion" Denney