PDA

View Full Version : 8x10 folding camera for vintage lenses



bob carnie
22-Jul-2010, 08:14
Question for you large format vintage lens geek/knobs.

Which 8x10 folding camera would you suggest to use so I can have a group of Vintage Lenses adapted to fit on the front lens board.

I really don't care about looks , weight or ebony polish , just a good working camera that could hold these lenses.

Price is a concern as well.

Steve Hamley
22-Jul-2010, 08:22
An older Agfa Commercial or Universal with the 7-1/2" lens boards is always appealing if you're talking about large vintage lenses and Packard shutters. The Commercial had more draw than the Universal but seems to be scarcer.

If the lens size isn't an issue, the Kodak 2D or Eastman #2 are both excellent choices.

All of these cameras should be obtainable in good usable condition for $350-500 USD.

If the lenses you're think about are heavy, make sure the camera has the sliding tripod block to center the weight over the tripod.

Cheers, Steve

BarryS
22-Jul-2010, 08:24
It's hard to beat the 8x10 Kodak 2D. Nice 6" lens board and no tilt to drop down with a heavy lens. Not too expensive, especially for one with some mileage. A Packard shutter can sneak in behind the front standard.

Scott --
22-Jul-2010, 09:04
"Knobs"?

bob carnie
22-Jul-2010, 09:14
Oh did I say that.. my fingers are faster than I think ..

sorry to offend you Scott

"Knobs"?

Fotoguy20d
22-Jul-2010, 09:26
I'd second the 2-D.

Dan

bob carnie
22-Jul-2010, 09:37
Thanks to all

Steve what is a sliding tripod block? I am new to big boy cameras , largest I used was Noblex and smaller so I have never heard of such a thing.




An older Agfa Commercial or Universal with the 7-1/2" lens boards is always appealing if you're talking about large vintage lenses and Packard shutters. The Commercial had more draw than the Universal but seems to be scarcer.

If the lens size isn't an issue, the Kodak 2D or Eastman #2 are both excellent choices.

All of these cameras should be obtainable in good usable condition for $350-500 USD.

If the lenses you're think about are heavy, make sure the camera has the sliding tripod block to center the weight over the tripod.

Cheers, Steve

Richard Wasserman
22-Jul-2010, 09:40
What about a Calumet C-1? Should be strong enough to hold just about any big old lens you might want to put on it.

Steve Hamley
22-Jul-2010, 10:33
Bob,

It's a block of wood that attaches to the tripod head and has (usually) metal brackets that slide in grooves just like the standards do, and it has a locking knob. So when you mount the camera and lens, you can slide the camera back and forth in the tripod block or bracket until the weight is centered over the tripod head, then lock the camera in place.

I didn't see a good picture of one on eBay, but if I can get my digital camera to work I'll post a picture of one when I get home.

Cheers, Steve

David de Gruyl
22-Jul-2010, 10:42
What about a Calumet C-1? Should be strong enough to hold just about any big old lens you might want to put on it.

and cheap. and heavy.

I am actually happy with mine, except for weight.

Mark Sawyer
22-Jul-2010, 11:26
I'll second Steve's point about lensboards; the larger the better, especially if you're thinking of using older lenses. I love my old 2d, but I have a few lenses it just won't handle, and a few more that are a bit crowded on a 6x6 board. The 7.5x7.5 is significantly bigger. If you're only doing studio work and really don't care about the weight, get an old studio 8x10 with a 9x9! They tend to be surprisingly affordable.

bob carnie
22-Jul-2010, 12:42
Hi Mark

I have a really big studio camera that all the lenses work with but I have this project in mind where I need to be on location outdoors, basic studio set up but way north and therefore a somewhat portable camera would be required.

I'll second Steve's point about lensboards; the larger the better, especially if you're thinking of using older lenses. I love my old 2d, but I have a few lenses it just won't handle, and a few more that are a bit crowded on a 6x6 board. The 7.5x7.5 is significantly bigger. If you're only doing studio work and really don't care about the weight, get an old studio 8x10 with a 9x9! They tend to be surprisingly affordable.

Mark Sawyer
22-Jul-2010, 14:29
Hi Mark

I have a really big studio camera that all the lenses work with but I have this project in mind where I need to be on location outdoors, basic studio set up but way north and therefore a somewhat portable camera would be required.

Sounds like you'll have a good combination of cameras when you're done, then! My best advice is to still try to standardize lensboards, and make or find an adaptor so the smaller lensboards will still go on the big camera.

I have an 11x14 Burke and James and an 8x10 Century 7a that both take 9x9. I also have an 8x10 2d, 8x10 Kodak Master, and 5x7 Rembrandt Portrait camera that all take 6x6, (the KMV was modified). With a simple 9x9-to-6x6 adapter, I swap lenses back and forth between any of these cameras quickly and easily. A few cameras with odd-sized lens boards became closet queens I occasionally loan our with a single lens to students, but never use myself.

bob carnie
22-Jul-2010, 14:47
Thats the idea , because with three or four lenses and two completely different cameras I would be fantastic to design the lens mounts to work with both cameras.
I have found someone here in Toronto to do the work but they are expensive.


Sounds like you'll have a good combination of cameras when you're done, then! My best advice is to still try to standardize lensboards, and make or find an adaptor so the smaller lensboards will still go on the big camera.

I have an 11x14 Burke and James and an 8x10 Century 7a that both take 9x9. I also have an 8x10 2d, 8x10 Kodak Master, and 5x7 Rembrandt Portrait camera that all take 6x6, (the KMV was modified). With a simple 9x9-to-6x6 adapter, I swap lenses back and forth between any of these cameras quickly and easily. A few cameras with odd-sized lens boards became closet queens I occasionally loan our with a single lens to students, but never use myself.

D. Bryant
22-Jul-2010, 14:54
Thats the idea , because with three or four lenses and two completely different cameras I would be fantastic to design the lens mounts to work with both cameras.
I have found someone here in Toronto to do the work but they are expensive.

Take a look at the Kodak 2D. Stay away from the C1s.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

Steve Hamley
22-Jul-2010, 16:06
Bob,

Let's see if I can attach the jpegs...

1192 is the top or camera side of the sliding block; my thumb is obscuring the lock knob, and the screw in the center is the top of the tripod screw socket.

1190 is a Kodak 2D with the sliding block shown attached between the tripod and camera bed; you can see the lock knob in this photo.

Apologies for the quality. The digital is a couple of years old and is dying, the Kodak is probably 70 years old and works just as well as it did when it left the factory. The bellows is even good.

Oh, and Jim Galli does his field work with big lenses with a 2D. Maybe he'll jump in with some advice. Here's a link showing how his 2D is et up with a Packard shutter:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Article_About_Packard_Shutters.html

Cheers, Steve

Jim Galli
22-Jul-2010, 17:03
Yes, about 80 % of the work I do gets done with an ubiquitous non-descript old Kodak 2D. A linguist spanked me once for calling the Kodak ubiquitous but I still feel it fits. They really aren't worth much, and with the Packard built in, anything (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=608710&postcount=43) you can cobble onto home made 6X6 lens boards is ready to go have some fun with. The link takes one to a picture made with an old trash canned meniscus from a Korean war era spotting scope. And the Kodak 2D got the job done, as ever.

Andrew Plume
23-Jul-2010, 03:53
Bob

you didn't mention any preferences for a camera with movements? - far be it for me to do anything other than endorse the comments from Jim and others re the Kodak 2D but the movements here are fairly limited (unless you can find one that's been adapted), being front rise and a small amount of rear swing and fall - I've always looked at 2D's as mainly being for portrait use and the odd bit of landscape

the C-1's I have no experience of, Cole Weston seemed to do pretty well with his, fwiw and I've a gut feeling that Merg Ross who posts on here and has produced some fine work has also used these

good luck with your search


andrew

Scott --
23-Jul-2010, 05:22
Oh did I say that.. my fingers are faster than I think ..

sorry to offend you Scott

Not offended, Bob, just confused. WTH does "knob" mean in this context?

Brian Ellis
23-Jul-2010, 07:40
I've owned two Kodak 2Ds, as others have said they're very nice cameras for the money. But you don't see them with the removable back rail very often and if you don't have that you're limited to using shorter lenses. I don't remember the length of the front bed alone so I can't tell you how short but IIRC I had to use the back rail with a lens in the 450mm range.

If you don't have the back extension then you don't really need the sliding tripod block either IMHO. But a 2D in good condition with the back extension and sliding tripod block is a sweet camera.

Fotoguy20d
23-Jul-2010, 07:47
I don't think you'll get more than around 14-16" without the extension (too lazy to go into the other room and actually measure). With my TR triple, to use the 28" requires almost the entire bed. I like to keep the block just under the seam between base and front extension - I feel like it beefs up that joint a bit. I paid $225 for mine via local craigslist - included rear extension, block, case, and it's the military version. You can sometimes pay that much at auction for one without the extension or the block - avoid those (IMHO).

Dan

Uncle Jim
25-Jul-2010, 15:00
Hi Bob,

Everyone here seems to be in love with the D2. Let me put in a word about the Agfa/Ansco. Yes it has a bigger lens board, but more to the point the extension is built in and slides out for use. Definitely get one marked Agfa/Ansco, as the later Ansco marketed cameras had shorter bellows and a different type of rear tilt. No, they aren't the lightest cameras in the world but aren't any heavier than the D2.

uncle jim

bob carnie
26-Jul-2010, 07:47
thank you all for your replys, I am now going to be a legit large format knob but not fully with the geek status, that will take a few years.

Sam
5-Aug-2010, 19:16
I just picked up a Eastman Kodak 8x10 with the back extension for use with a 450 f9 Carl Zeiss Jena. The GG is horribly dim compared to both of Tachiharas but I am excited about it none the less, processing the first films tomorrow. The old Kodaks are the way to go in my opinion, there cheap, easy to fix, and have a great deal of bellows extension. Ive been metering so that my exposures or around 1 sec and just cap un cap for exposure, seems to work well. Too bad there is no 8x10 speed graphic, I use the SG for 4x5 and vintage barrel lenses for most of my current work, now Im giving 8x10 a go and am happy with the Kodak!

Andrew Plume
7-Aug-2010, 08:37
I just picked up a Eastman Kodak 8x10 with the back extension for use with a 450 f9 Carl Zeiss Jena. The GG is horribly dim compared to both of Tachiharas but I am excited about it none the less, processing the first films tomorrow. The old Kodaks are the way to go in my opinion, there cheap, easy to fix, and have a great deal of bellows extension. Ive been metering so that my exposures or around 1 sec and just cap un cap for exposure, seems to work well. Too bad there is no 8x10 speed graphic, I use the SG for 4x5 and vintage barrel lenses for most of my current work, now Im giving 8x10 a go and am happy with the Kodak!

Hi Sam

I experienced a similar issue with the GG, when comparing a Kodak to a Tachihara

My experience with the Tachi's is that the GG used is pretty bright and more so when a fresnel is added. I solved my Kodak problem by purchasing a Tachi fresnel from Mid West Cameras, so I now have fresnels permanently installed for both my Kodak and Tachi 8x10's

fwiw, my take on the Eastman and Kodak's is that they're cheap because they have fairly limited movements but that's just my opinion

andrew

D. Bryant
7-Aug-2010, 16:14
Question for you large format vintage lens geek/knobs.

Which 8x10 folding camera would you suggest to use so I can have a group of Vintage Lenses adapted to fit on the front lens board.

I really don't care about looks , weight or ebony polish , just a good working camera that could hold these lenses.

Price is a concern as well.

I would look for a Folmer-Schwing Bob. About 10-12 years ago I used to borrow one from a friend and found it quite usable. Unfortunately when he passed away his son packed all of the gear up and moved out of state. I never knew what happened to the camera. I always wanted to purchase it.

It worked very well and the back was detachable so it could have easily been setup to do wet-plate. I wouldn't call it my dream 8x10 but it was still nice to work with once you understood the quirks of the beast.

Don Bryant