Calumet C-1, any weak spot?

[cyberjunkie]

Looking for a bigger format for contact printing, and with the idea in mind that "fewer, but bigger" reversal film pictures is not a bad thing at all, i have decided to buy my first 8x10 camera some time ago.
Unfortunately the project of adapting a Sinar/Copal shutter, and fixing a few smaller things, on my De Vere behemoth, is taking too long, so i realized that buying another cheap camera for outdoor use would be a nice idea. Doing so would also allow me to shoot some of the expired film i recently purchased before the winter comes! :)
Some of the films are color, and were kept refrigerated for a long time. Now i have no place for them in my frigidaire, so i think that shooting them soon would be better.
After some reading online, and after i watched a nice video about it on an italian LF site, i realized that one of the best options (within my budget) for outdoor shooting would be a Calumet C-1. In reality, i tried to acquire a Kodak 2D at first. Not so many movements, but it had the extension rail and was in very nice condition, with like-new red bellows, all the metal parts in good shape. Even the wood frame was in above-average conditions. Unfortunately i didn't win the auction, somebody else won by a very small margin :mad:
Unfortunately Deardorffs get sold for too much for my taste (and for my wallet), and most of the wooden cameras with extension rail, and front tilt and swing, aren't very cheap either. An additional problem for EU bidders like me, is to have to pay from 80 to 120 dollars for the cheapest trackable shipment option. That's why i settled for a 2D, it was nice and came from UK (not taxes and cheaper shipment).
Unfortunately i lost that bid, and after some further searching, i found a Calumet C-1, from a french ebayer.
The starting price was 250 euros, and no taxes to pay. So i decided that if nobody was willing to buy for more, i'd buy it for the starting price. So i did, even if the shipment was another 50 euros at least.
Strangely nobody else was interested, and i eventually won. A total of 300 euros for a Calumet C-1, not a present, not a bad deal either.
The camera is in black, so it's in aluminium, not magnesium. I'd be happier with a green one, cause the magnesium-made camera is still heavier than most wooden field cameras, but i wasn't given that choice, so i'll have to carry a weight that should be around 50% more.
The C-1 looks quite scratched in the black parts, but it looks not so beaten-up, and the owner assured that every part is still there (no missing knobs) and that every movement works the way it should. The camera is said to have no "play" on the extension rails, and it comes with two lensboards.

That's all i know, as i still have to get it.
Any general advice is welcome, but i am specifically asking if the camera has some weak spot, something to look for when i get it.
What i know already is that it allows for a lot of bellows extension, something good for close focusing with my long process lenses. Another thing i have read is that it's not very easy to use with wide-angles, because the focusing must be done only with the rear standard, and when it gets too far forward, the rear rail stands in the way.
From what i understand, it's not possible to avoid extending the back rail. If there is a way, or if there is some kind of setting that's not so easy to find out, please let me know.
I understand that the C-1 it's not the first choice for working with wide-angles (something i like to do), and that it doesn't fold as neatly as a clamshell-shaped wooden camera, but even with its substantial weight it's still a lot easier to carry than my De Vere!
Unfortunately the british camera has a one-piece rail, very heavy and very bulky, and the only way to carry it, is in a trunk of a car (disassembled, because if you want to carry it in a ready-to-shoot state, you should find first an extra-size case, probably only a custom made one would do).
In the end, the more i think about my new purchase, the more i think that there are good chances that i will eventually be satisfied with my new camera.
If i will not enjoy it very much, there are good chances that i will get back what i payed, or at least have a minor loss.
What makes me mad is that i am going to have another kind of lensboards :mad:
I have already some lenses that are still on Technika III boards, but most have already migrated to Technika IV "standard" lensboards, that are easy match for my Kardan 4x5 (the Bi-System came with the adapter). I am also making a similar adapter for the De Vere, as i have many De Vere/Sinar boards, and the ugliest is going to be "customized" in a way that reminds the Tech IV > Kardan adapter.
The Bi even had another home-made adapter, so the boards of my old Fatif 13x18 can be placed on the Linhof... at least until each and every lens will be on Tech IV boards.
Now i will also have a Deardorff-type, and that it's happening at the same time i am starting to experience the advantages of simplification: i have decided for big barrel lenses on Sinar boards, fine-tuned to be as close as possible to the Sinar shutter, and lenses in-shutter fitted to standard Linhof-Wista boards.
I suppose that the best way out would be to sacrifice one of the two boards that will come with the C-1, and have it transformed in a Linhof-Wista adapter.
That would not solve the problem with the big glasses. The nice thing about Kardan lensboards is that they are so big that any other kind of boards can be adapted, but Sinar's and Calumet-Deardorff's look very close dimensionally, so i guess that a Sinar > Deardorff wouldn't be so easy to make, with the possibility that they would be too close dimensionally to allow for an adapter (at least with my limited technical resources).
Maybe i am wrong, so i am asking for any advice, including plain old common sense.
To put it simply, any kind of suggestion, expecially by C-1 present/past owners, is more than welcome. ANY thing that comes to your mind, not only about the few subjects i have mentioned.
I am sure it would be of great interest for many, either would-be owners, or simply those that are trying to understand which second-hand 8x10" camera would suit their needs.

have fun

CJ

[Merg Ross]

The Calumet C-1 is a camera for serious photographers, those who prefer making images to those who talk shop. Brett Weston used one for years and some of his best images were made with that camera.

It is not fancy,typical of Calumet design, and it is heavier than some brands. However, it is a practical camera with good movements. I have mine adapted with a Sinar/Copal shutter and wooden lensboards that I made for my barrel lenses. All of my lenses for this camera are in barrel.

I think you will find the C-1 to perform well. Have fun!

[Curt]

I too have one, I asked Kim Weston about his camera and it is indeed Brett Weston's camera, his wife told me as I recall.

The camera is not a light weight but it has all the features a person could want in a view camera. For Yousuf karsh it was his favorite camera.

http://www.karsh.org/#

I make my own lensboards for it.

[cyberjunkie]

I have mine adapted with a Sinar/Copal shutter and wooden lensboards that I made for my barrel lenses. All of my lenses for this camera are in barrel.



Thanks for your reply.
If you have the chance to take a picture of the adapter you made, i could find some inspiration.
My Sinar shutter got damaged during shipment, and got stuck after i tried to operate it.
I will have it checked, in the meantime is back to work, as i could fix it in a very simple way.
For the adaptation on my De Vere Multipurpose 8x10 (early seventies), i found out that the shutter to lensboard distance is not exaclty the same as in Sinar cameras, and that if the shutter is mounted with a rotation of 90 degrees, the bellows frame could be machined in a way that should allow to fit it to the Sinar shutter.
I brought to the machinist a beaten-up bag bellows as a test, if it works well i will have the same work done to the standard bellows.
It would be perfect to be able to adapt the Sinar/Copal to the C-1 as well, but i must find a "removable" solution, that would allow to use the same shutter on both cameras. That's why i would be very interested on the adapter you devised.
I don't have a Packard, and i am not keen on buying one cause i think that they are selling for too much lately. A Thornton-Pickard "curtain" shutter could be found for a more competitive price here in EU, if you're lucky, but those i have seen have a "hole" of reduced diameter, and are more a collector's than a user's item.
There are other options, for example a Silens shutter, that is somewhat easier to find, at least in Italy, but the example i have at home is quite big, and i am afraid that it would be impossible to fit it behind the lens.
All in all, if there is way to conveniently adapt the Sinar/Copal, it could be THE solution. The sad thing is that it could well be bejond my technical capabilities, if the adapter is not quite simple.

thanks again

CJ

[Merg Ross]

CJ, I slightly modified the Calumet lensboard and attached the Sinar/Copal shutter directly to that board. So,the shutter is not interchangeable with another camera. I should also mention, that I disabeled the function of the shutter to operate from the groundglass side, as the shutter was originally designed to function. In otherwords, I set the shutter speed and the lens manually. The Sinar/Copal took the place of a Packard shutter that I had used for years on my other 8x10's. It, as you probably know, is very accurate and I prefer it to the Packard.

[DanK]

I also had the black version of the C-1....

In my opinion, they are well built, and the controls lock tight, friction based - large lenses are not a problem for the C-1, and the lens boards are often found cast, my sturdiest tripods looked small under the C-1.

The weakest points - beyond the weight, were the plastic knobs for locking controls (they are four sided and can easily be broken usually one of the four ears).....and the rear extension rail (which slides out) was not as sturdy as one would expect (based on the construction of the main portion of the body) ...

I have since sold mine and reduced to 5x7 2D's....and 4x5 monorails....

All in all, the C-1 is a very good 8x10 for the price, and I would purchase another if I weren't content with 4x5 and 5x7...

Thanks,
Dan

[Jim Galli]

I recently purchased a green monster for evaluation. It looks as though a 6 1/2 or perhaps even 7 inch Packard can be mounted inside the camera on the verso of the front bulkhead quite easily.

That solves a couple of problems. #1, a shutter is waiting for any lens you cobble up front. #2 the black felt on the front of the sutter is a nice light seal, and you can make wooden lens boards easily then.

The only drawback seen compared to my venerable war horse 2D is that the Kodak has perhaps 1/4" of wiggle room between the Packard and the back of the lens board that I always seem to be using, ie. the rear of the lens can stick in past the lens board up to 1/4 inch. It looks as though they'll have to be pretty flush with the Green Monster. I plan to put some giants on the front like Dallmeyer 4A and Cooke 18" Series II Knuckler and maybe even the 405mm Kodak Portrait that the 2D cannot do. Trying to get a few more lenses out of the studio and into the field. We shall see. Anybody got a 7" Packard in decent shape?

[Lynn Jones]

Hi Cyberjunkie,

At risk of have a strong bias, I was one of the creators of the C1 camera and we designed it as a magnesium camera, came in about about 13 1/2 lbs. In aluminum version it was a bit over 20 lbs. We created the lensboard to be identical to the Deardorff board, my friend the late Jack Deardorff gave me that information. It is the smothest focusing LF camera ever, has a maximum of 35" bellows draw, with recessed adapter and super recessed board it can focus to infinity with a 90mm lens. A reversible 5x7 back and a 360 degree 4x5 back were available. Calumet went to aluminum which we hated because certain federal entities felt that machining magnesium could be dangerous (it could be unless you know how to do it, which Ben Booko did).

Regarding the fact that Brett Weston used it, that is true. Brett and I were friends from the early 1960's until his death, in fact my youngest son was named Brett after him. I gave him the camera with all the accessories and a full set of Caltar (US made) lenses for test, he loved the system and so I gave him a "No Charge" invoice.

Bill Ryan, me (Lynn Jones), Ben Booko, and owner, Ken Becker created the camera in 1965 for release in 1966.

Lynn

[John Schneider]

Calumet went to aluminum which we hated because certain federal entities felt that machining magnesium could be dangerous.

Yep, I've seen the aftermath of machining an Apache helicopter tailrotor gearbox when the coolant supply stopped :eek:

Lynn, which model came in magnesium: the black or the green version?

[Merg Ross]

Hi Cyberjunkie,

At risk of have a strong bias, I was one of the creators of the C1 camera and we designed it as a magnesium camera, came in about about 13 1/2 lbs. In aluminum version it was a bit over 20 lbs. We created the lensboard to be identical to the Deardorff board, my friend the late Jack Deardorff gave me that information. It is the smothest focusing LF camera ever, has a maximum of 35" bellows draw, with recessed adapter and super recessed board it can focus to infinity with a 90mm lens. A reversible 5x7 back and a 360 degree 4x5 back were available. Calumet went to aluminum which we hated because certain federal entities felt that machining magnesium could be dangerous (it could be unless you know how to do it, which Ben Booko did).

Regarding the fact that Brett Weston used it, that is true. Brett and I were friends from the early 1960's until his death, in fact my youngest son was named Brett after him. I gave him the camera with all the accessories and a full set of Caltar (US made) lenses for test, he loved the system and so I gave him a "No Charge" invoice.

Bill Ryan, me (Lynn Jones), Ben Booko, and owner, Ken Becker created the camera in 1965 for release in 1966.

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for the Calumet information; I have three of them, (also two 4x5's), and they work as well as the day they were new.

Shortly after Brett received the C-1, he and I were photographing at Point Lobos. He was really excited with the camera and lenses and invited me to make a few exposures with the system. I was likewise impressed, and recall Brett mentioning that it was gratis from Calumet.

Afterward, I spread the word among my colleagues to purchase Calumet cameras and Caltar lenses; many of them did.

[Jim Noel]

It is a work horse.
As for lens boards, get one board and make an adapter for those Linhof style boards you have and the problem is solved.

[Scott Davis]

As legend has it, all black C-1s are aluminum. Some green ones are magnesium, some are not. I'm sure Lynn can clarify/correct this. I used to have a green magnesium C-1. Great camera, but a beast to haul around because of the weight. I swapped it out for a Zone VI Ultralight, which comes in at a hair under 10 lbs. I'm not shooting 8x10 anymore, but the C-1 was a great camera while I had it, but I felt it was better suited to the studio because of its design quirks (tailboard, weight).

[Lynn Jones]

Hj John and Merg,

I left the company to be VP of Celestron but the "turquoise" color was magnesium. Exactly when the new owners changed the color, I don't know but there is a small chance that a few of the black cameras may have been magnesium.

For you technical types, the secret of machining mag is to "take a big chip". Mag is a relatively soft metal and a highly hardened milling cutter can take a very mooth cut while taking out chips the size of a small grain of rice. We created several hundred of the magnesium cameras before going to aluminum. Mag is 30% lighter than aluminum, aluminum is 30% lighter than steel. That is why we did it this way. We used carefully designed sand castings and didn't need a great deal of machining. Our mgr of manufacturing (Ben Booko) was a genius at sand casting. I think is was 3M which created the coating for machined mag parts so that they wouldn't deteriorate.

With mag, we never reduce it to powder, it is flammable, and explosive. Remember that flash powder is 50% powdered magnesium and 50% potassium nitrate.

Lynn

[Jon Shiu]

It is a very nice sturdy camera. There are a few things about it: it has a long rail sticking out in the back, so that when using a short focal length lens, there is a rail sticking into your neck; the tripod base is such that it requires a large tripod plate, ie 4x5 inches, or a metal plate added to be stable; one time when pointing it down and tilting the back, I had a problem with not being able to open the back enough to get the film holder in because of lack of clearance; there are no zero detents for the tilts; the tabs that keep the rail up in a folded position broke off; I had the green magnesium model, but I found it a bit heavy to hike around with.

Jon

[Merg Ross]

Hj John and Merg,

I left the company to be VP of Celestron but the "turquoise" color was magnesium. Exactly when the new owners changed the color, I don't know but there is a small chance that a few of the black cameras may have been magnesium.

Lynn

Lynn, hi again--

Very interesting. I have often wondered about my C-1. It is black and weighs about 14 lbs. In several places where it is worn, I can see turquoise. Do you suppose that I have one of the few black magnesium C-1 cameras?

[Curt]

Mine is black and Magnesium, I know, it's Krylon and when I stripped it I decided that matching the green was out so it's now black.

[Jim Galli]

Mine is black and Magnesium, I know, it's Krylon and when I stripped it I decided that matching the green was out so it's now black.


Black!!??! You could have painted it candy apple red with flames, and you just did black?? Curt, where's your imagination!

[Curt]

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for the Calumet information; I have three of them, (also two 4x5's), and they work as well as the day they were new.

Shortly after Brett received the C-1, he and I were photographing at Point Lobos. He was really excited with the camera and lenses and invited me to make a few exposures with the system. I was likewise impressed, and recall Brett mentioning that it was gratis from Calumet.

Afterward, I spread the word among my colleagues to purchase Calumet cameras and Caltar lenses; many of them did.

I also have two Calumet 4x5's like the one you were using in the video. Did you take off the two stainless steel locking clips for the rail? I haven't but it takes two fingers to get the locks unhooked and then hope that it doesn't come done on the glasses, I have to keep my head up. I was thinking about using only one. What do you think?

Curt

[Merg Ross]

I also have two Calumet 4x5's like the one you were using in the video. Did you take off the two stainless steel locking clips for the rail? I haven't but it takes two fingers to get the locks unhooked and then hope that it doesn't come done on the glasses, I have to keep my head up. I was thinking about using only one. What do you think?

Curt

Curt, I found the rail locks convenient for quick setup when released; at least the one at the rear. Just pinch them between thumb and index finger. Perhaps I am not understanding your question; which one would you remove?

Merg

[Merg Ross]

Mine is black and Magnesium, I know, it's Krylon and when I stripped it I decided that matching the green was out so it's now black.

Okay, it was green and Magnesium before you stripped it, and it is now black and Magnesium. Is that correct?

[D. Bryant]

It is a very nice sturdy camera. There are a few things about it: it has a long rail sticking out in the back, so that when using a short focal length lens, there is a rail sticking into your neck; the tripod base is such that it requires a large tripod plate, ie 4x5 inches, or a metal plate added to be stable; one time when pointing it down and tilting the back, I had a problem with not being able to open the back enough to get the film holder in because of lack of clearance; there are no zero detents for the tilts; the tabs that keep the rail up in a folded position broke off; I had the green magnesium model, but I found it a bit heavy to hike around with.

Jon

My experiences with the C1 mirror Jon's. Tail piece in your face or mouth. Front standard is fixed (which I really hated). I added an aluminum plate to the base to allow firm solid mounting to a tripod, I can't understand who would design the base the way it was.

I too had both models aluminum and magnesium. I did like having a geared front rise. I also owned the recessed lens board with the 100mm lens board opening. This was very fortuitous since I could use Wisner lens boards in it. This allowed me to used a 90 mm SA for use with the 5x7 back.

All in all I ended up hating the camera and was glad to see it leave (both copies). In my opinion it is a deeply flawed camera especially by modern standards. It is a a green monster.

Don Bryant

[Captain_joe6]

The only weak link I've found is with the mechanism that locks the rear extension track. The plates that clamp down on the extension track and the screws that go into them are different metals, and will tend to bind very badly under big swings in temperature. I had mine in a cooler in the car, where it had gotten warm, and brought it out into a cold fall day, and about 5 minutes later, both screws were seized.

I replaced mine with steel screws and plates after enough broken screws.

[Curt]

Well it was always a green magnesium model, and yes Jim I had no imagination when I decided to paint it. It was in the winter and cold in the shop, I remember thinking about the color but when I got to the hardware store I caved in and went for plain old back.

I thought to myself I can have any color I want as long as it's black. Private Joke here, right Ford? Red would have been great, now that I think about it I might even do that one day. Flames, who knows? Maybe some yellow flames?

Merg that's what I'm talking about, the rail locks, I still have them installed an probably will leave them alone. Otherwise the rail won't have any way to stay up until needed. In the video Brett lets the rail down so fast that I believe he took the locks off, I don't see him releasing them but it doesn't matter. It's just something I saw and wondered about. He must have been quite a man to put the C1 on a tripod then over the shoulder and carry it around. Do you do that, mount it and carry it around?

Yes it's now black and has always been magnesium. I have the 5x7 reduction back too and some cast lens boards along with some wood boards I've made. I have to agree about the base, I used a piece of aircraft grade aluminum plate to make a base plate that covers the original. I drilled and tapped the holes for 1/4 20 and 3/8 16. I can't imagine using the 1/4 20, that's too small but that's another story. With the base plate I feel it's more solid of a mount.

Other than it being a tailboard camera I don't have any major problems with mine. It has new bellows, I bought the camera used but someone got a new Calumet C1 bellows and put it on a kinda used and dirty camera, go figure. Now it's very easy on the eyes and fun to use, especially with the the 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar lens or my 19" Red Dot Artar or the TR convertible which I can actually convert, long bellows.

Some day I want to get a nice Petzval lens for it and have some real fun, maybe do some Carbon Transfer prints from Petzval negatives.

Curt

[Merg Ross]

Merg that's what I'm talking about, the rail locks, I still have them installed an probably will leave them alone. Otherwise the rail won't have any way to stay up until needed. In the video Brett lets the rail down so fast that I believe he took the locks off, I don't see him releasing them but it doesn't matter. It's just something I saw and wondered about. He must have been quite a man to put the C1 on a tripod then over the shoulder and carry it around. Do you do that, mount it and carry it around?

Curt

Hi again, Curt. I misunderstood your rail lock query and was addressing the 4x5 Calumet while you were speaking of the C-1. Yes, the rail locks on the C-1 did not work well and I use a strong rubberband instead. I think that Brett also modified his with something more elegant. He was not only an excellent photographer but also a pretty fair machinist.

There have been remarks about mounting the C-1 to a tripod head. Bear in mind that Brett used a clamshell Baco Hollywood head with an approximate 5"x6" surface area. I have his old Baco head and use it on my C-1.

My opening comments to this thread address my opinions about the C-1; it was designed for the serious working photographer, not the dilettante.

No, I don't carry the C-1 over the shoulder, only my old woodie Agfa/Ansco with a Luc shutter. Just a tad lighter than the C-1 with Sinar/Copal shutter.

Merg

[Marco]

I have a Sinar F2 8x10 and a Calumet C1, and recently I'm using the C1 more and more, I really like its "simplicity" and "easy" of use, I have the impression that this allows me to better concentrate on composition, maybe not as "precise" as the Sinar but I really like my green monster...

I am the author of the italian video you metioned (btw: thank you for the kind words!), if you understand italian I've covered the main things/issues in that video, plus you just had great advices here on the forum...but there's one thing I did not mention, i.e. one of the weak point of the C1 for me is that is not easy to evaluate the perfect parallelism of the front and back standards, there are a couple of "marks" but I preferred addying a bubble level on the front standard (the back has a very small one on the top, very close to the handle, but again, it is very difficult to watch the back bubble level, I use a mirror for this purpose)...in a word: not the best camera for the "zero" position of the front and back standards...

Ciao!!

Marco

[Michael Kadillak]

I own four 8x10 cameras including a black C1 and every one of them has a unique set of positive and negative components that vary based upon the personality of the person using it. My other cameras include a Linhof Color Karden, a Toyo 810 and a Canham 8x10/8x20 that take Toyo lens boards so I had the Calumet converted to accept the same lens board.

The weight is not that big a deal because the compromise is improved stability particularly with some wind in the mix. For lenses between 17 and 30 inches this is the perfect instrument since the base can be adjusted to balance it over a tripod. Short lenses can be challenging and I usually use the Toyo or the Canham but I could turn it on its side if necessary. The bellows do not sag, the ground glass has a nice snap to it and it locks down nicely. Unfortunately early on I listened to a few folks tell me that this is not a very good camera. When I found one in like new condition at a price that I could not resist I learned that this is in fact a fabulous camera and I felt fortunate to have learned this valuable lesson.

[Louis Pacilla]

All Field & view camera's have weak points as well as strong ones. At least thats my experience. You just buy it & with enough use you will find work a rounds for the weak points & you'll appreciate the strong ones.

You may want to not over thinking to much it go ahead & buy a nice C1. Buy one that looks NICE you will have to pay a bit more(If it looks beat up it is). You'll be happy enough. Just keep things in perspective. If you just don't like it. Sale the damn thing & try another 8x10 camera.

IMHO - This may be one of the best fairly inexpensive fairly modren 8x10 cameras that can be had (in nice shape ) for under $500.

Take the price point into account when judging the weak points . If you want a current 8x10 with MAYBE less weak points. your looking at $2500-up to $10.000.

[Curt]

All Field & view camera's have weak points as well as strong ones. At least thats my experience. You just buy it & with enough use you will find work a rounds for the weak points & you'll appreciate the strong ones.

You may want to not over thinking to much it go ahead & buy a nice C1. Buy one that looks NICE you will have to pay a bit more(If it looks beat up it is). You'll be happy enough. Just keep things in perspective. If you just don't like it. Sale the damn thing & try another 8x10 camera.

IMHO - This may be one of the best fairly inexpensive fairly modren 8x10 cameras that can be had (in nice shape ) for under $500.

Take the price point into account when judging the weak points . If you want a current 8x10 with MAYBE less weak points. your looking at $2500-up to $10.000.

That about sums it up, when set up it is solid and at that point you will see why you use it. For the money it's hard to beat. I have a Seneca and Kodak 2D, the C1 is the most solid of the three, it's heavy but built well. I agree, the price escalates rapidly when as you move on to more current models.

[Len Middleton]

Back to the question of the OP, the green one I owned had damaged bellows and they did sag and did vignet the image if they were not rasied up.

I did make a Technika to C1 adapter board using a C1 board with a big opening in it and part of a front standard from a Technika bolted onto it. It worked well.

I did not have it long enough to get used to the rear focus aspect. And yes the rear rail extension did get in the way.

And thanks Lyn. Those C1 boards do work nice on my Dorff V8 that I replaced it with, although sometimes I have needed to sand the corner radius to get it to fit into the opening on the Dorff. Great for use with lenses like a 600/f9 Apo-Ronar when there is not much left of that 6x6 dimension after it is hogged out to fit the mounting flange. For that situation, I much prefer metal over wood.

Certainly great value, well built, and have all the needed movements. One could easily do much worse.

Oh the weak point? Likely your back... :D

Hope that helps,

Len

[venchka]

9-11-2010.........

I walked in to my favorite camera store, Houston Camera Co-Op, after a pleasant morning of 4x5 and dSLR (gasp!) photography. I was greeted by the sight of large green camera on a tripod displayed prominently in front of the cash register. I knew from the front door what it was. Yep. A Calumet C-1. It even had a lens mounted on the board. All I could read on the lens was Rodenstock MC 300/1:9. A working package. Almost. The price was $629. It was tough, but I left it there for someone with the time and space and inclination for such an investment in perserverance and love.

[Ernest Purdum]

Once upon a time I was driving along in Los Angeles, listening to the traffic reports, when I heard that the San Diego Freeway was blocked because a bar of magnesium had fallen off a truck. Should I tell them to just go pick it up? No - Somebody will. Wrong. It stayed right there until a private hazardous materials firm was given a contract to remove it. I couldn't believe that fire departments wouldn't know that magnesium in solid form is no hazard.

(If I've told everybody this story before, I apologize, but I think it's a great story.)

[cyberjunkie]

Hi again, Curt. I misunderstood your rail lock query and was addressing the 4x5 Calumet while you were speaking of the C-1. Yes, the rail locks on the C-1 did not work well and I use a strong rubberband instead. I think that Brett also modified his with something more elegant. He was not only an excellent photographer but also a pretty fair machinist.
Merg

I have finally got my camera.
One of the two side "locks", the two flexible metal springs that are probably meant to lock the rail when folded, is broken.
I don't know if this is the reason why the rail can't be fixed in vertical position.
From previous posts i get that even when the two flexible things are in place, the rail can't be locked firmly. Is it true?
I thought about fixing the rail with a strong rubber band, even before i could read the same advice in a previous post, but i don't know if this could be a problem, because that way the rail would rest on the lever that relieves the back, allowing for the insertion of film holders.
I guess that if i fix in place the rail with a rubber band, or some kind of belt, when the camera is stored on its back, with the front standard up, the total weight of the camera will rest on the back release lever. Is it safe?
The best choice would be to store the camera sitting on its tripod block, but that would be impratical, at least until i find a case of the right size.
I am even thinking about having the broken spring redone, if i can find a sheet of steel of the right thickness, but i would like to know first if that would make any difference.

any advice is welcomed

have fun

CJ

[David Lindquist]

I have finally got my camera.
One of the two side "locks", the two flexible metal springs that are probably meant to lock the rail when folded, is broken.
I don't know if this is the reason why the rail can't be fixed in vertical position.
From previous posts i get that even when the two flexible things are in place, the rail can't be locked firmly. Is it true?
I thought about fixing the rail with a strong rubber band, even before i could read the same advice in a previous post, but i don't know if this could be a problem, because that way the rail would rest on the lever that relieves the back, allowing for the insertion of film holders.
I guess that if i fix in place the rail with a rubber band, or some kind of belt, when the camera is stored on its back, with the front standard up, the total weight of the camera will rest on the back release lever. Is it safe?
The best choice would be to store the camera sitting on its tripod block, but that would be impratical, at least until i find a case of the right size.
I am even thinking about having the broken spring redone, if i can find a sheet of steel of the right thickness, but i would like to know first if that would make any difference.

any advice is welcomed

have fun

CJ

On my C-1 I used a bungee cord (rather than a large rubber band. I wrapped a few turns of electrical tape around the spots on the back release lever where they contacted the rear bed extension.
David