Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Brian Puccio]

Hi guys, we just posted an update: the Travelwide will ship with a pinhole. So even if every 90mm lens in the world disappears, you'll still be able to make images.

Keep in mind that we're at the same price point as Ilford's pinhole box camera, but the Travelwide is substantially better in a number of ways. Travelwide actually makes a great pinhole camera.

Actually, the only option I see for the Harman Titan is the $220 kit (price at B&H, it's $255 at Freestyle), which also includes some film and direct positive paper. Though I had no interest in either the film or paper, I still spent more than twice as much as the cost of your Wanderlust TravelWide. I was thinking of hacking a 90mm onto my Titan (fixed hyperfocal, though I thought about buying a helical from fotoman on eBay) but your TravelWide does so much more for less. Thanks again.

[Kuzano]

Regarding number on Schneider 90 6.8 lenses on eBay...

There are currently 4 listed... not all that inexpensive, but I am a moderately active eBay buyer/seller.. mostly camera gear. I do not find the prices surprising as I have been getting considerably MORE for large format gear now than five years ago. Prices are going up. Money is loosening up. However, half of my large format sales are international. Interesting that people around the Pacific Rim and Eastern Europe are paying more, and more often than people in the US.

If you want one of these... loosen up.

Now, as for numbers .... Yes they come up quite regularly. If you actually log into eBay and look at the COMPLETED Listing, there have been approximately 27 Schneider 90mm f6.8 sold in the last 60 days. Also I filtered out the word SUPER so these sold listings are the lens talked about here.

So, that's over 30 of these lenses in the last TWO months.

If one takes into consideration all the other small lens/shutter combinations, new or used in the 90mm size (and a few oddball focal lengths like an 88 I had for a while), I don't see where anyone interested in this camera is going to be excluded from finding a lens that will work.

The Rodenstock Geronar comes in a 90 and there are some in that smaller format right now on eBay. 3 Active listings and 4 sold in the last 60 days (1 as low as $100, guaranteed in excellent optical and cosmetic condition, no scratches, marks, etc.)

Georg Leitmeyr Munchen 90mm f6.8 Weitwinkel one on ebay.

Lens supply is NOT a problem. I am always able to find a lens for one project or another.

I have to say, I am not a wide angle shooter, so the follow up with a 65 is not interesting, but I would love to see one of these camera's at 125mm-127mm. The inventory of Rodenstock Ysarex in Polaroid shutters, which can be purchased whole with Pathfinder cameras for around $75-100, has been plentiful and I've used this lens/shutter (VERY compact) and been happy with the results. But that's just another fantasy for now.

[Francisco J. Fernández]

where can I buy it? thanks

[Ben Syverson]

where can I buy it? thanks
Hi Francisco! Try this link:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wanderlust/travelwide-45-camera

[WayneStevenson]

"I see these 90s come up all the time. There are a lot more than 750 of them out there."

I am sure there are, and I do know how often they come up. I shopped for my 90mm for awhile before I was able to scoop one up. I do argue however the thought that there is some sort of abundance of these. I don't think we are going to see hundreds of these lenses magically become available on the used market simply to meet the needs of a newly release camera body or two.

[Ben Syverson]

Well, I hope you're wrong Wayne, and I guess we can leave it at that.

[Oren Grad]

Ben and Justin don't need to have 750 90mm Angulons come out of the woodwork. What they need is to find 750 buyers who will use the camera with a 90 Angulon, or another 90, or a 65, or a pinhole, or use it as the foundation for some other DIY hack. Although still a stretch, that's a much more plausible proposition.

Ben, congratulations on a terrific start! Here's hoping...

[Brian Puccio]

Ben and Justin don't need to have 750 90mm Angulons come out of the woodwork. What they need is to find 750 buyers who will use the camera with a 90 Angulon, or another 90, or a 65, or a pinhole, or use it as the foundation for some other DIY hack. Although still a stretch, that's a much more plausible proposition.

750 90mm Angulons don't need to show up today, the number is not only less because people will tinker with other things (such as a 90mm f/8 from Schneider or Fuji or some other sort of lens -- I'm in this category) but because everyone has several months to source their lens. Assuming half or 375 people want 90mm Angulons and don't have one, and I think that number is a very high, that's 41 lenses per month, April through December.

[rfesk]

I already have a nice 90mm Angulon - Others may already have the lens.

Plus I have a recently CLA'd Kodak 100/6.3 Widefield that could be made to work most likely.

[Larry Kellogg]

How about a poll that asks how many of the current supporters already have a lens?

[BarryS]

I am sorry, I don't need this camera...

No worries, apparently there's another Randy Moe already backing this project. :D

[Tin Can]

Same guy, he changed his mind with the addition of the pinhole...


No worries, apparently there's another Randy Moe already backing this project. :D

[Tracy Storer]

Ben and Justin had it figured out perfectly in my opinion. Whatever the poll here shows, actual supporters have ordered the 90 over the 65 at a rate of over 5 to 1. (quick calculation just now INCLUDING those that ordered both, if you subtract those, the ratio of 90 preference goes WAY up)
Nothing against 65, but it's probably too wide for most of us.
As for another poll asking who's already got a lens? Who cares? Many of us do already have one and there are probably thousands of similar lenses that will fit. The fellows did their advance legwork, now they get to breath a little while they wait to watch the $ go up. Congratulations on a well thought out concept, I am keeping my fingers crossed it happens.

[Vascilli]

It's nice to see those of us in Canada will get something extra in the box to compensate for shipping. :D But what will it be... hmm.

[anglophone1]

Good news, of course launched when I was on the road for 24 hours and missed "early bird" ( actually us europeans never get early bird due to time difference- black mark!)
Nonetheless you have my pledge!
C

[Neal Chaves]

Ben,

Have a look at my post on the Big Shot Camera here.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101865-Head-and-shoulders-portraits-with-TRF-Graphics

I think there would be a good market for 4X5 version of the Polaroid Big Shot, with a combined range and viewfinder and a focus mount for 210mm lens. Any number of 210mm lenses could be mounted and adjusted to focus at exactly the point of RF image match with a simple slide-in ground glass. Then the focus mount could be locked down with a set screw.

Your 90mm version could do Big Shot duty now with slide in roll film or digital backs if you can work out the RF and VF issues.

Neal

[Chris A Fraser]

Something for Canadians? Did I miss that? Cool if its true.

[Bill L.]

Will the spring back fit a polaroid 405 pack film holder? I'd love to use this with Fuji pack film.

[Corran]

I was also wondering that. I think you can take off the spring back and use some elastic bands to stick the 405 on there, at the very least.

[Tracy Storer]

I was also wondering that. I think you can take off the spring back and use some elastic bands to stick the 405 on there, at the very least.

I think they say exactly this in the intro video on KS

[Ben Syverson]

I think they say exactly this in the intro video on KS
Yeah, it turns out that it's very difficult to design a compact 4x5 back. The most compatible option is Graflex, but it would really increase the size and cost of the camera. Now instead of a simple back and one metal spring, you need large angled wings to the top and bottom of the back, with sliding metal tongues. It would be a larger, $129 camera instead.

We figured that most people would be using standard film holders, so that was our target. However, we wanted to make it easy to adapt. That's why we opted to attach the spring back with three standard phillips head screws. You can easily remove the spring and reattach it in the field if needed. Once it's off, you can use heavy rubber bands or ball bungees (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-ball-bungees.html) to attach nearly any 4x5 back ever made. I haven't yet encountered an incompatible back.

Once the alternate back is attached, odds are it will be heavier and/or larger than the rest of the camera combined, so it makes sense to hold it by the back. I've done this with the Calumet roll film holder and the Fuji QuickLoad holder. It works well!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-c2.jpg

[Bill L.]

I kind of figured I'd have to do that, but never hurts to ask. Just wanted to avoid attaching and detaching the spring back repeatedly if I could avoid it.

[Light Guru]

You can easily remove the spring and reattach it in the field if needed. Once it's off, you can use heavy rubber bands or ball bungees (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-ball-bungees.html) to attach nearly any 4x5 back ever made. I haven't yet encountered an incompatible back.

You can send me mine early and ill test it with my grafmatic film holders and report back.

[drew.saunders]

Ben,

What's the "shutter" for the pinhole option? That's not explained well on the Kickstarter page. Is it "BYO hat" or is some attached cover provided? I might want the 65mm just for pinhole work. Also, would the 65mm come with its own "corrected" speed finder?

Thanks!

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,

What's the "shutter" for the pinhole option? That's not explained well on the Kickstarter page. Is it "BYO hat" or is some attached cover provided? I might want the 65mm just for pinhole work. Also, would the 65mm come with its own "corrected" speed finder?

Thanks!
Hi Drew!

It depends on how much we make. If we barely make our goal, we may have to ship the cameras with a loose pinhole plate that the user tapes to the camera. In that case, they can fashion whatever "shutter" they want (probably a flap of tape).

However, if we can do the custom pinhole cap, it will come with its own lens cap. So you can use that cap as a shutter.

The 65 will come with the same sport finder as the 90—neither are amazingly accurate. With the 90, it will give you a general idea of the frame, and with the 65 it will give you a sense of the central 75% of the frame. For critical scenes, you can use the included plastic ground glass.

[Larry Kellogg]

By the way, have you guys shot any black and white with the camera? Could you post some shots? Also, which color film did you shoot, Portra 400? Somebody on photo.net complained that the Angulon renders colors like pastels, so they ditched the lens. I was thinking, huh, I like colors rendered as pastels, LOL.

Larry

[dave_whatever]

Somebody on photo.net complained that the Angulon renders colors like pastels, so they ditched the lens. I was thinking, huh, I like colors rendered as pastels, LOL.

Larry

I shot this with a 90 angulon, not seeing much pastel action there.

http://www.daveparryphotography.co.uk/imgs/gallery/19792/19792_1171468074e78e9764674d.jpg

Incidentally I shot this with no movements, stopping down to f/45 for full depth of field, so this is exactly the type of shot the travelwide would excel at.

[Larry Kellogg]

I shot this with a 90 angulon, not seeing much pastel action there.
Incidentally I shot this with no movements, stopping down to f/45 for full depth of field, so this is exactly the type of shot the travelwide would excel at.

Wow, nice shot! Is that Velvia 50? I was thinking to shoot only handheld with this but a really lightweight tripod would be great. I don't think I want to carry my Gitzo 1228 with the TravelWide. Any thoughts?

Oh, is there any sense in driving oneself crazy trying to find a newer Angulon versus an older one? Also, the whole Linhof badging thing has been dismissed by many people as a myth, that Linhof just checked the lenses to see if they met Schneider's specs, not some other, better spec.

[searover]

Ben,

You have my pledge, it looks a lot easier then dragging out my TK45 and wandering. It looks well designed and hopefully will get thousands into LF.

My question is what is the throw or distance of travel for the helical focus? And how does this attach to the body? Can the helical be removed for the use of the 65SA with it?

Thanks and congratulations on getting halfway there in three days!

I highly encourage all LF members get one...

John Allaman

[Ben Syverson]

Wow, nice shot! Is that Velvia 50? I was thinking to shoot only handheld with this but a really lightweight tripod would be great. I don't think I want to carry my Gitzo 1228 with the TravelWide. Any thoughts?

Oh, is there any sense in driving oneself crazy trying to find a newer Angulon versus an older one? Also, the whole Linhof badging thing has been dismissed by many people as a myth, that Linhof just checked the lenses to see if they met Schneider's specs, not some other, better spec.
I'm a big fan of the Gitzo Traveler tripod. Folds so small you can fit it into a side bag, and weighs about 2 pounds. Keep in mind that this thing is so light that any DSLR-grade tripod will work. I've used it with the medium Gorillapod several times.

All of the shots on the Kickstarter page were taken with an Angulon with a serial of 2.5 million, which puts it sometime in late 1950 or early 1951. I'm happy with the sharpness, but I've been testing a newer lens (7 million range) too. We also have a Linhof branded one from the same time. So far it seems like there's not much point in holding out for a new copy.

Regarding color—I shoot negative film, so the color, saturation and contrast can be adjusted ad infinitum when scanning or printing. I tend to like a fairly neutral rendering with a lot of detail in the shadows and highlights, so that gives a slightly pastel look by default. The lens itself does not have modern multicoatings, so when it's wide open, you'll also see a slight veiling flare that reduces contrast. Finally, our 3D printing process lets some light in (despite frantically taping it everywhere), so some of the haziness in our sample photos (especially in bright scenes) is probably due to the material.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,

You have my pledge, it looks a lot easier then dragging out my TK45 and wandering. It looks well designed and hopefully will get thousands into LF.

My question is what is the throw or distance of travel for the helical focus? And how does this attach to the body? Can the helical be removed for the use of the 65SA with it?

Thanks and congratulations on getting halfway there in three days!

I highly encourage all LF members get one...

John Allaman
Thanks, John!

The throw on the helical is a very generous 20mm. In order to make it durable, secure and light tight, the helical will either be screwed or glued into the body. We'd prefer to make it screwed, because it simplifies assembly. If it's screwed in, then there's a slight chance that the user would be able to unscrew the helical and screw on the 65 plate. But I must stress that this is completely hypothetical at this point, because we need to hear from the manufacturer whether it's cheaper in the end to do metal inserts or spend more time in assembly.

Thanks for helping to spread the word! Let's hope this momentum continues.

[Larry Kellogg]

Finally, our 3D printing process lets some light in (despite frantically taping it everywhere), so some of the haziness in our sample photos (especially in bright scenes) is probably due to the material.

Ah, ok, but the production camera will be light tight, right? ;-) Not that I'm against taping but it would be nice if everyone did not have to do that.

Larry

[Jim Becia]

Ben,

Not that I have any pull with Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer, but I emailed him hoping that he might mention it on his site. He responded back that they are "thinking about it." I am hoping that he puts up a post, it certainly would not hurt. I have also emailed Brooks Jensen (again, not that I have any pull) hoping he might give it a plug.

[Ben Syverson]

Ah, ok, but the production camera will be light tight, right? ;-) Not that I'm against taping but it would be nice if everyone did not have to do that.

Larry
No, that's just because of the 3D printing plastic we have to use. The production camera will probably be a high impact black polycarbonate, which is completely opaque. I will also have the inside of the camera textured so that it's not shiny and bouncing light everywhere.

Jim, thanks for emailing Mike! I emailed him before I launched, but I get the sense that he's burned out on Kickstarters, as all bloggers are.

[Ezzie]

I've a Fuji SW 90 mounted on a helical used on two different DIY cameras. If I need another dedicated 90mm camera is an open question, but since you added a pinhole to the offer I might let myself be convinced to give it a try. Well done Ben.

[rdenney]

Ben and Justin had it figured out perfectly in my opinion. Whatever the poll here shows, actual supporters have ordered the 90 over the 65 at a rate of over 5 to 1. (quick calculation just now INCLUDING those that ordered both, if you subtract those, the ratio of 90 preference goes WAY up)
Nothing against 65, but it's probably too wide for most of us.
As for another poll asking who's already got a lens? Who cares? Many of us do already have one and there are probably thousands of similar lenses that will fit. The fellows did their advance legwork, now they get to breath a little while they wait to watch the $ go up. Congratulations on a well thought out concept, I am keeping my fingers crossed it happens.

There will be one more 65 as soon as I get over losing my coveted (in my own mind) status as special deal orderer #1, and end up paying essentially twice as much for the 90mm version as I would have otherwise. But I'll get over it eventually, because I want the project to succeed. Maybe another week.

I suspect the number of backers will level off considerably as the pent-up interest is spent, so the need to promote this everywhere is just as high now as ever.

By the way, I have a 90mm Graflex Optar W.A. positioned for this application, and two (count 'em!) 65/8 Super Angulons, though only one in a reliable shutter. I also have a Blix rangefinder, a viewfinder, and a little (ancient) Vivitar flash in a box labeled "Wanderlust". I've had that lens for 25 years and used it maybe once. I bet I'm not unique.

To Ben and Justin: The videos of you guys making the photos, followed by the photos themselves, were simple and effective. I wish most people would make promotional films like that--focusing on the use and not on the benefits. The benefits were demonstrated wordlessly without being asserted, and were thus persuasive. I'm showing them to my wife--maybe I can persuade here to open an Amazon account...

Rick "oops, off to fight another spammer" Denney

[Larry Kellogg]

No, that's just because of the 3D printing plastic we have to use. The production camera will probably be a high impact black polycarbonate, which is completely opaque. I will also have the inside of the camera textured so that it's not shiny and bouncing light everywhere.

Good to hear that it will be light tight and that the inside will not be shiny. I have a Fujinon lens that has the white lettering on the inside of the lens hood painted over with black. I guess somebody concluded that they were getting reflections from the white lettering.

[Tin Can]

I know you guys will make it and then some. I expect easy 1000 'investors'. Look where you are now. This project is growing wings. I just asked all my photographer FB friends to post on their FB pages and to promote this any way possible. I would twit, but I don't...

Dare I say where is Ken Rockwell?

[Larry Kellogg]

,Dare I say where is Ken Rockwell?

I'm surprised Ken has not found this yet. I'm sure he will. He's crazy about large format. He loves the Angulon, by the way.

[Ben Syverson]

Dare I say where is Ken Rockwell?
I shudder to think what he would say about this project. Actually I think I know exactly what he would say.


Wow! These crazy guys want to make a brand new 4x5 camera for $99! As we all know, real photographers shoot 4x5. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm) This $99 plastic camera will run rings around any digital out there. (Of course, sharpness doesn't matter (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm) and your camera doesn't matter. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm) Real photographers can shoot on anything.) The camera works with the die Schneider Angulon 90mm ƒ/6.8 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/schneider/90angulon.htm), made in Germany. Real photographers will prefer the Super Angulon ƒ/8 for its superior sharpness, but on the other hand, real photographers know that it's better to have a small, light lens like the ƒ/6.8. This is the perfect camera for landscapes, but these days I only shoot landscapes on my iPhone 5 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/sample-images.htm)! (Your camera doesn't matter. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm).)

Recommendations
I would buy one of these cameras and shoot Velvia 50, but for kid shots, nothing beats the X100. You need fast AF for kids.


All in good fun :)

[Tin Can]

Yup, that is just how he would write!

LOL

[Larry Kellogg]

Ha ha, great post, Ben. I was going to mention that Ken is probably preoccupied with the new X-100S!

BTW, I cancelled my pre-order for the X100S in order to buy more Fujinon large format lenses. ;-) I love rangefinders, and the X-100S looks super cool, but I am kind of burned out on digital. The Wanderlust is 1/12th the price and probably just as much fun, if not more fun.

[Larry Kellogg]

Ok, the post office just dropped off an Angulon so I'm ready to shoot. Where's the camera?

All the speeds seem fine, but it takes quite a bit of force to move to 1/400th from 1/200th. It seems to get stuck between those two speeds. Is that normal on those lenses or did I get a bad copy? I probably won't be shooting much at 1/400th but I'm just wondering why it is so hard to turn to the fastest shutter speed.

[Corran]

It's normal, I believe it's engaging another spring or something. Very doubtful it runs at full speed, likely just 1/250 or so.

[dave_whatever]

Question for Ben: as I'm pledging financial assistance for your business endeavour, to help you fund the moulds for the cameras out of the goodness of my heart, for which you hope to be able to send me a camera as a gift and a token of your esteem, does this mean that the camera will be marked as a gift of negligible cash value on customs forms for those sent outside of the USA?

It's just that I'd hate Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs people to jump to the wrong conclusion and think that I'd actually bought a camera from you and charge me an extra 25% and spend weeks processing it when it comes into the UK.

[BTMarcais]

Ok, the post office just dropped off an Angulon so I'm ready to shoot. Where's the camera?

All the speeds seem fine, but it takes quite a bit of force to move to 1/400th from 1/200th. It seems to get stuck between those two speeds. Is that normal on those lenses or did I get a bad copy? I probably won't be shooting much at 1/400th but I'm just wondering why it is so hard to turn to the fastest shutter speed.

Just make sure not to change the speed to 1/400 while the shutter is COCKED!. Change the speed first, then cock the shutter. Good rule to follow in any case, but will almost certainly damage this particular shutter.
And yes, it's perfectly normal.
-Brian

[Ben Syverson]

Question for Ben: as I'm pledging financial assistance for your business endeavour, to help you fund the moulds for the cameras out of the goodness of my heart, for which you hope to be able to send me a camera as a gift and a token of your esteem, does this mean that the camera will be marked as a gift of negligible cash value on customs forms for those sent outside of the USA?

It's just that I'd hate Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs people to jump to the wrong conclusion and think that I'd actually bought a camera from you and charge me an extra 25% and spend weeks processing it when it comes into the UK.
That's a good question. I'll ask someone from Kickstarter what the standard procedure is. For our last Kickstarter, I believe we marked them as gifts, since they were such tiny envelopes. But this may draw more scrutiny.

Brian, good point about not changing the speed while cocked. I'll need to draw up a little beginner's guide booklet to include in the box.

[Oren Grad]

As of a moment ago... 50%!

314
Backers

$37,935
pledged of $75,000 goal

27
days to go

[mbisc]

Finally, our 3D printing process lets some light in (despite frantically taping it everywhere), so some of the haziness in our sample photos (especially in bright scenes) is probably due to the material.

How much of an issue will the fogging be with, say, ASA100 film (B&W) and bright sunshine? Any thoughts on the increase of base fog? I would think the minimum time to take out the dark slide, shoot, and put back the darkslide is around 10-15 seconds...

[BarryS]

How much of an issue will the fogging be with, say, ASA100 film (B&W) and bright sunshine? Any thoughts on the increase of base fog? I would think the minimum time to take out the dark slide, shoot, and put back the darkslide is around 10-15 seconds...

The 3D printing material was just used for the prototypes. The production cameras will be completely opaque--no fog issues.

[mbisc]

The 3D printing material was just used for the prototypes. The production cameras will be completely opaque--no fog issues.

Great, I thought I missed something. Thanks for the clarification...

[oysteroid]

All the speeds seem fine, but it takes quite a bit of force to move to 1/400th from 1/200th. It seems to get stuck between those two speeds. Is that normal on those lenses or did I get a bad copy? I probably won't be shooting much at 1/400th but I'm just wondering why it is so hard to turn to the fastest shutter speed.

I was given one of these last year and CLA'd it myself, so I learned quite a lot about its workings. As was mentioned by Corran, the highest speed setting is harder because when you turn the ring to that position, an additional, heavier spring is engaged that is not at all engaged at the lower speeds. That spring is there to give the extra force needed to cycle the shutter at that higher speed. For all the slower speeds, a weaker spring is engaged and then a geared mechanism with a catchment and pendulum thing is engaged by varying amounts to slow the shutter cycle for all speeds slower than 1/200. That retarder mechanism is what you hear buzzing with slower speeds. At 1/200, this retarder mechanism is simply not engaged. But for the 1/400 setting, extra spring power is needed. The designers probably didn't want to use a spring with that much resistance for all speeds as it probably causes more wear and stress and would require a more substantial mechanism to slow the cycling for lower speeds.

One thing I learned while studying the mechanism in this shutter is that settings in between the marked settings will most definitely not work as you might expect. You can't get reliable speeds in between the marked speeds to fudge the exposure a bit. The way speeds are determined is not a smooth slope. Each setting is sort of special and is determined by several factors. So you should only use the marked settings.

[Larry Kellogg]

Interesting information about the Angulon lens! Are you offering to CLA Angulons? ;-) So, with all this effort to bring the extra spring into play, is there only a gain of a 1/50th as someone else speculated? Did you test the lens with a shutter speed tester? I see someone wrote an audio shutter speed tester for the iPhone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOcGn07YUpc Seems easy enough to do with any sound recording program.

[Kuzano]

Ok, the post office just dropped off an Angulon so I'm ready to shoot. Where's the camera?

All the speeds seem fine, but it takes quite a bit of force to move to 1/400th from 1/200th. It seems to get stuck between those two speeds. Is that normal on those lenses or did I get a bad copy? I probably won't be shooting much at 1/400th but I'm just wondering why it is so hard to turn to the fastest shutter speed.

As with many older shutters the highest speed often involves an "accelerator" spring which only comes into play on the highest speed. This was common on most medium format shutters on old folders. Since the highest speed is used less. the Accelerator springs often become harder to arm.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I have committed to buying one.. and today my 90mm f 6.8 arrived from Melbourne... Can't wait to get one in my hands... December seems like a while away... Great work guys... Cheers...

[Philip Jackson]

This sounds like a great project, and so well designed too. I've built a couple of cameras and always had troubles with the backs. The Travelwide spring looks great. Maybe there's a market there for the pinhole and other builders to justify ordering a few extra springs to sell them separately.

To make it really cheap and popular I wonder if a Polaroid pack camera lens and shutter assembly could be hacked onto the front? They used to be incredibly plentiful, the 114 mm f/9.2 three element plastic Polaroid lenses already have a distance scale, so it might be possible to mount it straight onto the 65 mm Travelwide, perhaps with a bit of a shim. The lenses don't really vignette much on 4 x 5 but probably aren't real sharp in the corners.

You have to add a 3 volt power supply to operate the shutter/CdS sensor, but then you have automatic exposure, limited to around about 100 ISO film, with a bit of a tweak with the lighten-darken control. Flash is a problem though, unless you still have a supply of flash cubes!

I posted a message on APUG about adapting a Polaroid Colorpack 80 (1971-1976) to 4 x 5, but nobody replied so perhaps everybody thought it was a really dumb idea. My post, titled "Polaroid 4 x 5 point-and-shoot conversion with automatic exposure control" is at
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum147/71168-my-home-made-4x5-p-s-camera-post1162398.html#post1162398

I think the lens and shutter assemblies on the new 6 x 12 Belair probably operate in much the way. They offer a 90 mm lens, but as I understand it the batteries (2x 1.5V LR44 button cells) and the shutter release are in the body so using this particular lens on a Travelwide might not be quite so straightforward, perhaps requiring a small extra lens panel with their bayonet fitting, along with the batteries, timer circuitry or an automatic exposure sensor, and a shutter release. That's assuming the register distances are similiar so the Belair lenses can focus.

However for down the track, this might be an easy way to make the Travelwide cheap and popular, if the supply of Angulons dries up!

Philip Jackson

[Vascilli]

This sounds like a great project, and so well designed too. I've built a couple of cameras and always had troubles with the backs. The Travelwide spring looks great. Maybe there's a market there for the pinhole and other builders to justify ordering a few extra springs to sell them separately.

To make it really cheap and popular I wonder if a Polaroid pack camera lens and shutter assembly could be hacked onto the front? They used to be incredibly plentiful, the 114 mm f/9.2 three element plastic Polaroid lenses already have a distance scale, so it might be possible to mount it straight onto the 65 mm Travelwide, perhaps with a bit of a shim. The lenses don't really vignette much on 4 x 5 but probably aren't real sharp in the corners.

You have to add a 3 volt power supply to operate the shutter/CdS sensor, but then you have automatic exposure, limited to around about 100 ISO film, with a bit of a tweak with the lighten-darken control. Flash is a problem though, unless you still have a supply of flash cubes!

I posted a message on APUG about adapting a Polaroid Colorpack 80 (1971-1976) to 4 x 5, but nobody replied so perhaps everybody thought it was a really dumb idea. My post, titled "Polaroid 4 x 5 point-and-shoot conversion with automatic exposure control" is at
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum147/71168-my-home-made-4x5-p-s-camera-post1162398.html#post1162398

I think the lens and shutter assemblies on the new 6 x 12 Belair probably operate in much the way. They offer a 90 mm lens, but as I understand it the batteries (2x 1.5V LR44 button cells) and the shutter release are in the body so using this particular lens on a Travelwide might not be quite so straightforward, perhaps requiring a small extra lens panel with their bayonet fitting, along with the batteries, timer circuitry or an automatic exposure sensor, and a shutter release. That's assuming the register distances are similiar so the Belair lenses can focus.

However for down the track, this might be an easy way to make the Travelwide cheap and popular, if the supply of Angulons dries up!

Philip Jackson

I have a Belair (Yet to use it...) and indeed everything shutter-related is on the front panel of the body that pops out. Batteries, shutter, meter, everything. It could probably be popped off and put on a Travelwide.

[Simon Liddiard]

Question for Ben: as I'm pledging financial assistance for your business endeavour, to help you fund the moulds for the cameras out of the goodness of my heart, for which you hope to be able to send me a camera as a gift and a token of your esteem, does this mean that the camera will be marked as a gift of negligible cash value on customs forms for those sent outside of the USA?

It's just that I'd hate Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs people to jump to the wrong conclusion and think that I'd actually bought a camera from you and charge me an extra 25% and spend weeks processing it when it comes into the UK.

What Dave said!

[Larry Kellogg]

You have to add a 3 volt power supply to operate the shutter/CdS sensor, but then you have automatic exposure, limited to around about 100 ISO film, with a bit of a tweak with the lighten-darken control. Flash is a problem though, unless you still have a supply of flash cubes!

I question the value of putting automatic exposure on the camera. What is the target audience for this camera? Is it large format shooters who are used to setting aperture and shutter speed or is it point and shoot people who don't understand those concepts or don't want to deal with them? To me, it looks like a big hack to put that lens pack out front.

An advantage of requiring people to set their own aperture and shutter speed is that they will soon get the hang of it and not be so scared of the process. They will certainly be motivated after wasting a few sheets of 4x5 film, at $2-$4 a shot, LOL. Today's films have amazing latitude. This review (http://www.shutterbug.com/content/kodak-portra-400-latitude-grain-and-“scanability”-combined) of Portra 400 from Shutterbug says that you can basically guess at exposure, perfect for meter-less cameras:

• Bright sun: 1⁄250 sec at f/16
• “Cloudy bright” (overcast, but with clear shadows): 1⁄250 sec at f/5.6
• “Cloudy dull” (no clear shadows): 1⁄125 sec at f/4
• Indoors, room light: 1⁄30 sec at f/2

The designers could adapt these guidelines for the Angulon and publish them with the camera. Indoors is a problem, but the camera isn't called the TravelWide for nothing! Go outside! Of course, you can always stick a Gossen DigiSix meter in one of the cold shoes.

People are already complaining that the Angulon f/6.8 does not stand up to the Super Angulon f/8. How is the plastic Polaroid lens going to compete? LOL.

I think the fact that the designers said the camera was designed around the Angulon f/6.8 has been giving people the impression that it is the only lens that will work. The truth is that a large number of 90mm lenses will work on the camera. I think a list should be put up on the KickStarter website to help people in sourcing a lens for this camera.

[rdenney]

Interesting information about the Angulon lens! Are you offering to CLA Angulons? ;-) So, with all this effort to bring the extra spring into play, is there only a gain of a 1/50th as someone else speculated? Did you test the lens with a shutter speed tester? I see someone wrote an audio shutter speed tester for the iPhone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOcGn07YUpc Seems easy enough to do with any sound recording program.

It's true with the Graphex shutter in which the Optar is mounted, too. Of course, that shutter is really a Wollensak Rapax. It's a very nice shutter, but like most, the top speed is more for advertising than use.

The home-built sound-recording shutter testers that use light sensors wired into the sound-card microphone input may not be accurate with the higher speeds. We've discussed this a lot. It has to do with the way those inputs are filtered, and the way we should interpret the shape. And also that the opening and closing speed of the leaves becomes critical at higher speed settings.

Rick "who never uses the highest speeds on those small shutters" Denney

[Larry Kellogg]

On another topic, how does the Super Angulon f/8 feel when attached to the TravelWide? Does the camera feel really nose heavy? I see that the Super Angulon f/8 is almost three times the weight of the Angulon f/6.8. I am considering whether to go for the better lens but I wonder if that will take the fun out of shooting with the camera.

Thoughts?

[Brian Puccio]

Thanks for posting this and keeping us updated. I'm in for one and I've submitted this to PetaPixel as well.

PetaPixel has posted about the Travelwide. (http://www.petapixel.com/2013/04/03/introducing-the-travelwide-an-affordable-ultraportable-large-format-camera/)


You have to add a 3 volt power supply to operate the shutter/CdS sensor, but then you have automatic exposure, limited to around about 100 ISO film, with a bit of a tweak with the lighten-darken control.

Everyone doesn't drag around an incident light meter? What, just me?

[rdenney]

My suspicion is that it will be nose heavy. That is not necessarily a bad thing--people walk around with gigantic heavy lenses on their small cameras all the time. But if you set the camera down, it might flop forward.

I will probably attach an Arca plate to the bottom of the camera, and am considering using a longer plate that will project out the front and provide a "foot" under the lens area. I may use stick-on felt feet at the back corners, to provide three feet including the front edge of the plate. Then it will be stable sitting down. I'll decide when I get it.

I would probably not consider buying a Super Angulon instead of an Angulon. The point of a Super Angulon is to have the image circle needed to provide movements. There are no movements on this camera, so that capability (and the expense it takes to acquire it) would be wasted. And the performance of the f/8 SA is probably no better at working apertures than for the Angulon, at least within the image circle that this camera will use. The f/4.5 SA would be a little better, perhaps, but it won't fit, and it really is insane overkill for this concept.

If I already had a 90/8 SA and not an Angulon, then I'd use it and not worry, of course. Part of the point of this project, it seems to me, is to get some old optics back into use, almost as an antidote to the gear-acquisition-syndrome that affects most amateur photographers these days. The 90/8's that are out there are probably sitting on a shelf, too. (For my view camera, I use the f/5.6 versions of the 90 and 65 Super Angulons, because there I want to support movements.)

The Angulon and the Optar both provide wide apertures for ease of focusing. In both cases, though, they perform best stopped down to f/16 or f/22. The Optar, maybe even more than the Angulon, is just made for this camera, being even smaller and lighter. It is also a four-element double-gauss design of some sort, and when I used it last (I think I can remember when that was) it was a pretty good performer at f/22. For work in daylight, f/22 is fine--even 160 film will allow a 1/50 shutter speed at f/22 in bright sun. With 400 film it will be even easier. The shutter action will be so quiet that hand-holding this at 1/25 should be fine, especially for prints up to 4x. A monopod opens up more possibilities, and this camera will be easy to brace against any available surface.

At 65mm, one needs the image circle of the Super Angulon design to cover the format, so that's the only real choice. But the 65/8 SA is much smaller and lighter than the 90/8 SA, and is routinely mounted in a #00 shutter.

The advantage to the format is that as long as we aren't trying to make huge prints, the small enlargement ratio will cover a multitude of sins.

Rick "eager" Denney

[rdenney]

Everyone doesn't drag around an incident light meter? What, just me?

I think I still have an ancient Sekonic selenium reflected meter in the pile somewhere. If it works, it's small enough to attach to the side of this camera with a bit of Velcro, for those cases when Sunny 16 isn't good enough. And because it uses a selenium cell, there are no batteries.

Rick "seeking battery-free operation" Denney

[oysteroid]

Interesting information about the Angulon lens! Are you offering to CLA Angulons? ;-) So, with all this effort to bring the extra spring into play, is there only a gain of a 1/50th as someone else speculated? Did you test the lens with a shutter speed tester? I see someone wrote an audio shutter speed tester for the iPhone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOcGn07YUpc Seems easy enough to do with any sound recording program.

Larry,

No, I don't want to CLA any shutters belonging to anyone else! I don't want to risk damaging anything that isn't mine.

To test speed, I made one of these shutter testers: http://www.davidrichert.com/sound_card_shutter_tester.htm

After my cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment, all the speeds seemed within tolerances, including the highest speed. But it is a bit hard to tell for sure at the highest speeds. The little blip that you generate is less clearly defined. It is hard to know exactly what to measure. I'll have to stick the shutter on my tester again and see for sure how it behaves. If I remember right, the 1/400 setting produced a blip about half the size of the 1/200 setting. But I need to confirm that.

[Light Guru]

I think I still have an ancient Sekonic selenium reflected meter in the pile somewhere. If it works, it's small enough to attach to the side of this camera with a bit of Velcro, for those cases when Sunny 16 isn't good enough. And because it uses a selenium cell, there are no batteries.

Rick "seeking battery-free operation" Denney


There are also several different smartphone apps that use the camera on your phone as a light meter.

[Larry Kellogg]

Rick,
Thanks for posting this analysis. I think you're right, I'm going to stick with the f/6.8. I could use a 90mm for my Wisner but I want to be able to do movements so I will buy a more expensive lens at some point. I got a cheap set of bellows for the Wisner but that camera was never really designed to shoot wide, it has 23" of bellows draw, after all, and the standards don't easily come close together. I've already spent enough money on long lenses and need to shoot them.

I'm with you on "battery-free operation". You would be surprised at the reactions I get from people when I tell them my Wisner, Rolleiflex, or Bessa does not have a battery. Most people have no clue.

[Oren Grad]

What is the target audience for this camera?

Anyone who can be persuaded to buy one and help the campaign reach $75K. ;)

[Ben Syverson]

On another topic, how does the Super Angulon f/8 feel when attached to the TravelWide? Does the camera feel really nose heavy? I see that the Super Angulon f/8 is almost three times the weight of the Angulon f/6.8. I am considering whether to go for the better lens but I wonder if that will take the fun out of shooting with the camera.

Thoughts?
It definitely is nose-heavy... The camera feels more balanced with the 6.8. It's a bit hard to describe the difference. I don't think the SA is overly objectionable on the Travelwide, but I would probably use some kind of wrist or neck strap with it. Definitely still a fun setup!

Regarding metering and Sunny 16... All the Brazil stuff was shot on a combination of Portra 160 and Fuji 160S, and only a couple shots were explicitly metered. The nice thing about negative film is that you can split the exposure without losing half the image to pure black or white.

This shot is probably the best example from the samples of that flexibility:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8511/8579950819_9d37f826bf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wanderlustcamera/8579950819/)

I wish I had a digital version of that, but you get the point—Susan is almost completely backlit by low, powerful sun, yet we can read into the shadows and the highlights on the waves. So you don't need to sweat the exposure as much as slide film or digital. If I recall, I started at Sunny 16, then opened up a couple stops for the shadows in that shot.

[Steve Goldstein]

Is the 90mm f/6.3 Congo still being manufactured? That's another small, lightweight option along the lines of the Angulon/Optar.

Did Meopta ever make a 90mm Largor? I've heard of a 120mm, but am otherwise unfamiliar with Meopta. If a 90mm exists it might be another nice option for folks in Europe.

[Kuzano]

S. K. Grimes currently states on their new web site that large format shutters which work and have no significant issues, ie. just need a CLA.... run around $100 for that service. Further indication on that same page is that shutters with minor issues can sometimes be serviced at around $150, although a call or submission for a quote is recommended. There is a lot of information at http://www.skgrimes.com/

I have owned three of the 90/6.8 lenses in various shutters and they all tested within spec for the majority of speeds when I purchased them. The one that needed service the most was the "revered" Linhof Technika shutter.

In any event, another $100 for a CLA seems well within budget. $100 Camera, $100 Lens, $100 CLA... give or take for a light, backpackable 4X5 camera. My budget still has room for expansion.

[oysteroid]

I checked the higher shutter speeds on my Angulon. Actually, mine are 1/250 and 1/500, not 1/200 and 1/400. I am not sure why I had 1/200 and 1/400 in my mind. Anyway, I used my shutter tester and Audacity and the blips for 1/250 and 1/500 are actually fairly clear and have pretty much just the right length. And the 1/500 blip is half the length of the 1/250.

Here are typical samples for 1/500 and 1/250:
92708

[Larry Kellogg]

Nice work, oysteroid. My Angulon only goes to 1/400th! I guess I bought one of the ancient ones. Seems to be around 1950 according to the serial number, if I recall correctly.

Oh well, I'll try Portra 400 at 1/400th. By the way, Ben, nice shot! That one caught my eye. Color negative film is certainly more forgiving in terms of exposure than slides or even digital. Try explaining that to people, though. I have been just amazed by the quality of the shots from Portra 400. The film stock comes out of the motion picture industry, from what I have read. I hope Kodak produces this film for a long time. I just wish it did not cost $3.60 per shot.

[Tin Can]

I shoot Sunny 16 whenever possible. I do have light meters, but since I shot S-16 for 50 years, I find it works great.

Including Sunny 16 tips with the camera or a website could be good for many people.

I learned S-16 from boxes of 35mm Kodak, that had it printed on the inside. Why they stopped doing that, we will never know...

[redrockcoulee]

If I still had one of the two Angulon 90mm lenses I used to owen I might have signed up for this camera. Even though I am not interested I think it is great and wish you the best of luck in this endeveour. For those who do not end up with pinholes with your camera, metal pinhole holding devices (not sure what to call them) that fit into a Copal 0 hole and others that screw into a Copal 0 shutter itself are also available which is great if you are wanting to use a variery of pinholes, as in laser cut, home made with a needle or a zone plate.

Hope that the project goes ahead, is a sucess and that all the buyers really enjoy their cameras. I do expect to see a thread with images created with them though :)

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks! Yeah, we definitely will be including an etched pinhole. I think our previous product (the Pinwide) was the first commercial pinhole product to use a chemically etched pinhole. In any case, it's the absolute best method. Laser cut wound up being one of the worst... Some of Justin's hand-made pinholes (using a needle and sanding) were rounder than the laser. But the etching is basically perfect, because it's the same technique they use for semiconductor manufacturing.

If we're successful, and if we're able to make the pinhole caps, we will definitely offer them as a separate product for sale. They'll be easy to pop into any Copal 0 or 00 lens board!

[Andrew O'Neill]

If I still had one of the two Angulon 90mm lenses I used to owen I might have signed up for this camera.

I don't have an Angulon. I'm planning on using my fujinon.

[Jim Cole]

Just added my backing for a 90mm. Hope the goal is reached!

[Tin Can]

Ben,


Why not add a link to your project on all your posts. I want to find it again and it is not the first thing to pop up in Google.



Thanks! Yeah, we definitely will be including an etched pinhole. I think our previous product (the Pinwide) was the first commercial pinhole product to use a chemically etched pinhole. In any case, it's the absolute best method. Laser cut wound up being one of the worst... Some of Justin's hand-made pinholes (using a needle and sanding) were rounder than the laser. But the etching is basically perfect, because it's the same technique they use for semiconductor manufacturing.

If we're successful, and if we're able to make the pinhole caps, we will definitely offer them as a separate product for sale. They'll be easy to pop into any Copal 0 or 00 lens board!

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,


Why not add a link to your project on all your posts. I want to find it again and it is not the first thing to pop up in Google.
Done! You can also get to it by going to Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wanderlust/travelwide-45-camera) directly and clicking on "Me" and then "My backed projects."

[Bill L.]

I'm in for a 90- I've got a caltar 90 6.8 sitting around unused to put on it. Best of luck on reaching the kick starter goal!

Cheers,
Bill

[StevenJohn]

I'm also in for a 90...with a Grandagon 6.8.

[jb7]

Well done, looks great- good luck with the rest of the campaign-

Great service to large format film photography too, particularly the price point- it's the perfect gateway drug...

[mdm]

Looks like a shure thing now with more than $50 000 raised in less than a week. A fun and inexpensive camera to use.

[Tin Can]

Tell everyone, spread the word.

They still need 250 more backers.

[Ben Syverson]

It's far from a done deal! Pre-orders have definitely leveled off. Now more than ever we need to get the word out. Tell everyone! :)

Thanks again for everyone's support. If this thing succeeds, it will be thanks to the LFF community.

[rfesk]

I have signed up for one and plan on signing up for another. I can always sell the second one later and $200 still is cheap.

[Kuzano]

Actually and optimistically, the top 7 pledge slots would take this over the top... 5X3,000 and 2x10,000 is $35,000, with a "fudge factor" of $10000 to make the deal work. GET THE WORD OUT TO WEALTHY ECCENTRICS WITH PHOTOGRAPHY AS A HOBBY.

Hmmmm... does anyone know what Gates and Zuckerman do in their spare time, or for recreation, other than donate money... Hmmmmn again...how about that???

Me... I'm telling everyone I know from whom I have personally been able to borrow a $100 bucks from at one time or another.

I am taking this link to our local camera club meeting of 120 fairly active meeting. I also know many of the professional photographers here in town, and tomorrow I will go through the phone book and send the kickstarter link to all the photographers in town, of course indicating my pledge and dissavowing any monetary link with the project. I will be sending the link to the NewSpace Center for Photography in Portland Oregon, as well as to ProPhoto Supply in Portland. They process all formats of film. Another link will go to U-Develop-Lab on Barbur Blvd between Portand and Beaverton. I used to drive (140miles) there monthly as a member to develop and print my own film in their labs. Many Many photographers in Portland and surrounding areas use U-Develop. Market, Market, Market.... if you want this to happen. I do what I call skull thumping for ideas. 30 years in corporate and Non Profit marketing can't hurt. Think about it... who do you know.

[Simon Liddiard]

Pledged, plus $40 for shipping to the UK. I've got my Linhof branded Angulon 90/6.8 ready to rock. It's serial number indicates a late 1963 model (according to Schneider) and it's mounted in a synchro shutter which I'm testing with audacity - it's more or less bang on! Happy days are (nearly) here!

I've promoted the project to my FB network. I'll have a think about what else I can do to help.

Simon

[Larry Kellogg]

It seems to me that we're going to have a hard time finding a wealthy eccentric to put up the cash. How about targeting some art schools? We have to pull in the Holga crowd.

[Kuzano]

Taking advantage of the pinhole aspect of the project.... marketing to the lomography/holga/diana/belmont/pinhole crowd should be productive. One of the points of interest would be the low entry price, which seems to be a real draw in that market.

And article in Shutterbug... too late? probably.

[Simon Liddiard]

I'm planning to ask a friend who is a photography lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University here in the UK. He shoots ULF on a Victorian studio camera in his spare time so he's a definite supporter. I might even persuade him to pledge...

[Tin Can]

Many of us have attended Art schools, as the inventors have. Art schools may be the primary market. Seldom will a school promote anything, except more school, however I am sure all art students use facebook, and that is targeted. I 'shared' everywhere I go, even a walk in bar...



It seems to me that we're going to have a hard time finding a wealthy eccentric to put up the cash. How about targeting some art schools? We have to pull in the Holga crowd.

[rdenney]

Since this thread has become an announcement of a new product, and not just a discussion about a camera concept that might be cool, I have moved it to the new products thread. Ideally, I would have split the thread at the point where the Kickstarter solicitation occurred, but the thought of individually tagging 200 posts since that time to create a new thread in New Products filled me with dismay. So, I'm just moving the whole thread. I will leave a redirect from the Cameras forum where it had been.

In the regular sub-forums, solicitations and commercial postings are prohibited.

The guidlines say:


New Products - Forum for announcements of a commercial nature from approved vendors. Posts are "moderated" - meaning they must be approved before they display on the forum. Once posted, registered users are free to ask questions or discuss the product announcement in a manner consistent with general forum guidelines.

I think that describes what this thread has become, including the continued questions and discussions.

Rick "carry on" Denney

[Simon Liddiard]

I don't think anyone can accuse you of making a mountain out of a molehill there Rick. Reading the thread is arduous enough.

[Brian Puccio]

rdenney, that makes complete sense, no justification was needed for that move.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Rick! Works for me. And if the Kickstarter doesn't go through, we can just move it to the Lounge. :)

[GabrielSeri]

Hi Ben I have a Caltar Grandagon F/6.8 90mm, this is basicly the same as the Rodenstock Grandagon 90. Would this lens work with this camera?

[Ben Syverson]

Hi Ben I have a Caltar Grandagon F/6.8 90mm, this is basicly the same as the Rodenstock Grandagon 90. Would this lens work with this camera?
Hi Gabriel,
I'm fairly certain this lens will work on the camera, although we haven't tested it. But if it's a near clone of the Grandagon, then the FFD (flange focal distance) is in the right zone for us. These larger 6.8's are interesting lenses, and I plan to pick one up for testing!

[Roger Cole]

CRAP! I screwed up - I meant to pledge for the 90mm because I already have a 90mm Angulon. But I accidentally pledged for the $65. Any way to fix that??

[Roger Cole]

Ok, never mind the panic - I was able to edit that. Whew! While I'd like the 65 as well I can't really justify both, especially when I already have a 90mm Angulon but not a 65!

[drew.saunders]

..., then the FFD (flange focal distance) is in the right zone for us.

What is the FFD when the helicoid is at the "0" position? What's the maximum extension for the helicoid? Those would be useful things to list on the web page. Schneider lists a 90mm FFD for the 90/6.8 for which you've designed the lens, and Ebony's super handy (everyone should bookmark it) page for most modern lenses at http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html shows that most modern 90's need 95m+, so if you listed the minimum and maximum extensions, people could do their own calculations for whatever lenses that they have.

OK, just pledged for the 65 to use it with the pinhole. Hopefully you get the remaining $20K or so!

Drew

[Tin Can]

Great link Drew!

I would never have found it at Ebony as I will never be able to afford to even look at Ebony cameras.

[MonkeyBrain]

Ben, first of all, well done for making this happen.

Then, a couple of questions (for whoever is kind enough to answer them):

It seems I'm one of the few (on here at least) who've backed who dont already have a 90mm (I actually detest wide angle lenses and am hoping you'll one day make a version with like a 150 or 180).

So Question no. 1 is:

Am I right in saying that if I want to keep things as simple as possible and avoid unnecessary mod work then not only will I need to track down a reasonably priced Schneider Angulon 90mm, but it must also be in a Copal 0?

I definitely want to go the viewfinder and rangefinder route, but although I see the Blik costs next to nothing, those Voigtlander viewfinders (and others similar) cost a small fortune.

So Question no. 2 is:

What will I be missing out on if I buy some cheap $20 junk instead of the Voigtlander?

[Tin Can]

Well, give us a link for the cheap viewfinder, I want to try it!

[Ben Syverson]

Am I right in saying that if I want to keep things as simple as possible and avoid unnecessary mod work then not only will I need to track down a reasonably priced Schneider Angulon 90mm, but it must also be in a Copal 0?
Yes, although I have never seen an Angulon in a non-Copal 0 shutter. (The Synchro-Compurs they often come in are Copal 0).


What will I be missing out on if I buy some cheap $20 junk instead of the Voigtlander?
I'm with Randy Moe—what is this $20 viewfinder you speak of? :) Honestly I bought the Voigtländer way before the Travelwide project, and just had it on hand. I wouldn't classify it as a "must have," especially since it costs more than the camera.

About the FFD: The minimum is 89.5, and the maximum is 109.0 (the extension is 19.5mm). I'm going to post this along with some lens guidance in an update.

[Roger Cole]

Sure, we could do that. The camera would go from $99 to $1800. Sorry, but that's the financial reality of "New" large format lenses (besides, most of those lenses are probably "new old stock.").

And believe it or not, but we've also worked with a lens designer on a couple custom projects, so we know what's involved with creating a new lens from scratch. It's possible, but it's a question of money. If the Travelwide is wildly successful, we'll take a look.

For now, it makes more sense to direct people to the many, many sub-$200 90mm lenses already out there on the used market. Most of us on this forum (myself included) can't afford "new" LF lenses, so all of our lenses are used. When they're taken care of, LF lenses and shutters last decades.

The shutter might be a bigger problem than the lens. Lenses like this are not rocket science and a decent optical guy or gal might be able to assemble some from available individual lenses (that is, elements) without busting too much budget but add a shutter and it's not going to be very cheap even if it isn't $1800.

I think you're right though - considering the lenses that will work, there are almost certainly plenty available used, some folks may just have to look a while.


Yeah, it turns out that it's very difficult to design a compact 4x5 back. The most compatible option is Graflex, but it would really increase the size and cost of the camera. Now instead of a simple back and one metal spring, you need large angled wings to the top and bottom of the back, with sliding metal tongues. It would be a larger, $129 camera instead.

We figured that most people would be using standard film holders, so that was our target. However, we wanted to make it easy to adapt. That's why we opted to attach the spring back with three standard phillips head screws. You can easily remove the spring and reattach it in the field if needed. Once it's off, you can use heavy rubber bands or ball bungees (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-ball-bungees.html) to attach nearly any 4x5 back ever made. I haven't yet encountered an incompatible back.

Once the alternate back is attached, odds are it will be heavier and/or larger than the rest of the camera combined, so it makes sense to hold it by the back. I've done this with the Calumet roll film holder and the Fuji QuickLoad holder. It works well!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-c2.jpg

I wondered a bit about that myself. I have a 6x7 Calument RF back but that doesn't make much sense to me, especially with the 90mm. I could just buy a 6x9 folder with similar focal length and have a carry around camera with the convenience of roll film. My Polaroid 405 holder with Fuji instant and my Grafmatic are both far more interesting ideas and it's good to know they will work. I think the Grafmatic would be great since one could carry six sheets of film ready to go without carrying anything else unattached to the camera. Just the camera and attached bits and maybe a lightmeter. The Polaroid holder would be great with some tweaking of the finder, if it's even precise enough to bother. But one thing I've noticed shooting the 3.25x4.25 Fuji film on my 4x5 camera is that the image is not centered in the area covered by the 4x5. It's offset to one end along the long axis (so the 3.25x4.25 image apparently shares a short side with a 4x5 image.) This may take some tweaking to get right with the Wanderlust but should be easy enough and well worth it.


You can send me mine early and ill test it with my grafmatic film holders and report back.

Well since they said they hadn't tried anything that didn't work and Grafmatics are very common I figured they knew it worked. If not, well, I want one anyway. The Grafmatic may even be heavier than three regular holders, and it doesn't take much more room either, but the idea of just leaving it on the camera is appealing.


Is the 90mm f/6.3 Congo still being manufactured? That's another small, lightweight option along the lines of the Angulon/Optar.

Did Meopta ever make a 90mm Largor? I've heard of a 120mm, but am otherwise unfamiliar with Meopta. If a 90mm exists it might be another nice option for folks in Europe.

I was wondering the same thing about the Congo. Apparently quality of all their lenses varied a lot, and I'm not suggesting they would be nearly as good as a used good shape Angulon, but they do still have a web site, last updated in 2009, and as of that time listed a 90mm 6.3 WA lens that covered 4x5 for $516.

http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/spec_e.htm

Oh, and in the "learn something new every day" department - thanks to this thread I now know that my Angulon Linhof Synchro-Compur shutter has a 1/500th speed! It takes so much effort to move it over there, I never knew it existed and I've owned this lens since I got into 4x5 in about 1997 or so IIRC! I just verified it does have it and it "works" though I've no idea how accurate it is. Don't much care either - I doubt I'd ever want to use it on this lens which wants to be stopped down anyway, but I still never knew it before!

[rdenney]

So Question no. 1 is:

Am I right in saying that if I want to keep things as simple as possible and avoid unnecessary mod work then not only will I need to track down a reasonably priced Schneider Angulon 90mm, but it must also be in a Copal 0?

I definitely want to go the viewfinder and rangefinder route, but although I see the Blik costs next to nothing, those Voigtlander viewfinders (and others similar) cost a small fortune.

So Question no. 2 is:

What will I be missing out on if I buy some cheap $20 junk instead of the Voigtlander?

1. There were some early 90/8 Super Angulons in Compur 00 shutters, though they had a reputation for being a bit too weighty for that shutter. But Grimes (and I'm sure some Chinese outfit on ebay) makes an adpater ring to install a Compur 00 shutter in a #0 board. I have a couple and they work fine, though they do add about .5mm to the lens extension.

The Graflex Optar is neither #00 or #0 sized. But Graflex or Wollensak or somebody made a flange/retainer that had a lip that would snug up pretty well in a Number 0 hole, if you install it as a retaining ring, lip-side towards the back-side of the board. Normally, that lip would be the bearing surface for the lens, when the ring is mounted on the front side of the board and used as a flange.

2. I trolled ebay until I found someone who'd done the work of masking a wide-angle door viewer (large size) for 24mm (equivalent) and attaching it to a cold shoe. It's maybe a bit wider than that. It's lousy but surprisingly it has quite high eye relief which means I can see the edges even wearing glasses. Nana Sousa Dias has made his own from door security viewers. This one will probably work well enough with the 65. Somewhere, I have a Sea-and-Sea 16mm equivalent viewfinder for their 16mm-equivalent supplemental lens for the Nikonos 35mm normal lens. I bet I could make a mask for that.

I'm quite sure that the good viewfinders for the Voigtlander camera are MUCH nicer. For the 90, though, I'll use the 28-equivalent viewer on my Russian turret finder that was originally intended for a Fed, Kiev, or Zorki rangefinder. The eye relief is not nearly as good, but it's really kinda slick and it has a parallax adjuster just to make this simple camera all complicated again. And it would be happy sitting next to the Blix rangefinder.

If Ben's idea doesn't go through, I'll probably end up making something similar (but much heavier, more expensive and less elegant) out of spare Sinar parts or something.

Rick "who has all the pieces in a box" Denney

[Toulcaz31]

Hi Ben

I only moved to film photography last year and was eyeing at large format with a very long term perspective. Your project is so cool that my big plan has fallen apart :) . I have just bought the two bodies to back your project and will hunt for lenses during the year.

I will spread the word in some countries among people who might themselves spread the word too. I think there is a huge potential outside of US to reach your target. Besides, this is a good move to sell without the lens as it should pass customs more easily.

Really great job !

[MonkeyBrain]

Thanks all of you who replied.


Yes, although I have never seen an Angulon in a non-Copal 0 shutter. (The Synchro-Compurs they often come in are Copal 0).


Ah ok, that's what prompted my question actually, as I'd previously seen one in a Synchro Compur R and wondered what was up with that.





I'm with Randy Moe—what is this $20 viewfinder you speak of? :) Honestly I bought the Voigtländer way before the Travelwide project, and just had it on hand. I wouldn't classify it as a "must have," especially since it costs more than the camera.



Well, actually you're right, there's no $20 viewfinder...








....they cost $21, plus $11 shipping :)

I might regret posting this here - if the one I just bought gets lost in the mail and then I can't get a replacement 'cos the Travelwide hordes have ordered more than the guy can make - but if this saves a few people from having to buy a Voigtlander version then I figure it might be appreciated, no matter how poor the design may be: http://www.ebay.com/itm/181104789011?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649


I'm not particularly familiar with door-viewers, but I'm guessing that this is probably what the guy is selling here, right?

[Roger Cole]

Well I'm glad to read that, since mine is in a Synchro-Compur. Good to know I can just mount it and go!

[David Aimone]

I'm toying with the idea of using my iPod touch with the ViewFinder Pro app. I have a very lightweight tripod clamp, so all I'd need is one of those little tripod to hotshoe adapters. I have an iPhone which would work too, but the iPod touch is smaller, lighter and has all my film photo apps on it anyway..

[Stefan Lungu]

Hm, I don't know if it is because of this announcement, but a SN 3.1xx.xxx Angulon 90/6.8 in good working condition just sold on devil bay here in Germany for 262 EUR, that is about 100 more than usual a month ago.

[Larry Kellogg]

I'm toying with the idea of using my iPod touch with the ViewFinder Pro app. I have a very lightweight tripod clamp, so all I'd need is one of those little tripod to hotshoe adapters. I have an iPhone which would work too, but the iPod touch is smaller, lighter and has all my film photo apps on it anyway..

Ha, that's a great idea, I like it. I own and use the ViewFinder Pro app on my iPhone. One downside of mounting the phone on the TravelWide is that if I get a call, I'll have to somehow answer my camera, LOL. I could always use the speakerphone feature. Perhaps we can use the teleconferencing feature to provide realtime assistance related to composition and technical matters to someone shooting in the field.

I'm going to use the Blik rangefinder. Somehow, I doubt there is room for the Touch and the Blik rangefinder on the top.

By the way, could you ask the designers of the ViewFinder Pro app to please include date and time in each snapshot, and display it next to lat/long? I use the ViewFinder Pro app as a way of finding subjects and it would help to know when I might come back with my 4x5 to find similar light. I would also like to be able to easily select from more than four lenses on the first screen.

[Larry Kellogg]

Hm, I don't know if it is because of this announcement, but a SN 3.1xx.xxx Angulon 90/6.8 in good working condition just sold on devil bay here in Germany for 262 EUR, that is about 100 more than usual a month ago.

Why disparage the bay by calling it devil bay? The bay gives us access to a global marketplace, where everyone can buy and sell, something we did not have in the old days. I like the new world, where I can find whatever I want, without having to somehow depend on local suppliers, who do not have certain items or charge too much for them, or local buyers, who will not pay me a good price on resale.

When people see good prices being realized for these lenses, others will come on the market, possibly driving the prices down. There is usually a wide variability in prices on the bay. I think an Optar went for around $90.

I still think the designers need to publish a list of recommended lenses so as to counter the idea that everyone must buy an Angulon f/6.8.

[jb7]

I'm toying with the idea of using my iPod touch with the ViewFinder Pro app. I have a very lightweight tripod clamp, so all I'd need is one of those little tripod to hotshoe adapters. I have an iPhone which would work too, but the iPod touch is smaller, lighter and has all my film photo apps on it anyway..

That's been discussed here before-

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?90586-iphone-as-viewfinder-for-4x5-PS/page2


By the way, is there a reason why the 'New Products' forum is excluded from the Unified View, unless you're logged out, in which case I can see it as usual?
Or have I messed up some settings somewhere?

edit- I can see it now in unified view- strange...

[Weihan]

How ANNOYING! that the new TavelWide will NOT work with the 90/5.6!!!!! That's the only 90mm I have and I have no intention of getting another. Why did they make this decision?

[Ben Syverson]

How ANNOYING! that the new TavelWide will NOT work with the 90/5.6!!!!! That's the only 90mm I have and I have no intention of getting another. Why did they make this decision?
We actually haven't tried it with the 5.6, but from visual inspection, I think the rear element is just too gigantic. I don't think it will physically fit into the camera.

Ultimately, it's a good thing... that is a very expensive lens, and it's quite heavy. If you could get it onto the Travelwide, you would need to carry it by the shutter, because holding it by the grip would make the camera dangerously front-heavy. It's hard to convey just how light the camera is. The last thing we want is a $1600 lens hitting the pavement.

[Corran]

Because it's a massive lens that has no reason to be on a featherweight p&s?

If you can afford that lens surely you can spring for a $100 Angulon or equivalent, seriously.

[Ramiro Elena]

I'd cancel the project. It is outrageous! ;)

[Tin Can]

Let's hope the newbie is joking...

[Larry Kellogg]

I'd cancel the project. It is outrageous! ;)

I don't want the thing unless I can mount one of the .7 Zeiss lenses that Kubrick used to shoot some scenes in Barry Lyndon.

[Ben Syverson]

I don't want the thing unless I can mount one of the .7 Zeiss lenses that Kubrick used to shoot Barry Lyndon.
That can be arranged! Keep in mind the image circle is about 24mm, so there will be some vignetting.

[Larry Kellogg]

That can be arranged! Keep in mind the image circle is about 24mm, so there will be some vignetting.

Cool! Handholding at .7 has got to be a bear, though. Please include some tips on how to get the best image quality out of this combination.

[Ben Syverson]

Cool! Handholding at .7 has got to be a bear, though. Please include some tips on how to get the best image quality out of this combination.
I recommend hiring a quality Steadicam operator to hold the camera. That way they can take care of framing too.

[Larry Kellogg]

I recommend hiring a quality Steadicam operator to hold the camera. That way they can take care of framing too.

Good luck to the Steadicam operator at that depth of field. I assume you've seen the card playing scene in Barry Lyndon where the actors aren't moving a millimeter.

I liked how someone on photo.net took your concept to task because the shutter on an old lens like the Angulon might fail. I'm sure we all have other cameras to shoot if we suffer a shutter tragedy with our $150 Angulons. It's cheap fun. The world needs more cheap fun.

[rdenney]

It would be ironic to have to attach weights to this camera to make it heavy enough to use.

Rick "thinking the 65/8 is heavy enough" Denney

[Brian Puccio]

Cool! Handholding at .7 has got to be a bear, though. Please include some tips on how to get the best image quality out of this combination.

Sherpa.

[BarryS]

I think you could mod the Travelwide for a 90mm 5.6 with a heat gun and a tennis ball. :rolleyes:

[Larry Kellogg]

It would be ironic to have to attach weights to this camera to make it heavy enough to use.

Rick "thinking the 65/8 is heavy enough" Denney

I had that thought. I have another idea for a KickStarter project. How about a helium balloon suspension system for the Speed Graphic and other heavy cameras? Might be a little impractical due to getting caught in tree branches and wrapped around poles. Just an idea.

[Weihan]

Would the 90/6.8 "CLASSIC" SA work, or is that too big too?

[Ben Syverson]

Would the 90/6.8 "CLASSIC" SA work, or is that too big too?
I believe the 6.8 Super Angulon will work. It hasn't been tested, but the data say it should fit and focus. Looks like a great lens!

[welly]

How ANNOYING! that the new TavelWide will NOT work with the 90/5.6!!!!! That's the only 90mm I have and I have no intention of getting another. Why did they make this decision?

Then I guess you'll have to do without this camera. Hard luck.

[dave_whatever]

As someone with a 90/5.6 I can't imagine wanting to stick it on a travelwide. Even if it does physically fit (I suspect it actually would) it would be way too heavy and big, doesn't make any sense. If you're in the situation where ints hour only 90mm then you've got plenty of tme to save up and buy an angulon or 90/8.

As regards to the modern 90/6.8 super angulon "classic" this is also a huge heavy lens, so the comments above would also apply.

[sweat100]

Would like to ask about the FFD. In earlier postings, it is mentioned that the helicoid travel flange distance is 89.5mm to 109mm. For example if I use the Super Angulon f8 (Copal 0) lens with a FFD of 98.8mm. The data is taken from http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html Does that mean that the lens will focus pass infinity and the usable focusing range is 10.2mm (109-98.8=10.2) ?

[rdenney]

How ANNOYING! that the new TavelWide will NOT work with the 90/5.6!!!!! That's the only 90mm I have and I have no intention of getting another. Why did they make this decision?

Remember that the goal was a low price point, an ultralight camera, lack of movements, and a compact package for traveling. The 90/5.6 is a lens designed to fulfill a different set of requirements. Making it work with that lens might have undermined other requirements.

Also, this camera is not really designed for heavy lenses that are changed frequently. The lens mounting plate appears to be plastic, and the focus helical certainly is. A really heavy lens might require external support, deform the mounting, or bind the helical.

Rick "who puts his 90/5.6 on a monorail view camera" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Would like to ask about the FFD. In earlier postings, it is mentioned that the helicoid travel flange distance is 89.5mm to 109mm. For example if I use the Super Angulon f8 (Copal 0) lens with a FFD of 98.8mm. The data is taken from http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html Does that mean that the lens will focus pass infinity and the usable focusing range is 10.2mm (109-98.8=10.2) ?
Yes, exactly!

[Corran]

4/5ths of the way there!
Glad to see the stretch goal update! I'm sure that'll help some people decide.

[Tin Can]

I have been checking progress fairly often, like daily.

Last I checked we were at $47K, now we are at 60K!

Notice my use of the possessive, we are all participants in a great historic event.

We WILL prevail. Hurray!

[Simon Liddiard]

Well said Randy!

[J Maxwell]

Makes perfect sense to me!


Remember that the goal was a low price point, an ultralight camera, lack of movements, and a compact package for traveling. The 90/5.6 is a lens designed to fulfill a different set of requirements. Making it work with that lens might have undermined other requirements.

Also, this camera is not really designed for heavy lenses that are changed frequently. The lens mounting plate appears to be plastic, and the focus helical certainly is. A really heavy lens might require external support, deform the mounting, or bind the helical.

Rick "who puts his 90/5.6 on a monorail view camera" Denney

[Larry Kellogg]

All I can say is, GO GO GO! I'll be ecstatic when you guys make the goal. Looking good.

[zuiko90]

Hi Larry. I'm a new member that just signed on to LFF, mainly because of this new camera. I've seen your posts over at P-net. I'm in for the 90mm version of this camera and very interested to see it's success. It is a little disturbing to see only 19 more people join in the last 24 hours, hope it does not portend a major slow down in backers.

[Larry Kellogg]

Hello Zuiko,
Welcome to the massive thread that everyone is afraid to read. ;-) Glad you could join the effort. I'm not affiliated with the designers, I'm just an enthusiastic supporter. So, they need 127 more $99 pledges to get the $75k, or about 6 a day for the next 22 days. Seems doable but it could still require some marketing work. Where else can this be publicized?

[David Aimone]

This might be a stretch, but might small niche retailers give this a pitch, or would it tick off their current suppliers?

Freestyle Photo
Bostick & Sullivan
Photographers Formulary

etc....

They may have good reasons not to, but it would be supportive of their film and chemical sales...



Hello Zuiko,
Welcome to the massive thread that everyone is afraid to read. ;-) Glad you could join the effort. I'm not affiliated with the designers, I'm just an enthusiastic supporter. So, they need 127 more $99 pledges to get the $75k, or about 6 a day for the next 22 days. Seems doable but it could still require some marketing work. Where else can this be publicized?

[zuiko90]

Good morning to Larry and David.
Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing too. Where else can we publicize this. I agree that some retailers would have a vested interest in seeing this become true. Seven hundred more 4X5 cameras! That could translate to a lot of film sales. Got to think about this some more.

[Chauncey Walden]

I'm in for a 65. Ben, at what distance is the focus set?

[Tin Can]

Wouldn't infinity be desired...



I'm in for a 65. Ben, at what distance is the focus set?

[pierre506]

l just booked one 90 body and two 65s.
One 65 is for my friend.
Looking forward to seeing them asap.

[Simon Liddiard]

l just booked one 90 body and two 65s.
One 65 is for my friend.
Looking forward to seeing them asap.

Pierre - I assume you booked them through different accounts? I believe Kickstarter does not let you pledge more than once, as Rick "annoyed at nearly missing out on #1" Denney found out.

[Simon Liddiard]

Please can someone help me with my newb viewfinder struggles?

I would have thought that one should use a 90mm viewfinder for a 90mm lens, however I see a 21mm viewfinder is recommended for the Travelwide 45 because "21mm on 35mm corresponds to the vertical FOV of 90mm on 4x5".

I know angle of view can be expressed in vertical, horizontal and diagonal planes, but why pick vertical and not horizontal?

[Ben Syverson]

Hi everyone! Welcome, Zuiko!

Chauncey, the distance is indeed set at infinity, and we'll ship the camera with shims so that you can fine tune the focus .

We've contacted a few retailers but will contact a few more—good idea! Unfortunately there's not much they can do for us at this point except tweet or share the link, but every little bit helps!

[Ben Syverson]

Please can someone help me with my newb viewfinder struggles?

I would have thought that one should use a 90mm viewfinder for a 90mm lens, however I see a 21mm viewfinder is recommended for the Travelwide 45 because "21mm on 35mm corresponds to the vertical FOV of 90mm on 4x5".

I know angle of view can be expressed in vertical, horizontal and diagonal planes, but why pick vertical and not horizontal?
Hi Simon,

I made that decision because I'm more often trying to figure out if vertical elements are in or out of the frame, versus horizontal elements. For example, I wanted the brightline to help me see if I could fit the top of a building or the top of someone's head. But it's more or less arbitrary which axis you choose.

Hope this helps!

[Simon Liddiard]

Thank you Ben. So I could choose a 90mm viewfinder, but unless it was designed for 4x5 the aspect ratio would be different, e.g. 1.5:1 for 35mm and 1.25:1 for 4x5.

Presumably this could be resolved by masking or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

[Corran]

It's not the aspect ratio you need to worry about but the FoV. A VF for a 90mm on 35mm film is a short tele, not a wide-angle, and would have the FoV of a 300-360mm lens on 4x5.

[Corran]

Perhaps a photo will be worth all the explanations one could write. I just whipped this up using a photo I was working on (that was shot with a 90mm) showing basically what a 21mm vs. a 25mm viewfinder will be (approximately) compared to the image. Of course I haven't taken into account parallax and such.

This arises from the differences in aspect ratio of the 35mm format:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/21vs25mmviewfinder.jpg

[drew.saunders]

Please can someone help me with my newb viewfinder struggles?

I would have thought that one should use a 90mm viewfinder for a 90mm lens, however I see a 21mm viewfinder is recommended for the Travelwide 45 because "21mm on 35mm corresponds to the vertical FOV of 90mm on 4x5".

I know angle of view can be expressed in vertical, horizontal and diagonal planes, but why pick vertical and not horizontal?

A 90mm lens for 96x120mm film (4x5 in most holders, some vary by a wee bit) has the following angles of view in degrees: horizontal: 67, vertical: 56, diagonal: 81
A 21mm lens for 24x36mm film has the following angles of view in degrees: horizontal: 81, vertical: 59, diagonal: 91
A 28mm lens for 24x36 gets you, in degrees: h: 65, v: 46, d: 75

That's part of the problem comparing 4:5 ratio film to 2:3 ratio film, you have to pick whether vertical, horizontal or diagonal is the best to compare. If you could get a 4:5 mask for your 21mm viewfinder, that would probably be the best.

[Ben Syverson]

Thank you Ben. So I could choose a 90mm viewfinder, but unless it was designed for 4x5 the aspect ratio would be different, e.g. 1.5:1 for 35mm and 1.25:1 for 4x5.

Presumably this could be resolved by masking or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
Hmm, the nice thing about a brightline finder is that you can see beyond the lines, so personally I wouldn't mask it. Ultimately with a point and shoot camera, the viewfinder is just giving you a general idea (ie, the framelines are not outrageously accurate). That lack of accuracy actually helps me relax and just shoot!

[Simon Liddiard]

Ah right, of course! Angle of view / field of view as specified by the manufacturer https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-90mm.html

So if the angle of view of the Angulon 90/6.8 is 81 degrees circular which is then constrained by the dimensions of 4x5 (horiz, vert or diag)

[Tin Can]

What he said!



Ah right, of course! Angle of view / field of view as specified by the manufacturer https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/angulon/data/6,8-90mm.html

So if the angle of view of the Angulon 90/6.8 is 81 degrees circular which is then constrained by the dimensions of 4x5 (horiz, vert or diag)

[Simon Liddiard]

Boom! I'm learning stuffs, or more accurately combining rudimentary knowledge gleaned from a range of sources in a way that makes it look like I understand

[Tin Can]

This is a never ending journey, I never read the book...


Boom! I'm learning stuffs, or more accurately combining rudimentary knowledge gleaned from a range of sources in a way that makes it look like I understand

[Simon Liddiard]

Well all I can say is that after all this brain-taxing learning this Travelwide project had better come to fruition!

[Tin Can]

It will, even if some of us have to buy 2!



Well all I can say is that after all this brain-taxing learning this Travelwide project had better come to fruition!

[zuiko90]

It will, even if some of us have to buy 2!

I think Kickstarter rules limit each backer to one pledge reward. In other words I couldn't pledge 2X $99 or $198 and get 2 TravelWide 90's. I could pledge more than $99, however much I wished to support this venture. But when I checked the $99 TravelWide 90 option I will only get 1 camera, even if I were to pledge more money.

[Tin Can]

I would just use another email address and CC.



I think Kickstarter rules limit each backer to one pledge reward. In other words I couldn't pledge 2X $99 or $198 and get 2 TravelWide 90's. I could pledge more than $99, however much I wished to support this venture. But when I checked the $99 TravelWide 90 option I will only get 1 camera, even if I were to pledge more money.

[pierre506]

Pierre - I assume you booked them through different accounts? I believe Kickstarter does not let you pledge more than once, as Rick "annoyed at nearly missing out on #1" Denney found out.

Thank you， Simon， I booked a 65 body in advance because my friend doesn't use English. Then I found I couldn't use same account to book for myself. The 2 orders are same shipping address.
HOPING Kickstarter can find the issue.

Ben， does the 65 body fit with the Rodenstock 65mm f4.5 lens？.

[zuiko90]

I would just use another email address and CC.

Ah! That had not occurred to me. Or, you could just ask a friend to pledge, promising to cover the amount. (But secretly hoping that when the camera's actually arrived they too would be seduced into the large format fold.)

[Tin Can]

I wonder if they will have serial numbers. Imagine what #1 and # 750 will be worth in a 100 years! The Alpha and Omega of LF cameras, maybe the last new LF cameras ever made.



Ah! That had not occurred to me. Or, you could just ask a friend to pledge, promising to cover the amount. (But secretly hoping that when the camera's actually arrived they too would be seduced into the large format fold.)

[BarryS]

I wonder if they will have serial numbers. Imagine what #1 and # 750 will be worth in a 100 years! The Alpha and Omega of LF cameras, maybe the last new LF cameras ever made.

They can give me any number they want (although I was probably one of the first couple orders) as long as I have it in 2013--preferably by the fall. I don't think it'll be the last large format manufactured by a long shot, but if they sell over 700 LF cameras in a month, that may be a record that won't ever be broken again. I wonder if any manufacturer ever sold 700 LF cameras in a month (excluding military/government sales).

[JohnnyGator]

Ben,

I pledged my amounts last week for both a 90 & 65. I've been following the project very closely and I'm not only excited for new people getting into LF, but also for helping the supply and demand of film. This project may create a short term (hopefully long term) boost in LF film.

I was re-reading the pledge options and the $10,000 option states something along the lines of consulting about a dream camera and it got me thinking...

If the Wanderlust 4x5 is successful, any chance you guys would consider building a dedicated 6x17 MF camera? We've recently seen both Holga and Belaire panoramic cameras, but they just aren't optically sufficient. I would absolutely back a sub $300-$400 Pano camera with the option of adding my own lens.

[Tin Can]

All we really need is an affordable back for 5X7. We have the lenses and many of us have 5X7 cameras, and not 1 hour ago I bought 6X17 enlarger carriers.

No I don't have a 6x17 camera, but you gotta plan ahead...

still buying, can't stop


Ben,

I pledged my amounts last week for both a 90 & 65. I've been following the project very closely and I'm not only excited for new people getting into LF, but also for helping the supply and demand of film. This project may create a short term (hopefully long term) boost in LF film.

I was re-reading the pledge options and the $10,000 option states something along the lines of consulting about a dream camera and it got me thinking...

If the Wanderlust 4x5 is successful, any chance you guys would consider building a dedicated 6x17 MF camera? We've recently seen both Holga and Belaire panoramic cameras, but they just aren't optically sufficient. I would absolutely back a sub $300-$400 Pano camera with the option of adding my own lens.

[tenderobject]

WHat kind of enlarger can accomodate 6x17? 5x7 enlarger? That would be huge. I want to get one here. I saw some enlargers in Tehran but didn't able to ask! I'm sure they have big for 4x5-8x10.



All we really need is an affordable back for 5X7. We have the lenses and many of us have 5X7 cameras, and not 1 hour ago I bought 6X17 enlarger carriers.

No I don't have a 6x17 camera, but you gotta plan ahead...

still buying, can't stop

[Tin Can]

tenderobject, you want it all, I see

your join date precedes mine, what are you doing now, film and camera wise,

We may need to move off this thread to continue...


WHat kind of enlarger can accomodate 6x17? 5x7 enlarger? That would be huge. I want to get one here. I saw some enlargers in Tehran but didn't able to ask! I'm sure they have big for 4x5-8x10.

[Corran]

I do not have and would not get a 5x7 camera just for 6x17.

Randy, can I respectfully give you the suggestion of go shoot and stop buying gear?

[Tin Can]

Bryan,

I shoot every day. I seldom show anybody my images. I shot 10 test images, just before I checked my screen. The computer is in the middle of my 'lab' always on.

I'm a gear head, in every sense.

I worked 30 years in a materials test lab, I see everything as another interesting procedure. There, I shot images of micro sections of tiny stuff, little stress cracks in metal. 8 hours of prep for a Polaroid of a microscopic crack.

Has anybody here used FujiFilm Pressure Sensitive film? It creates continuous tone images from pressure loading. You can stand on it and get an image of a shoe. Never did come up with a good way to make Art with it, and it is kinda expensive. Later we invented a pressure sensitive digital imaging plastic paper. Patented and sold. Not my patent, but I would have only earned $1.00. We didn't fight over patents.

We did live motion studies of the internal movements of a diesel cylinder head while running, represented in a video. Nothing is happening to the naked eye. Two weeks of 24 hour set-up for maybe 1 minute of data collection.

I have images of red hot, which is 1700 degrees, exhaust pipes shot in tiny rooms. So hot and dangerous it was a bad place to be shooting film. Digital came later.

The job was 0.1% photography and 99.9% dirty work. My lungs are getting better.

Is this the Large Format shooting gallery? Where do the gear heads play?

[Corran]

You'll excuse me Randy, it's just that there are some who talk incessantly about gear and seldom shoot, or don't at all. It's a bit off-putting to me. I had forgotten about some of your posts in the x-ray thread though.

Anyway...it is my humble opinion that we should all post photos as often as possible, for not only sharing and discussion but dissemination of techniques and such.

[Tin Can]

Right now I am fooling with X-Ray. I need to get up to speed with exposure, processing and scanning.

I dug out a big piece of AN and have been spending a number of hours doing variations on my V700. My 4490 works better for MF and under. Using Vue-Scan. Considering replacing the glass in the V700 with AN from Focal Point. Moire problems.

You have far better weather in Georgia. Summer shooting for me...is coming up and will compete with motorcycle riding and camping. I will try to do mobile darkroom maybe in my van.

Then I need to go to the bars and find some new models...



You'll excuse me Randy, it's just that there are some who talk incessantly about gear and seldom shoot, or don't at all. It's a bit off-putting to me. I had forgotten about some of your posts in the x-ray thread though.

Anyway...it is my humble opinion that we should all post photos as often as possible, for not only sharing and discussion but dissemination of techniques and such.

[pierre506]

Randy， good works～

[Tin Can]

Thank you!



Randy， good works～

[Corran]

That's a matter of opinion...I hate the weather here!

[Simon Liddiard]

Randy - that sounds awesome and dangerous and some more awesome.

Corran - I will start posting my images once I get a scanner and my own developing kit. I'm aiming for this year!

[Larry Kellogg]

Anyway...it is my humble opinion that we should all post photos as often as possible, for not only sharing and discussion but dissemination of techniques and such.

There is a thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98676-Images-FOR-CRITIQUE/page18) for posting images and having them critiqued. I have posted a couple of my shots over there. I am just getting started with large format photography. I'm certainly not shooting willy nilly, I can't afford to do that. I'm sure the TravelWide will free me up to shoot a little more than with a view camera but I don't think I'll go crazy.

How is the experience of focusing the image on the ground glass with the TravelWide? Is the image bright and clear? You guys are shipping some kind of plastic ground glass, right? Is there a higher quality option to carry around than the one being shipped?

[David Aimone]

10k to go, counting down..... 10....

[zuiko90]

[QUOTE=Larry Kellogg;1013687] I am just getting started with large format photography. I'm certainly not shooting willy nilly, I can't afford to do that. I'm sure the TravelWide will free me up to shoot a little more than with a view camera but I don't think I'll go crazy.

"...not shooting willy nilly, I can't afford to do that."

Amen brother, I've been checking out the price of 4X5 film. Yikes! Certainly for testing and set up I'll be using photo paper as negatives. I do have some no name direct positive paper but the contrast is hard to control and of course, the image is mirror reversed.

For some reason the quote did not show up in a blue field. Still learning this forum.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,

I pledged my amounts last week for both a 90 & 65. I've been following the project very closely and I'm not only excited for new people getting into LF, but also for helping the supply and demand of film. This project may create a short term (hopefully long term) boost in LF film.

I was re-reading the pledge options and the $10,000 option states something along the lines of consulting about a dream camera and it got me thinking...

If the Wanderlust 4x5 is successful, any chance you guys would consider building a dedicated 6x17 MF camera? We've recently seen both Holga and Belaire panoramic cameras, but they just aren't optically sufficient. I would absolutely back a sub $300-$400 Pano camera with the option of adding my own lens.
Johnny, thank you for your pledge! Regarding future cameras, NOTHING is off the table, and we'd of course be happy to talk with any backer at the 10K level. :) As a company, we'd like to get to the point where we can produce complete, self-contained cameras. We like products that are wide angle, cheap, good and small, so a panoramic camera MF would be a natural.

[Ben Syverson]

There is a thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98676-Images-FOR-CRITIQUE/page18) for posting images and having them critiqued. I have posted a couple of my shots over there. I am just getting started with large format photography. I'm certainly not shooting willy nilly, I can't afford to do that. I'm sure the TravelWide will free me up to shoot a little more than with a view camera but I don't think I'll go crazy.

How is the experience of focusing the image on the ground glass with the TravelWide? Is the image bright and clear? You guys are shipping some kind of plastic ground glass, right? Is there a higher quality option to carry around than the one being shipped?
4x5 isn't so expensive—check out the Arista Edu 100 (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/190145-Arista-EDU-Ultra-BandW-100-ISO-4x5-50-sheets?cat_id=404) on Freestyle. 66¢ / sheet! Not too shabby.

We haven't been able to test the GG part, because there's no way to prototype it... A 3D print will have a texture on both sides, but we need there to be a very fine texture on the lens side and gloss on the user side. It's fine though—it's an extremely simple part with well-established dimensions. The only thing we'll need to do is determine the amount of texture on the GG side. The important thing is to allow people to calibrate infinity focus, so we will probably err on the side of a very fine texture, which may be slightly dark, but allow very fine focus in the center.

[Kirk Gittings]

Ben, BTW I'm in for a 90mm version. Good luck with this.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, BTW I'm in for a 90mm version. Good luck with this.
Thank you, Kirk! Hopefully this project will bring some folks to LFF and send them down the LF rabbit hole. :)

[zuiko90]

Ben, about the GG. Here is what I did when building my plywood 4X5 point & shoot. I obtained a clear piece of plastic about the size of a film holder and about 1/8 inch thick. It was from a broken sign holder used where I worked. To get the right 3/16 inch depth standoff I used 4, 8-24 bolts through the plastic, adjusted to stick through 3/16 and locked with nuts. For the focus surface I just applied Scotch brand frosted tape to one surface. This worked well for fine adjustment of the lens and tests with photo paper verified my results. Frosted scotch tape makes a reasonable fine focusing surface.

[Andrew O'Neill]

If this is successful, maybe an 8x10 version? The problem would be deciding which lens to make one for...

[JohnnyGator]

Johnny, thank you for your pledge! Regarding future cameras, NOTHING is off the table, and we'd of course be happy to talk with any backer at the 10K level. :) As a company, we'd like to get to the point where we can produce complete, self-contained cameras. We like products that are wide angle, cheap, good and small, so a panoramic camera MF would be a natural.

I wish I had $10k to give considering you guys are only $8,900 away from the goal. I'll tell you what, if I win the lottery tonight I'll pledge $20k to fund more R&D! :)

On a side note - in the next update, is there any way you could add information about the mount itself. It may have already been mentioned and I didnt see it but I was looking for copal size compatability and I was unable to find it...

[David Aimone]

...9...


10k to go, counting down..... 10....

[Larry Kellogg]

If this is successful, maybe an 8x10 version? The problem would be deciding which lens to make one for...

Funny, I had that idea, but thought, nah, that's insane. Handheld 8x10? LOL.

Ben, thanks for the link for cheap film. I'll try it out.

[Oren Grad]

Thank you, Kirk! Hopefully this project will bring some folks to LFF and send them down the LF rabbit hole. :)

When you draft the instruction sheet, how about including a list of URLs of sites recommended for users who'd like to learn more?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Funny, I had that idea, but thought, nah, that's insane. Handheld 8x10? LOL.

The Hobo was hand held. Oh well, probably not enough people to warrant one anyways. Probably why the Hobo died out. Maybe I can slap one together...

[Roger Cole]

Funny, I had that idea, but thought, nah, that's insane. Handheld 8x10? LOL.

Ben, thanks for the link for cheap film. I'll try it out.

The Arista stuff is really Foma. Not bad film. I shoot some of the 400. It's not Kodak or Ilford in QC (or grain, or speed - the 400 is more like a 200 speed film, and the reciprocity failure characteristics of both the 100 and 400 are quite possibly the worst of any conventional film, but speed can be adjusted for in exposure, grain doesn't matter much in 4x5, and reciprocity failure doesn't matter with exposures shorter than 1/2 second, 1 second with most other films.) Another option is x-ray film which is even cheaper. There are several threads here about it. AFAIK you can't get it in 4x5 but since it's either blue, green, or blue-green sensitive you should be able to handle it under a red safelight to cut it down to size.

Handheld 8x10 would be...something, probably not practical. But with the pinhole cap these cameras promise to be better and less expensive than other pinhole options.

[Larry Kellogg]

The Hobo was hand held. Oh well, probably not enough people to warrant one anyways. Probably why the Hobo died out. Maybe I can slap one together...

I remember looking at the Hobo. The advantage of the Hobo is that if anybody gets angry at you after you take their picture, you hold the Hobo a little higher and they break their hand when they try to punch you in the face.

Now, a plastic Hobo, LOL....... I can't believe there would be a huge market for it, though.

[Larry Kellogg]

The Arista stuff is really Foma. Not bad film. I shoot some of the 400. It's not Kodak or Ilford in QC (or grain, or speed - the 400 is more like a 200 speed film, and the reciprocity failure characteristics of both the 100 and 400 are quite possibly the worst of any conventional film, but speed can be adjusted for in exposure, grain doesn't matter much in 4x5, and reciprocity failure doesn't matter with exposures shorter than 1/2 second, 1 second with most other films.).

Ah, ok, thanks for that information, so I can use the Fomapan 100 setting in the Reciprocity timer app to figure out the reciprocity? I've been really happy with Tri-X 320. I'll try this stuff for grins.

[Steve Pitchford]

Just pledged for a 4x5 TravelCam 2 days ago and my bud just pledged today, both for the 90mm Angulon. I've had the lens for over 20 yrs. but mostly use my Schneider 150. Can't wait to go out and try it. I hope everyone who can afford it will get one. Go to the Kickstarter web site below to get the latest info/video. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wanderlust/travelwide-45-camera?ref=live
Steve Pitchford

[zuiko90]

Well, no surprise but a 105mm f4.5 Kodak lens from a 6X9 folder won't cover 4X5. I knew it but that didn't stop me from trying. The image circle had a rather sharp cutoff at a diameter of 120mm, OK if you you don't mind a circular image. I will try different optics and by the time my TravelWide 90 shows up in December I should have several options to the specified lens.

[Roger Cole]

Ah, ok, thanks for that information, so I can use the Fomapan 100 setting in the Reciprocity timer app to figure out the reciprocity? I've been really happy with Tri-X 320. I'll try this stuff for grins.

Yeah you can use Foma 100, 200 and 400 info for the Arista EDU Ultra films of the same speeds as they are the same film.

[Ben Syverson]

Just posted a few more images to our Flickr stream (http://flickr.com/photos/wanderlustcamera/). It's so much fun to scan 4x5 snapshots...

It's amazing how forgiving LF can be. This shot of Susan was taken in NYC last spring using 10 year old expired NPL—tungsten balanced film!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8104/8640601491_fdbd919f52_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wanderlustcamera/8640601491/)

[StevenJohn]

Johnny, thank you for your pledge! Regarding future cameras, NOTHING is off the table, and we'd of course be happy to talk with any backer at the 10K level. :) As a company, we'd like to get to the point where we can produce complete, self-contained cameras. We like products that are wide angle, cheap, good and small, so a panoramic camera MF would be a natural.

I'd definitely pledge for an upcoming 6x17 if it was in the $200 range. I made a homemade panoramic (closer to 6x14) based on a Holga 6x12. The Holga just doesn't hold the film flat enough...

[Larry Kellogg]

Just posted a few more images to our Flickr stream (http://flickr.com/photos/wanderlustcamera/). It's so much fun to scan 4x5 snapshots...

It's amazing how forgiving LF can be. This shot of Susan was taken in NYC last spring using 10 year old expired NPL—tungsten balanced film!

Great shot! Yes, look at how forgiving film can be! Now, you're killing me. How am I going to wait until December for the camera? I guess that's why you mentioned in the video that you can focus the TravelWide with gloves, LOL. When you come to New York again we should meet for coffee.

How are you scanning your shots? I have an Imacon 343 but I can only scan with the 60x180 holder, so I need to stitch, which isn't that much trouble, after all. I just don't have room for a flatbed scanner. It's fun to scan 4x5s because the negative is large and easy to handle. I may do contact prints from some of my 4x5s.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Larry!

I'm scanning with an Epson 4990... My workflow is pretty ordinary, but I am going to produce a series of videos that documents the scanning process, so that LF beginners can get a head start.

I've always wanted to do Platinum or Palladium contact prints of 4x5 or 8x10... The tones are just unbelievably beautiful!

[Leonard Metcalf]

You guys are getting very close to your target... :)

We will all be very pleased when you do...

[Lachlan 717]

Hi, Ben.

The information on the Kickstart page for the 65mm fixed says "When stopped down, everything from about 8 meters to infinity should be in focus".

Do you know roughly what distance it focuses on (i.e. Hyperfocal distance)?

Thanks!

[Steve Smith]

You can work it out from one of the depth of field calculator websites but generally, hyperfocal is considered to be from half the focused distance to infinity - so 16 metres.

I would have expected it to be a bit closer than that though. At what aperture is this for?

This site: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Puts it at 3 metres for f16 with a close focus distance of 1.42 metres.


Steve.

[dave_whatever]

I'm fairly sure earlier in this thread they said that the default focus point for a 65/8 (and thus any other lens with the same flange distance) would be at infinity, hence the shims will let's you bring it further in if needed. Seems a sound design choice.

[Lachlan 717]

You can work it out from one of the depth of field calculator websites but generally, hyperfocal is considered to be from half the focused distance to infinity - so 16 metres.

I would have expected it to be a bit closer than that though. At what aperture is this for?

This site: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Puts it at 3 metres for f16 with a close focus distance of 1.42 metres.


Steve.

When I tried to work it out, I got a HF length of 7.31m. As there was mention of Infinity-8m, this didn't seem to make sense. Thus, the question!

Thanks for your help, though.

[Lachlan 717]

I'm fairly sure earlier in this thread they said that the default focus point for a 65/8 (and thus any other lens with the same flange distance) would be at infinity, hence the shims will let's you bring it further in if needed. Seems a sound design choice.

The referenced article says "...the focus is fixed at a very nice hyper-focal distance". If what you wrote is correct, it seems that this is not a hyperfocal distance.

Please understand that I'm not knocking the camera at all; just trying to work out its machinations.

[pierre506]

93185
Dear Ben,
ONE suggestion：
Is it better that letting the direction to insert the film holder from left to right?
I thought the right hand needs a smooth place to fire the release and hold the camera.
However the film holder's profile there is not comfortable.

pierre

[Larry Kellogg]

93185
Dear Ben,
ONE suggestion：
Is it better that letting the direction to insert the film holder from left to right?
I thought the right hand needs a smooth place to fire the release and hold the camera.
However the film holder's profile there is not comfortable.

pierre

Interesting question. Do you get stuck with the little wire dark slide holders when holding the camera with your right hand? Although, would it be more awkward to remove and put back the dark slide with the left hand? I'm used to doing that with my right hand, but, I'm not handholding my view camera.

Is there any chance we'll be able to put the wire holder in either direction so we get to decide which is more comfortable? ;-)

[pierre506]

Interesting question. Do you get stuck with the little wire dark slide holders when holding the camera with your right hand? Although, would it be more awkward to remove and put back the dark slide with the left hand? I'm used to doing that with my right hand, but, I'm not handholding my view camera.

Is there any chance we'll be able to put the wire holder in either direction so we get to decide which is more comfortable? ;-)

Good idea.

[rdenney]

When I tried to work it out, I got a HF length of 7.31m. As there was mention of Infinity-8m, this didn't seem to make sense. Thus, the question!

Thanks for your help, though.

This was discussed, and Ben clarified that the lens focus point is set to infinity for a 65/8 Super Angulon, and shims will be provided to allow one to set a closer focus.

And I'm not sure Ben did any calculation, but rather just took pictures with his prototype and reported his impression of the outcome.

If I set a circle of confusion standard of 0.025mm (which is the standard I set for making 16x20 prints from 4x5, rather than the lower standard built into DOFMaster), a 65mm lens, focused to infinity, at f/22, will provide depth of field from about 8 meters to infinity. Shimming it out to focus at that 8 meters (because the near limit of depth of field when focused to infinity is the hyperfocal distance), the depth of field extends from about 4 meters to infinity.

My own strategy might be to shim it to the hyperfocal distance for f/16, which is 10 or 11 meters, and which will provide depth of field down to 5 meters. Stopping down to f/22 would give me another couple of feet on the near distance. It would also reduce the circle of confusion at infinity to make infinity focus a bit sharper. And if I reduce my standard a bit, the depth of field would increase.

Rick "whose #00-#0 shutter adapter might already shim it out enough" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Hi guys!

Yes, the "hyperfocal" range was determined empirically rather than theoretically, and refers to the range at ƒ/8. At ƒ/16 or beyond you should have significantly more flexibility. But hyperfocal distance is a highly contentious topic, so rather than get into circles of confusion, I would prefer to ship the camera with infinity focus and shims, and let the user fine tune to their personal taste.

Regarding the film holder direction: it's canonical and ergonomic to load from the right. The film holder actually extends the grip and helps (along with the "thumbs-up" curl on the spring) to keep it in your hand:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/grip-1024.jpg

But if you want, you can always hold the camera upside down. :)

[Toulcaz31]

Ben,

Thanks to the third update. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wanderlust/travelwide-45-camera/posts
Exactly the info many wanted to see at that stage.

Apart from this fantastic concept, I think we can be glad you are listening a lot about what is going on and manage well people expectations.

[Tin Can]

Good job on posting the expanded lens list. Pictures show a nice rig. The Travelwide will be a great Polaroid camera, using a Model 405 back, the heavier 405 back will better balance the camera with the lens I will be using, my existing Calter 90 mm.

Strap a 405 Polaroid back on it and show that, some people need images, not just, 'fits every 4X5 back ever made'. I know, you know and all reading this know, but the real market is newbies. Show them everything possible.

I bet we hit 100K if we all keep pushing!

[Roger Cole]

I have the locking style Riteway film holders. Will the back depress the button to release the darkslide properly? No big deal if it won't - I'll just get a few regular holders. In fact, as I want to extend my collection of holders anyway and the locking ones can be hard to find, I may even have others by the time I get the camera anyway.

[Ben Syverson]

I have the locking style Riteway film holders. Will the back depress the button to release the darkslide properly? No big deal if it won't - I'll just get a few regular holders. In fact, as I want to extend my collection of holders anyway and the locking ones can be hard to find, I may even have others by the time I get the camera anyway.
Hi Roger,
Just tested a Riteway—works exactly as expected! Only downside is that the large tabs stick out a good amount, and may get in the way of your hand. Neat holder though!

[Roger Cole]

I like them because I've accidentally pulled a slide on the regular type before. Some people don't like them because they won't fit in a quart ziplock, but they fit perfectly in a 6x9 anti static bag. And thanks for checking, that's good to know. If I don't like the handling with my Riteways I'll just pick up a few regular style ones, no worries.

[zuiko90]

I have the locking style Riteway film holders. Will the back depress the button to release the darkslide properly? No big deal if it won't - I'll just get a few regular holders. In fact, as I want to extend my collection of holders anyway and the locking ones can be hard to find, I may even have others by the time I get the camera anyway.
Got those same holders Roger, glad that Ben tried them out and they work. I'm getting quite excited about this well thought out project.

[Kuzano]

All right everybody... you have the power to cost me another $100 on the project. I promise that if the Pledges reach $70,000 by midnight to night (PM), I will pledge another $100 for a third camera.

Regarding film holders, I have 159 Fuji Quickloads and Kodak Easyloads. I plan to use my Kodak Professional holder and go through those envelopes of film. Love Quick and Easy loads. No dust, no sheet film loading, pull-shoot-push and send for processing. I know the Fuji Quickload holder is the preferred folder because of the bad history on the early Easyload holders from Kodak. However the Kodak Easyload holder added much more light tight construction, AND a spring loaded pressure plate for flatness. In addition the Kodak Pro adds a "largish" end sticking out of the camera, which for this particular camera offers a very convenient handle on the right side.

I believe there are efforts to create an envelope system that can be loaded with sheet film, which would reduce the size of 10-12 sheets of film to 1 inch thick pile of envelopes ... no hardware.

These camera's will be the best tool I can imagine to work my way through those envelopes of film. The system is great, but it's still a hassle with normal field or monorail camera's.

I am looking forward to making that additiional pledge tonight.

I know pocket books come in varied sizes, but I encourage many to take a look and see if one more of these cameras' may be in order... NO pressure (because I am not capable of that), just a thought out there.

[Ben Syverson]

All right everybody... you have the power to cost me another $100 on the project. I promise that if the Pledges reach $70,000 by midnight to night (PM), I will pledge another $100 for a third camera.
Woah, a $70,000 challenge! :) Thank you, and I hope we make it! :)


I believe there are efforts to create an envelope system that can be loaded with sheet film, which would reduce the size of 10-12 sheets of film to 1 inch thick pile of envelopes ... no hardware.
Woah, where can I order one?! Justin and I have talked casually about creating a reloadable envelope system, but it's a bit of an undertaking. It would be great to have something that was a cross between a Grafmatic and a QuickLoad!

[zuiko90]

OK, now here is a odd thing. I'm also enamored as of late with a Minolta 16II with a negative size of 10X14mm! Talk about strange bedfellows!


10X14mm, 140 sq. mm
95X120mm, 11,400 sq. mm
81.42 times larger area for the 4X5

I must be mad.

[Tin Can]

I almost pre-ordered a new Super 16 format digital camcorder yesterday. I can be impulsive. Somehow I did not click. Wikipedia says Super 16 was 7.41 mm by 12.52 mm. Blackmagic is 7.02 mm X 12.48.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964117-REG/blackmagic_design_blackmagic_pocket_cinema_camera.html

Looks very good and fits any lens we can find.

Maybe our heros can remake 16 mm...






OK, now here is a odd thing. I'm also enamored as of late with a Minolta 16II with a negative size of 10X14mm! Talk about strange bedfellows!


10X14mm, 140 sq. mm
95X120mm, 11,400 sq. mm
81.42 times larger area for the 4X5

I must be mad.

[Ben Syverson]

I almost pre-ordered a new Super 16 format digital camcorder yesterday. I can be impulsive. Somehow I did not click. Wikipedia says Super 16 was 7.41 mm by 12.52 mm. Blackmagic is 7.02 mm X 12.48.
Oh man, that Blackmagic pocket camera is unbelievably cool. I'm pretty happy with the video gear I've currently got, but I would love to shoot RAW!

[Tin Can]

My buddy has the 4K version on order. He is a Hell of a shooter, with a real good eye. You give him a old lens and in about 3 minutes, he knows all about it, dof, etc.



Oh man, that Blackmagic pocket camera is unbelievably cool. I'm pretty happy with the video gear I've currently got, but I would love to shoot RAW!

[jonreid]

I sincerely hope this project succeeds as it appears it will.
I won't be pledging or buying at this stage. I own a Razzle with a 150mm lens which is about as wide as I want to shoot, so I'll stick with that. It's heavier I know but I love it, rangefinder focussing etc. just with it could focus closer. Maybe I'll sprig for a dedicated portrait Razzle one day.
Enjoy your cameras ladies and gents.

Jon

[rfesk]

I want to order two - these cameras are a great value and will never be hard to sell at a later date. Kickstarter recognizes my computer now that I have ordered one. So I will have to get someone else to purchase the second one for me (or them.)

[Corran]

Past $70k guys!

[Chris A Fraser]

Wow!!! Impressive day today!

[Ben Syverson]

Past $70k guys!
Awesome!!! Only $5K to go! We can do it!!

[BarryS]

It's a $72K morning. Let's get this 100% funded this weekend and move on to the stretch goals--the pinhole cap and the bottle opener...err..lens wrench.

[Nicolasllasera]

Could it be possible you come out with a pledge that includes two 90? I already got one but at the price they sale I wouldnt mind having a spear one. Also could I (without breaking) take the helical of? That way I could have a 90mm and a 65mm all in one.

[Ben Syverson]

Could it be possible you come out with a pledge that includes two 90? I already got one but at the price they sale I wouldnt mind having a spear one. Also could I (without breaking) take the helical of? That way I could have a 90mm and a 65mm all in one.
Unfortunately we can't offer two of the same item—Kickstarter forbids it. Currently the helical is designed to be permanently attached, but if we go over our goal, we'll talk to the manufacturer about using machine screw inserts so that it could be swapped out. It may or may not be possible...

[Peter De Smidt]

Ben, I've got an older F8 90mm SA. That should work, right?

[Kuzano]

OK... a number of new pledges yesterday cost me $100. I said I would pledge $100, if the Kickstarter pledges broke $70,000 by midnight last night. Well it hit $70,000 way before midnight and was well above $71,000 by midnight. So, being an honorable sort, I pledged my additional $100 during the early evening, while I still had the money in the bank.

And guess what, It's somewhat above $73,000 right now 9 AM-PMT in Oregon, and I would be excited to see it break $74,000 by Midnight tonight (I'll be up... I usually am until midnight... gotta see who David L is harassing)

However, I'm running out of camera budget money for April, so I'll just rely on those lurking out there... to get with the program and pledge your little hearts out. This thing is going to go!!!!!

[Frank_E]

Unfortunately we can't offer two of the same item—Kickstarter forbids it. Currently the helical is designed to be permanently attached, but if we go over our goal, we'll talk to the manufacturer about using machine screw inserts so that it could be swapped out. It may or may not be possible...

i was lucky enough to get one of the early bird 90's
am also interested in a 65
so am also interested in any way of converting the one camera
to do both

if that is not feasible you might let us know how we might be able to order a second camera
and save on the shipping costs ($80 to ship two cameras to Canada seems a little high!)
I am in the same boat as others who are not able to make two separate purchases on Kickstarter

getting close to your target….
this is clearly going to go over the top….

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, I've got an older F8 90mm SA. That should work, right?
Yes, definitely!

I'm so excited! We're only THREE cameras away from our goal!

[Tin Can]

Holy shit!

Keep it rolling to 100K.

We need the damn bloggers!



Yes, definitely!

I'm so excited! We're only THREE cameras away from our goal!

[Frank_E]

Mike Johnson (The On-Line Photographer) finally picked up the story
that will definitely add some more sales

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

[jnl]

Mike Johnson (The On-Line Photographer) finally picked up the story
that will definitely add some more sales

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

Yes, that was a very nice write up. THANKS OREN GRAD!!!

[Steve Goldstein]

Over the top!

[Frank_E]

they (or should I say we) are over $75K….!!!!

[Larry Kellogg]

Woohoo!! Congratulations!

[WayneStevenson]

$75,154 Congrats!!!!!

[WayneStevenson]

Better get building my camera Ben. ;)

[Tin Can]

Best Kickstarter I have been a part of!

And it's Saturday night, look out Chicago!

This is a drinkin town.