Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Ben Syverson]

Well, thanks to Oren Grad for pushing us over the top, and to Mike Johnston for publishing the post!

But most of all, thank YOU guys for all your support! Now I guess we have to go make a camera. :)

[jnl]

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU !!!!!! We really appreciate your support and help in sending us over the top so soon! Still 18 days to hit the stretch goals:)

TRAVELWIDE will be made!!!!

[David Karp]

This is awesome news. I am really looking forward to receiving mine! Talk to Freestyle. I'll bet they will have you squirt a few more bodies through that mold!

[David Karp]

Pretty excited. Just bought a coated 90mm Raptar to go with my Travelwide. Don't forget about these, they are the same as the 90mm Optars.

[maurits]

Congrats Ben and Justin,

Great Kickstarter project! I never had so much fun with a camera that isn't even built yet. :)

[BarryS]

Over $75K--it really happened! Congratulations Ben and Justin!

[Toulcaz31]

Still 18 days to hit the stretch goals:)

Gents, congratulations! Is there a limit of quantity you can produce?
It may sound crazy but I do not see why you wouldn't go over $100k.

[Tin Can]

Maybe this is just the start of a whole new line, imagine 5X7 Point and shoot!

Maybe LF film sales will jump.

Better start hoarding film...

[Roger Cole]

Maybe this is just the start of a whole new line, imagine 5X7 Point and shoot!

Maybe LF film sales will jump.

Better start hoarding film...

Someone said something about 8x10 which is pretty outrageous for hand holding but 5x7 might not be too bad at all.

OTOH, I have two 4x5 enlargers. 5x7 ones are harder to find, especially that will ship or locally, and a bit too small for contact prints for most of us, all the usual reasons people gravitate toward 4x5 or 8x10.

[Roger Cole]

I just ordered myself one of those cheapie viewfinders on eBay. I had been holding off until I was sure the camera was funded. I opted for 28mm which will be a virtual match in the long dimension and not show quite as much as the 90mm lens will record in the shorter dimension. This seemed best to me because everything I see in the viewfinder should be on the film, and a bit more. I can always crop in printing if I want, but I can't add back to the image so this seemed better to me than one that showed slightly too much.

Now for a Blik rangerfinder...

[Tin Can]

I got 2 old 5X7 enlargers out of Detroit last fall. I have a Dichro head in transit. All dirt cheap. The enlargers were $25 each...


Someone said something about 8x10 which is pretty outrageous for hand holding but 5x7 might not be too bad at all.

OTOH, I have two 4x5 enlargers. 5x7 ones are harder to find, especially that will ship or locally, and a bit too small for contact prints for most of us, all the usual reasons people gravitate toward 4x5 or 8x10.

[Tin Can]

Roger, please name the cheapie viewfinder.

Thanks!



I just ordered myself one of those cheapie viewfinders on eBay. I had been holding off until I was sure the camera was funded. I opted for 28mm which will be a virtual match in the long dimension and not show quite as much as the 90mm lens will record in the shorter dimension. This seemed best to me because everything I see in the viewfinder should be on the film, and a bit more. I can always crop in printing if I want, but I can't add back to the image so this seemed better to me than one that showed slightly too much.

Now for a Blik rangerfinder...

[Roger Cole]

Hit or miss though when you find them. Cheap when you can find 'em. So are 8x10s - people will sometimes pay you to come get 'em, but they aren't practical to ship and seldom local.

[Tin Can]

I paid real money for two 8X10's, nobody is giving anything useful away anymore.





Hit or miss though when you find them. Cheap when you can find 'em. So are 8x10s - people will sometimes pay you to come get 'em, but they aren't practical to ship and seldom local.

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's got to be a record! Congratulations!

[Corran]

Congrats to Ben and Justin, and also to us! Can't WAIT!

[Roger Cole]

I paid real money for two 8X10's, nobody is giving anything useful away anymore.

Ok, that was true at one time. OTOH I still see 4x5s for bargain prices occasionally so it depends on who has it . It's safe to say people on the forums and eBay know they are worth more. Craig's List still has bargains on film and darkroom fear sometimes, at least here.

The viewfinder was linked somewhere in the thread but I will PM you the link. I don't have it handy now as I'm now on my iPhone.

[Tin Can]

Yes, those tiny 4X5's are still cheap. LOL

However the 4X5 revival is underway! Thanks to our Hero's!

After people shoot the Wanderlust, they WILL want to move up. I am seeing interest in 8X10 here.

Retro everything has been big in Chicago for 20 years, and is only getting stronger.


Ok, that was true at one time. OTOH I still see 4x5s for bargain prices occasionally so it depends on who has it . It's safe to say people on the forums and eBay know they are worth more. Craig's List still has bargains on film and darkroom fear sometimes, at least here.

The viewfinder was linked somewhere in the thread but I will PM you the link. I don't have it handy now as I'm now on my iPhone.

[Chr!s h0t0h]

Yeah!!! i juste bought mine im efing excited :D congrats Ben and Justin

[Roger Cole]

Thanks all of you who replied.



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.




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?

Randy suggested I post the link here, but I found where I'd got it from and just quoted it. See the link above for cheap viewfinders.

I had been concerned he'd run out, but if you read the description he makes these, and admits up front they aren't going to compete with a $200-$600 model, but though he has a couple of feedbacks saying they are not useful and dim, many others seem to like them. For $32 (including shipping to the US) I figure there's not much to lose. He makes them in an assortment of focal lengths so you can get shorter than a 28mm if you want.

Here's a direct link to the 28mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/28mm-Viewfinder-View-finder-FOR-Leica-Voigtlander-Carl-Zeiss-Lens-Camera-/181096693592?pt=US_Viewfinders_Eyecups&hash=item2a2a343f58

24mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/24mm-Viewfinder-View-finder-FOR-Leica-Voigtlander-Carl-Zeiss-Lens-Camera-/171020152612?pt=US_Viewfinders_Eyecups&hash=item27d1986f24

[dave_whatever]

OK guys, I have something that might interest people.

I got one of the super early-bird $49 slots, but I feel I am in need of the double 90+65 deal, which will cost me marginally more than sticking with my $49 plus adding a 65mm on a separate kickstarter account...but I can't really be bothered doing that and I'd rather help the greater good here.

So, when I pull the plug on my super-early bird slot, one of you lucky people will get to have it - ideally this is to tempt someone into this thing who's not pledged yet, not just a cheapscake who fancies saving themselves 50 bananas. There's no "I" in Travelwide guys.

It'll be first come first served, I'll pull the plug on my $49 slot at lets say 2130hrs GMT tonight - which is in about 20 minutes.

[Michael_qrt]

That got me off the fence Dave, cheers. Definitely lucked into checking the thread at just the right moment.

Also, congratulations Ben and Justin! This thing is flying now, could get 1000+ backers by the end.

[dave_whatever]

You're welcome Mike, glad it stayed within the forum family.

[Ben Syverson]

You're welcome Mike, glad it stayed within the forum family.
How cool is that? You guys rule.

[Tin Can]

Very cool, a 1/2 sale was bumped into 3 sales.



How cool is that? You guys rule.

[Jim Becia]

Congratulations on reaching your $75,000 goal. I see that you are very well on the way to $85,000. Jim

[Tin Can]

I think you are getting close to Critical Mass.

I hope you got a BIG factory.

Are you charting? I'm sure Kickstarter graphs for you.

I'm seeing bell curve..

[Kuzano]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's been a $7,000 day (10% in one day), and it's not over....
Could we be heading for a $10,000 day. I have 4 more hours here until midnight PMT

Just $5,000 a day for the remaining time would add another $90,000 to the pot... for $165,000 total. NOW IS THE TIME TO START PUSHING!!! Shoot for 1500 Cameras... Waddaya think. Know anyone you haven't talked with?

[Tin Can]

I bet the boys are drunk. Did you see the PBR can in the update, the drink of choice for many younger people here.

A few PBR and a few shots of Malort and o'boy...don't ask me how I know.

They deserve it, they have been very busy.

[Ben Syverson]

I bet the boys are drunk. Did you see the PBR can in the update, the drink of choice for many younger people here.

A few PBR and a few shots of Malort and o'boy...don't ask me how I know.

They deserve it, they have been very busy.
Oh my goodness, I haven't had Malort since my last birthday. But if any night called for it, this would be it!

For those who are counting, today was a 14% day... we started at 94% and finished at 108%. The only other days which were bigger were the first two—when you all were rushing to get your early bird pledges in. :)

I suppose we need to start locking down stretch goals beyond $85K. Don't worry, we have ideas—never a shortage of ideas.

I really can't thank you guys enough for your support. This core LFF community helped us shape the camera, and you guys are a huge reason why we reached our goal. Now we have a great opportunity to not just make the camera, but to focus on each detail and make everything "just right." The only way we can think to reward you is to simply deliver a kick ass camera.

[Tin Can]

See, a good Chicago boy, he has had Malort, most people never heard of the poison.

I may go to Continental tomorrow, never on Saturday, they sell Malort by the case...

Rumor is 73 partly sunny degrees tomorrow!

[WayneStevenson]

Ben, are you selling helical focus rings seperately anywhere?

[jnl]

Malort is rancid!

[Michael_qrt]

You're welcome Mike, glad it stayed within the forum family.

Thanks again, not really sure why I was on the fence to be honest as this is going to be a great product. Just made a few rather expensive acquisitions lately blowing out the photo budget bigtime, but then I already have appropriate lenses on hand so I'm really glad to be on board.

In other thoughts I bet someone could get some traction with some clear simple totorials or videos on handling 4x5 film and low cost development methods off the back of this. Maybe there's even room for a product for 4x5 processing, although Ilford does seem to have just taken up the mod54 processor, I remember seeing recently in the DIY forum someone had a nice 3d model for a 4x5 film spiral for SS developing tanks but the 3D printing cost was high... Just some thoughts.

[rdenney]

Ben and Justin, congratulations! I kept waiting for the participation to reach demand and taper off, but it seemed if anything to gain momentum. It is a testament to a clean design that stays committed to the original use cases and requirements. It is also a testament to your simple and effective videos--watching those videos made me want to go out and make photographs, and made my non-LF friends want to go make LF photos. I've had to write more than a few emails to those friends explaining what they'll need in terms of processing and film. I could never have persuaded them to attempt LF using something like a Speed Graphic.

I am extremely proud to be the first backer of your project--I hit the button even before you posted the link in this thread, when Kickstarter reported zero backers. But I'm not done yet--my wife is going to order one, too. And I'll bet that more people will jump in now that it is a sure thing.

Now, of course, you'll have to deliver the goods. :)

I think you need to consider another bonus offering if you reach $95K, or $105K. As I write this, you're fast approaching the $85K bonus level. Maybe a branded tote bag with a shoulder strap for carrying it.

Rick "raising a glass" Denney

[gliderbee]

Too bad about the shipping cost to Europe: total would be 139 usd, and that's ok, but with customs and import taxes added, it will be nearly 200usd total. ..:(

Stefan

[dave_whatever]

That is one problem with the $40 and $60 postage charges is that we will get customs/duty charged on the total including postage. It's just lucky that these kickstarter cameras are really gifts not retail....

[dave_whatever]

Ideas for possible bonus extras to include now that you're swimming in cash...might add a bit of value but not cost you much:

- Pinhole exposure calculator
- Step-up ring to take the angulon filter size up to something more conventional. Ideally 40.5-49mm then people can share filters with the 65/8.
- Lens cap for the above.
- Appropriately sized hoods for both lenses
- Appropriately sized bungees for using larger backs.
- Spacer plate (plus screws?) so we can move the spring far enough out to get a Grafmatic in there.
- Cable release (ok most LF shooters already have one, but newbies might not)

[MonkeyBrain]

- Spacer plate (plus screws?) so we can move the spring far enough out to get a Grafmatic in there.


yes please!

[Michael_qrt]

yes please!

The spacer plate would be interesting as long as it still allowed use of a normal film holder. Otherwise you're back to undoing screws to switch between normal film holders and grafmatics etc. Perhaps what would be good for switching in the field would be to use thumb screws to attach the spring.

[dave_whatever]

I was thinking just of switching it before a session, i.e. only take out either grafmatics or normal slides. I think unscrewing and changing it in the field would be more hassle than its worth, unless the guys can come up with some genius elegant solution.

[MonkeyBrain]

Yep, personally I'm not too concerned with switching over mid-shoot either, as I almost never use anything but grafmatics. But I realize that this will not necessarily correspond with everyone else's needs...

[Tin Can]

Screws will wear out the hole and not be able to be doweled.

[rfesk]

Ben, I strongly recommend not promising anything more until you have the production (and other costs) well under way and under control.

I am far more interested in getting the camera as promoted without you guys discovering that you are in a hole and can't get out.

I speak from experience.

[BarryS]

It looks like the stretch goal of $85K is only hours away. One suggestion for the pinhole cap--add a small loop to the cap and another one to the cap base, so they can be connected with a thin cord. Otherwise, that tiny cap will be easily lost. I'd let the owners deal with finding a bit of string or cord and attaching, since that would be a b*tch for you guys to do 800+ cameras.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, I strongly recommend not promising anything more until you have the production (and other costs) well under way and under control.

I am far more interested in getting the camera as promoted without you guys discovering that you are in a hole and can't get out.

I speak from experience.
Wise words, and ones we are certainly keeping in mind! We do not want to over-promise, and we want to leave miles of wiggle room so that each component can be done very well. Now that we're in the territory of stretch goals, we just want to add simple things that complete the camera, or refine existing details.

[Simon Liddiard]

Well done everyone, I'm so pleased to be part of this excellent project! Ben and Justin - I trust you both had a good Saturday night?

[BennehBoy]

Can't believe I only just found out about this, great work Ben!

[zuiko90]

Belated congrats to Ben and Justin. Was off to a camera show yesterday to seek "the lens". No success at the show but I have 8 months to search. Might put it on the back burner for a while until the hoopla dies down. I can also put a +3 close up lens on my 130mm f7.7 Kodak Anastigmat. That will reduce the focal length to about 93mm, short enough to use with a spacer. Would serve until an alternative arrived and can be tested on my regular 4X5.

[Nicolasllasera]

85k!!!

[rdenney]

Ben, I strongly recommend not promising anything more until you have the production (and other costs) well under way and under control.

I am far more interested in getting the camera as promoted without you guys discovering that you are in a hole and can't get out.

I speak from experience.

Yes--requirements creep is deadly. If I decide I need to change formats mid-shoot, I can just use an additional camera. Or, I can remove the spring clip and use an "elastomeric retention device" for regular film holders. Or, I can devise my own spacers.

Rick "who has two 65/8 SA's" Denney

[Chauncey Walden]

I was already trying to figure out what I would have to do to get a Grafmatic in there. This camera is crying for a Grafmatic - point and shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot!

[Tin Can]

There go the Grafmatic prices!

[Roger Cole]

Grafmatic is not a big deal IMHO. I really wanted one until I got it. Now..meh. Harder to keep film dust free, at least the way I'm loading now. Actually heavier and not really much smaller than three regular holders. The only real advantage is not having to change holders. That would be good for this camera, granted, but carrying three or four regular holders with the camera in a shoulder bag as they show is not that bad. Granted a Grafmatic would allow carrying the camera loaded with six sheets with NO bag though.

[David Karp]

Ben,

Am I correct in understanding that the 65mm version will not work with the various modern 65mm lenses from Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon, etc., due to the shutter size? I am thinking of adding a 65mm version.

[MonkeyBrain]

Grafmatic is not a big deal IMHO. I really wanted one until I got it. Now..meh.

Really? I bought two to start with...and liked them so much I bought another ten!



The only real advantage is not having to change holders.

Yes, only not having to change holders, how disappointing...

Agree on the dust though. But I scan, so it's not an issue for me, and I actually find them much easier to load than a regular holder. If you just shoot landscapes or something I can see why they wouldn't revolutionize your way of working, but for portraits...pretty much essential. In fact, if it wasn't for the existence of grafmatics I would never have considered moving up to LF in the first place.

Everyone works differently though...

[Tin Can]

I use my 2X3 Grafmatics seldom, but I am saving them for...

I just prefer DDS, as new as possible.

[Roger Cole]

Yeah I pretty much only shoot stationary subjects with LF. Maybe a posed portrait now and then but not often. Can't abide dust either since I print optically. For things likely to move I have both medium format and 35mm.

I DO see the appeal for this camera but not sure the dust hassle is worth it. I'd rather have two clean sheets than six dusty ones, or sixty dusty ones for that matter.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,

Am I correct in understanding that the 65mm version will not work with the various modern 65mm lenses from Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon, etc., due to the shutter size? I am thinking of adding a 65mm version.
Hi David,

The 65 is really made for the SA 65 ƒ/8, but it possibly could worth with others with some modification. When we talk to our mold makers, I'm going to ask them about the possibility of making the center post (which will create the hole in the "lens board") interchangeable, so that we could produce a 00 and 0 version of the 65 plate. If it's only a few hundred dollars to make that an interchangeable part, we'll definitely do it (probably for both the 65 plate and the 90 carrier).

However, keep in mind that FFD is probably different among these lenses, so some shims or spacers may be required.

Hopefully I'll have more concrete information as we move along in the process!

[Corran]

Well you're well past your stretch goal...any new ideas for additional things? Honestly, I'm still hoping for a model for the 47mm XL...I figure if you're going super-wide, go all the way to 47!

[Ben Syverson]

Woah, one 65 package has become available! $399 for a Travelwide 65 + Lens

[Tin Can]

Shit, and I just bought 2 other cameras and an enlarger. Not today!

The 90 will still be just fine with me.

This deal will not last long at all.

[Jim Cole]

And it didn't!

[Tin Can]

I looked at it, I could have clicked, but I am not a wide angle guy, too many years shooting 50 mm on a Pentax.



And it didn't!

[AuditorOne]

I looked at it, I could have clicked, but I am not a wide angle guy, too many years shooting 50 mm on a Pentax.

+1

90 is wide enough for me. It was exactly what I wanted. A 65 would be wasted on me as I would hardly ever use it. Besides, if I did use anything that wide it would be for interior architecture and for that I would absolutely need movements. :confused:

[Roger Cole]

I like wide but not THAT wide. In fact, I'd really rather have something like 120-135 on 4x5, but I'll take the 90. Not really interested in the 65 much less anything shorter, and not just because I have a 90 but nothing shorter. Anything shorter is a specialty lens for specialty shots (on 4x5 anyway - of course you could use it with a rollfilm back like he shows the Calumet working, but then why not buy yourself an RB67 or a 6x6 or 645?) Wider requires careful leveling. Wider REALLY needs front rise in many circumstances. Wider really needs...well, a view camera. For a point and shoot 90 is about as wide as I care to go. I can understand that folks will do cool things with the 65, though I think it will be a lot more limited than 90, but 47? Really?

[Tin Can]

I don't even like 50 mm on my RB. 127 just right on 6X7. Since I do have a 90 for 4X5, but don't use it, this will force me to do some wide. And that will be good!

[Ken Ford]

I had a chance to handle Ben's prototype today - very impressive. It tipped me over into subscribing for a 65, and I even found what looks like a clean Super Angulon 65/8 for something less than spot pricing. Life is good.

[Tin Can]

Jealous!

[Ken Ford]

Jealous!

:)

[zuiko90]

This is just crazy, but crazy is a good way, $15K over goal and 17 days to go! Hope they also decide to supply the camera after fulfilling the backer obligations. Might want to get another one later. Right now I have to carve $250 out of the budget for the 90 f6.8.

[Ben Syverson]

This is just crazy, but crazy is a good way, $15K over goal and 17 days to go! Hope they also decide to supply the camera after fulfilling the backer obligations. Might want to get another one later. Right now I have to carve $250 out of the budget for the 90 f6.8.
Definitely crazy in a good way! :) I hope we can hit $100K, because then we wouldn't have to be price-conscious when deciding on processes and manufacturing details.

We will certainly offer the camera for sale after the Kickstarter, although we won't take sales until the camera is actually in production. But it would be a waste to make these molds and then not run them. :)

[AuditorOne]

I have no way of knowing but you may have sold more large format cameras in the last couple of weeks than have been sold by one camera manufacturer in many, many years. Congrats. I am looking forward to your continued updates as you proceed with the manufacturing and distribution process.

Thanks for the chance to be part of this very exciting project and thanks for having given large format more exposure than it probably has had in many, many years.

[Steve Goldstein]

What's especially interesting to me is that this success comes on the heels of the Harman Titan, a pinhole-only 4x5 that's a relative market newcomer as well. All indications are that it's outstripped Harman's expectations. The Titan is more than twice the Travelwide's price, is more limited as it's not designed to mount a lens, and has the distributional muscle of a well-known manufacturer behind it. You can order one today and have it within the week. Yet the Travelwide now has almost 750 supporters, none of whom has any expectation of receiving a camera for months!

Ben and Justin have done a superb job of identifying a price/performance niche and designing a product to fill it. I'm certainly looking forward to receiving mine.

[Tin Can]

It is obvious now, you will far exceed 100K.

I would bet a good Chicago beer, you make $150K.

The market was obviously begging for reasonable new cameras.

I hope Ilford sells a ton of film!

I am extremely pro USA products, but Kodak is a disappoint and not the consumers fault.



Definitely crazy in a good way! :) I hope we can hit $100K, because then we wouldn't have to be price-conscious when deciding on processes and manufacturing details.

We will certainly offer the camera for sale after the Kickstarter, although we won't take sales until the camera is actually in production. But it would be a waste to make these molds and then not run them. :)

[AuditorOne]

I for one will be pulling from some of my Efke 25 stash. :)

[David Karp]

The 65 is really made for the SA 65 ƒ/8 . . . .

Thanks Ben, I was thinking of picking up a more modern 65 that I would share with my other cameras. Having that possibility would be great. A 65 would be a whole new way of seeing for me. I don't think shimming will be a problem. That is a pretty low tech solution.

[Tin Can]

Last night, I counted my efke stash. 13 boxes of 25, 50 and 100. All 2x3... One box efke 100 7x17! I seldom shoot 4X5, but I have a large supply of expired everything except efke. I can shoot our new camera for a long time, even old Velvia 50!



I for one will be pulling from some of my Efke 25 stash. :)

[JohnnyGator]

Ben,

Congrats on the success of the camera!

Just to be clear, is the plastic ground glass included with the camera? If so, how clear is it? Does it work well?

[Kuzano]

What's especially interesting to me is that this success comes on the heels of the Harman Titan, a pinhole-only 4x5 that's a relative market newcomer as well. All indications are that it's outstripped Harman's expectations. The Titan is more than twice the Travelwide's price, is more limited as it's not designed to mount a lens, and has the distributional muscle of a well-known manufacturer behind it. You can order one today and have it within the week. Yet the Travelwide now has almost 750 supporters, none of whom has any expectation of receiving a camera for months!

Ben and Justin have done a superb job of identifying a price/performance niche and designing a product to fill it. I'm certainly looking forward to receiving mine.

And it appears that 93 of those pledges are for the TWO camera pledge amount, which means about 840 cameras, less any pledges that did not pledge for a camera.

[Kuzano]

Ben,

Congrats on the success of the camera!

Just to be clear, is the plastic ground glass included with the camera? If so, how clear is it? Does it work well?

HOST A TUPPERWARE PARTY!!

Well, I've cut large tupperware and other opaque plastic trays to get ground glass for both large format and 2X3. In fact just a few weeks ago, I pulled out my 2X3 inch Plastic Ground Glass (source Tupperware) and taped it to the film plane rails in my Fuji G690bl Texas Rangefinder. That's how I calibrate all my rangefinder camera's. Ever try to find a ground glass for 35mm. My Kiev (KNEB) 35mm rangefinder is calibrated with Tupper sourced plastic. Some people us wax paper, and some people use the opaques Scotch Tape.

I just host a Tupperware party. OH and a bonus is that the local Tupperware hostess Is HOTTTT!!!, as are some of the guests occasionally.

[JohnnyGator]

HOST A TUPPERWARE PARTY!!

Well, I've cut large tupperware and other opaque plastic trays to get ground glass for both large format and 2X3. In fact just a few weeks ago, I pulled out my 2X3 inch Plastic Ground Glass (source Tupperware) and taped it to the film plane rails in my Fuji G690bl Texas Rangefinder. That's how I calibrate all my rangefinder camera's. Ever try to find a ground glass for 35mm. My Kiev (KNEB) 35mm rangefinder is calibrated with Tupper sourced plastic. Some people us wax paper, and some people use the opaques Scotch Tape.

I just host a Tupperware party. OH and a bonus is that the local Tupperware hostess Is HOTTTT!!!, as are some of the guests occasionally.

Wait, now I'm confused...Is the tupperware hostess included in the sale? If I bought two cameras, does that mean I get two hostesses!?!?

lol!

[Kuzano]

JohnnyGator,

I'll run that by Ben, because I am told that there are a set of twins in Nebraska (Beerfart, NB if not mistaken, 16 miles from Effigy), who host Tupperware parties and are easy on the eyes. Award winners in Tupperware sales. Perhaps Ben can arrange a mid term pledge amount whereby the twins will host a Tupperware party, deliver two camera's and send out invitations to a number of their customer. Party to be hosted at a hotel ballroom in your town. The sisters and invitees will be flown into your community. Your job is to get them from the airport to the hotel.

No surprise here.... it will be a hefty pledge.

[Ben Syverson]

Hi guys!

There will be a plastic ground glass that ships with the camera, mostly to help calibrate focus.

Yesterday I met up with some folks from RFF, and shot a few sheets of HP5. I just developed and scanned them today. Still having issues with fogging from the prototyping material...

http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/45-rff-group.jpg


http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/45-rff-el.jpg

[zuiko90]

Ah Chicago. Sometimes I miss the city. Lived there from 1969 to 1978 but somehow wound up in the pacific northwest for the past 35 years. When I returned for a visit 30 years later in 2008 my Chicago was missing, completely gone except for Central Camera in the loop. Looks like a vibrant film camera culture still exist and I'm happy to see that.

[Tin Can]

We cleaned up the loop, during those years it was a Hell hole, I don't miss those city years, i do miss the desert, cities change, and Chicago changes as fast as it can, we were once the fastest growing city the world ever saw...


Ah Chicago. Sometimes I miss the city. Lived there from 1969 to 1978 but somehow wound up in the pacific northwest for the past 35 years. When I returned for a visit 30 years later in 2008 my Chicago was missing, completely gone except for Central Camera in the loop. Looks like a vibrant film camera culture still exist and I'm happy to see that.

[mccormickstudio]

Ben - Quick question, and forgive me if this has been asked. I don't have time to read all 84 pages. With the 65mm travelwide, you've stated the fixed focus is about 8 meters (26'), and I'm wondering if you have a focal range - i.e. the range of ___ feet from the lens to infinity at f/16 and ___ feet to infinity at f/45 . With the 90 mm version same question, and what is the nearest that you can adjust the focus?

I have the 65mm lens and plan to get that camera, but trying to decide if I want the 90mm travelwide also. I'd like to have the option to shoot with more dof & control and curious how close the focus is. Thanks.

[WayneStevenson]

Still having issues with fogging from the prototyping material...

Have you verified that it's the material that is causing the fogging? I think it's time you addressed the issue. Perhaps put some flocking material inside? I don't want to sound like a dick and rain on the parade but we're all backing you (near the tune of $100,000) and you're still running around with a camera thats' fogging film.

[Tin Can]

You are not up to speed. The prototypes are 3D printed, they have different materials than the production models, which will be absolutely light tight. These guys just tell us a little too much. Do not worry, they have it under control.



Have you verified that it's the material that is causing the fogging? I think it's time you addressed the issue. Perhaps put some flocking material inside? I don't want to sound like a dick and rain on the parade but we're all backing you (near the tune of $100,000) and you're still running around with a camera thats' fogging film.

[WayneStevenson]

"You are not up to speed. The prototypes are 3D printed, they have different materials than the production models, which will be absolutely light tight. These guys just tell us a little too much. Do not worry, they have it under control."

I understand that. But it's a problem that is resolved with a simple modification, that requires so little time to address that it doesn't make any sense to continue ignoring. At least I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed. And it will verify that it's a material problem and not a design problem before the design gets mass produced.

[Tin Can]

All I can say is, I am not worried. Enough carbon black in the injection molded production model will solve all issues with the prototype. I believe these guys are in it for the long haul and this first camera will make their reputation. They have already revolutionized camera design, production and marketing. Nobody has done what they are doing. Everyone else just gave up.

Cancel your $99 investment. You will sleep better.


"You are not up to speed. The prototypes are 3D printed, they have different materials than the production models, which will be absolutely light tight. These guys just tell us a little too much. Do not worry, they have it under control."

I understand that. But it's a problem that is resolved with a simple modification, that requires so little time to address that it doesn't make any sense to continue ignoring. At least I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed. And it will verify that it's a material problem and not a design problem before the design gets mass produced.

[WayneStevenson]

"All I can say is, I am not worried."

Then don't be. It's a valid concern. A concern I think everyone who answered Ben's call to fund his business venture is entitled to.

It's not an investment. We aren't sharing the profits. We aren't getting these at cost where we can re-sell them. We did not purchase shares in Wanderlust. We purchased an opportunity to own a camera if everything goes well for Ben and they get produced. And we all want it to work for us when we get it.

[BarryS]

I think Ben mentioned that the 3-D printed prototype was made at Shapeways and they dyed the prototype black. My guess is they used the following material http://www.shapeways.com/materials/detail , so they're just dunking a translucent acrylic material into black dye. You can see from the example that it doesn't absorb the dye very well (no big surprise). The injection molding process will use a completely different opaque plastic mixture, so the solution is inherent in the production process. They'll be testing injection-molded prototypes, so I don't see any problem here.

[Ken Ford]

"You are not up to speed. The prototypes are 3D printed, they have different materials than the production models, which will be absolutely light tight. These guys just tell us a little too much. Do not worry, they have it under control."

I understand that. But it's a problem that is resolved with a simple modification, that requires so little time to address that it doesn't make any sense to continue ignoring. At least I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed. And it will verify that it's a material problem and not a design problem before the design gets mass produced.

What Barry said just above. I've handled one of the prototypes, and it shares the same characteristics of other prototypes I've seen that were made using Shapeways "Black Detail" material - it's slightly translucent, even after the black dye. It's not a problem, it's just the nature of the rapid prototyping beast. The production material will not have this characteristic.

[Oren Grad]

I understand that. But it's a problem that is resolved with a simple modification, that requires so little time to address that it doesn't make any sense to continue ignoring. At least I don't understand why it hasn't been fixed. And it will verify that it's a material problem and not a design problem before the design gets mass produced.

Something Ben posted over at RFF (emphasis added):

First things first: we need to raise $75,000. If we can do that, then on May 2 we'll begin waiting a couple weeks for the funds to transfer. During that time, we will meet with our manufacturing partners and figure out the final details. That's where it gets hazy. Hopefully everything goes smoothly, in which case we just have to wait around for the tooling shop to create the mold and run the first samples (which could take months).

Once we have the first 10 samples, we'll test them to verify that everything is 100% right. Then we'll do the production run. Because so much of this process is out of our hands, we can't give you a calendar date. But we've stated that we want to have these delivered by December.

[Ben Syverson]

Have you verified that it's the material that is causing the fogging? I think it's time you addressed the issue. Perhaps put some flocking material inside? I don't want to sound like a dick and rain on the parade but we're all backing you (near the tune of $100,000) and you're still running around with a camera thats' fogging film.
I understand and appreciate the concern, and I assure you that we really don't want to make molds for a faulty design.

It's hard to explain just how leaky this material is, because it looks so black. But imagine the plastic that gallon milk jugs are made out of. It's sort of like if you gave that plastic one coat of black spray paint. The inside is taped, and now some of the outside is taped too, but there are parts that are not possible to tape, such as the helical and the film holder mating surface.

For a while I was worried that the film back was leaking, but I'm now confident that this is not the case. A film holder is much more exposed in the back of a Graflex—my Super has only a short wall around the holder, like this:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/super-wall.jpg

By contrast, the Travelwide has walls that go past the film holder, and occluding springs. For light to get into the film holder, it would have to go around the steel spring prong, between the holder and the wall, and across the back:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/travelwide-wall.jpg

So it's highly unlikely that the back is the problem. It has to be the material. We're going to tape up the camera even more and run some more tests soon. But we already know what the problem is and how it will be fixed in the production camera (solution: black polycarbonate), so it does not feel urgent to us.

I hope this explains the situation!

[David Aimone]

Sounds like a very methodical approach to problem solving for a problem that is entirely addressable. Otherwise there would be few functioning large format cameras using standard film holders. In fact it would seem that this design would have many fewer potential areas of problems due to it's simple and compact nature (as opposed to a camera with bellows and lots of movements).

If possible, we should let the issue rest and let Ben and Justin continue their work to produce the camera. No one is betting the farm here...

[zuiko90]

I've made 3 plywood 4X5 box cameras. Using nothing more than a scroll saw, sandpaper and wood glue, I've never had a problem with light leaks around the area where the film holder seats. If I can do this in an apartment then I'm sure Ben and Justin have no problem making their camera light tight.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just under 100K. My guess it will hit it by the end of the day.

[sethlatimer]

I wonder if there is any other 4x5 camera in production that has sold 1000 units?

[Roger Cole]

With two weeks to go I wonder if they are allowed to shut it down ahead of time if it's TOO successful? Wouldn't want the orders to be of an impossible volume!

[Tin Can]

I will not be using my Shapeways 2X3 Crown Graphic 3D lens board, mainly because I got it sized Copal 1 and all my Copal 1 shutters are junk. I also ordered the wrong size. doh!

[Ben Syverson]

With two weeks to go I wonder if they are allowed to shut it down ahead of time if it's TOO successful? Wouldn't want the orders to be of an impossible volume!
Ha, we would love to have that problem!

The more parts we can run at one time, the better, because the cost drops. It's like when you're ordering business cards, and it's only a little more to do 1000 vs 500. Given the current volume, our first run will likely be 2500 pieces. Not so impossibly huge.

[MonkeyBrain]

Wouldn't want the orders to be of an impossible volume!

As long as they fulfill the orders in the same chronological sequence as people backed the project...

[BarryS]

$100k

[Tin Can]

yay

[BarryS]

When the kickstarter went live, I saw the $75K goal and really wondered if they could make it. I figured they could easily hit $20-30K, but thought it would be very tough to reach the goal. Here we are at $100K with two weeks to go--how crazy is that? I really wonder about the demographics, how many are new to LF? How many have a lens and how many will just use this as a pinhole camera?

[Tin Can]

I think a lot us, LFF subscribers invested. Someone said we have 2600 actives. We could do it all by ourselves.

That said, I would prefer non LLF people to get on board, so we have more film buyers and future people committed to our insanity.

It doesn't matter, we will survive!

I bet they have a few more ideas percolating, as does their competition. China must be going crazy, trying to copy...

Let's keep up with good old American innovation, the one thing we do well.



When the kickstarter went live, I saw the $75K goal and really wondered if they could make it. I figured they could easily hit $20-30K, but thought it would be very tough to reach the goal. Here we are at $100K with two weeks to go--how crazy is that? I really wonder about the demographics, how many are new to LF? How many have a lens and how many will just use this as a pinhole camera?

[AuditorOne]

I seriously doubt that there have been many backers from outside the film community. For one, most of the news of the project has been through word of mouth on these forums and some mentions on a few blogs, such as The Online Photographer. I think it does point to a very vibrant film culture and for that at least we should be very grateful. It certainly gives a small picture of what can be done if you can get our community excited about something.

Now, if we could get a kickstarter project up and running to do some small runs of sheet film, maybe some ISO 25 stock.

[zuiko90]

Now here is another crazy idea.

A single element, plastic 90mm f8 lens with waterhouse stops of 11 and 16 and a plastic shutter with 1/100 and 'B' speeds. This could be the same lens used on the Holga 6X12 panoramic. Freestyle sells that camera for $50. Of course the diagonal of 6X12 is only 125mm so a little extra fall off toward the corners.

A total plastic-fantastic 4X5. The art crowd would love it.

It would have to take a standard cable release. The lens focal length might have to be a bit more than 90mm to reach infinity on the TravelWide helical.

It would have to be produced and sold for not more than $30

The lens could be molded with an aspherical surface to slightly improve edge performance.

Probably at least 200 other backers have already thought of this.

OK, on further thought it might have to be retail priced at $40 (but no more, it would be too close in price to a real lens, used of course)

[David Aimone]

Now there's an idea. Who amongst us is capable of making good ISO 25 film with a little kickstarter backing?


I seriously doubt that there have been many backers from outside the film community. For one, most of the news of the project has been through word of mouth on these forums and some mentions on a few blogs, such as The Online Photographer. I think it does point to a very vibrant film culture and for that at least we should be very grateful. It certainly gives a small picture of what can be done if you can get our community excited about something.

Now, if we could get a kickstarter project up and running to do some small runs of sheet film, maybe some ISO 25 stock.

[rdenney]

Not me, though. I do large format with the idea if creating a sense of endless detail. This camera supports that traditional LF objective.

But a plastic lens in an instamatic shutter with a fixed stop that would mount in a No. 0 hole might be a good project...for someone. That soumeone could use what Ben and Justin have done as a model of how to do it right.

But it's easy to postulate ideas for someone else to carry out.

Rick "suspecting it's not as easy as it seems" Denney

[zuiko90]

Regarding the 90mm plastic lens idea.

I probably wouldn't buy it. But, as I said, I think the liberal arts photography students and the plastic camera aficionados would eat it up.

[Tin Can]

They can now 3D print their own variations. http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130418/river-north/3d-printer-experience-brings-sci-fi-technology-chicago

[jnl]

As long as they fulfill the orders in the same chronological sequence as people backed the project...

We *absolutely* will fulfill the orders in the same sequence as people backed the project:)

[MonkeyBrain]

just checking ;)

[Ben Syverson]

But a plastic lens in an instamatic shutter with a fixed stop that would mount in a No. 0 hole might be a good project...for someone. That soumeone could use what Ben and Justin have done as a model of how to do it right.
We have a fantastic optical designer who designed some incredible plastic lenses for us, but nothing LF yet. (All speculative projects)

The sticking point with LF is the shutter. All new production shutters are simply too expensive. So we would need to design a brand new shutter, which would probably entail electronics. It's within the realm of possibility, but it would be expensive to set up production. It's an open question whether or not we could deliver the lens and shutter for much less than $150, which is about what 90s cost.

[AuditorOne]

All great stuff. This thread has been great fun to follow.

And you are right Rick. Dreaming up stuff is a whole lot easier than following through. Always has been.

But on the other hand, dreaming about it is the start, and with the type of micro-financial backing that kickstarter can provide, some of the dreams may actually turn out.

[Steve Goldstein]

<snippage>

The sticking point with LF is the shutter. All new production shutters are simply too expensive. So we would need to design a brand new shutter, which would probably entail electronics. It's within the realm of possibility, but it would be expensive to set up production.

Now there's the germ of another Kickstarter project! Given the huge number of working and parts-donor shutters out there it probably wouldn't make economic sense, though.

I wonder if the manufacturer of Copal shutters still has their tooling, or has sold it, or scrapped it now that they've ceased production.

[BTMarcais]

hmm...
Why lens AND shutter?
What about a plastic-fantastic lens threaded to screw right in to a copal 0 shutter? (since most of us will have one of these on the camera anyway...)
Take your 'real' lens cells out, and pop in the plastic...

-Brian

[zuiko90]

We have a fantastic optical designer who designed some incredible plastic lenses for us, but nothing LF yet. (All speculative projects)

The sticking point with LF is the shutter. All new production shutters are simply too expensive. So we would need to design a brand new shutter, which would probably entail electronics. It's within the realm of possibility, but it would be expensive to set up production. It's an open question whether or not we could deliver the lens and shutter for much less than $150, which is about what 90s cost.

Ben;

What I was thinking about was a 90mm, single element plastic lens (which already exists in the Holga 6X12 panoramic). Mounted in a simple, one speed, 1/100 sec. plus 'B' shutter (which already exists in a $30 Holga). The 90mm f8 lens on the Holga 6X12 Panoramic even has focusing which would be unnecessary on the Travelwide 90.

Sort of a "Holga" type version 4X5.

Perhaps the people who make the Holga cameras could put together a lens/shutter, mountable on the 90. Of course, with an initial run of perhaps 1000 to 2000 cameras it might not be enough potential sales as not all the backers would be interested in a lens like this at any price.

Just thinking out loud.

Or.....how about a simple 2 element plastic VF for a 90mm AOV on 4X5? Bet they would sell 500 to 800 of those.

[rustyair]

Ben , I don't know if someone already asked you this before. Is it possible to use grafmatic holders?

[Ben Syverson]

Sort of a "Holga" type version 4X5.
Yeah, I get that... I think Justin and I really want to make something that's a step up from the Holga... They have that so well covered that we don't need to do something that's 4x5 but looks like 120. Based on what we've seen from our lens designer, you can actually do a lot with two plastic elements. The Holga lens must be intentionally designed to look bad. Plastic optics have come a long way, and are now used extensively in mobile devices, telecommunications, etc. It's not any more expensive to make a GOOD plastic lens than an intentionally bad one, so we would certainly err on the side of quality.

The shutter is more of a problem. We could make a simple one-speed shutter, but as soon as you have a good lens, you want more than one shutter speed. So we're caught in this catch-22.

I also think there's a misperception that plastic lenses are cheaper than glass... It's not really true. The advantage of plastic is not cost—it's that you can have as many aspheres as you want, which can reduce the number of elements in the system. Fewer elements means less flare and a simpler system which is easier to assemble. However, plastic has its own tradeoffs, which include higher dispersion (chromatic aberration) and the tendency for the optical index to change with temperature (which means the lens is different in winter vs summer).

So at a certain point, you have to wonder: should we make a two element aspherical plastic version of the lens, or a four element spherical version? They might cost the same and offer similar optical performance. There are a lot of issues to consider.

@rustyair: You can definitely use a Grafmatic, but you'll need to temporarily remove the spring back, and attach the Grafmatic with rubber bands or ball bungees. Should be a good combo!

[AuditorOne]

I will most certainly be using my Grafmatics. Shoot six sheets in the camera and then develop all six in my Jobo 2509. I think that is just about as "point and shoot" as you will ever get with a 4x5 large format camera. My Crown is certainly close but nowhere near as light and easy to handle as the Wanderlust promises to be.

[zuiko90]

[QUOTE=Ben Syverson;1016805]Yeah, I get that... I think Justin and I really want to make something that's a step up from the Holga... They have that so well covered that we don't need to do something that's 4x5 but looks like 120. Based on what we've seen from our lens designer, you can actually do a lot with two plastic elements. The Holga lens must be intentionally designed to look bad. Plastic optics have come a long way, and are now used extensively in mobile devices, telecommunications, etc. It's not any more expensive to make a GOOD plastic lens than an intentionally bad one, so we would certainly err on the side of quality.

Yeah, I'm aware that plastic lenses have advanced in performance. The Vivitar Slim and Wide has a two element 22mm lens that is quite good, considering the $20 price for the current iteration of it sold through Freestyle. That camera still uses a curved film plane though. In fact, I would be willing to guess that the same 22mm lens is used in the 'Golden Half' half frame camera.

Shutter....shutter....hmmm shutter.

Lets see now, well, how about a copy of the 2 blade, 4 speed + 'B' Copal X as found in the original Olympus Pen of 1959. they ran 1/25-1/50-1/100-1/200 + B. I've had one apart. No slow speed escapement (no speed slower than 1/25), not too many parts, simple design, very reliable. I wouldn't mess with designing a brand new shutter. Just copy a known good design. They are so old now, do you think Copal would object?

[Michael Roberts]

Wise words, and ones we are certainly keeping in mind! We do not want to over-promise, and we want to leave miles of wiggle room so that each component can be done very well. Now that we're in the territory of stretch goals, we just want to add simple things that complete the camera, or refine existing details.

Ben:
I get this, and I think you are right. OTOH, I have not yet signed on--the big limitation for me is the 90mm lens as the longest option. Since the spring back unscrews, it makes sense to me to offer a range of spacers that can be screwed into the back of the camera (into the spring back holes) and then the spring back screwed into the spacer. I would love to see a spacer option for the 127 (5") ektar, 135mm (5 1/4") optar or schneider-kreuznach [I agree with Rick that this camera is perfect for press lenses that are small, light, and don't provide enough coverage for 4x5s with extensive movements] and for any one of several 150mm (6") lenses, i.e., 1 and 1/2"; 1 and 3/4"; and 2 and 1/2" spacers. Of course, I can fabricate spacers out of wood, but it would be nice to have the spacer made of the same material as the camera body and molded to fit tight.

Another advantage of the press lenses is they are fast--typically f4.5, so ideal for hand-held photography like the Travelwide.

In any event, big congratulations on achieving your funding goal. I applaud your creativity and accomplishment with this project.
Michael

[MonkeyBrain]

I think Justin and I really want to make something that's a step up from the Holga...

...and I suspect this is precisely why your Kickstarter campaign has provoked so much interest and support: there was obviously a gap in the market for a cheap, lightweight, portable 4x5 camera that's capable of producing high quality images that will sit happily alongside work produced on more expensive cameras, as opposed to some crappy toy camera that forces the user to make a feature of the technology's very serious limitations in quality.

[MonkeyBrain]

the big limitation for me is the 90mm lens as the longest option.

Yep, same here. I have signed on, but the fixation with wide-angle lenses is something of a turn-off for me. I'll probably offend quite a few people by saying this, and obviously wide angle lenses have their legitimate uses, but I principally see them as something that novice photographers use to make otherwise boring photographs appear more interesting.

But I really wish that a longer focal length option had been included in the original poll. I suspect that 90mm would have proved the most popular anyway, as people just love those wide angles, and I fully realize that you guys would have to go with the most popular option anyway in order to guarantee enough backers, but it would have been interesting to see how much demand there is for, say, a 150mm (which would be my ideal choice of lens for this).

Anyway, don't want to sound ungrateful, as I'm genuinely very excited about this, but yes, some kind of adapter for longer focal lengths as Michael suggests would be great.

[Ken Ford]

... I would love to see a spacer option for the 127 (5") ektar, 135mm (5 1/4") optar or schneider-kreuznach [I agree with Rick that this camera is perfect for press lenses that are small, light, and don't provide enough coverage for 4x5s with extensive movements]...

Big plus one for this idea, who doesn't have an old 127 Ektar or 135 Optar lying around collecting dust?

[dave_whatever]

To those asking for a version to shoot longer lenses wide open at f/4.5, could you really guess focus that with any degree of accuracy? Wide angles are quite forgiving in that respect, hence why us "novices" think these compact wide angle cameras are a suitable design for a fixed body guess focus camera.

[David Aimone]

Interesting generalization, and I'm not offended. I do think however, that it's not a novice/expert thing. Different people just feel more comfortable viewing the world in different ways. I rarely use anything longer than a "normal" lens except in special circumstances. The 90mm is a perfect entry for this type of camera. Sure, I'd love a 150mm but that's a bit more problematic to design well.


I'll probably offend quite a few people by saying this, and obviously wide angle lenses have their legitimate uses, but I principally see them as something that novice photographers use to make otherwise boring photographs appear more interesting.

[MonkeyBrain]

To those asking for a version to shoot longer lenses wide open at f/4.5, could you really guess focus that with any degree of accuracy? Wide angles are quite forgiving in that respect, hence why us "novices" think these compact wide angle cameras are a suitable design for a fixed body guess focus camera.


Valid points, but, in my defense, I'm neither thinking to shoot at 4.5 nor totally guess the focus (though perhaps I have overly high expectations of what a rangefinder might do for this camera?).

[MonkeyBrain]

Also, I should point out that I'm speaking from experience: I used to love wide angle lenses, and so did all the other appalling photographers I knew. Not that I never use them now, but rather that when I do I try not to do so gratuitously. I think that the need to shoot everything on a wide angle is an obsession most photographers grow out of with time.

Anyway, I'm happy for everyone to disagree, or flame, or whatever...each to their own.

[Michael Roberts]

Oh, I think the "sunny 16" rule still applies to these 4.5 lenses. I mainly like the fact they are vey bright on the gg. With my stripped-down Crown Grapic, a quick glance at the gg tells me I am in focus with the lens wide open, then I can stop down a bit more and still shoot fast enough to hold the camera steady at 1/50th. Of course, as you point out, there is also the option of shooting wide open with a more selective focus--and, again, a glance at the gg can tell you if you are in focus at the critical areas. That's been my experience, anyway. But, hey, we've all got our preferred methods and tools.

[Ben Syverson]

We'd love to do something in the 135 or 150 range, but that would be a totally different camera. We're going to focus on making our first camera first, and then we can think about other cameras.

The back shim idea is a non-starter for me... The entire 4x5 back would need to be shimmed (film holder ridge / light trap included), and there is no way to secure it on the side opposite the spring back screws. So it would have to be epoxied into the camera permanently. I mean, it's a $99 camera, so I fully expect people to hack and modify them like this, but I don't want to ship them that way.

The other thing to consider is that the camera would be much larger if it was specifically made for 150, and rangefinder-assisted zone focusing would become more difficult. Basically it would be a much different camera. Justin made a great design for a collapsible camera, so we would probably do that instead.

Personally I'm not much of a wide angle shooter either—I prefer a 35mm equivalent. With 90mm on 4x5, it's very easy to crop slightly to get a 35mm equivalent. It's not a huge difference between 35 and 28. When the Angulon ƒ/6.8 is wide open, the corners are pretty soft anyway, so once you crop them out, you basically have 35.

To those wondering about RF focusing with the 90... It works! The way I use it is to set the lens to a pre-set distance (like 1 meter), then set the rangefinder to 1 meter, and then move myself back and forth until the patches align. That's how I shot all the portraits of Susan... I'll post a few more close focus examples soon.

[Corran]

Guys...there's already a great camera on the market to use for 127mm - 150mm lenses, with a rangefinder, ground glass, etc. - it's called a Crown Graphic!
I've bought at least 10 Crowns or Speeds for around $100-$200 with lens, which is about the same price as the Travelwide. I don't know why you're clamoring for what's already available.

RE: wide-angle lenses...I'm not offended but I think your statement is just as "close-minded" as someone who thinks every shot should be with a wide-angle. Personally, I'm planning on a two-camera kit of the Travelwide with my converted Polaroid with a 135mm f/3.5 lens. And/or possibly a Speed Graphic with a fast 180mm.

[Roger Cole]

I think 150 would be a little long for this camera, making the camera bigger and the focus more critical. I'd like one for 135 and not just because I happen to have a 135 Xenar. These will inevitably be used for casual portraits and if you move in much the perspective of the 90 will be very unflattering though it can obviously be great for a kind of "informal environmental portraiture." 135 would be great for that but Ben also makes a good point - just shoot from farther away (same distance as you'd shoot with a 135 = same perspective) and crop.

[MonkeyBrain]

Thanks Ben, that answers a lot of my questions (even ones I didnt know I had) and makes perfect sense.

Corran, I have 2 Crowns. They're great and are my main cameras. But I'm hoping the Wanderlust will offer something slightly different.

I think you misunderstand me though, I very definitely am not suggesting that all photographs should be shot with something other than a wide angle lens. So it's a bit of a straw-man argument to suggest I'm being "closed minded". A wide angle lens is a perfectly legitimate tool - I'm not suggesting otherwise, and I use them myself - but over the years I have noted that a lot of very bad photographers try to compensate for lack of talent through using wide angle lenses on everything. Documentary photographers are perhaps the worst culprits, probably as it makes everything seem more dynamic.

I don't expect everyone to agree though. But perhaps some people might think about what I've said and consider it next time they reach for a 28mm instead of just taking 2 steps backwards. Anyone else is of course completely free to ignore me and consider me obnoxious and opinionated. That's ok.

[Michael Roberts]

Ben, apparently I was not clear. Let me try again. Yes, I am suggesting a spacer that would be, say, 1 and 1/2 inches deep, would have pre-drilled screw holes that go all the way through, and the screws (necessarily longer screws than are used to hold the current spring back on) would go all the way through the spring back, the spacer (or shim if you prefer), and into the camera body, thus extending the camera by 1 and 1/2 inches in depth. And, yes, the side of the spacer that would fit into the camera would have to be molded the same as the spring back, and the side facing the spring back would have to be molded the same as the back of the camera. No epoxy necessary. A spacer that could be added or removed by the user--even in the field.

Your existing spring back is designed to be screwed on and off repeatedly, yes? If so, then you must have the capability of doing this without wearing out the threads. The spacer would be offered as optional equipment and would not affect how the camera is shipped (i.e., the camera would be shipped w/o the spacer attached). You are free to reject this idea, but I would prefer forum members have the chance to comment on the merits of what I am actually proposing rather than on a mischaracterization.

Corran, I completely agree the Crown Graphic offers many advantages. I have a stripped-down Crown (it was already stripped when I bought the body for $15). With the Crown, I carry five lenses--90, 127, 152, 203, and 300. The one advantage of the Travelwide is its low weight--less than 1.5lbs compared to 3lbs for my stripped CG. The question I have been debating with myself is how much additional weight reduction is worth the trade-off of being limited to one lens? I mean, at some point the weight is so low that further reductions offer no real advantage. Perhaps, at 3lbs, I am already there with the CG (I know that at 5-5.5lbs, a fully-equipped CG is too heavy to lug around--for my idea of a hand-held camera). In any event, being limited to a 90mm point and shoot is a nonstarter for me (but 800+ backers are very evidently just fine with this, so more power to 'em!).

[Kuzano]

Big plus one for this idea, who doesn't have an old 127 Ektar or 135 Optar lying around collecting dust?

While it may not be a highly regarded lens, and has a bit of light falloff, there are a lot of Rodenstock Ysarex 127 in Polaroid shutter that are still, or were originally, mounted on Polaroid Pathfinders. The models were 110, 110a, 110b and 120. (There were also Wollensak 127 and Yashica Yashinon 127 used at various times on those cameras. Almost all of the 120 Pathfinders had the Yashinon)

I have three of the Rodenstocks and have used on a hacked Pathfinder. I would seriously consider a Travelwide in the 127 range. Again... 127's come in many older lenses, including the Ektar 127 and Optar 127... which came on Graflex 4X5.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Kuzano. I had forgotten about the Rodenstock 127 and the Optar 127--though, like Ken says, I have several of these lying around as well.

[Corran]

MonkeyBrain, I'm afraid I don't know what you are suggesting or even the point of the original statement regarding wide-angle lenses. In my way of seeing, there is simply one lens that will give me the perspective and field of view when I envision a photograph - be it a 47mm or a 450mm. Any generalization about wide-angles or the people that use them is a commentary on the photographer, not the tool, and is irrelevant.

PS: Still not offended, just not sure what the point was.

[adam satushek]

It sounds like we all have our own hopes and dreams for this camera which is great!

Personally, I will happily put my Nikkor 90 f8 on it, use the provided sports finder, attach my Sunpack potato masher flash, stop down a bit, zone focus, load some Tmax400 and play Weegee. I shoot color nearly exclusively, but for some reason this is how I see myself using this camera.

Sure 90mm is wide for me, but thats why Ill happily use my Nikkor...because I have it and never use it otherwise. I could see 120mm or 135mm being nice, but I personally think 90mm is the perfect balance of not too wide but wide enough to make zone focusing possible and at the same time keeping the camera fairly compact.

I understand wanting more...but I also think its important to recognize that this camera is probably not intended to do everything. I know ill use it as a fun point and shoot at parties and walking around at night. For critical work that requires accuate focusing, more depth of field, or different focal lengths Ill get out my Sinar (for tripod work) or Mamiya 7ii's (if it needs to be handheld). But of course I am not saying that others will not find ways to use this camera for critical work!

I guess my point is that we should be greatfull that this camera is going to be produced! Congrats Ben and Justin! It seems there was a niche for a camera like this and I am very pleased that its funded. New ideas and modifications are of course interesting to hear about but in the end im just happy the camera will be made and that it may help to increase film sales of 4x5 film (especially Portra! I love that stuff).

[David Aimone]

Very well said Adam! Back to focusing on this great project, and not defending our opinions...

“Sometimes letting things go is an act of far greater power than defending or hanging on.”
― E.T.


It sounds like we all have our own hopes and dreams for this camera which is great!

Personally, I will happily put my Nikkor 90 f8 on it, use the provided sports finder, attach my Sunpack potato masher flash, stop down a bit, zone focus, load some Tmax400 and play Weegee. I shoot color nearly exclusively, but for some reason this is how I see myself using this camera.

Sure 90mm is wide for me, but thats why Ill happily use my Nikkor...because I have it and never use it otherwise. I could see 120mm or 135mm being nice, but I personally think 90mm is the perfect balance of not too wide but wide enough to make zone focusing possible and at the same time keeping the camera fairly compact.

I understand wanting more...but I also think its important to recognize that this camera is probably not intended to do everything. I know ill use it as a fun point and shoot at parties and walking around at night. For critical work that requires accuate focusing, more depth of field, or different focal lengths Ill get out my Sinar (for tripod work) or Mamiya 7ii's (if it needs to be handheld). But of course I am not saying that others will not find ways to use this camera for critical work!

I guess my point is that we should be greatfull that this camera is going to be produced! Congrats Ben and Justin! It seems there was a niche for a camera like this and I am very pleased that its funded. New ideas and modifications are of course interesting to hear about but in the end im just happy the camera will be made and that it may help to increase film sales of 4x5 film (especially Portra! I love that stuff).

[rfesk]

For quick shooting with this camera and utilizing ground glass focusing someone needs to make a ground glass that slips into the back. (Maybe by converting a film holder to hold a groundgass???)


Oh, I think the "sunny 16" rule still applies to these 4.5 lenses. I mainly like the fact they are vey bright on the gg. With my stripped-down Crown Grapic, a quick glance at the gg tells me I am in focus with the lens wide open, then I can stop down a bit more and still shoot fast enough to hold the camera steady at 1/50th. Of course, as you point out, there is also the option of shooting wide open with a more selective focus--and, again, a glance at the gg can tell you if you are in focus at the critical areas. That's been my experience, anyway. But, hey, we've all got our preferred methods and tools.

[MonkeyBrain]

MonkeyBrain, I'm afraid I don't know what you are suggesting or even the point of the original statement regarding wide-angle lenses.

Just expressing my point of view. But your absolutely right, totally irrelevant.

[Michael Roberts]

For quick shooting with this camera and utilizing ground glass focusing someone needs to make a ground glass that slips into the back. (Maybe by converting a film holder to hold a groundgass???)

According to the kickstarter description, they plan to ship the cameras with a poly-gg insert. It's not shown in the videos or photos.

"We'll include a simple metal sport finder so you can frame up your shot. If you want more accuracy, you can use our plastic "ground glass" insert, or purchase an accessory viewfinder."

[rdenney]

I think we forget the standard tool for "zooming" by press photographers--cropping.

If Ben had designed this as a true alternative to the Holga, he may have selected the 6x9 format. 90mm is just slightly wide for 6x9 and normal for 6x7.

Sinar calls their multiformat rollfilm holder the "Zoom".

Point being, it doesn't take much cropping to "normalize" a 90 on 4x5. But the the lens on a fixed-lens camera isn't wide enough, then there is nothing you can do. I select focal length more to control foreground and background size relationships, and stepping back doesn't replace a shorter lens that lets me capture the subject where I am. Thus, a fixed-lens camera really needs to err on the wide side.

I suspect that's why Speed Graphics are more likely to have been supplied with the 127 more than the 135 (and why both were more popular than the 150). The 127 was the widest fast Tessar that would provide coverage for 4x5, despite being intended for use on the 3x4 Graphics, and despite being not so wonderful in the corners.

Rick "who could live with just a 90 on a trip, knowing that cropping was an option, but not with just a 150 or 180" Denney

[AuditorOne]

A cheap (err, inexpensive) 28mm viewfinder. An inexpensive rangefinder lying around from some other experimenting that should work perfectly. A couple grafmatics, some ball bungees, lots of Efke 25, a Schneider Angulon 90 in a Linhoff Synchro-Compur with X flash, a couple Vivitar 285HV flashes and some radio triggers.

All of this right around Christmas! Man oh man, this is gonna be fun!

[Roger Cole]

I think we forget the standard tool for "zooming" by press photographers--cropping.

If Ben had designed this as a true alternative to the Holga, he may have selected the 6x9 format. 90mm is just slightly wide for 6x9 and normal for 6x7.

Sinar calls their multiformat rollfilm holder the "Zoom".

Point being, it doesn't take much cropping to "normalize" a 90 on 4x5. But the the lens on a fixed-lens camera isn't wide enough, then there is nothing you can do. I select focal length more to control foreground and background size relationships, and stepping back doesn't replace a shorter lens that lets me capture the subject where I am. Thus, a fixed-lens camera really needs to err on the wide side.

I suspect that's why Speed Graphics are more likely to have been supplied with the 127 more than the 135 (and why both were more popular than the 150). The 127 was the widest fast Tessar that would provide coverage for 4x5, despite being intended for use on the 3x4 Graphics, and despite being not so wonderful in the corners.

Rick "who could live with just a 90 on a trip, knowing that cropping was an option, but not with just a 150 or 180" Denney

Rick is of course completely correct. "Zooming with your feet" isn't the same. Perspective is solely a matter of relative camera-subject distance, NOT focal length. The reason different focal lengths give us different perspectives in practice is that we move closer or farther from the subject accordingly. Stand in the same place you'd have stood to shoot with a 150 and crop the negative in printing to 6x7 or whatever gives you an equivalent area in the print and you'll get the same perspective. Move closer to make the main subject the same size on the 4x5 film that it would have been with a 150mm lens and you'll get changes in perspective, sometimes depending on subject, foreground and background maybe very radical ones.

On the subject of Graphics, the "problem" I ran into when I looked into them is that most seem to have been stripped for use on a tripod with GG focusing, and never having even actually SEEN one in person, all the web info was more bewildering than helpful in trying to sort out what I really needed to put one of those Humpty Dumpty cameras back together again. Finding one complete and ready to go with viewfinder, rangefinder, lens and proper cam, all working well, is on my "some day I'll stumble across one and buy it" list (though it's not financially likely right now even if I did - but not that far out.)

[Roger Cole]

A cheap (err, inexpensive) 28mm viewfinder. An inexpensive rangefinder lying around from some other experimenting that should work perfectly. A couple grafmatics, some ball bungees, lots of Efke 25, a Schneider Angulon 90 in a Linhoff Synchro-Compur with X flash, a couple Vivitar 285HV flashes and some radio triggers.

All of this right around Christmas! Man oh man, this is gonna be fun!

Why would you use Efke 25 in this case? If you are ALWAYS shooting with that flash, maybe it makes sense. But if I ever plan to shoot outdoors without flash, I at least want to stop down my Angulon to f/16 at least (maybe f/11 in a pinch if the corners aren't important) and I'll need faster film that if I'm going to hand hold it in anything less than bright sun.

[Michael Roberts]

Rick,
You make an excellent point, and it's one that I've been troubled by with this product: the idea that cropping 4x5 is akin to "zooming in." Sure, but then you've just converted your "large format" 4x5 to a "medium format" 3x4 inch or 6x7/6x9cm. If that's how the camera is intended to be used, then that ought to be clearly understood by everyone--especially given the rules of this site which limit displays of images less than 4x5.

Press photographers could easily crop their images because the print size was so small. One of things I value about large format photography is the ability to print "large" with amazing detail.

[Tin Can]

Holy cow, I guess I did not read the rules.

Images less than 4X5 not permitted, which explains 'safe haven for small format and Polaroid threads.

Never occured to me shooting 2X3 sheets in holders is too small for here.

Where do I go?

Corran warned me this is a huge problem here.

I won't start, except to say 'scanners'!


Rick,
You make an excellent point, and it's one that I've been troubled by with this product: the idea that cropping 4x5 is akin to "zooming in." Sure, but then you've just converted your "large format" 4x5 to a "medium format" 3x4 inch or 6x7/6x9cm. If that's how the camera is intended to be used, then that ought to be clearly understood by everyone--especially given the rules of this site which limit displays of images less than 4x5.

Press photographers could easily crop their images because the print size was so small. One of things I value about large format photography is the ability to print "large" with amazing detail.

[Roger Cole]

But carrying a medium format camera doesn't give you the wide angle option without another lens or zoom and then you are into far more weight and bulk. This will be light, easy to carry, cheap and versatile using this method.

I've never seen anything on this site indicating that cropped images are not allowed, just that they need to be made on film of at least 4x5. Most of mine are at least slightly cropped but then the same is true of my medium format and even 35mm images too.

[Corran]

Don't be so quick to say things "aren't allowed" Michael.

I believe the definition of what is/isn't LF was defined by the mods as taken by a camera that allowed movements and/or sheet film. Or something to that effect. 6x12 and 6x17 images with roll-film holders on a 4x5 or 5x7 camera is most certainly allowed and common.

[AuditorOne]

Why would you use Efke 25 in this case? If you are ALWAYS shooting with that flash, maybe it makes sense. But if I ever plan to shoot outdoors without flash, I at least want to stop down my Angulon to f/16 at least (maybe f/11 in a pinch if the corners aren't important) and I'll need faster film that if I'm going to hand hold it in anything less than bright sun.

Oh, I use Arista EDU 100 and FP4+ as well. I may even go looking for some Kodak 100 TMX. I rarely use ISO 320 or 400. But I love the tonality of Efke 25 and a little fill flash can really show that off in the right circumstances. Even with ISO 100 or 125 film I find a bit of fill flash makes for a very nice photo.

Besides, a Christmas project using fill flash in a light, point and shoot 4x5 camera just sounds like a lot of fun. And, who knows, I may find I really like the results.

[Michael Roberts]

Bryan,
I did not say images less than 4x5 "aren't allowed;" I said "given the rules of this site which limit displays of images less than 4x5."

So, specifically, the Usage Guidelines state:

"For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras). "

So, images of less than 4x5 that are NOT exposed in a view camera of 4x5 or larger with a roll-film adapter, or a technical 4x5 view camera, or an old-style press camera would not meet the definition. I would say the Travelwide is not any of these, and that images from a Travelwide that are cropped to 6x7 or 6x9 would not meet the definition. But I will let Rick or one of the other moderators decide this. I don't make the rules, I just know they exist. Hell, you could crop a 4x5 to 35mm size; then what would be the point of this being a LF site at all?

Ben, if you see this, I give up. I tried making a constructive suggestion about expanding the range of your camera. I now regret doing that. At the very least, you know you already have several very loyal supporters for the Travelwide. Best of luck with your production and distribution.

[Roger Cole]

Oh nonsense. It uses 4x5 sheet film in holders. The negative size is 4x5. No one is going to care if it's cropped. That's just picking nits to be a spoil sport. It doesn't say images less than 4x5, it says FILM. No one cares if you don't use all the film area. Do you always print full frame? I certainly don't. The world doesn't always fit in the proportions of my negative, or image size of my lens for that matter.

[Tin Can]

Silly me, so 2X3 Press cameras shooting sheets are not allowed, according to how I read those rules above.

Specious.

[Michael Roberts]

Randy, the way I read the rule, if it is shot in an old-style press camera, it is allowed even if it "would otherwise be considered 'medium format.'" But, again, this is for the moderators to decide.

[Tin Can]

Thanks Michael, in my usual way, I might break rules, as there are no rules to Art or invention.


Randy, the way I read the rule, if it is shot in an old-style press camera, it is allowed even if it "would otherwise be considered 'medium format.'" But, again, this is for the moderators to decide.

[Corran]

The Travelwide is a view camera (ground glass) so regardless it'll be allowed, with roll film or otherwise I would think?
Anyway, enough of that diversion, back to scanning my roll film shot in a Crown Graphic...

[Dave Grenet]

Justin made a great design for a collapsible camera, so we would probably do that instead.

Okay, now you've got me intrigued. It sounds like you guys have no shortage of ideas here - I can't wait to see what else you come up with!

[Ken Ford]

To those asking for a version to shoot longer lenses wide open at f/4.5, could you really guess focus that with any degree of accuracy? Wide angles are quite forgiving in that respect, hence why us "novices" think these compact wide angle cameras are a suitable design for a fixed body guess focus camera.

I personally doubt I'd ever shoot my 127 or 135 wide open on a simple box camera like the Travelwide. Stop down, hyperfocal distance, shoot!

[Ken Ford]

Hey, Ben - I have the perfect idea for a stretch goal! You know how Google Glass is getting all sorts of press right now? Steal their thunder - create a wearable Travelwide!

Provide a welding hood that has been modified with a bracket over the vision port for mounting the Travelwide. The user could then walk around observing the world through their 4x5 - and when they see something worthy of recording (a cute kitten, maybe) they could stop, focus, slap in a film holder, pull the dark slide and expose.

It'll be the hot new thing, I guarantee it!

(Warning - satire alert)

[Larry Kellogg]

Justin made a great design for a collapsible camera, so we would probably do that instead.


Folding 4x5 or 6x6? There are a lot of great medium format folders available. I think you guy but the sweet spot with a lightweight 4x5.

[jnl]

Folding 4x5 or 6x6? There are a lot of great medium format folders available. I think you guy but the sweet spot with a lightweight 4x5.

The design is for a collapsible 4x5. It is super early in the design phase and has a number of things to be worked out. At the moment it is more of a concept and a very rough sketch. There are plenty of hurdles to overcome. Hopefully we can work on it more after the Travelwide is in production & shipping. Realistically, it will probably be a very long time before there is any kind of physical working prototype. If we get it to a good working prototype phase then we may share some specifics.

[Larry Kellogg]

The design is for a collapsible 4x5. It is super early in the design phase and has a number of things to be worked out. At the moment it is more of a concept and a very rough sketch. There are plenty of hurdles to overcome. Hopefully we can work on it more after the Travelwide is in production & shipping. Realistically, it will probably be a very long time before there is any kind of physical working prototype. If we get it to a good working prototype phase then we may share some specifics.

Glad to hear that it would be 4x5, but you're right, those ideas should be pursued after the TravelWide is shipping. ;-)

[rdenney]

Don't be so quick to say things "aren't allowed" Michael.

I believe the definition of what is/isn't LF was defined by the mods as taken by a camera that allowed movements and/or sheet film. Or something to that effect. 6x12 and 6x17 images with roll-film holders on a 4x5 or 5x7 camera is most certainly allowed and common.

Yes. And it isn't a "problem". It's the Large Format Photography Forum, after all. We have to draw the line somewhere, or it will end up being a general photography forum and large-format photographers will have to sift through posts to find their subject. Other forums fill that need.

But we do, of course, allow smaller formats to be discussed in the Lounge.

Rick "hoping for great additions to the image-sharing forum from these cameras" Denney

[rdenney]

Silly me, so 2X3 Press cameras shooting sheets are not allowed, according to how I read those rules above.

Specious.

No, not specious. It is a rule that was established at the founding of this forum by its owner. We have had long discussions about this in many, many threads over the years. Everyone tries to conflate the line we draw in this forum with the definition of "large". But that definition is elusive, and in many ways unresolvable. Each person inevitably seeks to include what they do and exclude what they don't want in the definition. That way lies madness. So, we just draw a line, and stick to it.

It has nothing whatever to do with whether its possible for a Wanderlust camera to support a longer lens. And arguments about it will pollute this thread.

Any image made using this camera is acceptable for posting in this forum, even if made using a rollfilm holder.

Rick "let's get back to the camera discussion" Denney

[rdenney]

I personally doubt I'd ever shoot my 127 or 135 wide open on a simple box camera like the Travelwide. Stop down, hyperfocal distance, shoot!

Yup. Do you remember the Rollei 35? One of the smallest full-frame 35mm cameras ever made. 40mm fixed Tessar or Sonnar lens, scale focus. The lenses were fast, but nobody used them that way.

There are cameras designed for precise focusing of a wide-open lens, but the Travelwide isn't one of them. Its use case is wandering around a strange city, capturing scenes in a way that can support good-sized prints that retain a sense of endless detail and a smooth tonality characteristic of large format, using a lightweight and cheap camera that can be thrown in a suitcase. It can be used for other things, of course, but that's what it was optimized for. Making it better at other things would make it heavier and more expensive.

I highly respect Ben and Justin for their good sense in sticking to the use case and requirements. And I think they have, at the same time, unravelled the notion that large format requires bulky and complicated equipment and exacting technique. If there's a bit of focus error or camera shake, it won't matter for the biggest prints most people make at home, which is maybe 16x20--only a 4x enlargement.

Sure, there are uses for longer lenses. I'm the one that modified a top-rangefinder Speed Graphic that is cammed for the 127mm lens by adding a side Kalart adjusted for a 8-1/2" Ilex Paragon. But the lens is big and heavy, and the camera is hard to use hand-held. And though I travel constantly, I've never yet taken it with me.

Rick "thinking the more limited camera that actually gets used beats the more flexible camera that doesn't" Denney

[rdenney]

Just obtained: Ikelite made a high-eyepoint viewfinder for underwater use on a Nikonos. Unlike the Nikon viewfinders, it has flat ports front and rear, and therefore focuses on dry land. It came with white-line masks for 35mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm.

By high-eyepoint, I mean for a diver wearing a mask, so the eye relief is measured in inches, and is fabulously wonderful on a dry-land camera. To accommodate the wide field, the view is fisheye--lots of barrel distortion--but the white-line frames are shaped to show the actual edges of the field. Of course, the aspect is 3:2, but it wouldn't take much to make the appropriate marks with a Sharpie pen.

It's big--no, huge--at 4-1/2" tall, but pretty tough and made of plastic, so it's not as heavy as it looks. I'm thinking that I'll put correction marks on the back side of the 20mm mask, and switch it between the Travelwide 90 and 65.

These come up from time to time and they are not too expensive (usually <$100) when they do appear. Not compact, but plenty goofy enough for this camera.

Here's the one I bought (seller's picture):
93786

This one has knob-adjusted parallax correction, and like all underwater stuff, the knob is big and clearly marked. Some don't have the knob-controlled parallax corrector, but instead the shoe is just bolted to the finder with a bolt that can allow it to be adjusted manually. That is actually preferred for the underwater dudes, but for this application, I suspect the one with the knob-adjustable parallax would be best.

You wouldn't have to worry about rain with this puppy, heh. When tightened on the top, it could easily be used as a carrying handle for the camera.

Far more compact, but still under a C-note, is the Russian turret finder for the Fed, Kiev, and Zorki rangefinders. Obviously, only the 28mm position of the turret is useful (and then only for the 90, using the lines at the sides). This one would be a low-eyepoint design with a small pupil and unsuitable for those who wear glasses. There are affordable adjustible finders for the Leica, such as the VIOOH and a similar version made by Walz, but they only go to 35mm, which isn't wide enough for these cameras.

Rick "reporting on cheaper options than the >>$100 Voigtlander and similar models" Denney

[Tin Can]

I Wander how strong the flash mount will be?

[rdenney]

I Wander how strong the flash mount will be?

I think it will be fine for this. And if it does break, it's easy enough to file it flat and mount a metal cold shoe.

Rick "who did also wonder" Denney

[Tin Can]

I plan to pop one of those Linhof folding sports type viewers on it. Cheap, sturdy, folding but may need calibration. no biggie, at all. My goal is to keep it small.

[zuiko90]

I already have a Voigtlander 21mm lens and finder for my Leica M4-2 so the finder wont be a problem. I also like the idea of the included wire frame finder, simple and rugged. (and you can't put finger smears on a wire frame finder)

Hey, only 51 more cameras to go to reach 1000 cameras!

[Tin Can]

i touched a lens element once, i made myself stand in the corner...

[Ben Syverson]

I've been shooting with the Super Angulon 90mm ƒ/8, and it's an easy lens to love. Incredibly sharp, even wide open!

I'm still getting the hang of home developing, which explains the weird artifact in the bottom left of the Cleveland skyline shot.

http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/45-cleveland-skyline-700.jpg
(Handheld, ƒ/16 at 1/250 on HP5)

Detail from the above:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/45-cleveland-skyline-detail-700.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/45-cleveland-jon-700.jpg
(Handheld, ƒ/8 at 1/15 on HP5)

[mdm]

I must admit, I am really looking forward to it. I use a boxy fujica 6x9 camera a lot, so carrying one of theese around with 3 film holders in a bag is just the same as a fujica really.

[Ben Syverson]

I must admit, I am really looking forward to it. I use a boxy fujica 6x9 camera a lot, so carrying one of theese around with 3 film holders in a bag is just the same as a fujica really.
The Travelwide 90 with lens and 6 holders weighs about 1500g all together, so yeah, that's pretty close to the Fujica, which I think clocks in at 1400g or so! :)

[Kuzano]

The Travelwide 90 with lens and 6 holders weighs about 1500g all together, so yeah, that's pretty close to the Fujica, which I think clocks in at 1400g or so! :)

Unless you want a lens on the front of the Fujica... the body is 1290g and the lens is 763. (Empty, or curb weight). Looking forward to shaving that down a bit with the Travelwide. Oh Yes... and nearly doubling the acreage on the negative :rolleyes:

[barnninny]

I've been shooting with the Super Angulon 90mm ƒ/8, and it's an easy lens to love. Incredibly sharp, even wide open!

I'm still getting the hang of home developing, which explains the weird artifact in the bottom left of the Cleveland skyline shot.

http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4/45-cleveland-skyline-detail-700.jpg


I can't help wondering if that bank is owned by or otherwise affiliated with Olympus.

[Larry Kellogg]

Nice, Ben, how are you developing your stuff? Are you using trays or some kind of plastic tank? What are you using to develop? I just got access to a professional darkroom at the International Center for Photography (ICP) and can go wild, LOL. They have D76 on tap, ha ha.

4x5 negatives are just amazing. I can see detail half a mile from my apartment in my shots. Last week, I took my Wisner into Central Park and had a lot of fun shooting the cherry trees in bloom. I had some nice conversations with people. I let a woman look at the ground glass and she stuck her nose up against it. I told her she could stand back a bit. People are so used to squinting through viewfinders that they have no idea there is another way to photograph, although Live View is kind of like a view camera.

I'm looking forward to receiving the TravelWide! It's going to be a blast to shoot with a little GorillaPod, although your handheld shot at 1/15th is pretty amazing.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Larry! I'm using the "Taco method (http://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/sets/72157627864733730/)." It's really easy, but you need to be a little careful when loading the film into the tank.

We've had a frustrating couple of days on the Kickstarter. Yesterday we actually lost more backers than we gained, which was a terrible feeling. They came all at once, which makes me think we got a negative blog post or something, but I can't find anything... And I don't want to look too hard for something negative. In any case, I'm hoping that the numbers continue to go up rather than down...

[Tin Can]

I noticed that.

I am sure that is normal.

Some follow the herd, and some get lost.

You are more than covered, the Odds are with you!


Thanks, Larry! I'm using the "Taco method (http://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/sets/72157627864733730/)." It's really easy, but you need to be a little careful when loading the film into the tank.

We've had a frustrating couple of days on the Kickstarter. Yesterday we actually lost more backers than we gained, which was a terrible feeling. They came all at once, which makes me think we got a negative blog post or something, but I can't find anything... And I don't want to look too hard for something negative. In any case, I'm hoping that the numbers continue to go up rather than down...

[Larry Kellogg]

Thanks, Larry! I'm using the "Taco method (http://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/sets/72157627864733730/)." It's really easy, but you need to be a little careful when loading the film into the tank.

We've had a frustrating couple of days on the Kickstarter. Yesterday we actually lost more backers than we gained, which was a terrible feeling. They came all at once, which makes me think we got a negative blog post or something, but I can't find anything... And I don't want to look too hard for something negative. In any case, I'm hoping that the numbers continue to go up rather than down...

Ah, ok, I thought maybe you had a Jobo. I was hoping ICP had a Jobo but I haven't seen one yet. The "Taco" method is probably going to be my first attempt at developing 4x5, as I'm already using Patterson tanks for developing 35mm film. Thanks for that link. I read the part about moving the hair band part way through the fix/wash cycle in order to clear the backing, otherwise you can get a line on the film, according to this: "Also, BE CERTAIN to move the band a bit about half way through the fixing and washing. This clears all the film backing, which otherwise shows up as a faint line on the film after it dries." I hadn't thought of that.

It's strange that you lost some backers, I certainly didn't see anything negative. You're way over plan though, so I wouldn't worry too much. Maybe a few people got scared off by the cost of 4x5 film. By the way, I'm going to go try that Arista EDU stuff in order to see how it turns out.

[AuditorOne]

People can be funny about these things sometimes. They can be all excited one day, then completely negative the next. In some cases they will withdraw their backing and then a bit later decide to buy after all. Others probably did not understand what they were getting in the first place. Once they understood that they needed to buy a lens, buy film, even buy the inserts that accepted the film, they decided to drop out. There will also be a few who have other issues, monetary, family, etc. where the money really is needed for something else. Finally, there are a few smart asses out there who think it is cute to bid and then drop out, or not pay at all. You probably don't want to have to deal with those anyway.

You still have an excellent chance to far exceed your goals. In fact, I do believe that you still have a pretty good chance to hit 1,000 backers before the end.

Relax, enjoy for a bit. Remember, in just a few more days you will be waist deep in another frustration. Trying to get your camera manufactured and working...at a price where you can box it, ship it and still make a couple cents for your hard work.

[Ben Syverson]

Relax, enjoy for a bit. Remember, in just a few more days you will be waist deep in another frustration. Trying to get your camera manufactured and working...at a price where you can box it, ship it and still make a couple cents for your hard work.
Ha, very good advice. :) Thank you.

[Roger Cole]

Hum, it was $102k the last time I looked, was $107k when I looked before refreshing (still had the tab open) and $108k now after refreshing the window, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[zuiko90]

We've had a frustrating couple of days on the Kickstarter. Yesterday we actually lost more backers than we gained, which was a terrible feeling. They came all at once, which makes me think we got a negative blog post or something, but I can't find anything... And I don't want to look too hard for something negative. In any case, I'm hoping that the numbers continue to go up rather than down...

Noticed that too, very disturbing. I'm hoping for 1000 cameras and it's not even my project! It would just be neat to sell that many in 30 days. At this moment that is only 44 more cameras.

It makes a person not want to check the computer but every 3 or 4 days. But I don't have that strength. Got to know.

[BarryS]

There are currently 880 backers. If we subtract the backers that are getting prints (10) and add the ones getting both cameras (123)--that makes 993 cameras pre-purchased. So 1000 cameras is just a few pledges away. This project is wildly successful by any measure.

[Ken Ford]

Ben, Justin - I wouldn't worry, I've seen absolutely zero bad stuff about the project on the web. I think you're just seeing the typical Kickstarter project cold feet.

Onward to 1000 cameras!

[BarryS]

1000 cameras pledged--huzzah!

[Ben Syverson]

My count is 964, but we are close!!

[BarryS]

Check my math--886 backers, all getting at least one camera except for the 10 at the $25 pledge level-->that's 876 backers. 125 backers are receiving the 90mm and 65mm cameras--that's another 125 cameras--->876+125=1001 cameras.

[Ben Syverson]

Hmm, I see 50 early birds, 572 TW90s, 79 TW65s, 125 combos (250 cameras), and 14 packages, for a total of 965.

Edit: We have a number of backers who have not selected a reward—they're either pledging $1 or $10, or they're pledging purely to support the project. One generous individual contributed $500 and has not selected a reward. I'm going to send a message before the project ends to make sure these people know what they're doing.

[BarryS]

Ahh, I didn't realize you could just pledge without selecting an award. The $500 contribution is generous indeed--thank you, kind stranger.

[Oren Grad]

Meh, 1000 as a milestone is just an artifact of counting in base 10. Don't sweat it: no matter how you slice this, it's already a fantabulous achievement.

[DonJ]

Meh, 1000 as a milestone is just an artifact of counting in base 10. Don't sweat it: no matter how you slice this, it's already a fantabulous achievement.

Use binary: there are already 1111000101 cameras on order.

[barnninny]

Use binary: there are already 1111000101 cameras on order.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[Ken Ford]

Six more to a thousand pledged!

[zuiko90]

Two more cameras to reach 1000 now. Looks like they will have it by midnight tonight.

[Larry Kellogg]

Wonderful! For other types of cameras, a thousand is nothing, but it's huge for the large format community. I pinged another 4x5 shooter, maybe that will put you over the top. Hmmm, I wonder if ICP has an old fashioned student bulletin board.

[Roger Cole]

I received my cheapie 28mm finder from the guy in Israel today. (Well, yesterday now.)

I don't know what his detractors on eBay were complaining about, unless they just expected a $200 Voigtlander for twenty bucks. It's a bit small and plastic, it isn't real bright (but bright enough, I can certainly use it fine) and has a small image with a fair amount of obvious distortion. None of which matters very much at all to me. It's a FINDER. It's supposed to show, with a bit more precision than the wire frame sports finder, what will be in the field of the lens and on the film. It should work fine.

Good value for twenty bucks IMHO, even with the shipping.

[Tin Can]

Good news. Mine should be here shortly also.

It will be fine.


I received my cheapie 28mm finder from the guy in Israel today. (Well, yesterday now.)

I don't know what his detractors on eBay were complaining about, unless they just expected a $200 Voigtlander for twenty bucks. It's a bit small and plastic, it isn't real bright (but bright enough, I can certainly use it fine) and has a small image with a fair amount of obvious distortion. None of which matters very much at all to me. It's a FINDER. It's supposed to show, with a bit more precision than the wire frame sports finder, what will be in the field of the lens and on the film. It should work fine.

Good value for twenty bucks IMHO, even with the shipping.

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, those look like great little finders! We contacted him to see about wholesaling them, but he can't produce them in the volumes we would need. But anyone looking for finders should check his out!

[David Aimone]

Yeah, those look like great little finders! We contacted him to see about wholesaling them, but he can't produce them in the volumes we would need. But anyone looking for finders should check his out!

Do you have a link for these finders? I did a search but only found the $$$ ones...

BTW, 156%+ of your goal with two days left! Well done....!!!

[David Aimone]

Ok, found it thanks to Randy. These look like masked Holga viewfinders, but I guess they'll do!

[rdenney]

Ok, found it thanks to Randy. These look like masked Holga viewfinders, but I guess they'll do!

Yeah, that's about right. My own beef with them is the tiny eye relief. I have one for 24mm, but it doesn't really cover properly and I'm going to ahve to adjust the masking if I use it. It's main advantage is being compact and nearly weightless. But I hate viewfinders that require me to remove my glasses.

Rick "worth its price" Denney

[Corran]

Truth be told my Voigtlander VFs have some barrel distortion too. I couldn't tolerate much more myself, but that's a pet-peeve of mine with VFs.

[jnl]

Another option for viewfinders is the Olympus VF-1 that was made for the E-P1 Micro 43rd camera. It is more expensive than the one listed above but its less than a Voigtlander viewfinder. It is basically the same quality as the Voigtlander but the aspect ratio is more accurate. The brightline is for a 17mm M43 lens so that translates to about 34mm on a 35 camera. However, there is space around the brightline. If you look at the entire view & ignore the lines, it seems to be really close to 28mm on a 35. This is what I have been using and I really like it. It is bright, easy to look through and has fairly low barrel distortion. Looks like its on sale right now at Amazon for 82.99. Just an option:)

(Not sure how it is with eye glasses. I am right against it to see the whole view)

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, that's about right. My own beef with them is the tiny eye relief. I have one for 24mm, but it doesn't really cover properly and I'm going to ahve to adjust the masking if I use it. It's main advantage is being compact and nearly weightless. But I hate viewfinders that require me to remove my glasses.

Rick "worth its price" Denney

Humm, that's odd because I notice that there's TOO much eye relief, at least with my eyeglasses for my very nearsighted distance vision. I can't see clearly if I put my glasses against the finder. I have to back off just a tad. Not a big problem but takes a quarter second or whatever to adjust my viewing position.

[dave_whatever]

Another option for viewfinders is the Olympus VF-1 that was made for the E-P1 Micro 43rd camera. It is more expensive than the one listed above but its less than a Voigtlander viewfinder. It is basically the same quality as the Voigtlander but the aspect ratio is more accurate. The brightline is for a 17mm M43 lens so that translates to about 34mm on a 35 camera. However, there is space around the brightline. If you look at the entire view & ignore the lines, it seems to be really close to 28mm on a 35. This is what I have been using and I really like it. It is bright, easy to look through and has fairly low barrel distortion. Looks like its on sale right now at Amazon for 82.99. Just an option:)

(Not sure how it is with eye glasses. I am right against it to see the whole view)

This is a good suggestion as the native 4:3 aspect ratio is closer to 4x5 than 35mm is.

The full view of the finder is I think a bit wider than a 90mm lens on 4x5 but its pretty close.

[cdholden]

I've not had much time online and didn't realize the project was this far along. I just sent my Globuscope off to S.K. Grimes to have a 65mm lens in helical mount fitted to the front. I'll be happy to compare the two when I have one of each in my possession. If anyone has a 90mm lens in shutter and helical mount for my other Globuscope body, I'll gladly make it a dual comparison/review.

[Roger Cole]

I was about to say that an $80 quality finder is far better than paying $200 for one but that I would balk at paying even $80 for use on a $99 camera...then I realized what's going to turn out to be the most expensive item of all in this for me.

I'm not going to want to be swapping my 90mm Angulon back and forth all the time, so I'll have to finally buy a 90mm lens with more coverage for use on my regular view camera!

(This forum, BTW, is very smiley-poor. I was looking for the one I have on other vBulletin forums that's a big eyed "yikes!" one. )

[rdenney]

Humm, that's odd because I notice that there's TOO much eye relief, at least with my eyeglasses for my very nearsighted distance vision. I can't see clearly if I put my glasses against the finder. I have to back off just a tad. Not a big problem but takes a quarter second or whatever to adjust my viewing position.

Eye relief is how far back your eye can be and see the whole view. I find that mine doesn't focus well, though, when I can see the whole view. I really need to wear my glasses while viewfinding.

Rick "who has a few options to try when the cameras arrive" Denney

[rdenney]

I was about to say that an $80 quality finder is far better than paying $200 for one but that I would balk at paying even $80 for use on a $99 camera...then I realized what's going to turn out to be the most expensive item of all in this for me.

I'm not going to want to be swapping my 90mm Angulon back and forth all the time, so I'll have to finally buy a 90mm lens with more coverage for use on my regular view camera!

(This forum, BTW, is very smiley-poor. I was looking for the one I have on other vBulletin forums that's a big eyed "yikes!" one. )

That's all right. The sentiment came through without the smiley.

Rick "who'll share the viewfinder between several cameras" Denney

[Tin Can]

Pretty sure we are all half blind. A prerequisite for any photog. I need my glasses for viewfinders and then have to take them off to look at GG from 2 inches. Soon getting granny straps for my goggles.



Eye relief is how far back your eye can be and see the whole view. I find that mine doesn't focus well, though, when I can see the whole view. I really need to wear my glasses while viewfinding.

Rick "who has a few options to try when the cameras arrive" Denney

[Andrew O'Neill]

received my cheapie 28mm finder from the guy in Israel today. (Well, yesterday now.)

Roger, could you provide a link please? Thank you.

[Roger Cole]

Eye relief is how far back your eye can be and see the whole view. I find that mine doesn't focus well, though, when I can see the whole view. I really need to wear my glasses while viewfinding.

Rick "who has a few options to try when the cameras arrive" Denney

I know what it is. And mine has too much, because I HAVE to be too far back. I can't see it clearly if my glasses are in contact with the eyepiece. Eye relief refers to how far back the exit pupil is. Being farther back loses field of view, as you say. Being too close usually causes a "hit and miss" effect where parts of the image black out, but in my case it seems to have more to do with the focus of the viewfinder. It simply isn't sharp if I'm too close. I have to back off a tad to see it clearly. That's ok, fine for a twenty dollar gadget though. It's not ideal but it's not a big deal.

Of course it depends on ones vision and glasses too. I have to wear my glasses when doing almost anything more than 6" away, including viewing at infinity. Though I do take them off under the dark cloth. Usually I forget my dedicated reading glasses so you can see my regular glasses dangling out from under the darkcloth as I hold them with the temple in my teeth. ;)

[Roger Cole]

Pretty sure we are all half blind. A prerequisite for any photog. I need my glasses for viewfinders and then have to take them off to look at GG from 2 inches. Soon getting granny straps for my goggles.

Saw this after I posted - same for me!

[Roger Cole]

Roger, could you provide a link please? Thank you.


Randy suggested I post the link here, but I found where I'd got it from and just quoted it. See the link above for cheap viewfinders.

I had been concerned he'd run out, but if you read the description he makes these, and admits up front they aren't going to compete with a $200-$600 model, but though he has a couple of feedbacks saying they are not useful and dim, many others seem to like them. For $32 (including shipping to the US) I figure there's not much to lose. He makes them in an assortment of focal lengths so you can get shorter than a 28mm if you want.

Here's a direct link to the 28mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/28mm-Viewfinder-View-finder-FOR-Leica-Voigtlander-Carl-Zeiss-Lens-Camera-/181096693592?pt=US_Viewfinders_Eyecups&hash=item2a2a343f58

24mm:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/24mm-Viewfinder-View-finder-FOR-Leica-Voigtlander-Carl-Zeiss-Lens-Camera-/171020152612?pt=US_Viewfinders_Eyecups&hash=item27d1986f24

[Larry Kellogg]

Of course it depends on ones vision and glasses too. I have to wear my glasses when doing almost anything more than 6" away, including viewing at infinity. Though I do take them off under the dark cloth. Usually I forget my dedicated reading glasses so you can see my regular glasses dangling out from under the darkcloth as I hold them with the temple in my teeth. ;)

Same for me too. I need the glasses to focus with a loupe, but feel more comfortable taking them off to assess composition. It's a pain. I guess my progressive lenses don't work well in this situation. I don't know how I would explain it to my optometrist. I could bring along the camera.

[Roger Cole]

I take my glasses off to use the loupe too (and to focus my enlarger.)

[Kuzano]

I'm going to ask my NeuroSurgeon friend for one of those sets of glasses that have the two flip up magnifying lenses. If they're good enough for poking around in your brain, they're good enough for 4X5 format photography. In addition, if you wear them in bars... they make the drinks look man size, like days past. Not the tiny shots they sit in front of you now for $6 bucks.

[Tin Can]

The glasses sound great. But you are in the wrong bar. My local pours at least a two oz shot. I don't go there often anymore, but they showed me the old days last Saturday. Sunday was a lost day.



I'm going to ask my NeuroSurgeon friend for one of those sets of glasses that have the two flip up magnifying lenses. If they're good enough for poking around in your brain, they're good enough for 4X5 format photography. In addition, if you wear them in bars... they make the drinks look man size, like days past. Not the tiny shots they sit in front of you now for $6 bucks.

[rdenney]

I'm going to ask my NeuroSurgeon friend for one of those sets of glasses that have the two flip up magnifying lenses. If they're good enough for poking around in your brain, they're good enough for 4X5 format photography. In addition, if you wear them in bars... they make the drinks look man size, like days past. Not the tiny shots they sit in front of you now for $6 bucks.

If they are made for doctors, they probably cost $2473.45..

Rick "or $8.99 at Harbor Freight" Denney

[Roger Cole]

If you can get your insurance to buy them though they'll have a negotiated discount price of $218, minus your 20% co-pay...

[Tin Can]

what is insurance???


If you can get your insurance to buy them though they'll have a negotiated discount price of $218, minus your 20% co-pay...

[Ben Syverson]

Lou Reed invented a series of eyeglasses called Lou's Views. You can flip up the lenses individually. Pretty ingenious! Check them out.

Later he was having trouble seeing the contact list on his iPhone, so I collaborated with him to create Lou Zoom, which is an iPhone app for viewing your contacts in high contrast Helvetica Neue. He liked it so much that he made this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZBk_z7a6Y), which is basically my favorite thing ever. Wired Magazine called the app "Reed’s best collaboration since Songs for Drella."

I swear I'm not making any of this up.

[Tin Can]

got it now

[barnninny]

Same for me too. I need the glasses to focus with a loupe, but feel more comfortable taking them off to assess composition. It's a pain. I guess my progressive lenses don't work well in this situation. I don't know how I would explain it to my optometrist. I could bring along the camera.

I've been thinking about doing that very thing. If you try it, let us know how it works out.

[barnninny]

If you can get your insurance to buy them though they'll have a negotiated discount price of $218, minus your 20% co-pay...

Heh. I need to get on your insurance plan. My bifocals were $700 even with insurance.

[Roger Cole]

what is insurance???

Something you'd better have in the US if you ever, ever, get sick or hurt.


Heh. I need to get on your insurance plan. My bifocals were $700 even with insurance.

My progressives were about $360 IIRC, including exam. I have VSP vision through work.

But I was thinking more about the absurd medical prices. I got good poisoning on a recent work trip and the insurance statements are just comical, how something is billed by the doc for, say, $1000, the negotiated rate from the insurance company is something like $280 or whatever. The only people who pay the actual rate are people who pay cash and don't negotiate. If you negotiate ahead of time you can often pay the insurance rate or even less for cash, but that doesn't help in emergencies.

[BarryS]

After a slow week, it looks like the project is having a strong finish. Who knows where all these people are coming from?--most of them aren't on LFF or APUG. It seems like the majority have never shot large format, so this is a nice shot in the arm for sheet film. I expect a lot of them will need some hand-holding to get to the point where they can be productive with the Travelwide.

[barnninny]

There go the prices on Angulon 90's. :)

[Roger Cole]

That's scary if most of them have never shot large format. Once they realize what all they need in addition to the camera, and what the learning curve is like even with a simple no movement camera like this, I wonder how many will really be satisfied?

[Ben Syverson]

We're definitely aware of the potential for disappointment... Honestly that comes with the territory for any camera. If that's the downside, the upside is we'll be getting a lot of people into film and LF who would otherwise be shooting digital.

But yes, we'll be doing a series of in-depth videos on everything from loading film holders to using your iPhone to meter a scene. Get ready to answer a lot of newbie questions! We plan on sending a lot of people to LFF.

[Larry Kellogg]

Lou Reed invented a series of eyeglasses called Lou's Views. You can flip up the lenses individually. Pretty ingenious! Check them out.

Later he was having trouble seeing the contact list on his iPhone, so I collaborated with him to create Lou Zoom, which is an iPhone app for viewing your contacts in high contrast Helvetica Neue. He liked it so much that he made this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZBk_z7a6Y), which is basically my favorite thing ever. Wired Magazine called the app "Reed’s best collaboration since Songs for Drella."

I swear I'm not making any of this up.

Thanks, Ben, I did not know this, they look way cool, especially because you can flip up each side independently. Good on Lou.

Lou is great but, truth be told, I only made it through fifteen minutes of a concert where he was playing his Metal Machine Music album. "On its release, it was reviewed in Rolling Stone magazine as sounding like "the tubular groaning of a galactic refrigerator" and as displeasing to experience as "a night in a bus terminal"." I credit Lou for showing me how quiet New York City is, when compared to the noise he was putting out. I didn't have my 20dB cut plugs from Etymotic with me for this show but they probably wouldn't have been enough.

[Roger Cole]

We're definitely aware of the potential for disappointment... Honestly that comes with the territory for any camera. If that's the downside, the upside is we'll be getting a lot of people into film and LF who would otherwise be shooting digital.

But yes, we'll be doing a series of in-depth videos on everything from loading film holders to using your iPhone to meter a scene. Get ready to answer a lot of newbie questions! We plan on sending a lot of people to LFF.

Sounds like a plan, send 'em on. :)

[Tim Meisburger]

Actually, I just signed up this morning. I was hoping to be number 1000, and win a prize. Did I?

Does this camera have a lens board or just a hole for the Augulon?

[barnninny]

No board, just a helical for the Angulon.

[BarryS]

...we'll be doing a series of in-depth videos on everything from loading film holders to using your iPhone to meter a scene. Get ready to answer a lot of newbie questions! We plan on sending a lot of people to LFF.

That sounds like a great idea. I don't think you guys have to take on everything, but pointing people to good existing resources will be a big help. It looks like a lot of the people supporting the project have come in via social media and may have limited analog photo experience.

At $99, the Travelwide is in impulse purchase territory and while it would be fine if many users never get beyond the pinhole---getting as many as possible into large format, including sheet film development, would be terrific.

[zuiko90]

For all the people who will be new to LF I got two words;

PAPER NEGATIVES!

Seriously now, this will ease them into it without a lot of expense and with minimal equipment. If they are already familiar with conventional B&W in a darkroom then it will be a small step. Cutting, loading, developing etc. can be carried out under safe light and there is a lot of information out there on such techniques as pre-flashing the paper to control contrast ans as a little effective speed boost. On bright sunny days with a f8 lens you can even hand hold shots at about 1/30 second with pre flashed paper.

[Ken Ford]

I received my cheapie 28mm finder from the guy in Israel today. (Well, yesterday now.)

I don't know what his detractors on eBay were complaining about, unless they just expected a $200 Voigtlander for twenty bucks. It's a bit small and plastic, it isn't real bright (but bright enough, I can certainly use it fine) and has a small image with a fair amount of obvious distortion. None of which matters very much at all to me. It's a FINDER. It's supposed to show, with a bit more precision than the wire frame sports finder, what will be in the field of the lens and on the film. It should work fine.

Good value for twenty bucks IMHO, even with the shipping.

Mine arrived yesterday, too - well worth the expense, and fast shipping.

[Frank_E]

We're definitely aware of the potential for disappointment... Honestly that comes with the territory for any camera. If that's the downside, the upside is we'll be getting a lot of people into film and LF who would otherwise be shooting digital.

But yes, we'll be doing a series of in-depth videos on everything from loading film holders to using your iPhone to meter a scene. Get ready to answer a lot of newbie questions! We plan on sending a lot of people to LFF.

and don't forget to set up the Wanderlust flickr site for images taken with...

[Ben Syverson]

and don't forget to set up the Wanderlust flickr site for images taken with...
Oh, definitely. Have you seen our Flickr page? (http://flickr.com/photos/wanderlustcamera/)

Edit: We also have a Travelwide group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/travelwide) and a general Wanderlust Cameras (http://www.flickr.com/groups/wanderlustcameras) group set up.

[Tin Can]

Got mine today. Rally cute tiny thing, that works. It even has a QC 'Passed' sticker on it.

Here it is on a 2x3 Century Graphic.

94382




Mine arrived yesterday, too - well worth the expense, and fast shipping.

[AuditorOne]

Mine is here as well. Arrived yesterday. Looks like several of us must have ordered one around the same time.


Got mine today. Rally cute tiny thing, that works. It even has a QC 'Passed' sticker on it.

Here it is on a 2x3 Century Graphic.

94382

[Ben Syverson]

Just sent out an update to make sure people have the right reward selected, and there's some considerable churn... Some canceled pledges, some new ones, some increased. Just a heads up that some lens packages or early bird slots might magically appear as people settle on their rewards.