Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[Ben Syverson]

Hi all. I've been working on a 4x5 point and shoot camera with my friend Justin (together we're Wanderlust Cameras). It's finally at the stage where I'd like to get your feedback! Our emphasis was on creating a lightweight, durable camera so that you never need to choose between traveling light and traveling with LF.


World's lightest focusable 4x5 camera.
High-strength polycarbonate
Designed specifically for 90mm lenses in Copal 0.
Focus helical travels 20mm, from 90mm - 110mm
Utility boreholes allow a variety of strap & cable release configurations.
As physically small as possible—barely taller and wider than a double dark
Very low retail price


I'm trying to gauge how much interest there would be in this little fella. He's not meant to replace your real 4x5, he's meant to get tossed in your bag those times when you weren't planning on taking the big guns. Heck, most SLR lenses weigh more than this guy with a 90/6.8.

What do you think? (Pardon the low-quality render)

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/pocketwide.jpg

[Thebes]

It seems a little thick, but then that's a function of the 90mm lens cone and lens.

Although my Super Graphic is heavier, I can carry it folded in my Domke vest's inside pocket. I've carried it like this all day before, in heavy rain too, but it easily fit under my rain jacket in a gallon ziplock.

Your camera would seem less handy to me. It looks like it would have to carry in a bag. If I'm carrying a camera bag it seems size is as important as weight.

I wonder if there might be some cheap way of storing the lens within the body, so it's more compact and wouldn't need a case or bag. Maybe it could be designed to hold the entire lens in front of the helicoid on a bayonet type mount so it could be put on a storage bayonet inside the body? That could really cut the transport size, no lens sticking out and a somewhat smaller body since its all out when in use, if it would work with any of the common 90s I dunno.

[rdenney]

Looks like a fun idea.

Would it just be a CAD change to make a 65mm version? The shorter the lens, the less the focus travel matters, and the less people will miss movements. I'd be more in line for a 65mm version than a 90mm version. There sure are lots of 65/8 Super Angulons out there, and they are not that expensive. They are also quite compact.

How will you check focus? Will there be a ground glass or will you focus by scale?

How will the film holder stay attached to the camera? Will that mechanism also work for a slide-in roll-film holder, Fuji holder, or quickload holder?

I would think injection-molded ABS would be a useful material, and it would be very low cost production once you had a casting pattern.

Rick "intrigued" Denney

[Oren Grad]

Yes, potentially interested.

Off the top of my head, with apologies if these are obvious: Needs an accessory shoe for a viewfinder - possibly a second shoe as well, for those who want to mount a rangefinder. Perhaps you can offer a very inexpensive wire-frame finder? Also a slide-in GG, or at least plastic screen, that could be used to tweak the helical mounting to match different lenses. Be sure to check the range of flange-to-film registers for commonly available 90's to make sure you don't settle on a cone depth that unnecessarily limits your market. Possibly a shim system with specific shims available at modest additional cost to accommodate all modern 90's from the big 4? Keeping in mind that actual FLs vary from the nominal 90, you could also recommend a specific lens with actual FL that will exactly match the calibration of the focus scale - say, something like a 90/6.8 Grandagon/Caltar II-N that's widely available at attractive prices. Or a similar Schneider lens, if you prefer that.

Delighted to see someone using new tools to scheme about affordable new toys - good luck!

[Oren Grad]

Would it just be a CAD change to make a 65mm version? The shorter the lens, the less the focus travel matters, and the less people will miss movements. I'd be more in line for a 65mm version than a 90mm version. There sure are lots of 65/8 Super Angulons out there, and they are not that expensive. They are also quite compact.

Yes, do think about doing a version for 65 or 75 instead of or in addition to 90. Perhaps you can go ahead first with whatever focal length can attract the most order commitments.

[Photo Dave]

I like it! I've been thinking of building my own... I don't need focus, a true P&S with perhaps a Razzlok back would fill my needs. Keep it Simple aka: inexpensive please!

[Sevo]

Count me in as interested - even more so for a fixed infinity (or rather, hyperfocal) 65mm version!

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Another interested one here. Even more interest if it could have the option to use multiple lenses, like the suggested 65 mm.

If its a one lens only deal, I would still be interested, but the price would have to be right for me to buy. I have a friend that made a 5x7 P&S out of a cake pan.

[anglophone1]

Just what I need, as long as it takes grafmatics or DDS, and it has a shoe for an optical finder.

[cdholden]

65 and/or 90mm would make it very appealing, as would compatibility with Grafmatics and Sinar Vario/Zoom roll film holders. This is the direction I'm taking with my Globuscope.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Absolutely-- especially if it'll accept a Nikon SW 90mm f/8.
A wire hoop sports finder and hyperfocal scale for a common 90mm like my Nikon SW would be all that I might need.

[Ben Syverson]

Hi guys! Thanks for all the great feedback. Sounds like 65mm would be a popular choice. We went with 90 because there are many more 90s on the market, and they're cheaper than 65s. But if people overwhelmingly want 65, I'll do that!

I hear the desire for interchangeable lenses, but if we're going to mold multiple lens cones anyway, we might as well mold the rest of the body with each one. In other words, it would be less expensive for us (and for you, in the end) to produce separate 90 & 65mm versions, versus separate cones plus a body.

Let's see—other things in random order:

The top will house cold shoes, but we haven't decided how many yet. Probably 3.
The back is a simple steel spring back, but the springs are easily removable if you have an extra bulky holder of some sort. The design of the front makes it easy to rubber band something to the back.
We do want to do a simple plastic GG, ideally that can be married to the springs.
Shimming shouldn't be necessary—the cone will support all major 90s, with plenty of travel. The focus scale will be adjustable so you can match it to your specific lens.


Just for kicks, I measured my Super Graphic roughly and threw our design next to it. With a lens, the P&S would be taller in one dimension than the Super. In my travels with 4x5 and 8x10, weight is more of an issue than bulk. I've left LF behind on many trips due to weight. That would never happen again with this camera!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/pocketwide-super1.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/pocketwide-super2.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/pocketwide-super3.jpg

[rdenney]

It looks as though you are using a plastic helical (3 pins in a track?) for focusing, which I think is fine. Just make sure your focuser barrel doesn't interfere with the rear lens cell--these can be rather wide on 90mm lenses, as you know. If someone wants to lock it down to a hyperfocal distance (though I'm never that sure of my desired print size to really know what c-of-c standard to apply when calculating the hyperfocal distance), they can use tape.

Rubber bands are fine, if they can be sourced in the right size. A better idea might be to source the right length of braided bungee cord.

My use for a camera like this would be an ultra-wide box camera. A 65/8 Super Angulon would live on it. It's a #00 shutter, but I have a Grimes adapter, and I see cheaper adapters on ebay ($15) that allow one to install a #00 threaded flange in a #0 hole. So, targeting that lens does not require deviating from the #0 hole.

If you designed it with a larger front on the cone, you might be able to thread the whole front section for very large travel so that it could be used with a range of lenses from, say, 47 to 90. You could supply a focus scale with markings for three or four focal lengths in that range. It would need to be large enough around to allow it to come very close to the film for a 47 but still avoid vignetting with a 90. But with the molding being cheap enough, providing separate camera bodies for each focal length works, too.

Are you going to prototype it with a 3D printer? Are you considering using a 3D printer as a production tool? They are really getting cheap these days, though the hobby-grade models lack the precision for a project like this.

Rick "who might buy two if they are cheap enough--one for 65 and one for 90" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Rick, thanks again for your input! We started with pins/tabs in a groove for the helical, but now it's a normal helicoid, mostly to add a light trap.

We ordered a 3D printed prototype, so in a month or so we'll know if the overall dimensions need any adjustment. The precision is getting pretty good on 3D printing, but it's still not cheap enough as a production process. The prototype cost over $300, which is a small price to pay to verify the design, but unreasonably high for an end user.

Our target retail price is $99, but it's hard to know how realistic that is until we get a quote for tooling.

[Bob Mann]

I know you are thinking of a P&S, but how about a tripod socket? Or at least a thick pad/section on the bottom to add one?

[Roger Thoms]

I'll second the tripod socket, and add the there should be one for both horizontal and vertical. Two small bubble levels would be nice two. I mention this because I bought a Titan Pinhole camera and it has the tripod sockets and bubble levels and I really like them. Hand held is great but if there isn't enough light then having the tripod option is good.

Roger

[Ben Syverson]

There will definitely be a tripod socket, on the bottom of the lens cone (no room in the body). No need for two, as the camera is so light you can just tilt it on the tripod. Bubble levels are easy to add via the cold shoes.

[Thebes]

I'd be likely to buy a 65mm with a hotshoe or wire finder, and a tripod socket.

[zechi]

Sounds like a very interesting concept .. I'd be interested in a 65mm version if the price is right!

[gliderbee]

How about a 75mm as a compromise between 90 and 65 ?

Stefan (having a Fuji 75mm of course ...)

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, we looked at 75mm, but all the 75s are quite expensive!

[David Aimone]

I'd be interested in either or both. I have 90mm and 75mm nikkor-sw already, but might pick up a 65 if needed

[jb7]

Looks good Ben, looks robust-

Good price too-

I've been working on some updates to my p&s (65mm), and have come up with some refinements-

If I were to do a longer lens P&S, I'd consider making the lens retractible when not in use. I think that's already been mentioned...
Mounting a cylinder inside the cone might make a much wider selection of lenses available too. However, two castings, moving parts, locking system- more expensive-

Mounting a lens right on the front of a rigid body leaves it vulnerable and exposed. Some form of protection system might be useful, and shouldn't significantly to the cost- cheap drawer handles might do the job, as long as the casting provided mounting points- easy to cast in, not so easy to retrofit. This will be especially important on a longer lens, I think- It might also start to add some visual complexity to the form, maybe even give people more confidence in being able to throw it into a bag, as you described-

I've found the helical on mine to be less than successful, for a point and shoot-
not too bad for more considered shots, on a tripod, and very accurate, but a circular helical doesn't provide feedback behind the camera. If there was an indexing lever cast in, it might provide some kind of rough zone focusing capability.

Good luck with your prototype-
will be interested to see how it comes out. What printing system are you using?

All the best-

joseph

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks for the feedback, Joseph! Unfortunately, at this price point I need to rely on the user to protect the lens. Insert molding screw mounts into the part makes the cost skyrocket. The ideal lens for this camera is really the 90/6.8 Angulon. It's so compact that you don't really need to worry about protecting it, beyond adding a lens cap.

The only reason to use a 90/8 lens on this camera is if you already have it handy—you obviously can't utilize the extra coverage, you lose speed vs the 6.8, and it's heavier.

In terms of prints, we've been using Shapeways, and are very happy with the results. They take a while, but the quality and price are unbeatable. Last year I was able to print a very thin M42 screw mount using their Ultra Fine Detail process, and it mounted an M42 lens without any sanding or finishing:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/m42-threads2.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/m42-mounted.jpg

[Roger Thoms]

There will definitely be a tripod socket, on the bottom of the lens cone (no room in the body). No need for two, as the camera is so light you can just tilt it on the tripod. Bubble levels are easy to add via the cold shoes.

Glad to here that there will be a tripod socket. If you have a chance check out the Titan. The bullseye levels are 3/8" in diameter, very clean. Anyway just my 2¢.

Roger

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I would be interested in a 90mm version. I would want a tripod mount and some sort of viewfinder shoe. In a perfect world it would be able to use one of the cheap Chinese 6X12 film holders. I expect that is too much to ask for though.

Edward

[Ben Syverson]

I think the 6x12 holders would fit... You'd just need to remove the back spring (very easy) and bungie or rubber band the holder to the body.

[DrTang]

yes.. for monopod use anyway



I know you are thinking of a P&S, but how about a tripod socket? Or at least a thick pad/section on the bottom to add one?

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, to be clear, there definitely will be a tripod socket and cold shoes.

[adam satushek]

this seems like an interesting camera. Especially if the price could really stay around $100. It might ever attract the hipster/holga/lomo crowd at that price.

Generally I prefer 90mm to 65mm...but for a camera like this without a rangefinder i think 65mm makes more sense. Would be a more compact unit with 65mm and easier focus due to extended DOF.....so I voted for the 65mm

Good Luck! hope it works out!

[rdenney]

this seems like an interesting camera. Especially if the price could really stay around $100. It might ever attract the hipster/holga/lomo crowd at that price.

Well, that price won't include a lens.

But I can think of some reasonably well-suited lenses that would be inexpensive. At 90mm, a 90mm WA Optar (or Raptar) is a good choice. No room for movements, extremely compact, and generally cheap. Decent performer stopped down. Not Super-Angulon-decent, but decent.

An Angulon would be the next step up (maybe) and a little more expensive. The 90/8 Super Angulon would be the next step up from there, but as Ben says, it has coverage that would be wasted. And they have a much bigger footprint.

At 65, there is the 65/8 Super Angulon, which seems to be fairly plentiful. They are a bit more expensive, but they perform really well and one wouldn't be wasting excess movements using one. Despite being a Super Angulon, they are still reasonably compact (unlike the 90).

I have both the 90mm WA Optar and the 65/8 Super Angulon, so I don't much care which one Ben builds first, as long as he does both of them.:)

Rick "at that price point, a customer" Denney

[adam satushek]

oh yeah...i know that doesn't include a lens...still think it would be a great price for a fun camera

[Ben Syverson]

How similar are the 6.8 Optar/Raptars from the 6.8 Angulons? I had always supposed that the Optar was a more or less direct copy of the Angulon, but I haven't looked at the block diagrams or anything.

[bob carnie]

I would like one as well ... 65mm, I am thinking of the Titan that Harmon is making as well.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Interested.

[LF4Fun]

would love a 65mm version.

[Frank_E]

I am interested, have both a 65 and a 90 so indifferent which format gets built….

[Corran]

I don't know if it's been said, but personally I'd be interested in one made for the Schneider 47mm XL, preferably with preset hyperfocal distances for a couple different apertures and a viewfinder accessory.

[rdenney]

How similar are the 6.8 Optar/Raptars from the 6.8 Angulons? I had always supposed that the Optar was a more or less direct copy of the Angulon, but I haven't looked at the block diagrams or anything.

No, it's not a copy of the Angulon at all, and it's even smaller. The Optar W.A. is a 4-element double-gauss design, while the Angulon is a 6-element variation on the dagor. And the shutter is different. Good luck finding specs for the shutter opening, but I have a Graphic board for mine already and never measured it (it's at home and I'm not). The shutter is small, but I'm not sure as small as the "Graphex" shutter that Grimes shows for their mounting flanges. I'll measure it tonight.

I do believe it requires a smaller hole than a No. 0 shutter, but the reversible flange I have for mine adapts to a #0 hole using a shoulder. I'll check that for sure tonight, too.

Here's a picture of a 90mm f/6.8 Optar W.A., which I found in an old posting from about 2005:

http://members.roadfly.com/teetzelk/small0019.JPG

It was designed for 4x5 and covers, though it needs to be well stopped down and corner performance requires a bit of vintage understanding.

Rick "thinking this may be the smallest 4x5-coverage 90mm lens ever made" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

I think it's a great idea, and the minimalist direction is the right one here.

But, how about a screw on (or snap on) plastic cap to cover the whole lens/shutter for transport?

[Ben Syverson]

Mike, that's an idea... It would likely only work for the 6.8 variants, as the ƒ/8 sticks out quite a bit.

[Mike Anderson]

Mike, that's an idea... It would likely only work for the 6.8 variants, as the ƒ/8 sticks out quite a bit.

It would be much easier to throw in a backpack if the lens was protected - camera, light meter, some film holders and a cloth in the backpack, tripod over your shoulder. And I'd envision people buying a less expensive lens to more or less dedicate to this camera, in which case they'd probably get a small lens.

[Richard A Johnson]

Hello Ben, I think this a great idea. I don't know if I miss it or not but will it have a ground glass with some sort of bright screen? I have a 90 SA just sitting around and a horseman 6x12 back. This would make a great panoramic as well as 4x5 camera on the GO. I think that there should be some sort of locking setup in the mount so that you don't screw the lens out of the camera while focusing, that happen to me once with this type of mount. But i LIKE IT!!!

[Oren Grad]

The 90/8 Super Angulon would be the next step up from there, but as Ben says, it has coverage that would be wasted.

Not at all - "excess" coverage at f/22 means adequate coverage at wider apertures. Yeah, focus challenges and all that; pick your poison, as far as which constraints bother you the most.

Anyway, this is all sounding very encouraging. :)

[SMBooth]

Why not take a leaf from the Fotoman/Titan book and have interchangeable cones, make the back a standard. One minor problem is different lens have different film to flange distance which will mean the focus ring will need to be adjustable the infinity point. I had a DIY one with a 90f6.8 with fixed focus, great to use.

[GabrielSeri]

I would like to see a 90mm F/6.8 version.

[rdenney]

Why not take a leaf from the Fotoman/Titan book and have interchangeable cones, make the back a standard. One minor problem is different lens have different film to flange distance which will mean the focus ring will need to be adjustable the infinity point.

Both of these points have already been covered. The molding for this is so simple that it's just easier to provide two separate cameras for the different focal lengths than to mold in a light-tighte and mechanically sound cone interface. At $100 price point, I'll just buy cameras for both focal lengths. The whole camera is only slightly larger than a cone by itself would be. I think Ben is correct to keep it simple and as cheap as possible. The more flexible you try to make it, the more it ends up costing like a Titen or a Fotoman.

And, yes, Ben has said the focus scale will be adjustible for position to account for different flange focal distances.

Rick "taking some measurements" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

Hey Ben since you already have the pinhole technology down you might a well make a pinhole lens for it.

[rdenney]

Okay, here are some lens dimensions for lenses that will be well-suited but that you may not have on-hand to measure.

The Graflex Optar W.A. 90mm f/6.8 is mounted in a in a Graphex No. 1 shutter, which has a mounting thread of 1.1775-40. That fits snugly in a 1.19" hole (30.2mm). A Compur/Copal No. 0 shutter requires a 34mm hole. My Optar includes flange that has a ridge that will nestle snugly into a 34mm hole when used as a retaining ring. This is probably the standard flange for this shutter. That ring also makes it fit snugly into the larger standard hole for the Graphex No. 2 shutter used for the standard 127mm and 135mm Optars. (Graphex = Wollensak Rapax, and Optar = Wollensak Raptar.)

The Optar W.A. 90, when mounted, pokes 3/4" (20mm) out the front of the lens board. There is no filter ring--the barrel will vignette with any filter. There is not enough surface for a Lee-type adapter that uses set screws. Thus, a lens cover with a large filter ring (say, 77mm), that is 1" deep would cover this lens and provide a way to use a filter or screw-in shade.

The 65/8 Super Angulon is mounted in a No. 00 Compur shutter, which, as I wrote before, can be mounted in a standard 34mm No. 0 hole using a cheap adapter. When mounted, the lens pokes out the front by 34mm, plus lens cap. It has a standard 49mm filter thread. The barrel is 2" (51mm) in diameter. So, make that 77mm-wide lens cover 1-1/2" deep, and it will cover this lens, too, and still not vignette the 90.

I have tested this lens with 4x5 Fujiroid, and it has remarkably little falloff. I have the center filter for it, which is not wider than the front barrel and thus will probably vignette a bit, but I will not use it. Fujiroid is pretty narrow; I would expect falloff to be as severe with it as with transparency film.

The 65/5.6 Super Angulon is much larger, of course. It is mounted in a No. 0 shutter, and it pokes out the front 1.65" (42mm) without cap or filter.

The controls on the No. 0 shutter dictate the overall diameter for lenses that use it, unless you start putting center filters on them. An Angulon in a No. 0 shutter would have the same controls, and would need 86mm of inside diameter to clear.

With its Center Filter III with cap, the 65/5.6 is 4" in diameter (91mm) and sticks out 56mm. That would accommodate a 90/5.6 Super Angulon without center filter, which has about the same depth but is maybe a quarter inch less big around.

I don't have a 90/8 SA or an 90/6.8 Angulon, but maybe you do or someone else can provide those measurements.

Providing the front cover to accommodate the 65/8 Super Angulon probably makes the most sense, though Oren may still lobby for enough to cover the 90/8. Given it a threaded filter opening would be slick, and then a cheapie snap-in cap or metal filter cover could provide the lens cap. Your design looks as though it would accommodate that if you threaded the outside of the round flange behind the focuser. That would leave enough room, perhaps, to coil up a short cable release inside the cap for smaller lenses, though those can also be stored inside the camera body.

Rick "figuring too much data is better than not enough" Denney

[Oren Grad]

...though Oren may still lobby for enough to cover the 90/8....

No FL lobbying from here - I can see uses for either a 65 or a 90 version. Looks like opinion here is pretty evenly split. So I think Ben should just go with whichever one will be easiest/fastest/cheapest to bring to market - and if there's no difference, then whichever he prefers himself.

[rdenney]

No FL lobbying from here - I can see uses for either a 65 or a 90 version. Looks like opinion here is pretty evenly split. So I think Ben should just go with whichever one will be easiest/fastest/cheapest to bring to market - and if there's no difference, then whichever he prefers himself.

No, no, no. Not one or the other. Both.

Rick "thinking it's an easy CAD alteration" Denney

[Oren Grad]

No, no, no. Not one or the other. Both.

Sure - if he can finance production for both, that would be great!

[Ben Syverson]

Ha, thanks guys. :) The CAD alteration is simple, but striking a new mold costs tens of thousands of dollars. Given that it's pretty evenly split, we'll probably start with 90mm, since the 90s are cheaper and more abundant. We would need to sell around 500 units before a second focal length made sense. I'm confident we could sell many more than that, but it's a bit hard to gauge how quickly we would hit that mark.

Rick, thank you so much for those measurements. They help a tremendous amount! If we're able to put all our parts in a family mold, adding a simple friction-fit cap might not increase our costs very much. And it would certainly be a huge bonus.

[rdenney]

Ha, thanks guys. :) The CAD alteration is simple, but striking a new mold costs tens of thousands of dollars.

You might consider a family mold for both focal lengths, given that the market seems to be evenly split, and assuming that it doesn't increase the mold costs significantly. That would double your product with respect to mold costs, and would be worth more than the cap.

For the cap, consider this: Go to Home Depot and get a PVC or ABS pipe "cap" in 4" inside diameter. Design your unit so that the round section behind the focus is a snug fit inside that cap. That would keep you from having to include the cap in the mold, or even supply it. People could buy their own if they wanted it. Or, they could buy a coupling instead of a cap and have a lens shade and possible filter holder. That would also give you some mold real estate.

Rick "still lobbying for both focal lengths" Denney

[Steve Smith]

The CAD alteration is simple, but striking a new mold costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Is it possible to mould the cone and it's mounting piece separately and join them with a spacer? Thin spacer for 65mm, thick spacer for 90mm.


Steve (who sometimes does vacuum moulding but makes his own moulds which probably cost less than $10 to make).

[Ben Syverson]

Is it possible to mould the cone and it's mounting piece separately and join them with a spacer? Thin spacer for 65mm, thick spacer for 90mm.
It's possible, but if you're molding two cones, you might as well mold two cones with integrated backs. That way you only have two parts, versus five.

[BTMarcais]

I think @ the 100$ price point I'd probably buy whichever you put out first (although I'd push for the 65), and you should pretty easily be able to hit your 500 mark. Simple is good.

-Brian

[jon.oman]

At your price point, I would be interested as well!

[David Aimone]

Absolutely! And I'm hoping it is ready for my Ireland trip this autumn...


At your price point, I would be interested as well!

[Ole Tjugen]

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/an_su_1963.pdf
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/an_su_1967.pdf

All the measurements you need for the 90mm f:6,8 Angulon and the 65mm f:8 Super Angulon. And the rest of the Angulons too.

EDIT: I'd really love a version for 47mm SA XL too!

[Steve Goldstein]

Definitely interested at ~$100, most likely 90mm as 65mm is awfully wide for my tastes. I do have a couple of 75s, neither of which sees much use, but that doesn't seem to be a terribly popular focal length. This will be a really sweet and compact setup with a 90mm f/6.8 Angulon.

I'd like to reiterate Oren's point in post #4, and possibly made elsewhere, about flange focal length. A while ago I sold someone a 90mm f/8 Fujinon-W (inside lettering, if it matters) for use on a similar sort of camera, maybe Fotoman, I forget. He couldn't get infinity focus because the Fujinon had a several mm shorter FFL than the 90mm f/8 Nikkor he ended up using.

[Steve Goldstein]

Might have missed this in the thread, but it would be a simple matter for users to make an adapter to allow use of a pinhole. At $100 it's less than half the price of the Ilford/Walker :)

[Ben Syverson]

My hope is that we can include a simple pinhole cap in the box!

Looking at those Schneider charts, I can already see that I need to modify the travel by 1.0mm or so. I have the minimum flange distance at 90mm, which is fine, but to be on the safe side it should maybe be 89, to allow for variation in the 6.8s.

The ƒ/8 variants have a FFD of 100mm, which is part of the reason why we gave the camera a luxuriously long 20mm travel. So you'll be able to focus down to 1.1m with the ƒ/8, or 0.5m with the f/6.8!

[Oren Grad]

Ben, FWIW, the FFD for the 90/6.8 Grandagon-N is 94mm and for the 90/4.5 Grandagon-N is 98mm.

Given the extent of variation, it may still make sense to offer one or more shims or rings, perhaps optionally at extra cost, so that too much of the available focus travel isn't consumed just compensating for infinity focus.

[rdenney]

Definitely interested at ~$100, most likely 90mm as 65mm is awfully wide for my tastes. I do have a couple of 75s, neither of which sees much use, but that doesn't seem to be a terribly popular focal length. This will be a really sweet and compact setup with a 90mm f/6.8 Angulon.

I'd like to reiterate Oren's point in post #4, and possibly made elsewhere, about flange focal length. A while ago I sold someone a 90mm f/8 Fujinon-W (inside lettering, if it matters) for use on a similar sort of camera, maybe Fotoman, I forget. He couldn't get infinity focus because the Fujinon had a several mm shorter FFL than the 90mm f/8 Nikkor he ended up using.

Yes, it's worth noting those differences. It would appear from what Ole linked (despite my lack of German) that the 65/8 Super Angulon has a flange focal distance of 70mm, the 90/6.8 Angulon is 90, and the 90/8 Super Angulon is 100. All with a tolerance of +/- 0.5mm. I'll measure the 90mm Optar W.A. as soon as I'm there with it at the same time an infinity target is available (read: at home during daylight--Friday).

Rick "surprised by the magnitude of the differences" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Oren and Rick,

Do you think you guys would be focusing closer than 1m very often? With a FFD of 94mm, you could focus to 0.6m. My inclination is to support the Infinity-1m range for all common 90s, and let the end user make their own shim if they need extra close-up support. 0.5m on the 90mm/6.8 is pretty close!

[rdenney]

Ben, FWIW, the FFD for the 90/6.8 Grandagon-N is 94mm and for the 90/4.5 Grandagon-N is 98mm.

Given the extent of variation, it may still make sense to offer one or more shims or rings, perhaps optionally at extra cost, so that too much of the available focus travel isn't consumed just compensating for infinity focus.

A ring 10mm thick won't help, I don't think. It will bury the threads and you won't be able to get a retainer behind it. A different shim point would mess up Ben's simple design. 1.1 meters seems close enough for a camera with limited viewing capabilities.

Rick "who spent too long typing is previous response" Denney

[Oren Grad]

Do you think you guys would be focusing closer than 1m very often? With a FFD of 94mm, you could focus to 0.6m. My inclination is to support the Infinity-1m range for all common 90s, and let the end user make their own shim if they need extra close-up support. 0.5m on the 90mm/6.8 is pretty close!

That's a good point. Yes, I think even one meter would be plenty close for the intended use of this camera, and it would be reasonable to say you'll directly support the f/6.8 and f/8 lenses, but if anyone wants to use the big f/4.5 or XL lenses they'll have to do their own tweaks.

Let me see if I can dig up the FFD for the Nikkors and Fujinons...

[Oren Grad]

OK, the 90/8 Nikkor SW has a FFD of 97.0mm, and the 90/4.5 is 97.4mm.

Off to look for the Fujinons...

[Oren Grad]

...and thanks to Kerry Thalmann's good work we have FFD specs of 98.7mm for the 90/8 Fujinon SWS and 102.6mm for the 90/5.6 Fujinon SWDS as of 1981, and FFD specs of 99.2mm for the 90/8 SW and 102.5mm for the 90/5.6 SWD as of 1997.

[Ben Syverson]

Awesome! Thanks, Oren! So we're limited to ~1.7m focusing for the ƒ/5.6 big guns. I think some folks might mount a 5.6 on this camera just for fun, but it'll be pretty front-heavy. :)

[Steve Goldstein]

Ben, will there be some way of locking the helical to facilitate hyperfocal focusing and use as a point-and-shoot?

BTW, a college friend of my is very experienced with Solidworks and has one of those fancy solid modeling machines. Shoot me an email if this is of interest.

[Ben Syverson]

Steve, no specific locking mechanism is planned, but a little gaff tape on the inside of the camera should lock the helical. I can't think of a good way to do arbitrary locking without introducing another part, which would make the camera more expensive.

[Ben Syverson]

Justin received the prototype, and so far, so good! We need to make a couple small tweaks to the CAD file, but this is close enough that we can shoot some test sheets.

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45proto.jpg

[John NYC]

I'd buy the 90mm version in a heartbeat.

[alexn]

I would buy 65 or 90, however I voted 65 because Im a wide field freak... :)

with interchangable lens cones there is no reason you couldn't eventually provide support for 47, 58, 65, 72~75, 90....

this camera + 65/8 + 6x12 roll film holder = best travel camera ever.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks guys! It really is designed with travel in mind. Any extra bulk is offset by rigidity and extreme light weight.

In fact, the camera is so lightweight that when the lens is attached without a film holder loaded, the weight of a tiny 90/6.8 tips it over!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45tipping.jpg

[Oren Grad]

For users who go with something as small as the Angulon, it'll be like having a clip-on lens for your film holders. Very cool...

[John NYC]

Thanks guys! It really is designed with travel in mind. Any extra bulk is offset by rigidity and extreme light weight.

In fact, the camera is so lightweight that when the lens is attached without a film holder loaded, the weight of a tiny 90/6.8 tips it over!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45tipping.jpg

Tell you what... I am so excited about this, I bought a 90mm Angulon off of KEH a little while ago tonight. So now you HAVE to make it. I have no other use for that lens!

[Ben Syverson]

Tell you what... I am so excited about this, I bought a 90mm Angulon off of KEH a little while ago tonight. So now you HAVE to make it. I have no other use for that lens!
Good thinking! Once we launch, I have a feeling it will be difficult to find reasonably priced Angulons.

Based on the reaction here at LFF, we're definitely making this camera. It's just a question of how fast we can do it. We're coming out with a Canon version of the Pinwide, and pouring all of that money into our cameras, which include the 45 and a MF.

[alexn]

Is there any way we can put our names on the list.. a 'pre-order' if you will.... Judging by the hype thus far I dare say these will sell like hotcakes.. I have a 90mm F/8 SA sitting here with nothing to do but gather dust... An LF travel cam is exactly what I need. :) Neeeeed!!

[Ben Syverson]

Alex, it's definitely crossed my mind. Once we get a quote for tooling, I'll know what the retail price will be, and then I think we'll do a preorder. I'd like to be able to tell people the precise dimensions, features and final cost, so they know exactly what they're preordering!

[alexn]

A low weight, low cost point and shoot large format camera body.. sign me up.. where do I pay!!! Haha (very excited)

[Paul Ewins]

I'm up for either (or both) FL - it will save me making my own version.

[anglophone1]

++1

[mrkauffman]

finally, a reason to get rid of my walker titan without feeling like a complete betrayal. if its anywhere around $100 im in, ill have to see what i can do with my 75mm SA though, never tried 90mm on 4x5

[Steve Smith]

It would appear from what Ole linked (despite my lack of German) that the 65/8 Super Angulon has a flange focal distance of 70mm

It was 70.5mm in the data I used for my camera.

It's nice to see pictures of real life parts rather than 3D CAD. Keep posting them as it progresses!


Steve.

[Ben Syverson]

480 grams.

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-scale.jpg

[Steve Goldstein]

I can't wait!

Will it have a hotshoe fitting? I have a Fotoman 90mm finder that's perfect for my Angulon.

[Ben Syverson]

Just to put 480g in perspective:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/hexar-scale.jpg

The Hexar, my daily point and shoot, weighs 562g! The Perkeo, the smallest 6x6 folder, weighs 525g. Heck, a glass of water weighs 550g! If you're used to pounds, 480g is just over one pound (17 oz). Because it's larger and less dense than those other cameras, it feels even lighter than it is. It's great in the hand.

I put the 45 next to a bunch of my cameras, and the one that it feels closest to is the Mamiya 7:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-7-top.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-7-front.jpg

They take up basically the same amount of space in your bag. But the 7 clocks in at over 1200g, which means you could carry TWO 45s and it would still weigh less than the 7.

[Ben Syverson]

From the back, it just looks like you're holding a film holder:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-back.jpg

From the front, it looks like this:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-front.jpg

The utility boreholes allow for a lot of configurations. I would put a strap through the left borehole, and let it hang vertically. In the right, I would thread a cable release:

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-cable.jpg

This thing is a lot of fun just to handle!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/02/45-top.jpg

[Ben Syverson]

I can't wait!

Will it have a hotshoe fitting? I have a Fotoman 90mm finder that's perfect for my Angulon.
It'll have three cold shoes!

[alexn]

480g!!! :) Champion effort mate... Looks amazing... Simple and elegant..

The pics do not clearly show how the film holder is held in place?

Also, can the plastic material its made of be painted? I think it would look crazy in bright red....

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Alex!

The film holder will be held in place with stamped spring steel prongs. We don't have a prototype for them yet, but that's next!

The surface finish of the final part will be much different—this prototype is extremely coarse and matte. The best way to paint the final version will be with the "Fusion" spray paints that bond to plastic. But we've already had interest from one retailer who may want to customize the color of the plastic itself. That would be fun!

[alexn]

So I assume the film holder will slide into the back of the camera and the steel prongs will exert pressure on them from behind, clamping them against the camera body....

Its funny, cameras like this are so simple, and yet its taken this long for someone to make a truely simple, light weight, low cost option...

I applaud you and your friend for going ahead with this... Really great stuff... And to hear that you have a retailer interested.. Seems that could make the whole shooting match worth while.

I dont know if I would colour the plastic, blacks and dark grey do a great job of blocking light. If it was made from coloured plastic I would imagine it would bleed light onto the film... I will go with painting the exterior (not including the lens mount/focusing helicoid) with a fusion spray paint.. Bright red is the go I think..... I have already ordered one of those chinese hot/cold shoe bubble levels and an interchangable viewfinder. one 6x12 and one 4x5 for 90mm lens... Im ready when you are :)

[Oren Grad]

Imagining mounting a finder on this thing and holding it to my eye... oops! How about some kind of simple plastic cover that can go over the back - perhaps just a simple piece with retaining tabs secured by Velcro dots on top/bottom of the camera - to keep the darkslide on the back side of the holder from getting smeared with nose grease?

[adam satushek]

Yeah this thing looks awesome! Thanks Ben for posting the progress! I really want one! I previously voted for the 65mm (due to the whole thing being more compact and the extended DOF), but a 90mm would be awesome too because I already have a 90mm that I rarely use and could probably slap on the Wanderlust (ps. good name). Is it safe to assume that because the prototype was made as a 90mm version that it will be the first version released? Only wondering because if the 65mm is available first ill have to snatch up a lens before everyone else on this forum goes shopping for 65mm lenses.:p

I still think that this product would appeal to lots of hipster photo folks due to price and simplicity. (Note: I am in support of hipster photographers only because it is just one more category of photographers that might keep color negative film alive). And I really think that if this awesome camera could be paired with some crappy lens...plastic and holga-like that could cover 4x5, it would sell like hotcakes! Hell, maybe even American Apparel would stock them!

But seriously, when this product makes it to production I really want one, and will be happy to slap my best glass on it!

Good work!

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Adam! We're actually working with a lens designer for an unrelated project. Basically, making a new 90 wouldn't be a problem, but the cheapest shutter would be at least $50 wholesale... So it drives the total cost of the camera beyond the $250 mark, which would be a bit ridiculous.

An alternative we've talked about is including a precision Copal 0 pinhole in the box, so that while you're waiting for a 90, you can at least make images!

[adam satushek]

Yeah, Ben, totally, a pinhole is a great solution!

I didn't think of that personally because it is not my aesthetic, and neither is a holga-esque plastic lens, but I am all about any mechanism to bring large format color neg film to the masses.

Thanks for the response, and good luck!

[Kuzano]

Thickness allowable on film holder. I've been watching this thread with interest. Nice work. I could see me with one of these. Here's my question...

A double dark film holder is 7/16 inches thick. I am presuming the groove for the film holder is larger which applies some sort of spring tension to the back of the film holder. I have a couple of hundred envelopes of Easy and Quick load 4X5 sheets. I use the last Kodak Professional single sheet packet film holders. It has graflok slots and spring loading on the film plate. None of the light leak problems of earlier Packet Film holders and as good as the Fuji Quickload holder.

However, the thickness of the holder, where the Double Dark is 7/16 inch, on the Kodak holder is 5/8 inch.

One nice aspect of the Easy/Quick loads is that the holder extends out of the camera, offering a hand hold of sorts.

I can see either modifying a double dark or a Ready Load holder to ground glass, using one or the other for ground glass viewing.

However, to do that, I would need grooves on the camera back to apply a range of tension from 7/16 to 5/8 inches, or commit to one thickness.

Can you tell me the thickest holder that will fit in the slots you designed into the back, and also how you are applying tension to make the film holder light tight to the inside of the camera?

Thanks. In any event I am interested. I have a couple of 90mm Schneider Angulon lenses in shutters, so that would be my interest. No interest in the 65.... That's just too much information. If it turns out I want really wide, I would rig a 6X12 Dayi pano back and shoot panoramic using the 90mm Angulon on 120 roll film. That's the other interest I have in this camera. I currently shoot a Fujica GL690 "Texas Leica". I looks like your design would be a smidge lighter than the Fuji. :p

[alexn]

I wonder this too actually.. I have a Fuji Quickload holder and quite a bit of quickload film that would be even better again for this sort of "Run and Gun" sort of camera.... I suppose the same as the 6x12 back applies... a few elastic bands should hold her in place well enough... failing that a couple of velcro straps running across the camera to hold them in place. The only thing would be that the steel springs would likely be in the way...

If they were removeable it would be easier to adopt either a roll film back or quick/readyload holders. I very rarely shoot sheet film in double darks because its too much of a hassle to load and unload especially in the field... Quickloads make it faster and easier. Not to mention, having 20 shots worth of double darks loaded in your backpack defeats the purpose of this camera, where as 1 quickload holder and 20 sheets of film weighs next to nothing....

I simply can not wait to have this in my hands. :D

[dave_whatever]

Put me down for one of these, assuming you can post to the uk. Will it take a grafmatic?

[anglophone1]

I wonder this too actually.. I have a Fuji Quickload holder and quite a bit of quickload film that would be even better again for this sort of "Run and Gun" sort of camera.... I suppose the same as the 6x12 back applies... a few elastic bands should hold her in place well enough... failing that a couple of velcro straps running across the camera to hold them in place. The only thing would be that the steel springs would likely be in the way...

If they were removeable it would be easier to adopt either a roll film back or quick/readyload holders. I very rarely shoot sheet film in double darks because its too much of a hassle to load and unload especially in the field... Quickloads make it faster and easier. Not to mention, having 20 shots worth of double darks loaded in your backpack defeats the purpose of this camera, where as 1 quickload holder and 20 sheets of film weighs next to nothing....

I simply can not wait to have this in my hands. :D

I still have a stash of pola 55 that I'm shooting with my Razzle, assuming this can take a 545 back, it'll be the ideal compliment to it for my environmental portaiture work.

[Michael_qrt]

Hi Ben, this looks awesome and I'll definitely buy one as I have a 90mm angulon to use on it. I just wonder if you've thought of having both horizontal and vertical tripod mount screws? Now I know most people will just think that's no problem because you can just tilt your tripod head 90 degrees with a camera this light, but I thought an ideal system would be to use this camera with a gorillapod SLR type tripod which has no head. Let's face it, with an anuglon you're looking at stopping down to f/22 for sharpness/coverage/DOF so I couldn't see myself using it much handheld. Think about it, this small light camera on a tiny lightweight gorillapod would be a super fun system.

[John NYC]

Hi Ben, this looks awesome and I'll definitely buy one as I have a 90mm angulon to use on it. I just wonder if you've thought of having both horizontal and vertical tripod mount screws? Now I know most people will just think that's no problem because you can just tilt your tripod head 90 degrees with a camera this light, but I thought an ideal system would be to use this camera with a gorillapod SLR type tripod which has no head. Let's face it, with an anuglon you're looking at stopping down to f/22 for sharpness/coverage/DOF so I couldn't see myself using it much handheld. Think about it, this small light camera on a tiny lightweight gorillapod would be a super fun system.

Would be nice to have both tripod mounts!

You would be able to hand hold this pretty easily though on a sunny day. In low light? Definitely not.

[dave_whatever]

Actually if you could make the tripod socket on a raised incut square of 40mm side then it could attach straight into an arca clamp, which would be brilliant.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, guys! We're sticking with one tripod thread, because adding a second on a different axis would really increase the cost... Gorillapod now sells models with little ball heads, so I can't see any reason to put two on.

My QuickLoad holder may just barely fit under the springs, but basically anything that's thicker than a double dark will need to be rubber banded to the back. Luckily the shape of the front makes rubber banding easy and secure! And the spring back will be simple to remove—just two screws.

The camera fits the Calumet C2 rollfilm holder perfectly, but because the holder is so much heavier than the camera, you need to hold the whole thing by the holder, not the camera. Sort of like when you attach a giant telephoto to an SLR, you carry it by the lens. Luckily the chunky side of the C2 provides a nice grip!

I want to head out and take some test shots, but of course it's overcast today, when yesterday was 60°F and sunny. Oh well, the first test shots will be very truthful renderings of Chicago. :)

[Kuzano]

My QuickLoad holder may just barely fit under the springs, but basically anything that's thicker than a double dark will need to be rubber banded to the back. Luckily the shape of the front makes rubber banding easy and secure! And the spring back will be simple to remove—just two screws.

The camera fits the Calumet C2 rollfilm holder perfectly, but because the holder is so much heavier than the camera, you need to hold the whole thing by the holder, not the camera. Sort of like when you attach a giant telephoto to an SLR, you carry it by the lens. Luckily the chunky side of the C2 provides a nice grip!


I think I can get another trash Readyload holder and come up with a new thickness on the sides that is very near the thickness of a Double Dark. I should be able to work with whatever your final decision is, because I don't want to ask for any design change that will slow down your process or increase your price beyond how you see it now.

It occurs to me that you are creating one hell of a product, and people ought to be open-minded to your cost increases and work with their own accessory equipment to get their own end result. (I do also fully understand that many people simply want a fully capable product without being creative. That's all well and good, but they still want your camera for $100. :confused:)

I am sure I can afford to modify one inexpensive EasyLoad or Quickload holder. Fuji Quickload holders are still quite expensive in spite of the poor inventory of Quickload packet. However, the last Kodak Easyload resolved all of the issues with earlier models, and yet are dirtcheap, compared to the Fuji's. The Kodak holder handles the Fuji Quickload Packets quite well. This gives me a relatively dust free sheet of film, individually packaged all the way to the processing tank. Also light and compact.

I would not very likely use a Grafmatic as long as Quickloads seem to be readily available on eBay, even current dated. I dislike loading the Grafmatic Plenums and still being limited to 6 sheets (is that right?) plus the weight.

I can't really see the purpose of a light camera, with a heavy back attached, such as the Calumets, Horsemen, and Grafmatics. The Dayi for roll film and the Easyload for 4X5 or the double darks would be my choices. The Double Darks would be my lesser choice except one modified to be a ground glass. Most times, however, is see the camera being used as a P&S.

As far as holding the larger back. It actually appeals to me to use the side of the Easy/Quickload holders that stick out as a handle. I may even modify and attach a short cable release on the holder itself to actuate the shutter without modding your camera body.

I am a bit puzzled however. You mention holding the back on with rubber bands, bungee, or velcro. I am not opposed to that, but I sort of envision your back as securing the holders by sliding the holder into a top and bottom slots situation. I must be wrong if it can be rubber banded into place.

Will you please show me relatively close shots of the back showing from the end the holders slide into, and at an angle from the side showing the slots, or if the back surface just has side holder positioning to drop the holder in and bind in place with the elastic material of my choice.

The nice thing about the Easy/Quickload system is that I can afix the holder to the camera for the duration of an outing and leave it attached, simply inserting and removing film envelopes. The roll film process is another matter, but if I know more clearly what the back looks like without a holder in place, I can make any of my choices of film holders work without any mods to your design.

Again... Good, Good, Job.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks Kuzano! The back is pretty simple:

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

The ledge on the left will have two screws that will secure two flexible metal prongs. Removing those spring metal prongs is as simple as unscrewing two screws, after which you can rubber band anything to the back.

Looking at it again, I'm pretty confident that the QL holder would fit without any modification:

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

The C2 definitely needs to be banded, but it's actually quite natural-feeling once it's attached. It would certainly be lighter and less bulky to pack the 45 and a C2 vs the 45 and a Mamiya 7. And 90mm is a nice 50-ish lens on 6x7.

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

I was out shooting with the camera today, and had a blast. You could really shoot all day with this thing in your hand, which is not something I could say about many 4x5s. If you're bold, you can even shoot one-handed quite comfortably:

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

BTW, all these photos are from my blog "Ben Syverson holding things"

[rdenney]

Ben, your iPhone needs tilts!

Rick "yeah, not helpful" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, your iPhone needs tilts!
Haha, the funny thing is I was subconsciously trying to level the iPhone so the buildings would be straight for that shot. Obviously I was a little off, but it goes to show how deeply that stuff gets ingrained!

[Roger Thoms]

Ben, you need something like this, http://www.iphone-tripodholder.com/ it would make image composition much easier with your iPhone. I have a iPad and try as I may I can't get my verticals right hand holding the stupid thing.

Looks like the camera is coming along nicely, good to see the prototype.

Roger

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks Roger! I have a couple cases with tripod threads, but I wasn't sweating the composition too much for that shot. It was really more of a snapshot to show the 4x5.

[Kuzano]

Thanks Kuzano! The back is pretty simple:


The ledge on the left will have two screws that will secure two flexible metal prongs. Removing those spring metal prongs is as simple as unscrewing two screws, after which you can rubber band anything to the back.

Looking at it again, I'm pretty confident that the QL holder would fit without any modification:

The C2 definitely needs to be banded, but it's actually quite natural-feeling once it's attached. It would certainly be lighter and less bulky to pack the 45 and a C2 vs the 45 and a Mamiya 7. And 90mm is a nice 50-ish lens on 6x7.

I was out shooting with the camera today, and had a blast. You could really shoot all day with this thing in your hand, which is not something I could say about many 4x5s. If you're bold, you can even shoot one-handed quite comfortably:

BTW, all these photos are from my blog "Ben Syverson holding things"

Less than I had envisioned, which is better than I expected. Simply an open box the size of the length and width dimension of most film holder. This is exactly what I would have hoped for.. Strap on your favorite holder and go shooting. I see you have the positioning groove for the ridge on the film side of the holder...good.

Thanks for the pics... very helpful and convinces me I can shoot up my ready/quick loads and more as I find it.

Lars

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, I actually downloaded the ANSI standard for film holders, and used that as my guide. So any holder that sticks to the spec should work. So far, so good!

There's the old saying "Less is more," which is associated with Mies. But I actually prefer the Dieter Rams version, which translates as "Less, but better." Rather than just making a stripped-down version of a product, Rams was able to improve the product at the same time as simplifying it.

[Vascilli]

How tough would it be for the average guy to modify? This looks like the perfect base for all sorts of project cameras.

[Ben Syverson]

Hopefully it should be pretty easy to customize! The front facilitates rubber banding, the boreholes could be mount points for a variety of mods, and there are three cold shoes too! I'm excited about people using the camera as a base.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Ben do you have a time estimate on when we can get our hands on one of these cameras?

[mrkauffman]

^^^ forreal! lol i have a lot of questions regarding lenses, but im sure theyve been answered somewhere in this thread (is there a specific 65 or 90 the body will be made for?)

[rdenney]

Yes, it's worth noting those differences. It would appear from what Ole linked (despite my lack of German) that the 65/8 Super Angulon has a flange focal distance of 70mm, the 90/6.8 Angulon is 90, and the 90/8 Super Angulon is 100. All with a tolerance of +/- 0.5mm. I'll measure the 90mm Optar W.A. as soon as I'm there with it at the same time an infinity target is available (read: at home during daylight--Friday).

Okay, not the same Friday I originally promised. But I just mounted my Graflex Optar W. A. f/6.8 3-1/2" (90mm) on my Speed Graphic, focused it using the ground glass, and measured the flange focal distance. I measured 89.2-89.3mm. I cannot say what the tolerance is, or where this particular lens fits within that tolerance. But setting the minimum flange distance at 89 will work for my lens, though it may be a bit tight if you want some forgiveness. I used the depth-rod on a vernier caliper, but three measurements fell within that range.

Rick "setting this lens aside for this camera" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Rick! We're still crunching numbers trying to determine the optimal FFD.

We both agree now that we'd like markings for the Angulon (and looks like the Optar will be similar), and let the ƒ/8 and ƒ/5.6 users create their own markings. This camera is really designed for the compact 6.8's, so we'd like to make life easy for those users.

I got the film back from my first outing with the camera, and will scan tonight!

[rdenney]

Ben, if your focus scale can be repositioned for infinity calibration, then the scale itself should be the same, barring differences in true focal length. The flange focal distances are different because the mounting point of the shutter is different. That's a single translation that should not affect the scale distance between different focus distances.

At this price point, I'd consider a well-printed focus scale on an adhesive strip (quality adhesive, quality strip material), with clear instructions on how to install it, a usable option.

Rick "how did you focus your prototype?" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Rick, that was the original idea, but I'm now worried that people won't be willing or able to calibrate infinity focus on their own. I would rather ship it with a scale that will work for the Angulon & Optar, and let users of other lenses work out their own solutions...

The prototype has no markings as of yet, and has only been tested at infinity. It turns out that I loaded my film holders months ago, and they've since leaked. I got some test shots back that at least verified the design, but they're too flashed to post. That'll teach me to load holders and not use them! I'm loading up some fresh film tomorrow and will shoot some stuff just for fun!

[rdenney]

Are you absolutely sure the plastic is opaque?

Rick "who has been burned--er--fogged by that assumption before" Denney

p.s., maybe you could provide the sticker with the scale on it for those who need it, with the stock marked scale for your target lenses.

[Oren Grad]

Rick, that was the original idea, but I'm now worried that people won't be willing or able to calibrate infinity focus on their own.

You might contact Paul Droluk and see whether he would allow you to use some suitably edited version of the infinity-calibration instructions that were posted for the Fotoman cameras:

http://www.fotomancamera.com/download/2006121522239LargeFormatCameras.pdf

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, the plastic is 100% opaque.

It's a good idea to throw in a sticker for the customizers in the crowd. :)

[Ben Syverson]

You might contact Paul Droluk and see whether he would allow you to use some suitably edited version of the infinity-calibration instructions that were posted for the Fotoman cameras:
We probably will have some PDF like that, but in my experience, people just don't read the instructions. So I would love to have reasonable default markings for the majority of people who bristle when they hear "calibration." :)

[Mike Anderson]

We probably will have some PDF like that, but in my experience, people just don't read the instructions. So I would love to have reasonable default markings for the majority of people who bristle when they hear "calibration." :)

You're going to have a website with the instructional video showing how easy it is to calibrate, aren't you?

[Ben Syverson]

I'm a sucker for video, so yes. :)

[dave_whatever]

Just to further complicate things, another couple of lenses worth accomodating are the fujinon and nikkor 105mm f/5.6s, flange distance about 103mm. With your quoted 20mm of throw on the helicoid these should just about be feasible.

[jb7]

Infinity is very far away- particularly at f/6.3 or f/8.

If you can compute a scale accurately for a given focal length, the most precise way to set up a lens is to focus on something in the close range, say at one meter, or less.

If you can do that, all the other distances will fall into place.

Half a millimeter out at infinity may not be noticeable, but it's a long way out in the close range.

[Ben Syverson]

jb7, I respectfully disagree. I've done that in a pinch before, but in reality, anything around 100m is effectively infinity. I calibrate based on the Sears Tower and other buildings downtown, which are around 3 km away.

The problem with calibrating based on 1m is that there's a gigantic margin for error. If you're a cm or two off at 1m, it means your infinity is hosed. It's easy to see if your infinity focus is slightly off, but it's nearly impossible to tell if 1m is slightly front or back focusing.

[jb7]

That's ok Ben, we can respectfully disagree-

This isn't the place to argue the point anyway, and whatever calibration method you choose, it's a relatively simple job-

However, infinity on a 65mm f/8 lens effectively begins at around 21m, there's no point in focusing much beyond that, because you're not taking advantage of the depth of field in front of the subject. There can be much hunting for infinity, on a ground glass, where infinity doesn't seem to change much. In my experience, there is far more measurable accuracy in the close range, and a corroboration for infinity is a simple thing.

Nice looking camera too, hope the testing goes well-

And again, not willing to argue the point further, don't want to hijack your thread-

[Ben Syverson]

No problem jb7! This is exactly the reason why I don't want to force the user to calibrate the camera. It's a can of worms I have no interest in. I'll have default markings, and the picky can customize the scale. The picky (like myself) will never be satisfied anyway, so there is no point even attempting it.

[David Aimone]

I'm all set with a f/6.8 Angulon and the markings would be great. This should be an excellent camera for travel. Thanks for your hard work...


Thanks, Rick! We're still crunching numbers trying to determine the optimal FFD.

We both agree now that we'd like markings for the Angulon (and looks like the Optar will be similar), and let the ƒ/8 and ƒ/5.6 users create their own markings. This camera is really designed for the compact 6.8's, so we'd like to make life easy for those users.

I got the film back from my first outing with the camera, and will scan tonight!

[Kuzano]

OK,,, I'm ready. Calibrate Schmalibrate... waste of time. I will probably shoot most of my film supply on a tripod with GG viewing. Never been much for the technical stuff, let alone the overhype of movements. So glad you left them off. All this talk of infinity focus, calibration and hand holding is just a way for me to lower my keeper rate on film that is going into short supply and rising in price. I'm interested only in every image a keeper if possible.

When can I order and when will shipping start? I may want more than a couple to put my lenses and back refinements on. All this other discussion is making me sleepy. When it looks good on the Ground Glass, that's when I snap the shutter.

:cool:

[alexn]

Agreed.. I shoot near everything at F/22~F/32.. With a 90mm on 4x5, that pretty much gives me infinite depth of field...

I do not intend to use a ground glass with this camera, That really defeats the purpose of a 4x5 point and shoot. I want something that all I have to do is pull the dark slide, set at F/32 and snap a shot...
I wont use it hand held either really, again, F/22~F/32 restricts that, along with my favorite film being ISO50...

[Kuzano]

OK,,, I'm ready. Calibrate Schmalibrate... waste of time. I will probably shoot most of my film supply on a tripod with GG viewing. Never been much for the technical stuff, let alone the overhype of movements. So glad you left them off. All this talk of infinity focus, calibration and hand holding is just a way for me to lower my keeper rate on film that is going into short supply and rising in price. I'm interested only in every image a keeper if possible.

When can I order and when will shipping start? I may want more than a couple to put my lenses and back refinements on. All this other discussion is making me sleepy. When it looks good on the Ground Glass, that's when I snap the shutter.

:cool:

OK, that last post of mine was a bit harsh. Let me apologize and clarify.

Ben, You played all your cards already. The camera is done and just right for a number of buyers from what I see on this forum (and that's just on this forum)
If there is one thing I've learned in 40 years of Marketing, including Mercedes Benz, Corporate level computers and software, banking services... etc. It is "never keep a buyer who is waving cash in your face waiting!!!" You can always tweak the camera for the AR people later. While you allow them to cause others to wait is not tantalizing. It's weary, and reduces interest. Some of the early adopters... those who've said YES!!! already may leave the market.

Ok, was that less harsh... ? Perhaps not. show us the test scans and move on to orders and production, please, There's money awaiting you.:confused:

[Ben Syverson]

Kuzano, I opened up this project to this forum because I wanted to get feedback from you guys during development. This thread is not a marketing tactic. The camera is far from being ready to ship. We need to make CAD changes and order a second prototype, which will take weeks. Then we need to get a quote for tooling, which is not quick. Then we need to raise money for tooling, and after we do that, it will be weeks until we receive the first sample part. In the meantime, we need to build a website, shoot sample images, and talk to distributors.

In short, it will be ready when it's ready. Be patient. There's no incentive for me to offer preorders if people will be hounding me every day.

[jb7]

AR people? FU2.

Obviously, evolution can only be advanced by those who actually give a shit.
If your attitude prevailed, we'd still be trying to catch our next meal by throwing stones at it.

The ability to selectively focus is obviously wasted on you.
In fact, it might present you with a set of insurmountable challenges.
In that regard, Ben has produced a tool that is already hugely over specified.

There are a large number of people who proudly proclaim that a camera is just a tool.
When I hear that, I say, yeah right, just another tool.

[jb7]

And by the way, a camera that demands ground glass focusing is probably not a 'point and shoot'...

[Ben Syverson]

Some folks will want a GG, others won't. To some, this will be a point and shoot, and to others it will be an ultralight rigid field camera.

I'd love to include a plastic "GG" in each box, but depending on the added cost, it may have to be an inexpensive ($10 or so) add on.

[John NYC]

If there is one thing I've learned in 40 years of Marketing, including Mercedes Benz, Corporate level computers and software, banking services... etc. It is "never keep a buyer who is waving cash in your face waiting!!!"
...
Ok, was that less harsh... ? Perhaps not. show us the test scans and move on to orders and production, please, There's money awaiting you.:confused:

It seems there is one thing you definitely have not learned in 40 years of marketing... That making things takes time.

[Roger Thoms]

Yes, just what we want is hastily designed, il-conceived point and shoot camera that you have to focus on a ground glass. No I'll happily wait for a well designed camera that has been properly prototyped and tested.

Roger

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks, Roger! When you're spending tens of thousands on steel molds, you definitely want to be sure you're getting it right! :)

[Kuzano]

It seems there is one thing you definitely have not learned in 40 years of marketing... That making things takes time.

Absolutely... And a good marketer never reveals his product to the open market before he is ready to take and fill orders. An appropriate way to get feedback for product design is a "focus group". Any one here heard of that term before. Well that's what a proper marketer learns in "marketing". Listing this camera on an open forum was clearly a marketing decision, without a product to sell.

You are very right, making things takes time, and product development is closely guarded. I can't have concieved that this camera would have been revealed in it's near totality, without being close to production. Ripe for thievery, and long enough from disclosure to production for people to lose interest and go elsewhere.

There was a lot of misplaced trust in posting design and images of prototypes, overlooking the fact that the propensity for skulking and stealing designs is not better percentage wise, because it's a "large format" forum, than any other open forum. The registration means nothing in terms of seeing the posts.


And regarding:


"Roger Thoms


Yes, just what we want is hastily designed, il-conceived point and shoot camera that you have to focus on a ground glass. No I'll happily wait for a well designed camera that has been properly prototyped and tested.

Roger "

What the HELL are you trying to say. It's clear the work done so far is not hastily designed, ill-conceived, or Point and Shoot only even up to this point. Furthermore the camera is already in prototype and being tested. Ben said yesterday he is taking pictures and will scan them right away. That, Roger is testing. The camera as it stands will serve the needs of many who have posted here, without further refinement. And if your need is not urgent in any way, you can wait for refinements. It does not appear to me that any of the refinements at this point would be in the design and casting work. It's done to a usable base camera, on which truly creative people can add improvements. Yes I understand that a lesser share of the market want a "no brainer" camera, and they are perfectly entitled to wait in line behind me for their goodies.

In addition Roger, your comment about not using GG viewing, but rather P&S, indicates your willingness to suffer a higher rate of NON keepers, thereby burning up film that is currently reduced in supply of various emulsions and inventory in general, and becoming pricier all along. Well Roger, I choose not to piss away the kind of money you are willing to part with because one chooses to show his/her prowess as a Point and Shooter. That's as opposed to a "hand holder", which you appear not to be (Thank the Lord). Me, I want to see the image to be taken, before I pull the dark slide.

And BEN... REALLY?

I have to wait until you design a web site. Are you really going to try to market your product with the least effective marketing tool ever designed... a web site on the internet. Please, this product will sell better on eBay to say the least. Or even on dedicated forums like this one, APUG and others. That's not to mention that a decent web site can be designed, up and running in a week, let alone weeks. I'd like a show of hands please on anyone who is making a profitable income on any product with a web site alone.... that's without the benefit of tons of effort on other means of reaching the target market. Instead relying on people to seek out your particular product on an already too full and confusing internet.

Lastly, your comment to me that it will "done when it's done" deserves an apology. That comment shows no respect for a sincere prospective buyer.... me and all others anxious to acquire the product. It effectively says "Hey, it's my deal, and I'll get it out when I am damn good and ready".

Lastly, the two listings impuning my marketing skills (John and Roger) were both rather childlike and moronic, revealing more about your lack of knowledge in marketing skils, than my own deficiencies.

Ben, you opened this can of worms with your "more like marketing post" than your search for help on the design. Again, a focus group, with any mention of the camera to the world at large, would have been far more appropriate. When you do get to the marketing and order taking, get some help, please.

Cross me off your list of interested potential buyers.

I would have rather PM'd all this garbage, as I did to you before and never received a response. Thank you very much. Consider the thorn removed, and good luck to you, sir.

[Gordon Coale]

"I'd like a show of hands please on anyone who is making a profitable income on any product with a web site alone.... that's without the benefit of tons of effort on other means of reaching the target market."

I am: gordy's camera straps

And I want one of these. 90mm. I'll wait.

[Ben Syverson]

Kuzano, I didn't see your PM because I'm not used to the new forum layout...

I'm a small business, trying to be open and transparent, and involve the small community I'm interested in. This is a fun $99 plastic camera. There is simply no reason for anyone to get upset.

If you don't like what I'm doing, that's perfectly fine, and actually it's one of the reasons I solicited feedback. Thank you for your feedback, and your point about timing. I happen to disagree, but let's keep this civil. I don't take marching orders. I'm going to do this camera right, and it will take exactly as long as it takes.

Edit: By the way, I've been making 100% of my income from internet sales for the past 10 years. No advertising.

[Lachlan 717]

Lighten up, Kuzano. The world doesn't revolve around your ingrate arse.

[Drew Bedo]

I am minterested.


For several years I've been wondering why camera Mf'rs dhven't done more of this type of manufacture, keeping expensive machining down to a minimum. What about a plastic Grafmatic to go along with the P&S?

The camera shown could work well with a spotting scope for LF super=telephoto too.

[Ben Syverson]

(snip) What about a plastic Grafmatic to go along with the P&S?
Now there's an interesting idea! That's a Kickstarter project just waiting to happen.

I would actually love to do a custom 90mm too... The sticking point is the expense of wholesaling Copal shutters.

[Kuzano]

Lighten up, Kuzano. The world doesn't revolve around your ingrate arse.

You are not the only one who has complimented me on my grate ass. Thank you so much for your insight and wisdom? How very adult of you.

I like it a lot myself.

[John NYC]

Lastly, the two listings impuning my marketing skills (John and Roger) were both rather childlike and moronic, revealing more about your lack of knowledge in marketing skils, than my own deficiencies.
.

I don't think you get how funny this comment of yours actually is. You are calling me a moron.

[rdenney]

Guys, sheesh. Look at what Ben achieved by doing a bit of crowd-sourcing--he now has a catalog of every usable lens including its flange focal distance, even for lenses not that uncommon but for which there is no online data.

He also has a good idea of the various ways people might use such a camera.

And he knows that there is a bit more interest in the 90 than the 65 version.

In return for getting this information, he has made many of us feel as though we are part of the process, stakeholders rather than mere customers.

The apologies that are owed are by those who have rewarded Ben's openness by being uncivil in there demands on how the product is designed or marketed.

Rick "a little embarrassed" Denney

[gilhoy]

Well said, Rick.

I'm in for the 90mm version, whenever it is available.

[Steve Smith]

Well said, Rick.

Agreed.


I'm in for the 90mm version, whenever it is available.

I'm not in the market for it in any variety as I like to make things myself but I certainly appreciate being shown the design and being asked to comment on it.


Steve.

[David Aimone]

Oy! Sign me up for a 90mm and I think a website is an important piece of marketing for a niche product. There are many items that I wouldn't own had I not found their website through a search (zero image camera, photobackpacker, and many more...)

[Tony Karnezis]

"I'd like a show of hands please on anyone who is making a profitable income on any product with a web site alone.... that's without the benefit of tons of effort on other means of reaching the target market."

I am: gordy's camera straps

And I want one of these. 90mm. I'll wait.

Ditto. Love your straps, Gordy.

[Ben Syverson]

Well, good news and bad news. The bad news is that the 3D printing material we used isn't 100% light tight, so the test shots have all been coming back fogged. But at least we know the cause now. I'll wrap the camera in a dark cloth and see if I can take a few non-fogged test shots.

The good news is that we've added three cold shoes and a tripod thread, and ordered a second prototype. We've also made a number of cosmetic and functional changes based on the first prototype. If this second one looks good, we'll use this file to get an initial quote!

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-proto2.jpg

[Steve Goldstein]

Looks good, thanks for adding the cold shoes.

[alexn]

3 cold shoes is great! view finder, horizontal bubble, vertical bubble.

Nice! :)

Shame about your test shots... I am holding my breath to see them and turning a lovely shade of blue! :D hahah :D

keep up the good work Ben.

Alex.

[John NYC]

Guys, sheesh.

Rick "a little embarrassed" Denney

The only embarrassing thing was Kuzano ripping into Ben and then calling other people morons. So in opinion it was "guy" not "guys".

People who don't understand today's way of doing small niche projects should check this out.

The 7 Essentials of Crowd-Funding Your Next Photography Project (and How We Funded Ours) « Light Stalking
http://www.lightstalking.com/crowd-fund-photography

[Ben Syverson]

3 cold shoes is great! view finder, horizontal bubble, vertical bubble.

Nice! :)

Shame about your test shots... I am holding my breath to see them and turning a lovely shade of blue! :D hahah :D

keep up the good work Ben.

Alex.
Ha, thanks Alex! I'll have some test shots soon. It's frustrating, because the focus looks great, but the frames are all very evenly washed out.

For the bubble level, have you tried this two-axis hot shoe level (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000YJ2Q9U/)? I have some of these and like them a lot. That would free up a cold shoe for you.

I plan to reserve the cold shoes for a viewfinder and a Blik rangefinder. (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=blik&_sacat=625&_odkw=blik&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313) Those Bliks give more accurate readings than a Mamiya 7, and they're slightly cheaper!

[JimL]

Primer and a few coats of flat black paint inside should make it light-tight...

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah, I think I'm going to paint the outside and apply a few layers of gaff tape.

At this point, the prototype has served its official purpose of verifying the design, but it's so cool that I really want to take it around and shoot with it!

[jb7]

Looks good Ben-

I've been working on designs for some P&S's, on and off, for a long time now (don't worry- not for mass production...)-
I really must get some done.

Since you're published yours, my three coldshoes might seem like plagiarism-
however, it's more like convergent evolution-
If you're using an external viewfinder, the best position for it is centrally over the lens,
leaving you with a choice of two for other accessories.

In a further case of plagiarism, I also purchased a Blik Rangefinder, nearly a year ago...
It is good, and accurate, though the image is quite small until you get used to it-

However, the shoe offset means that it doesn't sit particularly easily on my camera-
it won't fit on a cold shoe without sticking well out to one side-
unless you could live with offsetting the viewfinder to the other side shoe.

Not a big deal, but they were designed for cameras that had an integral viewfinder...

Also, in relation to marketing your own camera, the branding on the Blik is quite overpowering...

[Ramiro Elena]

Don't mean to go off topic but if anyone here hasn't seen Joseph's P&S and the Arca Irish, they should. They're the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in camera design.

[alexn]

Wondering if you're keen to show any of the test images (despite the fogging) the material not being light tight is not really a concern, I'm more interested to see the sharpness...

Alex.

[Ben Syverson]

Joseph's handcrafted cameras are indeed gorgeous! Incredible work.

I have a few sheets that are hopefully not fogged, but haven't had a chance to drop them at the lab—maybe I can do that tomorrow. In the meantime, I converted a couple of the fogged shots to B&W and boosted the contrast. They're not pretty, but they should give you an idea of the detail. These are both at ƒ/6.8.

The second prototype and production camera should hit infinity focus even slightly better than these test shots show, since we adjusted the FFD.

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

Detail:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-monroe-crop.jpg


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

Detail:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-cloudgate-crop.jpg

[alexn]

All things considered they are fantastic...

Dying to get one of these!!!! I hope they sell enough to warrant a 65mm model too... I might make a wooden one for 47 or 58mm though... something really retro looking.

I am surprised at the depth of field in these shots... Everything appears in focus even at F/6.8.. Stopped down to F/22~F/32 on a tripod with a finer grain film the results should be utterly amazing... Mechanical vignetting also appears less than I would have expected given the angulon at F/6.8... again, with a 90/8 super angulon @ F/22 it should be just perfect... Who would have thought a year ( or even two months ago) that you could shoot wide angle large format with perfect looking results for what, $400 total cost... I paid $235 for the 90/8 I will be using on this camera, $25 for my Quickload holder, and approx ~$100-$125 (including postage) for the camera body... Amazing.

My Linhof Kardan on the other hand cost $525 with no lens, and no film holders, weighs around 3 ton and results will be fairly similar I would imagine. (considering I only shoot wide angle.)

I will leave my 75/4.5 on my 617 and put the 90 on this with a 6x12 back and off I go into the bush!

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks Alex! Our main goal and biggest hope is that this camera will reduce the price and weight barriers to shooting 4x5. Price-wise we'll get more people into the game, and the camera will be light enough that you won't associate LF with back pain!

The vignetting won't be as severe as it looks, since I've had to jack the contrast up so high. I was also using a lens hood that I only recently realized was vignetting the image.

The DOF is pretty good at ƒ/6.8, but if you enlarge the second image, you can see that the people are slightly out of focus. That could be solved by stopping down, or perhaps by splitting the difference between infinity and 5 meters. I actually anticipate this being a bit of a learning curve. On a DSLR with a 28mm lens, you could get the sculpture, people and buildings in focus even at a pretty wide aperture, so people might not think about placing focus on an image like that. But with 4x5, even at 90mm, you have a focus decision to make: buildings, people, or stop down and a longer exposure?

[alexn]

I always go with stop down as I always shoot ISO50.. so I'm shooting slow exposures anyway.

[Ben Syverson]

Then you'll have no trouble! :)

[alexn]

:) As an example of why I'm so excited.. Next month A few mates and I intend to go for a 4 hour intense hike (half of which is done in waist deep, flowing water) to the base of a large waterfall in a nearby national park.. 4 hours hike to the base, shoot some LF, turn around, 4 hour hike out... Carying any field camera for this would be a nightmare, and carying my monorail is simply out of the question. The Wanderlust 4x5 on the other hand weighs less than the front standard of my monorail, takes up about as much room as the front standard of my monorail camera and for all intents and purposes it will take just as good an image.. Thats why for me its a winner!

[John NYC]

Encouraging shots! This is going to be cool.

[EdSawyer]

This strikes me as a whole lot like the Globuscope, only made of plastic and not quite as sophisticated.

[David Aimone]

VERY nice test photos! Hoping I can take this camera with me to Ireland in September.... :)

[Ben Syverson]

Yes, this is basically like the Globuscope, but we plan to make more than three of them!

[GabrielSeri]

Hey Ben I just wanted to let you know I encourage you to develop this camera and I will definitely buy one when the time comes. As another member said above this would be great to use a walking light weight camera to throw in a bag and use. I have a Caltar/Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm F/6.8 so this camera would be perfect for it. I'm holding out on purchasing that new Harman/Ilford pinhole camera for this. God speed Ben!

[Ben Syverson]

Thank you, Gabriel! That Harman/Ilford camera looks very cool, and now they're going to have an 8x10 version. I wish them the best—any new film camera is reason to celebrate!

[Ben Syverson]

We got our second prototype today! It's quite nice to have the cold shoes and tripod mount.

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

[Ben Syverson]

Well, I finally have some images for you! The first one has significant flare, as I shot without a hood, into the sun, at ƒ/6.8. The second image was focused at around 1 meter at ƒ/6.8. Bokeh on a 90mm! Ha.

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

Detail:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-bridge-crop.jpg

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

Detail:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-headlight-crop.jpg

[Vascilli]

Oh boy. That setup plus a Sekonic L-208 and I'm in heaven.

[adam satushek]

Yeah looks super fun! I want one more and more with every update you post Ben. What viewfinder are you using......?.......looks like ill have to find one soon to be able to shoot this once it hits the market.

Thanks,
Adam

[John NYC]

Well, I finally have some images for you! The first one has significant flare, as I shot without a hood, into the sun, at ƒ/6.8. The second image was focused at around 1 meter at ƒ/6.8. Bokeh on a 90mm! Ha.

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

Detail:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-bridge-crop.jpg

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

Detail:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/3/45-headlight-crop.jpg

So, you have the infinity and other focus markings on this one and that is what you used? Impressive results (especially on that infinity shot if hand held!).

[Ben Syverson]

Yeah looks super fun! I want one more and more with every update you post Ben. What viewfinder are you using......?.......looks like ill have to find one soon to be able to shoot this once it hits the market.
Thanks! Ideally we'd like to make a little cold shoe viewfinder, but it would be a mini "sport finder" style with no glass. For now I'm using the older Voigtländer 21mm finder. The horizontal lines roughly correspond to 90mm on 4x5, but the vertical lines go beyond 4x5. So you kind of have to imagine 35mm cropped to 4x5 when you're looking through it.

[Ben Syverson]

So, you have the infinity and other focus markings on this one and that is what you used? Impressive results (especially on that infinity shot if hand held!).
On Prototype #1, which is what these were shot with, infinity is when the helical is racked all the way back, so there's no marking. We then calibrated and marked 1m.

Both of those were taken hand-held, without viewfinder or ground glass, which helps explain the embarrassingly bad composition!

[Corran]

I thought I recognized the Voigtlander 21mm finder (I have one for my Nikon SP). Very cool!

[alexn]

Awesome. I want mine noooowwww.. :)

Keen as, looks fantastic loaded up with lens, shutter cable, finders etc.. looks meaty.. I must have one

[Mike Anderson]

I wonder how these Gaoersi viewfinders (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Viewfinder-4x5-6x12-6x17-6x24-Large-Format-Camera-/280643950507?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4157aed7ab#ht_3548wt_951) would work.

[Ben Syverson]

I wonder how these Gaoersi viewfinders (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Viewfinder-4x5-6x12-6x17-6x24-Large-Format-Camera-/280643950507?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item4157aed7ab#ht_3548wt_951) would work.
They would probably work well! Maybe the only downside is that they're pretty large.

[rdenney]

Several times I've looked into those Gaoersi finders (the whole line is here (http://bhcamera.us/viewfinder.php)), and I keep seeing reports of people complaining that the optics are poor, especially off-axis. But it's tempting all the same.

I snagged some home-built 24mm (equivalent) finder some guy made. It seemed no less risky than the Gaoersi, but it was twenty bucks and I thought I'd give it a try. I'll mask off the sides a bit and it will be close enough, unless it turns out to be unusable.

For longer lenses, those Russian turret finders for the Zorki cameras are the obvious choice, and they would go nicely with the Blik rangefinder (one of which I also snagged). But they don't go wide enough. The Sea and Sea underwater finder for the 16mm supplemental lens for a Nikonos works, too. It has a flat port and is usable in air. It could probably be masked down, but I'm saving mine for when I finally build a point-n-shoot around the 47 SAXL which I can't afford.

Rick "ready for Ben" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

Several times I've looked into those Gaoersi finders (the whole line is here (http://bhcamera.us/viewfinder.php)), and I keep seeing reports of people complaining that the optics are poor, especially off-axis. ...

Being able to accurately frame would be the important capability to me. So if the optics were poor in the sense that they weren't very sharp it wouldn't bother me as much as if view was small and dark or required precise eyeball alignment, or simply didn't indicate the true frame well.

I bet the knowledge base on this subject will be built up soon enough.

[alexn]

I reckon a wirefinder would be enough.. If you strapped a ground glass into the thing to get a feel for the FOV, then made a wirefinder to match it. that would be enough...

I had a Gaoersi finder on my old P&S 617 camera.. the optics were reasonable and it gave good enough results.

[John NYC]

I definitely want some sort of viewfinder, but want a cheap one.

[viablex1]

definitely want to second the 65,, idea or even a 58mm idea, and being able to calibrate the cone and scale focus with accurate distance markers would be really great :)

[Struan Gray]

I hope this comes to market.

That said, I'd be more likely to buy one if I could interface the back to other gadgets. It would be cool if you could add extension backs (a rigid 'bellows' in various lengths), and it would be even cooler if the 8x10 version were a truncated cone onto which you mount the 4x5 - you could carry them nested. You could also use the same mounting to put the 4x5 model on a lensboard and use it as a focussing mount for your regular camera.

Most of the above could be achieved by cutting the septum out of a spare filmholder and getting busy with a hot glue gun, but it would be nicer with an integrated solution.

[Corran]

I was thinking about this today. I personally am interested in the camera but only if there is some sort of decent and accurate viewfinder solution. I know full parallax-correction and such is impossible probably but something close would be nice. If I have to use this on a tripod to get decent framing I'm not interested. My Chamonix + 90mm wouldn't be any more troublesome. Now a 47mm or 58mm version I would go for (since I have those lenses. If it's a 65mm model I am not going to buy another lens). Just my thoughts on my preferences so whatever happens I'm sure you'll still sell plenty.

[adam satushek]

I'm just excited to attach it to my huge Sunpack 611 potato masher with bracket and blind drunk people at parties with it.......seems like a blast!

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm just excited to attach it to my huge Sunpack 611 potato masher with bracket and blind drunk people at parties with it.......seems like a blast!

Large flash bulbs are also great for that.

[vijaylff]

Ben, Sorry if I missed this from an earlier post in the thread - What scanner did you use for the last set of color samples? Thanks.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks guys,

Struan, I feel that the camera is pretty adaptable. What specifically are you hoping to put on the back? It has an international 4x5 back, so the possibilities are almost endless. You can put a DSLR, 6x12 rollfilm back, digital scanning back, Polaroid, etc. If you want to do something really weird, well, it's a cheap camera, so don't feel bad about destroying it in the process.

Corran, we'll have some kind of viewfinder, and we'll make it as accurate as we can. But keep in mind that this is an inexpensive point and shoot camera. One of the beauties of 4x5 and the 90mm focal length is that you can crop if the framing isn't 100% perfect.

It's funny you guys mentioned party photos with flash—I took a few shots like that last weekend! I'll get those developed and see if any of them came out.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, Sorry if I missed this from an earlier post in the thread - What scanner did you use for the last set of color samples? Thanks.
I used an Epson 4990—great little scanner! They were all at 1200 DPI.

[Corran]

Corran, we'll have some kind of viewfinder, and we'll make it as accurate as we can. But keep in mind that this is an inexpensive point and shoot camera. One of the beauties of 4x5 and the 90mm focal length is that you can crop if the framing isn't 100% perfect.

Thanks Ben. I know you are putting in a lot of work on this so I'm excited to see what is finally offered.

Another thought, if you do make the viewfinder, framelines for 6x12 would be awesome. I'm thinking my DaYi back on this would be awesome for a cheap panoramic camera. But I wonder if the focus would work due to the change the film plane with a pano back?

[rdenney]

Thanks Ben. I know you are putting in a lot of work on this so I'm excited to see what is finally offered.

Another thought, if you do make the viewfinder, framelines for 6x12 would be awesome. I'm thinking my DaYi back on this would be awesome for a cheap panoramic camera. But I wonder if the focus would work due to the change the film plane with a pano back?

The DaYi 6x12 back puts the film in the same plane as a conventional holder. You must be thinking of the 6x17 back, which puts the film behind the normal film plane and requires its own ground glass.

Rick "who focuses for his DaYi 612 back using the regular ground glass" Denney

[Corran]

I didn't realize that. Yes I have the 6x17 back. Hmm...

If there was a super-wide version I could probably use the 6x17 back with a 90mm instead of the 65mm or whatever and figure out a good hyperfocal and make it work!

[Ben Syverson]

If you were going to use a 6x17 back, you couldn't use a 90mm—it would have to be something like 110mm or 120mm. I'm not sure what the offset is from the standard film plane.

If we do a 65mm version, that will be Copal 00, so the only 90 that would fit is the Optar. But that lens won't come close to covering 6x17...

The best option for viewfinders if you're going to be doing a lot of 6x12 is probably the Gaoersi 612 finder (http://bhcamera.us/viewfinder.php). Our finder will be a much simpler thing with 4x5 framelines.

[Struan Gray]

Ben, nobody ever made money pleasing me, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt (or gin).

My biggest requirement would be to fit my Fuji Quickchange holder into the back, and hold it there securely. On my Norma I slide it under the ground glass, but then engage the Graflok slides. If I don't use the slides I sometimes get subtle, but annoying light leaks in the corners at the darkslide end. I don't think rubber bands will be enough, so I've been thinking about clamping arrangements to put the holder onto your camera.

There doesn't have to be a set of Graflok slides. That said, I've used a lot of electron microscope Polaroid attachments, which are pretty minimal, and relatively cheap, and would give you something to attach rubber bands etc to.

But that's me (and the Grafmatic users). More generally, some sort of structure you could hook a hasp or clamp to would simplify the process of adding various backs and tinkering generally. For example, the simplest way to add a Graflok back for me would be to mount the cone camera onto a lensboard and clamp it to the front of a Sinar format frame, with the usual GG back on the rear. I'd lose infinity focus for my shortest lens, but gain it for slightly longer ones. But I need a way to hold the camera onto the lensboard adapter without using glue, so it would be nice if some sort of slide or clamp system were included, or if you could add extra-thick portions of the rear of the cone for the user to drill for bolts of his or her own.

My other tinkering idea would be to make the cone part of a system. If you could easily add things in a mechanically secure, light tight way all sorts of possibilities open up. I, for example, would like a camera with an infinity setting for 65 mm, but enough travel on the helical to use a 90. Infinity focus on the 90 would be achieved by adding a spacer back. With a pair of spacers (thick and thin) the camera would be usable with four focal lengths, e.g., with 25 and 60 mm spacers the camera would be usable with 65, 90, 120-135 and 150 mm lenses, although you progressively lose close focussing with the longer lengths. Daft users could add them together ad-infinitum. I took my inspiration from the spacer backs for the Mamiya Press cameras.

It also means that you could make collapsable 8x10, using the same attachment system to connect the regular 4x5 model to a truncated cone with an 8x10 attachment on the back. For stowage, take the 4x5 cone off and nest it inside the 8x10, so you don't have such a large empty box to carry around in your rucksack. Again, a range of lenses could be accommodated by adding spacers between the 8x10 part and the 4x5.

I can rig up an ugly version of this if I interface to the Sinar system by glueing a 4x5 holder to a lensboard and removing the darkslides and septum. I can then make spacers with pairs of lensboards and suitable tubes. But I'm going to need a format frame for each connection, and the whole thing will be clumpy and heavy in a way that a designed-in clamp would not be.

Again, no demands. I know that moulds cost real money.

[Struan Gray]

PS: for a cheap viewer you might consider the add-on wide angle adapters for digicams, which are inverted Gallilean Telescopes by another name. They are designed as afocal adapters for camera lenses, but they work just as well for the Mk. 1 eyeball. Those intended for DSLRs tend to be too large - they're designed to fill an entrance pupil much larger than the one in your eye - but there are others with 30 mm or so threads aimed at video users which are more compact.

Just multiply the stated factor by 150 mm to get the rough focal length it will work for. 0.5 or 0.45x are commonly found factors, and with a mask of the right size will work well for a 65 mm lens on 4x5. There are even versions sold on eBay with a tube you can use to add a cold shoe and put the eye at the right distance behind the adapter.

[Ben Syverson]

Struan, you sound like a hacker after my own heart! I'm glad my little project has you dreaming of modifications. Unfortunately, to do a reconfigurable "system" camera is simply not practical. It would cost us much more, so it would be a more expensive camera.

The Quickchange holder should stay on the back with two decent rubber bands. The lip will keep it from sliding out, and the bands will keep it on. You don't need much pressure to create a light seal. The unusually tall walls on this camera help to keep stray light out. Many view cameras have no walls at all, which is why they need the Graflok.

[adam satushek]

Ha! I think I got this idea somewhere Struan's posts....but just realized that I can use my canon S95 as a viewfinder! obviously its big for a viewfinder and funny looking, but all I would need is a 1/4 20 to cold shoe adapter. Screw that sucker on the top, set the FL to 28mm and ive got myself a sweet double-decker camera with a 3 inch digital viewfinder!

[Ben Syverson]

Haha, nice, Adam! I'll have to try that. You could even use it to meter, too!

[adam satushek]

Yeah totally, just wish it had a lazer rangefinder built in as well.......oh well ill probably just hyperfocal it most of the time anyways

[Struan Gray]

I have used a Pentax 110 SLR as a viewfinder before now. The meter readout was a green/orange LED which simply let you know if handholding was a good idea :-)

I hear you Ben. Much better something usable actually comes to market, than pfaffing about trying to make a plastic Alpa or Silvestri.

Not to be argumentative, but operating the Quickchange system seems to inevitably lead to large torques levering the holder away from the back. I can always use a G-clamp or three.

[rdenney]

Not to be argumentative, but operating the Quickchange system seems to inevitably lead to large torques levering the holder away from the back. I can always use a G-clamp or three.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/G-clamp.jpg/150px-G-clamp.jpg

or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Bungee_Cord_PICT6882a.jpg/325px-Bungee_Cord_PICT6882a.jpg

Rick "hope this helps" Denney

[Corran]

Ben, I didn't know the 65mm was a 00 shutter. Well let me just say I would definitely love to see a 58mm Copal 0-size version :)

I don't know what's more common to own, a small 65 or a 58?

[alexn]

Ha! I think I got this idea somewhere Struan's posts....but just realized that I can use my canon S95 as a viewfinder! obviously its big for a viewfinder and funny looking, but all I would need is a 1/4 20 to cold shoe adapter. Screw that sucker on the top, set the FL to 28mm and ive got myself a sweet double-decker camera with a 3 inch digital viewfinder!

Awesome idea. As Ben said, would make a neat little meter too... I might do something like this as well.

[Paul Ewins]

The original 65/8 Super Angulon was in a size 00 shutter, but later examples were in a size 0 shutter. I believe the 65/5.6 was always in a size 0. The 00 version of the 65/8 seems to be the commonest.

[Ben Syverson]

When I get a quote for the mold, I'll see if they can make the Copal aperture interchangeable, so we can run both 00 and 0 versions!

[alexn]

Ha! I think I got this idea somewhere Struan's posts....but just realized that I can use my canon S95 as a viewfinder! obviously its big for a viewfinder and funny looking, but all I would need is a 1/4 20 to cold shoe adapter. Screw that sucker on the top, set the FL to 28mm and ive got myself a sweet double-decker camera with a 3 inch digital viewfinder!

Awesome idea. As Ben said, would make a neat little meter too... I might do something like this as well.

[rdenney]

Ben, I didn't know the 65mm was a 00 shutter....

I don't know what's more common to own, a small 65 or a 58?

The 65/8 Super Angulon is in a 00 shutter. The 65/5.6 is in a 0 shutter. I still recommend the 0 hole--adapters to mount a 00 shutter in a 0 hole are $15 on eBay.

But there is only one 58, and it's expensive and bulky--and that undermines the ethos of this camera. Both 65mm Super Angulons are cheaper, and the 65/8 is cheap and small--cheap enough to buy just for this camera and small enough not to look like bad plastic surgery.

Plus, I own a 65/8 that is begging to be used.

Rick "whose 65/5.6 is reserved for the Sinar" Denney

[Corran]

Yeah but Rick...I already own a 58, and a 47XL...so I want one of those to go on this camera :)

[Oren Grad]

Yeah but Rick...I already own a 58...

FFD of the 58XL is 69.3mm, of the old 65/8 in 00 is 70.5mm. Pretty close... If you promise to be really nice to Ben, maybe he'll allow for the extra 1.2mm in his design. :)

[Corran]

Fantastic! I guess Rick and I can be friends now :D

[Struan Gray]

Rick "hope this helps" Denney

Thanks Rick. I'm not sure I would have known what to do without your help.

I'm the sort that over-engineers things, so I confess I was thinking of one of these (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dampfhammer2_brockhaus.jpg).

The traditionalist in me thinks Ben should just provide holes for a holdfast (http://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/workbench-fittings-17th-c-style/).

We already have a selection of tablecloth clips with elk (eurotrash moose) faces on. I'll probably start with those.

[dave_whatever]

The 65/8 Super Angulon is in a 00 shutter. The 65/5.6 is in a 0 shutter.

Strangely there are some 65/8s out there in #0 shutters. I had one and it looked totally 'factory', not just a #00 with an adaptor. I don't think they're very common though.

[Ramiro Elena]

The Grandagon 65mm ƒ4.5 is in a #00

[John NYC]

I think Ben has made the right choice in going for 90mm first. That is somewhere between a 24mm and a 28mm on 135 film. The shorter focal lengths you all are rooting for are reeeally wide and pretty niche for a lot of shooters.

[rdenney]

I think Ben has made the right choice in going for 90mm first. That is somewhere between a 24mm and a 28mm on 135 film. The shorter focal lengths you all are rooting for are reeeally wide and pretty niche for a lot of shooters.

That's why Ben made it a poll. The 90s won, but the 65s made a good showing. 65 is a good application for this sort of camera--most 65s have minimal coverage for movements, a cheap lens is available, depth of field is good making focus error less of an issue, and the body is even more compact.

Rick "One of each for me, please" Denney

[alexn]

Hell, I'd buy one designed for a 47/5.6XL or 58/5.6XL... The 65 would suffice if its the best we can get and again, a 90mm will do nicely to start off. I believe a camera like this is designed to be a run a gun sort of setup, which for my large format seascape shots where I regularly have to pick up my tripod with camera to escape the clutches of a big wave. Having a camera like this with a 47XL on it would be purely amazing. A 90mm setup would do too, but may need to be stopped down further to achieve total sharpness.

I will just be happy to have a camera under 5kgs. Currently my monorail setup weighs heaps, and on the rocks before sun up, every kg you're carrying makes a difference.

[prado333]

it will be much more expensive an 8x10 model for 150 to 300mm lens?
it could be possible to construct an 8x10 for 600mm tele lens ?

[Brian Stein]

Even though I am basically a 5x7 oriented human at $100 I am good for two. One as is and one to frankencamera into a 5x7 a la struan's method

Best of luck with this endeavour!

[Ben Syverson]

Wow, I didn't realize the 58mm was a retrofocus design. That's great news! The front of our camera happens to be exactly 70.5mm before the focus collar. Hmm... (goes off to use CAD)

[alexn]

OMG 58mm version! If it was a simple enough job to convert it from 90 to 58 that would be awesome... Even if the 58mm setup was bang on hyperfocal focused and had to be shot stopped down to F/22 or further to achieve total sharpness. It would be amazing!

[rdenney]

OMG 58mm version! If it was a simple enough job to convert it from 90 to 58 that would be awesome... Even if the 58mm setup was bang on hyperfocal focused and had to be shot stopped down to F/22 or further to achieve total sharpness. It would be amazing!

That's not what Ben implied. The implication is that a 65mm version could also be used with the 58.

Rick "the 90 will be too long" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

I drafted up a lensboard that fits where the helical normally goes... The 90 will ship assembled, but we could ship a 65 version with the lensboard unattached.

I put the nominal FFD at 70.7mm for the lensboard, which is basically infinity for the 65/8 plus 0.2mm, a conservative hyperfocal. If you want a closer hyperfocal distance for the 65, you can shim it forward. If you have the 58mm, you can shim the inside of the lensboard to bring it back to 69.3mm, or wherever you want it.

So hope lives for a 65mm version!

[kevyong]

Ben, congrats on a great looking bit of kit. +1 for 90mm.

I'll be watching closely to see where this goes. keen to buy one when they're ready.
Will you ship international?

I'm new to LF. Will this work with all 90mm LF lenses? are there specific lenses which will be more suitable?

Cheers
Kev.

[kevyong]

... I just re-read the thread and found the bit on page 13 about f/6.8 optar and angulon lenses.... so answered my own question.

[rdenney]

I drafted up a lensboard that fits where the helical normally goes... The 90 will ship assembled, but we could ship a 65 version with the lensboard unattached.

I put the nominal FFD at 70.7mm for the lensboard, which is basically infinity for the 65/8 plus 0.2mm, a conservative hyperfocal. If you want a closer hyperfocal distance for the 65, you can shim it forward. If you have the 58mm, you can shim the inside of the lensboard to bring it back to 69.3mm, or wherever you want it.

So hope lives for a 65mm version!

So, no helical on the 65 version?

Rick "not always a fan of hyperfocal focusing" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

So, no helical on the 65 version?

Rick "not always a fan of hyperfocal focusing" Denney
Probably not to start... There are way more 90s out there than 65s, so the market is much smaller. If we sell a zillion 90s, it would certainly make me rethink things. But keep in mind that 65 is quite wide—the equivalent of 17mm in 135, so it should be pretty easy to get a good hyperfocal distance that covers 10 feet to infinity.

[rdenney]

Probably not to start... There are way more 90s out there than 65s, so the market is much smaller. If we sell a zillion 90s, it would certainly make me rethink things. But keep in mind that 65 is quite wide—the equivalent of 17mm in 135, so it should be pretty easy to get a good hyperfocal distance that covers 10 feet to infinity.

Remember, though, that how a camera is used defines the needs from which requirements emerge.

65 is wide, sure enough, but the reason we use such wide lenses is often because we want to move in very close to the subject so that it will be larger with respect to the scene than with a longer lens. A hyperfocal distance of 10 feet to infinity doesn't let you put anything close enough that it would appear close in the photograph. With a circle of confusion of 0.05 (adequate for, perhaps, 16x20 prints), f/22 provides a hyperfocal range of 6.3 feet to infinity when focused at 12.5 feet. But even a subject 6.3 feet away will not appear close unless it is pretty large already. I might use that lens for a subject 3 feet away, and that cannot be brought into apparent focus using a hyperfocal distance with the apertures provided on the Compur 00. I certainly might want apparent focus for everything between three and six feet, for example.

It would not take much of a helical. Heck, a threaded flange instead of a hole might provide enough threads. (fumbles for calculator...) By my quick calculation, focusing on 3 feet would only require about 5mm of extension compared to infinity. Okay, probably too much to focus just using the mounting threads. But it wouldn't take much of a helical. A couple of 2mm spacers that would allow three overlapping ranges might do well enough at f/22 and smaller.

Rick "who uses wides usually to exaggerate near-far relationships" Denney

[Steve Smith]

But it wouldn't take much of a helical. A couple of 2mm spacers that would allow three overlapping ranges might do well enough at f/22 and smaller.

I put a focusing helical on my 65mm 6x12 camera but with hindsight, I should have just set it to hyperfocal (which was my original intention). I have one shot taken with the lens set to infinity with a subject about eight feet away (I forgot to change the focus) and I can't tell any difference in sharpness in a print.


Steve.

[alexn]

Oh how I lust after this camera... This coming weekend I'm going for a 15km walk with a 5.3kg monorail camera... :D Very much looking forward to getting one of these! :D

[LF4Fun]

65 is wide, sure enough, but the reason we use such wide lenses is often because we want to move in very close to the subject so that it will be larger with respect to the scene than with a longer lens.

Rick "who uses wides usually to exaggerate near-far relationships" Denney

+1

[anglophone1]

Any news on this Ben?
Have my 90 mm ready to go......

[David Aimone]

And so do I! I'm hoping to bring it with me on my first trip to Ireland in September...

[kevyong]

I drafted up a lensboard that fits where the helical normally goes... The 90 will ship assembled, but we could ship a 65 version with the lensboard unattached.

I put the nominal FFD at 70.7mm for the lensboard, which is basically infinity for the 65/8 plus 0.2mm, a conservative hyperfocal. If you want a closer hyperfocal distance for the 65, you can shim it forward. If you have the 58mm, you can shim the inside of the lensboard to bring it back to 69.3mm, or wherever you want it.

So hope lives for a 65mm version!

I love the idea of a hyperfocal 65mm option with a separate 90mm helical attachment. I've just built a 4x5 for my 65/8 with helical but find I need to stop down anyway due to vignetting. I'm thinking of ditching the helical on mine(heavy metal) and just fixing focus somewhere around 3m.

[Steve Smith]

I'm thinking of ditching the helical on mine(heavy metal) and just fixing focus somewhere around 3m.

That sounds about right. I reckoned on 8-9 feet when I experimented with mine on a 6x12 format. This was for f16 I think.


Steve.

[anglophone1]

And so do I! I'm hoping to bring it with me on my first trip to Ireland in September...
Where in Ireland David?
I'll be in west cork some of September.....

[David Aimone]

Where in Ireland David?
I'll be in west cork some of September.....

We'll be touring for 10 days from Dublin, then down to Killarney, Dingle, Doolin, Galway and Inishmore, from the end of September into early October...we weren't sure we'd spend a lot of time in Cork--so much to see and so little time!

But if you're around....

I'm meeting up with a couple of other photographers through the trip as well...