PDA

View Full Version : 4x5 Sinar f2 to 8x10, what is needed?



buggz
23-Apr-2012, 16:55
Hello,
Other than a complete kit, what are the parts needed to go from 4x5 to 8x10 on a Sinar f2?
Obviously, the rear standard and GG assembly/film holder back, the bellows, and then what?
A different front standard also?
Thanks, just looking for now, but it may be a possible (near?)future purchase...

Jay DeFehr
23-Apr-2012, 18:20
I've been looking at a lot of Sinar stuff online lately, but I've never actually seen one. My impression is that you'll need the rear frame and back and bellows. You can use the same standard bearer for the rear frame, and I think 8x10 and 4x5 use the same front end. I could easily be wrong about any or all of the above. Hopefully someone who actually knows what they're talking about will post.

Leigh
23-Apr-2012, 18:45
I have two F2's, a 4x5 and a "real" 8x10.
It's a "real" 8x10 because it came from the factory that way. It wasn't built up in the field.

The factory-configured 8x10 uses the heavy-duty standards.
The front one (431.62) has much more rise than the one used on the 4x5 (431.61).
The rear standard (433.68) is heavier than that used on the 4x5, providing more rigid support for the back and frame.

On the 9x10, the rods supporting the rear standard are 20mm in diameter, while the front rods are 15.25mm.
In contrast, the rods supporting the 4x5 standards (front and rear) are 10mm in diameter.

It's possible to build up an 8x10 using the 4x5 standards, but I expect the results will be less than satisfactory.
I recently looked at a Frankenstein 8x10 on Craigslist that was built from parts.
The front rise was not adequate to even center the lens on the 8x10 back, and certainly would not work properly.

Note that the 8x10 metering back is larger than the non-metering version, so the frame and bellows are unique to each.
The metering back was standard on the F2, while the non-metering back was standard on the F and optional (?) on the F2.

I suggest you download a copy of "Sinar Code". It describes every item in the Sinar product line (P2/F2 vintage).

- Leigh

buggz
24-Apr-2012, 03:54
Leigh,
Thanks for this information!

Frank Petronio
24-Apr-2012, 04:50
If you price things out and watch eBay, you usually do better purchasing entire cameras and then, if you find yourself with leftover parts you can always unload them. For example, if you try to buy a decent 8x10 Sinar bellows individually, it will cost about $350. An F2 8x10 rear end, if you ever see one for sale, might be $400 - and the front end may cost about that much too. But then you will also see the an 8x10 F2 sell for under a grand, so do the math.

The most common mistake is trying to mix and match the 8x10 backs and bellows with and without the metering back option. They are different sizes. Plus the metering back is silly, especially with a field camera.

Also the "too short" 4x5 F2 front or the smaller 4x5 rear standard is often bundled with the cameras out of ignorance or deceit. Watch out for that! The sellers will all plead stupidity.

The Sinar system is great but the format changes are not the best value, it more that you can get cheap rails, use the 4x5 standards as intermediate supports and lenshades, etc.

Remember the Swiss also invented LSD so they made a few wacky decisions.

Jerry Flynn
24-Apr-2012, 07:24
Having once owned an f2 8X10 back and bellows, I can attest that the combination with the 4X5 front standard is a no-go. I second what Leigh and Frank said - either buy a complete factory 8X10, or don't bother. BTW, I don't think I've ever seen the special front standard for sale separately and I have kind of watched for them. Also, almost every 8X10 f2 I have seen for sale is as Frank describes, with the wrong front standard.

adam satushek
24-Apr-2012, 08:48
Shoot!

Thanks to the OP for this post and to those who have responded with valuable information....however it has made me realize that my 8x10 F2 was sold to me with a 4x5 front. Funny too, that it was a reputable camera shop that sold me the camera, though I believe that they didn't know any better as they recently sold my friend a 4x5 "F2" that was really an Alpina..makes me wonder...

I can say however, that I have not had any problems, though I have wondered in the past why there is only about an inch of front rise. So, while I have made it work, I agree that it is not ideal and will be looking to get a proper front standard. Especially since I am looking into getting longer lenses and the extra rigidity of the special standard would be very nice.

So...since the special 8x10 F2 standards are hard to come by.....I have a weird question. I know the Sinar C has a P rear and F front.....but is there any reason I couldn't use my F2 8x10 meter back rear and a P2 8x10 special standard? It may seem weird, but if there isnt any ill effects you know about I may try it. I use mostly front movements and the smooth geared movements of the P2 in the front would be great. Is there any reason why standard movements in the rear combined with asymmetrical movements in the front would be a bad idea?

Sorry if this is too off topic, id be happy to start a new thread with the above question if that makes more sense.

Thanks,
Adam

buggz
24-Apr-2012, 09:38
Yes, it does seem cheaper to buy another full set camera.
I have been watching the bay for prices.
May even go with a totally different camera even.

Let's keep the thread going, it is related, and I have a hard time keeping up with all the informations.



Sorry if this is too off topic, id be happy to start a new thread with the above question if that makes more sense.
Thanks,
Adam

Drew Wiley
24-Apr-2012, 10:49
The early style C had a P rear with overlength rods on a 4x5 front end. Not ideal. The later true 8x10 F used larger dia. steel rather than aluminum front rods for superior rigidity.
There are all kinds of ways you can configure these, but not all are ideal by any means.

Frank Petronio
24-Apr-2012, 11:18
That's the value of this forum, the official literature that Sinar has online would be difficult to navigate, if it even still exists. Since most of the Sinar parts changed slightly over the years, there are a fair number of cautions to navigate as you assemble a system.

The "unlimited expandability" is a good selling point but in practice it only means that you can extend the rails and bellows inexpensively. Otherwise you're better off just buying a good 4x5 and a good 8x10 (or whatever format) without fear of mixing brands since the expensive "core" parts are not interchangeable.

I say that as a fan of the Sinar cameras in general, they are a good value and useful even if you already have a field camera.

Jay DeFehr
24-Apr-2012, 11:21
Great thread. I'll be referencing this when I get my kit.

adam satushek
24-Apr-2012, 11:26
Yeah exactly Frank, I am continually surprised to find out how many Sinar parts are not really interchangeable, still very pleased with the system thus far, but not as interchangeable as I thought.

adam satushek
24-Apr-2012, 11:30
I guess my main question is would getting a 8x10 P2 special front standard be a workable solution to my lack of 8x10 F2 special front? I ask because it seems easier to find the 8x10 P2 front than the 8x10 F2 front. Has anyone shot like this? Its like a backwards C2, maybe a -C2. It seem like it should work....just cant seem to find any reference to anyone doing this.

Thanks!
Adam

rdenney
24-Apr-2012, 11:37
I guess my main question is would getting a 8x10 P2 special front standard be a workable solution to my lack of 8x10 F2 special front?

Yes, that will work. It might look a little funny.

The C, which was an F "multipurpose standard" front plus a P rear, seemed backwards to me. I always seem to want the finer control on the front standard than on the rear. Thus, a P "special" front (which has a taller rise) plus an F 8x10 rear seems to me quite reasonable. It certainly won't suffer from the rigidity problems that might be an issue with an F front with 10mm rods at full rise.

Note that all the 4x5 F stuff will still be useable on the 8x10, as holders for compendium shades, joints for adding a 4x5 standard bellows to the front of an 8x10 bellows, and so on.

Rick "who built his F2 from parts not too expensively, but very patiently" Denney

Frank Petronio
24-Apr-2012, 11:45
But those lenshade hex rod brackets changed angles between the Norma and the F/P-era. Try finding (or pricing of) the older ones ;-p And if you miss the hex rod, a #2 wooden pencil will suffice.

Drew Wiley
24-Apr-2012, 11:49
To get the hex shade rod to fit the Norma I simply filed an extra flat on the end fitting the
Norma rod clamp.

adam satushek
24-Apr-2012, 11:56
Awesome! Thanks Rick, that's what I wanted to hear! I agree that it may look funny, but it seems like good compromise between the 2 systems for me. Lighter than a full on P2, but more rigid than an F2 (especially with my 4x5 front). And i like the idea of geared and self locking controls on the front, seems like it will be easier to manipulate from under the dark cloth (especially with th 450mm) then the 2 handed method required for the F2 front.


....on the upside...i guess I now have a 4x5 F2, just take the multipurpose front of my F1 and replace with the F2 front! Though I have noticed that the zero detents for rise/fall don't line up with these 2 standards....and my F2 front seems to have slightly longer risers....though Ill have to confirm that when i get home....

adam satushek
24-Apr-2012, 12:00
Drew Wiley: "The early style C had a P rear with overlength rods on a 4x5 front end"

Hmmm, maybe this is what my F2 front standard is..... is there any way to look a the part and figure this out? Like is the catalog number like 431.61 listed anywhere on the actual part? I sure cannot find it....

rdenney
24-Apr-2012, 12:13
Though I have noticed that the zero detents for rise/fall don't line up with these 2 standards....and my F2 front seems to have slightly longer risers....though Ill have to confirm that when i get home....

Correct in both cases. But I think the second detents line up. I found a pair that lined up, anyway, when using an F2 front with an F rear. But then an F2 rear came my way; problem solved. The detent followers (a spring-loaded ball bearing in a threaded tube) in the F2 front were worn out, though. I installed the best of them from my F standards and problem solved. My F standards were already pretty worn in other ways though they still worked fine.

Rick "not in love with the detent design for the rise rods on F's" Denney

Jay DeFehr
25-Apr-2012, 19:29
I just received my 4x5 meter back, and I don't see anything that might make it a meter back as opposed to a non-meter back. I assumed there would be a slot for the probe. How can I identify my back as either meter or non-meter?

Leigh
26-Apr-2012, 16:00
Hi Jay,

Hmmm... I find this quite odd.

It turns out there are two versions of the MB, plus one version of the non-MB, for the 4x5 F2.

One MB type (which I do not have) has a large feature running the full length of the wide side of the frame,
on the outside, with a silverish lever associated. This sticks out about 1/2"? on the left when in portrait mode.

The other version (which I have) has a similar feature but only about an inch and a half long, at the
upper left of the frame in portrait mode. It has a similar lever that pulls out to the left.

They both look quite different from the non-MB (which I also have).

Download a copy of Sinar Code from Butkus or wherever. Look in the right-hand column of page 11.

- Leigh

Jay DeFehr
26-Apr-2012, 16:41
Thanks, Leigh.

I'm 99.9% sure mine is not a metering back:

72739

Leigh
26-Apr-2012, 16:49
Wow, Jay. You've got me on that one.

My only direct experience is with the F2. That does not look like any F2 back I've ever seen.

Maybe Frank will chime in. He has a lot more Sinar experience than I do. Or you could email him.

- Leigh

Frank Petronio
26-Apr-2012, 16:50
It is not, I think that is from a later F, earlier than an F2. It's black and yet it still has the notch so you can add a Crown/Speed Graphic folding focusing hood (the notch is for the opening lever). You're lucky, the metering back is wasted space and another thing to catch. I think this is the best of all their 4x5 backs myself. (That folding focusing hood is an awesome metal ground glass protector as well.)

I've had a bunch of 4x5 Sinars over the years but only two 8x10s so I am no authority. What happens quite often is that people will assemble a camera from a hodgepodge of different era parts - not that it usually matters if everything is working - but busy studios with multiple cameras and revolving assistants probably swapped parts all around.

adam satushek
26-Apr-2012, 16:52
I'm by no means any kind of expert, but that looks a lot like the back on my older (black/silver) F or F+ (whatever it is)......

Jay DeFehr
26-Apr-2012, 18:15
Thanks, guys. I've notified the seller, who has agreed to a partial refund.

Frank, Why don't you like the metering backs? Seems nifty to me, never having used one.

Frank Petronio
26-Apr-2012, 19:19
Hmm... Anti-Swiss prejudice!

Jay DeFehr
26-Apr-2012, 20:39
Well, I have mixed feelings, to be honest. On the one hand, it seems like it would eliminate a lot of calculating/compensating. On the other hand, it might be too fiddly and disrupt the work flow/ break the rapport. I don't like fiddling with the camera or other gear when I'm making portraits, any more than is absolutely necessary. But fiddling isn't such a big deal for non-portraits, and kind of part of the fun of using a view camera. It's mostly academic anyway, since I don't have a metering back, but I was curious to know if you reasoned similarly, with the benefit of experience.

Frank Petronio
26-Apr-2012, 21:47
I've never tried it to be honest, assembling the proper components (wands, cables) would take time and it seems like it would be distracting for portraiture using color negative or B&W where you rarely would need to shoot through a lot of filters or use much bellows compensation. Back in the day, the metering back was intended to speed up production catalog shooting with chrome film where exposures and color control were much more critical and the time spent per shot was a major consideration. In the 80s and 90s Sinar made a big deal about producing "measured" photography, sort of a Zone System approach to color studio product photography, and the metering wand making spot measurements helped the photographer know how to shoot a chrome within a reproducible five-stop range.

In reality, if you did a catalog, you'd gang like sizes and textures to shoot together in sequence so you wouldn't have to change the camera or lights very much in between shots, and with a lick of common sense, you could accomplish the same production level. But... it was a slick system that looks great to clients, even if they hadn't the foggiest notion what you were doing waving your magic Sinar wand (and sprinkling fairy dust over your set).

It is funny but many commercial photographers had no idea of what the Zone System or spot metering was, especially with flash exposures and color chromes, and this was a backdoor branded way to get them to think in those terms.

Jay DeFehr
26-Apr-2012, 23:47
Thanks for the history lesson, Frank. It all makes sense to me. I'm a little relieved I didn't get the metering back I thought I bought, so now I don't have to worry about collecting all the accessory bits, and I can keep my Gossen Luna Pro F.

rdenney
27-Apr-2012, 06:10
Thanks, Leigh.

I'm 99.9% sure mine is not a metering back:

72739

That is a Norma back, despite the color. I found a picture of it on the Glennview site. It is unlike any F back shown in the Service Manual, which shows all the variations.

A Graflex folding hood works in this back, as Frank mentioned. The insert will also fit in a Graphic Graflok, though with a bit of interference so experiment first.

Rick "who has one just like it" Denney