PDA

View Full Version : Deardorf



Bill_1856
15-Jul-2012, 11:29
Do Deardorfs fold up with the lens/shutter inside (like a Graphic), or does it have to be removed and carried seperately?

Jody_S
15-Jul-2012, 11:35
I have a 9-1/2" Dagor in shutter on a recessed board that can be folded with the camera, but all my others need to be removed and carried separately.

TheDeardorffGuy
15-Jul-2012, 16:09
Some do and others do not. You can put the lensboard backward in the sliding panel. Even a #5 Ilex with a commercial ektar will git then.

Jonathan Barlow
15-Jul-2012, 18:34
I can fold my Deardorff 8x10 (V8) with a 12" Kodak Commercial Ektar mounted backwards because of the flush rear element of the lens. I wish I could say the same about a 300mm f/5.6 Symmar or a 210mm f/5.6 Fujinon-W.

John Kasaian
15-Jul-2012, 20:16
I can usually reverse the lens board but my 159mm Wollensak WA, 240 G Claron, 12" Dagor will fit and 19" Artar will fit with the board reversed.

Soomuu
15-Jul-2012, 22:05
Good idea, I did not even think of reversing the lens to store it in camera.

Len Middleton
16-Jul-2012, 05:09
You can add a 355mm (14") f9 Repro-Claron to the list.

I have mine on a Technika board and can flip the adaptor board with it on it, backwards into the camera.

E. von Hoegh
16-Jul-2012, 11:33
Do Deardorfs fold up with the lens/shutter inside (like a Graphic), or does it have to be removed and carried seperately?

No. Yes. I don't know. What's a 'Deardorf'?

John Kasaian
16-Jul-2012, 11:43
No. Yes. I don't know. What's a 'Deardorf'?

A Deardorf is a Deardorff without the caboose.

E. von Hoegh
16-Jul-2012, 11:49
A Deardorf is a Deardorff without the caboose.

Ah. That solves it. It's a lot like a "Linhoff".

My V8 has the original leather bellows which do not compress much more than neccessary to fold the camera; by reversing the lensboard, any small lens with a flush or nearly - 3/16"or so - flush rear element will fit. I don't do this because I do not want to mar the base of the camera.

TheDeardorffGuy
16-Jul-2012, 12:30
Ah. That solves it. It's a lot like a "Linhoff".

My V8 has the original leather bellows which do not compress much more than neccessary to fold the camera; by reversing the lensboard, any small lens with a flush or nearly - 3/16"or so - flush rear element will fit. I don't do this because I do not want to mar the base of the camera.
I have #500 in my collection. Its the first V8 with front swings. It too has the original Leather bellows. Deardorff in the early 60s got a group of really nice skins. I treated them and can get a 16inch Dagor to fold up. Reversed of course. But I do keep my grey card in top of the bed to prevent marring..

E. von Hoegh
16-Jul-2012, 12:47
I have #500 in my collection. Its the first V8 with front swings. It too has the original Leather bellows. Deardorff in the early 60s got a group of really nice skins. I treated them and can get a 16inch Dagor to fold up. Reversed of course. But I do keep my grey card in top of the bed to prevent marring..

Mine is #553.

TheDeardorffGuy
16-Jul-2012, 14:40
Ah. That solves it. It's a lot like a "Linhoff".

My V8 has the original leather bellows which do not compress much more than neccessary to fold the camera; by reversing the lensboard, any small lens with a flush or nearly - 3/16"or so - flush rear element will fit. I don't do this because I do not want to mar the base of the camera.

I was going to comment on the "F" issue. It has gone on for years and I have no idea how to fix it. Chatwith you Later E. von Hoeff

Jim Galli
16-Jul-2012, 14:46
Yes, but I lost an f8 WA Dagor for a year and a half doing that. My bad for not using the 5X7 'dorff often enough!

mandoman7
16-Jul-2012, 18:37
Mine is 509. New bellows a few years ago though. Still runs great.

E. von Hoegh
17-Jul-2012, 06:31
Mine is 509. New bellows a few years ago though. Still runs great.

So, 500 509 and 553 are accounted for and still in use. I saw #554 come up on feepay around 2006.

TheDeardorffGuy
17-Jul-2012, 09:46
I've kept track of the 500s up to 550. I'll gladly add 553
So far, 500, 503, 505, 507, 509, 515, 521, none of 530s, 544, 545, 546, 553. Some of them I've repaired or refinished. Others came to me from this site.

Louis Pacilla
17-Jul-2012, 10:18
Here's my just about unused V8 #595

E. von Hoegh
17-Jul-2012, 10:28
Neat.
Maybe we should start a Deardorff User's Club.

Louis Pacilla
17-Jul-2012, 10:45
Neat.
Maybe we should start a Deardorff User's Club.

Ya but the club seems to be "The 500-599 Club". Limited membership I suppose .

John Kasaian
17-Jul-2012, 10:52
Mines just a kid at #2511

Jody_S
17-Jul-2012, 11:20
Ya but the club seems to be "The 500-599 Club". Limited membership I suppose .

I can just squeak in there (598).

Lynn Jones
17-Jul-2012, 14:34
NO and that is the difference between a "Field Camera" and a "Flat Bed View Camera", something that nobody really knows except those of us who built VC's. A field camera will fold up in it's normal lens while flat bed VC's will not.

Lynn

Jim Galli
17-Jul-2012, 15:15
Ya but the club seems to be "The 500-599 Club". Limited membership I suppose .

Loius, is there something special about the "500's"? It's gorgeous, but it looks like a regulation post war Deardorff to me.

Louis Pacilla
17-Jul-2012, 16:37
Loius, is there something special about the "500's"? It's gorgeous, but it looks like a regulation post war Deardorff to me.

Hey Jim, Nothing really other then the 1st numbered deardorff was #500 Which I believe Ken said he owned. The other thing I guess is they would be Pre bottom plate and should have four rubber feat in place of the plate. Also the original lens board thumb tabs instead of the later lens board sliding locks .

That's all so nothing that's a big difference really. The thing I found a bit different about my particular #595 is it was NOT refinished but maybe really never used much if at all. It came in a near mint Deardorff case w/ three LN Goerz lenses unused holders in boxes, Deardorff extras in same condition and finally a mint Series A Ries from California. Given how most V8's tended to be ridden hard and put away wet" I thought this was unusual.

It's really a kiss of death for me because I can't get myself to take her out of doors and risk damage. So that's that.

TheDeardorffGuy
17-Jul-2012, 18:15
Hey Jim, Nothing really other then the 1st numbered deardorff was #500 Which I believe Ken said he owned. The other thing I guess is they would be Pre bottom plate and should have four rubber feat in place of the plate. Also the original lens board thumb tabs instead of the later lens board sliding locks .

That's all so nothing that's a big difference really. The thing I found a bit different about my particular #595 is it was NOT refinished but maybe really never used much if at all. It came in a near mint Deardorff case w/ three LN Goerz lenses unused holders in boxes, Deardorff extras in same condition and finally a mint Series A Ries from California. Given how most V8's tended to be ridden hard and put away wet" I thought this was unusual.

It's really a kiss of death for me because I can't get myself to take her out of doors and risk damage. So that's that.

The early series of anything is special. But only because it was these examples that set a trend. Now to dispell some "facts". Rubber bumpers were not always installed. If one of the "sons" did not have any in his assembly station they did not get installed. same with the Decal. Merle NEVER put a decal on a camera. JM and Russel did. The bedplate showed up after the 250 camera order for the Armed Services. The idea of not usinig one because it is mint is crazy. I shoot with Deardorff V8 number 3. Thats the third one made. I lug it on my sholder and shoot with a 1924 Dagor that it came with. I will refinish it sometime. It is just a coating on the wood and is meant to be renewed once in a while. I've been refinishing one mans camera every 8-10 years since 82. He bangs the crap out of his camera. I make it look almost new. Just use it!!!

Louis Pacilla
17-Jul-2012, 18:35
The idea of not usinig one because it is mint is crazy. I shoot with Deardorff V8 number 3. Thats the third one made. I lug it on my sholder and shoot with a 1924 Dagor that it came with. I will refinish it sometime. It is just a coating on the wood and is meant to be renewed once in a while. I've been refinishing one mans camera every 8-10 years since 82. He bangs the crap out of his camera. I make it look almost new. Just use it!!!

I'll be honest I prefer my Canham for my field camera. I just like to look at this beauty.If you ever own it then you can be the 1st to "beat it up" then you can refinish it.:)

TheDeardorffGuy
17-Jul-2012, 19:04
I'll be honest I prefer my Canham for my field camera. I just like to look at this beauty.If you ever own it then you can be the 1st to "beat it up" then you can refinish it.:)
I never said I beat up my cameras!! I've only put one scratch on any of my cameras, my 12x20. Others sure do though. My point is the finish can be replaced.

Jody_S
17-Jul-2012, 19:18
Well mine is certainly one of the 'beat-up' ones. I wish I knew who owned it before me, or could have seen some of his photos. I have significant wear on all metal parts, and so many pock-marks and nicks in the wood he might as well have dragged it behind his car from one shoot to another.

I've thought of refinishing, but I like the look the way it is. I have new bellows, I've fixed everything that needed to be fixed and replaced all missing parts; I think I now have a camera that will last me 20 or 30 years without touching another damn thing on it.

mandoman7
17-Jul-2012, 19:19
I got my 509 from Jim Andracki at Midwest Camera Exchange in about 1994. He wanted $700 with bellows that needed replacing. It had an aftermarket base plate which through me off on the dating, but Hough archives sorted me out.

She is weighty but the gearing on my mine is tight and smooth with no slop. We've been on some adventures over the years and she has a definite patina. I'd really have a hard time parting with her...

Jonathan Barlow
17-Jul-2012, 19:49
I have one of the military V8's made for the Air Force in 1952. The finish is original and shows few signs of use. I've read that there were 300 made, but Ken, you mentioned the number 250?

TheDeardorffGuy
17-Jul-2012, 22:44
I have one of the military V8's made for the Air Force in 1952. The finish is original and shows few signs of use. I've read that there were 300 made, but Ken, you mentioned the number 250?
As a single group under one purchase order there were 247. These has 6x6 Eastman boards and the new bedplate, Sand cast and crude. Then over the next 2 years there were about 50 more built with an Eastman style 6x6 board. These too went to military bases. My feeling is that after the initial 247 cameras they needed more and ordered them a few at a time directly from the bases.

Jonathan Barlow
17-Jul-2012, 23:25
As a single group under one purchase order there were 247. These has 6x6 Eastman boards and the new bedplate, Sand cast and crude. Then over the next 2 years there were about 50 more built with an Eastman style 6x6 board. These too went to military bases. My feeling is that after the initial 247 cameras they needed more and ordered them a few at a time directly from the bases.

Yes, it uses square-cornered 6x6 lens boards and has the small metal ID plate with AF order no. It has the sand cast aluminum bedplate, but it isn't crudely cast. It looks quite crisp.

E. von Hoegh
18-Jul-2012, 06:34
Ya but the club seems to be "The 500-599 Club". Limited membership I suppose .

We'll call ourselves the "No Baseplate Elite".

E. von Hoegh
18-Jul-2012, 06:37
Yes, it uses square-cornered 6x6 lens boards and has the small metal ID plate with AF order no. It has the sand cast aluminum bedplate, but it isn't crudely cast. It looks quite crisp.

Really good sandcasting is becoming a lost art. Look at some old firebacks, or even old skillets, like Griswolds, and any old iron stove. All sandcast, and the quality could be superb.

John Kasaian
18-Jul-2012, 06:39
We'll call ourselves the "No Baseplate Elite".
That sounds better than "The Cracking Bottoms" LOL!

Louis Pacilla
18-Jul-2012, 06:41
We'll call ourselves the "No Baseplate Elite".


Kind of like the " Badges, We don't need no stinking badges" Club. Or as the case seems to be "Base plates, We don't need no stinking base plates".

I like John's the best.That's funny. "Cracking Bottoms" it is.

E. von Hoegh
18-Jul-2012, 06:44
And we can have t-shirts made that say "My other camera is a Deardorff, too"

E. von Hoegh
18-Jul-2012, 07:38
Kind of like the " Badges, We don't need no stinking badges" Club.

I like John's the best.That's funny. "Cracking Bottoms" it is.

Actually, mine still has the four rubber feet on the corners. No separation of the glue joints in the base yet, either.

TheDeardorffGuy
18-Jul-2012, 14:19
Actually, mine still has the four rubber feet on the corners. No separation of the glue joints in the base yet, either.I've got a good theroy on that. Since these cameras were Old style NFS cameras with FS added. The beds seem to be old. I think the beds date from 48. The sales of NFS V8s in the late 40s really fell and FS added versility. I think they had a stock and used them. The glue joints were were cut into well aged pieces that had done as much shrinkage as they could and therefore did not shrink anymore..

Jonathan Barlow
21-Jul-2012, 07:59
There should be a military V8 club. Does anyone else have one of the 1952 Air Force V8's?