With two weeks to go I wonder if they are allowed to shut it down ahead of time if it's TOO successful? Wouldn't want the orders to be of an impossible volume!
Printable View
With two weeks to go I wonder if they are allowed to shut it down ahead of time if it's TOO successful? Wouldn't want the orders to be of an impossible volume!
I will not be using my Shapeways 2X3 Crown Graphic 3D lens board, mainly because I got it sized Copal 1 and all my Copal 1 shutters are junk. I also ordered the wrong size. doh!
Ha, we would love to have that problem!Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
The more parts we can run at one time, the better, because the cost drops. It's like when you're ordering business cards, and it's only a little more to do 1000 vs 500. Given the current volume, our first run will likely be 2500 pieces. Not so impossibly huge.
As long as they fulfill the orders in the same chronological sequence as people backed the project...Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
$100k
yay
When the kickstarter went live, I saw the $75K goal and really wondered if they could make it. I figured they could easily hit $20-30K, but thought it would be very tough to reach the goal. Here we are at $100K with two weeks to go--how crazy is that? I really wonder about the demographics, how many are new to LF? How many have a lens and how many will just use this as a pinhole camera?
I think a lot us, LFF subscribers invested. Someone said we have 2600 actives. We could do it all by ourselves.
That said, I would prefer non LLF people to get on board, so we have more film buyers and future people committed to our insanity.
It doesn't matter, we will survive!
I bet they have a few more ideas percolating, as does their competition. China must be going crazy, trying to copy...
Let's keep up with good old American innovation, the one thing we do well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryS
I seriously doubt that there have been many backers from outside the film community. For one, most of the news of the project has been through word of mouth on these forums and some mentions on a few blogs, such as The Online Photographer. I think it does point to a very vibrant film culture and for that at least we should be very grateful. It certainly gives a small picture of what can be done if you can get our community excited about something.
Now, if we could get a kickstarter project up and running to do some small runs of sheet film, maybe some ISO 25 stock.
Now here is another crazy idea.
A single element, plastic 90mm f8 lens with waterhouse stops of 11 and 16 and a plastic shutter with 1/100 and 'B' speeds. This could be the same lens used on the Holga 6X12 panoramic. Freestyle sells that camera for $50. Of course the diagonal of 6X12 is only 125mm so a little extra fall off toward the corners.
A total plastic-fantastic 4X5. The art crowd would love it.
It would have to take a standard cable release. The lens focal length might have to be a bit more than 90mm to reach infinity on the TravelWide helical.
It would have to be produced and sold for not more than $30
The lens could be molded with an aspherical surface to slightly improve edge performance.
Probably at least 200 other backers have already thought of this.
OK, on further thought it might have to be retail priced at $40 (but no more, it would be too close in price to a real lens, used of course)
Now there's an idea. Who amongst us is capable of making good ISO 25 film with a little kickstarter backing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuditorOne
Not me, though. I do large format with the idea if creating a sense of endless detail. This camera supports that traditional LF objective.
But a plastic lens in an instamatic shutter with a fixed stop that would mount in a No. 0 hole might be a good project...for someone. That soumeone could use what Ben and Justin have done as a model of how to do it right.
But it's easy to postulate ideas for someone else to carry out.
Rick "suspecting it's not as easy as it seems" Denney
Regarding the 90mm plastic lens idea.
I probably wouldn't buy it. But, as I said, I think the liberal arts photography students and the plastic camera aficionados would eat it up.
They can now 3D print their own variations. http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...nology-chicago
We *absolutely* will fulfill the orders in the same sequence as people backed the project:)Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBrain
just checking ;)
We have a fantastic optical designer who designed some incredible plastic lenses for us, but nothing LF yet. (All speculative projects)Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
The sticking point with LF is the shutter. All new production shutters are simply too expensive. So we would need to design a brand new shutter, which would probably entail electronics. It's within the realm of possibility, but it would be expensive to set up production. It's an open question whether or not we could deliver the lens and shutter for much less than $150, which is about what 90s cost.
All great stuff. This thread has been great fun to follow.
And you are right Rick. Dreaming up stuff is a whole lot easier than following through. Always has been.
But on the other hand, dreaming about it is the start, and with the type of micro-financial backing that kickstarter can provide, some of the dreams may actually turn out.
Now there's the germ of another Kickstarter project! Given the huge number of working and parts-donor shutters out there it probably wouldn't make economic sense, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
I wonder if the manufacturer of Copal shutters still has their tooling, or has sold it, or scrapped it now that they've ceased production.
hmm...
Why lens AND shutter?
What about a plastic-fantastic lens threaded to screw right in to a copal 0 shutter? (since most of us will have one of these on the camera anyway...)
Take your 'real' lens cells out, and pop in the plastic...
-Brian
Ben;Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
What I was thinking about was a 90mm, single element plastic lens (which already exists in the Holga 6X12 panoramic). Mounted in a simple, one speed, 1/100 sec. plus 'B' shutter (which already exists in a $30 Holga). The 90mm f8 lens on the Holga 6X12 Panoramic even has focusing which would be unnecessary on the Travelwide 90.
Sort of a "Holga" type version 4X5.
Perhaps the people who make the Holga cameras could put together a lens/shutter, mountable on the 90. Of course, with an initial run of perhaps 1000 to 2000 cameras it might not be enough potential sales as not all the backers would be interested in a lens like this at any price.
Just thinking out loud.
Or.....how about a simple 2 element plastic VF for a 90mm AOV on 4X5? Bet they would sell 500 to 800 of those.
Ben , I don't know if someone already asked you this before. Is it possible to use grafmatic holders?
Yeah, I get that... I think Justin and I really want to make something that's a step up from the Holga... They have that so well covered that we don't need to do something that's 4x5 but looks like 120. Based on what we've seen from our lens designer, you can actually do a lot with two plastic elements. The Holga lens must be intentionally designed to look bad. Plastic optics have come a long way, and are now used extensively in mobile devices, telecommunications, etc. It's not any more expensive to make a GOOD plastic lens than an intentionally bad one, so we would certainly err on the side of quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko90
The shutter is more of a problem. We could make a simple one-speed shutter, but as soon as you have a good lens, you want more than one shutter speed. So we're caught in this catch-22.
I also think there's a misperception that plastic lenses are cheaper than glass... It's not really true. The advantage of plastic is not cost—it's that you can have as many aspheres as you want, which can reduce the number of elements in the system. Fewer elements means less flare and a simpler system which is easier to assemble. However, plastic has its own tradeoffs, which include higher dispersion (chromatic aberration) and the tendency for the optical index to change with temperature (which means the lens is different in winter vs summer).
So at a certain point, you have to wonder: should we make a two element aspherical plastic version of the lens, or a four element spherical version? They might cost the same and offer similar optical performance. There are a lot of issues to consider.
@rustyair: You can definitely use a Grafmatic, but you'll need to temporarily remove the spring back, and attach the Grafmatic with rubber bands or ball bungees. Should be a good combo!
I will most certainly be using my Grafmatics. Shoot six sheets in the camera and then develop all six in my Jobo 2509. I think that is just about as "point and shoot" as you will ever get with a 4x5 large format camera. My Crown is certainly close but nowhere near as light and easy to handle as the Wanderlust promises to be.
[QUOTE=Ben Syverson;1016805]Yeah, I get that... I think Justin and I really want to make something that's a step up from the Holga... They have that so well covered that we don't need to do something that's 4x5 but looks like 120. Based on what we've seen from our lens designer, you can actually do a lot with two plastic elements. The Holga lens must be intentionally designed to look bad. Plastic optics have come a long way, and are now used extensively in mobile devices, telecommunications, etc. It's not any more expensive to make a GOOD plastic lens than an intentionally bad one, so we would certainly err on the side of quality.
Yeah, I'm aware that plastic lenses have advanced in performance. The Vivitar Slim and Wide has a two element 22mm lens that is quite good, considering the $20 price for the current iteration of it sold through Freestyle. That camera still uses a curved film plane though. In fact, I would be willing to guess that the same 22mm lens is used in the 'Golden Half' half frame camera.
Shutter....shutter....hmmm shutter.
Lets see now, well, how about a copy of the 2 blade, 4 speed + 'B' Copal X as found in the original Olympus Pen of 1959. they ran 1/25-1/50-1/100-1/200 + B. I've had one apart. No slow speed escapement (no speed slower than 1/25), not too many parts, simple design, very reliable. I wouldn't mess with designing a brand new shutter. Just copy a known good design. They are so old now, do you think Copal would object?
Ben:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
I get this, and I think you are right. OTOH, I have not yet signed on--the big limitation for me is the 90mm lens as the longest option. Since the spring back unscrews, it makes sense to me to offer a range of spacers that can be screwed into the back of the camera (into the spring back holes) and then the spring back screwed into the spacer. I would love to see a spacer option for the 127 (5") ektar, 135mm (5 1/4") optar or schneider-kreuznach [I agree with Rick that this camera is perfect for press lenses that are small, light, and don't provide enough coverage for 4x5s with extensive movements] and for any one of several 150mm (6") lenses, i.e., 1 and 1/2"; 1 and 3/4"; and 2 and 1/2" spacers. Of course, I can fabricate spacers out of wood, but it would be nice to have the spacer made of the same material as the camera body and molded to fit tight.
Another advantage of the press lenses is they are fast--typically f4.5, so ideal for hand-held photography like the Travelwide.
In any event, big congratulations on achieving your funding goal. I applaud your creativity and accomplishment with this project.
Michael
...and I suspect this is precisely why your Kickstarter campaign has provoked so much interest and support: there was obviously a gap in the market for a cheap, lightweight, portable 4x5 camera that's capable of producing high quality images that will sit happily alongside work produced on more expensive cameras, as opposed to some crappy toy camera that forces the user to make a feature of the technology's very serious limitations in quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
Yep, same here. I have signed on, but the fixation with wide-angle lenses is something of a turn-off for me. I'll probably offend quite a few people by saying this, and obviously wide angle lenses have their legitimate uses, but I principally see them as something that novice photographers use to make otherwise boring photographs appear more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Roberts
But I really wish that a longer focal length option had been included in the original poll. I suspect that 90mm would have proved the most popular anyway, as people just love those wide angles, and I fully realize that you guys would have to go with the most popular option anyway in order to guarantee enough backers, but it would have been interesting to see how much demand there is for, say, a 150mm (which would be my ideal choice of lens for this).
Anyway, don't want to sound ungrateful, as I'm genuinely very excited about this, but yes, some kind of adapter for longer focal lengths as Michael suggests would be great.
Big plus one for this idea, who doesn't have an old 127 Ektar or 135 Optar lying around collecting dust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Roberts
To those asking for a version to shoot longer lenses wide open at f/4.5, could you really guess focus that with any degree of accuracy? Wide angles are quite forgiving in that respect, hence why us "novices" think these compact wide angle cameras are a suitable design for a fixed body guess focus camera.
Interesting generalization, and I'm not offended. I do think however, that it's not a novice/expert thing. Different people just feel more comfortable viewing the world in different ways. I rarely use anything longer than a "normal" lens except in special circumstances. The 90mm is a perfect entry for this type of camera. Sure, I'd love a 150mm but that's a bit more problematic to design well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBrain
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_whatever
Valid points, but, in my defense, I'm neither thinking to shoot at 4.5 nor totally guess the focus (though perhaps I have overly high expectations of what a rangefinder might do for this camera?).
Also, I should point out that I'm speaking from experience: I used to love wide angle lenses, and so did all the other appalling photographers I knew. Not that I never use them now, but rather that when I do I try not to do so gratuitously. I think that the need to shoot everything on a wide angle is an obsession most photographers grow out of with time.
Anyway, I'm happy for everyone to disagree, or flame, or whatever...each to their own.
Oh, I think the "sunny 16" rule still applies to these 4.5 lenses. I mainly like the fact they are vey bright on the gg. With my stripped-down Crown Grapic, a quick glance at the gg tells me I am in focus with the lens wide open, then I can stop down a bit more and still shoot fast enough to hold the camera steady at 1/50th. Of course, as you point out, there is also the option of shooting wide open with a more selective focus--and, again, a glance at the gg can tell you if you are in focus at the critical areas. That's been my experience, anyway. But, hey, we've all got our preferred methods and tools.
We'd love to do something in the 135 or 150 range, but that would be a totally different camera. We're going to focus on making our first camera first, and then we can think about other cameras.
The back shim idea is a non-starter for me... The entire 4x5 back would need to be shimmed (film holder ridge / light trap included), and there is no way to secure it on the side opposite the spring back screws. So it would have to be epoxied into the camera permanently. I mean, it's a $99 camera, so I fully expect people to hack and modify them like this, but I don't want to ship them that way.
The other thing to consider is that the camera would be much larger if it was specifically made for 150, and rangefinder-assisted zone focusing would become more difficult. Basically it would be a much different camera. Justin made a great design for a collapsible camera, so we would probably do that instead.
Personally I'm not much of a wide angle shooter either—I prefer a 35mm equivalent. With 90mm on 4x5, it's very easy to crop slightly to get a 35mm equivalent. It's not a huge difference between 35 and 28. When the Angulon ƒ/6.8 is wide open, the corners are pretty soft anyway, so once you crop them out, you basically have 35.
To those wondering about RF focusing with the 90... It works! The way I use it is to set the lens to a pre-set distance (like 1 meter), then set the rangefinder to 1 meter, and then move myself back and forth until the patches align. That's how I shot all the portraits of Susan... I'll post a few more close focus examples soon.
Guys...there's already a great camera on the market to use for 127mm - 150mm lenses, with a rangefinder, ground glass, etc. - it's called a Crown Graphic!
I've bought at least 10 Crowns or Speeds for around $100-$200 with lens, which is about the same price as the Travelwide. I don't know why you're clamoring for what's already available.
RE: wide-angle lenses...I'm not offended but I think your statement is just as "close-minded" as someone who thinks every shot should be with a wide-angle. Personally, I'm planning on a two-camera kit of the Travelwide with my converted Polaroid with a 135mm f/3.5 lens. And/or possibly a Speed Graphic with a fast 180mm.
I think 150 would be a little long for this camera, making the camera bigger and the focus more critical. I'd like one for 135 and not just because I happen to have a 135 Xenar. These will inevitably be used for casual portraits and if you move in much the perspective of the 90 will be very unflattering though it can obviously be great for a kind of "informal environmental portraiture." 135 would be great for that but Ben also makes a good point - just shoot from farther away (same distance as you'd shoot with a 135 = same perspective) and crop.
Thanks Ben, that answers a lot of my questions (even ones I didnt know I had) and makes perfect sense.
Corran, I have 2 Crowns. They're great and are my main cameras. But I'm hoping the Wanderlust will offer something slightly different.
I think you misunderstand me though, I very definitely am not suggesting that all photographs should be shot with something other than a wide angle lens. So it's a bit of a straw-man argument to suggest I'm being "closed minded". A wide angle lens is a perfectly legitimate tool - I'm not suggesting otherwise, and I use them myself - but over the years I have noted that a lot of very bad photographers try to compensate for lack of talent through using wide angle lenses on everything. Documentary photographers are perhaps the worst culprits, probably as it makes everything seem more dynamic.
I don't expect everyone to agree though. But perhaps some people might think about what I've said and consider it next time they reach for a 28mm instead of just taking 2 steps backwards. Anyone else is of course completely free to ignore me and consider me obnoxious and opinionated. That's ok.
Ben, apparently I was not clear. Let me try again. Yes, I am suggesting a spacer that would be, say, 1 and 1/2 inches deep, would have pre-drilled screw holes that go all the way through, and the screws (necessarily longer screws than are used to hold the current spring back on) would go all the way through the spring back, the spacer (or shim if you prefer), and into the camera body, thus extending the camera by 1 and 1/2 inches in depth. And, yes, the side of the spacer that would fit into the camera would have to be molded the same as the spring back, and the side facing the spring back would have to be molded the same as the back of the camera. No epoxy necessary. A spacer that could be added or removed by the user--even in the field.
Your existing spring back is designed to be screwed on and off repeatedly, yes? If so, then you must have the capability of doing this without wearing out the threads. The spacer would be offered as optional equipment and would not affect how the camera is shipped (i.e., the camera would be shipped w/o the spacer attached). You are free to reject this idea, but I would prefer forum members have the chance to comment on the merits of what I am actually proposing rather than on a mischaracterization.
Corran, I completely agree the Crown Graphic offers many advantages. I have a stripped-down Crown (it was already stripped when I bought the body for $15). With the Crown, I carry five lenses--90, 127, 152, 203, and 300. The one advantage of the Travelwide is its low weight--less than 1.5lbs compared to 3lbs for my stripped CG. The question I have been debating with myself is how much additional weight reduction is worth the trade-off of being limited to one lens? I mean, at some point the weight is so low that further reductions offer no real advantage. Perhaps, at 3lbs, I am already there with the CG (I know that at 5-5.5lbs, a fully-equipped CG is too heavy to lug around--for my idea of a hand-held camera). In any event, being limited to a 90mm point and shoot is a nonstarter for me (but 800+ backers are very evidently just fine with this, so more power to 'em!).
While it may not be a highly regarded lens, and has a bit of light falloff, there are a lot of Rodenstock Ysarex 127 in Polaroid shutter that are still, or were originally, mounted on Polaroid Pathfinders. The models were 110, 110a, 110b and 120. (There were also Wollensak 127 and Yashica Yashinon 127 used at various times on those cameras. Almost all of the 120 Pathfinders had the Yashinon)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford
I have three of the Rodenstocks and have used on a hacked Pathfinder. I would seriously consider a Travelwide in the 127 range. Again... 127's come in many older lenses, including the Ektar 127 and Optar 127... which came on Graflex 4X5.
Thanks Kuzano. I had forgotten about the Rodenstock 127 and the Optar 127--though, like Ken says, I have several of these lying around as well.
MonkeyBrain, I'm afraid I don't know what you are suggesting or even the point of the original statement regarding wide-angle lenses. In my way of seeing, there is simply one lens that will give me the perspective and field of view when I envision a photograph - be it a 47mm or a 450mm. Any generalization about wide-angles or the people that use them is a commentary on the photographer, not the tool, and is irrelevant.
PS: Still not offended, just not sure what the point was.
It sounds like we all have our own hopes and dreams for this camera which is great!
Personally, I will happily put my Nikkor 90 f8 on it, use the provided sports finder, attach my Sunpack potato masher flash, stop down a bit, zone focus, load some Tmax400 and play Weegee. I shoot color nearly exclusively, but for some reason this is how I see myself using this camera.
Sure 90mm is wide for me, but thats why Ill happily use my Nikkor...because I have it and never use it otherwise. I could see 120mm or 135mm being nice, but I personally think 90mm is the perfect balance of not too wide but wide enough to make zone focusing possible and at the same time keeping the camera fairly compact.
I understand wanting more...but I also think its important to recognize that this camera is probably not intended to do everything. I know ill use it as a fun point and shoot at parties and walking around at night. For critical work that requires accuate focusing, more depth of field, or different focal lengths Ill get out my Sinar (for tripod work) or Mamiya 7ii's (if it needs to be handheld). But of course I am not saying that others will not find ways to use this camera for critical work!
I guess my point is that we should be greatfull that this camera is going to be produced! Congrats Ben and Justin! It seems there was a niche for a camera like this and I am very pleased that its funded. New ideas and modifications are of course interesting to hear about but in the end im just happy the camera will be made and that it may help to increase film sales of 4x5 film (especially Portra! I love that stuff).
Very well said Adam! Back to focusing on this great project, and not defending our opinions...
“Sometimes letting things go is an act of far greater power than defending or hanging on.”
― E.T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam satushek
For quick shooting with this camera and utilizing ground glass focusing someone needs to make a ground glass that slips into the back. (Maybe by converting a film holder to hold a groundgass???)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Roberts
Just expressing my point of view. But your absolutely right, totally irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
According to the kickstarter description, they plan to ship the cameras with a poly-gg insert. It's not shown in the videos or photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfesk
"We'll include a simple metal sport finder so you can frame up your shot. If you want more accuracy, you can use our plastic "ground glass" insert, or purchase an accessory viewfinder."
I think we forget the standard tool for "zooming" by press photographers--cropping.
If Ben had designed this as a true alternative to the Holga, he may have selected the 6x9 format. 90mm is just slightly wide for 6x9 and normal for 6x7.
Sinar calls their multiformat rollfilm holder the "Zoom".
Point being, it doesn't take much cropping to "normalize" a 90 on 4x5. But the the lens on a fixed-lens camera isn't wide enough, then there is nothing you can do. I select focal length more to control foreground and background size relationships, and stepping back doesn't replace a shorter lens that lets me capture the subject where I am. Thus, a fixed-lens camera really needs to err on the wide side.
I suspect that's why Speed Graphics are more likely to have been supplied with the 127 more than the 135 (and why both were more popular than the 150). The 127 was the widest fast Tessar that would provide coverage for 4x5, despite being intended for use on the 3x4 Graphics, and despite being not so wonderful in the corners.
Rick "who could live with just a 90 on a trip, knowing that cropping was an option, but not with just a 150 or 180" Denney
A cheap (err, inexpensive) 28mm viewfinder. An inexpensive rangefinder lying around from some other experimenting that should work perfectly. A couple grafmatics, some ball bungees, lots of Efke 25, a Schneider Angulon 90 in a Linhoff Synchro-Compur with X flash, a couple Vivitar 285HV flashes and some radio triggers.
All of this right around Christmas! Man oh man, this is gonna be fun!
Rick is of course completely correct. "Zooming with your feet" isn't the same. Perspective is solely a matter of relative camera-subject distance, NOT focal length. The reason different focal lengths give us different perspectives in practice is that we move closer or farther from the subject accordingly. Stand in the same place you'd have stood to shoot with a 150 and crop the negative in printing to 6x7 or whatever gives you an equivalent area in the print and you'll get the same perspective. Move closer to make the main subject the same size on the 4x5 film that it would have been with a 150mm lens and you'll get changes in perspective, sometimes depending on subject, foreground and background maybe very radical ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
On the subject of Graphics, the "problem" I ran into when I looked into them is that most seem to have been stripped for use on a tripod with GG focusing, and never having even actually SEEN one in person, all the web info was more bewildering than helpful in trying to sort out what I really needed to put one of those Humpty Dumpty cameras back together again. Finding one complete and ready to go with viewfinder, rangefinder, lens and proper cam, all working well, is on my "some day I'll stumble across one and buy it" list (though it's not financially likely right now even if I did - but not that far out.)