Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

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. :)

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

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.

The traditionalist in me thinks Ben should just provide holes for a holdfast.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

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.

The Grandagon 65mm ƒ4.5 is in a #00

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.