Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

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

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.

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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/2012/0...ide-super1.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/0...ide-super2.jpg

http://bensyverson.com/images/2012/0...ide-super3.jpg

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

yes.. for monopod use anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

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

Interested.

would love a 65mm version.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

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. :)

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

...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.