Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michael Roberts
Drew, as you can see, this is hardly a complete camera--no back, no bellows. If you haven't priced 2D parts, you might be surprised. From what I've seen each part--front standard, rear, spring back, base rail, extension rail, sliding tripod block, etc., is going for around $100, so it could easily take $600 or more, plus another $200 for a bellows, just to put together a 2D from parts.
I am relieved. I was afraid that a camera that only needed bellows and a few screws was going to be dismembered.
Baci in the last decade of the previous century, I picked up a 2D at the old Houston Camera Show for well below $300. I disassembled all the hardware and refinished the wod without stripping it. Left the hardware as-is and put it all back. Yes I have priced 2D parts and I am always surprised to see how much they part-out for. I am looking for a bargai- priced extension rail (an old guy dreaming).
Hope this project works out well for you. Keep us informed.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Pierre,
Keith Canham makes an 8x20 conversion back for his 8x10 cameras as well.
I briefly thought about this option but, in the end, decided I would prefer stand-alone formats. Though I may add an 8x20 reducing back at some point.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Whew! What a relief.The title made me think you were going to put a stick of dynamite inside and explode it.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
No, that would be in the LF Performance Art forum...;)
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Michael, believe me when I tell you that you are right on with the price. The bellows is the major cost item as are holders. I built my first camera my 8x20 this way. I made new walnut pieces but used the metal etc.Came it at around 800.00. I just finished my 14x17 to 20x24 for about 700.00. Someone gave me a process camera bellows so all the parts I made and some I bought from Barry got me to that price. Good luck with the build.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michael Roberts
Pierre,
Keith Canham makes an 8x20 conversion back for his 8x10 cameras as well.
I briefly thought about this option but, in the end, decided I would prefer stand-alone formats. Though I may add an 8x20 reducing back at some point.
Michael,
The 8x20 or 12x20 conversion back you wanna build is not the most headache problem. The cost of the bellows and the film holders( 3, at least) would be very very higher as Jim said.
However, I also concern about your camera's rail. The original rail is short for 8x20 and 12x20.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
A harder thing to do if you are going to use the gears is having enough rack with the proper thread pitch. My experience tells me that they are all a bit different. So if this is a problem just replace it with gears and racks from McMaster Carr. The gears should fit the existing rod, you may have to drill them out. Not hard to do. I think they are pinned which is a good idea. Finding the back extension rail is not easy or inexpensive and then making sure the gears match is a crap shoot if it is not from the same camera. I think I have 36" of extension on my 8x20 I'd have to break it out to check. I find my most used lens on the 820 is my 360 MM Gerogon. Wide angle. Sharp and great coverage and cheap! I use the extension rail with my 21 1/4" Kodak Ektanon and 19" Artar. I will say that I get more people interested in my 8x20's than my other formats. That big rectangular format just draws people in. You don't see that many. Good luck.
2 Attachment(s)
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Progress yesterday. Materials ready to be chopped and ripped: five 3" x 24" x 1/4" pieces of cherry for the rear frame and spring back; 3+ pieces of 1/2 x 1/2 x 24 basswood for the rear bellows frame; 1 piece of 5+" x 3/8" mahogany for the base to which the rear frame will be attached.
New cherry 12x20 rear camera frame: o/s dimensions, 23 1/2 x 15 1/2 x 2 3/8 x 1/4.
I was rushing to get the new rear frame and the old 8x10 rear frame over to the machinist who is going to stretch the rear tilt brass rod, so all those bits are with him now. He is also going to remove the rear standard hardware from the old frame. My secondary goal for the old rear frame is to leave it in usable condition for someone who has a need for it, e.g., to replace a broken or missing frame.
Ripping the cherry for the rear frame left me with nice 1/2 x 1/4 pieces to use for the U-shaped film holder surround--a nice bit of serendipity.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
Pierre and Jim, I agree 30 inches of rail/bellows is not enough. Here's my planned solution:
I plan to fabricate a new base--16 inches long, 9 wide--so I can detach the rear rail and slide the sections fore and aft to use the maximum 40 inch draw of the new bellows, and still be able to use the rack and pinion focusing of the original hardware and rail. Sort of like a Deardorff and other models with two rails, one that extends to the front and the other to the rear, with the camera's base section stationary in the middle.
This base--like the rear rail--will be an accessory I will only need to use when I want to use a lens with more than 30" fl, e.g., the 760 APO Nikkor or the 36" Turner Reich lenses I have. I will put this base on the tripod head, screw it down, then set the 2D on top, attach the rear rail, rack the rear of the camera onto the rear rail, extend to the full 30", then unscrew the rear rail and slide it back to the full 40" of bellows, and lock down both front and rear rails to the wooden base. The base will have raised sides and hinged bits that will fold over the 2D rails to lock them down. The result will be a gap between the front and rear rails of 10" to extend the max distance from 30 to 40". Again, just like a Deardorff: front rail extends forward, rear rail extends backward, base stays put in the middle. The differences are my rails will be on the same plane (not stacked one on top of the other), and my base and rear rail are detachable.
The reason for the 16" base is to allow 3" at front and rear to lock down the rails and support them so they are tight. If 3" is not stable enough, I can make the base longer, no big deal.
At that point, I will be able to use the rack and pinion focusing from the rear--the original gears and track, no need to add any more or to add a new third rail. The extension will actually be a gap in the center, filled in by the new base. If I don't need the full 40" of bellows (say, to focus the 760 at less than infinity), I can also step around to the front and move the front standard in 5-10" before doing the fine focusing from the rear.
If this isn't clear, at least it's clear in my head. Hopefully within a few weeks it will all be fabricated and I'll be able to post photos to show how it works. Not to mention, I'll actually be able to try this out and see if what I've dreamed up will actually work easily (well, relatively, given the camera size) in the field.
One other thing: my favorite tripod is an old 1930s Ries with a nearly 6x7" steel head. I think the Ries will be able to hold this camera setup securely.
Also, even though this all may sound very cumbersome, there will be times I will only need to use the front rail, e.g., with a Nikkor 450M or 15" Turner Reich. The 8x10 2D without the rear rail weighs only 10lbs. I don't expect the 12x20 to weigh much more--maybe 12. The rear rail is another 2lbs. The new wooden base may add another 2lbs. I expect this will be one of those cameras I won't use too far from the car but even so there will be a lot of possibilities. If I'm interested in a distant location, I can scout it out ahead of time and decide which accessories and lenses to leave behind to lighten the load.
Re: blowing up a Kodak 2D
40" of bellows draw is important; especially if you plan to use it out west for landscape work. The downside of that is the camera begins to perform like a sail. You might think about adding a feature so that 2 tripods (or at least 1 tripod + a monopod) can be used.
A 40" bellows will have some sag when fully extended. You'll need some kind of mid-bellows support so the bellows doesn't vignette the image.
I wish I could justify a 36" long lens. The prices on those have sure skyrocketed in the last 5 years.
Sounds like you've thought this out, good luck with the construction. Hope you don't mind the suggestions.
