617 Panoramic camera concept. Gethering opinions.

[Drew Bedo]

Why not use one of the Polaroid conversions to 4x5 and mask the film with a dark slide cut to the aspect ratio you want? Whle its not 6x17 cm in size, the ease of range finder focusing and a self stowing fold-up camera would go a long way toward shooting in the style to which you aspire.

[IanG]

Why not use one of the Polaroid conversions to 4x5 and mask the film with a dark slide cut to the aspect ratio you want? Whle its not 6x17 cm in size, the ease of range finder focusing and a self stowing fold-up camera would go a long way toward shooting in the style to which you aspire.

I'd use a Super Graphic if I went down that route with 5x4 film, I use mine hand held. Ideally you need rise & fall to place the Panoramic section in the center of the image circle.

While making a new front panel for my City View this afternoon I did think of shooting 2.25"x7" on 7x5 sheet film, 2 per sheet. It would save taking a separate 6x17 back.

Ian

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have four of the US Navy Torpedo Camera Panoramic 6x18cm 120 roll film backs. Let me know if you're interested in one. I also have the frames to make ground glass focusing easy and accurate plus dust covers for the camera body for when the back is off of the camera. These parts are getting harder to find these days as the military surplus is drying up.

[richardman]

I always thought that someone should make a 6x14 or 6x15 folder camera. That would be totally awesome. Less bulky than 6x17, and more pan than 6x12/.

[Lachlan 717]

I always thought that someone should make a 6x14 or 6x15 folder camera. That would be totally awesome. Less bulky than 6x17, and more pan than 6x12/.

Agreed. And a great ratio. In line with 4x10/7x17/8x20.

Not to mention potentially easier to get lenses that cover (i.e. ultra wides).

[SuperK]

Not sure who the camera would appeal to since it's pretty close to a rigid camera with cone and a dedicated 617 view camera. I don't think it has sufficient advantages in design over one or the other. It certainly won't be cheaper than the 6x17 back on a 4x5 for the dabbler segment. It won't have the P&S shoot simplicity and ruggedness of a Fotoman 617. Here are my 2 cents on the 6x17 options. I would add the strange but wonderful Noblex 617 is another option to consider.

http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog...en-hao-ptb-617

As I told I was going to get rid of those cones. Which are heave, huge, expensive and slow to change on most system.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/...0028%20(3).jpg

I'm sure it's possible to make the camera rigid enough. And precise. If Lachlan717 says the marks "works" on Shen Hao railings, the stoppers would work great on metal camera.
But, perhaps, I need to get Shen Hao TFC617, It must satisfy me, if only it takes at least 58mm, 47mm - better. Waiting for reply from Shen Hao.

But why so many people suggest 4x5+film back? What's the point? Why buy bulky 4x5, and remember that not all of 4x5 can take 6x17 back, then search for 6x17back for it (Gaoersi, DaYi? Horseman for 1500$ ?), when Shen Hao already makes TFC617 with a nice film back perfectly suitable.

[Lachlan 717]

6x17 backs on 4x5" have (to me) irreconcilable limitations on lens selection.

I would suspect the you will have significant issues trying to use sub-72mm lenses on the Shen Hao 617 due to bellow compression. You might get it to focus, but you will probably not get any movements.

[SuperK]

Stuart Klipper, a very different kind of work.
... and I like Koudelka's work very much.

Woow! Thanks for telling! I didn't know.

[jb7]

I think that people are being a bit tough on you-
One reason not to use sheet film for a panoramic format is that it isn't roll film, I think that's reasonably self-explanatory.

I think the optical bench premise, using off the shelf Arca parts, is a good one and can be made to work. Given that you have a sliding rail, helicoid focusing might not even be necessary at all, especially using wider lenses. A 65mm lens, focusing between 1m and infinity, only needs a throw of around 6mm, most of that at the shorter distances. Perhaps a scale focusing device could be calibrated for each lens in the set? Perhaps something that can screw into the threaded end of some of the Arca rails available?

People do have a point about really short lenses though, for 6x17, the shortest lens is going to be the 72mm, shorter than that can be used, but with vignetting, and 72mm will make best use of the format, at the very wide end.

The model is nice, I think you should make it- If you plan on making the back, that will be the most difficult component. Using one of those surplus backs might give a head start... Interchangable backs are very useful when it comes to using different films, or using the same film in different lighting, but...

The idea of a 6x17 folding camera is a good one, in the sense that folding cameras occupy the least amount of space, given that the film is wound around the bellows. It's the most lightweight, balanced approach to using roll film, a very elegant approach.

I suppose the professionals aren't worried about elegance, as much as they are worried about performance under any given situation, hence the insistence on interchangeable backs...

When can we expect to see it?

[Corran]

I have shot my 58mm XL on 6x17 (Shen-Hao 617PTB). It covers, barely, and only if perfectly centered. With the CF the very edge of the sides get a bit cut off. Maybe 2-3mm each side.

The 47mm XL has the same coverage, from the specifications anyway. I put it on the camera and it seems to be the same as the 58XL in terms of coverage. Haven't actually tried it.

I like the concept, but, I wouldn't buy one unless it was cheap. I did setup my Shen-Hao for "handheld shooting" once, but screwed up the focusing (bumped it or something). I need to make proper infinity/20ft/10ft markings or something as mentioned and try again.

That said, I had more fun / better success using 35mm film in a 6x12 back (uh, 35x112?) with super-wide lenses. I used a 38mm XL* to much success. Of course you get sprocket holes - unless you buy unperforated bulk film! Much smaller, lighter, and easier to handle too, using that back on my Chamonix 4x5 or Linhof MT and a flash bracket as a handle for the Cham.

*In this configuration, it is equivalent to a 58mm on 6x17 (same angle of view). So it seems quite well suited to your usage.