Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: New Lightweight Camera System

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    3,764

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    A little over 6 lbs. Pretty decent for an 8x12. I gather that an 8x10 would be a little less.

    The spec says 30mm of rise. But from the photo, it seems like it should be able to rise more than that?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Looks very interesting. Your film holder system seems something like a large Readyload concept, but reloadable and capable of accepting different sizes. So far so good. However, what is the sleeve made of and how do you keep it from accumulating (as well as depositing on the emulsion) dust? Is the fabric electrically conductive? Do you incorporate a means to dissipate charge, or does the carbon fiber "carrier" serve that function?

    Ignore all those complaining about your Web site. Anyone involved in ULF film photography ought to be willing to thoroughly investigate its pages for what's contained in all their nooks and crannies.

    Personally, I'm not in your current target market, since ULF becomes less attractive as I age, even considering your weight-reducing camera and holder approach. However, assuming all the development bugs get worked out, I'd definitely be interested in a dedicated whole plate version with reversible back. Now that would be attractive!

  3. #13
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,401

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Thank you to all who commented- I wasn't sure how this was going to be received, since there were quite a few new things all going on in one place here.

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post
    ... The bagmag idea is cool, but seems like:
    1. you are forcing the shooter to carry the max size of the camera with him which for someone shooting something smaller then the max would be more then he would have in DDS holders. While these holders are cool looking, they seem to be every bit as expensive as an exotic size holder might be. Combined with the size issue above, i am not sure why this is an advantage for someone schlepping around ULF.

    Thanks for your detailed response- I don't think I indicated a price for anything, other than imagining the holders to be no more expensive than a fairly priced used ULF holder. The obvious advantage, I suppose, would be the ability to maximise the performance of your lens set over a panoramic format and a regular format, without having to carry two different camera and film holder systems. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, this would only make sense to those who would ordinarily be put off using different formats because of the need to carry two different sets of much heavier holders, along with two different cameras. Or, shoot a smaller panoramic format using cut down holders...

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post
    2. Inserting that Bagman seems to need lots of force on the rear standard, and sure to cause some movement (?), or so it seems from the video, though i guess thats something that use and experience might overcome. I guess very large holders have that problem just as much.

    How much will this cost? How many will be made, and how long will the wait be? Are lens boards standardized?

    If the GG is removable, how accurate is its positioning? I am sure that with CF its easy to make it so it is very accurate, but just asking.

    On a side note - the CF looks amazing, and the finish is incredible, well done!
    I think I might have mentioned that the camera in the videos was the original prototype, built to prove the concept of the film holder system. The new system is based on that, but is completely different in every detail. If I was to make a video of me inserting a standard 8x10 film holder into a standard 8x10 camera, with bail back, on a lightweight tripod system, then I'm sure there would be some movement involved there too. I suppose, in my experience, it's probably more important that the camera remains locked off in relation to itself and to the tripod, than if the tripod were to lift a leg during loading.

    Yes, the focusing screen is removable, though there is not much need to do that in normal use. Its positioning is accurate enough, it's accuracy is a function of the flatness of the screen, since the holders and screen share the same bearing surfaces. Although as I've already mentioned, the new system is the same design, but will be detailed differently to improve accuracy, and I can't answer that question properly until the camera is built.

    I don't know how many will be made, I suppose the number is directly proportional to the amount of people who think the camera is a good idea, and are willing to accept the price point as being justified. I don't know how much it will cost, until I get an idea of how repeatable it is in production. I can't imagine the numbers will be anything more than very small cottage industry sized, or maybe none at all.

    Lens boards will be proportional to the camera size, and I plan to use Sinar, Arca 171, Century 9", and maybe even a Technika board, if there is a demand for a really light weight camera. There should be a certain amount of mixing and matching possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by neil poulsen View Post
    A little over 6 lbs. Pretty decent for an 8x12. I gather that an 8x10 would be a little less.

    The spec says 30mm of rise. But from the photo, it seems like it should be able to rise more than that?
    That 30mm rise is with the back in the vertical position- the rendering shows the lens centered on a landscape format, where more rise would be available. I think 80mm. Please bear in mind that these numbers are estimated, until I have something I can actually measure...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Looks very interesting. Your film holder system seems something like a large Readyload concept, but reloadable and capable of accepting different sizes. So far so good. However, what is the sleeve made of and how do you keep it from accumulating (as well as depositing on the emulsion) dust? Is the fabric electrically conductive? Do you incorporate a means to dissipate charge, or does the carbon fiber "carrier" serve that function?

    Ignore all those complaining about your Web site. Anyone involved in ULF film photography ought to be willing to thoroughly investigate its pages for what's contained in all their nooks and crannies.

    Personally, I'm not in your current target market, since ULF becomes less attractive as I age, even considering your weight-reducing camera and holder approach. However, assuming all the development bugs get worked out, I'd definitely be interested in a dedicated whole plate version with reversible back. Now that would be attractive!

    The fabrics used on the original prototype were nylon, and along with the grounding properties of the holder in the camera, in use, static charge was not a problem. The bag design is perhaps less susceptible to trapping dust than a holder which can be completely opened, since the bag always encloses its space. I really haven't had much of a problem with dust, perhaps less of a problem than I had with a standard holder.

    A smaller camera might be possible, though I haven't thought much about going as small as 4x5. A whole plate could be used on the 8x12, as well as 8x10, which would sit on the same platform. I have also considered a dedicated 7x17, and that could easily be made work for whole plate size too. the camera does shoot vertically, however, the back and bellows are removed as a unit, rotated, then re-attached. This is one way in which the overall size of the back can be minimised compared to a square reversible back.

    A couple of you have mentioned age, and none of us are getting younger. The camera has been designed to be easy to use, not only in its dramatic weight reduction, but also in the rather generously sized controls, which allow the camera to be locked off even by those with reduced grip.

    Although this has been posted in the new ULF section, one of the main formats this camera has been designed for, 8x10, is not ULF at a all...

    Thanks again for taking the time to comment-

  4. #14
    fishbulb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    407

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Nice design; it will be interesting to watch this develop.

    For what it's worth, I have no problem with the text on the website. But I am younger and keep my glasses prescription up-to-date.

    Considering the average age of the large format demographic... each page has four font sizes, maybe bump up the smallest size to the same as the second-smallest size?
    -Adam

  5. #15
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,781

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    Looks great! Interesting design. Good luck with the development!
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 70:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  6. #16
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,401

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Thank you-

    Yes, I should follow stricter rules with the typography. I'm not a website designer, it's just an additional trade to add to the 11 trades necessary to be a camera maker, that Gandolfi the younger mentioned in film which was linked to on these pages recently.

    In fact, given the use of composites and new materials in this camera, you could probably add an additional 4 or 5 trades...

    My eyesight is good too; the text I'm typing now is the same size as the paragraph text on the website.

    However, I use safari and Chrome, and it's possible for me to increase the size of the text from a button on the toolbar. So I'm not quite sure what the problem is, apart from a general untidiness which must be addressed on some pages. I've run the site through the google mobile site checker, and it passed everywhere too.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Joyce, Washington
    Posts
    1,437

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Great stuff Joseph- what a innovative approach, and beautifully realized as well. The website is really good too, I think the text and attention to detail is quite appropriate to the venture.

    One suggestion- replace the CAD rendering on the home page with the photo of the actual prototype- it looks really good.

  8. #18
    joseph
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    1,401

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Thank you Colin, that means a lot to me-

    The rendering is of the next prototype, the C812, hopefully there will be some progress, and I'll have something to photograph shortly.

    It does look like a scale model of the C1117 though...

  9. #19
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,589

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    I admire anyone willing to stick their neck out with an innovative new design. But as others have already noted, the introductory website is so convoluted it's difficult to follow and needs some serious editing. Anyone into routine field use doesn't need preaching as to the benefits of light weight. But you have to convince them of rigidity and overall functionality. You make a big deal out of a hypothetically superior filmholder, but don't even illustrate it, or describe how it might be easier to use, hold film truly flat (if it does at all), or loads. Then that front standard - how heavy are the lenses it will realistically hold (since ULF users sometimes have some heavy ones). The lack of front swing would be a non-starter for me. You've got the things propped up on a tinker-toy spindly tripod and a ball head. That makes me question your understanding of keeping a big camera stable in real-world conditions. There's a limited market out there, so you need to find the right mix of features and hopefully find a realistic price niche too. Just some things to think about as you prototype. Good luck!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    grand rapids
    Posts
    3,844

    Re: New Lightweight Camera System

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I admire anyone willing to stick their neck out with an innovative new design. But as others have already noted, the introductory website is so convoluted it's difficult to follow and needs some serious editing. Anyone into routine field use doesn't need preaching as to the benefits of light weight. But you have to convince them of rigidity and overall functionality. You make a big deal out of a hypothetically superior filmholder, but don't even illustrate it, or describe how it might be easier to use, hold film truly flat (if it does at all), or loads. Then that front standard - how heavy are the lenses it will realistically hold (since ULF users sometimes have some heavy ones). The lack of front swing would be a non-starter for me. You've got the things propped up on a tinker-toy spindly tripod and a ball head. That makes me question your understanding of keeping a big camera stable in real-world conditions. There's a limited market out there, so you need to find the right mix of features and hopefully find a realistic price niche too. Just some things to think about as you prototype. Good luck!
    Drew, there's a video showing how the holder loads and functions. I found it just as I was about to give up.

Similar Threads

  1. Lightweight 8x10 architectural camera (A-S?)
    By Micah Marty in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 30-Sep-2005, 10:56
  2. Field Camera (lightweight) with two odd needs
    By Dan Wells in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2005, 13:46

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •