DIY Open Source Field Camera Design

[Tim Meisburger]

Michael, that looks like a viable solution, but I'm still concerned I could not build it without an example in front of me. But I do think I could do the King front standard, and that it would be easier to do that in wood than try to machine a metal front like the Ikeda. I've sent an enquiry to the local distributer of KHK Gears about the racks and gears. Hopefully I can buy those here and avoid high shipping charges. I had hoped to find a cheaper source, but I think that if I can at least define parameters on a generic parts list that would be helpful, as no parts list for a field camera currently exists, unless there is one in Rayment Kirby's new book.

[Michael Roberts]

Tim,
I'm still thinking about the design for attaching the rear frame to the rest of the camera. The direction I am currently thinking is not to use a specially-designed bracket, but just a regular bracket that screws into a small wooden piece that would fit into a track on the camera base (like the brass "shoe" on the King) and that can be unlocked to slide the rear of the camera all the way to the front and which also locks into a wooden rail (or U-shaped wooden piece) than can slide to the rear of the camera base (like a Deardorff) for a triple extension.

Designing the wooden rails like the King shouldn't be too hard. The key in this design would be the locks to be able to tighten down all the moving parts securely.

[Tim Meisburger]

I think I get you. Instead of a brass shoe you use a wooden shoe. Sound like an interesting design. If the design can incorporate wooden parts and use flat metal parts whenever possible it will be simpler to home build.

[Michael Kadillak]

The Rochester Optical King 8x10:

What a thing of beauty.

[barnacle]

Curse the internet... this morning I came to this thread to refer to some gear track sizes I posted a while back. Then I got distracted on the gears page, which led me to wonder if a clock's divide by twelve motion train could be made with the manufacturers standard parts, which led me to research that, which led to fake perpetual motion machines, which led to... now it's nine o'clock and I *still* haven't put pen to paper!

Arghh.

Neil

[barnacle]

Okay, a philosophical question: Is there a preference, with a folding field camera, whether the folding should be achieved by moving the front carrier right to the front of the base and folding it back (a la Tachihara), or push it back as close to the ground glass as possible and fold the base up (a la MPP/Speed Graphic/Sanderson).

The first is simpler to engineer, but requires that the bellows be large enough to bend approximately 90 degrees, and the front carrier needs to be able to spin vertically so everything lines up. There's also the disadvantage that if the tripod mount is through the base of the rear standard, it would be difficult to get things folded without removing from the tripod.

The second is more aesthetically pleasing to me, but means that the front standard has to slide off whatever travel system is designed before the base can be folded up. Which means the standard has to find its way back onto the tracks - and even on my MPP with the traveller tracks linked that's quite tricky.

My intention is that by default the camera will fold with the lens protruding through a hole in the base.

Neil

[Michael Roberts]

Neil,
I think it is a personal preference. If you want to leave a lens on the camera, then I think you have three choices: (1) use something like a tailboard design where you have a front rail instead of the solid wooden base that are used on clam shell designs, (2) as you mention, cut a hole in the base for the lens to poke through (and offset the tripod mount from its usual position in the middle of the base), or (3) design the front standard so the lens board mount is set to the rear of the front standard (this allows room for the lens when the lens board mount is rotated flat against the base when the camera is folded). I have cameras with 1 and 3, but not 2.

Option 1 is your second preference above. Options 2 & 3 reflect your first preference, above.

Come to think of it, I also have a camera that is designed with your option 1 but does allow a lens to stay on the camera when closed in a clam shell design. This requires a little deeper rear frame to accommodate the lens. This camera was not designed for interchangeable lenses, but there is no reason you couldn't design a camera this way if you are willing to deal with the greater depth of the rear frame.

Michael

[barnacle]

Thanks Michael,

My MPP press camera, a very close copy of the Speed Graphic I understand, is a folding clamshell design. Lenses are interchangeable but there isn't a lot of room in there. My Rodenstock Sironat f5.6 150 is way too big to fit, though the original and a newer 135mm are fine.

Neil

[Michael Roberts]

Another option with some cameras is to store the lens on the camera with the lensboard reversed. There is usually more room to the rear due to the bellows. You still have to detach the lensboard and flip it around before focusing a shot and shooting, but it's a little faster than pulling a lens out of a bag.

[Michael Roberts]

I think I get you. Instead of a brass shoe you use a wooden shoe. Sound like an interesting design. If the design can incorporate wooden parts and use flat metal parts whenever possible it will be simpler to home build.

Tim, I'm also intrigued by the way the rear camera frame is attached to the base on the Phillips/Chamonix cameras. I posted on the Cameras forum to ask someone to post or direct me to a better photo of how this works for short lenses. There are photos on the Chamonix site of extended cameras. This could be an easy (relative) solution to both short lenses and rear extension capability.