Wista VX or Linhof Master for 72mm to 240mm architecture.

[Audii-Dudii]

I'm just going to build one. I'll post photos of the Frankencamera when it's done.

Please do, because inquiring minds need to know and it benefits those of us who build FrankenKameras to share!

Although you may not plan to use such a combination now, I would also suggest that your design accommodate the use of your Fuji GFX 50S as a digital back (or at the very least that it doesn't affirmatively prevent such usage) too!

[pchaplo]

Can’t wait to see it when your done. I work with an LE and love it. Also, with standards rotated sideways it stows nearly flat.

I'm just going to build one. I'll post photos of the Frankencamera when it's done. Inspired by the Walker titan with Cambo guts and a Horseman 'L' geared front standard.
I decided I didn't care if it was lightweight, but it needed to be rigid and have a ton of front rise.

-Schaf

[neil poulsen]

I had a Wista SP, which I gather is much the same as a VX. (The latter doesn't have a back that rotates.) In addition to being able to use a bag bellows with the Wista, there's one other advantage (for architecture) that the Wista offers over the Linhof. (So I recall reading.)

The bed is short enough that, even using a 75 mm super-wide, one doesn't need to drop the bed to avoid its being included in the lens' angle of view. This is not true for a Linhof, even for a 90mm lens. (Typically, a 90mm lens is the most used for architecture.)

I had the attachment rail for using a 47mm super-wide on my SP. But even replacing the regular rail with this attachment, the rail still adds altitude. Of course, then one must drop the bed. All in all, it was fidgety.

The VX/SP cameras are solidly built. That said, I tried using the rail extension with extension bellows for lenses longer than 300mm on my SP. (e.g. a 355mm G-Claron.) Kind of wobbly, so I returned these two accessories.

I bought the SP for a really excellent price (can't remember now), so I had fun giving it a try with some of its various accessories. I thought that it might be a good alternative for landscape photography. But, I'm enough of a rail person, I finally decided to part with the SP.

[Bob Salomon]

I had a Wista SP, which I gather is much the same as a VX. (The latter doesn't have a back that rotates.) In addition to being able to use a bag bellows with the Wista, there's one other advantage (for architecture) that the Wista offers over the Linhof. (So I recall reading.)

The bed is short enough that, even using a 75 mm super-wide, one doesn't need to drop the bed to avoid its being included in the lens' angle of view. This is not true for a Linhof, even for a 90mm lens. (Typically, a 90mm lens is the most used for architecture.)

I had the attachment rail for using a 47mm super-wide on my SP. But even replacing the regular rail with this attachment, the rail still adds altitude. Of course, then one must drop the bed. All in all, it was fidgety.

The VX/SP cameras are solidly built. That said, I tried using the rail extension with extension bellows for lenses longer than 300mm on my SP. (e.g. a 355mm G-Claron.) Kind of wobbly, so I returned these two accessories.

I bought the SP for a really excellent price (can't remember now), so I had fun giving it a try with some of its various accessories. I thought that it might be a good alternative for landscape photography. But, I'm enough of a rail person, I finally decided to part with the SP.

Dropping the bed on a Linhof is anything but finicky, with the front standard inside the body housing, extend the rails, pull out the cam,retract the rails, slide the front standard on the rails and drop the bed. Very fast and easy to do.meven simpler with the TechniKardan with no need to drop the rail, even with a 28 or 35mm lens and it has more rail and bellows then a Technika yet folds up to the size of a book!

[rdeloe]

I had a Wista SP, which I gather is much the same as a VX. (The latter doesn't have a back that rotates.) In addition to being able to use a bag bellows with the Wista, there's one other advantage (for architecture) that the Wista offers over the Linhof. (So I recall reading.)

Neil, when you say the VX doesn't have a back that rotates, are you referring to swing? It does have swing -- same as the SP. You depress the lever and you can manually swing the back. What the SP adds is a "micro-swing" mechanism. The idea seems to be that you get more precision in the movement. I actually find the basic swing setup in the VX allows for plenty fine control, but different strokes for different folks.

[Louis Pacilla]

Neil, when you say the VX doesn't have a back that rotates, are you referring to swing? It does have swing -- same as the SP. You depress the lever and you can manually swing the back. What the SP adds is a "micro-swing" mechanism. The idea seems to be that you get more precision in the movement. I actually find the basic swing setup in the VX allows for plenty fine control, but different strokes for different folks.

Could Neil be speaking of a "revolving" back that does not have to be detached from body to go from landscape to portrait mode but rather one simple pushes a tab and revolves the back from land-port. Not the swing movement that the VX has only lacking of micro swing featurebut all RF/SP/VX have full back movements but not all have the revolving back and micro swing.

[rdeloe]

Could Neil be speaking of a "revolving" back that does not have to be detached from body to go from landscape to portrait mode but rather one simple pushes a tab and revolves the back from land-port. Not the swing movement that the VX has only lacking of micro swing featurebut all RF/SP/VX have full back movements but not all have the revolving back and micro swing.

Good point. I'm sure Neil will tell us if he reads this. But as you say the VX also has the revolving back. I'm not sure about precursors to the VX/SP/RF. Some 45N Wistas definitely have the revolving back too.

[neil poulsen]

I'm not that familiar with the VX, versus the SP. I must be mistaken on that point. It was just something that I thought to be the case.

[neil poulsen]

Dropping the bed on a Linhof is anything but finicky, . . .

It's the 47mm attachment, plus dropping the bed to use it, that I found to be fidgety.

[Bob Salomon]

It's the 47mm attachment, plus dropping the bed to use it, that I found to be fidgety.

To use a 47mm on a 2000 or 3000 you mount the lens on the recommended board, drop the bed all the way and put the lens on the front standard and use the wide angle focus knob on the 3000 or lever on the 2000.

For the Master to the IV you mount the lens to the discontinued helical focusing mount using the proper 23 lens board, drop the bed all the way, mount the 23 board on the front standard and focus via the helical.

Or

Use the dedicated Linhof helical and board for the 47mm lens, mount the board to the front standard with the standard inside the body, drop the bed all the way and focus with the helical.

What is finicky about any of these methods?

Or were you one of the people who thought that the proper way was to use the back extension?