Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Back Movements on 7x17

  1. #1

    Back Movements on 7x17

    Another 7x17 question...

    Inspired by a response in another thread, I again call on the wisdom of the 7x17 (and larger) shooters of this forum for further advice.

    Due to the typical long lead times and high cost of 7x17 cameras, unless a great deal on a pristine used camera falls in my lap, I am considering building my own camera. Keep in mind that while I'm reasonably handy, I'm no master craftsman. So, I'd like to keep the design as simple as possible. To that end, I am considering building a camera with NO, or very limited, back movements. The inspiration for this idea is Patrick Alt's Alt View 410 WA. This is a non-folding 4x10 camera with a rigid back and only rise and tilt on the front. Due to the fact that it has no movements and doesn't fold up, the result is a camera, that is very light (although not exactly compact) and extremely rigid.

    In my case, I would have the full compliment of front moves (rise/fall, tilt, shift and swing).

    So, all you 7x17 shoters, which back moves to you use, how much and why. If it's just due to the fact that you can't reach the front standard controls when using long lenses, would you still NEED rear movements if you limited yourself to using shorter lenses.

    In the 4x5 format, I use back tilt quite a bit. In 4x5, I'm not a huge ultrawide and back tilt for the "looming" foreground kind of guy, but I do use it on occasion. I have found on 4x10 - a format with similar aspect ratio to 7x17, I use rear tilt a LOT less often, and probably could get by without it and rely solely on front tilt if I had to.

    Keep in mind, I only shoot landscapes and in 4x10 (and 7x17), and I only shoot horizontals - no vertical panoramas for me.

    So, with those constraints (horizontal landscapes with no really long lenses), could you be happy with a camera that had NO back movements? If not, what is the minimum compliment of rear movements you would find acceptable?

    Thanks,
    Kerry

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    469

    Back Movements on 7x17

    Hi Kerry,

    I tend to use lots of rear tilts and swings. This is due to several factors, including the reach to the front standard (it's too far away to make micro adjustments). Also, I find the narrow DOF of even 300mm lenses is enough to demand swings/tilts to bring an image under control.

    If you'd like to try the idea out, let me know. My 7x17 Korona is light, easy to use, and might give you a few ideas on how to proceed. I even have a couple boxes of old out of date HP5+ you could experiement with if you like.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Back Movements on 7x17

    I could be very happy with a 7x17 with no back movements, so long as I had at least a couple of inches of direct front rise available. If that weren't possible, I'd want both rear and front tilts available as a workaround to get enough front rise.

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Back Movements on 7x17

    The Korona forces the use of rear tilts and swings because it doesn't have them in the front, unless one has a modified camera. If I were designing a camera from scratch and could have swing and tilt on only one standard, I'd put them on the front.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    469

    Back Movements on 7x17

    The larger the camera the more difficult it is to manipulate front swings/tilts from behind the ground glass. I'm wondering if this isn't why Korona did what they did. Anyways, it works v.well for me.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    348

    Back Movements on 7x17

    Kerry,
    You are going to need lenses with super coverage if you plan on using only front moves as the front movements eat up coverage faster than the back. Protars and Computars come to mind. Best, Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

  7. #7
    not an junior member Janko Belaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Knezija, Zagreb, Croatia, Europe...
    Posts
    219

    Back Movements on 7x17

    I think that some rear movements will be useful if your lens have somewhat limited coverage... Back tilt first came to my mind - as I'm shooting landscapes, I have found that small amount of perspective degradation (or accent?) isn't that bad if I can use back tilt for long(er) plane of sharpness without catching lens vignetting...

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Back Movements on 7x17

    The fold-down front rail with rise/fall in front and swing/tilt in back was a very common design for wooden cameras of the 1900-1930 era right down to the smallest formats, like my quarter-plate Ansco. And although the Ansco is really just a souvenir for me, I do use that design routinely in my 6.5x8.5 Eastman No. 2.

    Swings and tilts on the rear are just a bit fussier because they change the image geometry and many subjects require a corresponding movement on the tripod head to correct it, while movements on the front standard let me get what I want directly with a single correction. Not a show-stopper by any means, though - the Korona can be lots of fun to use, and it's definitely more fun to carry than most other 7x17s.

    On the Koronas and other old cameras with this design, the rear standard does tend to be pretty spongy, although that's primarily because of the way the rear standard rides on the focus rail, not because of the mechanics of the swing and tilt movements.

    The most rigid rear standard I've ever seen on a wooden camera is that of my 8x10 Phillips Compact. The rear standard has tilt only. It's mounted with a hinge along the base and secured with a diagonal strut, and when the knobs on the strut are tightened the rear standard is like a rock - it might as well be part of a solid casting with the bed. Kerry, if you're thinking of building your own, it might be worth a look at the 8x10 Compact design for ideas - it's an amazing combination of mechanical simplicity, light weight, and rigidity, and offers all front moves together with the rear tilt.

  9. #9

    Back Movements on 7x17

    Thanks for all the great responses. It's been very helpful. Please keep them coming.

    Emile and Janko - thanks for your comments regarding lens coverage and back movements. Coming from smaller formats, where my lenses usually have plenty of coverage, I overlooked this issue when drafting my original question. It's certainly something to consider. I do admit I use rear tilt a lot on my 4x5s - mostly because I'm used to it and all my cameras have it.

    Chris - thanks for your insight and the offer to take your 7x17 Korona for a spin. If I ever have a weekend where I don't have 50 other things going on and it's not pouring down rain, I may take you up on it.

    Oren- thanks for your input and your comments on the Phillips design. I have always been a big admirer of Dick Phillip's designs. You can tell his cameras are designed by someone who actually uses them and understands all the trade-ofss. He seems to give you everything you need and nothing more. This results in cameras that are a joy to use, but are as lightweight and rigid as physically possible. Specifically, I always liked the back tilt only design of the original 8x10 Compact. As you state, it provides a large degree of back tilt, but with absolutely no compromise regarding rigidity. I've always thought if I was to build an ultra, ultra light 4x5 camera for backpacking, it would employ a similar set of movements to the original Phillips 8x10. Perhaps a a design with back tilt only and full moves on the front would be the best compromise of simple design and usability for my needs.

    The only ULF camera I have ever owned was an 11x14 Kodak 2D. Like most of the contemporary cameras, it had generous direct front rise/fall (geared no less) and rear swing and axis tilt. It seems like most of these older cameras put the angular movements (swing and tilt) on the rear and the linear movements (rise/fall and shift) on the front. Separating the movements in this manner probably made the cameras simpler to build while mantaining decent rigidity. As Emile and Janko observed, this was probably also a by-product of an era when many of the most common lenses didn't have the most generous coverage.

    As far as operating the controls on the front standard, based on my experience with 4x10, I predict the 240mm and 355mm focal lengths will be my most used on 7x17. I should have no trouble reaching the front standard controls when using those lenses. I will, however also be using 450mm and 600mm lenses on this format. My arms are longer than average, but still operating the front controls and observing the ground glass simultaneously may be a bit problematic with the 600mm. That's easy enough to verify though. I have a lens board on the way that will let me use the 600mm on my 4x10. Once it arrives, I'll mount it up and see how it works. If my reach is too short, rear movements may be the best solution (other than a pair of Inspector Gadget arms).

    Kerry

  10. #10

    Back Movements on 7x17

    Kerry, there was an excellent article about Chris McCaw and his do-it-yourself 7X17 camera in the July/August 2002 issue of View Camera Magazine. One of the most inspiring articles I have ever read. Inspiring for a person like me who spends more time thinking about equipment than he should.

    A combination of McCaw's design and Ritter's should give you the extension you need and still be compact and light and easy to build.

Similar Threads

  1. 7x17 Back and Bellows Weight?
    By Kerry L. Thalmann in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-Jan-2006, 09:05
  2. POLL: do you use back movements on your Technika?
    By Bill_1856 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 27-Jun-2005, 13:06
  3. Scheimpflug movements
    By Jonathan Burch in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19-Sep-2003, 04:26
  4. Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?
    By Christopher Condit in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 28-Mar-2002, 06:40
  5. 4x5 movements
    By Raven Garrow in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14-Apr-1998, 01:07

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
  •