Nobody's using the Intrepid 5x7 camera...Is it that bad?

[pjd]

Having read through this thread it seems there's not much against this camera, particularly given the price.

It is trickier to find a 5x7 enlarger (actually it's hard / expensive to get an enlarger bigger than medium format where I live), I wonder if Intrepid plan to make a 5x7 enlarging attachment.

[Greg]

When I was considering a 5x7, I had considered an Intrepid, but in the end found an older and very used 5x7 Linhof Technika for about the same price. I went with the used Technika and never regretted it, for it was so much more a precise instrument to use. It was a very used but not abused camera... everything worked just fine on it. Eventually sold it to acquire a whole plate camera... just preferred the size of the contact prints from the whole plate format over the 5x7 format.

[Alan9940]

It is trickier to find a 5x7 enlarger (actually it's hard / expensive to get an enlarger bigger than medium format where I live), I wonder if Intrepid plan to make a 5x7 enlarging attachment.

Contact prints are a beautiful thing!

[nitroplait]

Contact prints are a beautiful thing!

Agree. And 5x7 just works so much better than 4x5 IMO.

[pjd]

Contact prints are a beautiful thing!

I agree, I like contact printing with smaller negatives. Still wish I could get a 5x7 enlarger here though.

[Willie]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/5x7.html

Might be worth reading Tuan's article on this site.

[jmpetzval]

I’m sorry to comment on this original topic, but maybe I can help with a few things. I use ULF cameras, but I can’t always carry these big machines anymore, so I needed a small and very light 4x5 camera. I watched a lot but I didn't really like it. I’ve built and repaired a lot of LF and ULF cameras in my life, so I ordered an Intrepid 4x5 Mk4, wondering if it wouldn’t be good, and then rebuilding it. It was better than I thought. But 3D printed parts are useless, as is the very bad solution of the whole back. The quality of the installation work is low and the surface treatment and aesthetics are poor. I did these. On the other hand, the camera is really very light and the Linhof lens board is also a good idea. Ever since I rebuilt it a bit, I’m happy. All Intrepid machines are similar, but I know there are other issues with the 5x7 and 8x10 cameras. But a lot of things can be solved with a few tools. It's a very light camera and it's important to me.

Some pictures...






.

[nitroplait]

....
It was better than I thought. But 3D printed parts are useless, as is the very bad solution of the whole back.
....
.

Very interesting. I am fascinated by people who adapt cameras to their own use case.
The back appear to be where you did the most non-cosmetic work.
I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the implications of you back modification from the photos. Would you mind explaining what you did and why you consider the original back design bad?

[jmpetzval]

Thank you very much. Of course, it describes what I did. I'm sorry my English isn't quite good.

First, I disassembled all the screw connections and did it again. Very poor quality assembly work was done, unscrewed bolts, curved bolts, etc. I then painted the inside and part of the first standard lens borad with matte black paint to avoid reflections (acrylic paint is appropriate). I then painted the plywood parts (front and back stadard) with light mahogany wood paint (alcoholic stain).
Then I replaced all the 3D printed buttons - knobs: I made the same buttons- knobs out of aluminum composite with a CNC milling machine. PLA (?) was not mechanically strong, stable.



And now the back cover: I think the back of these cameras is the worst, the original frame of the background is made in 3D printing. Very bad idea. It’s exactly the part that has a high mechanical load, especially if we use a roll film holder that goes under the packgroun. By no means suitable. And the original spring is made of some laminated plastic with 3D printed inserts. Not strong enough. One-sided spring, the result is very poor use of back cover. Even in a small format like 4x5. And so it is with the 5x7 camera. That's not a good idea. The background frame falls off easily, and if not, the compressive force is not enough either.
That's why I bought the back of an old Cambo 4x5 camera, refurbished it, made a new background, chromed the rusty old steel springs and you can see the result.



With a few days of work, it will be a completely different camera than the original. It is also aesthetically much more pleasant, but much more comfortable to use.

I trust you are happy with the answer. Sorry for the bad English in Eastern Europe

.

[nitroplait]

Thank you very much. Of course, it describes what I did.
....

.

Thank you so much!