How to make a thinner back for an Ebony 45S?

[rdenney]

Not so much "offensive" as just "snide"

Guilty as charged.

But it's not completely without a serious point. Even a 72mm SA XL is less expensive than an Ebony 45S. In fact, the new lens usually sells for less than a used 45S, and a used lens might be half a used camera. If it seems snide to suggest grinding away the lens barrel, then why would it seem snide to think it nuts to grind away the camera body?

I ground away the rear barrel of a Schneider Curtagon so that it would fit on my Canon 5D (with adapter) without mirror interference. Of course, I was grinding on a lens I paid $50 for to avoid damaging a $2000 camera, so maybe that's an extreme example.

Rick "not above grinding, but usually choosing stuff with throwaway value before attempting it" Denney

[Steve Barber]

If you will look, you will see that I have not suggested or agreed that modifying the 45S by removing part of the top of the rear standard frame was a workable solution. What I think would solve the problem is a bigger frame. As I said, I do not have a 45S and I do not have access to any of the Ebony camera specifications for the inside dimensions of the rear standard frames of any of their cameras. If those were available, it might be possible to find another model, one similar to the 45S, that could be bought in standard form and solve the problem. If it were me, I would either find another model, buy it and sell the 45S or contact Ebony and see how much it would cost to modify the 45S rear frame to the height needed to clear the rear lens element and gain the full 50mm of front rise that the camera is rated for. My sense is that I would, probably, just get another camera and sell the 45S.

As to my cameras, I have absolutely no intention of trying to modify the SV45U2 in any way and I would not recommend that to anyone else. I determined, some time ago, that I wanted another camera specifically for the shorter focal length lenses. That was my reason for getting the WIDE45 and I am very happy with it. Also, I will say that I find the WIDE45 a lot more convenient and useful than hauling a monorail around.

[john wilton]

There are reasons why I want to stick with the 45S. It is light, very very fast, versatile and a joy to use. I lift it out of a small (25 litre) rucksack-type backpack with lens mounted, drop on tripod ready to frame and shoot.

Yes, I know about monorails. Started out with a sinar f and have no intention of retracing my steps. Other choices involve other compromises: bigger; less bellows extension for other lenses and so on. An SW45 with its narrower frame would work with the XL, but I wouldn't buy it even if one were available on the forum right now at a good price because of its limited bellows extension; solving my immediate problem but creating another.

Going into the field with two cameras is out of the question.

I really don't think Hiromi will be upset when his camera is modded to accommodate an incredible lens that could not have been anticipated and didn't exist when the camera was designed, mine was made in the mid 80s. He says on the Ebony website that he hopes his cameras will acquire the scars of hard usage, or words to that effect. My camera was certainly not pristine when I acquired it. People have been modifying gear to get a job done since time immemorial, and I think that is a beautiful thing.

Re 75mm (and 65mm), I have them, that's why I bought an XL. I would not have spent the large sum needed for a 72XL plus center filter, comparable to what I paid for the camera, if the 75/65 coverage were in the same ballpark.

In any case the die is cast, my camera is en route to Richard.

[Ian David]

People are considering carving up a multi-thousand-dollar art-piece of a camera to accommodate the sort of rise for which any decent monorail, which can be had for pennies on the dollar, has already been designed?

I don't get it...

This is an interesting variation on the usual approach to Ebony-ownership, Rick.

Generally such people are admonished for forgetting the rule that "a camera is just a tool" and consequently spending more than is appropriate on their hardware. Now I am seeing an admonition for forgetting the rule that "an Ebony is not a tool". Poor John is in a tough position...

Perhaps John regards his Ebony as a beautiful camera that meets almost all of his LF needs, but still a tool. If it can be modified in a sensitive way that allows him to improve its functionality in some useful way, without destroying what drew him to the camera in the first place, that seems like a worthwhile course of action to at least consider, no?

John, I hope you'll keep us posted on what Richard comes up with. I would be interested to see the solution.

Ian

[rdenney]

This is an interesting variation on the usual approach to Ebony-ownership, Rick.

Generally such people are admonished for forgetting the rule that "a camera is just a tool" and consequently spending more than is appropriate on their hardware. Now I am seeing an admonition for forgetting the rule that "an Ebony is not a tool". Poor John is in a tough position...

Perhaps John regards his Ebony as a beautiful camera that meets almost all of his LF needs, but still a tool. If it can be modified in a sensitive way that allows him to improve its functionality in some useful way, without destroying what drew him to the camera in the first place, that seems like a worthwhile course of action to at least consider, no?

John, I hope you'll keep us posted on what Richard comes up with. I would be interested to see the solution.

Ian

Oh, hell. It's his camera--he can do what he wants with it. I'm glad he's sending it to a real craftsman to make the modification--I'm sure that will turn out just as he hopes.

But if it's all just tools, then why did people think I was being stupid for suggesting carving away the lens barrel rather than the (more expensive) camera?

When I grind on a mere tool to make it into a different tool, I tend to choose an inexpensive tool in the first place, in case my grinding goes astray. I've customized lots of tools in my life, but never the high-end examples.

Rick "who'll grind a Craftsman wrench but not a Snap-On wrench" Denney

[George Hart]

Goodness me. I have the this camera and I immediately recognized the problem that John is having with the 72 XL lens. On thinking through the options before buying the 45S it was apparent that a 55 mm Apo-Grandagon lens would not out-rise the top of the rear standard of the 23S (I shoot mainly 6x9 with this camera), so I went for the bigger camera. I'm glad I did for other reasons too.

I agree with others here that it doesn't seem right to mutilate a very fine camera. I have checked how much rise I can get with my 75 mm Grandagon-N focussed at infinity (the FFD is almost exactly the same as the SA XL 72 mm), and I can easily get the lens above the top of the rear standard. However the 72 mm XL lens is almost 6 mm longer, so I guess that ~3 mm would need to come off the top front of the rear standard box if that's what you wanted to do.

As stated above the most elegant and doubtless also costly option would be to get Hiromi to replace the rear standard, so making the equivalent of their SW45SII or III cameras. You would lose ~10 mm of total extension by so doing, which may of course be important to you.

I guess that if Richard shaves off part of the top panel, you may also lose the "jewel box" spirit level device. Whatever, it hurts me to look at my 45S and think of hacking off part of the top of this instrument.

I hope that your final solution works…

and doesn't look too bad…

[Steve Barber]

Oh, hell. It's his camera--he can do what he wants with it. I'm glad he's sending it to a real craftsman to make the modification--I'm sure that will turn out just as he hopes.

But if it's all just tools, then why did people think I was being stupid for suggesting carving away the lens barrel rather than the (more expensive) camera?

When I grind on a mere tool to make it into a different tool, I tend to choose an inexpensive tool in the first place, in case my grinding goes astray. I've customized lots of tools in my life, but never the high-end examples.

Rick "who'll grind a Craftsman wrench but not a Snap-On wrench" Denney

You asked, so I will answer.

The reason is that there is not enough lens barrel to take care of the problem by removing it. For the 72mm lens, you would need to remove a minimum of about 12.5mm of material and 15mm would be better. Unfortunately, after grinding away about 10mm of lens barrel, you would be beyond the barrel and into the lens, itself. That is for reducing the outside diameter of the rear element. As to shortening the rear element, there is even less material available.

The rear element of the 90mm lens is even larger, but the rearmost portion of the 90mm lens's rear element housing is threaded and can be removed. This is necessary to do, anyway, because you cannot get the rear element of the 90mm S-A XL lens through the front standard without removing the threaded rear portion and reducing the rear element diameter enough to allow it to pass through.

So, for the 72mm lens, there is not enough material that can be removed and with the 90mm lens, where there is enough material that grinding it away would be useful, Schneider has already made its removal possible, in a more elegant way.

[Steve Barber]

In any case the die is cast, my camera is en route to Richard.

Well, since you are breaking trail, I would very much appreciate knowing how it turns out.

[BradS]

.... why did people think I was being stupid for suggesting carving away the lens barrel rather than the (more expensive) camera?
Rick "who'll grind a Craftsman wrench but not a Snap-On wrench" Denney

from my perspective, there was just one person...all the rest of us probably thought it an excellent counter example.

I think the Op should just get out a set of exacto knives and start hacking away...or better still, just go after that damned "it's just a tool" with a skill saw.