Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[rdenney]

Ben, I strongly recommend not promising anything more until you have the production (and other costs) well under way and under control.

I am far more interested in getting the camera as promoted without you guys discovering that you are in a hole and can't get out.

I speak from experience.

Yes--requirements creep is deadly. If I decide I need to change formats mid-shoot, I can just use an additional camera. Or, I can remove the spring clip and use an "elastomeric retention device" for regular film holders. Or, I can devise my own spacers.

Rick "who has two 65/8 SA's" Denney

[Chauncey Walden]

I was already trying to figure out what I would have to do to get a Grafmatic in there. This camera is crying for a Grafmatic - point and shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot!

[Tin Can]

There go the Grafmatic prices!

[Roger Cole]

Grafmatic is not a big deal IMHO. I really wanted one until I got it. Now..meh. Harder to keep film dust free, at least the way I'm loading now. Actually heavier and not really much smaller than three regular holders. The only real advantage is not having to change holders. That would be good for this camera, granted, but carrying three or four regular holders with the camera in a shoulder bag as they show is not that bad. Granted a Grafmatic would allow carrying the camera loaded with six sheets with NO bag though.

[David Karp]

Ben,

Am I correct in understanding that the 65mm version will not work with the various modern 65mm lenses from Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon, etc., due to the shutter size? I am thinking of adding a 65mm version.

[MonkeyBrain]

Grafmatic is not a big deal IMHO. I really wanted one until I got it. Now..meh.

Really? I bought two to start with...and liked them so much I bought another ten!

The only real advantage is not having to change holders.

Yes, only not having to change holders, how disappointing...

Agree on the dust though. But I scan, so it's not an issue for me, and I actually find them much easier to load than a regular holder. If you just shoot landscapes or something I can see why they wouldn't revolutionize your way of working, but for portraits...pretty much essential. In fact, if it wasn't for the existence of grafmatics I would never have considered moving up to LF in the first place.

Everyone works differently though...

[Tin Can]

I use my 2X3 Grafmatics seldom, but I am saving them for...

I just prefer DDS, as new as possible.

[Roger Cole]

Yeah I pretty much only shoot stationary subjects with LF. Maybe a posed portrait now and then but not often. Can't abide dust either since I print optically. For things likely to move I have both medium format and 35mm.

I DO see the appeal for this camera but not sure the dust hassle is worth it. I'd rather have two clean sheets than six dusty ones, or sixty dusty ones for that matter.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,

Am I correct in understanding that the 65mm version will not work with the various modern 65mm lenses from Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon, etc., due to the shutter size? I am thinking of adding a 65mm version.

Hi David,

The 65 is really made for the SA 65 ƒ/8, but it possibly could worth with others with some modification. When we talk to our mold makers, I'm going to ask them about the possibility of making the center post (which will create the hole in the "lens board") interchangeable, so that we could produce a 00 and 0 version of the 65 plate. If it's only a few hundred dollars to make that an interchangeable part, we'll definitely do it (probably for both the 65 plate and the 90 carrier).

However, keep in mind that FFD is probably different among these lenses, so some shims or spacers may be required.

Hopefully I'll have more concrete information as we move along in the process!

[Corran]

Well you're well past your stretch goal...any new ideas for additional things? Honestly, I'm still hoping for a model for the 47mm XL...I figure if you're going super-wide, go all the way to 47!