Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[David Aimone]

Interesting generalization, and I'm not offended. I do think however, that it's not a novice/expert thing. Different people just feel more comfortable viewing the world in different ways. I rarely use anything longer than a "normal" lens except in special circumstances. The 90mm is a perfect entry for this type of camera. Sure, I'd love a 150mm but that's a bit more problematic to design well.

I'll probably offend quite a few people by saying this, and obviously wide angle lenses have their legitimate uses, but I principally see them as something that novice photographers use to make otherwise boring photographs appear more interesting.

[MonkeyBrain]

To those asking for a version to shoot longer lenses wide open at f/4.5, could you really guess focus that with any degree of accuracy? Wide angles are quite forgiving in that respect, hence why us "novices" think these compact wide angle cameras are a suitable design for a fixed body guess focus camera.

Valid points, but, in my defense, I'm neither thinking to shoot at 4.5 nor totally guess the focus (though perhaps I have overly high expectations of what a rangefinder might do for this camera?).

[MonkeyBrain]

Also, I should point out that I'm speaking from experience: I used to love wide angle lenses, and so did all the other appalling photographers I knew. Not that I never use them now, but rather that when I do I try not to do so gratuitously. I think that the need to shoot everything on a wide angle is an obsession most photographers grow out of with time.

Anyway, I'm happy for everyone to disagree, or flame, or whatever...each to their own.

[Michael Roberts]

Oh, I think the "sunny 16" rule still applies to these 4.5 lenses. I mainly like the fact they are vey bright on the gg. With my stripped-down Crown Grapic, a quick glance at the gg tells me I am in focus with the lens wide open, then I can stop down a bit more and still shoot fast enough to hold the camera steady at 1/50th. Of course, as you point out, there is also the option of shooting wide open with a more selective focus--and, again, a glance at the gg can tell you if you are in focus at the critical areas. That's been my experience, anyway. But, hey, we've all got our preferred methods and tools.

[Ben Syverson]

We'd love to do something in the 135 or 150 range, but that would be a totally different camera. We're going to focus on making our first camera first, and then we can think about other cameras.

The back shim idea is a non-starter for me... The entire 4x5 back would need to be shimmed (film holder ridge / light trap included), and there is no way to secure it on the side opposite the spring back screws. So it would have to be epoxied into the camera permanently. I mean, it's a $99 camera, so I fully expect people to hack and modify them like this, but I don't want to ship them that way.

The other thing to consider is that the camera would be much larger if it was specifically made for 150, and rangefinder-assisted zone focusing would become more difficult. Basically it would be a much different camera. Justin made a great design for a collapsible camera, so we would probably do that instead.

Personally I'm not much of a wide angle shooter either—I prefer a 35mm equivalent. With 90mm on 4x5, it's very easy to crop slightly to get a 35mm equivalent. It's not a huge difference between 35 and 28. When the Angulon ƒ/6.8 is wide open, the corners are pretty soft anyway, so once you crop them out, you basically have 35.

To those wondering about RF focusing with the 90... It works! The way I use it is to set the lens to a pre-set distance (like 1 meter), then set the rangefinder to 1 meter, and then move myself back and forth until the patches align. That's how I shot all the portraits of Susan... I'll post a few more close focus examples soon.

[Corran]

Guys...there's already a great camera on the market to use for 127mm - 150mm lenses, with a rangefinder, ground glass, etc. - it's called a Crown Graphic!
I've bought at least 10 Crowns or Speeds for around $100-$200 with lens, which is about the same price as the Travelwide. I don't know why you're clamoring for what's already available.

RE: wide-angle lenses...I'm not offended but I think your statement is just as "close-minded" as someone who thinks every shot should be with a wide-angle. Personally, I'm planning on a two-camera kit of the Travelwide with my converted Polaroid with a 135mm f/3.5 lens. And/or possibly a Speed Graphic with a fast 180mm.

[Roger Cole]

I think 150 would be a little long for this camera, making the camera bigger and the focus more critical. I'd like one for 135 and not just because I happen to have a 135 Xenar. These will inevitably be used for casual portraits and if you move in much the perspective of the 90 will be very unflattering though it can obviously be great for a kind of "informal environmental portraiture." 135 would be great for that but Ben also makes a good point - just shoot from farther away (same distance as you'd shoot with a 135 = same perspective) and crop.

[MonkeyBrain]

Thanks Ben, that answers a lot of my questions (even ones I didnt know I had) and makes perfect sense.

Corran, I have 2 Crowns. They're great and are my main cameras. But I'm hoping the Wanderlust will offer something slightly different.

I think you misunderstand me though, I very definitely am not suggesting that all photographs should be shot with something other than a wide angle lens. So it's a bit of a straw-man argument to suggest I'm being "closed minded". A wide angle lens is a perfectly legitimate tool - I'm not suggesting otherwise, and I use them myself - but over the years I have noted that a lot of very bad photographers try to compensate for lack of talent through using wide angle lenses on everything. Documentary photographers are perhaps the worst culprits, probably as it makes everything seem more dynamic.

I don't expect everyone to agree though. But perhaps some people might think about what I've said and consider it next time they reach for a 28mm instead of just taking 2 steps backwards. Anyone else is of course completely free to ignore me and consider me obnoxious and opinionated. That's ok.

[Michael Roberts]

Ben, apparently I was not clear. Let me try again. Yes, I am suggesting a spacer that would be, say, 1 and 1/2 inches deep, would have pre-drilled screw holes that go all the way through, and the screws (necessarily longer screws than are used to hold the current spring back on) would go all the way through the spring back, the spacer (or shim if you prefer), and into the camera body, thus extending the camera by 1 and 1/2 inches in depth. And, yes, the side of the spacer that would fit into the camera would have to be molded the same as the spring back, and the side facing the spring back would have to be molded the same as the back of the camera. No epoxy necessary. A spacer that could be added or removed by the user--even in the field.

Your existing spring back is designed to be screwed on and off repeatedly, yes? If so, then you must have the capability of doing this without wearing out the threads. The spacer would be offered as optional equipment and would not affect how the camera is shipped (i.e., the camera would be shipped w/o the spacer attached). You are free to reject this idea, but I would prefer forum members have the chance to comment on the merits of what I am actually proposing rather than on a mischaracterization.

Corran, I completely agree the Crown Graphic offers many advantages. I have a stripped-down Crown (it was already stripped when I bought the body for $15). With the Crown, I carry five lenses--90, 127, 152, 203, and 300. The one advantage of the Travelwide is its low weight--less than 1.5lbs compared to 3lbs for my stripped CG. The question I have been debating with myself is how much additional weight reduction is worth the trade-off of being limited to one lens? I mean, at some point the weight is so low that further reductions offer no real advantage. Perhaps, at 3lbs, I am already there with the CG (I know that at 5-5.5lbs, a fully-equipped CG is too heavy to lug around--for my idea of a hand-held camera). In any event, being limited to a 90mm point and shoot is a nonstarter for me (but 800+ backers are very evidently just fine with this, so more power to 'em!).

[Kuzano]

Big plus one for this idea, who doesn't have an old 127 Ektar or 135 Optar lying around collecting dust?

While it may not be a highly regarded lens, and has a bit of light falloff, there are a lot of Rodenstock Ysarex 127 in Polaroid shutter that are still, or were originally, mounted on Polaroid Pathfinders. The models were 110, 110a, 110b and 120. (There were also Wollensak 127 and Yashica Yashinon 127 used at various times on those cameras. Almost all of the 120 Pathfinders had the Yashinon)

I have three of the Rodenstocks and have used on a hacked Pathfinder. I would seriously consider a Travelwide in the 127 range. Again... 127's come in many older lenses, including the Ektar 127 and Optar 127... which came on Graflex 4X5.