I have used the Rittreck View for many many years with the 5 X 7, whole plate and recently with the 6 X 10 back. I also have a 4 x 10 back that I adapted. I had an 8 X 10 back but it was clumsy and vignetted with longer lenses and I sold it. The 6 X 10 back is great to use. Camera is heavy but is rigid and as has been said is built like a tank.
I don't know the source of this ad - probably one of the big monthlies like Asahi Camera or Nippon Camera. Note that there was a 6x9 rollholder adapter as well as the other formats, and that 6x10 and 8x10 were apparently not yet offered when this ad appeared.
I had a Rittreck outfit with the 4x5, 5x7, yatsugiri (WP) and sort-of-6x10 backs. I say "sort-of-6x10" because the holders were enough smaller in both dimensions that it required two cuts to a sheet of 8x10 film to fit, not one, which was a nuisance.
Thank you!Originally Posted by Tin Can
I have the 4x5, 5x7, 6x9 rollfilm (a sliding back), and 6.5x8.5 (WP) backs. I haven't used the 4x5 or 6x9 backs but use the 6.5x8.5 almost as much as the 5x7. Yes, it is heavy but very stable. I have sent a PDF of the manual to quite a few folks on the list.
Hello Chauncey
I have just purchased a (*) Rittreck View with the 4x5 and 5x7 backs. I've started using it with 4x5 because film and holders were more immediately available, but 5x7 film and holders are in the mail as I type.
I'd appreciate if you could send me a copy of the manual for these cameras, they have many adjustments!
(*) I ended up with three (3) Rittreck View cameras! Only one has a bellows that is light tight, the other two have bellows that are in various stages of decay. The working camera came with a half-plate back, so I went looking for a 4x5 back and discovered that separately they seem to sell for about the same price as a whole camera with back, so I ended up with a second Rittreck with a torn bellows. I then found another camera with a 5x7 back that the seller thought was whole plate that was priced about half of what 5x7 backs alone sell for. Hence I ended up with three. My plan is to get a new bellows and get one of the other two working again.
Last edited by Vaughan; 4-Mar-2021 at 17:21.
I've rebuilt two Rittreck 5x7 over the past two years, both with the help of a machinist friend. FWIW, the weight with the factory 5x7 back is 9 pounds 6 ounces. Looking over early issues of View Camera magazine, Wista was advertising new Rittreck 5x7 for sale as late as 1990.
The bellows on both cameras were questionable at best, so I replaced both of them with Rittreck pattern bellows made by the bellows people out of Hong Kong who advertise on EBay. Their bellows fit and work. The trick is that the front part of the bellows attaches to a smaller rotating piece of metal that in turn attaches to the front standard with some screws. Remove that and glue the front part of the bellows to it, then reattach with its screws.
The front standard on one Rittreck locks in place squarely but the other is off parallel by 1-2 mm. That causes some right side softness on negatives and the lack of good parallelism was not readily repairable working on the front standard - perhaps it was damaged or dropped at some earlier time. I found that the easiest workable solution was to just square it carefully using the rear swing and then scribe a new zero reference mark on the rear standard.
It's a bit of a heavy beast, about 3 pounds heavier than a similar 4x5 box, but not unreasonable for a 5x7 all-metal field camera with all movements except rear rise/fall. It is a solid camera.
One other trick that I learned is that it's possible to use a 14" lens on a flat board with the 5x7 Rittreck by removing the stops on the front rail. It's pretty unlikely that you will pull the front standard off and it's easy to remount if you do. By doing this, you can focus to about 10 feet with a 14"/360mm lens in Copal 3 shutter.
Rittreck made a decent dedicated compendium lens shade and a useful Technika board to Rittreck adapter.
Great tip regarding removing the stops. I think the chrome cover latch piece will prevent the front standard from being pulled off the track.
I managed to pick up both the compendium hood and the Technica adaptor board, both came bundled with other items I wanted (4x5 back and several flat lens boards). The hood becomes a bit unwieldy when the front standard has a heavy lens and significant till and swing have been set, but is otherwise excellent (and cheap too).
An update on my "Rittreck View 5x7" journey... particularly regarding the backs and holders.
An earlier post in the thread mentioned that Whole Plate and 8x10 backs are available but expensive: indeed the 8x10 backs alone are double or triple the cost of a camera with 4x5 back, but the whole plate backs are cheaper than the cost of a 4x5 back on its own. I guess this is due to the popularity and availability of 8x10 film (and holders) and the unavailability (and unpopularity) of whole plate film.
The good news is that (at March 2022) Shanghai GP3 is available in whole plate 6.5x8.5. GP3 isn't a lot of things, but it IS available and it is relatively cheap.
The Rittreck whole plate backs are available in two styles: a modern spring back that use modern-style double cut film holders, and a ye-olde lift-up glass back style that uses book-form glass plate holders (which often have adaptors for cut film). Both use an extension piece. If you intend to use whole plate film then the spring backs and double-cut holders are the most convenient. Just be sure you get holders that fit: the Rittreck back uses slightly wider holders than other cameras (despite most being made by Tachihara) so ideally buy the back and holders from the same seller and get them to confirm fit.
More good news: a second whole plate stock is available, that being dry glass plates made by Jason Lane. The old-style plate backs are even cheaper than the spring backs and no modification is necessary for using the holders with glass plates: just lift out the cut film adaptor and drop a glass plate in directly. (I just watched a YT video of somebody hacking a nice Riteway 4x5 double cut film holder to fit a glass plate: a small part of me died.) As with all these older non-standardised plate formats, make sure you can get holders that correctly fit the back.
Another interesting option for glass plates is that if the wooden bookform holder is a suitable size it's possible to plane the tongues from the sides to make them square so they will fit into the modern spring back.
I have ordered both Shanghai GP3 film and a couple of boxes of dry glass plates, and will post my experiences after they arrive. While waiting I have been rehearsing a workflow for using the glass plates and have already found a potential gotcha: the dark slides on the bookform holders are not removable (and hence not reversible) so its not possible to indicate exposure status with the face of the dark slide. Some other method will be required: I'm thinking maybe some tape on the outside? Your recommendations are appreciated.
Note that although being quite light, the whole plate backs have the volume of the rest of the folded camera.
Something I've often wondered about the Rittreck relative to its weight...would it be possible to lighten it up a bit without compromising its strength/structural integrity? You know...remove a bit of metal here and there? Some well-placed holes?
Holes can be a good thing, if well-placed. Here is an example of well placed weight-reduction holes, the exact size and placement of which were determined using a Solid Works program, which enabled us to lighten the camera while actually adding strength:
My thought about the Rittreck is that the camera could be "imported" into a solid modeling program, and then re-engineered to incorporate weight reduction holes. Make sense?
NO!
I have the 5X7 which is great as is!
I was told it was made for Japanese Portrait shooters
The odd rear Micro Tilt for fine focus portraits
It is really a Studio camera
I did shoot my second LF 5X7 neg EVER with one on location of my favorite Chicago bridge
Glad I did as the vantage point is now blocked
Something I've often wondered about the Rittreck relative to its weight...would it be possible to lighten it up a bit without compromising its strength/structural integrity? You know...remove a bit of metal here and there? Some well-placed holes?
Holes can be a good thing, if well-placed. Here is an example of well placed weight-reduction holes, the exact size and placement of which were determined using a Solid Works program, which enabled us to lighten the camera while actually adding strength:
My thought about the Rittreck is that the camera could be "imported" into a solid modeling program, and then re-engineered to incorporate weight reduction holes. Make sense?
Tin Can
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks