11x14 Folding field camera. Rochester Optical King Camera

[phillip2446]

hi

this is listed on ebay
11x14 Folding field camera. Rochester Optical King Camera
i want to do 11x14 photography.
would this be a good camera to buy?

thanks

phil

 

[LJH]

Perhaps you could add a link/item number, or outline its specs?

In addition, it might help if you let us know what your intended use will be (i.e. wide angle landscapes, portraits etc.)

 

[Barry S]

It's a single extension bed, so it would be good for landscape work, maybe not so great for portraits where you want a longer lens and lots of bellows. I'd confirm that it takes a modern 11x14 film holder, there are a few size variations. For any vintage ULF camera, it's best if you get the holders and the camera from the same source since custom holders will cost a pile of money and time.

 

[lecarp]

11x14

It also does not offer any movements to speak of, no swings or shift front or back.

 

[HTF III]

11x14 is pretty extreme. Add any movements to that, and affording a capable lens would mean you're J Paul Getty or Warren Buffet. It's your money. Straight landscapes are fine. Any architecture and you're dead in the water.

 

[LJH]

11x14 is pretty extreme. Add any movements to that, and affording a capable lens would mean you're J Paul Getty or Warren Buffet. It's your money. Straight landscapes are fine. Any architecture and you're dead in the water.

I beg to differ on this.

A few examples:

A sub$500 355mm G Claron covers 12x20. I just sold a 213mm Repro lens for under $150 that will cover 11x14 as a pretty extreme WA. I recently bought a Graphic Kowa 240mm that easily covers 11x14" for $120. A second hand 210mm Super Angulon sold last week for under $900 (about the same price as two new DDS for this camera - eBay #230961535294). 305mm G Clarons are often listed, and under $500 (4 recently completed on there at the moment, $429 BIN most expensive, $212 cheapest).

Film availability should be of much greater concern than lens availability. As, too, should processing (you'll need space for at least a 14x17" tray if doing it this way).

 

[phillip2446]

here it is

http://www.ebay.com/itm/221214055344?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

would have liked to use it for portraits but i think it has 2 extension beds but i may be wrong

thanks

 

[johnielvis]

find out the total extension--judging by the size it's just over 30"--you can easily do portraits with this. I have one similar and it has 33" extension I think. Oh--another thing..them rear extensions are useless on big cameras like this--they flop and wobble with the back way out there. Stick in a film holder and the back moves significantly--and it sways like a pendulum. That's what you get when you stick a heavy weight far out--a pendulum. You want that back as close to the base of the camera and tripod mount as possible. This design is actually superior for rigidity--the lighter weight lens moves out and keep the back fixed at the support as rigid as possible.

It provides plenty of vertical movements. It likely has just over 30" extension judging by the size of the format and the bed. You will almost certainly never have a need to use left right swing movements in this format, so you likely will not miss them. I'm thinking of getting it myself--it looks like it folds up smaller than the one I have.

 

[removed account4]

11x14 is pretty extreme. Add any movements to that, and affording a capable lens would mean you're J Paul Getty or Warren Buffet. It's your money. Straight landscapes are fine. Any architecture and you're dead in the water.

he can get a wollensak triple convertible ( 1a ) for not too much $$
3 focal lengths, 1 lens, all 3 configurations ( 13/20/25 ) cover 11x14 ... the only
problems with these ULF cameras, is the cost of a film holder is often above 300$ each
(some don't fit others do ) and the price of film ... all that said, there is nothing quite like looking
at a GIANT ground glass and holding a GIANT negative in one's hands ...

 

[Whiteymorange]

I owned a King, but in 8x10. They are wonderful, beautiful cameras that do allow movements, but two things should be taken into account. First, they are fairly fragile. Second, and more important, the one I had did not take modern holders. The Rochester holders had no ridge to lock into place and were about 3/4" wider than modern holders. It is possible to refit the back, adjust the modern holders to fit, etc., etc., but it may be easier to buy a different camera if you plan to take it out in the field soon after buying it.