Back Movements on 7x17

[ReallyBigCameras]

Inspired by a response in another thread, I again call on the wisdom of the 7x17 (and larger) shooters of this forum for further advice.

Due to the typical long lead times and high cost of 7x17 cameras, unless a great deal on a pristine used camera falls in my lap, I am considering building my own camera. Keep in mind that while I'm reasonably handy, I'm no master craftsman. So, I'd like to keep the design as simple as possible. To that end, I am considering building a camera with NO, or very limited, back movements. The inspiration for this idea is Patrick Alt's Alt View 410 WA. This is a non-folding 4x10 camera with a rigid back and only rise and tilt on the front. Due to the fact that it has no movements and doesn't fold up, the result is a camera, that is very light (although not exactly compact) and extremely rigid.

In my case, I would have the full compliment of front moves (rise/fall, tilt, shift and swing).

So, all you 7x17 shoters, which back moves to you use, how much and why. If it's just due to the fact that you can't reach the front standard controls when using long lenses, would you still NEED rear movements if you limited yourself to using shorter lenses.

In the 4x5 format, I use back tilt quite a bit. In 4x5, I'm not a huge ultrawide and back tilt for the "looming" foreground kind of guy, but I do use it on occasion. I have found on 4x10 - a format with similar aspect ratio to 7x17, I use rear tilt a LOT less often, and probably could get by without it and rely solely on front tilt if I had to.

Keep in mind, I only shoot landscapes and in 4x10 (and 7x17), and I only shoot horizontals - no vertical panoramas for me.

So, with those constraints (horizontal landscapes with no really long lenses), could you be happy with a camera that had NO back movements? If not, what is the minimum compliment of rear movements you would find acceptable?

Thanks,
Kerry

 

[sanking]

Kerry,

I would not be happy at all with a 7X17 that had no back movements. In fact, I would rather have back movements than front movements. In many cases we tend to use lenses with this format that just barely cover as is, and if you use front movements you will quickly run out of coverage. My advice would be to have *as a minimum*, back tilt and swing, front rise and fall, and front tilt.

If you are gong to build your own an idea you might think about is buying an older 8X10 and tearing it apart for the front and rear movements and gear track. Butch Welch did something like this a few years back, and a student of my colleague did the same thing in making a couple of 5X12" cameras and they both came out very nice.

But I would definitely be a sad camper without rear movements on 7X17.


Sandy

So, with those constraints (horizontal landscapes with no really long lenses), could you be happy with a camera that had NO back movements? If not, what is the minimum compliment of rear movements you would find acceptable?

Thanks,
Kerry

 

[Donald Miller]

I have seen the cameras that Butch Welch built. I believe that he used B & J as the foundation for his cameras but all similarity ended there.

 

[Ole]

So, with those constraints (horizontal landscapes with no really long lenses), could you be happy with a camera that had NO back movements? If not, what is the minimum compliment of rear movements you would find acceptable?

I don't shoot 7x17, and have only seen a 8x20 camera in use. But I do use (or attempt to use) a 30x40cm camera, equivalent to 12x16".

My big beast has a rigid front with some rise/fall and shift on the lensboard, and a back with limited tilt and swing. In other words it's built like a traditional rear-focusing "Reisekamera" of the kind that was popular around 1890 (I have one of those too, but in 13x18cm).

And guess what: At that size, the limited movements are more than I need!

 

[Dave Wooten]

ditto, what Sandy said.....the wide, the near to far, diagonal planes etc are the spice of 7 x 17..

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Sandy,

Thanks for your comments concerning lens coverage and back movements. In my haste to post my question, I overlooked that aspect. Coming from smaller formats where coverage isn't usually an issue, I hadn't thought of the implications on lens coverage imposed by a lack of rear standard movements.

As I shared with you in a PM, I currently have a 240mm Computar, a 355mm Symmar convertible (on the way), a 450mm Fujinon C (which may be replaced with a 450mm Nikkor M if I ever decide to move up to 12x20) and a 600mm Fujinon C for use on 7x17. Of these, the 355mm Symmar and the 600mm Fujinon should cover with tons to spare. Coverage would be more of an issue with the 240mm Computar and the 450mm Fujinon C (but not if I replace it with a 450mm Nikkor M). Still, I will have to carefully consider lens coverage if/when I build a 7x17 camera. Perhaps, as you suggest, a limited set of rear movements would be a good compromise.

Kerry

 

[David]

In 8x20 and 11x14 I use back movements all the time. For the fiddly bits of fine focussing, image placement and DOF they make life behind the ground glass pleasurable and alleviate frustration of arms too short or camera extension too long. I find that I can relax and enjoy the experience more if I'm not either wrestling with or frustrated by the equipment - this means a lot to me when making photographs. Of course, we can all learn to get by with limitations but if you have the option don't cut yourself short with minimal movements.

 

[scootermm]

Kerry
I havent been shooting 7x17 for long... but have shot ALOT in the short time. I use a F&S 7x17 so my movements are predominantly in the back, aside from front rise/fall.
If, like youve said, swing, tilt, shift, rise, fall were all available on the front then I, personally, would be ecstatic with a fully rigid rear standard.
I find I use the back tilt and front tilt alot when "simulating" more front rise. Often I will use swing in the back for bringing things into focus... but if these movements were available in the front it would negate their need in the rear.

In my day dreams the front would have a good ample amount of front rise to allow for the maximum coverage of the 355 G claron lens, it would allow enough swing tilt etc to use and facilitate these movements and the lens coverage. But honestly it seems like the back movements would really be needed.

the thoughts of a mere amateur....

 

[JG Motamedi]

One thing I have noticed using ULF is that my arms often can't reach the front standard, consequently I use back movements much more with my larger cameras.

 

[wfwhitaker]

I agree in principle with what Sandy advised regarding lens coverage. And as I prepare to rebuild my 7x17 for yet the third time (gonna get it right yet...) I have considered back movements more essential for a ULF banquet camera for that very reason.

However, in going back over my design and re-evaluating my own personal requirements, two items have come up which cause me to reconsider the necessity of rear movements. For one, 7x17 and banquet formats generally don't lend themselves to composition where a lot of movements will be used. In fact, I'd bet that if I had a 7x17 with no movements at all, I'd find it perfectly adequate for most situations for which I'd want to use that format. (There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of Patrick's 4x10 design.)

Secondly, 7x17 only makes visual sense to me when used with relatively short lenses as a panoramic camera. At least, for the vast majority of the time, I just can't see an image the shape of 7x17 using a focal length longer than normal. While this implies the more limited coverage of available wide-angle lenses, it also implies greater depth of field and perhaps less need for Scheimpflug. Thirdly (OK, I know... this is three items), in considering which lenses I have available to use with 7x17, any one of them has enough coverage to tolerate at least a mild front swing in case I'm trying to bring a vertical plane into focus.

Consequently I've decided to reconstruct my camera with no rear movements except for tilt (which is an almost unavoidable consequence of the folding design). The benefit should be a lighter, more rigid camera with less construction cost. The front will have the usual rise/fall and swing. It'll probably end up having shift, too, as that one is very easy to incorporate.

I realize that the above considerations are personal and are not for everybody. But I'm not building a camera for production and there's no point in making the construction process more complicated that it needs to be. It's true that at heart I'm a frustrated engineer, but ultimately I'd rather be a photographer. And besides, I can always rebuild it a fourth time and add rear swing.

 

[Steve Sherman]

As Sandy indicated, rear movements are much more friendly to preserving precious image circle when dealing with wide angle lens.

Also, on my F&S 7x17 I installed a second tripod mounting socket to accept the second tripod screw on a gitzo tripod, this allows quick and sturdy conversion to vertical orientation. When in a vertical mode you can image how close the foreground can get, the rear standard has a swing provision, or in the case of vertical orientation that swing would become back tilt, very important to carry focus.

In my opinion, what separates MAS panoramics is the fact he uses long lenses, sometimes 30" or more, give a unique angle of view in the panoramic perspective. I do wish when I had the bellows replaced on my F&S I would have opted for a 30" + bellows and had Richard Ritter make me a bed extension.

Cheers

 

[Billy Bob]

Aside from the movement issue of big concern when making any LF camera is the back and film holder. I have made a new back and film holder for my 30x40cm camera and I have to tell you it took all day just to figure out the sequence of cuts. I think there were like 15 operations or steps in making the film holder and you have to do it perfect and in the correct order. If you are only mildly handy just making the back alone can be very difficult. I'm not talking about the rear standard box and movement hardware that is pretty easy I mean the back that holds the film holder. I would suggest buying film holders first and then making a back to fit them as I think 7x17 holders are not standard sizes. You need to be expert level craftsman to make wood film holders and I had to have help there for sure. You also need a shaper and top notch tools as the cuts have to be utmost precision. I did it with my brother and the job drove him crazy. To make a decent camera you do need to be able to make good box joints. You can also find all the gears etc at smallparts.com. Or take the other suggestion and buy a used 8x10 and strip all the hardware and reconfigure it.