Big Bertha

[Dan Fromm]

The lens has plenty of coverage for a much larger format than 5x7", but put it on an SLR with a long barrel, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some mechanical vignetting at wide apertures, just because of the way the mount is constructed. It's not like having a tapered or square bellows with no obstructions between the lens and the film.

What's needed is easy to describe for a straight tube: tube's diameter >= format's diagonal.

A conical tube has to have diameter at rear >= format's diagonal and diameter at front >= lens' exit pupil.

 

[billbretz]

Looks like that's a night game, too, which must have been even more of a challenge.

I think it just looks like a night game because flash was used to light the dim area in the overhang were the photographers were.

I don't know if the cameras would have been practical at all for night games - figure a f5 max aperture, film speed would probably have to be around 6400 to stop any action (and the shutter speed would probably be 1/250th at best. Were those film speeds possible then?

Modern stadium lighting, pro venues included, can range from 1/500th, f2.8 at 3200 to 1/1000th, at 1250, give or take.

Night games were the exception, World Series included.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What's needed is easy to describe for a straight tube: tube's diameter >= format's diagonal.

A conical tube has to have diameter at rear >= format's diagonal and diameter at front >= lens' exit pupil.

Exactly, and looking at how these cameras are constructed, the inside diameter of the tube is likely to be about 7", while the diagonal of the 5x7 frame is about 8.5".

 

[steven_e007]

Exactly, and looking at how these cameras are constructed, the inside diameter of the tube is likely to be about 7", while the diagonal of the 5x7 frame is about 8.5".

Yes, and if the tube was taken right up to the film plane there would be an image circle of 7", hence quite a bit of vignetting on a 5 X 7"

But, the tube stops where the 'box' of the camera starts - maybe 6 inches or so from the film. From this point it can continue to expand to the size of the negative.

As long as the cone of image forming light is still less than 7" in diameter at the point where the tube meets the body, then it shouldn't be vignetted.

 

[manet]

Thanks a lot to sharing.
I learn all days

 

[Joe O'Brien]

What kind of neck strap should I look for when I pick one of these up?

 

[1930artdeco]

Not quite as big, but I still need a tripod.

Mike

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Not quite as big, but I still need a tripod.

Mike

haha very cool! I like your side tables too!

 

[brian d]

Not quite as big, but I still need a tripod.

Mike

Me too

 

[1930artdeco]

Here is the other one I use with a standard lens and the modified one with a standard and the 15" lens. They are both ex military, I am guessing from WW II. Newt_on_swings, thanks they are antique Chinese from my Great Grandfather.

Mike

 

[1930artdeco]

Lets try again.

 

[John R.]

Thanks to the OP for the great post! Very enjoyable thread.

 

[jimgalli]

5X7 ~ 4X5 didn't matter as the papers would crop what they wanted out of whatever size neg the photog brought them. I would think 5X7 might increase your "chances".

Here's a page from a 1959 (I think) Burke and James Cat. $800 1959 bucks would stagger you now I suppose

 

[bdial]

That's intresting, I didn't realize the SLR Graflexes were that recent.

 

[wy2l]

$800 in 1959 is equivalent to about $6,225 in 2011. See http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Kris