Favorite features of a view camera

[rorye]

Today I was lugging my big old Calumet camera around and realized that I'm really not enjoying shooting 8"x10" as much as I should.
Of course it's a slow, methodical, perhaps masochistic format but for me there's nothing like a nice contact print.
The problem is I'm constantly battling the physical aspects of the camera which is leading to me resenting it rather than enjoying the fact that I'm able to go out and shoot such a wonderful format. I've had several different models in the past 20 years, Wisner, Toyo, Kodak and Calumet and each one has frustrated me in it's own way. Lately it's just struggling with over tight, loose and just plain gnarly metal components.

So, I decided it's time to make my own.
Here's the things I'd like it to have-
Reasonable weight
Able to fold up and be carried with a handle
Some kind of padding/reinforcement on the baseboard so it doesn't spin on the tripod head
Smooth movements
33" of bellows, perhaps achieved with an extension so it's lighter when 33" is not needed
Bubble levels that are easily visible

So, what's important to you in a view camera?

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I like a rotating back. No worries about dropping it in the field and you don't have to worry about introducing dust / snow / mist when you're switching it either.

 

[munz6869]

Ability to fold up with the most used lens securely attached.

Marc!

 

[SMBooth]

Rigid when set up

 

[tony lockerbie]

Rotating back as well. My little Ebony doesn't have one, and I don't realize how much I miss until I go back to my Linhof. Now if the Linhof weighed the same as the Ebony...

 

[Vaughn]

Little thingy-bobbies on the bellows to keep the bellows from sagging.

 

[Dinesh]

I like the idea of incorporating a small beer fridge into the back of the camera.

 

[Vaughn]

I like the idea of incorporating a small beer fridge into the back of the camera.

I believe that comes standard on the 14x17 or larger models, I have to ask my friend, Jim, as I only go up to 11x14.

But as a custom camera, a possibilities opens up with a camera made of interchangable components. One could swap out the 33" bellows for a set half that length or so, as well as eliminate the extension. Exchangable backs -- a rigid lightweight back (no movements, or perhaps just tilt) that could be substituted for a full movement back to save weight and gain rigidity. You would have a full-featured monster of a camera, but could trim it down if you needed to walk it any great distance, or did not need the full extension and/or movements. You could even have a even lighter wide-angle version along these lines: https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3146.

My Zone VI 8x10 has 26" bellows and find that using short lenses (159mm, 210mm) can be a hassle with that much bellows.

Large front standard to be able to play with a large variety of lenses. The Zone VI uses 5.5"x5.5" (Sinar) boards and seems fine for most lenses I come across, but not the Rodenstock Apo-Ronar-CL 1:9 600mm. What a beast...it will sure test the design/construction of a front standard!

 

[Dr Croubie]

The Zone VI uses 5.5"x5.5" (Sinar) boards and seems fine for most lenses I come across, but not the Rodenstock Apo-Ronar-CL 1:9 600mm. What a beast...it will sure test the design/construction of a front standard!

I've had no problems with my 465/9 Apo-Ronar (465 is the same size as 600mm, mine's a 90mm-thread front-mounted) on a 158mm Toyo lensboard. Except, maybe, getting enough extension to focus any closer than infinity.
But then I'm using it on an all-metal Toyo, not a light-enough-to-hike folding or wooden camera...

 

[Simon Howers]

Weight!!!!
Almost anything else you can correct or allow for. I gave up lugging my Deardorff 10x8 around for just the thing you complain about. I bought a Chamonix WP - the negs are nearly as big and it weighs a fraction. I can now hike up a moor without collapsing!
Good luck

SimonH

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have cameras with both rotating (Linhof) and reversible (Sinar, 11x14" Amerian Optical) backs, and I actually prefer the less luxurious reversible back, as long as the fasteners are quick and easy to operate. A reversible back requires a simpler mechanism, and all other things being equal, adds less weight to the camera.

The only advantage I see to a rotating back is the possibility of straightening the horizon line after you've otherwise got a shot all set up without disturbing the other camera movements, but usually if I've gotten that far, I don't need to straighten the horizon line by rotating the back. I suppose a reversible back is easier to drop when changing between vertical and horizontal, but I haven't had that problem yet either.

You can go even lighter by having a camera that doesn't have any kind of rotating or reversible back, where you turn the camera on its side to change orientations, or like the Gowland (most of them--some have a reversible back), you have to unscrew the whole one-piece front frame/rear frame/bellows assembly attached to the standards with four bolts and rotate everything to change orientation, but I don't recommend that, unless you are making a panoramic camera, which doesn't lend itself to any kind of rotating back.

Tripod attachment: Think about a long Arca-Swiss type plate attached to two threaded tripod sockets. It definitely won't twist, is very stable, and lets you slide the camera back and forth in the clamp on the head to find the best balance point for the lens and bellows length you're using.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm planning to make my own field camera fairly soon, just waiting to move house & set up a workshop area.

My criteria are:

Light weight,
Compact, Ability to use WA lenses easily
Sufficient, front rise/fall and most importantly tilt, plus some front swing
Must accept a 6x17 back with ability to use a 75mm WA
5x4 back must be switchable but most likely non rotating.
Bellows will be max 30cm/12" possibly slightly shorter.

The idea is to have a camera that will allow me to shoot 5x4 as well as 617 as currently I often carry a dedicated 6x17camera as well as a Wista or Super Graphic. An extension 6x17 back isn't an option as they can't be used with WA lenses.

Ian

 

[ajmiller]

So, what's important to you in a view camera?

Front rise and tilt.

I'm just in the process of doing up a half plate camera to accept 5x7 film holders (they actually fit but need something to hold them in). 5x7 is a lovely format and the camera bought for £15 in a antique fair weighs about 1.6kg with lens and board.

 

[Vaughn]

I've had no problems with my 465/9 Apo-Ronar (465 is the same size as 600mm, mine's a 90mm-thread front-mounted) on a 158mm Toyo lensboard. Except, maybe, getting enough extension to focus any closer than infinity.
But then I'm using it on an all-metal Toyo, not a light-enough-to-hike folding or wooden camera...

Yeah, a 158mm board would be nice for the 600mm (mine are about 140mm). The retaining ring for the 600 is about 145 or so in diameter. But I have a more reasonable sized 24" RD Artar that goes back and forth between the 8x10 and the 11x14, but used by either not very much (the 19" RD Artar sees more use on both).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

clips to hook on a darkcloth so it stays put and doesn't get in the way or in front of the lens;and maybe a permanently attached cable releaseas well as a DOF scaleon the base board see attached example.

 

[removed account4]

ground glass that is easily removed and replaced,
spirit levels that aren't microscopic

 

[mandoloid]

I may get blasted for suggesting this but having noodled wet plate cameras lately I think I'll dispense with the spring back and go for the "book style" (hinged) method for installing the holders (wet, dry or film). Seems it would eliminate much of the strain on the camera mount and the rear standard. OK, fire away

 

[Vaughn]

I may get blasted for suggesting this but having noodled wet plate cameras lately I think I'll dispense with the spring back and go for the "book style" (hinged) method for installing the holders (wet, dry or film). Seems it would eliminate much of the strain on the camera mount and the rear standard. OK, fire away

Bail backs are nice that way -- not much strain on the camera.

But without the bail back, slamming home a film holder into a camera back just has a reassuring sound to it...sort of like pumping a round into a shotgun. A solid I-mean-business sort of sound.

 

[DannL.]

I'm very pleased with the 8x10 that I chose. It weighs just 5 lbs with the lens installed. Has the removable/rotating focusing screen for portrait or landscape orientation. It's 4-1/2 inches deep when folded up. It has all the basic adjustments that I need. It accepts both plate holders and film holders. It fits nicely in a small shoulder-bag with three holders and all the required accessories. And it's mahogany and brass.

Light weight, functional, portable, and perty. Sounds like the criteria for the perfect dance partner.

 

[rorye]

Wow, lots of great points to think about!

 

[WayneStevenson]

"lugging my big old Calumet camera around and realized that I'm really not enjoying shooting 8"x10" as much as I should."

Yeah. Your Calumet will do that. Even though it folds up nice, it's a pain to open up in the field. And it's around 25lbs with glass on the end before you add on tripod (which is heavy if it's holding a camera that size) and holders. Heh.

It's why I rarely shoot with mine. Since I bought my first 4x5 a few years ago. But every spring I say to myself it's going to change. But it never does. Heh.

It's my favorite camera though. This year I'm going to use it more.