Home Made 65mm Shift camera

Wishy · Apr 26, 2011

Hi,

Wonder if anybody can offer advice on a home made camera I've been considering.

I shoot mainly architecture. I use medium format, I want the convenience of rollfilm still, but there aren't really any medium format which offers much shift. (Which would obviously be handy for architecture)

I cant really find anything other than a full size monorail which offers what I want (I looked at a baby press, but some experiments with bodge tilt on the rollei SL66 shows the amount of shift I'll get won't be enough)
And as far as I can work out a full 5x4 with a rollfilm back isn't going to be even vaguely compact, and I'm looking at short bellows, recessed lens panels.
(Of course, any non home made suggestions are welcome!)

So, I figure I can build
- get 65mm 5x4 lens, which means I've got oodles of coverage, which means lots of shift. With a shutter, obviously!
- get a rollfilm back (Considering 6x7, and an RB67 back is often suggested as good and cheap. Experience welcome) and a 6x7 focus screen
- make the rest out of MDF

Limitations
Infinity focus only (Stop down to get additional depth of field)

Considerations
Dark bag is pulled out via elastic
Focus plane won't be exactly parrallel throughout the shift range, so will make the grove at an "off" angle to allow infinity focus throughout range

Things I'm not sure on
Lens - I'm considering a super angulon 65mm f5.6 or f8, which both give decent coverage and good shift. Any other lenses I should be considering?
Attaching the back - anybody got any suggestions on a good back to use.

This is the design, some people in the know having a look over it would be hugely appreciated

Dan Fromm · Apr 26, 2011

Be more ambitious. Learn about tailboard cameras, then design a little one. I think that all you want is decentering movements and that's where tailboards shine; they're not limited by bellows. I can understand why you want to give up swings (includes tilt, think about it), can't grasp why you think you can live without focusing.

Re lenses, if you search a little -- visit the LF forum, it has a better collection of articles than APUG -- you'll find that there are many fine w/a lenses for 4x5. If you start with a 65 mm lens -- fine, wonderful, by all means do -- you'll soon find situations where 65 mm isn't the right focal length. So design y'r box to use other focal lengths too.

Re backs, if you're going to use bits from an MF camera look into the Mamiya Press system. This because their S-shaped backs are said to hold film flatter than any other roll holders. I know, "said to" is hard to verify. They attach to what Mamiya calls an M-frame -- Graflok backs can be attached to any camera in the Press system with a G-frame -- and I believe Mamiya offered a ground glass that attaches to the M-frame too. Again, be more ambitious. 6x9 can be cropped to 6x7, 6x7 doesn't stretch well.

Also contemplate using, e.g., a 4x5 Cambo carrier frame for your back. I mention Cambo because I'm in that system, believe that other LF systems, in particular Sinar, offer much the same functionality and low cost. Cambo carrier frames -- part of normal ordinary Cambo standards -- are very inexpensive, Cambo International backs are reversible (can be attached in portrait or landscape orientation), have ground glass for focusing, and accept 6x7 and 6x9 roll holders. In other words, consider using bits from an LF camera instead of bits from an MF camera.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

Steve Smith · Apr 26, 2011

Not really what you want but there is a link in my signature line to my home made 65mm roll film camera.

Steve.

Wishy · Apr 26, 2011

Dan Fromm said:
Be more ambitious. Learn about tailboard cameras, then design a little one. I think that all you want is decentering movements and that's where tailboards shine; they're not limited by bellows. I can understand why you want to give up swings (includes tilt, think about it), can't grasp why you think you can live without focusing.

Re lenses, if you search a little -- visit the LF forum, it has a better collection of articles than APUG -- you'll find that there are many fine w/a lenses for 4x5. If you start with a 65 mm lens -- fine, wonderful, by all means do -- you'll soon find situations where 65 mm isn't the right focal length. So design y'r box to use other focal lengths too.

Re backs, if you're going to use bits from an MF camera look into the Mamiya Press system. This because their S-shaped backs are said to hold film flatter than any other roll holders. I know, "said to" is hard to verify. They attach to what Mamiya calls an M-frame -- Graflok backs can be attached to any camera in the Press system with a G-frame -- and I believe Mamiya offered a ground glass that attaches to the M-frame too. Again, be more ambitious. 6x9 can be cropped to 6x7, 6x7 doesn't stretch well.

Also contemplate using, e.g., a 4x5 Cambo carrier frame for your back. I mention Cambo because I'm in that system, believe that other LF systems, in particular Sinar, offer much the same functionality and low cost. Cambo carrier frames -- part of normal ordinary Cambo standards -- are very inexpensive, Cambo International backs are reversible (can be attached in portrait or landscape orientation), have ground glass for focusing, and accept 6x7 and 6x9 roll holders. In other words, consider using bits from an LF camera instead of bits from an MF camera.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

Thanks for the very helpful reply, much appreciated

-I intend to start quite simple. the expensive bit is the lens and the back. These parts are reusable, so if i start with something simple, and then look at making it more clever (Focus, etc). Also the MDF is cheap, quick to work and will fall apart quite quickly, so suits prototyping. I'll take a look into tailboard focus as that might not be a particularly complicated thing to do.
- Re focus, I shoot architecture and that tends to be at infinity. Otherwise I'll be extremely close and the tilt will then be of less use. I figure if i want to get closed I can stop down - It'll be on a tripod anyway. That's going to give me quite a "flat" looking image if I can't get differential focus
- One lens is a deliberate choice. If an image fits at 65mm then I can use shift and get some nice straight lines. If it doesn't work at 65mm I've got the rollei too do the job instead.
- Thanks for the advise on the mamiya press backs. Hopefully they should be easy enough to attach. 6x7 is a deliberate choice. I normally shoot 6x6. If i start shooting 3:2 ratio on the same day then my compositions go to ****. Also I want to be able to project the images, which will require a 6x6 crop. So 6x7 wastes a little film already.
- Will consider the cambo advice. Using a 5x4 back is going to add a lot of bulk immediately though.

Steve Smith said:
Not really what you want but there is a link in my signature line to my home made 65mm roll film camera.

Think this is a bit different to what I want, but interesting manufacturing

ic-racer · Apr 26, 2011

If you need more shift than a Horseman 6x9 field camera, then you will likely need a monorail and bag bellows. If your homemade camera cannot focus then you may be better of with a pinhole camera.

polyglot · Apr 26, 2011

There is a 75mm shift lens for RZ, not cheap though.

Diapositivo · Apr 27, 2011

Wishy, if you want to build your own camera, you have all my encouragement.
If all you need is a portable camera, able of shift movement, able of using middle format backs, I suggest you look into the Silvestri camera offer.
They have a model which is specifically designed for this kind of traveling architecture photography, the Silvestri H, with a separate viewfinder with shift compensation (mechanically linked to the lens) to make the work faster (you can use the ground glass as well).

Another option might be the Plaubel 69 ProShift.

I don't use any of those cameras myself but you asked for possible suggestions and I think the options above might be of your interest.

Fabrizio

Wishy · Apr 27, 2011

ic-racer said:
If you need more shift than a Horseman 6x9 field camera, then you will likely need a monorail and bag bellows. If your homemade camera cannot focus then you may be better of with a pinhole camera.

Pinhole is never going to give me the sharp image I want unfortunately. Also its not going to be much use when I want to compose the image through the ground glass!

polyglot said:
There is a 75mm shift lens for RZ, not cheap though.

There are shift lenses for the SL66 as well. Thing is they don't shift a huge amount and they're chuffing expensive!

Diapositivo said:
Wishy, if you want to build your own camera, you have all my encouragement.
If all you need is a portable camera, able of shift movement, able of using middle format backs, I suggest you look into the Silvestri camera offer.
They have a model which is specifically designed for this kind of traveling architecture photography, the Silvestri H, with a separate viewfinder with shift compensation (mechanically linked to the lens) to make the work faster (you can use the ground glass as well).

Another option might be the Plaubel 69 ProShift.

I don't use any of those cameras myself but you asked for possible suggestions and I think the options above might be of your interest.

Fabrizio

It'll be spending £2000 on these cameras before I blink. Don't get me wrong, lovely camera, and I'm sure given the small numbers they sell the price is justified, but if i can get similar functionality for a few hundred (Most of which is a lens I can sell at what I paid for it) then building will be my first option.
If I then love working with my home made camera, but find its limitations get in my way or i want something better made then I'll give this sort of camera some consideration

Steve Smith · Apr 27, 2011

Just because I was curious, I did a bit of sketching. If you assume that the Super Angulon 65mm can just about cover a 5x4 frame without movements then that is a 160mm diameter of coverage.

Placing a 6x9 frame in the centre leaves 37mm of available upward shift until the frame reaches the coverage circle.

Reducing to a 6x7 frame gives 43mm of movement.

Any coverage greater than the corners of a 5x4 frame can be considered a bonus and would relate to a little bit more rise.

I think you have a good idea with using an RB67 film back. The interface between the film back and the body of an RB67 is removeable and could easily be built onto a custom body with the added advantage of it being rotatable.

Steve.

Wishy · Apr 27, 2011

Steve Smith said:
Just because I was curious, I did a bit of sketching. If you assume that the Super Angulon 65mm can just about cover a 5x4 frame without movements then that is a 160mm diameter of coverage.

Placing a 6x9 frame in the centre leaves 37mm of available upward shift until the frame reaches the coverage circle.

Reducing to a 6x7 frame gives 43mm of movement.

Any coverage greater than the corners of a 5x4 frame can be considered a bonus and would relate to a little bit more rise.

I think you have a good idea with using an RB67 film back. The interface between the film back and the body of an RB67 is removeable and could easily be built onto a custom body with the added advantage of it being rotatable.

Steve.

Schneider very kindly put all the figures on their website
65mm 5.6 - http://www.schneideroptics.com/info...ormat_lenses/super-angulon/data/5.6-65mm.html
65mm f8 - http://www.schneideroptics.com/info..._format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-65mm.html

So 170mm image circle on the 5.6 and 155mm on the F8 (Although note that the 170mm on the 5.6 is at f22 and the 155mm on the f8 is at f16. I assume thats the "sweet spot" for each lens). There are calculations for available shift there too.

That's based on Schneider's figures, which I'm lead to believe tend to be conservative. IE I have >45mm of shift onto "prime real estate", and I'll probably get coverage at a reduced resolution beyond that.

One thing that has been pointed out is i might get light falloff - anybody care to comment on this being an issue?

Need to have a look at a back and work out how I'm going to stick it on. Think that might suit a camera fair

Steve Smith · Apr 27, 2011

Wishy said:
That's based on Schneider's figures, which I'm lead to believe tend to be conservative.

I think your'e right as they suggest it is for 6x9cm format which is very conservative for a 160-170mm image circle diameter.

A couple of years ago I started thinking about making a mini view camera to take RB67 backs. A defunct RB67 body with the back adaptor fitted would be a good place to start.

Steve.

ic-racer · Apr 28, 2011

Wishy said:
Pinhole is never going to give me the sharp image I want unfortunately. Also its not going to be much use when I want to compose the image through the ground glass!

If you are going to have a ground glass, then you will need to manufacture a method to fit the film back to the camera so it corresponds the the ground glass with quite some exacting precision. Closer tolerances than a 4x5 view camera. Even a major view camera company couldn't get it right ( (there was a url link here which no longer exists) )

If you focus your camera at 20 feet, then indeed, things at 20 feet will be sharp. Something 3 feet away, in that case, will be sharper with a pinhole camera.

The compact Horseman 6x9 view cameras can really be had cheap these days. I think it would be slick to get one and modify it into a special 'high rise' camera with a home-made bag bellows and and extension block under the front standard. That will give you a precision, universal Graflok back and the ability to focus. ( http://cgi.ebay.com/Horseman-980-Ra...lm_Cameras&hash=item48400de56e#ht_5708wt_1033 ) (Link points to a beautiful Horseman 980 with matching 90mm lens that sold on ebay 17 bids to only $317 USD)

Having said that, the standard camera does a pretty good job of perspective correction with the Horseman brand 65mm lens with its 152mm image circle (on 6x9 film).

Wishy · Apr 30, 2011

Ah, same point was raised when I initially looked at the design. The ground glass doesn't need to be especially accurate IF the camera is focus free - I just need to be able to see how the image is going to line up. Nothing more, as I'll have sorted out infinity focus way in advance.
Pinhole just isn't the look I'm after. I have pinholes already, I know what I'll get.

Weren't sure on the coverage on the Horseman - thats actually a lot better than I'd expected. But I'm not sure I want to hack apart a good camera in order to attach bag bellows. Just feels wrong somehow as the cameras have plenty of good life in them still!
My understanding is the 980 is a reasonable amount of shift on the 90mm lens, but it becomes much more of a problem at 65mm as you've got to pretty much fold the front standard into the body to get infinity.

Dan Fromm · Apr 30, 2011

Pardon my inability to remember which model Linhof you should look at. The front section of the top of some models of Technika folds up to allow useful front rise when the front standard is inside the box. There are two hints: Technika, useful modification to a Horseman.

How much front rise do you need?

And why don't you need good focus?

davido · Nov 17, 2013

Wishy,

It's 2 1/2 years later and I'm curious if you actually completed this project?

I've been considering myself building a 6x6 twin lens with 50-60mm meniscus lenses. It be like a Holga with a glass lens, but also with the ability to view the exact image; though, the lenses would be mounted in copal shutters resulting in having actual exposure control.
However, the short focal length of this lens might be prohibitive in building a conventional style twins lens with mirror (as the camera film to lens distance is too short). So a ground glass might have to suffice?
Your project is similar, and the closest idea I've seen to what I have in mind.

david

polyglot · Nov 17, 2013

davido: have you considered making a TL(not-)R ? Like a TLR but with NO mirror and GG on the back? You'd have a GG for viewing at the upper rear, with image reversed as per a view camera, and the film+taking lens directly below it. Sort of like two view cameras stacked on top of each other, one has a GG and the other has film. That way you can use lenses as short as you like as long as they cover the format.

If you're going to that much trouble though, I'd be tempted to put a tripod hole on the side and make the GG replaceable with a second back, which gets you a stereo camera...

See also the Toyo sliding backs, which have a GG and 6x7 back mounted on sliding rails. You slide the GG into the light, focus, slide the back across and then expose. That might be an easy basis for starting a simple camera build.

Jim Jones · Nov 17, 2013

Sometimes we concentrate on one small part of a problem instead of considering the whole project: cameras instead of images. If the goal is to project an image with an ultra wide angle lens onto film with most of the desired image off-center, we can either use a smaller piece of film properly located in the image plane, or use a large piece of film and use only the desired part of it. A 4x5 camera with perhaps a 47mm lens may be more practical than a smaller camera adapted to the same lens. Such cameras are readily available. At the apertures often used for architectural photography, the rather loose tolerances of sheet film holders is insignificant. The cost per exposure is higher for sheet film than for roll film, but this is trivial in relation to the total cost of producing most architectural photographs. The added weight and bulk of a 4x5 camera is a small part of a kit that includes a suitable tripod. However, using off-the-shelf cameras and lenses does deny the photographer the pleasure of designing and building a less practical outfit.

illumiquest · Nov 18, 2013

Have you considered a Fuji GX680? They have 15mm of shift and they're extremely affordable now.

davido · Nov 19, 2013

Polyglot,

Yes, a TL with no mirror but a ground glass on the back, you have explained my idea far more clearly.
I'm thinking now of using an A12 hassy back (as the older back you can actually wind themselves- and use the window in the back to watch the frame numbers). It would be nice to keep the camera as streamlines as I can (rather than using sliding backs or even a graflok style back)
The trick is how to mount the back to the wood camera? Perhaps finding a hasselblad junker and ripping the back cover off and using that?
I did find online a home made camera called a Stenoblad which uses a hassy back mounted with an aluminum plate. Not sure how well that actually works? But I've emailed the chap and waiting to hear back.
His site is http://www.fougougou.com/camera/stenoblad.html. He's put together some other fun home made jobs. Check it out!
I've attached a picture of his 'Stenoblad'.

david

Home Made 65mm Shift camera

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency