If There was a current 5x8 camera...

[fotoman]

Ok, like we don't already have enough to do...

we (Fotoman Camera) were just about to start design of a 57PS camera to round out that series, and then I saw the previous 5x8 posting.... whirl... whirl... whirl. What are your thoughts about a Fotoman 58PS camera? It would be able to shoot 4x5, 5x7 or 5x8. Let me pre-empt one objection by saying we will be able to supply film holders for 5x7 and 5x8... built just like the Fidelity film holders.

 

[Steve Hamley]

Just an idea, but why not make it 6-1/2"x8-1/2'? This size was standard plate size at one time with holders still around, and you could possibly shoot 4x5, 5x7, or 5x8. Take this with a large grain of salt...

Steve

 

[wfwhitaker]

Another vote for 6 1/2 x 8 1/2. Only slightly larger, but a beautiful and historic format. And did you say you'd be able to supply holders??

 

[Dave Parker]

There seems to be quite few 6.5 x 8.5 cameras still around, I know we do a lot of screens in that format and it seems to be increasing...so might be something to consider...

Dave

 

[cperez]

A 57PS would be great. Film holders are readily available.

In my mind, a 5x8 would be a very interesting, but in a narrow niche market. If you could do it and make the kind of money you need as ROI, great.

I have been lusting after a 6.5 x 8.5. Alas, film holders are anything but standardized. Do we smell opportunity?

If you did this, I sure hope you would offer attractively priced new film holders too. That might be the ultimate trick: Attractively priced new film holders in "odd" formats.

Oh, and if you offer the camera backs separately and keep them attractively priced too, then I could easily see several ways of adapting the formats to existing equipment and/or to build my own cameras with bellows.

I hope you will keep us "in the loop" and "up to date" with where you're headed with all this.

Lastly, if you had a 57PS with 110XL and 180Nikkor adapters, I'd probably be knocking your door down today to get at it. 5x7 is just a wonderful format.

 

[jimgalli]

Another VOTE for 6.5X8.5 and I hope that doesn't nix the 5X8 idea either. New holders for both formats would be fantastic.

 

[pgomena]

I like the idea of 5x8. It's easy to cut down from 8x10, and is close to the "golden rectangle" proportion. I've also seen 5x8 in historical collections, and it's a neat semi-panorama format. Makes for a nice contact sheet. I've been thinking of making a 5x8 pinhole camera "just because I can . . ."

Peter Gomena

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I've been shooting 5"x8" in a falling-plate pinhole camera for several years now. The nice thing about this format is being able to purchase 8"x10" material and cut it in half, with no waste. Also, the aspect ratio is very close to the 'Golden Mean'. Although it seems to work best for landscapes; for still-lifes I prefer a bit closer to square.

 

[big_ben_blue]

i wouldn't mind a 5x8 camera, but would really love a 6.5x8.5.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

another vote for 6.5x8.5 . Great format, great size. I'd love to have film holders available in that size, especially if they're not ridiculously expensive.

 

[big_ben_blue]

EVERYONE seemingly loves the full plate format. So how did it come that the format almost died out in the first place?

 

[pelerin]

Hi,
I think a Fotoman 5x8 (and 5x7) would be wonderful. I think new reasonably priced 5x8 (and 5x7) holders would be wonderful. I think sizing it to accomodate full plate and using a 5x7 (or 5x8) reducing back would be a bummer.
Celac.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have been lusting after a 6.5 x 8.5. Alas, film holders are anything but standardized. Do we smell opportunity?...

My 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 camera just arrived yesterday, the end of a long adventure that started with film holders. Since there never was an ANSI/ISO standard for wholeplate, I had Lotus base these on its 8x10 holders, simply reducing length and width enough to accommodate the largest nominal film dimensions (plus cutting tolerances) supplied by Ilford and J&C. Thickness, T-depth and lock rib location remain unchanged from the 8x10 version. If Fotoman pursues manufacture of wholeplate cameras and/or holders I'd suggest a similar approach.

Ironically, yesterday's thread announcing a new Ilford special order period was on the same day I finally got a camera enabling use of my wholeplate FP4 Plus from the first batch! Time to get shooting. I encourage you all to seriously consider this "perfect" format.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I would very much like to find a source for one consistent set of 6.5x8.5 film holders, as I am in the process of building a camera of that format on to which I want to mount my new (to me) 1860 Jamin Darlot petzval lens. I've got a project I'd love to try out in January with it. Other than Lotus, who could produce these for me, and any idea on the cost?

 

[Oren Grad]

EVERYONE seemingly loves the full plate format. So how did it come that the format almost died out in the first place?

Sometimes people lose sight of the eternal verities, and it takes a new generation to discover them once more.

Congratulations, Sal - happy shooting!

Although there were many different makers of 6.5x8.5 cameras and some of their holder standards were different, at least in my experience the most commonly seen antique holders on the market are Eastmans. As far as general size and rib lock location, I've found that my Eastman holders have fit fine in Gundlach and Century cameras as well as my Eastman No. 2. I've not critically checked the T-depth, though.

For anyone who's been staying up nights wondering, the Japanese "yatsugiri" format appears to be semi-compatible, at least if the Rittreck View yatsugiri adapter back is representative. The holders for that back won't fit in the Eastman back - they're a bit too long. The shorter Eastman holders will fit in the Rittreck back but the picture area ends up just a bit decentered on the long dimension. Again, I haven't checked the T-depth yet.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Congratulations, Sal - happy shooting!...

Thanks Oren!

I would very much like to find a source for one consistent set of 6.5x8.5 film holders...Other than Lotus, who could produce these for me, and any idea on the cost?

I selected Lotus based on what appeared to be best availalble quality combined with a tolerable lead time. In the quantity I ordered, their price was comparable to that of Lotus' 8x10 holders. Other typical suppliers, such as S&S and Brubaker could also produce them. In addition, you might want to check with Kerry Thalmann concerning the new line of holders he'll likely be importing. I don't know if they'll make custom sizes, but it's worth looking into.

 

[Tom Duffy]

5x8, or a multiple thereof has become one of my favorite print sizes. I often wish that when formats were being "invented" that someone simply cut an 8x10 piece of film in half. Now that I use a 5x7 enlarger, I don't know where the advantage would be.

 

[cperez]

I bought a 5x8 sliding 8x10 back for my Deardorff from Andrew Glover. I too have become enamoured with the 5x8 size. But I'm even more enamoured with the 5x7 format too. So if what Fotoman is proposing ever sees the light of day, it might be "interesting" to have the 5x7/5x8 combination in a single camera.

I understand the "full plate" might make the camera a little bigger than some people would like. However, if someone in China were to offer a high quality light weight 6.5 x 8.5 bellows camera with a strong supply of film holders, I'd be sorely tempted.

5x8, or a multiple thereof has become one of my favorite print sizes. I often wish that when formats were being "invented" that someone simply cut an 8x10 piece of film in half. Now that I use a 5x7 enlarger, I don't know where the advantage would be.

 

[fotoman]

Well this is a surprise to us... 6.5x8.5? We had no idea this format was so sought after. Our intention for a 5x7 is ergonomic by nature. Our 45PS is emminently small, light and portable. I can carry it all day slung over my shoulder with no more effort than carrying a DSLR. Our 810PS is... uh... bigger. A 5x7 (or potential 5x8) seemed to us a the perfect middle ground... (1.75 the mass of a 4x5, and .44 the mass of an 8x10), with film and holders already reasonably available.

A 6.5x8.5 wouldn't be all that much less mass (.69) than an 8x10, and the aspect ratio is quite similar to 8x10 (1:1.3 vs. 1:1.25). So what is it about 6.5x8.5 that everyone find's so attractive?

The reason I ask, is that from a maufacturing standpoint our PS series of cameras is reasonably scaleable. We could manufacture a small run of almost any envelope, say 20 units... though based on a bellows, not cones assemblies. We are currently working on our Bellows Adapters for the PS camera series, all of which will have the identical front standard... all that changes will be the bellows itself.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

the 6.5 x 8.5 has people's interest because it is still significantly less camera mass than an 8x10, but not radically less film area. Also, the proportions are nice. Not quite golden mean nice, but still...
Also, part of the interest would definitely be in finding a source for 6.5 x 8.5 film holders that does not take 9+ months and cost $250 apiece. If you could make film holders in that size for $100 each or less, I think you could go a long way to helping revive the format.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Well this is a surprise to us... 6.5x8.5? We had no idea this format was so sought after...A 5x7 (or potential 5x8) seemed to us a the perfect middle ground...So what is it about 6.5x8.5 that everyone find's so attractive?...

First, 5x7 is not perfect because, in my opinion, it's still too small for contact prints to be framed and hung (and I've been to Strand exhibits). To quote someone else I know who is having a wholeplate camera and holders built, the difference in "wall presence" between that size and 5x7 is amazing. Increasing interest in alternative processes means many are working with contact prints.

As to what is so attractive about 6 1/2 x 8 1/2, there are three key points. First is volume. Carrying this equipment on one's back means it's all got to fit in a backpack, and a lot more can be squeezed in than with 8x10. Second, weight considerations include not only the camera but holders and lenses. My new Lotus holders weigh 13 1/2 oz. each, substantially less than 8x10 holders. Last, but definitely not least, I find the aspect ratio just about perfect. 8x10 is too square and 5x7 too rectangular for my taste.

I never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but there are already plenty of choices in 5x7. You could distinguish Fotoman and capture what appears to be a substantial market by introducing a reasonably priced 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 camera and holders. If you do, it seems worthwhile to repeat my suggestion about basing them on the ISO 8x10 T dimension and lock rib location. Should your research reveal a different preference, go with whichever holder style potential buyers prefer. At this point I'm most interested in seeing a rebirth of the format and strong film sales!

 

[phfitz]

Hi there,

"You could distinguish Fotoman and capture what appears to be a substantial market by introducing a reasonably priced 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 camera and holders."

Sal has a very good point there BUT 5x8 is 1 cut across 8x10 film. Both 5x7 and 6.5X8.5 would need 2, more chance for damage, finger prints and dust. 5X8 would just open the door for COLOR film. That and 5X8 is just about PERFECT aspect-wise.

Just a thought.

 

[cperez]

Ilford will cut 6.5 x 8.5 special order (from the ads J&C is running right now). So for me, thinking about this odd format isn't as, well, odd as it first seems. I buy my 5x7 from Ilford and LOVE their FP4+ in both D76 and Rodinal. So moving to 6.5 x 8.5 wouldn't be a films "unknown". Similary, I don't mind cutting (one cut) 8x10 to get to 5x8.

As for the size, it's just slightly larger than some 5x7 (assuming a bellows camera). I recently saw a 5x7 Japanese camera (Wistrek??? gads this isn't right, I can't remember what it was called) that offered a 6.5 x 8.5 back. It was SMALLER than my 5x7 Linhof!

The Truth in Advertising is this: I'm a cheapskate. If a new 6.5 x 8.5 camera were well north of $1500, I wouldn't buy it. Couldn't afford it. But if the back and rear frames were available for an accessable price, then I could adapt it to an old 6.5 x 8.5 camera if needs be. This, just as a means of keeping the price down because I'm assuming that film holders for the format would start around $80 to $100 new.

If the camera builder could get their ROI on small runs, wonderful! In any event, I'm keeping my eyes open for a camera maker in China or South East Asia who could take up this kind of project (6.5 x 8.5), keep the price attractive, and still make the kinds of money they'd need to stay in business.

For me, I LOVE the way a person can get "up close and personal" with a 4x5, 5x7, 5x8, or 6.5 x 8.5 contact print. I find "gallery" hangings to be a "team sport" in that more than one person can look at something at the same time. But sharing my work with other individuals tends to be more gratifying when done on a smaller contact print scale.

 

[Oren Grad]

Well this is a surprise to us... 6.5x8.5? We had no idea this format was so sought after. Our intention for a 5x7 is ergonomic by nature. Our 45PS is emminently small, light and portable. I can carry it all day slung over my shoulder with no more effort than carrying a DSLR. Our 810PS is... uh... bigger. A 5x7 (or potential 5x8) seemed to us a the perfect middle ground... (1.75 the mass of a 4x5, and .44 the mass of an 8x10), with film and holders already reasonably available.

A 6.5x8.5 wouldn't be all that much less mass (.69) than an 8x10, and the aspect ratio is quite similar to 8x10 (1:1.3 vs. 1:1.25). So what is it about 6.5x8.5 that everyone find's so attractive?

The reason I ask, is that from a maufacturing standpoint our PS series of cameras is reasonably scaleable. We could manufacture a small run of almost any envelope, say 20 units... though based on a bellows, not cones assemblies. We are currently working on our Bellows Adapters for the PS camera series, all of which will have the identical front standard... all that changes will be the bellows itself.

Paul - 6.5x8.5 is extremely cool. If you go for it, please do NOT model the holders after the Tachihara Hope "yatsugiri" holders that you'll find in Japan - those don't fit in older American 6.5x8.5 cameras. I would suggest copying the Eastman type holders.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...5x8 is 1 cut across 8x10 film. Both 5x7 and 6.5X8.5 would need 2, more chance for damage, finger prints and dust...

Considering Ilford sells 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 film as part of its annual special order program, that size requires zero cuts.