Korona 7x17 Panoramic vs Korona 5x12 Banquet

[Leffler]

I have a question about the differences and relative values of these two cameras. Any assistance would be appreciated. On the one hand the cost of an excellent camera for both configurations is of interest to me. The film availability and luggability is another consideration. However, the relative cost to purchase and availability of both the 7x17 and 5x12 is what I'm primarily interested in now. Is there a copy of McBrooms out there? My understanding is that the 7x17 (sans lens) is approx. $1500 (give or take) and I don't know about the 5x12. Anyone know? Is one camera more rare than the other.

Thank you for any information!

 

[doughowk]

I picked up a Korona 7X17 relatively cheap on eBay; but it needed alot of work. After some sweat equity, its currently very useful (bellows will eventually need replacing). Film for 7X17 is available. Finding Lens with good coverage may be an issue.

 

[bliorg]

Think Igor had a Korona 5x12 a while back that sold for $1450. FWIW, I'm finding the 5x12 contact prints a little small for my liking.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

5x12 vintage cameras are fairly uncommon. The downside is that since there was no ANSI standard whatever with the ULF/panoramic cameras, if your 5x12 does not come with film holders, you're going to have the camera out of commission for an extended period of time while S&S or AWB makes new holders to match your camera. This is less a problem with vintage 7x17 cameras, because it seems that there are a lot more of them out there, and the holders are more standardized and more available. If you want to go with a modern 5x12, however, AWB and S&S make film holders on a scheduled basis to fit the Canham 5x12 back, so you are guaranteed a good fit. I shoot 5x12 and this is the route I went for my 5x12. I have the Canham back that fits on my 5x7 woodfield, and three matching AWB holders. The modern outfit was $3k for the back, bellows, and three holders. If you went with a classic 5x12, if you could find one, you'd be looking at similar money, plus a six month downtime while either your back was adapted or the film holders made to fit.

 

[Colin Graham]

5x12 is considerably more uncommon, at least by ebay and used gear reseller standards. I've only seen one Korona 5x12 for sale. I was weighing 5x12 vs 7x17 for awhile before I decided on 5x12...Make some prints of each size format you're interested in, hang them on the wall for awhile, then pursue the format you like best. Very simple and it really works. Before doing this I was all set to build a 7x17, then after living with some prints for a couple of weeks decided I liked 5x12 much more.

 

[jgjbowen]

Film for 7X17 is available. Finding Lens with good coverage may be an issue.

I use the following lenses with my Richard Ritter 7x17. 305 G Claron, 355 G Claron, 450 Nikkor M and 600 Fujinon C. All are modern, readily available and provide adequate to excellent coverage for 7x17. The 450 Nikkor seems to get the most use on my camera.

Welcome to ULF,

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another upside to 5x12 is that a LOT of lenses for 8x10 will cover 5x12. I've got a number of fantastic optics to fit it. From widest to longest:

159mm f12.5 Wollensak W.A. Raptar - covers, with limited movement, gets soft in the corners pretty fast, but with a 159, who needs movements it's so wide!

210 f6.8 Graphic Raptar - another wonderfully tiny lens with huge coverage - I can apply full rise on my 5x12 and not run out of image circle.

250 f6.7 Fujinon - it covers, with not a lot to spare, but it covers, and it is much smaller than my big Nikon 240, so it travels well.

300 f6.3 Commercial Ektar - what a great lens. 'Nuff said.

I dream about getting the Nikon 450m to use on both the 5x12 and the 5x7.

 

[Bandicoot]

I dream about getting the Nikon 450m to use on both the 5x12 and the 5x7.

Just wondering, any particular reason to want that partticular lens rather than one of the (it seems to me) more common 420mm versions? (I have a 420mm Schneider Repro-Claron that I like very much.)


Peter

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

the 450M will cover up to 12x20, and it comes in a Copal 3 shutter. Actually, the 450 M is a very common lens.

 

[jgjbowen]

the 450M will cover up to 12x20, and it comes in a Copal 3 shutter. Actually, the 450 M is a very common lens.

Yeah, about 1 1/2 years ago, when I got mine, there were 5 listed on Ebay that all closed within a day or two of each other. Needless to say, I think I got a GREAT deal on my 450 M.

 

[Deckled Edge]

I have named my 7x17 Korona "Shakey Jake". Like many aged ULF cameras it suffers from a marked lack of stability at multiple sites. No amount of tightening will keep the front rail even with the base. The front standard wobbles backwards under the pull of the bellows. The rear standard perches above the base on stilts that allow unintended forward tilt. Nonetheless it takes fabulous images. I love the 7x17 print size even though they don't fit in my print washer. I just bought a Folmer & Schwing 7x17 that I hope will improve on the Korona's deficiencies, but I'm enough of a realist to know what 85 years does to precision machinery.
BTW, your Korona better have the rear rail included if you plan to use a 450/460 mm lens. Mine doesn't and I can't. The 355 mm Gold Dot Dagor, however, is a superstar. I find any lens less than 250 mm to be "too wide on the wide". Just my taste.

 

[colrehogan]

Just wondering, any particular reason to want that partticular lens rather than one of the (it seems to me) more common 420mm versions? (I have a 420mm Schneider Repro-Claron that I like very much.)


Peter

Peter,
There is no particular reason to use want one particular lens for a format than another. I have both the 420 mm Repro-Claron and the 450 Nikkor-M. I have tried both on my 5x12 and they work fine. The 450 is my choice for most of my shooting with that format though. I did use my 420 during a workshop last summer when I was too close to get the shot I wanted with the 450. So it is nice to have a range of lenses.

Diane

 

[JLP]

I just bought a Folmer & Schwing 7x17

Deckled Edge, If this is the F&S that sold a few days ago, you bought a beautiful camera. I was watching it and thought it would sell for more than it did. Enjoy.


jan

 

[Deckled Edge]

JLP
Yup. That was me. I've lusted after an F&S since the first time I laid eyes on one. I have great hopes. I'll post my findings when I've had a chance to campaign with it a while.

 

[JLP]

Deckled Edge, Lucky you. If i didnt' have a new 8x10 coming in a couple of months i would have been in a bidding war with you

It is rare to see an old camera like your F&S in this kind of condition, hope to see some great photos in the future.


jan

 

[Deckled Edge]

The Folmer & Schwing arrived today. Wow. Workmanship is incredible and it's *tight*. Smooth and silky focus using the big wooden knobs. Only problem is that there is no rib-lock channel in the back. I'll have to rout one if I want to use my S&S holders. I have an ancient holder with no rib, and the camera came with a no-name holder in fine shape that has a small rib moved far enough down the holder that it engages the inside of the back, not a channel. Kinda hate to make sawdust from this queen, but if I'm gonna burn Efke, I'll need all my holders. Scan of first image(s) to follow.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have named my 7x17 Korona "Shakey Jake". Like many aged ULF cameras it suffers from a marked lack of stability at multiple sites. No amount of tightening will keep the front rail even with the base.

Do you have the stabilizers that mount underneath the camera? If you don't, I could post some pictures. They would be simple to make. I think Tsuyoshi Ito ("Shinnya" on APUG) made his. The rails won't stay level without them.

 

[photomc]

The Folmer & Schwing arrived today. Wow. Workmanship is incredible and it's *tight*. Smooth and silky focus using the big wooden knobs. Only problem is that there is no rib-lock channel in the back. I'll have to rout one if I want to use my S&S holders. I have an ancient holder with no rib, and the camera came with a no-name holder in fine shape that has a small rib moved far enough down the holder that it engages the inside of the back, not a channel. Kinda hate to make sawdust from this queen, but if I'm gonna burn Efke, I'll need all my holders. Scan of first image(s) to follow.

Congratulations on the new F&S, scootermm had one of these and it was indeed a nice camera (he moved up to the 12x20 big brother of the F&S 7x17). As I recall, rather than alter the camera he altered the rib on the S&S holders, so you might consider that option. Send Matt a PM, I know he would be happy to discuss it with you. Have fun!!

 

[Nick Zentena]

FWIW I asked Chamnoix about reducing backs. It seems to me the combination of a reducing back and one of their other ULF cameras will be a good option instead of the high cost that some rare older cameras command.

I need to draw/cut up some paper to 5.5"x14" to see just how I might like the format. Of course if the "darkroom" didn't have two windows and generally look like a badly organized storage locker I might crop some prints.

 

[Deckled Edge]

Congratulations on the new F&S, scootermm had one of these and it was indeed a nice camera (he moved up to the 12x20 big brother of the F&S 7x17). As I recall, rather than alter the camera he altered the rib on the S&S holders, so you might consider that option. Send Matt a PM, I know he would be happy to discuss it with you. Have fun!!

It's done. I posted 3 photos of the setup and the finished groove. In addition to the lack of a groove, the holder area was stained wood, where I prefer flat black paint. The S&S ribs are not tall, so a shallow groove sufficed. The old carpenter's adage "measure twice and cut one" was far outdone today, as I must have measure 15 times before I attacked this antique with a 17,000 rpm bit.
Here are the three photos, for those whose interest exceeds their initiative to go to the gallery.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Nice job!

 

[sanking]

Congratulations on the new F&S, scootermm had one of these and it was indeed a nice camera (he moved up to the 12x20 big brother of the F&S 7x17). As I recall, rather than alter the camera he altered the rib on the S&S holders, so you might consider that option. Send Matt a PM, I know he would be happy to discuss it with you. Have fun!!

In my opinion it is much better practice to put a groove in the camera back rather than attempt to alter holders. For one thing, you make one change on the back, and that is it. If you mess with the holders you have to alter them twice for however many you have.

The F&S is a great old camera but very much an odd-ball with regard to the rib on the camera back and the groove on the holders. The only reason to stay with the original configuration, IMO, is if you already have three or four F&S holders and simply want to add one or two more.

Otherwise, just change the back. I am surprised how many people feel that this is somehow mutilating the camera. In fact, most F&S cameras that I have seen have already been so altered because F&S holders are very rare.

The only time I would recommend not doing this would be in the case of a camera in Mint+ condition that would have more collectible than user value. I actually had a Korona like that at one time, and sold it because I did not want to use it and destroy the value. But very few banquet cameras are in that kind of condition.


Sandy King