large format starter camera

[Dan Fromm]

how would i make a cambo compatible with an ilex 127mm f4.5 or a tele megor 400, as they use different lens boards (i think)?

Um, the Ilex was made for a 3x4 Press camera, barely covers 4x5. Not a good short normal lens for 4x5 because it allows no movements. There are many many more-or-less normal lenses for 4x5, Schneider Symmars (plain Symmars with no suffix) are relatively inexpensive and not bad.

If you're determined to use the Ilex on a 4x5 Cambo, you'll have to find a Cambo lens board that's drilled to accept it -- what shutter is it in? -- or drilled smaller so the hole can be enlarge to suit. Cambo lens boards are metal castings with integral light traps, making one isn't a good idea.

Re the 400 Tele-Megor, I checked and was surprised to learn that the lens will indeed cover 4x5. If it is shutter, you need to have it and its shutter put on a board that's been drilled to accept the shutter. If it isn't in shutter, it will be very hard to use on a Cambo because the Cambo is shutterless.

Nearly all of us think very hard before buying pur first press, technical, or view camera. Nearly all of us learn what we really want/need by using that first camera and replace it within a year. Whatever decision you make, except not to get one at all, will probably be wrong. Go ahead, but keep that in mind.

 

[Jim Jones]

if i went with the cambo i would need this for older lenses: http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/eng/product/cambo_flat_lensboard_drilled_for_copal_3/386-652a. . . .

You might need it, but you don't have to pay so much. Make your own, or have a friend do it for you. I even made one out of mat board so a friend could test a lens. Not durable, but fine for brief use.

 

[keithwms]

Lensboards are very easy to make. Go to a hardware store and show them what you want and they'll probably drill the right hole for you on the spot. Or just buy a holesaw kit for a drill.

The hole sizes don't need to be perfect and you can make the boards out of wood.

I get the giggles when I see $100+ lensboards for sale. Maybe I am in the wrong business.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Nearly all of us think very hard before buying pur first press, technical, or view camera. Nearly all of us learn what we really want/need by using that first camera and replace it within a year. Whatever decision you make, except not to get one at all, will probably be wrong. Go ahead, but keep that in mind.

I didn't think much, and started with a New Vue. Even that was enough to teach me the basics.

 

[pollux]

i could make one myself with a router drill bit and some wood from a hardware store. i just set the drill to 61mm diameter and cut one.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Graflex-Graphic-View-4-X-5-Monorail-Camera-Outfit-Red-Bellows-/160697878766?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item256a5708ee

how does this look?, with the advantage that the filter holder goes infront of the lens, freeing you from buying different filters for each lens.

 

[pollux]

dan thanks. this rules out the ilex then.

the tele megor is on a small metal board. i'm hoping i can use it, as the aperture blades at the rear would make nice pointed stars.

 

[Ian Grant]

Why are you looking at importing a an old 5x4 camera when you could get a better camera cheaper in the UK ? The Kodak127mm Extar isn't designed for 5x4 either, it barely covers with no room for movements.

Is there a reason you've ruled out a field camera like a Wista or similar, I do have a monorail camera but rarely use it as my Wista has always had enough movements for even quite demanding work and is more prtable.

Ian

 

[pollux]

well you're right, through more research those wide lenses will not cover 5x4 with movements to do a nice photo of a stream on a slow shutter speed, or with a dropped front element to show perspective on a road etc. i have seen a cambo with all the gear with a lens for a good price.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/120823022523?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

does this appear like a pretty good deal to everyone? I will enjoy being able to use front screw in filters with this lens, for colour correction etc.

 

[pollux]

with a lisco film holder i have, this means i would have 7 holders to start out, which is quite enough.

 

[Ian Grant]

You need to do somehomework.

For £640 this UK member got a very nice Sinar F1 with three lense and plenty of extras, I looked at the ebay listing. That Cambo would cost you £544 + shipping approx £25 minimum and then over 25% taxes on top, so at least £710 so way too much.

I've seen great Cambo's sell for about £140 recently in the UK, and a good 150mm MC lens should be easy to find for about £150, Peter Walnes sell darkslides for about £5 each if you buy 6.

Ian

 

[keithwms]

With LF I sometimes put the filter on the backside of the lens, i.e. inside the bellows. Obviously this is done so that you can soave some money on the filter size, but also to save on multicoated filters- if the filter is inside the bellows then you don't need multicoating.

Much of the fun of LF is that you get to kludge things with rubber bands, foil, duct tape and superglue and still get results that blow most modern cameras out of the water.

 

[John NYC]

If the filter is inside the bellows then you don't need multicoating.

That is like saying that the only coated element you need in a lens is the front one. Coatings on all surfaces in a lens have an effect on flare, contrast, etc.

 

[keithwms]

That is like saying that the only coated element you need in a lens is the front one. Coatings on all surfaces in a lens have an effect on flare, contrast, etc.

Well of course all surfaces have some effect... but not an equal effect. There is no element behind a rear-mounted filter. Also, light impinging on a rear-mounted filter will do so perpendicular ot its axis- the light is well collimated due to the aperture. The largest effects are very clearly that from the front element. Go ahead and pay astronomical prices for large multicoated front filters if you don't believe me.

Hood on the front, filter on the back, money in the pocket.

 

[pollux]

I discovered the ilex lens is 190mm, so this WILL cover 4x5 with some movement. Definately thinking of the graphic view right now, as I think I could use the tele megor and the ilex anastigmat. Hopefully these lenses have real soul.

 

[John NYC]

Well of course all surfaces have some effect... but not an equal effect. There is no element behind a rear-mounted filter. Also, light impinging on a rear-mounted filter will do so perpendicular ot its axis- the light is well collimated due to the aperture. The largest effects are very clearly that from the front element. Go ahead and pay astronomical prices for large multicoated front filters if you don't believe me.

Hood on the front, filter on the back, money in the pocket.

I never said equal effect. But you are also assuming people are shooting very stopped down. It is possible to want/need to shoot wide open when there are still flare inducing conditions.

I'd rather pay a little extra and be able to stick the filter on the front myself.

 

[keithwms]

But you are also assuming people are shooting very stopped down.

No I'm not. Surely you don't think there is as much solid angle of stray light at the rear of the lens as there is on the front element? That is why hoods and compendium shades are so effective.

P.S. Rear filters also don't vignette.

 

[John Koehrer]

The ads for the Graphics are BIN/make offer. If you were to suggest $200.0o what can he do spit at you?
Of the two the one with the 190 would be the more useful camera.
Both have the tripod mount/head, that's going to save some money on that item. Decent heads can cost a pretty decent dollar too.
If I were doing the calculating on the set, $100 for camera, $100 for the lens. And do some research on a head. It could be another $100 or more.

With the Graphic View you absolutely need their head. Because there's nothing else that fits the triangular rail. I've made offers on items before and it's just a beginning of a negotiation. You say 200, he says 350 etc. There may come a point that you both agree on.

I think there were some photo's of St Ansel with a Graphic View in an early edition of "The Camera".

The limiting factor would be the bellows length. With a 190mm(7 1/2") lens and 300mm of bellows You are easily in portrait distance. Landscapes? around 120-135. Wider if you like but the camera won't allow a 90mm without a recessed board.

 

[John NYC]

No I'm not. Surely you don't think there is as much solid angle of stray light at the rear of the lens as there is on the front element? That is why hoods and compendium shades are so effective.

P.S. Rear filters also don't vignette.

You are talking practice. I am talking about the possible. For all practical purposes, you are correct.

I have a grand total of four 67mm filters and two conversion rings for all my lenses that I use them on. It didn't bother me to pay the extra money. For that I get a lot of convenience.

 

[keithwms]

I have a grand total of four 67mm filters and two conversion rings for all my lenses that I use them on. It didn't bother me to pay the extra money. For that I get a lot of convenience.

Ah, see, if I could get by with a 67 and some stepdowns, that would be wonderful. But alas most of my front elements are 77mm (RB, RZ) and up. That's when MC filters get really pricey!!! My multicoated red filter for the Nikon 150 SW, well, I don't even want to talk about it. Scares me to use the damn thing Then I discovered rear filters for the RB fisheye, and I really started to think...