Littman 4x5

[blansky]

Does anyone have any experience with the Littman 4x5 hand held. I looked over their website and wonder what others have heard.
www.littman45single.com



Michael McBlane

 

[Donald Miller]

Michael,

I have heard others comment about this camera on various forums. The "press" has been kind of negative because apparently the developer of the modifications has legally enforced protection of his modifications even when others do the same types of modifications to their own cameras.

The negative sentiment seems to proceed from a lack of understanding why, when the developer did not initially design and patent the basic camera design, he should be able to prevent others from doing work on their own cameras.

I haven't heard of anyone having purchased and used the camera. I think most everyone that I have heard is so incensed that they wouldn't even consider it. I probably haven't heard "the rest of the story"...so maybe that would make this more palatable.

 

[juan]

No experience with the camera, but I do know people who have used the Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm lens on 4x5 Crown Graphics. Some of those lenses are not really sharp in the corners - some are. It, like the Ektar 127mm, may have been made for 3 1/4x4 1/4.
juan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In New York I think Photo Gizzmo is carrying the Littman 45 Single. I didn't see one there last time I was down there, but I could take a look if he has one in stock next time I stop by. I'm kind of curious too.

I've also seen some of the unpleasant exchanges with Guillermo Littman as well. My sense is that people who have the camera are happy with it, but a lot of people who wouldn't shell out the bucks he's asking anyway are complaining about his patent protection techniques, as Donald mentions, which include attempting to lock up the eBay market on old Polaroids by claiming that he is the only person in the world who could have a legal reason for owning one, since they are obsolete and he has an exclusive patent on 4x5" modifications of old Polaroid 110's. Littman's mods are in fact unique (particularly the parallax corrected finder), but there have been 4x5" Polaroid 110 conversions around for years.

 

[blansky]

I just found this info also

http://www.photoworkshop.com/double_exposure/publish/article_672.shtml

 

[Tom Duffy]

Shouldn't this be posted on the RANGEFINDER forum?

 

[steve simmons]

Does anyone have any experience with the Littman 4x5 hand held. I looked over their website and wonder what others have heard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We've been asking to review one for months without any luck.

steve simmons
view camera magazine

 

[PBrooks]

David, I didn't see a Littman at Photo Gizzmo though I may have over looked it usually ugling over the Linhof stuff but they do have one at Len and Repro. They want 2000 for it though.

 

[Jim Chinn]

oh oh,

I have a pair of 110s sitting at home. I better be carefull before he comes looking for me!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's sort of the opposite of what the Hunt brothers did with silver. By forbidding anyone else from buying them through his patent protection, he destroys the market and drives down the price so that he can buy them cheaply, cannibalize them for parts, and maximize his profit on the finished product. If it were an open market without patent protection, then he would drive up the price.

I think he's relinquished though, perhaps because as people become more annoyed with him, they are more likely to challenge his patent in court.

 

[Aggie]

He got his patent last Aug. 2003. It does not cover those (prior technology) all those who previous to that date had made conversions. He does the parallax conversion for the view finder. Others do not go that far, and do a few things different. For things of this nature so long as there are at least 5 basic differences it is considered a different technology/item/ or what ever you want to call the darn process. He can sue people to his hearts content, but in the end unless it is deemed to be within the range set forth in patents (less than 5 changes) he will lose on those suits. He is doing basically like so many out there getting patents on things that were public domain for a very long time. then turning around and suing even the dogs of people (this meant to be a tongue in cheek) for usage of that process without their license of it. Littman will close down many who will not have the funds or the time to fight it. It only takes one who does and challenges Littman. Courts recently have started to throw out patents made on public domain tech/processes.

 

[Aggie]

Update on this camera. I talked to one of the guys from Lens and Repro at the LF conf. they periodically (not often) get a littman in on exchange. They sell very quickly when they do come in. He told me they are wonderful cameras, slight movements, extremely light weight, and a dream to use. He said if they were priced about a $1000 less for each version, the man wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. As it is, he is able to just keep up with the current demand, and does not plan to grow faster so he can make sure they are each up to his standards.

 

[AndyH]

The camera certainly appears to fill a void and to be very well made, but that price?!

Think of how many Speed/Crown Graphics and optics you could pick up for three grand, and you'd build muscle mass holding them too.

He seems IMHO to go beyond the normal realm of patentable technology here as well.

 

[AndrewH]

received my Dean Jones version today. All appears to be in good order. Solid conversion. Haven't shot anything. I will pick up some PN55 and report in the next few days...

 

[Aggie]

Well Andrew, I checked his website and communicated via emails. I just put the deposit down for one of his cameras. Once I get it, I will have to do a head to head comparison with Michael and his Littman. If it works well, I will sell my Wisner and get one of Jim Chinns 11x14 cameras with an 8x10 reducing back.

Sean before you say it, I know, but I don't buy all my cameras from ebay, just two of them. I also have less cameras (keeping my fingers crossed behind my back) than you have enlargers.

 

[mark]

Yes, I agree that the natural progression of improvments should be left unheeded. Evolution means change and difference. As things change then new patents come about. It also provides safety for those who make those next steps. If this process did not exist then I could take a litman camera put my name on it and sell it claiming it was my idea, or make the same conversion and claim it was no different than a Litman.

The patent protects what that person has done, in much the same way as a copyright protects us and our photographs. Patents are a way of protecting ideas and original thoughts. I would be pretty pissed if someone slapped their name on one of my photographs and claimed it as theirs.

What is it about the patent and invention process that you feel inhibits the natural evolution?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Littman's innovation isn't really the format conversion, but the single-window, parallax-corrected rangefinder-viewfinder. The thing that seems egregious is that he's tried to use his patent to corner the market on old Polaroids, to prevent others from doing whatever kinds of format conversions they want with them, even if they don't have a single-window parallax-corrected rangefinder-viewfinder.

Littman's conversion seems more capable than the others I've seen, so you might think he would be content just to protect his specific innovation, which requires some more sophisticated engineering than a straight conversion, and costs more as one might expect. If others want to do straight conversions for customers who can't afford a Littman anyway or don't really feel they need a single-window parallax corrected rangefinder-viewfinder, why should he worry? It's not as if old Polaroids are such a rare commodity, or that the demand for such a thing is so immense.

 

[blansky]

Mr Littman has a fiery personality and he originally took objection to our Australian friend on many long photonet posts where the "Australian" conversion was touted as the same as Mr. Littmans.

There was a clash of personalities and the Aussi takes pride in tweaking the fiery Mr Littman.

The two conversions are not the same, precisely because of the parallax/rangefinder and the costs are representative of that.

If one person builds what he perceives is a Mercedes and another person builds a VW and says it's the same car, there is going to be conflict even though both will get you from point A to point B. Most VW owners will tell you a Mercedes is a waste of money. To them it is, to others, not.

If you want the VW buy it and if you want the Mercedes that is also your right.

If you want to waste some time, type in "Littman" into photonet search engine and you can real the whole convuleted story. You might want to make some coffee first.

Michael MCBlane

 

[jimgalli]

Am I correct in assuming that these 110 conversion cameras are forced to live within the confines of a 127mm lens?

 

[jimgalli]

I wonder if the little 125 Fuji in the seiko shutter would fold inside and give you all of the rangefinder features? It has a 46mm filter thread and projects fwd from the lens board about 25mm.

 

[blansky]

The Littman I have has a 150 lens which I believe is his longest.





Michael

 

[matt miller]

So Aggie, did you ever purchase this camera? How is it working out for you?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I saw one at Photo Gizzmo recently that was significantly under $3000 (but more than $2100, as I recall). He said it was a prototype or an earlier version, I think, so a little less expensive than the most recent versions. www.photogizzmo.com for their contact info.