The best 11X14 field camera...

...would be?

discuss ideas of past, present, and future designs including 11X14 film holders, or different film holding designs. What materials, methods of design and building including the tools needed to build the ideal field camera.

Curt

Curt said:

...would be?

discuss ideas of past, present, and future designs including 11X14 film holders, or different film holding designs. What materials, methods of design and building including the tools needed to build the ideal field camera.

Curt

Click to expand...

Curt, I could use the help also. I have an idea for my 11x14. I'm planning on designing it like my Zone VI 4x5. I need to have a visual comparison. I may design the back differently. Still working that out.

Jim

The earlier Phillips 11x14" with the reversible back seems like a great camera for the field. I saw one in person at PhotoGizzmo a while back. It's got good movements and bellows extension (I don't recall exactly), and is very rigid for a lightweight field camera. My century-old American Optical is of comparable weight--about 15 lbs--but Phillips bed much more solid, which is an important issue in a flatbed design. By contrast, I've seen a Wisner that has more bellows, very extensive movements, and good rigidity, but it's 30 lbs, which is heavier than some lightweight 20x24" cameras.

At a certain point, Phillips stopped making them with the reversible back, which strikes me as a real liability. I can turn my Korona 7x17" on its side for verticals, but I don't think I'd want to do that with an 11x14" camera, or at least not without a couple of heavy counterweights that I probably wouldn't want to have to carry into the field, though I suppose a Lotus-style L-bracket may be a way around that.

Curt said:

...would be?



Curt

Click to expand...

One I didn't have to carry.

As far as tools go, at a bare minimum, you'd need a pro grade table saw, router table, and drill press.

Deardorff!

John- have you ever handled an 11x14 'Dorff? They're MASSIVE. Simple, but MASSIVE. I don't know that I'd design one for myself using that as a template.

My earlier post was a bit flip, but in all seriousness, the weight of a ULF field becomes a consideration, and that points to the crux of a design- functional, without being clunky, unbearably heavy, or crude. In addition to Scotts list, you would most likely need a metal milling machine, and a bender, to make the small parts, as most are not easily or inexpensivly sourced, and small runs by a machinist are spendy.

Of course those costs can be built in to the price of the camera, but then you are playing the market, if you are talking about commercial production. If you are just building a one off for your self, and I certainly understand that desire, you will lose the economy of scale (such that there is in LF gear) and you will spend as much or more fabricating and designing, than buying a name brand one, so the motivating factor would have to be the desire to do it for ones own edification.

I have built a couple super simple cameras, and as a result wouldn't touch building a holder with a ten foot pole, but you may have more skill and confidence than I.

If I was going to build a ULF camera, I would probably start with a monorail design, then a flat bed with a tail board, before I tackled a folding field, as far as the learning curve. On the other hand you could just beat your head on the latter and be done with it.

Ok, you guys it is time to think out of the box! I just finished my 8x20 Walnut camera and tripod that I built with hand tools in my apartment. I did use the metal from a Kodak 2-D. Sure it needs to be a little more rigid and fine tuned but it can be done if you take the time. I had it at the Owens Valley workshop that Per put on. It comes in at 14lbs. That includes the extension rail that takes it out to 32" of extension. I used it in the wind and it seemed steady. I had it on the tripod I built also from Walnut with a Majestic head and it comes in at 10lbs. I.m going to try to get the 11x14 to the same weight if I can. Like I said I'm going to somewhat follow the Zone VI 4x5 that I have now for reference. Sure it could have been more precise, but the 8x20 images I have are very sharp, so I must have done something right. It will be sometime before the 11x14 field is done and I'll keep everyone aware of my progress.

Jim

I like my Wisner P model quite a bit. It weighs far less than most other 11x14 cameras, and also less than the earlier Wisner Traditional models. At less than 20 lbs (I think about 16lbs to be exact), it is very managable, and does not weigh more than my previous 8x10. I think there are a few new models around still if you search amongst the large format camera dealers.

If you want to look at an "out of the box" design, google Richard Ritter's site, and look at his ULF series. I believe he is using carbon fiber tubes for the base, with more traditional standards, apparantly a light and flexible design.

I'm rather fond of my (there was a url link here which no longer exists). It's a 7x17, but because the design is modular you could build a similar camera in 11x14 (or whatever other format you want).

It's based on an ARCA-SWISS F-line. So, it is very rigid, precise and smooth to operate. For 7x17, I chose to go with a 171mm front format frame from a pre-Monolith M-Line. This gives me self-arresting geared front axis tilt and geared front rise/fall. On most smaller field cameras, this would be an unnecessary luxury, but on ULF with long lenses, it really makes life easier. I can tweak the front tilt with one hand while louping the ground glass with the other.

As shown, it weighs 13 lbs and has a max. extension of between 29 and 30" (more than enough for a 24"/600mm lens). If I want to go light, I can swap out the front format frame for one without geared movements and use a shorter rail system. That gets the weight down to about 11.5 lbs. but limits me to a 480mm/19" lens.

If I want to go longer, I can use longer rail sections and if I want to go REALLY long, I can add an intermediate standard and the 38cm standard bellows from my 4x5. That is the beauty of the ARCA-SWISS system. It's totally modular, so it's easy to reconfigure the camera for any shooting situation.

In addition to keeping the weight reasonable, I also wanted to minimize the bulk of the collapsed camera so it would fit in a pack, along with my lenses and a three or four film holders. This camera collapses smaller than any other 7x17 I've ever seen. And since it can be transported with a lens mounted, it's very fast to set-up and tear down - literally as fast as my smaller 4x5 and 4x10 ARCA-SWISS cameras.

I didn't really "build" the camera myself. I dreamed up the concept, assembled the necessary ARCA-SWISS bits and pieces, built some of the simple assemblies (rear wooden box frame and metal support framework from t-slot extrusions), and had the tough parts (camera back and bellows) built be people with more skills and experience (Richard Ritter and Camera Bellows).

Others have built similar cameras based on Sinar monorails (usually a P rear and a F front). They are every bit as nice, but don't fold up as compactly as my Franken-ARCA.

It really is a joy to use (but then I'm partial to ARCAs and am used to the location and feel of the controls). and since I already had many of the ARCA parts from my 4x5 F-Line and 4x10 conversion, the cost of the new bits necessary to convert it to 7x17 was quite reasonable - a lot less than a new 7x17 or even an old Korona or Folmer & Schwing.

Kerry

Curt,

If you are serious and can afford to pounce, Mike A is selling a Phillips Explorer at a very good price. The last two I saw on eBay went for $4300 each. Light weight and Ridged, thy name is Dick Phillips.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I learned from Michael Mutmansky and have an 8x10 Phillips Advantage and a 7x17 Explorer. On a good tripod you can easily turn my 7x17 to vertical. Ask Mike A about doing it on his.

As to building your own, Flying Camera has the start. Dick Phillips adds a CNC milling machine. You know, just the average common tools we all have in the basement. For me it was cheaper and wiser to let someone with more experience build my dream. Dick has built 600 LF cameras in the basement of his house.

John Powers

I have a cabinet shop in my two story garage / second story studio/darkroom. In there is a Powermatic saw and shaper, Comatic power feeders, 24" drum thickness sander, thickness planer, a tank of a 12" planer, '30's or '40's era, a very unique Delta Rotoplaner, you can shave the skin off of weiner with it, and all of the other shop tools needed to make anything out of wood; and some metal too.

But... You don't always need these things to make a camera, I made a 4x5 "clamshell" field camera in an apartment in 1980 with mostly hand tools and a small table saw, cherry and brass from the hobby shop. It's not a hobby shop camera though. Rack and pinon focus, just like the named guys. I made the tapered bellows before anyone told me that a bellows could be homemade.

Now with some experience behind me and some thought and with the Net for procurement, I don't see any problem that can't be worked out. I am going to make my own film holders too. They won't be two sided but one sheet per holder. I am just starting to sketch some ideas, rough, but in the end I can't see spending up to $400. each. I don't want to be loading film in the field.

I am not buffaloed by the precision minded who say it's not that easy or can't be done without a computer driven machine and I don't want to sell them or make a name for myself. I don't like the idea of hiding the works either, why shouldn't anyone who wants to, see what's needed to make one of their own?

Kerry that's one fine designed camera. Also there are no right or wrong idea and flip ones are all right too.

I would like a design that is easy to operate right out of the box. I too am leaning toward a design like Jim mentioned. I am more familiar with the field camera design. I believe that one should have all of the movements, whether one uses them or not. Thanks for the ideas so far.

Curt

Curt, like you say I'm not looking to sell the cameras I build. I like working with wood, getting ideas from everyone, using what I have to look at and then fill my apartment up with sawdust! There is a certain pride in using a camera you built. My 8x20 is still new to me and is a joy to use. Has its quirks like some of the old cameras I use so I'm right at home with it.
Just had the yearly inspection at the apartment, so I'm good to go! I'm going to try the 11x14 using more wood and less metal this time. I'm studying the parts that take the stresses to determine where I can change things. Remember I'm not shooting this camera everyday so I think I can make some design adjustments. Suggestions or ideas are appreciated.

Jim

As I see it there are three main considerations: The back, the film holder, and the bellows. The bellows can be made or bought, no problem here, the back can be made to accomodate bought holders, which very a lot and are hard to find or expensive, or holders made to specifically fit the back. I like the traditional back were film holders are inserted under the ground glass as in most, if not all modern cameras. The t-depth of the back and holders must be the same. The design of the holders will determine this, not tradition. Fractions of an inch or millimeters, as long as they are the same. I would like to design a back where the film is held in place similar to the negatrans film carriers. Stretcher bars at the edge or wedges, something to hold the film so it doesn't flop or bow out if the camera is pointed down. No film sag. I would prefer not to have pieces that have to be removed. The common dark slide is fine. That's my thinking up to now. I was looking for an enlarger for 8x10 but decided that the 11x14 print size is what I wanted and I don't mind contact printing so why do all of the enlarging, just go to a larger camera.

Curt

If you build your own camera, film holders are not that much more difficult, especially if you use a t-dimension that can use common size stock. I've built holders out of plastic, use double sided stcky tape (low tack) to hold the film in place, aluminum for the center and plastic or aluminum for darkslides. I have my stock cut by table saw or waterjet but it could all be cut with home tools. An 11x14 holder costs me about $90 dollars to make including the fingerstock for the light trap.

The nice thing about using tape to hold the film is you can use the same holder for various smaller formats. For example you can use an insert made of plastic and use the same holder for 10x12 on one side and 11x14 on the other.

One aspect of modern ULF field cameras I don't like is the smallish lens boards. For some of us, the field camera does double-duty as a portrait/studio camera, and it's quite necessary that it take some rather large old lenses (and the large Packard Shutter that goes along with them).

If you build your own camera, film holders are not that much more difficult, especially if you use a t-dimension that can use common size stock. I've built holders out of plastic, use double sided stcky tape (low tack) to hold the film in place, aluminum for the center and plastic or aluminum for darkslides. I have my stock cut by table saw or waterjet but it could all be cut with home tools. An 11x14 holder costs me about $90 dollars to make including the fingerstock for the light trap.

Click to expand...

Jim, I am comming up with about the same figure, although not inexspensive, I would be able to have a dozen and not just a few. The dark slide material I found would be about $10.00 for each. The center septum could be a honeycomb material for light weigh or a single sheet of aluminum.

The nice thing about using tape to hold the film is you can use the same holder for various smaller formats. For example you can use an insert made of plastic and use the same holder for 10x12 on one side and 11x14 on the other.

Click to expand...

That's a great idea.

One aspect of modern ULF field cameras I don't like is the smallish lens boards. For some of us, the field camera does double-duty as a portrait/studio camera, and it's quite necessary that it take some rather large old lenses (and the large Packard Shutter that goes along with them).

Click to expand...

I agree, I like plenty of room in front too, I would rather use an adapter board on a larger front than try to put a lens on a front that is obviously too small. I have two Packard shutters but never had the space to fit one behind a lens and use them with any of my cameras.

If you're DESPERATE for mounting a packard shutter on a big lens, you can always do what I did... I made a "universal" front-mount system. That camera is a Gundlach Wizard 11x14, with a Bausch & Lomb 1C 16" f4.5 Tessar. AKA big-ass lens. I just have to make a new face-plate for another lens and I can transfer the packard to it. The Gundlach takes an almost 7" lensboard, which is what I'd consider to be the minimum size for a field camera. Nice would be a 9", but that's getting too big for a field camera.

That's what I call ingenuity Scott, what a great solution.

Curt

I made my ULF to accept 7" lens boards and I do need them that size for a few lenses. I also front mount a packard shutter to a 300mm metrogon.

As far as taping film goes I think its sad that on expensive new film holders there is no provision for properly holding the film down, other than using tape in the center. I can not use tape on the film I use for 30x40cm as its quite thin and easily kinks. Also I don't like having tape goop on the septum of an otherwise nice film holder. I just think tape is a bad cheap solution to the problem. What we need is a better design not the same old thing. I have worked up several designs for a better film holder but I don't see them really going anywhere at the moment but maybe one day.

I agree, a good many years ago Beseler came up with the Negatrans 4x5 negative holder so glass wasn't necessary, I have one and every time I use it I am thankful that someone designed it. I am thinking hard about a film holder that keeps the film flat. Like Dr. Seuss said; "We can do better than this".

Scott, I like your idea for the Packard. I nixed the box design I had and have gone with yours. Thanks for posting it. The parts are drying as we speak.

Jim