What camera is this?

[Sam_PNW]

See "self portait" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bulla

Higher resolution image here, about 2/3 down the page https://yadi.sk/a/TnOYmrQU3ZQV43
Direct link to higher res, possibly. https://4.downloader.disk.yandex.ru...image/jpeg&owner_uid=0&tknv=v2&size=1270x1037

 

[AgX]

I can't speak of the very model, but by type it is a early SLR. Though these early type is called Reflexcamera instead.

To shorten (for the long FL lens) the focusing rack, the extension is divided over two bellows.

 

[138S]

A very interesting camera... it would be great to learn if it is a series model or a custom built. Bulla was a succesful manufacturer ("Bulla and Sons") with many resources...

 

[Ian Grant]

I can't remember coming across such a large SLR in my trawling through BJP Almanacs and similar, it looks like it's at least Whole plate or a Continental equivalent.

One of the main reasons for the double bellows is to counter bellows sag with longer extensions.

Ian

 

[Jerevan]

Quite the contraption ... a lot of bellows everywhere. I'd guess it was built to his specifications. I like the style; bowler hat, cravat and sideburns. Perfect for the discerning photographer gentleman.

 

[Sam_PNW]

@Ian Grant yes I would guess whole plate or perhaps larger - I have found references to several contact prints made in 9x7 inch size, but of course no reference to the camera being used.

I found there is a historical museum dedicated to his work (http://www.bullafond.ru/) and I reached out to them for more info. I'll report back if I get any reply.

 

[Sam_PNW]

I also found a colorized version of the same photo : https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/3d/22/ff3d22122b23af2cb7dc66a9cf0e3d78.jpg

 

[Ian Grant]

@Ian Grant yes I would guess whole plate or perhaps larger - I have found references to several contact prints made in 9x7 inch size, but of course no reference to the camera being used.

I found there is a historical museum dedicated to his work (http://www.bullafond.ru/) and I reached out to them for more info. I'll report back if I get any reply.

Helps if you can read Russian Checking Thornton Pickard made focal plane shutters in sizes up to 10"x8"/18x24cm, these came as a unit so it wouldn't be difficult to make a custom large SLR camera. On most of mine the Mirror up part is just first pressure of the shutter release and then it locks in place until the shutter is re-cocked. I'm not suggesting it is a TP shutter rather that the size was possible. Weight of the mirror can be counter balanced by springs.

One issue is the camera is being used hand held and at that size the slit in the curtain probably isn't the full width of the film so an SLR is more practical. To explain better I have a TP Focal Plane shutter 1/100 to 1/1000 speeds and the slit is only about 1cm wide (it may be less). My guess is the camera here has speeds of 1/10 to 1/100.

The last photo you posted is interesting as it has two focus tracks, not unusual with some British field cameras. Note the tripod socket on the side of the camera, that seems to indicate the back can't be rotated. Nearly all the hardware needed to build a bespoke SLR camera could be bought of the shelf, I know that in 1898 there were at least two UK trade suppliers selling all the fittings needed as well as much of the woodwork in parts or kit form. Of course there were plenty of other companies supplying the large camera manufacturers but these two were selling to the public and camera sores allowing people to build their own cameras, belows were available fro various sources as well. There would have been similar suppliers on the continent.

Ian

 

[Alan Gales]

And people on this forum say that RB67's are too big and heavy to hand hold!

 

[Donald Qualls]

And people on this forum say that RB67's are too big and heavy to hand hold!

I haven't said that. I've hand held my 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic on a number of occasions -- if I had a Grafmatic for it, I'd do so more often. I think it was on the Large Format Forum that I saw a photo of a member named Ole (from Norway) hand holding a 5x7 field camera...

 

[Sam_PNW]

@Ian Grant I know only enough Russian to search their auctionsites, but Google Translate does a good enough job! Thanks for the info on the T-P shutters, I am familiar with their roller blind lens mount shutters, and was aware they made focal plane shutters as well, but don’t know much about them. Something else to research! If you or anyone knows of any other large handheld reflex cameras (whole plate or larger) I’d be interested to add to my research. I have a couple of photos of the mythical Graflex 8x10 and perhaps another of unknown providence, but very little else.

Oh, and I found one more photo of Mr Bulla’s camera showing one side - I cant tell if that’s a FP shutter or not. Seems to be not enough controls. But in the first photo there is a large brass knob at the top on the opposite side, which could be part of it - bearing for the curtain roller, perhaps? I can make out that the Film holder is horizontal, and good point on the tripod fixture showing the camera was designed to be flipped in lieu of a revolving back. https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/472958/view/karl-bulla-russian-photographer

 

[Sam_PNW]

I haven't said that. I've hand held my 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic on a number of occasions -- if I had a Grafmatic for it, I'd do so more often. I think it was on the Large Format Forum that I saw a photo of a member named Ole (from Norway) hand holding a 5x7 field camera...

I shoot my 4x5 RB Super D handheld almost always, it’s no problem. The large mass and having it held against the body damps vibration quite well. It also helps that there is a small delay between the mirror slap and the shutter firing. Carrying those 12 pounds around is not a lot of fun, though.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep. If I had backpack straps for the laptop bag I use for my RB, lenses and film backs, I could carry that pretty well (the single shoulder strap isn't good for my back), but the camera on the neck strap is pretty awkward for any distance. I might try carrying it with no lens or film back -- body cap and rear cover only.

That said, I'd just as soon not carry my Graphic View, lenses and film holders, dark back (for emergencies) and Porter Cable surveying tripod with pan-tilt head any further than I have to, either -- and I have no plans to hand hold that camera.

 

[Ian Grant]

I shoot my 4x5 RB Super D handheld almost always, it’s no problem. The large mass and having it held against the body damps vibration quite well. It also helps that there is a small delay between the mirror slap and the shutter firing. Carrying those 12 pounds around is not a lot of fun, though.

Like you and Donald I have no issues shooting 5x4 hand held, I mostly use Speed Graphics, a Crown and a Super Graphic. I have a Postcard size Compact Graflex but need to rebuild/restore the shutter and make very minor adjustments so the back can use modern 9x12 DDS these have the same outside dimensions as 5x4 DDS, 9x12 film is closer to the Postcard format and slightly cheaper.

There's compromises shooting hand held, can you sop down to get the needed sharpness, but that also depends on what you really need. In my case I need to match the quality of tripod based images so that means f22 and 1/60 or 1/125, f16 at a push.

Having said that a different body of work might not need the same constraints, and when you stop experimenting it's time t give up

Back to the OP looks like it definitely has an FP shutter, it doesn't have a front mounted shutter so how else could it be used

Ian

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, a few compromises -- but sometimes, it does exactly what you want. Blur a background to emphasize your subject, for instance, without requiring an insanely high shutter speed. Or let you shoot at insanely high speed to avoid having to stop down too much...

North Carolina Snow, 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic, Skopar 13.5 cm f/4.5, Polaroid 667 (3x4 size).

 

[Alan Gales]

I haven't said that. I've hand held my 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic on a number of occasions -- if I had a Grafmatic for it, I'd do so more often. I think it was on the Large Format Forum that I saw a photo of a member named Ole (from Norway) hand holding a 5x7 field camera...

Ole is a better man than me. I used to shoot an RZ and have shot it handheld. The "L" grip helps. I also once owned a Crown Graphic. People have shot Crowns and Speeds for years handheld. I'm not too good with it because of a back fusion.

It's not everyone on here but I get a kick out of those who say that an RB is too heavy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It's not everyone on here but I get a kick out of those who say that an RB is too heavy.

I can't hold mine (with waist level finder) up to use the magnifier when I expose; my hands shake because of the combination of weight and arm position -- but I hold it up to focus with the magnifier, then lower it on the strap to frame and expose, with the weight on my neck and shoulders rather than my biceps and forearms. If I had a left hand grip (give it time, I'm on a budget) and an eye level prism (much more time, that costs more than a lens) I could probably shoot with a 127, 90, or 65 hand held at eye level (180 and up are too front heavy, 50 too expensive for near term).

Ever seen a Steadycam? That makes even a 5x7 SLR look light -- but it's designed to make a camera steady by weight distribution.

 

[AgX]

Ever seen a Steadycam? That makes even a 5x7 SLR look light -- but it's designed to make a camera steady by weight distribution.

not quite:

-) it transfers the load from the hands and arms to the body and spreads it there. But this makes the camera not steady yet, it only excludes things like tremor due to hands/arms overload.
(Maybe you mean just this.)

-) it has a damping mechanism. This is what does the actual steadying during any motion of the cinematographer/photographer and gave it its name.

 

[Alan Gales]

Ever seen a Steadycam? That makes even a 5x7 SLR look light -- but it's designed to make a camera steady by weight distribution.

I can see someone using a Steadcam for video. For stills, a tripod or monopod makes more sense to me.

 

[138S]

...or monopod makes more sense to me.

The monopod !!! better if the ball is left free to rotate, a perfect VR system... The RB67 likes the monopod...

 

[Donald Qualls]

The monopod !!! better if the ball is left free to rotate, a perfect VR system... The RB67 likes the monopod...

I haven't tried my RB67 on my monopod yet. Mine has no ball -- it's just a length of PVC pipe with a mounting bolt and wingnut for a jam lock on the top, a cap on the bottom, sized to bring my M42 SLRs to my eye level. I've shot on it down to 1/8 with very good results. Wouldn't be much good to me with the RB, though, unless I get an eye-level prism finder; it's much too tall to use the waist level finder. And my heavy tripod is too, um, heavy to make a good monopod, while the head on my lightweight one isn't sturdy enough to support the RB well.

 

[138S]

Wouldn't be much good to me with the RB, though, unless I get an eye-level prism finder;

That prism weights a lot, sadly the lightweight RZ prism cannot be used in the RB, while the RB prism can be used in the RZ with a little accessory, IIRC.

http://www.reznitsky.info/Mamiya/Comchart.htm