What format would you like to build?

barryjyoung · Nov 30, 2005

Hello members and guests:

The time has come to start the next camera project. The 8x10 plans have finally been completed and are merely awaiting plotting ($$$$$) and then shipment to the printer. After I get a few customers parts out the door I will begin designing the next camera plans and kits very soon. Before I do, I would love to hear from anyone considering building a camera or not. What ould you like to build? What format? What type (folding field camera, monorail, flatbed, rigid body? Any preferences will be duly noted. Thanks for your help people. It is more helpful than you might imagine.

Barry Young
cameramaker.com

Jeremy · Nov 30, 2005

7x17 folding field camera w/ at least 28" of bellows.

edit: I should add since Alex made the suggestion, 8"x20" would also be fine with me

Alex Hawley · Nov 30, 2005

8x20 or 7x17, both folding field cameras.

barryjyoung · Nov 30, 2005

I have 2 votes for 7x17 folding field cameras and 2 votes for 8x20 folding field cameras. This is very much easier than trying to figure it out for myself, thank you.

Barry Young
cameramaker.com

Peter Schrager · Nov 30, 2005

ditto

Barry-7x17 would be the way to go for me....
Peter

mark · Nov 30, 2005

5x12 but 7x17 would work too.

I love the ratio of 5x12 and started to draw up plans but do not have the time to make it to fruition. It would need long bellows as I want to use it for small things.

Someday, Maybe.

Peter Schrager · Nov 30, 2005

filmholders

Barry-the real drawback is the price of filmholders. LOL it is something that needs to be exact so hence the price. I just wish there was a way to get the price down for us dreamers....
Peter

MenacingTourist · Nov 30, 2005

If wishes were horses...

11x14 and/or 12x20 field versions with a way to focus and still look at the ground glass. I don't have long arms.

I'll start saving for holders now

smieglitz · Nov 30, 2005

Barry,

I'm hoping to build a full-plate (6.5" x 8.5") single-lens reflex along the lines of an old old Graflex. I want to use the camera for wetplate collodion because for one thing, the mirror reversal shows me exactly what will image on the ambrotype/tintype. The resultant image is reversed laterally on the plate and it really helps to see it flipped inside the camera when composing. I also like the fact that I shoot from a low camera angle/waist-level with such a design.

Since wetplate exposures are so long I have no need for a focal-plane or leaf shutter. I just basically want the chimney viewer, a way to flip the mirror out of the way quickly, and then let the light come through the lens. I've been using a Graflex 4x5 with a quarter-plate adapter in an old film pack holder and it works great. My shutter is a black beret which I put over the lens as I flip the mirror up. This setup works so well that I want to supersize it to do the larger plates.

Joe

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 30, 2005

I've been thinking 7x17 for a while.

athanasius80 · Dec 1, 2005

I'd dig full plate (6x8) too.

vet173 · Dec 1, 2005

7x17- field of course

Ole · Dec 1, 2005

24x30 - cm of course. This "lost format" is perfect - smaller and thus lighter than 11x14", visibly larger than 8x10", and the narrower aspect ratio of the German plate sizes (9x12, 13x18, 18x24, 24x30).

A full "folding Reisekamera" would be stretching the limits of portability, so I'd settle for a lighter field camera type. Such a camera would need about 60cm of bellows to be usable at close quarters with a 380mm "normal lens", so the bellows shouldn't cause problems with wide lenses either.

These cameras do occasionally show up on ebay, sometimes in the Reisekamera configuration. It was said to be the largest camera one could practically bring on a journey, which really says more about the owner's ability to hire porters than about the weight of the camera...

Struan Gray · Dec 1, 2005

When day-dreaming I long for a 12x12 field camera. I don't suppose I would ever pay for one were it available though.

medform-norm · Dec 1, 2005

8x10" or 18x24 cm. We recently bought a large thornton pickard focal plane shutter this size with a spring back and GG. This is the starting around which we want to build something like a folding field camera. We're slowly assembling ideas on construction, parts to be used, parts to be bought etc. SO it's another long term project.

Other than that, there are plans to convert a Rollei SL26 to take 35mm - a major challenge and possibly not doable - and in the past we've frankensteined several cameras with polaroid lenses grafted on 6x9 roll film backs - great for automatic exposure snapshots with flash! Another dream is to convert a Pola SX70 to take roll film: auto exposure plus autofocus on 6x9, it would be a fun thing. A japanese guy is trying the same and it's not easy constructionwise. Something one wishes one had more time and money for.

These are just some of our plans/dreams and yes, if wishes were horses, we'd need a proper corral to keep them all

Dan Fromm · Dec 1, 2005

Well, I may be coming down with Stafford's disease.

I was recently given a nice doorstop, in the form of a 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical lens. Its an oversize 3"/4.5 Biogon. John has one and has gone to a lot of trouble to build a shutter into his. The last I heard he was trying to cobble up a fairly conventional but very strong 4x5 monorail camera for his beast.

If I ever decide that I have to use mine, I'll try to mutilate a 4x5 Speed Graphic into a monorail camera with back focusing. Also to make up a set of Waterhouse stops for the lens. But I don't feel much pressure to move on this project; the lens is the best doorstop in the house. Much, much classier than a cinder block, not much lighter.

I'm feeling a little more pressure to build bracketry to hold my overweight oversize 600/9 Apo Ronar out in front of my little tandem camera. But not enough pressure yet to do anything about it.

Donald Miller · Dec 1, 2005

10X16...the same aspect ratio as the 7X 11 and the 12X20...field camera of course.

barryjyoung · Dec 2, 2005

You folks are an absolute goldmine of information. Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. This is information I needed right away and you all responded. So far it looks like the next camera to hit the drawing board will be a 7x17 format. This surprised me. Now I have to try to lay my hands on a 7x17 film holder to take measurements from. The film holder is what determines all the other dimensions of the camera.

Thanks again APUGgers.

Barry Young
cameramaker.com

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 2, 2005

I'm not sure that 7x17" holders are standardized. I'd recommend buying an S&S holder from Quality Camera, since those are readily available new and won't be as costly as the other new options.

barryjyoung · Dec 2, 2005

I was wondering about that. Just gives me more incentive to produce them myself. I have had several wooden holders which I took apart to see what made them so expensive. The mystery was buried deep inside the holders I disassembled. It was simply that people like dough. Making film holders is not rocket science. Maybe I will make some and then design a camera around them.

Thank you

David A. Goldfarb said:
I'm not sure that 7x17" holders are standardized. QUOTE]

lee · Dec 2, 2005

I think building a camera around a 7x17 is an excellent idea. Make mine a 7x17 also.

lee\c

nick mulder · Dec 2, 2005

barryjyoung said:
I was wondering about that. Just gives me more incentive to produce them myself. I have had several wooden holders which I took apart to see what made them so expensive. The mystery was buried deep inside the holders I disassembled. It was simply that people like dough. Making film holders is not rocket science.

I am yet to pull one apart but my next camera will be a 8x10 and I plan to make a holder also ... just need a lens and shutter with the coverage - rare, here in NZ

a few other projects first tho to do with my 16mm cine cam ...

noseoil · Dec 2, 2005

Barry, if you plan on making the 7x17 holders, please find out about the "sizes" involved as has been mentioned. John at J&C had a small problem when he started selling 8x10 a couple of years ago, because he had film sliced which fit the new plastic film holders (the latest specs). As usual, he made good on any problem. Some of us were using older wood holders and the film was a couple of thousanths too wide to fit properly. You might check with him to see what is needed for the "correct size" which actually fits 7x17 (one size fits all?).

I would like to see a 7x17 which is based on the rear frame type of construction, not a box. There was a link posted recently for a 16 x 20 on ebay out of Hong Kong that looked simple and relatively light, given the format involved. Simple, light, rigid, strong, with just enough movements to be practical gets my vote. Bellows draw was mentioned and I would vote for a minimum of 28" as well, but possibly more if it is practical. Something which folds into a backpack would be great. This is a fascinating format and seeing Matt's images out of Texas has been a boost for me. I hadn't considered this format until his pictures were posted. I like the idea of a kit with hardware. I have enough tools to finish the project, but machining metal is another aspect entirely beyond my means. Thanks for posting this thread. tim

photomc · Dec 2, 2005

As long as some are wishing...I think a 7x11, that doubles as an 8x10 and was under 10 lbs would be great (field camera of course), in leu of that I think a 7x17 is also a good choice.

gcoates · Dec 2, 2005

I'm not a large format shooter yet, but when I become one, it's likely to be 7x17.

What format would you like to build?

barryjyoung

Jeremy

Alex Hawley

barryjyoung

Peter Schrager

mark

Peter Schrager

MenacingTourist

smieglitz

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

athanasius80

vet173

Ole

Moderator

Struan Gray

medform-norm

Dan Fromm

Donald Miller

barryjyoung

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

barryjyoung

lee

nick mulder

noseoil

photomc

gcoates

What format would you like to build?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency