What is the largest camera you have used or presently own?

[Aggie]

..

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

GreyWolf,

I think you might also consider that there are many other reasonable formats out there that may be suitable. 5x12 and 10x12 come to mind right away. One advantage the 10x12 has over the 11x14 is that the camera ends up being much smaller, and more like an 8x10 than a 11x14. 7x11 is a smaller format that has a longer aspect ratio, and may fit your shooting style.

The real issue as I see it is that 8x10 is an 'easy' format, and all the rest (including 11x14) are much more difficult for several reasons. The first is that the cost of film holders is quite low with 8x10, but not so for the rest. The availablility of film is another issue. Used 8x10's are relatvely common compared to other formats, and lenses that will cover with sufficient room for movements are common.

If you go larger than 8x10, the options become greatly reduced. Fidelity no longer makes holders, there are fewer lenses, film is special order (from Kodak, anyway), and the camera is substantially larger, which results in the need for a larger tripod, and a whole lot more patience. As lenses get longer, DOF gets smaller, and exposures get longer.

I have known a few people who have gone from 4x5 to 11x14, and then have retreated back to 8x10 due to the difficulties with the size of the camera and accompanying hassles. However, I suspect that most people that step up through the camera formats don't go too far if they take the steps one at a time, because it really is much easier to gague the next format up.

I consider 8x10 to be a very easy format to travel with, and as I stated in an earlier post, I use it when I need to travel light. What I am suggesting is that there would probably be room for you to have both formats, on for larger camera work, and one for the times whe you need to travel light.

If you buy smart (and used) you will not really lose any on the resale of an 8x10, so I don't think there is much harm in getting one if you suspect that the 11x14 may be too much for you. I think that if you are concerned about that, then it will probably be true. If you can try out an 8x10 and it still feels 'small', then the 11x14 will probaly be just fine.

Hope it works out for you...

---Michael

 

[Jim Chinn]

Actually Jdef, these cameras are very simple designs, that include enough of the niceties to make them easy to use. geared focus, zero detents for swing and tilt, levels, (maybe a geared front rise) ample bellows draw, reversable back. The idea I have is to make the cameras affordable to get more people into the ULF market. I am doing that a couple of ways.

First, the cameras are mostly metal, anneled T-6 and T-5 aluminum, and some stainless steel. I have extensive access to machining facilities for fabrication, forming and welding. I do most of the machine work myself and only pay a welder when needed. All tolerances are very tight. Also the assemble and pieces are pretty simple. The owner could easily replace any part of the camera themselves or have a piece copied by a competent machnist. Of course all the parts would be gauranteed for life.

It is a modular 3 peice monorail design. Why carry into the field the weight of a field camera with 50" of bellows draw when with this camera if you are going to shoot with a 450mm lens at infinity, all you need to carry are the center and small extension.

The rear holder is a positive lock design that requires the operator to tighten 4 locks to secure the film holder. I did this to eliminate the weight of large steel springs, and to eliminate camera creep which always seems to happen when I am trying to insert a film holder under a standard spring back in ULF cameras.

Finally, I have my own design of film holders for the cameras. They are substantially less expensive then other holders but maintain a flat film plane and and are easy to load. Not as pretty as others but they get the job done.

The back can also be adopted to regular holders.

Not as pretty as an Ebony, doesn't have the cache of a Deardorff, the name recognition of a Wisner or Canham but it will be affordable, durable and light.
My price target is $1600 with two of my film holders included. Extra holders will be around $90. I don't know if the basic camera will have any rear movements but I will probably include rear tilt at least on these two cameras. When I build some others, extra rear movements, reducing back, packard shutter etc would be extra.

And I don't need to get rich making cameras. I already have a job that provides for my family. But i would like to make enough for my labor to pay for my own photography needs. So I don't have to sell one hundred cameras a year or even 10. I have thought about this for a couple of years, the idea that if you buy a used camera (11x14, 12x20, 7x17) you either buy something with no real bellows extension, limited movements and usually a bellows that needs replacing for well over $1000 or you buy a new or barely used Wisner or Phillips for $5000 to $6000. I just feel there is a middle ground that could provide people the opportunity to get into the larger formats.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Grey Wolf

8x10" and 11x14" serve different functions for me.

8x10" is relatively easy to carry around, holders are cheap, many film types are available without much difficulty. Negs or transparencies can be easily scanned for the web. Lots of accessories are available that work well with 8x10.

I love working with the 11x14" camera, but I have a few things to fix on my particular camera before it will be convenient in the field (some bed cracks, and I'd like to replace the bellows). I'll have to order a custom case for it. Holders are expensive, so I don't have as many. Many of the films available must be special ordered. I shoot mostly B&W, but color isn't much of an option, except for some outdated transparency film I was lucky enough to find. It's too big for most scanners, so if I want to post something from 11x14" on my website, I need to photograph it with a digicam. I'd prefer to print on Azo, but for now I'm printing on other papers until I can get a decent paper trimmer, since Azo is available only in 8x10" and 20x24". I have an 8x10" light pad for viewing negs and transparencies, so eventually I'll need a bigger light table. I even need a bigger trash can for the rejected negs.

I like having both formats. If you think you will work with both and are buying a new camera, you might get an 11x14" with an 8x10" back for the convenience of working with 8x10" film when you need it, and the option of shooting 11x14" when you can.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

GreyWolf,

David and I must have been typing at the same time, and no, we aren't two halves of a split personality! I think we agree that there are really two purposes for these formats.

But, I would caution that I'm not a fan of reducing backs, because you still have to lug the larger camera into the field. The do permit more flexibility with the larger camera, but it isn't the equivalent of having two seperate cameras.

---Michael

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ha! I think Michael is right. I just went back and read his response. I'd agree that the reducing back isn't the best solution, because the difference in size of the camera is substantial, as Michael says. I proposed it, really as a way to experiment with both formats without purchasing two cameras at once. If you decide that you really want to use 8x10" in the field, you'll probably get an 8x10" camera eventually, even if you also have a larger camera with a reducing back.

 

[Donald Miller]

In that regard, might I ask all of you who have had first hand experience in ULF cameras for your constructive suggestions in selecting a camera? Fortunately for me, I presently own two lenses that will cover 8x10, one of which will probably cover 11x14. The way I am rationalizing my desire to acquire an 11x14 is as follows.



2. I find a print from an 11x14 (even trimmed or selectively framed in the print) to be my preffered enlarging format. I seem to like a longer print to height ratio.

3. I recently acquired an 11x14 print washer specifically because the majority of the printing I do gravitates so much to that size and I hope to somehow do 11x14 Pt/Pd printing even if it is digitally enlarged negatives

5. My photographic ambition lies mostly in landscape / outdoor photography and perhaps older things such as buildings /dams /stock pens etc.

6. I hesitate to buy an 8x10 with film holders etc and then find that I should have invested wisely in an 11x14 camera instead (stall point for me at this moment. A revelation someone pointed out to me recently that I view things in a more panaromic fashion. I also am very drawn to the softness of the highlight tones of a PT/Pd print. This seems to be something that I am unable to capture in a conventional silver enlargement)

7. Money most certainly is a concern but I would rather "buy once" and spend what is needed than do a buy --> sell 8x10 gear --> buy 11x14 camera again cycle.



Well that's my dilema and as such I hope to solve it soon and get started in Pt/Pd.

Any thoughts?

Kind Regards,

I can understand your concern and dilemna. I moved into 12X20 within the last year. My experience has been that it is difficult to rely on only one format. I have 8X10 and 4X5 as well as the 12X20. I don't know of any ULF photographers that use only the ULF camera. Good luck.

 

[Ole]

I seem to be one of the minority here, with 5x7" as the largest. This isn't entirely true, as I sometimes use 13x18cm which is a few millimeters larger

I may decide to go for a larger camera at some point in the future. 8x10" seems most probable, but it's not all that much bigger than 5x7" when you look at a contact print. 9½x11"? 11x14"? 30x40cm? Since I will be moving to something bigger than I can enlarge, I might as well go for big...

8x10" I can cover with lenses I already own. Anything even bigger, and I'm looking for lenses too

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One reason I'm glad that I started with 8x10" is that I had lenses on hand that worked easily for 4x5" or 11x14".

 

[Jim Chinn]

Jdef,

the holders are to Ansi specs. the ground glass is in a frame that is the exact demension of the film holder. that is the surface of the ground glass sits in its frame the same as the surface of the film. So film to lens distance or ground glass to lens distance are essentially the same. The same thing can be done with any standard film holder if someone would request that. I would simply build the ground glass frame to match the film to lens distance of that brand of film holder.

The ground glass frame sits in a channel frame on a rear plate. The four hold down fasteners are used to secure this for focusing. Focus, back them off a couple of turns and insert the film holder. Re-tighten with light pressure and you are ready to pull the darkslide.

I could easily make a spring back and include a bailing handle to hold the back open and make it easier to open and insert the holder. Of course the springs of stainless steel, the rear components need to be a little beefier, and with a bail(sp) you add cost, probably another at least another $150-$200.

So like you said, the idea is utilitarian, simple and rugged. As light as other cameras but easy to maintain. Breaks down to be carried in a simple case or break it down all the way by removing the center rail from the standards and it could be backpacked. The camera will require a bit of extra effort to use compared to a Gandolfi or Wisner. One idea with the modular construction that fits with previous discussions is that one could have the 11x14 camera, and then acquire an additional bellows and rear standard for 12x20. The would work on the same monorail and front standard. So with an 8x10 reducing back, 7x17 reducing back, one new bellows and one additional rear standard you would have two different cameras and four formats for a little more than half the cost of a new Canham 11x14.

 

[lee]

Jim,
Is it possible to post some images of the camera as a work in progress? I would think more than a few people here would like to see this.

lee\c

 

[GreyWolf]

Thanks to all for the very informative replies for detailed information. Perhaps I can clear up a few things from my last post. I should have clearly indicated that my desire for 11x14 was driven by the ability to take a neg that size and print it in a panoramic fashion on conventional paper. I improperly stated that the actual ratio compared to an 8x10 was that different. I meant to suggest that I had more "real estate" with an 11x14 for print manipulation during the printing stage in comparision to an 8x10. I was corrected and I thank-you for properly pointing that out.

My second fallacy was believing that 11x14 film was more more readily available than other ULF formats. I did a bit more checking and found that some of the formats mentioned (7x17,7x11, and 8x20) were just as available from JandC.

I do appreciate most of you pointing out that film holders are much more common for 8x10 and as such I can expect a challenge trying to get film holders for other formats. I was hoping to obtain 6 film holders as a sufficent amount for a days shooting in ULF. (am I crazy?)

The gist of the matter is that I really want to take an 11x14 (or as long a negative) and print it such that masking the top and bottom would give me an 8 inch height but close to a 14 inch length. As I wish to do this with Pt/Pd then it is important to obtain at least as big a negative as I would like for a final print. This is what is causing me to consider an 11x14 camera, as an 8x10 masked down would be a smaller final print than what I would prefer.

I do not see myself in the future owning 2 ULf cameras (maybe I can come back here and eat my words someday) so the decision needs to be the most correct one I can make with my limited knowledge and exposure to ULF.

The portabilty of an 8x10 was good to hear you folks talk about and I thought about that again for a moment or two. I believe for myself I would not be doing that much hiking with either an 8x10 or an 11x14 in the areas I commonly frequent. I struggle enough with carrying my 4x5 on a 7+ km hike gaining about 550 meters in altitude in the Canadian Rockies. For an older fellow the air is quite thin enough at these altitudes ( 2,560m or 8,397 ft) that make dragging an 8x10 out of the question for me.

I expect that I will use my ULF within an easy kilometer ot two from the vehicle. All in all though I guess I have now been convinced to go with an 8x10 camera at this time.

My original intention was to stick with my 4x5 and just digitally enlarge my negs. THe computer time is not very appealing but this will permit me a great deal of flexability in deciding the final size for a contact negative.

Anybody feel like coming to Calgary Alberta and teaching us how to properly enlarge a 4x5 negative by digital means?

Kind Regards,

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Grey Wolf,

If your main interest is panoramic, you might as well go 7x17" or 8x20" I think. Cameras like the Korona 7x17" are quite portable--not a lot of bellows, but enough for many purposes. Lois Connor took one all over China strapped to the rack of her bicycle.

New ULF holders tend to run on the order of $300-500 a piece, depending on size and manufacturer, and used ones in good condition aren't necessarily cheaper (makes that jumbo Harrison tent look like a bargain, eh?). New 8x10" holders are $120 a pair or you can find them used lately for around $20-30 each or even less for wooden ones.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I am going to bite the bullet and move into the late 20th century with a scanner purchase. I already have access to a machine with all neccessary software. Maybe I will post some corrected pinhole images. Or get my wife a new digital camera. The Nikon Coolpix she got a couple of years ago doesn't work right and is out of warrranty.

 

[Annie]

GreyWolf,

I know that the chances of encountering a Kodak 2D 7x11 are slim but I just wished to mention a few things. Although 7X11 to me is certainly a magical format, the 2D has other advantages.... It is very adaptable having good 'bones'...... because the rear frame of the bellows is 11x11 it easily accepts other ULF backs. My camera came with both the 8x10 & 7x11 backs. Also, I am having an 11x14 extension back made, it can be used without adding larger bellows (there is no vignetting from the original bellows rear opening) and it does not add that much weight to the camera. So if a 7x11 happens to cross your path it may be something you wish to consider.... You can have it all... (well almost!)

Cheers, Annie

 

[removed account4]

i have wanted a ulf camera for a few years now ... i am slowly arriving there, and have a feeling that in a few years time ...
but right now i am waiting for a 8x10 to arrive in the mail
(alex i think we bought the same camera!) ... last year i built a 8x20 pinhole camera that i use on occasion, but the formats that i use on a regular basis are both 4x5 & 5x7.

-john

 

[Donald Miller]

Greywolf,

If you are primarily interested in panoramics then I would second what others have said about going with an existing panoramic format.

The things that I considered when I moved to 12X20 were first and foremost the aspect ratio. Obviously the following is only my considerations and you must determine what fits for you. To me 4X5 to 20X24 cameras were too "square" in their aspect ratio. I found that 7X17 and 8X20 were too "lengthy". I then became aware of an aspect ratio consistent with the "golden mean". The cameras that fit this aspect ratio are the existing "square" formats cut in half along their longest dimension. This leaves one with the 7X11 (11X14 cut in half) that Annie mentioned and the 12X20 (20X24 cut in half). In fact I at one time considered building a 10X16 format (16X20 in half...I still consider that the ideal format). The cost of the camera fabrication, the film holders, and the film were more then I wanted to deal with at that time.

You mentioned your age...I am a fellow that is 61 years of age. I manage with the 12X20 (23 lbs for the camera only). That makes it about twice as heavy as my Deardorff. I don't haul it up mountains on my back.

If I were you I would photograph and I would enlarge some of my 4X5 negatives into panoramics using paper that I had cut down. See how the image fits with your idea of how the world needs to be presented. Cut down 16X20 paper into 8 by 20...try 7X17 ...and try 12X20.

I have two holders for my large camera...I have not used more then three exposures in any one day.

If there is a possibility that you may want to print your pt-pd negatives on Azo at any time (they will print on either medium)...you may want to consider the paper size on Azo.

ULF photography is different then "running and gunning" with 4X5, in my experience. Less exposures, more time in consideration and a lot slower. I shoot one lens on the big camera rather then the 4 that I have for 4X5 and the three that I have for 8X10. At film that is 8 times more expensive then 4X5...I find that time spent in consideration of all factors is time well spent.

 

[Alex Hawley]

(alex i think we bought the same camera!)

How should we split it John? 4x10 or 8x5?

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Greywolf,

One other thought on formats that you may want to consider. 8x16. It is an excellent size, and much smaller (as a camera) than 11x14, and TXT should be available from the format originator, Dick Phillips.

As a great portable wide format field camera, I think Dick makes the best ones out there, I almost purchased an 8x16, and then decided to go with 7x17 for various reasons.

You can always get the film cut for you by Photo Warehouse to your specifications, so whatever format you get, shouldn't be too much of a problem.

the 8x16 will fit two to a 16x20 sheet for printing, so it makes a lot of sense from that point of view. 7x17 will also fit two to a sheet. So the decision comes down to whether you like a real long feeling in the print, or only a slightly elongated feeling. The extra inch in the height makes the 8x16 feel more substantial than the 7x17 also.

Both of these cameras I consider to be much more portable in the field than an 11x14 camera, even though the one dimension is greater than 14. Since most 11x14 cameras have reversable backs, and the banquet cameras do not, you end up saving a lot on the height of the camera, which results in a much smaller package.

This is the reason that Keith Canham makes his 7x17 on the 8x10 bed, and the 11x14 on the 11x14 bed, which is also used for the 12x20 camera.


---Michael

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just to confirm what Michael is saying about 11x14" cameras being bigger than a 7x17" camera due to the reversible back, my American Optical 11x14" is about 18" square including knobs.

 

[sergio caetano]

4 x 5 is what I presently use, since 5 years ago. Sometimes, not so often, I use 120 format with Hassel system which I have worked since 1982. I wish I could use 8 x 10 but this stuff is not available here in Brazil. I'm very happy with 4 x 5 anyway.

 

[jimgalli]

Grey Wolf, Technically, 8X20 at 160 square inches eeks out my 11X14 at 154 but I really think the 1114 is heavier and bigger. My parents went to school at PBI in Three Hills, Alberta and I spent the winters of 1956, 1957, and 1959 there. I have many memories from there even though I was only 4-7 years old. I went back for a conference there in 1973 and haven't been to Canada since then. My sister was born there in 1956. I have 4X5 5X7 8X10 7X11 7X17 8X20. No, don't need or want a 1220! I'm maxed out.

 

[removed account4]

(alex i think we bought the same camera!)

How should we split it John? 4x10 or 8x5?

alex: 4x10 works for me ... what about you?
-john

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Coming to this discussion late. Glad to see so much interest in really LF cameras. Largest camera I have and use is an 18x22-inch field camera. Other is a 12 x 20 Deardorff with an 8x20 back. Weighs 35 lb. (18x22 weighs 50 lb.)

Recommend 8x10 as most convenient size. Larger requires considerable investment all around. As well as larger cameras being far more cumbersome.

I'd be happy to test camera for you--over the years have tested a number of other ULF cameras and helped improve their designs. Would set it up, go through the motions and return it to you the next day.

Your prices are amazinlg low. Interested in seeing your holders, too. Your prices for holders are very low, too.

Good luck to you.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I like and use a Wisner P 12x20. A very beautiful format. I think all the ULF formats have something very beautiful to say. When I was out west this year at Arches...it was just screaming for a 7x17. Right now I have another 12x20 w/ extra 11x14 back and a 7x17 on order from Wisner.I intend to sell these cameras new if anyone is interested. I will go through them upon arrival to make sure they are together and on spec to avoid any... well you know! These cameras are to be made to fit the S&S holders and also have rear gearing.I have accounts with both companies. The cool thing about the 7x17 is it is about 10lbs. The 12x20 is about 20lbs. Later I might spring for a 20x24 as I'm crazy about this size too. An ultralite 20x24 ..if you can call it that... is in the works. It will take single shot Polaroid as well as regular filmholders.