Would need advice about this camera

Here is the formula by Lord Raleigh (1842-1919), thus un-biased by a pinhole community...

hole diameter = 2 x 0.95 x SquareRoot (extension x wavelength)

That's a lot of money for a rather limited camera. When I dabbled in pinhole photography I bought a 4x5 camera with a ground glass back, the absolute cheapest available, and old Speed Graphic as I remember. Exact framing was easy to achieve by putting a big "viewing" pinhole on the front and looking at the "bright" ground glass while under a nice dark focussing cloth. Sure the image is very blurry but it is easy to see what's in and what's out. Then the big pinhole is replaced by an optimised pinhole for the sharpest possible image with perfect framing already decided.
The other advantage of this approach is that it's a small step to get a cheap lens, put it on the front of the camera and, voila, the world of conventional large format photography is in your hands.

AgX said:

Here is the formula by Lord Raleigh (1842-1919), thus un-biased by a pinhole community...

hole diameter = 2 x 0.95 x SquareRoot (extension x wavelength)

Click to expand...

Yea, I know about this formula and I saw that there are other formulas of this very same formula and they’re slightly differ.

Maris said:

That's a lot of money for a rather limited camera. When I dabbled in pinhole photography I bought a 4x5 camera with a ground glass back, the absolute cheapest available, and old Speed Graphic as I remember. Exact framing was easy to achieve by putting a big "viewing" pinhole on the front and looking at the "bright" ground glass while under a nice dark focussing cloth. Sure the image is very blurry but it is easy to see what's in and what's out. Then the big pinhole is replaced by an optimised pinhole for the sharpest possible image with perfect framing already decided.
The other advantage of this approach is that it's a small step to get a cheap lens, put it on the front of the camera and, voila, the world of conventional large format photography is in your hands.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is indeed a very good idea but I need a lightweight camera. There’re so many really well built, sturdy ones out there but I just can’t carry them.

AgX said:

Here is the formula by Lord Raleigh (1842-1919), thus un-biased by a pinhole community...

hole diameter = 2 x 0.95 x SquareRoot (extension x wavelength)

Click to expand...

Lord Raleigh was perhaps more of a scientist than photographer. His formula gives a pinhole about 1.25 percent larger than the optimum size that I prefer after years of pinhole photography. His formula may be better for wide angle pinhole cameras because it sacrifices some central sharpness for sharper corners. I prefer Pinhole Designer for most calculations. In the graph for the .011 pinhole, the user constant was 1.3. For the .016 graph, the user constant was 1.4. For the .022 graph, the user constant was perhaps 2.2. To derive these charts I photographed a target similar to the 1951 USAF text chart. Evaluation of the results depended upon my interpretation of the results in line/pair per mm.. Others may interpret differently. These charts do give a photographer some information to narrow down the range of optimum pinhole size, especially for wide-angle cameras. I usually choose a user constant of 1.4 in Pinhole Designer.When doing pinhole photography, esthetics is more important than technical precision. Note that optimum pinhole macro-photography requires slightly smaller pinholes than do more distant subjects, but the formula for that will have to wait for another day.

It’s pinhole!

Variable sharpness, unknown framing, and vignetting are “features”, not bugs. It looks like a cool rig to me. And 100mm for a 5x7 is quite wide. You can bury yourself in the mechanics of getting the ‘perfect’ image, and then lose the entire purpose of shooting pinhole in the first place—that is—having fun and letting go of the burdens of lensed photography. Otherwise you might as well stick with lenses.

If you don’t mind spending the money, get the camera. You will have MANY avenues of experimentation with this beast.

scheimfluger_77 said:

It’s pinhole!

Variable sharpness, unknown framing, and vignetting are “features”, not bugs. It looks like a cool rig to me. And 100mm for a 5x7 is quite wide. You can bury yourself in the mechanics of getting the ‘perfect’ image, and then lose the entire purpose of shooting pinhole in the first place—that is—having fun and letting go of the burdens of lensed photography. Otherwise you might as well stick with lenses.

If you don’t mind spending the money, get the camera. You will have MANY avenues of experimentation with this beast.

Click to expand...

Yes I know that these are not bugs but features. That’s why I chose pinhole because it's a stimulating approach.

What I'm trying to say is that I like to control what I'm doing most of the time though of course it's also exciting when I can't be sure about the exact outcome.

I think it's a very good idea what was mentioned here earlier, that I should choose those focal lengths I prefer most and take test shots with all the diameters so I know then what to expect.

Donald Qualls said:

I wouldn't expect swing or tilt to have any effect on a pinhole, other than if you swing/tilt far enough that the off-axis limits (due to pinhole material thickness) come into play. Otherwise, swings and tilts change the relationship between the focal plane of the lens, the in-focus plane in the world, and the film plane. Since pinholes have no focal plane, there's nothing happening here. Now, shift and rise will have the same effects on perspective they'd have with a standard view camera -- front rise will let you shoot upward without keystoning, etc. -- as long as you don't get into that off-axis self-vignetting region (or get the bellows into the light path or something of the sort).

Click to expand...

Guess not, although I have some apo lens that will go to f250 that will......maybe.

awty said:

Guess not, although I have some apo lens that will go to f250 that will......maybe.

Click to expand...

At f/250 I'd think you were getting what amounts to a pinhole photo -- everything in "focus", including that bit of the front standard you didn't notice was in frame...