LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI front standard struts.

Let me just say that the issue is whether the camera can frame correctly or not.

A photographer is not an automat as you expect and if he chooses to cut off a section of an image or use unconventional framing then that is his choice.

When I gave Ruddy his camera he had been using another Littman with a 120mm lens and the comment which surprised me from his usage experience is when he told me that the framing on my camera was always truer to what he was looking for and as he was using a Toyo thru ground glass simultaneously he had found that the lines corresponded less to what he expected and took a lot of fiddling to get the framing to be what he wanted .

That is sufficient utility. more than expected

Ok- the looney tunes show has gone on long enough. For pete's sake, how can a rangefinder framing be MORE accurate than a ground-glass? That's like saying a trebuchet is more accurate than a satellite-guided missile!

Mr. Davis

You are correct it cannot.that is why I stated I was surprised .

His comment was not that it was more accurate per se but that he was able to obtain what he desired readily and easier with good results as in the case of the ground glass use it required a lot of tripod head fiddling just to get the lines as he wished.

 

What he represented to me was that the framing was truer in regards to the amount of effort required and the time involved in achieving it which is the responsiveness factor which concerns me is not compromising quality .

In any event that was my perception of his response. perhaps he prefers viewfinder composition over ground glass and that is his choice but if he feels that he can have the responsiveness and not compromise composition that is all which concerns me.

In terms of composing the image, I elected to cut off the top in order to get everything else I needed in the picture. Now I must confess that this picture was the first taken on the trip and the first picture taken with a L45. I was still in Lala land when I realize the ease at which I was able to do this. Now in terms of its comparison to my Toyo, I told William that with the Toyo on a tripod, I found myself bothering with making sure all the lines in the background were straight and correctly lined up. I had to use a bubble level with my Toyo and I found that I did not have to do so with the L45. For me it was maybe more like the years of using Leica rangefinders on the street felt more comfortable than a more disciplined kind of taking portraits. It was strictly a preference in how easily I was able to compose the subjects I encountered on the trip.

Here I was thinking the entire aim was to make the rangefinder image correspond to the ground glass image as close as possible, otherwise it`s a waste of time. When I have checked the images of both, (you can check the results on my website) I found them to be almost identical in appearance. All I`d like to clarify is whether Ruddy meant to chop off the guy`s head or did the counterweights prevent correct framing?

Dean Jones asked:

 

"All I`d like to clarify is whether Ruddy meant to chop off the guy`s head or did the counterweights prevent correct framing?"

 

 

 

"I elected to cut off the top in order to get everything else I needed in the picture" quote from Ruddy Rowe

Hi Dean! I'm still using the Polaroid and loving it. I hope all is well!<div></div>

Hi Andrew! Great to hear from you....obviously your struts don`t require counterweights. Your pic is great!

Please, can someone post here a picture of the shutter actuation mechanism on this camera?

 

I suspect that even though the viewfinder mimics the projection of the image on the film area, the actuation of the shutter release cable, after having used the focus wheel, throws the camera off balance. The effect of this being a shifted composition from the intended one.

 

Can someone post a picture of the shutter release?

In reference to the question to whether I make a hotshoe the answer is;I can make anything the proof is that everything on my camera stems from prototypes I have made myself

but why bother when inexpensive over the counter parts that are staples of commerce are readily available.

The method of making a weak tin brace suggested by Mr. Schwartz as a means of protecting the original plastic setup does not provide sufficient reinforcement for professional applications and if anyone remembers that people used to use heiland flashes or large Metz to shoot 4x5 whet the L45s offers is a hotshoe system which is attached to the metal frame of the camera.

 

 

 

The user can mount it on the tripod socket or where the original camera hotshoe was placed. in both cases the structure withstands the weight of 2 profoto 7 heads on each side and no pressure is placed on the plastic top.

 

Most of my clients don't use on camera flash a la mom and pop and use radio transmitters but if someone wants to use a fill flash the L45s has provisions for either ring flash attachment or hot shoe converters mounted in such way as to not affect the plastic cover.

 

regarding whether I can make a camera film holder receiving device

the answer is yes I have made many cameras where I made the backs myself but the purpose of my project is the pursuit of synergy in an attempt to address all aspects required to provide it and after having examined famed and Notorious view cameras such as the Linhof and realizing the camera back was really well made I came to the realization that investing my time and efforts in the pursuit of a few isolated parts would not help me achieve the synergy I was after and on the contrary distract me from it.

 

Secondly I examined and displayed camera backs which were made by Jones which were relatively square or level or even surfaced plus the light traps made out of foam had either evaporated or the glues had gummed and the traps peeled off or torn.

 

then Jones a proposed a back for where the spring tension applied to the filmholder had no predetermined tension

and everybody knows that a camera back must have equal and predetermined tension on all 4 corners. and as I saw again and again that people who make their own parts end up justifying what cant be I decided I must be careful not to get dragged down this road to mediocrity based on what I can or cant make myself.

 

Jones stated recently that a graflock back is like dealing with a bear trap. sorry but a graflock back is the back of choice by the entire industry and if someone doesn't like that then my camera also has a spring loaded glass back system both the graflock and the graflex ensure a standardized fit .

 

If I make something for my own use I will live with the inconsistencies of making one at a time kind of part but I make things for others and taking such route at this stage in time would be inconsiderate.

Therefore I became convinced that a well made back by a traditional manufacturer would be an asset to my clients and a good reliance to base my calculations on.

 

 

 

I am sure there are a lot of qualified repairmen in this land and I have never seen one show up on this website implying that because he can have the ability do make something with his hands that implies something else. it doesn't.

 

I believe in relationships and chacun a son metier. ( each to his profession)

 

People who make cars may make a great tire if they chose to but their emphasis is on a product viewed at a totality and many manufacturers I have spoken insist that the worst mistake someone can make is to loose sight of the total utility sought in the pursuit of a few non event essentials if those are readily available over the counter.

 

Hacking? I do not even machine the bodies myself. all machining is done in lots of 200 all at once my a precision machine shop with strict tolerances as to ensure continuity and again a basis to make determinations.

 

When the L45sVI strut assembly prototypes were approved . 100 sets were made at once there is absolutely no variance from one to the next because there cannot be.

 

Many manufacturers do not make their own parts . I don't sell parts if I did I would make parts.

 

the only machining I do myself is for the exterior designs of the camera as each one is different and I enjoy this

 

 

Wow, if only I could get someone to pay me per Guillermo's word. I might be able to

afford one of his pricey PATENTED cameras (did I mention they are patented?). His

cameras are patented by the way, in case you didn't know. They are patented.

LOL at the subcategory of this thread "space cadets".

What improves function in my product is the interconnection between the functions. this work requires a lot of machining and adjustment in excess of the basic components to achieve the purpose intended.

 

If exterior design does not benefit function neither does the use of home brewed and inconsistent parts in structural applications where function is of essence . it is precisely because it does not affect function that I take that route for exterior design as inconsitency is an aid to originality.

 

For the most part artists express non conformance thru artistic expression and on the other hand those who expect non conformance be applied to structural design come up with suggestions like making adjustments at the bends on struts or uneven tensioned spring backs because the emphasis is not on function but on putting on a show as to say they did something differently and go to whatever length to justify what does not make senseI.E. bipolar

 

Regarding whether the struts played a role in getting better results for Ruddy; the answer is absolutely! first because it allowed me to begin cam determinations starting with a front standard which was perfectly straight and when finished the performance exceeded what the camera could do before as it was first completed without them and the struts were " straight" as in relatively straight because without adjustment they cannot be 100% straight( ever).

 

AND as mentioned earlier Ruddy had been using a L45s with another lens without the adjustable struts and there is nothing wrong with that camera except it is the best it can be without adjustable struts and when I change the front standard it can then be absolutely perfect . when I get it back and change it and he tries it again he will notice the difference, but the major difference will be that such settings will not require big future efforts to be maintained nor extensive waiting periods to ensure the arms don't bend back after the so called" adjustment"I.E.( bending).

 

Most my clients will confirm their cameras are performing great after many years. Those cameras can now perform better if the adjustable struts are installed.

 

It is a disgrace that someone claiming to understand the matters at hand as to make cameras would ask a photographer whether the struts on his camera help him make a better picture or are an improvement.

 

Someone buying a car doesn't need to understand or bother why it is that a belt tensioner is an improvement over not having one. On the other hand someone disputing the utility of such asking a driver if he notices improvement before he can believe it is ,should limit his further instruction on those subjects and realize it is him who is most in need of instruction.

 

It is readily understood by anyone that when you have a strap and add a buckle and some holes you have improved it into an adjustable belt but then using a buckle which can be tightened in any position as the kind used in airplane seats is an improvement over the first choice because it offers a more precise adjustment and not limited to a few sizes.

 

Now the demonstrable difference in tangible terms is that Ruddy's picture is perfectly sharp on the first try while Andrews picture is soft . Andrew also said he didnt mint he didnt need better and that his was a toy camera.

 

Representing that the struts are not an issue because Andrew doesn't mind is misleading essentially because as discussed years ago he could care less if it is sharp or not. he also said it was a toy camera.most people using a Rodenstock apo sironar N to take that picture wide open would expect both subjects to be fairly sharp

 

Representing the struts are not an issue because 1 customer doesn't have a problem is misleading and if the picture was sharp maybe someone would believe it.

 

Besides one does not need a problem to seek improvement.most people who believe in leaving well enough alone use smaller formats , digital or conventional large format products which are readily available for less as is the sentiment shared by most .

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is that the Rodenstock Ysarex opened wide gives softer results than other lenses, this is not an indication of the performance of the camera. The 127mm Ektar is shaper wide open than the Ysarex.

 

The Ysarex was a moderately priced lens in its time, and it is still today. It gives average to good results. If one puts a more expensive lens on any camera one gets sharper results. This is not art, it is optics and optics design.

 

The strut "counterweights" still do not do anything, except increase the weight of the camera. As the specifications of L45 camera are not published, for artistic reasons, the tolerances are unknown.

 

It is a fact of machine design that the tolerances in supporting strutural members are dependent on the pin joint to which they are attached. Parallelism or no parallelism, "counterweights" or not, the tolerance of the pin junction between the strut and the front standard was not changed as the struts were modified.

 

The design was further weakened and by inserting the adjustable plates. How are these plates adjusted, by hand?

 

What is the method for locating the exact position of the plates? A micrometer based on the plastic housing of the rangefinder at one end, and to the standard at the other, then the measurement is taken, how many measurements? This is the worst method for determining parallelism. The parallelism involved here is between the front standard and the film plane.

 

Now, back to the "counterweights". How are these adjusted to the precision claimed? What is the tolerance needed not to compress excessively the pivot point at the front standard. Everyone knows that if you pull on one direction, it gets tighter on the other. If the Allen screw is excessively torqued, it can by this fact bend the remaining portion of the strut.

 

How does one guarantee that the smooth rotation of the pivot point is not forced. This is a friction joint, and any excessive friction will definitively bend the struts. What is the reference point from which the distance of the strut added to the tolerance of the joint is measured? To obtain perfect parallelism, the industry uses what is called a "seismic table" and an optical bench.

 

This manufacturer who is claiming perfect parallelism, perfect straightedness, does not even know the basic principles of tolerance measurement and distance evaluation without a fixed reference point. This is basic, even the machinist where he gets his parts made knows that, he does not seem to get it.

 

The "counterweights" do not do anything useful, they deteriorate the design of the camera. To cut these struts is the worst thing that can be done. The original stuts were machine stamped and this guarantees a certain overall lenght. The position of the "counterweigh" plates is variable and dependent as installed. This introduces an additional moving part that can get out of alignment during use, thus the camera needing "repair".

 

Cameras are precision machines. The Polaroid 110A/B was engineer designed, that is why it withstood so well the passing of time. That is why it can be modified as the design is so well done that it accommodates the needs of all cameras of this type, old and modern.

 

To cut the struts at will and without reason (read: under artistic license), is a sacrilege. The manufacturer does not have any clue of the basics of machine design whatsoever. He should leave these modifications to the professionals. Experience has showed that after forty years, these cameras can withstand continued use in their original form. I sincerely doubt that the modified L45 with the chopped up struts will have a long field life without re-adjustments. This modification has not been time tested.

 

This camera is only the work of an "artist", and not even that, it is in a sorry situation the original design was left. It is a waste of film to operate this camera at full aperture. The negative is so large, and so much film area is available, that it is a pity to leave all this space unused.

 

Artists should not butcher and modify devices for which they are unprepared, the mess that they create is evident. As the L45 was not volunteered for independent evaluation, all of its "magic" properties and claims, as being the best, the most responsive and the ultimate synergy are rubbish. Plain rubbish. All mentionned here, and using the "counterweights" as an example, is only hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.

 

We have only seen results from this camera only in photographs, not accurate measurements. These photographs do not mean anything, as I can do the same thing with my camera. The manufacturer has not even heard of inherent DOF. He should educate himself and read several books on optics.

 

His claim that the camera has very accurate focusing is also rubbish. As the lenses that can be fitted in this camera range from f/4.6 to f/5.6, the DOF from f/0.0 to the actual aperture number has taken care of the inherent inaccuracies.

 

If the L45 is said to be so precise in focusing, then it should be impossible to focus with it. This camera does not take into consideration that all eyes are not perfect, that all eyes do not focus at the same identical point. If it were not for the inherent DOF of lenses, rangefinders could not be used. The RF window of the 110B model is quite dim anyway.

 

The "counterweights" are rubbish, they solve an inexistent problem. They just mangle the equilibrium of the struts. The soft and hard focusing does not have to do anything with the camera, it is a lens property. The full accurate parallax correction is even more rubbish as the lenses installed have inherent DOF.

 

To resume, this camera is an artist made camera. This does not guarantee that its specifications are consistent. There are none. The systems that it uses are useless, as it was better to leave the camera alone. It is overweight, with the Graflok (the bear trap), and the so-claimed pressure at four points of a film holder will do nothing more than bend (distort) the longest point of the holder in a slight curve. Every mechanical designer knows that. Some pseudo-designers (read artists) are clueless regarding this point.

 

It was mentionned above that the torque applied was several hundred pounds. Well, let me humbly inform everyone that torque, is measured in foot-pounds or ft-lbs. For this case, instead of hundreds of pounds torque, it is more like a few in-lbs. The wheel nuts in everyone's car are to be torqued to 70 ft-lbs, and that takes a bit of force, everyone has experieced that.

 

No wonder that after an "artistic" application of hundreds of pounds the struts are bent. Can someone explain why not? If it is because of a mistake in units, then the manufacturer has demonstrated that, he does not know what he is talking about, and that he is clueless as to what he is doing.

This whole thread is the most drivel ever posted. Why would you intelligent folks get into a pissing match with such a self centered egotist that claims to have invented the wheel? (or some such idiosity)

Andrew that picture is hot. That thing is stinking up the place. It is so funky, it is making me stay up. Nice. I wish we could all share images like this. Does anybody know how to start a FLICKR gallery. That might be more interesting that spewing piss to see which person piss the farthest. Truth be told, there are quite a few people that make this camera. If one camera is better than the other, it should not matter, our interests must be the pictures that they take. It is not a question about superiority or inferiority but about photography. It should not be about who invented what but how does my picture look against the $5000 camera. I like my $$$$ camera. I am not boastful, I don"t even feel like I got a deal or got taken to the bank. I am just proud to be able to own something that will allow me to take photos.(Full stop) I wish we could all transfer some of this energy into some great photos like Andrew's.<div></div>

In regards to the cable release issue as to what happens after one focuses the camera, there is no such issue.

the focus composition and trigger happen as simultaneously as possible, in order but the trigger can be held simultaneously while one focuses

the trigger is located at comfortable reach from the focus wheel.

the second picture shows the cable release onto the shutter and which does not interfere with the field of view of the viewfinder.

 

Again Mr. Bhathal maliciously misrepresents that My camera has a shake issue when triggering it. that is not true.

And maliciously misrepresents that my caliper is resting on the camera housing as to make determinations when in fact one jaw is touching the graflock back which is film plane # 1 and the second jaw is used to verify the front standard.

In the tool I use the front jaw comes within 1 millimeter from the front standard.

 

the person who started it is not looking to obtain facts but create dissent.

 

In any mechanical configuration which requires a length adjustment there has to be a joint and to insist that having a joint is a compromise would then prevent such adjustment from being possible.

 

if a joint is created with parts which fit with very tight tolerances as to allow no play and a reinforcement is incorporated as to compensate accordingly then structural integrity is not compromised and can actually be reinforced so that section now becomes not only adjusted but sturdier than it was when uncut by the aid of proper bracing.

 

It would appear that interrupting a strong structure and then bracing it would compromise integrity. that tends to be the norm.

 

But this was a very weak structure and the improvement proposed turns out making a final structure which is actually sturdier.

 

1) it is extremely hard to bend that section and it is extremely hard to modify the length of those struts almost impossible while the screws are tightened to the point that when we tried to apply force as to test the resistance of the joint we had to apply so much force that the struts broke elsewhere but the joint remained un altered as to its adjustment of length and that section did not bend.

 

the enclosures made by two halves are stainless steel of a grade much tougher that the cold roll used for those arms which bend easily

and each side is thicker than the original strut therefore the materials used, the strict tolerances and the tight fit provide a structure which is stronger than required when before it was weaker.

 

clearly reinforcing a section of a structure does not make the entire structure sturdier. but we tried to take that route and needed up with need of adjustment anyway and lots of weight so the perfect solution was to make these simply adjustable because breakage had not been an issue of concern. these arms hardly break mostly because they are so flexible .the problem was length. we added a length adjustment.

here is an image of the focus and trigger being used simultaneously

"what has mr. littman patented, and does it actually interfere with other people doing conversions?

it seems that people are making too much out of nothing."

 

 

Coupled rangefinder/parallax 4.times.5 camera

 

I hope the link works.

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6608971.PN.&OS=PN/6608971&RS=PN/6608971

Kelly, I think that we know they are not 'counterweights', that`s just an affectionate term given to a mysterious device. I guess most cameras don`t need such a novelty.

I have found no valid use for them on my cameras to date, as the original Polaroid struts are very strong.

I do have reservations about the poor guy hanging from a wire though.

If that`s a mistake, it`s in poor taste...glad it wasn`t shot with a Razzle.

Dean; I know must all probably know they are not counterweights, I just thought it was an odd improper term. Many folders work fine as is, and see their ruin thru a newcomers quick closing or opening when the links are abit tight. Thus the age old front standard tilt problem arrises.

My first thoughts to the added "deals" what Diwan called "counterweights" was an adjustment; ie a way of tweaking the struts length. The parallelism problem with folders goes back over 100 years. Folders when new often work well. With age many get bent, see abuse. A 1/2 century old camera is going to see some wear, like a 1/2 century car. The ones we saw as kids were junkers in pawn shops, really abused ones that were in the 1950's just not worth fixing. These were often cameras that took a huge drop. Some folks used these hulks for parts, conversions since there cost was nil. A junker 110 was just a few dollars if that, a speed graphic with a 127mm was several months wages.

"The parallelism problem with folders goes back over 100 years. Folders when new often work well. With age many get bent"

 

See that was not that hard! If folders often work well when new; we are not discussing new cameras and often is not often enough.

 

Most people do not go thru the trouble of seeking more quality and be concerned with if it" may" bend. there are too many ifs

age, materials, eventuality, wear and then the most feared is" new folks" be careful of the new folks.But while it is useful someone has volunteered that I was telling the truth Age is not the problem as any structure of similar design can have the same issue because if the guy says they often worked well when new then new cameras of similar design today can only be expected to work well often and work well is relative to expectations.

Diwwan,Noah,Dean and anyone else really; I would like to avoid the quicksand surrounding all this and suggest a different conversion/alteration/remanufacturing project. Is there not some way to adapt a range finder to the lense coneand focus mount of a Foto Man 4x5? This would result in a handy 4x5 that would easily focus on the fly while hand-held. Perhaps some of those old Polaroid rangefinder parts could be grafted on in some effective way. I cannot do these DIY work-shop projects myself, but would really like to see someone do it.

 

Regards;

 

Drew Bedo

www.quietlightphoto.com

You'd better patent it.......QUICK!