Canham 6x17 back update?

Haven't heard anything in the last 6 months or so about the status of the 6x17 back for the MQC.

<p>

Does anyone have an update?

<p>

(or better yet, an early review?)

I talked to Keith several weeks ago about the roll film back. He

completed all of the design and testing and went to the manufacturer

to get them started. Unfortunately, he is being forced to wait for

the contractor to finish a very expensive spur of the moment

machining job for another client that is tying up all of his

equipment. He said that he hopes to start delivery of the roll film

back around September. The price has not been finalized yet, but it

should go for about $900-$1000. Hope this helps.

Michael (or anyone else who might know)- Will this rollback fit any

standard 5x7 (like a Calumet C-2 fits any 4x5) or will it only work

on the MQC?

<p>

Thanks,

I believe it is unique to the Canham. As I understand, it will be

attached to the camera in the space voided by decompressing the

ground glass arms and removing the ground glass. There are two metal

slides that are used to hold the 4x5 reducing back in place that will

also serve to secure the roll film back.

<p>

Until we actually see a final production item, it would be pure

speculation to assess its compatibility on other cameras.

There are a couple of posts in the archive about it being a graflok

style back that's compatible with the MQC.

<p>

(I must have missed the post originally because the description

provided there is not at all what I had pictured in my mind. Michael

Mutmansky's description states that the film advance is battery

powered!)

Well, the last prototype I saw had a 9volt battery and a small

stepping (I think) motor, with a little microprocessor to set the

proper film advance distance.

<p>

I had heard back in Feb or so that Keith had to redesign the back a

bit because of a problem with the motor, I think he found the source

unreliable.

<p>

Then, he was all ready to go with production, and the machining

facility that does all his CNC machines started having production

problems with their primary CMC machine. At that point, even running

24 hours a day, they were months behind.

<p>

That's the last I have heard. If Keith has gone to manual advance, I

would be suprised, because he said the machining and design to do a

geared advance mechanism would mean a huge increase in the price of

the unit.

<p>

Lastly, Keith was talking about making a 6x17 camera front to fit the

back, for you point and shooters out there. That's several years off,

in my estimation.

<p>

You remove the MQC back, (a Graflock style attachment) and then

replace the entire back with the 6x17 back. It does not slip under

the GG. I think this makes a lot of sense, because the back is so

easy to remove without jostling the camera. I do not know if the wood

Canham will fit, but I can't imagine why Keith would make a back that

was incompatable with his wood 5x7.

<p>

Finally, there's no reason a decent woodworker can't make an adapter

frame to fit the 617 back to one of the Pandora's box of other cameras

out there. Of course, each brand will need a different adapter.

<p>

---Michael

OK. I just talked to Keith Canham on another subject and he was able

to bring me up to speed on the roll film back. Here is the latest.

September delivery.

It will be a 9V battery operated advance system.

It should be about $1,000.

It will fit in any 5x7 camera (including Canham's wood 5x7 camera)

behind the ground glass that has 1 1/2 inches of space for it to fit

in. Most B&J, Deardorf or Agfa cameras have less than the minimum

clearance of 1 1/2 inches. Should be easy to modify for most cameras.

On the Canham metal 5x7, it will be graflok attached to the space

where the ground glass is removed.

I called Keith last week for a minor part and he mentioned than his

machine shop subcontractor had received a directive (an order they

couldn't refuse, legally) from the Pentagon to fabricate parts for

some military system: ABM prototype, or a spy satellite, or some such

malarkey. Naturally if true these people would have no incentive not

to re-order parts remade 'til the cows come home. I wish I was a

machinist.

<p>

For the moment I'll shoot 5x7 and crop the top and bottom.