Littman 45 Single... anyone using one?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by keenevision, Feb 19, 2004.

  1. I came across the website for this camera quite by accident- for whatever reason I am
    very interested...
    searched this site, but only really found folks chatting about the 'legalities' and such
    of the polaroid/4x5 conversion..

    Any one using this or laid hands on one?

    I want opinions! My own use would be with a Grafmatic 4x5 pack, Polaroids 4x5 pack
    film, and perhaps a 6x7/6x9 roll film back....

    I find it fascinating that there is the possibilty of a rangefinder coupled 4x5! Talk
    about your "Super-Sized Leica"!!!
    Bob Keene
     
  2. A friend of mine got one and didn't like it in the end (and felt it was somewhat overpriced as well).

    While it was well made, he felt that in the end the concept didn't work. The complete lack of movments etc really lost the pint of using 4x5 in the end , for him. After a short while he sold it.

    He previously used a Graphic (which he still has and uses) for some hand held "street" type photogorpahy, as well as a Rolleiflex and felt the Littman really didn't offer any great advantages over either in the end. Basically, it sounded good on paper, but in reality he didn't find the concept worked - especially at the price.

    He's now moved on to a Noblex.

    I'll se if I can find the post he wrote about it.
     
  3. Here you go:

    http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v26/msg01289.html

    actually, he got the Linhof tech and the Noblex later...
     
  4. John Brownlow ( www.pinkheadedbug.com ) had one for a while when trying a portrait
    project, was disappointed by it, and dumped it. He now has a Canon 1Ds.
     
  5. A close friend owns two. One with the 127 Yasarex lens and the other with a Schneider 150. He travels quite extensively and uses it on many of his trips. It is an amazing camera. It allows for lens tilt and handheld 4x5 photography with a coupled viewfinder. Focusing is fast and accurate.

    The 127 Yasarex has a good amount of fall off and a very unique look. This is not a camera for digital pictorialists but is a camera for those fine art image makers who want to shoot spontaneously in 4x5 and create images with a unique feel.

    Overpriced? Perhaps but there are few if any 4x5 handheld cameras other than the Littman 45S II that offer a tiltable front lens, a coupled focusing viewfinder and parallax correction.

    Another tool in the arsenal that is fun to use, allows the photographer make spontaneous handheld images. All in all a very cool fun camera, which BTW as of this day I would love to own.
     
  6. I have already answered to such a question a few months ago.
    First, I must insist on the fact that I have never used a Littman 45, therefore, some of my objections are perhaps not founded.
    As I could never test a Littman, (I'll not buy one with shipment to France just for testing it !) my answer is more a series of questions than criticisms.
    As I have already seen Mr Littman's answers, I prefer to point out that what follows is not an indictment !
    I use a Master Technika, and I'll make some comparisons between the Littman 45 and a folding Linhof (Master or Super Technika).
    • The Littman can use only one single lens, which must of course be chosen before buying. No right to error.
    • Some people prefer to use several fixed-lens cameras than just one with interchangeable lenses : 3 Rolleiflex TLR, wide, normal and tele. This is rather expensive but can be done, and there is a true difference between the cameras. With the Littman,the range from 110 to 150 is quite the same, so the choice is rather reduced.
    • With a Linhof, lenses are interchangeable, and you can use a full range of rangefinder-coupled lenses between 75 and 360mm (actually 72 to 400mm, also rangefinder-coupled).
    • You can use wide angle lenses on a Linhof. Of course, 110 to 127mm lenses on the Littman can be considered as moderate wide angle. But you can't use a 75 or a 90mm. Thus, many architecture and "urban life" photos are easier with a Linhof, handheld with the help of a monopod.
    • The 110 Apo aspheric Super Symmar XL is a rather large lens, and I wonder if the camera can be easily closed with such a lens. It's just a question. (On the Master Technika, the camera can't be closed with such a lens inside).
    • Of course, a Linhof is obviously heavier and more cumbersome. How much is the weight difference, I don't know, as I've never be able to find Littman's specifications : dimensions, weight...on the website.
    • I think that price is rather high for a single lens camera. ($2750 to $4500) For such a price, you only buy a used camera, even if the camera is re-constructed and improved.
    • Aiming and composing with the rangefinder in portrait position with Pola holders seems maybe rather difficult.
    • When using Pola holders, the image in the viewfinder is slightly different from the 4x5 film image. On the Linhof, you just have to change the viewfinder masks. Parallax corrections seem easier to control on the Linhof, and the viewfinder is very accurate.
    • On a Linhof, you just have to change the viewfinder mask. Parallax corrections are easy to control on the Linhof, and the viewfinder is very accurate.
    • As far as I know, the Littman has only front tilts. No swings, NO RISE (architecture), no shifts, no back movements. The Linhof has all of them.
    • The Littman is claimed to be the "only single-window 4x5" camera". I agree with this assertion, (however, I saw photos of Pola 110A and B, and viewfinder and rangefinder were in two close windows, but that is of little importance). Nevertheless I consider that using successively the rangefinder then the viewfinder on the Linhof is more an advantage than a drawback : when focusing the camera, you only focus, and when composing the image, you only compose. This seems maybe silly, but the concentration on each task is probably better than with a single window.
    • The multifocal optical finder of the Linhof is removable and can be used for locations without carrying the camera. This is a very interesting feature.
    • Another point is important for me : Polaroid 110 cameras have been out of product since many years. Thus, repair and spare parts rest only on a single man in the USA. Service and know-how, spare parts and accessories for Linhof's cameras can be performed worldwide.
      If a camera costs $100 or less, I don't care. If I buy a $4000 camera, my concern is different.
    • Last, I can go to walk and shoot photos with my Technika, one holder (Pola 545i with 55P/N, Grafmatic or rollfilm) and only one lens in the camera housing.
      Then, where is the difference with the Littman ?
      IMO, the Littman is very specific and not versatile enough compared with a Linhof, at least for the actual price.
     
  7. Jean-Louis

    I fully concur with your assesment of the Linhof Technika having owned one since the 70's. I could add more but that would be (accurately) taken as an attack on what I see as the very flawed idea of a Littman. Most of the attributes you apply to the Linhof can also be found in the GranView. http://www.granview.com I have two of them. They are lighter than either of the two other cameras. Cost a fraction of a Littman. Take nearly any lens. (I have a 53mm Biogon and a 65mm 5.6 SA mounted for mine) Are in current production. Will accept the Linhof finders. Accept any film or roll film back with aplomb. And best of all, like the Linhof, in use, they make sense.
     
  8. You're right, Fred, but I consider that lens cones are rather expensive. <br>
    On another hand, once a lens mounted on a Linhof lensboard is dismounted to fix it on a Granview cone, it is quite umpossible to use it again on the Linhof.<br>
    These cones are not heavy, but cumbersome to carry in a bag.<br>
    The bellows of the Linhof replaces advantageously all these lens cones, and folded in a bag, takes much less place.<br>
    Last but not least, and definitely, the beauty of a Linhof Master Technika is a real pleasure to look at and also to use.<br>
     
  9. Jean-Louis: I cannot argue with anything you say about the Linhof, I love them also. Dismounting a 135mm Planar or a few other special mount lenses would be a nightmare, but it can be done. Most normally mounted lenses should pose no problem at all. I interchange my GranView lenses to my Cambo with no problem. The cones for lenses longer than 135mm are indeed bulky but the tradeoff is worth it. The cones for the short lenses are not bulky at all. It is a different way of thinking than to have a bulky camera and board mounted lenses. The Granview body in the size of a couple of holders, and costs very little. The cost is in the cones and focus mount, not the bodies. What you get in return for the cones and their bulk is a camera that is impervious to wind and weather. The Ruggedness is incredible. You actually can wash a GrandView if you are so inclined. Wind has no effect at all. GranView even has protective devices for the lens and shutter in inclimate weather. The cameras need no protection, beyond common sense. GranView used to have a video where they kicked one down a hill, with their sealed protective lens cover in place, with no ill effect. Not something I would recommend, but as they say S*** happens. They are so light that you will take them places where you would not willingly lug a Linhof or most other LF (or MF) cameras.
     
  10. Fred,
    as you already use the Granview, and I don't, I can't contradict you.
    Of course, the Granview is a large format camera as well as a medium one. The comparison is more with a Sinar Handy, or a Horseman Digiflex than with a Master Technika.
    I mean that all those cameras are large format, hand-held, light cameras, but they have no movements at all.
    IMO, the main difference between large format photography and other models is, beyond the image definition, the existence of large movements of rise, shift, swings and tilts. As far as I know, the Granview has no one.
    If I use a large format camera, and I can't correct perspectives by using at least a lens rise, the only remaining advantage is the larger format.
    The Master technika is the last and only large format folding camera, which can be used either hand-held with a rangefinder, (like a beefed-up Leica) and at the same time like a "classic" large format camera, on a tripod, with GG focusing and all rise, shift, swings and tilts movements.
     
  11. The model you are discussing has been discontinued and a whole new Littman 45 single was introduced january 1st 2004 http://www.photoworkshop.com/double_exposure /publish/article_672.shtml 3 different established photographers are covering the presidential elections with the L45s to one degree or another. http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2071563
    007VOd-16772684.JPG
     
  12. the previous link did not work so Im replacing it with this one

    http://www.photoworkshop.com/double_exposure/publish/article_672.shtml
     
  13. Mr Littman,
    "The model you are discussing has been discontinued and a whole new Littman 45 single was introduced january 1st 2004"
    How can we know that ?
    When I need informations about your cameras, I go on your website, and I don't begin to seek in all web-newspapers for articles treating of Littman 45 Single's improvements.
    If I refer to your website, the last information about camera models is dated Feb. 20, 2003.
    Rather difficult to know what is new in january, 2004...
    Don't you think it might be more effective to update your website ?
    Second, I've read the article you quote. It's for me as clear as a plate of mashed potatoes, probably because I am french and my english is very poor and lacks practice.
    I really don't understand what's really new... I have some vague ideas, but I see no revolution, and at least nothing which contradicts what I wrote here.
    I am probably an ass, but I sincerely believe that your article singularly lacks precision.
     
  14. Why all this hostility?
     
  15. Exactly!! the funny thing is that The discontinued L45s 1 is now worth more than the original purchase price, the estimates are not yet in but I think that eventually it will be worth double what people paid for it, the Public should have the chance of owning something special considered as the most responsive large format camera in history and earning a revenue at the same time , anyway the article which has been refered to was posted in my site/ still is since it came out, If people would stop these attacks , I would have a chance to update my site more often and deliver my cameras to my clients on time.
     
  16. Jean Louis:
    The first model had coupled rangefinder (for focus) and coupled parallax correction ( how much the lens sees) the new model has both features but also the ability to show in the same finder " how things look on film" no other rf/vf in history had that in any format.
    I don't know if that is a revolution but a great advantage to portraitists or anyone shooting people as most slr photographers disliked rf photography because rf never showed how things would look and at best showed how much the film would see. my camera is not a view camera , just a snapshot 4x5 , most people only want to take snapshots and having coupled rf, parallax correction and perspective interpretation in the same finder is great for snapshots purpose, the camera isn't intended to do anything else , and most people do not want to carry around a camera that weighs 7 pounds , or 5 pounds if they can use one that weighs 3.5 and if they don't want to shoot architecture or seek shifts which cannot be done handheld anyway, your description of my first model is accurate in the sense that it had all the minimum required features needed to shoot snapshots handheld in the 4x5 format if one seeks to focus on the moment to be captured while being truly mobile , the new one has more feature which combined with the other 2 makes it all faster and more pleasurable according to those who have tried it, most snapshot cameras have only one lens , most photographers have one lens which they prefer,and use most , I agree and accept that this camera may not be for you, by the way I agree that the Linhoff is the best view camera ever made.
     
  17. For the opinion of a famous and (French)fashion Photographer which makes a living using both the L45s and a Speed Graphic (you can see this interview )


    http://www.photoworkshop.com/cgibin/artman/exec/view.cgiarchive=8&num=408

    (and here is a gallery of the images he has made with the L45s )

    http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/acgal01.html

    (Here you have a gallery of images By a Renowned celebrity photographer who uses both the L45s and a Linhoff Technica for his work, in that gallery you can also find his comments on both cameras.)
     
  18. http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/hlgal01.html
    (L45s Vs Linhoff review)
     
  19. Mr Littman,
    thank you for your last link (Henry Leutwyler's article). An interesting opinion.
    About the Linhof, I of course agree with what he wrote. The Linhof is heavy, that is the reason why I often use it on a carbon-fiber monopod.
    About the "going back and forth between focus and finder windows", I agree also that it may be unconvenient and non-ergonomic for some people. Not for me however. Maybe because we don't make the same kind of photography.
    When I bought my Technika, 4 years ago, I was able to test several other cameras (View and field cameras) in Paris, Boulevard Beaumarchais, before making my decision. What is really a pity is that I cannot test a 45 single.
    I have consequently more questions than certainty about your cameras.
    Regards,
     
  20. First of all, the question here was whether anyone was using a Littman 45 single not a conversion comparison as it has been established that the merit of my camera is not the conversion issue, I would reply that its not just anyone using it but many of the trendsetters in the industry and also dedicated amateurs.

    It has been made very clear in previous discussions that a mere conversion of a Polaroid 3x4 to 4x5 cannot truly be considered a handheld camera because whether or not the actual focusing may work to whatever degree, the cameras finder will not be aimed at the subject, that is the first issue, the second issue is that parallax correction is not present, therefore to imply at this time that such cameras are a less expensive alternative to my camera is a false statement knowingly made because a camera finder that cannot be aimed at all is not an alternative in a camera intended for hand held use . the only way that a mere conversion as such
    can be operated effectively is thru ground glass, at which point I have to say that anyone buying an old Speed Graphic for a couple of hundred would be better off and if using the camera hand held at least the finder which has no parallax would at least be aimed at the subject.

    This has been addressed at length.

    Regarding my alleged poor behavior, let me just state that the person who started the 2 threads insisting my patent was a patent with a small "p" ended the discussions by insisting that in his opinion a legal patent should be respected.

    What can be considered valid proof of prior art was not presented and the lawful manner to proceed is to forward it to the USPTO .

    I have fulfilled the requisites of the law to obtain a patent as shown , my rights as per that patent are specified in the image below
    If prior art does exist the USPTO has to determine it is valid before anyone can proceed to insist to the public and promote other products utilizing my established name and brand and trademark and most of all since Patent or not these products are not really less expensive alternatives to mine when considering hand held use as I have explained.

    It is not appropriate to insist otherwise, not considerate to the public and not the question of this discussion.

    When the tech merits have been substantiated by awards galleries of images by some of the best photographers and constant praise by the users who in return for my great sacrifice have made a conscious effort to invest the respect and dedication to learn the use of a new approach to photography have provided the proof of its performance by the results published and their experiences and when the differences have been clearly established as well and when prior discussions definitely prove that there is no comparison between my camera and a mere conversion, when we do not seem to progress and move forward and when I have looked the other way on the Patent issue provided that people would no longer utilize my product to validate, promote or endorse product which no one knows are legal I insist all bets are off.
    If people still disrupt the standing of my product insisting that such products are less expensive alternatives to my cameras knowing that is false , that is documented and Public Domain .

    As Mr. Jones insisted a legal Patent needs to be respected and it is both unethical and inappropriate to Utilize my name, brand , or questions about my product to continue to promote other products, If the USPTO decides in the future that such products are legal then fine in the meantime these sneaky attempts to utilize questions about my product to validate them can not continue.

    As I promised I sought advice after the threads to limit my Patent claims regarding the conversion issue but It was made clear to me that after the Patent has been issued it is no longer my place and I have no proof that the prior art exists and if prior art exists it must be accepted by the USPTO .

    My rights are specified below please respect them and do not insist that I behave poorly when you are trying to undermine the standing of my product by insisting that these others are alternatives to mine, respect the truth, my patent and allow me to proceed as I have the right to expect after my efforts have been proven as a great and costly personal sacrifice and valuable to others .



     
  21. Regarding allegations by others that they have previously converted the 110b to 4x5 ai had another interesting experience at the begining of this year when i saw ebay auction #2976547424 and i contacted the seller insisting that the reason the image projected onto the film was smaller than 4x5 was because I could see from the image of the back that the camera back was installed 1/2 inch to 5/8 in off centre and would produce unwanted swing on the horizontal and uwanted shift on the vertical, i asked him if he would be so kind to clarify why it was that the image was smaller so people would not in the future insist that yet another person had converted the cameras to 4x5 as installing the back off centre does not establish priority or precedent of anything that would affect me , yet as he insisted that this camera had worked well for years , that the camera fit better in proportion than any other back, i pointed that the fitting proportionately of a camera back is considered by photographers in relationship to the center of the lens and that ebay bidders had a right to know this, he said i was crazy and that the next time arround when he sold another he would ommit the word proportional, instead of disclosing the problem with the camera he continued to assure me that it was perfectly made and said it was not an L45s but otherwise fine, so I won the auction but he refunded my payment of 1200 and changed his user id. Shortly after a photographer from Ny called Paul Graham who was in communication with me considering an L45s won ebay auction 2978967518 in which the seller continued to make the same representations about the camera, today i Emailed Mr Graham after seeing in the feedback of the auction that he insited that it was a bad camera and this is what Mr Graham Had to say;-----------"William, yes I found that out immediately after, and complained vigorously to him – he would not do anything about it except try to muddle the waters talking about parallax – which has nothing to do with this off centre issue. I tried and tried and he refused to refund the $. saying I had ‘changed my mind’ or had ‘buyers remorse’. he simply would not accept it’s a faulty conversion. I was going to sell it and try to get some of my $ back, but what can you do to get him to refund my $801.00? (and I see he’s selling another one again now: 3800140765) thanks," ------------- I have many examples of such alledged priorities which are not really a priority, and more than enough reason to remind all that people cannot insist what others ahve done previously without what can be considered as evidence of prior art. I will ask Mr Graham To Join the discussion I do not Know If he will but I hope he recovers his money and that others are not subjected to the same. pg Soon after a photographer who was in communication
    007X28-16802884.jpg
     
  22. Mr Graham just emailed this followup;
    ----------------
    Dear William –



    I bought the camera from this vendor in an Ebay auction, after considering buying a Littman 45S.

    In that auction he mentioned that it was not a Littman and had no parallax correction (which I could live with) but pointed to the Littman website as reference, which obviously shows similar models and sings their praises.



    his description said that the back “is a top quality horseman back fits the camera perfectly in proportion” and that “the camera has been used for years…. the construction is solid and has worked very well as a portable hand holdable large format camera that can be focused via rangefinder or ground glass”



    at first glance I was happy with it – the body and lens was clean and quite useable, and I posted favorable initial feedback.

    but once I started taking pictures I kept getting misaligned shots, and out of focus areas with soft corners.



    I quickly told him I was unhappy and thought that the rangefinder was out and/or incorrectly set, which he said was unlikely.



    after taking some more pictures I realized what it was: that the back was quite off centre – he had not mounted the back on the centre of the lens’s optical plane, but done the easier and lazier thing of just placing it in the most convenient place on the original Polaroid back. I said this was unacceptable in a working camera and asked him to “do the decent thing, stand by the quality of his workmanship and refund me the money (less postage costs)”

    he refused, and tried to imply it was a rangefinder parallax correction issue, or that it was simply like having a rear shift movement which professional photographers know and use…



    I pointed out this was not so, and asked him once more for a refund, which he refused point blank.

    He states out that I have also bought other Polaroid items (cameras, backs, etc. on Ebay, which indeed I have, but so what? I own 3 x Mamiya 7’s but if I bought a faulty one then I would send it back) as if that somehow makes his badly converted camera ok.



    I left follow up Ebay feedback warning future purchasers of his poor conversion, and he followed that up by saying that I simply had “buyers remorse”

    which indeed I have now, but simply because I got ripped by his poor workmanship, and sold a faulty misaligned camera.



    a bad experience all round. and one I’d like to save by getting some of my money back.



    pg







    William – if you can minimize my direct name usage in photo-net (not with the seller himself) I’d be grateful, as I have a professional profile to hold up.



    bests,



    Paul
     
  23. your profile is / will in no way be affected by you telling the truth
    I would have deleted that last line, I did not see it, I apologize for that but it goes further to show that after all the suffering you have been subjected to, you still would prefer not to cause grief to another, you deserve to get your money back , end of story.
     
  24. There he goes again; same stuff as the last time around. I'd say he's got a bit of a persecution complex.

    Save yourself a ton of cash (and grief!), and get a Crown Graphic instead. That's $250 to $300 in nice shape, including a Grafloc back and a rangefinder. And you can swap the lenses. If a converted Polaroid is what you really want, Dean Jones is your man.
     


  25. I'm not Imagining things,other thread participants have noted here that there was a hostile tone, Ive been called names ,, the original question declared an interest for what was compared as would be an Oversized Leica, but due to the fact that my camera uses conversion as part of the process, we are back as you suggested where we were last time and shouldn't be as the matter was fully addressed,and
    the question here was not about the conversion but whether my camera would have the ability to shoot 4x5 as with a Leica . a mere converted Polaroid does not, my camera does. that was the subject of the discussion ,the person asking the original question showed an interest in the possibility of expanding his creative ability, and not in restricting his options in order to save money, to some people that is important and those are the kinds of people who value my efforts, buy my product .

    So the person asking the question was not after a converted Polaroid but after a camera that would allow him to do what he wanted, I believe that the problem stems from the fact that those who would buy my camera simply do.

    As they are interested on the opinions of professional photographers whose livelihoods depend on the performance of the product, and the opinions of amateur camera owners or those who have used it,and those testimonials can be found on my site, and those who come to forums keep receiving advice as to how to save money by forfeiting conveniences ,with insistences to buy a mere conversion of a Polaroid camera which cannot do what the artist wish to achieve, again and again throughout these forums the most positive thing someone has said safely if they haven't used one was that if you want what the Littman can do ,buy it, but most participants in these threads either because they haven seen it, used it, and because it is not available to all, favor suggesting whatever else, not wrong , after all you cant really give your opinion about what you have not used, don't know first hand, unless it appears to be inexpensive in which case it appears to be more justifiable, as a result and whether you all want to realize it or not, it always places me in a disadvantage because the product is/ will be of limited production and is novel, and not readily available as other things you all have experienced, I have come to understand that I do not blame anyone for that yet I'm convinced that because what is truly valuable about my camera cannot be readily shared in some way it limits the discussions to what can be understood at a distance which is that the outside is a Polaroid camera.

    I tried to leave the past behind as much as it can be left behind but even before I came here people were warned that I would be defensive, can we admit that the same 4 or 5 people who do not approve of the cost of my product should not be the ones dissuading creative people out of buying my camera by diverting the discussion from whether or not the camera can offer the creative advantages to buy a less expensive camera which cannot do what he was interested in achieving,Mr. Keene's question has not been addressed , It was a very good question .


    I do not know if it can be answered further , I believe that the only ones who did answer the question were the photographers whose testimonials I provided. I do not expect that those who do not know the camera would answer the question and hope that they will not continue to put it down as a result, that would be only fair, I believe that what could be offered as a response to the original question has been addressed somewhat by the testimonials and that because it is a camera of limited production I have come to see after so many forums that we always end up with the insistence of buying something less expensive and dogging the creative aspects , I think Photo . net forums provide a valuable service and I thank you all for contributing to the discussion and I think that people who are aware of existing disagreements or issues have diverted the discussion to something else and as they know its a source of discomfort for me are not being considerate while insisting that I'm not nice, I have replied to those matters according to what I believe , I'm only human and I will not be again cornered into waiving my legal rights by these pressures .

    Issues exist which have not yet been settled and as Mr. Keene insisted in his original question he was not interested in discussing those matters which he considered as previously addressed , so do I. I have had to defend myself when It was insisted that I am not nice, being nice does not mean sitting back while others insist you aren't, that has gone on for too long.I have explained and provided the reasons why legal matters that are not settled can not be further undermined by these instigations by thread participants and insist that I'm not nice if I don't sit back and put up with it, matters will progress as they should and should not be instigated by these forums otherwise these actions are damaging to me .

    I ask those who are considerate and interested in photography and not cock fights help put an end to this instigation which covertly implies that I have to sit back and let them corner me as others have noticed.

    The subject of this discussion is whether The Littman 45 single can shoot 4x5 as would a Leica, or whether anyone had used it, and by the way, the people insisting that people should buy less expensive conversion or that such would fit the subject of this discussion at all as it absolutely does not .

    so I encourage all to return to the subject of this discussion , yes I have spoken about legalities again, believe that I hope to never have to again but I also will not waive my position in the hopes to gain support.

    I'm going to post the original question again here at the bottom

    (Littman 45 Single... anyone using one?
    Any one using this or laid hands on one?


    I want opinions! My own use would be with a Grafmatic 4x5 pack, Polaroids 4x5 pack film, and perhaps a 6x7/6x9 roll film back....


    I find it fascinating that there is the possibilty of a rangefinder coupled 4x5! Talk about your "Super-Sized Leica"!!! Bob Keene)

     
  26. I have bought a Polaroid 4x5 conversion from Dean Jones in Australia and have been happy with it. I paid only 300 or 400 US at the time. Dean was quick to respond to all queries and very friendly. I am now considering getting his 6x12 conversion.

    As to mr. Littman's statements concerning patent-infringements, I have been a commercial attorney-at-law for almost 8 years and I fail to see any merit in his arguments.

    I am sure mr. Littman does a very good job, but he should do at the price he is asking! I think he should live and let let live others who do their own conversions of cameras which are decades old!

    Simon Schaap
     
  27. I do live and let live , Im the one who is being prevented from enjoying the standing of my product when people hijack discussions
    in order to promote products which are not a viable alternative to mine while attacking me personaly with insults and warning of what I will say next.

    Mr. Shapp;
    no patent infringement has been alleged here, but a patent exists and another will be issued shortly, while I do not disagree that anyone may be happy with anything, the matters at hand being discussed here is whether The L45s can be used as would a Leica, and the matter that as a result of how others have promoted their products, some people here seem convinced that these conversions being reffered here as viable alternatives to mine for the subject of this discussion , which shows as it has before that serious omissions of the truth have been made in these ebay offers thru which they are sold , I do not know which model you bought, but if it was a 110b or a 110a which may have a range finder to establish distance when the camera is aimed at a subject neither the whole glass window nor the crop lines represent what you wish to photograph, so the truth would be that the product cannot be considered to have a finder, and as these facts have been omitted in these offers we find ourselves here where people are questioning the value of my product insisting as many times before that the price of my product is not justified because there conversions you speak about exist.

    The truth is that if Mr. Jones and others would have told the truth
    in their offers to sell and stated that when aiming their camera at a subject hand held neither the whole finder nor the parallax reflect what the film sees, ( there is no way to know what you are shooting) and therefore the increase in film size
    gained by the conversion is usually lost as a result of inability to aim the camera properly, I have extensive testimonials and research to prove it, and while you can be satisfied with that the truth is that as Jean Louis has stated and many others no one needs to shoot 4x5, those who choose to hope to be able to use the whole frame if you present the camera as a hand held camera, the truth is that even the earliest Kodak folders had wire finders for the format , which were at least centered on what the film saw, the Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic and even the least expensive 4x5 does and nothing could be more truthful that to say that the conversion of a Polaroid 100b or 110a to 4x5 can be stated to have (no camera finder), except in my product and while you and others may be willing to live with that and learn to guestimate , no 4x5 camera has ever been considered as hand held if without a centered finder,and buyers need to be given the option to know what they are buying beforehand and this ommision has had a negative effect on my buisness as you can see here.
    I overcame these finder difficulties , many previous 4x5 cameras did not have parallax correction but all had at least a crop , coupled Parallax correction can be considered as a fancy benefit and I will agree that you can live without it but you cannot offer a product as being for hand held use omitting the fact that it does not have a viewfinder , yes it is there but it is off centered entirely .

    As Jean Louis stated clearly My camera is considered as limited to those who think a 4x5 camera should be as a Swiss Army knife and be able to perform both as hand held and as a view camera but he and others recognize that after success stories , awards , and the pictures posted finally seem to at least have them recognize that maybe It is as convenient as a hand held snapshot camera , others instigated by Dean Jones as he has admitted are the ones who are allways insiting it isnt, Dean Jones is not letting me live very well !!! The fact that my camera has parallax correction and has been recognized to have exceeded the performance of all other cameras for this application has masked the fact , that without it these cameras have no finder whatsoever


    This is not the case in any other cameras so people cant be expected to know this when the original product had a finder and is offerd as a modification people can assume that while the parallax may not be corrected or coupled atthere is some form of seeing what it is that you shoot

    By now maybe a lot of people know abot my product , yet im sure that anyone buying a camera deserves to know it has no cropping device of any kind , no cropmark , nada.

    Again you and others can find that acceptable if you so choose , but i have a product and have an interest in presrving its value and the right to expect that competitors describe what it is that they offer, weight features etc, if this truth was revealed in the offers we would not find ourselves here on the third discussion on the subject where it is clear and Public domain , that in a question Posed as whether My camera can shoot as if a Leica, people keep insisting that they believe these conversions are a viable and less expensive option for the application being discussed here , there is no question they do, where did that come from? I didn't tell them that so the only place that it could have come from is the lack of information provided in these offers to sell,

    Up to now I have only revealed that these "conversions" did not have coupled parallax correction, they dont , they only omit the fact ,but as many great cameras didn't either people thought"so what" , but the truth is that when people see those
    offers they have no idea that the cameras not only have no parallax correction but also not even a basic single rectangular crop expected in any camera, as this is a characteristic of these particular cameras and no other, the public doesn't know and sees both my camera , then theirs and they look identical from the outside, so while the camera back may be well made and the rangefinder for focus can be made to work somewhat, I assert that there has never been a single 4x5 camera in history offered without any kind of finder assistance and offered for sale to the public as a camera that can be used for hand held use, If these facts would be disclosed in these offers we would not find ourselves here where people find it to be a viable alternative for the application, it is not, I repeat that not having coupled parallax correction may be a luxury that people can choose to live without as was stated By Mr. graham in the horror story he narrated, but he found out that that particular conversion did not have coupled parallax correction after I had to contact the seller and ask him to disclose that, so the buyer made somewhat of an informed choice , even though he was not told that besides having no parallax correction it also had no finder at all,

    Over time I have contacted these sellers and asked them to disclose these facts but they refuse knowing that most people would not buy a camera with such a handicap if they are considering it for hand held use and certainly thread participants would not dare encourage those who only have a small budget to buy a camera for that application If they knew this, and I shouldn't be the one having to disclose the truth after the fact and having to defend my product as well, first because as you can see people will think that I'm saying this for my convenience and that it may be less than the truth, it isn't, it is a big omission that has gone on for too long and which is the source of this friction as I clearly cant accept what people are insisting because this has not been disclosed by the sources.instead of disclosing these pivotal facts ,words as " marginal differences" have been used at times.

    These products are presented as conversions , whether offers a back adapter or a complete product this issue I speak of is a pivotal issue in such a product, the omission of such truths has caused a confusion In the market and has lead to the belief as you can read here and in previous threads that these conversion and others you speak about are a viable option/ alternative to my camera" less sophisticated" but the truth is they are less sophisticated than anything else in the 4x5 market for the application because they cannot be aimed at a subject and they are not a viable alternative to my camera for the application and therefore not the subject of this discussion .

    I understand that someone may choose to live with this handicap and not consider it a handicap at all , you may not even have those models,but as I have testimonials from the best in the profession on the subject and a first hand experience on the subject as this problem I speak of existed on my 15 first cameras which were no more than a mere conversion after which I had to stop it as a result and introduce the corrected parallax, while
    it worked to my advantage and ended up being more than I expected
    I know first hand that what I state here is 100% true and cannot be proven otherwise.

    I am glad that you are happy with your conversion but unhappy that such product is being represented as a viable alternative to mine for the application being discussed here in an attempt to level the Plainfield motivated as Mr. Petronio and others have insisted that I'm not a nice guy,It is deans actions which have made me unpopular and let me just insist that I have proof that my actions were justified after i bought a conversion made later By Mr Icanberry thru a 3rd party which he sold in an auction right after the threads ended,in which he had offered parallax correction. As a result of the earlier instigations people have insisted here and everywhere else that Im an Ogre when the truth is that the rights specified in the cover of my patent posted here states otherwise.

    as a result of this instigation some people either don't care that his camera is not a viable option in this discussion and are willing to suggest it is anyway or have been also as others influenced by the omissions of the truth I speak of, and if Dean has been listening to this discussion instead of you showing up here to defend the quality of his conversion which has not been questioned, only shows that there continues to be a group ofis a group of people who sympathies with Dean Jones mostly as a result of his accu sations against me as it has been stated who are willing to level the Plainfield in his advantage , and hijack the threads and divert the discussion from whether my camera can shoot as if a Leica to promote his conversion, Mr. Jones is watching
    and although I'm sure he would prefer his camera to be perceived
    as being able to be used as if a leica,that is not fair to me, as it isnt true, this confusion created is clearly damaging to me and so are the omissions in the offers , and these progressive appearances by his sympathizers trying to send him some business by implying that it is a viable alternative to mine for the application
    and if you wish to read it says Dean, Dean , Dean


    I have stated many times in previous discussions that I am not preventing Mr. Jones or others from offering their products , I do mind as any business would when a product is belitled as per admitted personal favoritism , Mr. Jones and others can promote their products on their own efforts, he is watching from the sidelines and again does not care if my product is hurt or I get bashed as long as he gets the publicity even if what is stated is false, he is watching from the sidelines , that is clear, he could have told his supporters to clarify that his product is not a viable alternative for the application being discussed, he did not , Instead you came along and others to endorse his product, which as I stated before may be "well converted " but not applicable to the discussion.

    Dean started 2 internet threads last year to undermine my patent and first justified it based on the word of someone he never met and on what can be considered " prior art " as evidence in such a matter which he never saw and on a photo which did not show the matters at hand , this was irresponsible and extremely damaging to me in the end he admitted instigating such discussions and insisted that in his opinion a legal patent should be respected??, subsequently 2 more threads in which his supporters keep insisting that his camera is a viable alternative to minefor the application being discussed and attacking the value of my product and my persona ,so lets see ... it has been 5 months that have been very hard on my business, he has justified his actions against me on alleged unfair business practices by me when the fact remains that I have a patent
    which he has done everything he could to harm , ignore deny and disbelieve, discredit, and doesn't seem to mind cashing in on the perception of what my product can offer by allowing others to insist that it fits the application being discussed here when it doesn't, that is not fair to me.

    While no patent infringement has been alleged here I mentioned the patent and another which will be issued shortly because when I was again accused of not being nice when the fact that as time passes it becomes more and more documented in the public domain that Mr. Jones has the willingness to preserve these omissions as Status Quo and as Mr. Jones and others have not sent me a sample of their product for my attorneys to examine ,prior art has not been declared as valid by The patent office as to whether any previous conversion would justify his product, it may appear different than mime, but beyond the exemplary product there are many generic Patent claims to consider.

    I'm not preventing its sale, but I do mind the fact that besides the fact that as I do not know if its legal as I have not seen it , I have to put up with the fact that his and other offers omit what I have stated and that he knowingly sits back and allows his friends to imply, assure or assert or recommend his product as a viable option
    to mine for the application when he knows it isn't.

    You are an attorney and your assurances that you do not see ant Patent issues are inappropriate as you have not reviewed my patent application pending , again showing That Dean discloses things in a selective manner, it is time that stops.

    Products have to be perceived on their own merit and Dean can promote his product without the use of these sneaky tactics.

    I made mention of a faulty conversion after people keep insisting prior art by others
    and I have to show why I cannot believe it, and you being pleased with his conversion is fine but still not the subject of this discussion.

    Dean has to respect my patent as he insisted, the cover of such patent posted here states "offers to sell the invention" and as you can read in this forum people feel his product is a viable alternative to mine for hand held use , and while he does not state that his product has parallax correction he also does not state how it is that he expects people to frame the picture they wish to take, the products appear to be similar/ they aren't , he has offers to sell and it is there where his product should be understood so I don't have to be put in this position. I am nice I just do not appreciate that Dean has created this pack team of supporters insisting that if I exercise the rights which he insisted should be respected these discussions will have to start over, I have not prevented him from selling his camera since I agreed not to and in return his friends have not given me a day to rest ever since, not fair/ I have had it.

    At some point he has to start playing by the rules , he has not , he does not like them I'm sorry but they are here to stay, in both his current auction on ebay and his previous one he is again making offers to sell outside ebay , I'm sorry he does not like rules and wants to make his own and as you can see had no problems finding others who agree with his approach,

    My clients and friends will not show up here to defend me first because I would not ask them and second because I should not have to continue to endure attacks

    Deanassured at the end of those threads he started as matters having been addressed,he has not kept his word about that either, as he is eeing his supporters cause me grief as he stands by.

    If in the future it is established that indeed these mere conversions have been made for years and they never became a hit until I introduced my product then that would show that the mere conversion has issues present which did not justify its earlier success , it didn't have to be the most responsive camera in history for people to buy it earlier , the fact that if they existed and they are so scarce shows that it wasn't a viable product in itself.

    This false perception which has been reiterated here which these people wish to preserve after years of having stated in their ebay offers " a conversion that will not cost you an arm and leg " or similar statements .


    I have proven over and over that the value of my product is based on the fact that it does more than any other for the intended application even if that application is being only a 4x5 snapshot camera, their product and no matter how well or poorly the body is put together is less effective as a hand held 4x5 than cameras that cost much less,

    I have not only experienced it from the earlier stages of my product which lasted but a few months as such but because I have bought some of "these conversions" thru 3rd parties on ebay and have verified these facts to be truth first hand.

    The conversion issue has been addressed for too long If you do not wish to put it to rest it will only lower the value of their product based on what it can do as compared to other products of its kind , that is the nature of the market

    I wish to move on, I need to, Im not being allowed to by these tactics and I cannot tolerate this further.

    i do not know how dean wishes to live but I am certain I do not wish under siege by these sneaky tactics
    Thank You ,
     
  28. PUBLIC NOTICE
    It is clear that the original question will not be respected , the product has not been respected and as a human being I can no longer tolerate these personal attacks or tactics therefore I ask that this discussion be considered closed.

    I believe that photo . net forums are valuable but in the case of my product they always end up being hijacked by the same group attempting to discredit me for reasons which have been admitted and that are flawed ,while they give me advice on how I should let others live they insist I should not live as I believe ,I'm expected to sit back and act like it is acceptable, waive my rights or appear unreasonable , warnings are issued that I might defend my product by quoting " secret recipes"

    This is a treatment no human being deserves to experience when his product has achieved the highest standing in history not as a result of Marketing as by the time it was declared as the most responsive if camera yet in 2002 I had not spent a dime in advertising, the recognition I have achieved is genuine and so im I , this final message is aimed at those who can appreciate this, I have allowed others to live, now I expect the same instead of further suggestions of how I should think, act as again that would be further disrespect.

    Those interested in the truth about my product can visit my site,
    I believe that the earlier part of the discussion was very healthy and that everyone acted with respect and dedication to the subject except the ones force-feeding the conversion issue as a calculated effort.

    Those interested in creativity and photography answers should not have to put up with this , it is time to raise the standards and hope that none of you has to go thru what these people have put me thru since last September.
    thank you
     
  29. What are you going to do - sue everyone who thinks your product is overpriced?

    You need to get over your self.
     
  30. I am fine with people expressing their opinion if they feel it is overpriced, but I have also demonstrated that the reason they say that is either because they are either not interested in the ability to shoot 4x5 handled as they would a smaller format and be truly mobile, in which case that would be a fair opinion, and also the subject of this discussion , the price of photographic equipment is based on the feature one seeks, since the feature I refer to is something most people seek in a camera , some will justify its price if they wish to do that on 4x5, it has been agreed that this is the only camera which does that, those who do not wish that ability should not buy it as it does nothing more, I have stated that in my site I have always maintained that and everyone agrees, you have stated previously that " "Anyway, the key difference is this: The high-end fashion guys who like your camera aren't going to be seen dead using a Polaroid with a welded-on Grafloc back, and the rest of us aren't likely to mortgage the house for yours when so many other options are available." to which I reminded you that any new 35mm body cost about the same as well as any medium format camera". that most my clients are neither rich nor famous and are very happy with the product because of what it does.

    A similar comment was also made here saying that my camera was more "sophisticated" than other conversions, sophistication is something most people can do with out , a Rolls may be more sophisticated than a Chevy and they both have 4wheels but they both do the job and in this case the difference isn't sophistication but the fact that one product can do the job as asked by the original question and the second can not., and not as a result of sophistication or welding but because of its inner workings, and not as a result of its similar external appearance or how well the body shell may be built.

    I am fine if people believe it is expensive, overpriced etc to those who do not seek the features,I am the first one to agree.

    No One needs a camera because it is a converted Polaroid and when you justify suggesting other converted Polaroid's which cost 2x 3 times more than a speed graphic and do less than it does even as a straight snapshot camera, you are not really considering the overpricing but what you consider is the parameters of an expenditure on photo equipment based on what you would spend,which is fine to me and everybody else.

    The price of the camera can be considered as part of the discussion
    but the main focus of the discussion was whether the camera could work as intended.

    I do not wish to shut anyone up, I do however wish that the subject of the discussion be respected .

    We need not go around in circles forever , I respect your opinion and Agree that my camera isn't for everyone, the conversion issue has been addressed previously , we need to move on , If that isn't possible because a few cant get past the external appearance of the product and compare it based on that fact then I say we have gone around in circles for too long.
     
  31. Please, could anyone who using this camera give his/her personal opinion?
    I think the question is not if the camera is overpriced or not ,some of us would like to
    know if the camera works well ,if it is versatile or not ,if could be improved and so.
    best regards
     
  32. Dear Jesus: Because the camera is of limited production I will direct you to the comments of those who have used them and volunteered their opinions. Earlier on in this thread it was mentioned that J. Brownlow had bought a L45s and then sold it, I was told by the buyer of the camera that what actually happened was that he traded his Linhoff or another camera for the L45s and here is what the buyer of that camera had to say"William I still have mine... its an awesome camera. I'll send some pics later. thanks for creating this photographic marvel cheers and aloha,,cory ." Cory had recently offered the camera for sale stating that it worked as if new and I just checked that the camera was first sold a couple of years ago that the camera would have been on its way to its third owner without any need of repair.You can visit the following page which is filled with the comments by the owners, most of those comments are from dedicated amateurs, some pro,s etc)http://www.littman45single.com/06wsbi/whoshouldbuyit.html( then you can visit)http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/gallery_home.html( which will lead you to six online galleries showcasing the images by the artists and each gallery has comments by the artists or relayed by me of their experiences with the camera. I would also like to point out the following gallery which just opened By superstar photographer Walter Chin.)http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/wc.html( I have placed several different links here for those who dont like to have to go thru hoops, I have enclosed all words which arent links in () so the links would not get confused / I know that they show well in emails but not all who read the forums get those . Today I got a call from a photographer who has been shooting with the L45s for years and just bought a used one apparently it was still working as new, I mention this because J Louis had objected That a camera which could only be fixed by one guy in America would be something to consider, Then I remembered that for example M. Kravit had mentioned earlier that a friend of his owns one and is very happy with it, he owns two, not 1, both purchased second hand both made years ago, the first one was sold on Xmass 2001 so lets see... that would be 2.5 years shipped all over the world 2 owners and its still cool, the other one was made a year later , to date I have not had requests for repairs , I hardly ever get requests for repairs,that would speak about the reliance factor, the personal experiences and images produced with the cameras speak for themselves. Jesus I regret that I find myself having to show that " someone" is actualy using it and has gone to great lenghts to specify why , how and for what, unfortunately when the reviews were presented in earlier forums , the words of the most respected editors was questioned , then regarding the opinions of respected photographers Mr Petronio had stated while refering to Bruce Weber: " pretentious fashionista photographers like Bruce Weber. Bruce photographs naked adolescent boys and sells those photographs for several thousand dollars a pop. So everybody makes out, except for the exploited adolecent boys. " . to which I remind that not only is he one of the greatest artist of the last 3 decades but he has enriched photography for all of us,re- established a place for American Photography in the world and is a source of pride for American art , if you ask anyone overseas to name an american photographer the answer is likely to be " Bruce Weber" few have captured the american mid west experience and re created it as well as he has, In any event I resent this dicrimination against art and must insist that Bruce Weber is a very kind and unpretentious , true and genuine gift to the arts and that Im honored by his use with my camera, and besides whatever he shoots he could be using a different camera if he wanted. Then someone else stated that top fashion photographers Buy it because of the way it looks, then when their comments were questioned because I had interviewed them and doubted as to whether their words were their own , they had to show up at these forums to back up their words?. Some of the best shooters in the world are using it and have provided a rare insight to their experiences. Jesus I value your interest and I hope that you would be motivated by the hope of being able to take better pictures with it , when it was verified over and over that those who can and do just that were chased out of these forums in a Jiffy , It was then that the question appears to remain with out answer when the truth is that it has been answered in detail and covered in different aspects by many of the very best Pro's and amateurs. My clients share one thing in common with me, I made it and they have bought it to enrich their art and not do define their lives by the mere fact of owning it, some people expect to define theirs by putting it down , and that is nothing new but I believe a camera should be an extension of the artist and Im interested in making cameras for those who wish to take better pictures , I dont expect everyone to get equal results but I do expect everyone who buys one would have the motivation to create and enjoy the ride, it is extremely rare that the " road less traveled" is both the shortest path, the most convenient and the most effective . I was once a starving Photographer even though my first shoot on a 12 exposure roll of 35mm was published as an 8 page spread in a major fashion magazine and shown in galleries etc, 20 years after that I wanted to make a camera for myself and instead I had to leave my shooting privileges aside to make this camera I kind of hoped that those who would buy it would have the willingness to see the glass half full meaning that , instead of placing it on a table and asking it to "put out" I hoped that they would use it to take great pictures, in time it would be shown that was a reality and that the tech aspects had also exceeded expectations of anything previously available for the specific application . What amazes me after 30 years in the profession is that when I started I was starving to find comments by the best in the proffesion regarding equipment that I was interested , I never did, I always wondered what they used, It is extremelly rare to find equipment comments by those who are famous who benefit from an expenditure that enriches their work and distinguishes it from the rest , In this case and as a result of gratitude the comments are available so I say" Sic Itur Ad Astra". Those who arent famous photographers and do not want to be famous Photographers are famously happy to have used the camera and that is all I ask , you cant please everyone and this is not an average camera , it is rated as the easiest to use Lf er yet, but I tell you that a child could not operate it, it's not a toy but it is a lot of fun , no longer a mystery and the rest..............is history.
     
  33. Dear All,
    William Littman 45 Single, is a superb camera. I use it professionally and I am having a lot
    of fun with it. I don't understand, all this animosity towards William and his camera. You
    think it is to expensive, to green, to blonde and to skinny... don't buy it. It is not meant to
    please every one. I guess people like Bruce Weber, Patrick Demarchelier and other's think
    it is good enough, well that should be sufficient... I can assure you, this camera will make
    your life easy, it is a big rangefinder Leica with a single lens... indeed there are many other
    camera's out there, enjoy them all, have fun, take good pictures and have a little bit of
    respect for somebody, who after 9/11 started a new business, successfully and created
    something that Polaroid never was able to pull...
    Best to all.
    H.L.
     
  34. First sorry for my english...it's done! I'm discovering the Littman cameras tonight and only one thing to say : I want to try it before speaking !
    I use only polaroid films with my Technika and I think the 45 single could be sometimes very useful (lighter, only one finder etc...).
    Technika is excellent (Mr Littman admits it)but it can exist something really good too for an other use or another way to work, No ?
     
  35. Well well well! funnily enough, only today did I find this VERY interesting thread regarding the ongoing confusion some have over what I consider a very simple procedure. I must again
    make comments in reference to the Polaroid conversion process and hopefully clear up some points.

    As for dear William, this whole fiasco has become his life`s work it seems. With such a talent for the written word, perhaps a career as a novelist would have been a far better choice. I believe that what I do with these old Polaroids is to experiment fully with their mechanicals to see what choices are possible in allowing the machine to use film in as many ways and formats as can be attained. Patents do not interest me, I feel that if someone copied my idea, I would simply come up with an alternative. The main criteria is to allow access by as many people as possible for as little cash as possible to experiment with the film formats that are currently available. We all know that digital is creeping up on us at an alarming rate, making film redundant eventually. I use digital too, and why not?, it`s great and has its place. I also love 4x5 Velvia trannies like no other, and it`s exciting to get the best result possible with whatever apparatus you have. Some people shoot pinhole, some with out of focus Diana`s (no offence meant), some perhaps with Box Brownies! So WHY all the fuss? Let`s start at the beginning.

    Firstly, I envisaged a conversion could be easily performed without too much effort, even though it grew into much more than that when over 60 cameras have gone by. My designs are constantly changeing as I`m never satisfied and consider more could be done to improve whatever I`ve done before. Therefore I discount patents as they obviously inhibit any major changes. Secondly they`re damn expensive, the money better spent applied to development of any conversion. Next, I saw that as Mr Littman had already married a Graflok back to the old Polar, that route was not for me, so I invented my own method. That earlier method has now become the new Snapback arrangement that simply grabs whatever film holder is in place by using simple and effective spring type cupboard door hinges at five bucks a pair! Nothing to patent there.

    Another great idea was the 6x9, later to become the 6x12 rollfilm conversion. This has proved even more successful and as the converted camera looks identical to the original when it was new, it makes for better aesthetics. Not only that, but the camera needs NO back of any kind attached, due to all mechanicals being housed inside the camera body. No patent needed here either as surely no one would be foolish enough to copy such absurdity! I can honestly say it`s all been fun, with one exception:
    The incessant ramblings, threats, not to mention hassles, a particular fellow has inflicted on not only myself, but all others who care to experiment with older Polaroid cameras. I mean, lets face it the old Polaroid is a great camera, gives outstanding results for its age, a mechanical marvel, but to be honest it`s NO Linhof.
    I like using it, plain and simple, so if others can use it too without selling off their daughters to cover the cost, I`m here to help. I work full time in a camera store and spend early mornings and very late evenings producing these converted cameras to make recipients happy for a small cost and the last thing I need is someone giving me a hard time. I figured that after the last round of threads were over that peace would ensue in 4x5 land, but sadly, I was mistaken. Mr G has fired up all over again with threats of a FURTHER patent. Blimey I can`t wait to see what that entails!.

    C`mon guys, let`s get out and take some pics, hopefully as cheaply and as easily as possible. I`d like to add a couple of points to all this, I easily picked the Horseman back advertised on Ebay as being off centre, only because mine are cental, thereby situated more to the left when attached to the Polaroid back. The next thing that totally eludes me is the obsession with the Polaroid rangefinder and parallax compensation!

    The rangefinder is no mystery, it`s system of mirrors, cams and levers was invented by Adam. What difference it makes to the rangefinder, which format is being used is utter rubbish. Whether it`s 35 mm or 8x10 the distance from film plane to subject is the same. Where it gets a bit tricky is shooting in close when accurate framing is not easily attained, that`s why we invented the single lens reflex method. I`m sure everyone who has used a rangefinder will attest to cutting off the occasional head AND THE POLARROID IS NO EXCEPTION! When things get out of tune the rangefinder goes off, and that`s a fact. My viewfinders do NOT portray exactly what you`re getting when in close, I`ve never had a problem with that, hence the need for a ground glass screen, (which I always supply).


    When converted to 4x5 the original finder (only the 110A and earlier models mimmick the Leica with its 2 window system), all that happens is you get slightly more on the film than can be seen in the finder. My simple test is to set the camera on a tripod with the shutter open, (set to bulb and locked with a cable release). Just compare what is seen through the finder with what shows on the ground glass. Keep this in mind when shooting and you can`t go wrong. There`s really not much difference between 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 and 4x5 after all! I feel that much of what is stated about the Polaroid rangefinder/viewfinder is smoke and mirrors, (pardon the pun).

    For my next trick, I intend to build an Auto Focus conversion for the old Polaroid, thereby making the finder redundant. Add to that a 4x5 CCD with 50 million pixels and all the problems will be addressed. Now I might just PATENT that!!!

    For any of you waiting to receive my converted cameras, I assure you they will not be 'confiscated' as has been indicated could happen to all non L45`s. What kind of gobbledgook is this? Unlike Mr G, I don`t have an team of attornies waiting to pounce on anyone foolish enough to undertake such a venture as converting a Polaroid. Blimey I`d better start sleeping with one eye open?????????


    Cheers to all, have a great Easter and enjoy your format, whatever it may be.
     
  36. A short note to add to the earlier post. I am of the opinion that although I`ve never laid eyes upon a Littman 45, there`s a strong possibilty its a great camera, more than capable of wonderful results and never have I made reference to the contrary. I do not make any claims that my camera could outperform it either in build quality, weight, or anything else. I can only judge my conversions by the results I`ve attained. It is not my intention to act with any unprovoked malice toward Mr G.
     
  37. Mr.Dean Jones 17 paris Avenue Croydon 3136 Australia; Henry Leutwyler placed a very good question, where does all this animosity towards me and my camera stem from? it stems from the fact that you started 2 threads last september specifically aimed at discrediting me, following the threats you had made earlier to do so.

    at the end of those threads in Septemer you insisted that in your opinion a legal patent should be respected but none more than you is responsible for creating the animosity reffered to, you have used poetry with words like reincarnation to justify undermining my buisness and reputation, and the value of my product ,if you think this has become my whole life you are admitting that your admitted instigation against me has had a devastating effect on my buisness and my life, it has done just that.


    When the threads were started by you I had a choice, A) defend myself with what i had which wasnt much then or put up with the abuse and later prove my case.

    B)the later has just happened.

    On March 28th you were given an opportunity when I reffered to your unfair buisness practices against me , and how i believed that because the conversion itself was unpopular , you had chosen to use discredit against me to promote your product, i made a clear explanation of why it is that your product cannot be considered a point and shoot 4x5,i also made other comments, one of them was that you were making offers to sell outside ebay, after which you were obligated to
    revise the description of the auction which proves that you didnt just find out about this thread in which others were using a discussion about my product to validate yours based on the fact that besides the endless poetry about the nostalgia of the original products you do not describe what you offer and prefer that people will continue to think that your canera is a viable alternative to mine,

    Unfortunately it is your poetry that has just caught up with you, I have obtained the camera you were offering on march 28th when i responded to Mr shapp which gave you the opportunity to show that you did not really intend to just slap a 4x5 back on a camera as you had insited but that you needed to "spoof mine".ebay auction #3800935517 )
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15247&item=3800935517

    (stated"It now shoots the full 4x5 format with the assistance of the original viewfinder/rangefinder ", we examined the camera and opened the box in the presence of the camera buyer and as i stasted here on march 28th the camera cannot bepointed at the subject because the viewfinder as explained is not operable for the format, you then insist " My camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot " It does not work as such at all as it will be proven by the camera buyer.

    You insist that even a child could operate it" well now that is poetic" yet the camera with the polaroid back weighs 5 and 1/2 pounds, and a child could not pick it up,
    or poit it at a subject/ it will be proven that no one could and obtain the 4x5 picture intended, and by the way when the shutter was tested
    it stayed open at 1 sec, and 2 sec, and the fast shutter speeds were fast.

    As I have also had to reiterate many times the Rf proved not to work well at any distance for the 4x5 format, so there again no assistance, the inner and outer bellows were entirely separated from each other and had visible creases, when opening and closing the camera the infinity plate got stuch on the lens board and had to be forced at opening and closing, the camera back is not 90% with the front standard, and if someone goes to your website where you state "
    THE NEW POLAROID 4x5 SNAPBACK WILL ACCOMMODATE ALL 4x5 HOLDERS, "



    Let me just say that this "back" if you want to call it as such and which holds the filmholder to the camera r by the use of kitcken cabitet door hinges is not made by "Polaroid", it is your endless fraud that has discredited me, the animosity is your admitted doing which you reffered to and admitted to as" instigation",

    Never mind my ramblings It is your fault that i have had to defend mysef as you have admitted . ,just wait and see what happens when Polaroid comes knoking on your door.

    Then you refer to your products on your site as " Polaroid concept" if ther is any concept to what you do shouldnt it be your own?

    as a header on your " polaroid concept page you state" FULL FRAME 4x5 IS NOW OBTAINABLE ")

    http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Polaroid_Concept/polaroid_concept.html

    (Then you started 2 threads to discredit my patent on the basis that you insisted that these conversions had been done for years right?

    on your site again you state"Such a fine camera is once again in use due to my conversions" so thank you Mr Jones for your ramblings!

    Then you utilize the Polaroid corporate logo to validate the insistance that your back is made by Polaroid both highly ilegal and unfair buisness practice to me as a Polaroid OEM, not to mention it constitutes fraud on the public.


    Ihave clear and definitive proof that you have lied to the public in your offers to sell on ebay since you commenced your offers a week after one of my NYC dealers offered a Littman on ebay, when you offered yours a week after you went on to insist
    that you had " invented it" but never mind that the point is that people know that a mere conversion is worthless and it is proven by the fact that you started a thread on photo . net to promote your conversions on jan 13 2003, almost a year later the only person who showed up, did so to inquire about something else)

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Lh4

    (Nobody cared and you made sure yoou could use discredit against me and my product to validate yours, Photo.net is littered with such evidence So after you realized that no one is interested in the mere conversion, you had 2 options a) follow your earlier threats and discredit me which you did except that the evidence is now against you and by your own admittance after the threads that in your opinion a legal patent needs to be respected as you insist to be 53 years old and have the time to commiserate with others on photo.net about the fact that you own a vast collection of reading glasses shouldnt you read what you write first and at your age your opinion that a legal patent needs to be respected, cannot come after you started 2 simultaneous threads first to disrespect the patent , lie to the public saying that I was unfair because your earlier cameras did not cover a full 4x5 , well now claims 1/3/4 of my patent do not specify what the image size needs to be and are patented, the patent may not have been issued during some of your auctions but the items made while pending are applicable, so your complaint was intended to discredit because if your opinion is that a legal patent should be respected you did not do that in any way.
    b)allow others to continue to believe that your camera is a less sophisticated yet viable alternative to mine as a 4x5 point and shoot" until march 28th 2004 all i had was unconnected dots of evidence but then Mr shapp showed up here and I told him what my problem was, not the fact that you wanted to slap a 4x5 on a Polaroid
    which is one thing but whan you went on to insist that your camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot in this auction, in conjunction with what i have had to endure from the public which thread after thread has insisted they believe that .

    In this thread I stated that is because you want that belief to exist, until now i had only unconected dots now , now you have said it in the auction , Proof exists that you were aware of this thread back then and that you chose to leave it and mantain it, so there you go, you also didnt need in to " spoof" the blacktop finish on the L45s in conjunction with people posting your auctions on this thread and you insisting your camera can do basically the same as mine, My camera the L45s is only a 4x5 point and shoot, it can be pointed , yours cant , i have yours /i can prove it, the subject of this thread was only about my camera, not yours, first you allowed others to insist yours was a viable alternative,post your offers but when you said it yourself in a contemporary offer to sell where people were sending you buisness from this thread all the dots are now connected,

    Since the september threads ended people have gone on and on comming to me to learn, what it is that your camera does, you do not wanted it known because as i can prove it does nothing well, so you not only started the animosity against me which as you admit has been devastating, but you chose to embrace it as a promo tool by posting the threads on your site while you had 2 simultaneous threads to discredit me.

    You choose to see nothing wrong with what youve done that is fine, it doesnt matter any more its no longer up to you, me or thread participants, it is out of my hands.

    Regarding your research and development you always speak about as your own ideas let me just point out that the only guy who showed up to the thread you started to promote your conversions was the one who gave you the idea about the cambo camera. yet once again as you have used my ideas and claimed them as your own you went on to do so about the cambo as in the thread below,)

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005egP

    (In any event the patent shall now be considered as a secondary issue and now the least of your worries as I have proof that you have utilized clear and unfair buisness practices to undermine the value of my product by spoofing / not describing the properties of your final product truthfully/there is vast evidence of what the public believes in forum postings which are now" Public Domain" your favorite words, all your doings are now public domain, they might sit well with those you have instigated against me but when the evidence is presented no one is going to risk further embarasment on your behalf when it is proven that what you have done is admitedly deliberate, ilegal and that while you claim that I made no sense when i wrote to you, let me just say I made you aware from the start that you had been contacted for legal purposes, and when you replied that my patent was a farce I went on to say what I had to to get " you" to prove my case, you did not realize that, Im sorry but you have done just that, with your own pen and collection of reading glasses.

    As the public believed and knew quite well that the mere 4x5 conversion was worthless and you kept invading and hijaking other threads to ramble otherwise as by this thread)
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006J1n

    (and as the public sent you packing in your admitted obstinance you had no quarrell with mantaining otherwise, sending people to do it on your behalf and finally making it perfectly clear on an ebay auction,

    On the September threads where you admitted this was all your instigation , that a legal patent should be respected , that was the first time that while you were asking the general public to disrespect my patent and validate your actions , you went on to promote your product in these threds, but as a result of the way you presented your case someone stated that " in turn I should understand that if the market so believes I should lower the price of my product" your actions on those threads started that, there is no question that you have insisted right on those threads that the price of my product was ridiculous, and that the summation of your actions and offers in threads and offers have led the public to question the value of mine basing it on what you have worked so hard to insist and conceal about yours and finally stated in your auction"

    My camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot camera", it does not/ it cannot
    I have the evidence and it is not up to anybody else who may be satisfied with what you have sold them, as to do so you have unfairly competed against me making false ststements which spoof the properties of my product and which yours does not have, and the evidence is vast, , this has poisoned the market, and you have admitted that you have also done that personally as well.

    I will allow the buyer of the camera to show how poorly it is put together, this is not a lesser product for less money but a faulty product alltogether, the offer on ebay is a clear case of" MAIL FRAUD" on many aspects of the sale.

    Regarding patent issues they are now secondary, but I will point out that the method used to attach this camera back is not identical to any alleged prior art, the fact that the back itself was designed by Jones is negligible ,

    The fact that the back was made poorly by Jones concept and not Polaroid and the endless spoofing of Polaroid standing and spoofing of my product has just caught up with Jones.

    As It is easter and as I have always loved Christ passionately iroinically it is my good name that will be resurected on easter Sunday as the evidence is overwhelming, that a great injustice and diservice has been done to Photography my name and my product.

    While Mr jones has done a fantastic job posing as the good thief using poetry to discredit me the truth is on my side,

    Mr jones made huge efforts to cruicify me and that is where the animosity began
    he is right it has completely disrupted my life, but as he seems to be aware of reincarnation at least to justify his product , let me just say that the laws of karma have just caught up with him , when his admitted instigation was ended by him in september he reffered to my attemts to defend myself from his attacks as just words, "You should all realize that after all Mr Littman's words are just words"

    He forced me to prove otherwise and I have to say That thread participants should
    realize after seeing the evidence that they have been misled by the use of poetry into saying things against me and my product that many of you later regreted/ will regret as some wrote to me, and as it is easter I forgive you all, as the animostity created by him is so intense that anyone has noticed it I ask you all to wait to see the evidencebefore saying things that you will later regret further, It is extremely unkind to you all to have been rallied into harming someone and his rights , while actual fraud has been commited on the general public and many of you have unowingly endorsed it.

    While I am a firm believer that disagreements between buisnesses should be kept
    between buisnesses , that option was denied to me when I was presented as being
    a bad person by Mr Jones, and when as a result I have had no peace since then as Mr Jones himself is now willing to realize.

    Mr Jones knew that I had contacted him for legal purposes and after he insited that my rights were a farce , the only thing I could do was to get him to admit his actions against those rights and the rights of others such as established trademarks such as Polaroid corporation, on the other hand I have clear and undisputable proof that
    mr Jones has lied in his offers since he started , that he has knowingly ommited the truth both in offers and in forums and in his offers which have both caused damage to the value of my product and my reputation and which constitute fraud on the general public, and that have confused the market to my detriment.

    Mr jones used to state in his auctions" these fine cameras suffered from the usual Polaroid peel apart films which were both messy and expensive" that is very poetic
    but if that is the way he feels then pehaps he shouldn't use the Polaroid logo or insist the back of his camera is made by Polaroid, or call his product "Polaroid Concept".

    As Leutwyler has told me many times Polaroid t55 is the best B/W film ever and I agree, but when Jones decided to pose as an inventor and constantly ask us to thank him for that it was the summer of 2002 and as Henry has stated I had just introduced my camera after september 11th, and Polaroid peel apart was a main atraction and interest to my product, but after he started making those statements and sometimes saying that polaroid peel apart films 3x4 were altogether unavailable and discontinued, I have auction descriptions by him to prove that, no clarification is offered in those as to type 47 it only states that polaroid 3x4 film is no longer available in conjunction with the fact that for a few months Polaroid had declared bancrupcy I was left with only doubting questions from scared buyers on one side and Mr jones on the other determined to say whatever he wanted ,

    We must be grateful to Polaroid corporation as a few month later it was bought by investors and assurance emerged that Polaroid peel apart films would continue to be available .

    Polaroid is not at fault in any way, they have a specific division called Polaroid OEM that makes sure that their films are supported by makers of products in all fields.

    Polaroid is concentrating on what they do best and new technologies , the sw4x5 coupled parallax is both a boutique size project and on the other hand a monumental investment in research, a corporation has to answer to investors and cannot justify millions of dollars in research spent on a project that will then require
    very skilled high tech labor to even produce it, molds parts etc, so instead they have others cooperate to ensure that thier films are well supported, they did not abandon ship, on the contrary they stood by us and we should all be gratefull, I know Henry is
    very grateful as he has told me many times as polaroid peel apart films shall remain a vital and important tool to the photographer for many years.

    As before I have included the words in () which are not part of th links posted
    the links start after a ) and end right before a (.





     
  38. Mr. Jones you are at it again, trying to rally support against a patent you insisted it was your opinion that it needed to be respected, you ramble about a new snapback, yet you are aware that patented claims in my patent # 1/3/4 do not make any reference to what the camera back is, graflock ,graflex, snapback etc that you come here again to try to justify what you know better is a false statement which hinders me, you say you have made 60 cameras, I have only made 160 and your activities are not those of a hobbyist but those of a competitor, when to achieve your goal at the expense of my rights or their reputation while spoofing my product you now continue to rally the market against me using false statements knowingly made , that is clearly malicious, you need to make up your mind at some point.

    I have not stated that your back is an infringement, I don't know that yet, in any event YOU'RE DONE! , the patent or lack of it on the mere conversion issue is no longer the main issue in your case, it never was, you wanted to presented as such and I allowed you as long as I had no choice because i didnt yet have all the evidence i needed ,but I know as well as you do that it is " camera back/conversion " both not justified by any alleged prior art, or the fact as you state that it is a snapback, you have had several years to admit that the finders in your cameras don't work, and not just up close but at any distance, the Rf doesnt even work! you should have done it in the auction , that was your last chance, I came here to say that I have bought products thru 3rd parties to give you a chance to change your ways , but you did not, thank you for now confirming the truth for the first time, Its too late now! and I say that finally anyone can understand that I have made typos at times when being under a stress I did not really deserve , the buyer of the camera has informed that his email has ceased to work mysteriously and that he will post the pictures when possible.

    Contrary to what Mr jones stated in the revision of that auction, It was the actual camera pictured that was shipped/ sold by him to the buyer,and not at the buyers request , I have yet to find a single occasion where Mr Jones has told the truth anywhere about what he actually does. Please give it a rest/ it is Over!
     
  39. Further proof of Mr. Jones disregard for the general public is his latest comment about the horseman back made by another competitor being improper, yet as he has always done, these guys bid on each others auctions to support each
    other, and to falsely raise the prices so there is no real concern as to whether it will be useless to you as long as they get their money, If Mr. Jones noticed the problem why did he as always bid on all of this sellers auctions , he is validating them by doing so in the eyes of others who know him .

    He did notice it but he really doesn't care to validate what harms you just as long as in return he can get his" colleagues in these connivances "to support him back.
    here is a link to that auction , Mr. Jones has bid on all similar auctions by this seller and of other competitors never bidding high enough to purchase, just high enough as to make the auctions look desirable ,)
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3806198541
    ( in that case he should not validate what he admits he knows is wrong, and more so in my case he should not rally support asking you to validate what he knows is wrong) no poetry here just plain evidence , that he should stop lying if only to himself.
     
  40. The buyer of the camera is busy but has emailed me some of the pictures, he will post his opinion of the camera when he has a chance
    007vDC-17447084.JPG
     
  41. The cameras bellows in the camera sold under the name Polaroid Concept
    007vDm-17447384.JPG
     
  42. Here you have a picture of the back made by Mr Icanberry another one of these guys, this camera was even worse nothing worked well and is really poorly made, and the manner it is constructed is also not justified by any alleged prior art.
    007vEV-17447784.JPG
     
  43. Attachments too large.
     
  44. Since on the ebay auction in which this camera was offered by mR icanberry he stated"The parrallax frame has been re-adjusted to match the larger frame. " THE LARGER FRAME IN A CAMERA CONVERTD FROM 3X4 TO 4X5 IS 4X5" this camera does not have parallax correction for 4x5 as he stated, this camera was offered as a polaroid 110b yet it is not it is a 110a using the parts of the Polaroid 900 in a way that he denied he was using and that he went on to discredit me as a result, well here is the proof and in any event this is still not a Polaroid 110b it is a Polaroid 110a with a 900 finder , nothing works execept the shutter speeds which were accurate, but that doesnt concern me,he had stated to me many times that If i wanted to defend my rights I would have to come to california to do so, that will not be necessary as both California and The US will now come to him.
    007vFA-17448084.JPG
     
  45. Ok I am making the images smaller
    007vFG-17448184.JPG
     
  46. I must say I`m absolutely gobsmacked by all this rubbish! All these mystery pictures of some bellows and the like. Am I missing something here or what? How much longer do we endure this crap? I`ll say this, Mr Littman is his own worst enemy. It was him alone who instigated the whole furore in the first place by using bullying tactics, threats of litigation, ending auctions on ebay early and rambling emails like I`ve never seen before. It is he who keeps hammering away with threats and threads. My earlier threads were started simply to highlight the proceedings and seek public comment. The reason for placing bids on certain items listed on Ebay was to simply bring attention to my website if anyone cared to click on the 'ME'. That was it. Surely it`s not illegal now to place a bid on Ebay, surely there`s not a patent on that too? I have NEVER referred to my back as being made by Polaroid, that is preposterous. As for the sticky film, that was in reference to the Rollfilm pull apart film that Polaroid itself ceased to manufacture. Type 665 and type 55 film are EXCELLENT emulsions that remain forever popular.

    Mr G, grow up and get on with life, concentrate on making your fine cameras. Some help with public relations would not go astray. I might seek legal counsel myself with regard to your recent behaviour, unfortunately, that would place me in the same class as you!

    Have you have engaged third parties to perform secretive activities, to procure my cameras under false identities in order to dismantle them and pick fault. WHAT DEVIOUS BEHAVIOUR! Were you involved in espionage in the cold war?

    This whole matter is more than farcical, its pathetic.
     
  47. I am the buyer of the camera in question purchased From Dean Jones in ebay auction #
    3800935517

    Package was opened for first time in the presence of Mr. Littman who was never alone with
    the unit until after I personally was in charge of testing it myself.

     Inner and outer bellows separated from each other and severely creased

    Front standard not 90 degrees to camera back

    1 second shutter speed and lens stays open, 1/2 second shutter speed is slow

    cocking lever extremely hard

    Fast shutter speed too fast

    infinity front plate set so it doesn't allow camera to close properly and has to be forced
    closed

    when camera is opened it catches on the infinity front plate

    short-range rangefinder  tested with a laser pointer and rangefinder does not match
    ground-glass

    mid-range does not either

    infinity on ground glass is right on but as lens board is not 90 degrees with camera back
    there is a drop in focus from left to right

    lens is dirty and cloudy inside and out

    camera back not made by Polaroid as represented on his site where it reads Polaroid Snap
    Back. Instead film holder to be held by kitchen cabinet hinges

    Cannot utilize camera as described with assistance of existing viewfinder as the parallax
    lines do not match the ground glass at all. As described by Mr. Littman in this thread
    neither do the outer lines created by camera window outside the parallax lines are also not
    a good indicator of what the ground glass sees. Therefore, as indicated by Mr. Littman in
    this thread, the camera cannot be accurately described as a point and shoot 4x5 because
    it cannot be accurately pointed at anything. The difference is so significant that one can
    certainly state that this camera has no viewfinder. In reference to this being a hand-
    holdable camera, yes you can pink it up, but it appears to weigh double that the Littman.

    None of the internal calibrations have any setting agent to fix them

    System of changing camera back system would not allow rapid change of film because it
    doesn't allow the film to be slid in.
     
  48. Ah Ah, a fly in the ointment! Anyone care to check out the Ebay auction 3800935517 will find that this camera was indeed NOT OFFERED FOR SALE, only the conversion. It was only a demo made of bits and pieces. The Auction was for the conversion only, but the buyer clicked 'Buy it Now', so as a favour, and after an ADMISSION that he had made a mistake, I foolishly agreed to send him the camera anyway. I wasn`t to know he was lurking, and in league with the 'EVIL ONE'. Entrapment? What a devious pair of fellows.
    It looks like the war is about to begin!!!!
     
  49. It is widely known that patent holders are entitled to verify what others make by first buying it , besides the patent when a buisness feels that another is making an offer which is not what the product can do and that has created such a documented reaction in the public as to confuse the market as you can read all over photo.net , at some point i am entitled to prove the truth , and if i would have bid on your auction you would have not shipped it, on the other hand there is no secretive activities, on this thread I anounced I had bought cameras made by others, and you should understand by my comments to Mr shapp that in this case I certainly would.

    It is again my legal right to do so, your complaint against it is again another insistance that I should waive my rights.

    you have just stated
    "I have NEVER referred to my back as being made by Polaroid,"
    lying again as after you revised tour site on April 5th you still reffered to the back of this camera as "4x5 Polaroid Snapback".

    After years of finding false comments in your offers It was time to show the evidence of that because the animosity you have created has made it so people would not take my word , you said my words were just words so You left me no choice, people in this thread after 6 months of grief were continuing to toot the horn based on what I have explained, Did you expect me to live with that ? for how long ?
    I knew this would be the case and one fine day I ran out of patience.

    There is no wrongdoing , that is the proper way to proceed in these matters.

    I was in grade school during the cold war , and visiting My grandad's Photo studio.

    But one would have to be a spy to figure out what it is that you offer as you dedicate so much space to nostalgia of old cameras and none to the true characteristics of your finnished product, after having examined it first hand I can understand why you choose to do so.
     
  50. Mr. Jones; you just wrote" The reason for placing bids on certain items listed on Ebay was to simply bring attention to my website", No placing bids on auctions is not illegal but ebay forbids you to bid on items unless you intend to buy, you are grasping at straws
    be it for reason a) b) or c) makes no difference as it is even worse to bid on someone else's auction when you admit that the purpose is to compete with the auction who is offering something similar to your product in that very auction, I gave you more credit than You are willing to take I thought you were placing the bids to support your competitors but you just admitted you do so to drive business away from the seller. Don't worry then, that makes it all fine!
     
  51. I do not understand what Mr. Jones' problem may be. I bought a camera from him and
    it was D.O.A. on arrival in every respect, besides what I stated earlier another test was
    performed where the viewfinder parallax lines were checked against the ground glass
    and were found to be significantly different than the image produced then a mask
    was placed over the parallax projector to see if the viewfinder window itself could act
    as the viewfinder and that was totally off.
     
    The camera therefore has no viewfinder period.
     
    What war does he want to wage, he sells a faulty product insisting it works perfectly
    for an application it could never do, he now has requests for procedural etiquette?
     
    I never stated that I had many mistake, he offered to send the camera saying "I may
    have made a mistake" and I replied that "yes" as to "please send the camera", clearly
    one prefers to receive something today and not tomorrow I know nothing of camera
    made with odd bits and ends, he represented he was shipping  something well made, 
    I realize he may be disappointed that the truth is disclosed, Mr. Jones should be
    apologizing for the mess he has created.
     
  52. Whatever may have been the problem with the camera, I would have thought that some contact with me persoanlly would have been the norm.
    Any fault would have either been corrected or a full refund given. To run along to see William is somewhat of a mystery to me. The camera had been used by many intersted parties, prior to it`s appearance on Ebay with much success. I feel that this whole scenario stinks and I am deeply disappointed with the behavior shown here. I would have thought better from such supposedly esteemed gentlemen. (for want of a better word).
     
  53. the matter at hand is not whether the actual camera was used previously to the satisfaction of someone else , or as I am sure that some people who bought cameras from Dean Jones are satisfied with them, maybe all of them are , the matter at hand is whether the product is what was offered when it has been purchased to verify just that , My concern is whether products offered as able to do what mine can acctualy do that, that is why it was purchased.

    The product was purchased as evidence as stated and not intended as a users camera therefore the expectancy of allowing a warranty or offered service to occur is not applicable.

    Furthermore it has been established that regarding the fact that it cannot be a 4x5 point and shoot camera , that could not be repaired as nothing is broken, it is that way as a result of the caracteristics of the original product, that is not Mr jones fault, the problem is not the characteristic of the original product but the insistance that it can do what it cant, regarding the shutter , bellows that wouldnt have mattered in this case , and that would not have prompted the disclosure of these facts as clearly if one only spends a fraction of the cost, the product can be expected to be a lesser product, and if it could technically be considered as a 4x5 point and shoot and the rf had worked then it would have been a
    great bargain even if it had some problems .the fact that it wasnt what was offered and nothing worked was the case.Mr. Jones: earlier today you wrote"The next thing that totally eludes me is the obsession with the Polaroid rangefinder and parallax compensation! " as of today you state the following in your site"Obviously the 110B with its all in one brightline parallax corrected finder is supreme" earlier you had written" the model to follow, which spoilt us with its big brightline finder, parallax corrected, and now all in one! Much faster focusing and composition was now possible, thereby rendering the model 110B the most popular. the obsession you speak about was partly fueled by you
    and when the truth finally comes out that the fact that when you utilize a 110b to make your product it doesnt retain the properties you have boasted about for so long you say that the advantage you have promoted for so long as beneficial " that it eludes there is an obsession ",in any event it is not an obsession but a recognition that even you have made . N'est pas?
     
  54. Dear Mr Littman -

    Firstly I am glad the old Littman 45s are worth more than the orginal price - that means other people are making money off them, and maybe you shoudl go back to your original design as it is obviously better (otherwise why would people pay more??)

    Secondly I am glad you are happy you are OK with people saying your product is overpriced, because I feel it is.

    Thanks
     
  55. first model was discontinued so I could make the new model which owners already report is better than the first, the first model will now build collectors value, but I may have to still make some as an option, I'm fine with some people thinking it is overpriced because that shows they do not appreciate what it can do and as few will be made it is clearly best that it is used by those who are appreciative of its properties,
     
  56. Mr. Jones nothing proves my case better than this recent appearance here by Mr. Morgan, after you ended the threads of last September in which you admitted it was you that had started the instigation against my patent on photo.net but not really necessary since many threads had previously existed in which people compared products, some liked it some didn't some thought it was the best thing some said it was silly, It was healthy those were true photo.net large forum threads after you made a clear and dedicated effort to rally people against my patent all that changed , when you ended the threads by saying that in your opinion a legal patent needed to be respected what that meant in your case was that you would have to seek advice on what is covered and not as to not again go online to
    make false statements in order to justify what you prefer then you would have to technically understand it before making something and insisting again to the public it is justified for reasons it clearly isn't , I am not saying your product isn't justified at this time but saying that the reasons you provide aren't such as " snapback"and then that would also mean that you would not again try to rally support against my rights if the truth did not fit your preference because you made assumptions rather than understand what it means.

    I have no intention of bothering any private individual , the subject would have never come up if you hadn't validated and instigated as you have.

    At the end of the threads I agreed to waive my rights as a result of a pressure you created which amounts to extortion, you threatened you would and you did, but as you then insisted that a legal patent needs to be respected and when I tried to limit my claims to allow
    an alleged prior art, I was told that because there was no valid proof It was out of my hands.

    If you wish to consider terrain you gained as a result of extortion as a matter having been addressed , that is your choice but at end of threads I followed your advise and took a vacation except that when I arrived at my destination Mr. Morgan had started a thread apparently because he did not understand what the differences were between your product and mine.

    After I had to say something stupid to him, he admitted that he had visited your site but was unclear what the differences were.

    Now let me be perfectly clear My site describes in great detail what my product is and does, yours absolutely does not, it never has and that has been my quarrel with you since you started, in that thread which was started using the name of my product people started promoting yours based on the belief that "it can" do what mine does and as a result people started posting an address to your site and your auctions except that obviously they still had no clue as to what it is that you offer so the nonsense went on and on placing me in the position of having to explain what the difference is because you do not wish that the truth comes out, that is why you haven't said it in your site or your auctions.

    Obviously that places me in jeopardy because I shouldn't have to be the one describing your product because you do not wish to and when I speak it will clearly appear as If what I am saying is only to my advantage, never mind if its the absolute truth, that is not the position I need to be placed in or see the value of my product get trashed based on omissions of the truth in your promotion. It is also not up to satisfied owners of your product to come and make a "puff" piece about being satisfied with it , if your product could do what mine does then yes by all means
    Have no doubt that some of your customers do not mind if your camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot which would mean that when you point it you get the benefit of the whole neg or most of it, you present it as a hand held 4x5 point and shoot and people assume as proven that is what the photos will be, that the neg or Polaroid gets fully exposed is a separate issue from the fact that the photograph cannot be the photograph selected, and my question is If you agree that you realized that the auction for the faulty Horseman back which was a nightmare for Mr. Graham and that it produce an image off center, how would it be any different that your customers have to obtain an image off center from what the viewfinder sees
    on the film when you represent that your camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot, clearly a back of center is a gross error but ultimately on a point and shoot camera so is a finder which does not show at all what the film sees , in one case you get an additional distortion as a result of the back being permanently shifted and an image which is not the one the owner chooses and in your case the owner just cant choose an image and get that on film.

    Lets be clear N.Nixon can shoot 8x10 handheld without a finder , most people cant or choose not to and in your case when you represent that the camera will work perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot with the assistance of the viewfinder, those who
    consider buying it might actually expect that to be true, some may not but they have the right to know before they buy and as it is clear that up to now all believe that your camera could work perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot and that would be possible thanks to the assistance of the 110b viewfinder which you have boasted so much about .

    Having to find myself in this position on a constant basis places me against a sword and a wall just as you had done in the threads in September where I either waived my rights or I got bashed further, I do wish to get a life, I had one before you decided to re write the laws of coexistence and business based on your consideration that because these cameras had been discontinued earlier on " improvements to an existing product" would not qualify as novel.

    If people choose to believe the wrong thing about a product, there is nothing wrong with that, but as a manufacturer who has avenues of promotion like a site and as I have proven that you have also started threads specifically to promote his product on photo.net as you have, but have chosen not to reveal what the product does in your offers, you are then entirely to blame if in turn it is shown that people are damaging the prestige and value of my product based on both your unwillingness to admit what it is that yours does and now as proven that you insist it does what it cant and what it cant do is what is considered as the main value of my product, This is not a patent issue, that I have had to regurgitate the existence of a patent as the only means to protect myself from the falsehoods that you have allowed to endure and finally stated is what is truly ludicrous,

    Again we found ourselves in this thread where people were continuing to believe the same, and posting your auctions as a viable alternative to my product and at that point I realized that I was never going to be able to have a life unless the contrary was proven, I did not choose the role you cornered me into as you cornered me when you instigated against my patent, and finally I had no choice , the public is not at fault for wanting to know the truth or discussing a product, that they have to come to a thread to learn the very basic differences because you do not disclose anything in your site or offers places me at risk, four months had passed and no progress was made, the confusion you have created is so documented and pervasive that when the comments by the best of the profession, the reviews , the awards, the galleries from the owners and finally their testimonials were offered in these threads they were either met with hostility, disbelief , or plain antagonism,

    I do wish to get a life and would have never have had to keep bringing the past back except for the fact that nothing changed in the public eye and people were still willing to cling on to false beliefs,

    Your duty to describe your product is not a duty to me, but to your clients / general public, when you admit that you are willing to bid on ebay auction just to bring attention to your site ,I listen, you are doing the exact same thing here , when I can prove that you have started threads to promote your product and which showed that no one cared I insist that If you knew I was getting pounded since November on these matters you could have made an effort to disclose the truth in your site , you preferred not to , clearly having the public believe what is false benefits you, and having people send you business from threads like this one also sits well with you, I'm not the only one who gets screwed, ultimately it is the public, the very same public you are so intent in convincing first that the 110b is gods gift to photography and then telling them it eludes you that an obsession exists because in your case the 110b issue doesn't go your way, the same public which you first rally to undermine a patent and then ask them to respect it.

    It is clear that I am a gentleman and that there is a clear difference with you being able to slap a 4x5 back on a camera is one thing, If you had gone to say just that and not found a need to misrepresent the product as what it isn't, and also omitted the truth about the final characteristics for so long because otherwise people wont be interested I would not find myself harmed and constantly diverted from my life as you have admitted.

    What Im saying here is nothing but the actual truth, but just as you have insisted that a legal patent needs to be respected but you refuse to read what it says, You also Imply again here to be surprised as to what the status of things actually are and that you are surprised that a new patent pending may exist when you knew that since September, it is posted in my site, if a legal patent needs to be respected, that applies to 2,3 whatever.

    In any event the main issue has never been the patent, the source of disagreement
    can be clearly proven to be what I state here, and the most damaged by all this is the general public, who has had to read all of this, you admit this situation is really annoying then better face the fact that you also created it, that I have clear and definitive proof it was not justified including your own admittance.

    Perhaps the greatest damage done to me and my product is that those interested
    in it in a forum as this one have had to endure this , and my problem is that I am not a .edu I am a business who is very small and requires a lot of reinvestment and
    when in a thread destined to understand my product it continues to be devaluated
    by falsehoods and has caused me to loose enormous sums and placed me at risk, of either facing discredit because I have to defend myself against the falsehoods or risk further financial loss, I had no choice , I had to choose putting up with the abuse and discredit because I cant afford to loose the business, that is not a pleasant choice.

    Rest assured I have cleared my good name in full, I should not have had to endure all this nor should the public because of your refusal to examine things for what they are and instead hope to rally the public to allow you to gain advantage , you are not
    a guy in his house making his own camera, you are a competitor when you represent your product can do the only thing mine can , when you go on to state that
    yours can do it perfectly, when that is proven false, and that can be done 100 times further you have lost all credibility ,proved my case , and have finally closed these matters for good.

    If what you offered to the public was what you delivered then you could squeal all you want ,but as that has not been the case , and when your squealing has discredited me immensely and it turns out that I can no longer conduct my business as a result, you show up again to give me advice that I should get a life.

    The first who deserve to live is the general public by not being enticed to buy something presented as what it isn't, then I also wish to live receiving the benefits of my efforts which I should after my product has performed well and was considered as the most responsive yet since 2002, Then you also deserve to live receiving the benefits which you deserve for whatever it is you offer if it does what you say and you are legally entitled, The public comes first and you come second , when it is clear that you have not even observed the golden rule you are hereby asked to desist expecting the public support against someone who has not only put the public first by providing them with what is considered as the most valuable alternative for a task but has done so at great personal sacrifice but that now is in a very bad situation after your admitted instigation.

    The title of this thread is Littman 45 single, has anyone used one? as many times before it was hijacked by falsehoods , now that I have finally been able to present proof I encourage free discussion and comparison to any product, the conversions cited aren't , I am fine with people thinking that my product isn't for them , that they would rather use anything else, I am fine with anything, if I wasn't fine before is because I was at a disadvantage and so were all bona fide participants which were being knowingly misled , I simply needed some time , unfortunately your curiosity and my schedule did not always coincide and I was forced to participate when I had no choice, I need not be involved, I know my product and I can respect peoples opinions even if that doesn't go my way, I hope you can understand why I felt I had the need to get my product out of the gutter as it did not deserve to be there, neither do I, I feel I have accomplished that , while the truth was required it happens to be really ugly, that is neither my fault or the public, and I trust that in time those who are interested in the subject whether for purchase or curiosity will ultimately benefit, after all when a subject which is really clear and simple cant find closure
    it is either because someone doesn't want the truth to be known , on the other hand I ask you all that you Please don't blame me If I could not afford to continue to live with a lie or be at ease with the discussion until the truth had come out as I was at a disadvantage and that the way the truth has had to come out was not my choice,
    we would have never had to go thru all this if it was offered from the source on the very first time he offered something , in an auction or in his site,
    Happy Easter and Pesaj to all


     
  57. I'm hereby posting info on another camera which was purchased by me from Steve
    Icanberry / alpenhause on ebay auction #2960980935 .

    The viewfinder issues were identical in both cameras proving that it is not a matter of
    craftsmanship or lack of it but of the original product unless modified properly for the
    format.

    Camera back is not 90 degrees with front standard which" is "90 degrees.

    Shutter speeds are acceptable/actually very good.

    Rangefinder again did not work well at close medium or far distance and was also out of
    axis with images one on top of eachother instead of parallel,Focus is worse that  on the
    other camera

    Camera not a Polaroid 110B but a Polaroid 110A converted into a 4x5 utilizing the finder
    parts of a Polaroid 900, just as Mr. Icanberry insisted he was not using on the earlier
    threads.

    The camera was purchased because the seller stated  the following amongst other things
    in the description of the auction:"Here is my latest pride and joy ""The parallax frame has
    been re-adjusted to match the larger frame. "

     

    Upon receipt it was immediately verified that it did not have parallax correction for 4x5 as
    promised , also the title of the auction was offering a Polaroid 110b converted to 4x5, it
    was not a Polaroid 110b.

     

    Clearly if a competitor goes to offer the conveniences Of the littman at 25% of the cost
    that damages the market for  Littman and that is why we are here where people question
    the value of his product, and on the parallax issue  this camera  could have been either a
    patent infringement or mail Fraud the later is the case.

     

    I'm not surprised that the market got this confused, after seeing Littman suffer
    unnecessarily I decided to do something about it.

    I have ordered a Littman which I have used successfully since last year has worked

    as represented in his site and I am grateful for that, when in turn I see the pain  he has
    had to put up with and in  light of this evidence I believe it is time to move on.
     
  58. Hello All,
    I just logged on hoping to find some nice words about William and his camera.... and still
    nothing.. Well, I guess, I have to do it myself... The camera I purchased from William, is
    with me on assignment, every other week at least... it works perfectly well and finally, I
    hope to be buying another one sometime soon...
    This inter continental nonsense makes me laugh... it sounds like a bunch of children
    crying wolf... Again and for the last time, William delivered the camera on time, we had a
    very pleasent chat... and you should really start to enjoy photography, instead of harassing
    over petty details a very genuine, hard working and honest craftsman.
     
  59. Well, I apologize for posting the original question! I had no idea that things would
    become so ..... well- "wasteful"

    What a waste of bandwidth...

    I am awaiting a converted 110b from Mr. Jones... that was my decision... I was not
    swayed by any e@ay listings, I made this decision mainly on opinions and price
    point...
    and I will in good time respond with my thoughts....
    sure, I'd love to be able to afford a Littman... but... I must say that Mr Littman has
    rather appalled me with his attitudes...

    regards,

    Bob Keene
     
  60. Mr. Keene thank you for joining in, I thought the party was for you! very fashionably late !,
    Clearly you wont be influenced by his offer on ebay after reading my comments in a thread which you started to find answers about my product and after I specified what the omissions of his offers are, you have to be kidding,nobody here questions your intelligence , you came to get answers about my product you were pointed to his, and you end up saying that you purchased and will bring it over, you have made my point better than anyone before, and I am certain that your findings will only prove my point further!

    Cheers W
     
  61. All my recent appearence proves, is I had time to post - nothing else :)

    *GRIN*

    (BTW Mr Littman - do you actually take photos or are you solely a camera designer??)
     
  62. This highlighted banner was posted in Mr Jones website as of yesterday when he denied ever reffering to his back as " made by Polaroid" , this banner has been Posted in his website since January 2003.
    007wNa-17484684.jpg
     
  63. He replaced the old banner with this new one which still implies that the back is made by Polaroid, what does a 4x5 camera back have to do with Polaroid unless it is made by Polaroid ?= nothing!!
    007wNm-17484884.jpg
     
  64. AS Dean Jones continues to lie and has again gone to post insults on his site and here as
    well , I cant believe that instead of sticking to the facts insults are used to justify this.

     
    instead of accepting the reality I have reviewed my email and this was the communication,

    His email;

    "The auction was actually for the conversion of a camera that you supply, not the camera
    pictured!  I was simply using my camera as an example of what your camera would look
    like when converted.   I realize you may have misunderstood the listing, but if you use
    Paypal for payment, I will ship you the exact camera pictured,"

    , If he feels he has misrepresented the auction in any way why would I be to blame, how
    come he assumes that I may have made a mistake? In any event  he did not do me a favor
    by shipping a faulty camera ,anyone would prefer to wait a couple of weeks or send an
    actual camera than get this atrocity as the shipping costs alone would exceed the cost of a
    110b, what is devious is trying to turn the tables around  he insiste that a patent should
    be respected and then insults Littman for buying a camera which is  his  right, Jones never
    intended to respect the patent, he does not respect trademarks or the truth.

     Ultimately it doesn't matter to me or anyone whether the camera was originally intended
    for sale, at some point he decided to sell it and on his own why should that reflect on me.

     In any event as he represents in the auction that the camera offered would have been
    identical to the one pictured I would have gotten an identical product as he states  right?.
     
  65. You showing up here with this timing confirms that since last November this question has been force fed upon me to promote Dean and others based on the falsehoods mentioned earlier and I have proven that wasn't/ isn't kosher, the existent evidence is vast and pervasive.
    You showing up here now proves as you know that this hasn't progressed and Yes I am a Photographer as well but unfortunately since last September, my life has been interrupted that has been proven and even admitted By Jones who on the other hand insists that I can have life by just living with all this , I found that after the animosity he created I havent been allowed to have a life until now , But as it is clear that no further poetry and embellishment and insults will be believed I will now have a life and " all " of my rights back and on that note I grin but also sad that this has had to occur in the first place , I never started threads to discredit someone , I did once start a thread to offer gallery space for those who had used the cameras, owners and just users and thread participants requested it removed on the basis that it "smaked of commercialism" , photo. net doesn't treat all the same way but I would have hoped that my rights would have been respected, they have not .

    In any event let me just say that jones now insits in his site that My camera is expensive in an insulting manner , and i remind you that 3 separtate cameras were purchased on ebay from different people and and were not really inexpensive since they were neither what was offered and no need to get into performance details, I never met Mr Graham and havent spken to him but twice but that was not a purchase i was involved in , I was also disrupted by the falsehoods stated by the the seller but that was an actual end user who had that experience.
     
  66. Hello To All, I have spent considerable time reading most of this forum contents and I am digusted at the long winded GARBAGE being spewed forth by mr Littman, It is hardly any different than the last forum held last year. It is my intent along with others who enjoy building Polaroid conversions that we will continue UNABATED! If you think one of us is "Violating" one of your fraudlent patents well you just go ahead and pay the exhorbitant amount to your attorney and come out to Los Angeles Federal District court and see if they give a rat's ass about your case, perhaps you would like to lodge a foreign lawwsuit in Canberra Australian Capitol Territory? Bottom line Mr. Littman is this: We are NOT trying to place you out of business or really competete with you for that matter, We are hobbyists and we sell now and then to suuport our hobbies.
     
  67. Hello Mr. Icanberry! I knew we'd hear from you!
    To answer your question, Mr. Keene, if you buy a Littman camera, this is part of what you get. Mr. Litman, what you are saying about Dean posting the threads on photo.net is a gross distortion of the truth.
    Dean only posted the threads on photo.net to get Mr. Litman to leave us all alone, and it seemed to work for a few months.
    I'm writing this because Mr. Litman has now started writing threatening emails again, breaking his word not to assert his patent against us which he gave back in October.
    Mr. Litman has been waving his patent in the faces of we Polaroidiots, ( Dean, me and rest of us ) for about a year. Even before it was issued.
    In the first claim in his patent he claims to be the first to modify old Polaroid cameras to 4x5.
    He isn't. Others have been making 4x5 modified Polaroid cameras for many years.
    That would make Mr. Litmans patent invalid.
    Nothing any of us said, or any of the evidence we produced would get him to leave us alone. I have never heard ONE WORD from his attorney.
    This is an excerpt from a letter from my attorney to me dated October 17th 2003 ( WILLIAM LITMAN's real name, as it appears on the patent, is Guillermo E. Litman ):
    "Dear Noah;
    Re: Guillermo E. Litman, U.S. Patent No. 6,608,971 Coupled Rangefinder/Parallax 4x5 Camera. .
    ..we have determined that the above identified patent is invalid because the invention was practiced at least more than one year prior to the filing of the Provisional Application date of March 12, 2001....Mr. Litman's last email to you dated October 8, 2003, indicates that he will not be asserting his patent against you. In the event that you should hear from Mr. Litman again, please let me know immediately..."
    What my attorney wrote means, in this case, is that ANYONE can do ANYTHING to the Polaroid cameras in question and anything the patent holder, ( Mr Liman ), does to stop them from doing so will not hold up in court.
    Also, the first claim of this patent being invalid means that NOT ONE of the other claims in the patent is valid, and NO OTHER PATENT can be based on or refer to this patent if it's overturned..
    And that's that about that.
    Mr. Litman has brought all this on himself.
    007wRj-17487884.jpg
     
  68. And Furthermore Mr.Littman your descriptions of The camera I produce is an all out Lie! I have only sold a few of them and the clients are absolutly delighted, I know these people who have purchased my cameras and the still have them in their possesion,
     
  69. Dear TPETER T, it puzzles me greatly as to why you never contacted me regarding this alleged faulty camera. I would have gladly received it back here, paid you all shipping costs, put whatever faults right or simply replaced the whole thing! I GUARANTEE all my conversions indefinitely against failure or whatever. I DID NOT HEAR ANY WORD FROM YOU. Do you feel that is a fair way to behave? The camera I sent you was used by MANY local photographers who were impressed with its results. At no time have I compared my camera with a Littman and for the price, nor should you!! Please return the camera (please make sure all the pieces are included) for a FULL refund.
    007wT6-17489284.jpg
     
  70. <p>If you don't understand why Steve and others are talking about Mr. Litman the way they are, it's because you've never received a threatening series of emails from him.

    <p>Imagine being told that all the Polaroid 900's you've bought on e@bay might be inspected to see that you haven't modified them or switched their parts to another camera!

    <p>This thread is just a small taste of it. I can't believe the gall of what he's written about other peoples work. That just isn't done. It's unprofessional, lowball, hearsay, and immaterial. I could tell you what some people have told me about mine or Mr. Litmans cameras as well, but it's utterly irrelevant.

    <p>We all stand behind our work.

    <p>All any of us want is for him to leave us alone. THAT'S why we post these threads.
     
  71. I have to go to Shul now, I'll be back after Shabbos.....
     
  72. He replaced the old banner with this new one on April 5th and then this one came later which still implies that the back is made by Polaroid, what does a 4x5 camera back have to do with Polaroid unless it is made by Polaroid ?= nothing!! For crying ouy loud the guy says he works full time at a camera store, thus if he says Polaroid before a product he knows it menans it is made by Polaroid,
    007wUS-17490184.jpg
     


  73. I believe my patent is valid.,and Mr. Schwartz insistence about the claim in my patent is false as I have sought advise in October when he had insisted then that the patent Office " had rejected my claim to convert Polaroid cameras to 4x5" he then went on to insist other such things and I learned that if proof of a prior effort is accepted a claim is limited to a specific configuration,if its too general it gets restricted, first the actual prior art would have to infringe on that claim for a limitation to occur

    As the spirit of the invention is the coupled parallax rf camera and it is made clear that the conversion aspect is but one of the components I doubt that what he states is nt the case


    I was placed under extreme pressure in September October 2003 when the truth was that Schwartz was asked to submit evidence that he had a prior effort but chose to come to the threads and insist that he was surprised by my email saying I had a patent pending , but then admitted in the thread that he knew about my product and site since a year earlier , as I said before Believe in my patent and I believe that those who have rights due to a prior effort have those rights, I do not understand why Schwartz did not present the evidence of his prior art to The USPTO, when after the threads I learned I still had no proof to present, I do not understand what Schwartz is talking about invalidity I'm not a patent dictionary but I know that in the last threads he stated that my patent did not protect for conversions to 4x5 , because a claim was rejected in the original application and that is not the case, at the same time he cannot insist that all conversions are validated by his 1 alleged prior art, for which I tried to obtain the proof from him to proceed to benefit all.

    I have not stopped any auctions or prevented the sale of anything since then and I have kept my word In exchange I would have expected that their offers to the general public disclosed what it is that was offered and on these threads it is made perfectly clear that people believe otherwise and when I have purchased products and I find they are not what was offered and that they believe these were sold to the general public, my waiving my patent which I believe is valid as a meant to ask a respectful coexistence, if they mind the waiving that doesn't justify offering something and delivering another.

    If my patent were invalid which I doubt that wouldn't justify that their offers do not disclose what it is that is offered and in some cases what is offered is not delivered.,

    Mr. Jones is stating that my product is expensive in his site and then stating here that he never referred to my product as being expensive, last summer when a ebay seller contacted Schwartz to ask for the weight of his 110b converted camera he replied "The weight ? I'm can't weigh the camera. It's already packed to ship. Take
    a Polaroid 110B and a Graflok back and weigh them. That's about what it
    weighs. " At a time when I was communicating with him to see if his instance was valid I felt that if he had invented or performed that conversion for years that he should know about it without having to open a package and when he had followed thru on starting the threads with Jones and I read a long explanation about how surprised he was and how rude I was he then told me that it was him and not forsher who had invented the fiber optic Polaroid back and finally to stay away from him because he could use the publicity, then when he came in the threads he misrepresented the fact that he knew exactly who I was therefore all the resulting discredit from what wasn't true should have been avoided.

    In any event patent or no patent matters between businesses should be resolved between businesses, I do not want to enforce rights I don't have but I also don't want to be forced to waive them as a result of considerations of public domain and then when the threads are started all that was presented and still is is apicture of the front of a camera and in summation of what Schwartz had told me, others and his words in the thread, I say im willing to believe "what is". then Jones states that a legal patentshould be respected , then Schwartz stated that the patent was not ludicrous.

    A patent is not required so that the public can learn what it is that each seller offers and that would be less typing than all of this,

    surely these ebay sellers have made offers since October 2003 and there is a pervasive confusion , nobody prevented them from speaking about camera weight , properties, etc, there should be a better way to sell a camera than to discredit me , since October they have had a chance to do just that, at the end of those threads Schwartz emailed saying he would send me a win-win proposal, I'm still waiting, I also offered all of them the production of my camera as I wanted to return to photography , none were interested any event I kept my word,
    I lived with the conversions and did not prevent them but in turn I found myself thread after thread having to explain their product and people pounding the value of mine and when Jones does just that in his site today I buy one to show it is both not what was offered and is not a point and shoot 4x5, they want to make a 4x5 conversion I expect them to say what it does and doesn't do, they have not been prevented and in return I don't want to be prevented from having a life its a 2 way st.

    Mr. Icanberry I am glad your clients are satisfied with your cameras . i have a camera and the package was opened in the prsence of the buyer and it was determined that parallax correction was not present and you had offered it as part of the offer, twice at least that i know, Im glad that the customers are satisfied we are confusing oil and water here! insults wont change that.


    But i hope what is written is consistent It is unfair to take what i said in October out of context when in november I explained what I had learned , nobody has prevented you from presenting your evidence to the USPTO on the contrary I keep posting that I would hope that you would so that photo.net could become aplace where people can discuss photography instead of all of this, I have not brought anything upon myself, If you had presented the evidence none of this would have happened.

    I contacted you the moment i was advised of your offer.

    You seem convinced that uou have what it is required and based on what you told your counsel they feel similarly, the fact that you havent done so bothers me more than the prospect of looseing what Im not entitled to if that is the case.

    MrSchwartz :Whatever needs to happen in that respect is between you your lawyers and the Patent Office ,

    If the patent office limits my claims or as you insist invalidates my patent should be based on the existance of truthfull evidence , if that day ever comes then fine.

    Until then I ask you that as all of this disruption is based on your word while you insist to be experienced in theses matters that you put an end to it.

    let me just sate that no respected buisness would resort to going on the internet to claim to have prior art instead of just presenting the evidence to the patent office and getting the matter handeled tastefully rather , than joining photo.net the week after my patent wa issued then trasshing me and never saying anything about photography , these matters do not belong on threads, i didnt bring them here .

    If you insist i am at fault i insist i can prove that none of you who have complained acted as a model citizen,two wrongs dont make a right

    If my frustration doesnt justify anything in your eyes , your frustration doesnt justify anything in mine and none of this is justified by the public, i have finally learned that what a few thread patricipants may say however hostile is not a reflection of how everybody feels, people feel differently, in any enent it is time to move on, these matters will not be resolved here , and while my patent is active I expect it is respected.

    again happy easter and pesaj to all!

     
  74. Reading the posts listed here, why is it I get the feeling MR LITTMAN and TPETER T are one and the same person? Why do they write similar phrases and make similar mistakes in uploading files? It`s either that or they are brothers in arms? This post has more twists than a psychopathic evaluation. It`s MORE interesting than photography ever was and I`m enjoying it immensely! Keep it going guys, we may get a award for the most interesting forum ever or something?. For those interested in the parallax issue, my latest camera will undergo a comparison between groundglass and actual rangefinder/viewfinder content. We will then all see the variation. I`ve not attempted this before so it will be an extremely interesting exercise. WATCH THIS SPACE! If nothing else it`s doing wonders for sales.
     
  75. T peter is a real person as it can be established if necessary and when most of what he writes are truths which are self evident after proof has been presented
    that should not matter depending on who says it, this should not be a contest to win,

    If this turns out to be the most interesting thread ever rest assured that other things interest me more , in any event the pictures speak for themselves the only thing that could be questionable would be whether the focus and shutter worked well upon arrival and those two issues are not related to the camera being able to be a 4x5 point and shoot that can be operated as such and get the intended image one pointed at, to be fair and as Keen said he would report on your camera I will have the shutter and focus fixed by independent top NYC repair and delivered directly to
    a photographer to test as a user and also the camera will be evaluated by tech person as to whether it can do what was offered because any owner is more likely to be subjective. in any event whether your camera can be considered as a 4x5 point and shoot that can be operated with the assistance of the viewfinder can be verified by anyone who owns a 110 and opening the camera back and placing an empty box of 4x5 film removing front and back and placing either draft paper on one side or a piece of ground glass and then tapping the whole thing centered, first you
    try whether the brightlines give you the picture as the glass on the finder and then you cover the parallax projector to see if the outer window will give you acceptable results, neither will, nothing needs to be tampered with the camera you sent to prove this as any 110b ever made will give same exact result. an image " not marginally different" that is a big deal if its also the only way the camera can frame.in a hand held application when people expect to as it has been proven desirable and a great part of the value of my product.
     
  76. The moderators of this forum are sick of this thread and the work it causes us. No more postings should be made to this thread. Several of you have had your says, at length and repeatedly -- readers can decide based on the existing "answers" and, if they wish, by emailing participants.
     

Share This Page