Littman 45 Single... anyone using one?

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

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.

Here you go:

 

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

 

actually, he got the Linhof tech and the Noblex later...

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.

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.

I have already answered to such a question a few months ago.<br>

First, I must insist on the fact that I have never used a Littman 45, therefore, some of my objections are perhaps not founded.<br>

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.<br>

As I have already seen Mr Littman's answers, I prefer to point out that <u>what follows is not an indictment !</u><br>

I use a Master Technika, and I'll make some comparisons between the Littman 45 and a folding Linhof (Master or Super Technika).<p>

<ul>

<li>The Littman can use only one single lens, which must of course be chosen before buying. No right to error.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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).<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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).<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>Aiming and composing with the rangefinder in portrait position with Pola holders seems maybe rather difficult.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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.<br>

<li>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.<br>

If a camera costs $100 or less, I don't care. If I buy a $4000 camera, my concern is different.<br>

</ul>

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.<br>

Then, where is the difference with the Littman ?<p>

IMO, the Littman is very specific and not versatile enough compared with a Linhof, at least for the actual price.<br>

 

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.

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>

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.

Fred,<br>

as you already use the Granview, and I don't, I can't contradict you.<br>

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. <br>

I mean that all those cameras are large format, hand-held, light cameras, but they have no movements at all.<br>

IMO, the main difference between large format photography and other models is, beyond the image definition, the existence of <u>large movements</u> of rise, shift, swings and tilts. As far as I know, the Granview has no one.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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<div></div>

the previous link did not work so Im replacing it with this one

 

http://www.photoworkshop.com/double_exposure/publish/article_672.shtml

Mr Littman,<br>

<i>"The model you are discussing has been discontinued and a whole new Littman 45 single was introduced january 1st 2004"</i><p>

How can we know that ?<p>

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.<br>

If I refer to your website, the last information about camera models is dated Feb. 20, 2003.<br>

Rather difficult to know what is new in january, 2004...<br>

Don't you think it might be more effective to update your website ?<p>

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.<br>

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.<br>

I am probably an ass, but I sincerely believe that your article singularly lacks precision.<br>

Why all this hostility?

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.

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.

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.)

http://www.littman45single.com/10gallery/hlgal01.html

(L45s Vs Linhoff review)

Mr Littman,<br>

thank you for your last link (Henry Leutwyler's article). An interesting opinion.<br>

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.<br>

About the <i>"going back and forth between focus and finder windows"</i>, 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.<br>

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.<br>

I have consequently more questions than certainty about your cameras.<br>

Regards,<br>

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 .

 

 

 

 

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<div></div>

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

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.

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.

 

 

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)