LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI front standard struts.

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by diwan_bhathal, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. While browsing my favorite auction site, in the LF section, I came across the
    new and "improved" model of the LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI.

    This latest version is to have a major improvement in the struts of the front
    standard. The manufacturer has installed some sort of "counterweights" on the
    front struts.

    I read his explanation in the advertising, but could not understand it because
    the prose in which it is written is quite disastrous.

    I would like to ask if anyone in the forum knows why the "counterweights" have
    been installed there and what exact function do they serve. I have never seen
    anything like this. I have an identical Polaroid, and the struts are fine, they
    do not twist nor bend and never need adjustment or repair.

    What is the reason for this? The ad indicates also that it is a technique used
    in bridge construction. Never seen the like of it.

    Any thoughts? Is this an innovative technique or just added weight?
     
  2. Is there no end to this misery?
     
  3. bw

    bw

    OMG. What a pile of cr*p.
     
  4. Do a search on Littman here and over on APUG and get ready for some really weird reading. If you think the eBay posting was confusing, wait until you actually read Mr. Littman's posts on internet forums. Anyone who buys a camera from this guy must be into some strange pain therapy.
     
  5. Give it a rest Diwan. No one pays any attention to Littman anymore. No good is being done by beating this dead horse.

    BTW: Working on any new cameras lately?
     
  6. Frank:

    Yes, the struts have a very interesting design addition. I wonder if they are for vibration dampening.

    I am trying to come up with a 5x7 of the same type as my other cameras. I have been asked repeated times if it will be possible to build one like that, RF coupled, handheld and of course, lighweight.

    This 5x7 will be used to obtain contact prints, as the size of the negative allows "viewable" prints. The 5x7 format has a very pleasant aspect ratio, which mimics the 35mm type.

    The main problem that I am faced with is the lens choice. Coupling the lens to the RF is trivial. The minimum focusing distance needs to be consider carefully, as the bellows extension is disminished for these longer focal lenghts.

    Let's see what fruit this winter will bear. I hope also that you are coming up with some interesting stuff yourself. Please, do not forget to post your latest model.
     
  7. Wow, my brain couldn't get through three sentences of that turgid desecration of language before it caused a sympathetic response in my lower GI tract.

    For all the (overly-simplistic) quoting of patent and copyright law that Mr. Littman does, I didn't find a single issued patent or patent application under his name (go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm and http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html and see for yourself).
     
  8. The name on the patents is, "Litman; Guillermo E."
    Click here to see the third patent.
    There are links on that page to the first two.
    Click on "Litman" under, "References Cited".
     
  9. Yeh, well at list his stuff is reasonably priced!! ;)
     
  10. As stated in the patent of the above link;

    "to convert a 31/4.times.41/4 camera into a 4.times.5 camera with a coupled rangefinder/parallax combination that allows sequence shots taken at a higher speed than ever before possible for a 4.times.5 format, at about 1 shot/sec, and allows increased concentration on artistic aspect of picture taking and the ability to capture snap shots with spontaneity without asking the subject to wait until the camera is being readied. Additionally, the modified single window rangefinder 4.times.5 camera of the present invention provides a proper turn knob focusing system for accuracy and improved tolerances for a 4.times.5 format."

    I guess that "Graphy" is also being patented as we speak.
     
  11. Seems to me Littman's cameras are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
     
  12. If any one does a search for Diwan Bhathal in Photo.net, every post every response is strictly dedicated to defamation of my name and product while he claims that he has made a camera that outperforms mine in every regard. almost a year ago I confronted him with the technical aspects to prove he was lying and he said; " yes but mine is a toy camera and Its not for sale".and then when he was made to face some of his own medicine he rapidly stated" Moderator! stop this! its not fun anymore!" . As I informed Mr. Bhathal many months ago his claim of " his camera being his introduction and his idea was libel and defamatory" . Weeks ago I received notice of allowance from the USPTO and the patent issue fee has been paid which means that within a few months " his camera" will be patented under my name
    with a protection date back to 2001.

    Once again I am forced to disclose technical details before the time is right because this person resorts to defamation as a means of poking

    I have designed real improvements for such configuration so as to overcome any obstacle present and was hoping to introduce it when the time was right if someone wanted to make it.

    Once again I am forced to disclose technical details before the time is right because this person resorts to defamation as a means of poking. I did not post images of this improvement on my first offers because I was busy protecting the improvement and couldn't afford the time to deal with Mr. Bhathal interferences which sprout every time I introduce something. I mean he did start a thread to trash my camera and tell everyone his outperformed mine but he had no idea of what my im,provement looked like so while the thread caused a lot of harm by the use of lies its not like I have a choice.



    But the case is that It will be an insurmountable task due to the ensuing efforts by Mr. bhathal to utilize photo.net to interfere with
    the public perception of everything I say or do.
    What Mr Bhatia has represented regarding his camera is libel.he has used that misrepresentation to discourage many from investing in many other viable products.I can understand that Mr. Bhathal has nothing better to do than harass me but I remind him he is taking it out on the public when people hoping to trust their investments seek
    advice on how to spend their Money.

    I do not believe in using the discussion forums to advertise products
    nor that I should be cohered by defamation to have to respond to these attacks .I have already announced a long time ago that I do not accept any business from members of photo.net because this individual and a few others who has declared repeatedly that he will not buy my product and is making every possible attempt to discourage everyone else thru the use of libel and harassment is allowed to disrupt my business unfairly for whatever motivates him, whether he is one of the two people trying to sell products here using an alias to discredit me or simply obsessive makes no difference ;
    In any event my camera does not have counterweights but a piston type arrangement so as to correct any error in the front standard so it can remain parallel to the film plane at all times. it allows for precise adjustment and when tightened it acts like a vise which compress the parts with a torque of hundreds of pounds which yields arms which are much sturdier. I doubt they will require any future readjustment since accuracy is not achieved by any bending of the arms as previously required , but if it ever did require adjustment then the capability is present.

    Anyone who has a speed graphic and focuses thru ground glass can ensure the front standard is parallel to the film plane by using the tilt control as a temporary adjustment in each instance if the front standard is slightly bent but most existing cameras have some variance on how parallel the front standard is to the film plane and
    because most LF work was done on a tripod and thru ground glass the fact that the planes are not perfectly parallel can be easily compensated for.

    Rangefinder; the word range in rangefinder applies strictly to the measurement of distance and not to any acceptable tolerance as in the use of the word " range like saying, " it ranges between this and that or the other" therefore because the telemetry accuracy depends on both planes being parallel and in most cases this was not present or could be better rangefinder has been perceived by many as something which guestimates by aproximation and this misconception stems from the idea that you can utilize a measuring instrument and expect precision independently of an actual structure being utilized.

    If you take a light meter and get an accurate reading but your shutter speed is off you don't get a proper exposure and in this case the light meter may be independent from the camera altogether but whatever the rangefinder represents can only be true if first the planes are parallel which in turn allows for the camera design to hold true and in its best configuration which otherwise it is nothing but a fiddling guestimate which has a lower performance than expected.

    someone can say they just close the lens and everything is sharp anyway but if the planes are not parallel than one side will be softer and its great to have this if you want selective focus as a control using tilt but the inability to have even focus regardless of rangefinder considerations is considered as an unwanted swing or tilt or both.
    Reference to bridge construction was made in reference to the L45s 5 front standard where strengthening of the front standard by bracing / welding and other methods proved to be just as counterproductive as weak front standard because something strong is harder to correct and while more resistant to impact that does not ensure it is straight or can remain straight.again his misrepresentation of my words is defamatory.

    I have already announced this improvement does not add any weight because it is light and weight has been removed from somewhere else where it wasn't needed. Mr. Bhathal is again misrepresenting what he knows to create dissent. that is all he has done on photo.net is instigate dissent against my product using libel.
    this improvement has already proved to be a major benefit and a couple of manufacturers of traditional LF view cameras are already interested in licensing the improvement for their products.

    It is my purpose to make a few cameras for those interested in taking better pictures and with the emphasis on creativity and it may be true that in order to overcome these attacks I may somewhat overcompensate when stressing the importance of creativity when many would say that has nothing to do with a camera.

    Exactly! it doesn't but after wasting years of my life dealing with the harassment of people like Mr. Bhathal I found the cure which was to limit my efforts to be on behalf of those motivated by the imagery itself and if I had to write something that sounds like " war and peace" and makes little sense to nuts and bolters let me just say it worked perfectly as photography is something where beauty comes before age and age does not matter.

    Whatever it is I have made or will make relates to small quantities and as it is not readily available by impatient people who feel everything and everyone should be made to appear instantly at a click of a mouse on your computer monitor to amuse you or tell you what you want to hear and the case is that not everything can be subjected to a vote. That makes people like Mr. Bhathal very angry and so he tells everyone they should vote to destroy it.

    The improvement has proven to yield major utility as it allows for a perfect parallel between the film plane and the front standard which can then mimic the behavior of a caliper, as a result telemetry can evolve into tele micrometry and the design or implementation of the camera cam can be made more precise and then the adjustability over time can ensure the settings remain true. No other camera had this and its not more of an improvement it needs to be . it allows for subtle adjustment and subtle variations. Mr bhathal makes a lot of reference to age and appears to be looking for climax and is frustrated that metal structures fail to provide appropriate arousal" no fireworks here" he is right there are no fireworks here and there will be none intended. it is a very good improvement but after the initial excitement of having achieved it myself I have forgotten about it when I took one of the cameras which included it and saw the picture and the technical improvement took second place to my joy after seeing the photograph.an improvement is nothing more than an obstacle removed and trust that I do feel obligated to account for what I claim and which I can prove with the use of tangible structures and by the opinions and results obtained by my clients that is where the benefit can be appreciated.

    The L45s was started while telling everyone who bought one in writting that the original front standard has weaknesses..despite that we corrected them which allowed the product to perform well while we perfected the implementation of the improvement of the arms. now everyone who owned an older model can upgrade it to be able to ensure great performance over time.

    Im sure certain identified people will insist this is not required but I have verified this problem in cameras they made and which have ben examined by many others. I also have proof they have already admitted to never attempting this .they assured their struts were straight, which in some instances I verified otherwise and if they were straight at some point nobody can look you straight in the eye and assure you7 they can or will remain straight because that is impossible if it is fixed by bending it will inevitably bend back somewhat. and I have proof that was all that was ever attempted by others..My improvement is not obvious , and statements made by my opponents prove it was not obvious to them. end of story I have proof it is novel, and has the required level of utility. no more no less.

    The real question is that if Mr. Bhathal finds everything I do to be so insignificant then why has he dedicated the last 2 years of his life to speaking about it trashing it and then claiming to outdo me and insist what counts is the imagery and that large format just gives you a larger negative.

    Mr. Bhathal please be advised that in a few months coupled parallax rangefinder 4x5 or larger will be patented with
    a date of 5 years ago. and is already the title of all my issued patents ..come up with whatever you like just don't come here to misrepresent it was your idea. that is libel and defamatory.

    Your malicious lies and aggrandizing yourself at my expense. your ensuing misappropriating claims of introducing Ideas I have introduced years ago has increased my cost of production enormously and unfairly deprived me from performing work for my clients who have to pay more for my product. that is a burden in itself because it makes it harder to sell. but then you admit that is your intention when you insist you would not will not buy my product and insist everyone else should do the same



    If my posts are long and appear to lack communication skills it is because I am responding to unfair attacks and having to distract valuable time and neglect my work as a result and hope to say whatever it is so I don't have to divert even more of my time to this because everyone knows these instances are intended as an excuse to allow certain identified people to proceed to advertise products and services after they or their friends find some excuse to tell you not to buy mine.
    On September 23 2006 this site modified its terms of use which it is therefore obligated to enforce on all members alike which ratifies the following;


    No Soliciting

    You agree not to use the Site, other than the Classifieds section or any discussion forum where the policy explicitly permits, to advertise products or services or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services.



    Anyone who makes anything may have different opinions about what others make but that is no justification for people to advertise products or services here .

    This website states it is intended for peer to peer education that means " users" but anyone can use an alias to come here and discredit products unfairly and then invite himself to plug his own or as has been reiterated be invited by a few that say they don't mind it because they get bribed by DIY tips

    After all which has happened I dont believe anyone who inquires in photo.net about my product has a sincere interest in it after reading the sort of abuse given to those who prefer my product by people trying to use this site to plug products and services
    here is another instance in which the same handful did exactly the same thing.




    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HZY6&tag=




     
  13. Aw geez Diwan, look what you have gone and done!

    Littman:

    Didn't you say awhile ago that you were not going to post anymore?

    BTW: there is nothing in Diwan's post that is libelous.


    Here is a recipe I suggest you follow for even greater success. I am not masking these comments as making fun of you; I am giving you my honest opinions:

    Modify your approach to come across as a classy, sophisticated, reserved, understated company. Customers are attracted to that "aura" and are willing to pay for it.

    Get an editor. Your use of the English language makes you look really bad. Your ads and your postings need major help.

    Being proud of your product is good. Puffery of it to the point of silliness fools no one; especially your customers. Explain your improvements in your ads but don't make them sound like HUGE breakthroughs. Intelligent customers will make up their own minds.

    Realize that any person who wants to convert a Polaroid camera will never have the money to be a customer of yours. So you are not being hurt in any way. Ignore them.

    Be less agressive in your public mannerisms. Much of what has been posted about you is a direct result of your agressiveness (see your own post above). You seem to fall for the same bait every time. Can't you see that YOU are your own worst enemy? Also, any person here HAS the right to criticize you and your product; that is gaurenteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one likes being criticized, but not every criticism is libelous or slanderous, so backoff. Bite your tongue and do not respond. Remember, your potential customers will read these postings before they spend thousands of dollars on your camera. Don't take a chance to give a wrong impression.

    There is an old Chinese saying:"The man who does not smile should not open a shop".

    Why not just build your camera and sell it?
     
  14. But then again, Mr. Littman's (Litman's?) abusive rantings against competitors might open him to a charge of patent misuse, which renders his patent(s) in question unenforceable.
     
  15. Guys:

    I have been one to spend time responding to these threads over the last few years as well - as annoying as it may seem I am going to suggest putting this all to sleep. Let him go.

    It gets more & more distorted & convoluted as time goes on & all are wasting valuable time reponding to it all.

    Play some hockey (or watch) , spend time with seniors, help out a needy neighbor or provide helpful information to newbies on the various threads here instead of wasting any more time inciting the wrath of the subject at hand.

    Let's move on ...

    Regards
     
  16. I would humbly suggest Fotoman (www.fotomancamera.com) or Gaoersi (www.focus-dayi.com) as much lower cost and more flexible portable 4x5 alternatives.
     
  17. While every person may have a right to criticize. This website represents to be a public forum where users give opinions about products and My product was introduced in the year 2000 and many members asked politely about it some agreed and some disagreed giving valid objective opinions. It wasn't until the fall of 2003 when 2 people decided to fulfill threats of defamation so as to use my name to promote their products.
    I am not aware of any other situation where when someone asks about a product a competitor immediately responds discrediting the product and telling you to buy his instead.

    I do not care If someone buys a product or not. its his choice but I have the right that public forums will not be utilized by people trying to sell their products.
    Mr. Frank R the public as you insist is not stupid and for the most part has a pretty good understanding of where things stand as shown in the following thread where once again people expressed and confirmed that a conversion offers less utility that a speed graphic which is what I stated all along while people using the threads to offer products and services breathe down the neck of users hoping to stir the market to their advantage

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ijcw&tag=

    If my product looks and utilizes parts of Polaroid cameras it has been proven to outperform them and any other products in regards to responsiveness. It is not I who says so but accredited professionals. regarding puffery my clients can confirm that what I represent is not puffery and after all I'm not saying my improvements need be anything more than they are. they are what they need to be. I

    My position is that people are free to express whatever they like but that public forums of photography are reserved for people who use products. Not for those who sell them because otherwise at it is proven the users are csubjected to cohersion to retract their positions as a result of the intimidation by those trying to sell products if the opinions offered do not benefit the sales pitch. I couldn't care less if I never sell another camera or hear the word camera ever again. My camera was discussed in many forums here before these people decided to discredit my name and product thru defamation and I did not feel invited to respond. The situation changed after September 2003 I was not invited to participate and defamatory threads were started by these people to discredit me and my product as a means of selling theirs.
    This is insane . be the bigger man? sure

    I am perfectly fine with every member of this forum disagreeing with my product even if I am aware that is in great part as a result of the admitted instigation and defamation but you cannot ask me to accept that people trying to sell products and compete thru defamation and false imputations are allowed to appropriate standings by addressing the public directly where the public is supposed to be able to be free to make its own mind.

    The people who have confronted me in these discussions are the same 4 or 5 people half of them because they hope to make money from it and half of them are either aliases or people discrediting me to then insist you should disregard when I say something but listen carefully when they appropriate my opinions after discrediting me.
    Mr. bhathal has gone to great efforts to mock me for making an emphasis on the importance of creativity and the use of the word " graphy" after which he stated here on photo.net"
    Diwan Bhathal , nov 10, 2006; 09:45 a.m.
    The fact is: If a negative that has a good image is produced, the negative is by itself a good image, it will give a meaningful print. Conversely, if a boring image is produced, there is no darkroom or magic bullet that will save the banality of the product.

    Most of the reason for the darkroom artifices and gyrations is an attempt to save a bad image through technical tour-de-force.

    If I were a beginner, I would start by learning how to take good photographs instead of looking for the larger negative to solve all the creative and vision learning process that a beginner has to do."



    To summarize the emphasis here is not on what is being said but weighed by who says it.

    For everyone else my response is keep the forums free of solicitation and that is where freedom of expression will flourish

    On the thread titled" i want to buy a Littman camera Mr Schwartz proceded to assert that Littmanistas reffering to my clients have such attitudes that when they eat out it consumes too much waiter spit and that they take such awful pictures it really makes him sick.



    The problem is not that he said it if that is the way he feels , the problem is that it was deleted as it goes to show that these two people are not apreciative of the creative choices by the most talented .or why they would apreciate a more responsive product.



    Mr Schneider I dont think you are informed of the facts

    Mr Schwartz has made false imputations as to having submitted prior art to me and then admiited that was a lie. Mr Schwartz has made false imputations that there werre rumors that I would brake into peoples email folders and then admitted to starting the rumors because he couldnt find a few emails from a client. Mr scwartz has made false imputations of receiving an email offensive in its religious content and blaming me for it. Mr Schwartz has questioned my allegiance to my religion or implied a requirement of afiliation as pertinent to selling a camera. He misrepresnted having had access to yu patenmt application # and used that to discredit me and as an excuse to start defamatory threads after threatening me saying it would be a federal offense in his oppinion to insist I had a patent application pending if it were false the flip side of that would be that he misrepresented the events as to discredit me and use that to promote his sales.



    Whatever I have stated about the competitors product is the opinion shared by the public or I have tangible proof and statements from witnesses and users who have posted in photo.net.



    Ultimately the public is not interested in patents which are commercial documents and not nobel prizes and If anyone can park their car in a parking lot and use their claim ticket to retrieve it without causing a ruccus these people can adress buisness related matters in the proper channels and not as an excuse to plug products in public forums using abusive rantings and libel to discredit those who have earned the respect and standing as is the case with the most respected photographrers as some of my clients who have offered their opinion about my product

    Mr Scwartz insited that he is not interested in repairing my product which he refuses to repair but has lied again

    as he proceeded to post defamatory offers insisting that most of my product needs to be discarded. has told everyone in photo.net that my product is a self destructing time bomb and that he is trying to prevent them from making an expensive mistake



    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7560846332

    Mr Jones behaviour is very much the same posting defamatory threads stating my product is now made in china stating that everything is weird about my product right now mocking my designs and choices and then insisting these are his ideas

    Please free the public forums from the claws of these people .

    Mr Scneider I have patents and that doesnt give me the right to use the forums to advertise products and services . I am simply asking that this website enforce its policies. that is not patent misuse. people are not allowed to compete here patent or no patent. that has been the case from the start this website editor in chief had clarified that commercially oriented postings were not allowed so these people had no right to engage me publicly and using false imputations as to force me to respond and then they are still not allowed to advertise products and services. no patent need be involved or required for what I have insisted is my righful request be observed by everyone alike. every buisness has the right to be free from these interferances nobody needs a patent so as to expect that people wont use the public forums as a means to compete. it is not a patent which says so but the terms of use of the website itself



    "Modify your approach to come across as a classy, sophisticated, reserved, understated company. Customers are attracted to that "aura" and are willing to pay for it. "

    You are correct what you suggest I should proceed to accomplish in the future is the actual reality which exists and which competitors have admittedly told all of you to disregard my standing and accept their defamation instead.

    Mr Jones first words as to proceed with the admitted instigation were

    Dean Jones , sep 12, 2003; 07:27 a.m.
    "I have recently noticed that a certain member of the photograhic fraternity, supposedly well respected and known for the conversion process applicable to the Polaroid ."

    He lied ...he did not recently notice me on september 12th 2003 but had been aware of my efforts and standing in the buisness for over a year and a half and as you can see he represents to be aware that I was well respected and known. That is the standing i have earned and deserve and these people did not have the right to use the forums as to utilize false imputations to bait me into having to respond and most unfair that people resort to misplaced outrage as to represent that I have to withstand false imputatioons from competitors because I sell a product . I say perhaps but I say I will deal with it somewhere else when somewhere else allows such unfair appropiation of standings . I expect these people will behave like this after this long . Im not surprised nor outraged simply ask people can conduct buisness and promotion of products and services outside the public forums everyone can expect this as fair .

    when i presented the evidence as to clear my name from the burden of these false imputations I was contacted by the moderator who told me he had removed my posts and the posts of others because he found it was not interesting.
    I agree with him none of the false imputations were inteesting to me or anyone else but they were left published and I have the right to be free from the burden of defamation and false imputations which is more important to me than selling anything and if the bill of rights gives anyone the right to crticise others It also gives everyone the right to their good name.

    I was told that If I wanted the situation to end then to not post further as new posts generate responses.
    So heres the deal . people are entitled to their opinions and Im entitled to my good name . If I lack the skills or ability so as to deal with the baiting and poking after that is something which should not be held against me specially since the evidence to clear it was removed and i was told that i would be publicly reprimanded or suspended for presenting evidence.as to clear my name from the imputations which have been admitted false by the same people who made them in the first place

     
  18. I would like to reiterate ad nauseum that my camera is not for sale. Additionnally I would like to indicate that my camera is not subject to any patent whatsoever, since it does not contain the conversions applied to the so-called patented Polaroid conversion. To state that my camera will be subject to a retroactive jurisdiction by these so-called patents is clearly an act of accusation and coercion. The fact is that if anyone can come up with a better device than currently produced available or not, this should not be considered as an act of promotion of a product, or peddling of wares. Again, my camera is not for sale. Questionning on the merits of such and other product does not constitute a libel, and does not imply soliciting. It is merely a common question to which other manufacturers are very willing to answer as all of them make public their specifications. In the case of the L45 Single VI, these specifications are unknown, all we get is unintelligible drivel. Its merits, as stated are grossly exaggerated and moreover, the Wrath of God and all other Deities will fall on anyone that tries to question anything regarding the L45. I have offered my camera for an independent evaluation with other handheld 4x5s, there are no overstated secrets surrounding it. There has not been any motion from the L45 to do so, on the contrary. Independent evaluation will show what has been exaggerated and what has not, as well as merits and shortcomings. My camera has been qualified as being a toy, it is a toy that is vastly superior to any camera of this type made today. It is the lighter and smaller of the handhelds, has an bright RF with full parallax correction and accommodates all types of film holders. It does not copy existing cameras or any camera devices but, regrettably is not for sale. The fact that my camera exists, and that it was shared with the photographic community, does not constitute any of the acts that it is accused of. It is a very versatile camera and promotes the ease and creativity of its user. The first time that I published a picture of my camera, I was deluged with accusations and forceful wordings. The intent is to let camera tinkerers and innovators to continue improving on the tools of the photographic art, and not, as one of them does constantly and forcefully, to try to repress these advances. This is intolerable, patent existing or no patent at all. How can one be accused of solicitation when the product that is solicited is not and will not be in the market? I would seriously consider Mr. Shneider's comment,--abusive rantings against competitors might open him to a charge of patent misuse, which renders his patent(s) in question unenforceable-- This is clearly where we are heading to.
    00IySt-33745284.jpg
     
  19. Pico: funny stuff. Sadly, you're probably correct. I don't know what the counterweights are for. Maybe Littman can draw us a free body diagram so we engineers can analyze it, or provide the technique used on bridges, I've been around a lot of bridges under construction and after completion, but I'm a civil engineer, not a bridge engineer. If I was looking at the ebay photos without the text, I might guess that the "counterweights" are slides to lock the struts in place, like a folding table that has a rectangular piece of metal that locks the legs open, don't know why you'd need it though. If I was seriously looking for a camera like this, there is no way in heck that I would even consider the camera on ebay, the way the ad is written, never mind the price.
     
  20. Mr. bhathal; .
    you are stating your camera has coupled rangefinder and coupled parallax correction.
    please read the following allowed claim


    "A camera having at least a 4x5 format and a focusing element comprising a rangefinder element coupled with said focusing element for rangefinder correction and a parallax element coupled with said focusing element for parallax correction"

    Nowhere in that claim does it make any reference to conversion of a Polaroid camera; specific use of camera models or parts.

    What I informed you regarding my rights is true and not limited in any way to the use of a Polaroid camera. you were advised of this the first time you made reference to " your camera"

    you were confronted almost a year ago with the following facts;

    the camera cam in that viewfinder offers no possibility of adjustment and corresponds only to a 114mm lens. that is not vastly superior to the L45s the focusing system on that camera has lots of play and it is impossible to maintain parallel film plane and back which fluctuate with focusing. that is not vastly superior to the L46s s.

    Infinity can only be achieved by shimming and that is not vastly superior to the l45s

    parallax correction offers no independent adjustment from focusing and that is not vastly superior to the L45s

    If as a DIY enthusiast you feel entitled to make anything and do not resort to interfering with the public perception of other peoples rights making misrepresentations then you are also entitled to your opinions.

    I do not care that you would make yourself a camera but harmed by the fact that you misrepresent its performance and represent that because you did not look at any structure so as to make the camera then no patents apply.

    coming up with something on your own applies to copyrights not patents. In the presence of a utility claim as is the case with the claim I posted.

    You may not be competing for business but you are competing for a standing that belongs to someone else. you were informed that this utility was patent pending and you insisted that no patents apply. there is no patent misuse here. I informed you of a claim that was patent pending and now I inform you it has been allowed.

    It is you who is utilizing strong arm tactics and misrepresentations so as to impede my sales so much that I fail to find the time to allocate to describing my product better because I am obligated by your poking to post offers or disclosures before I'm ready because you will otherwise proceed to further interference. I fail to see what obligation do I have to inform you anytime before I am ready to do so after you have declared you would not buy my product under any circumstance and instigate others to do the same.

    you have already admitted earlier that your camera does not perform as you insist. if its a toy fine. just don't toy with the perception of my product and my rights so as to admittedly hinder my progress. the fact that you copied nothing in order to make my camera does not excuse your abusive behavior towards me in this forum and is no\excuse that would allow you to publicly engage me in this way. you are being rude and abusive while I am telling nothing but the truth and it is my right to preserve the standing of my product which I have worked very hard to improve. apologize ;stand down and get real because what you are doing is unfair.

    If " your camera" is a toy; I am not your toy that you can summon by the use of defamatory and ensuing poking having dedicated all of your posts over the last couple of years to impede my offers insisting I am obligated to satisfy your impatient requests.
    get a life. I have not started any threads as to question you or your camera you have done nothing else on this website but question everything I do or say. please don't misuse your membership to this website to interfere with my business. My camera may be for sale but it is not available to you and we agree . you don't want to buy one and I don't want to make one for you. we have nothing to discuss.

    I find it perfectly normal that someone would make an eventual comment about a product but when I see that someone dedicates all of his time to speaking about a product in a derogatory manner and insists this should have a direct effect on the product I have the right to be free of these interferences by the terms of use of this website.
    I am not saying I have not said you are resorting to solicitation . I have said you invite and instigate others to resort to solicitation in violation of the site policy. if solicitation is forbidden then its instigation is too.

     
  21. Mr. bhathal. for all your claims of proper use of the English language something should be perfectly clear to you
    It is you that went on to volunteer that your camera meets the specifications of a patent pending claim which has been allowed. I have not accused you of anything nor charged you with anything. It is you who has claimed and represented the utility you insist is present in your camera. don't twist the facts around.

    It is perfectly fine for me to respond and advise you that such claim was pending./ now allowed and issue fee paid./ will be patented my actions are therefore merited and you have no right to misrepresent them.
     
  22. How surprising that within less than 24 hours some intense education has rendered the sudden appearance of punctuation, paragraphs, better spelling and above all better manners.

    All the patents in the world will not sell cameras. All manner of threats and intimidation will not sell cameras....incessant ramblings and buffoonery will not sell cameras.......most of all inflated prices will NEVER sell cameras, whether they are portrayed as artforms, innovations or whatever else.

    I once stated that Patents should be respected....that is genuine patents for original ideas that no one had yet put into practice, however a Patent attained by false claims, utilisation of age old ideas and bravado is complete rubbish and cannot be taken seriously.

    Hiding behind a supposed team of lawyers, applying for numerous seemingly worthless patents, threatening all and sundry and behaving like some Idol that must worshipped, will never change the perception of the person or the product.

    A Patent does not a camera make......................

    How many famous people one knows does not make one also famous.
    As they say: 'Empty vessels make the most sound'

    The amazing and well designed Polaroid 110A/110B along with similar models of this era are far more worthy than the buffoonery offered up so far by the 'Ogre'.
     
  23. WILLIAM; add some <br><br> or <p> ; and select html to make your posts easier to read. One long giant paragraph is about impossible to read. Add some breaks and paragraphs.
     
  24. Diwan; a Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 Ektar is an extremely fine slow lens, and was really designed as a 5x7 lens. It usually is on Ebay, usually in shutter.
     
  25. As an eductional statement; one can just buy a 80 year old 5x7 Speed Graphic with a coupled rangefinder. if one wants a camera larger than 4x5 with a rangefinder. One cannot patent items already made 80 years ago, made in volume, used by thousands.
     
  26. Mr. Jones;Sell cameras? sell cameras? sell cameras?. Is that what you came for once again?
    To sell cameras by insulting and debasing my product, questioning its value and presentation once again?
    the issue here is that I am not hiding . this website is intended for users of products not people making products and then coming here to sell them.

    I was recently confronted by a member who insisted that business should surrender objective analysis when hoping to sell a product and I have read your posts where you insisted that your experience has been that the use of lesser or better products has yielded no better results; that your photography was still crap.
    Most people would say or ask that if that was the reality where do you get off questioning the opinions of others abusively when they insist and can prove that in their case their experience was different and they did recognize that you can make an eventual great picture with anything but certain tools are more of an aid for certain uses.



    I agree with you Mr. Jones its not who you know but who knows you. it isn't that I represent I knew a lot of famous people; I represent that you insisted that my product was well known and respected and not" supposedly" as you try to present as to raise doubt and dissent but admittedly by the most important photographic publication who referred to me as an accomplished fashion photographer.

    the point is that you informed everyone that you were aware of the standing of my product and my own before you decided to admittedly use defamation against me as a means to sell cameras here.



    That means that it is not that I knew a bunch of famous people but that I had earned a standing and reputation myself.The same is the case for my product . It was tested and evaluated in independent reviews which you invalidated as a means to sell products here it was tested by people who are recognized for their creative ability and have offered proof of the results obtained and not the pretentious attitude they are charged with as a reason for preferring my product and then it was tested by those who tested yours too and came here to confront you and tell you to stop lying that the products are different and you should not use the public forums so as to forcefully stir the market to your benefit using misrepresentations.

    4 weeks ago I get an email from a client who tells me he has a Littman camera and wants to send it in for repair.
    and when I receive it turns out not to be my product but yours.The guy freaked out... it turns out he traded as he told me in disappointment and represented he traded a valuable hasselblad arc body for the camera and when he received it did not include parallax correction which was an issue to him and not easily compensated for as you repeatedly represent here on photo.net and the focus did not perform so as to allow him to move freely and be responsive and whatever the case may be the fact is

    that he bought the camera after having used a Littman from a friend of his years ago and his experience with the camera was altogether different. preference is a subjective . people can prefer whatever they choose to . My quarrel is not with what people prefer but that the forums are used by you to misrepresent that your product outperforms mine and or that there is no difference. that is a lie

    In what refers to the objective analysis of the technical aspects you have told users that in your opinion you doubted they would notice a difference between the performance of a modern apo corrected lens and a 60 year old single coated ysarex. everyone qualified will tell you the difference is abysmal. you represent that the parallax correction issue is a figment of my imagination and harass everyone who disputes your discredit. many have verified you are lying and using these forums as to compete unfairly using such defamation as to question value.
    regarding the importance of cam design and implementation you first disputed my positions and insisted they were not required. I had to buy a camera made by you to get you to admit that you had indeed crudely ground the face of a cam which you did admit and went further to insist you did not know or understand how a certain cam could do a certain job as you were holding both and they appeared identical to you. It took months of confronting you to get you to look at them again which proved they were entirely different. as different as they needed to be due diligence and obviousness can not be claimed when you have publicly asserted repeatedly and proven you did not
    understand the matters at hand after patent issue and proved these issues were not obvious to you in any way. the same is the case with your buddy who went on to insist my claims were not required and that he had never modified a camera differently from an original presentation in April 2003 which he showed all angles of the structure insisting the idea was to preserve the original configuration as anything else would damage it and went on to defend the weight of the Polaroid 110b by stating that it was a great asset to carry around Manhattan because you could use it to hit someone over the head with it and on the other hand if you used a speed graphic to do that no damage would occur to the person , all that would happen is the camera would be dented.

    that was the presentation of character offered to me by the person threatening me with the extortion of resorting to use these threads to promote himself by telling me" stay away from me because I can sure use the publicity"

    It is your public assurances which have proven my patent claims were not obvious to you and the others don't concern yourself with whether a patent is required to sell cameras oust expected that you will not come here to sell cameras patent or no patent. you tell everyone to exercise self regulation on October 13th 2003 but that has translated into this website being your own private cookie jar to advertise products and services by defaming mine.And most would believe that if you tell us that whatever you held and used to photograph did not yield better results" that your photography was still crap" that you would not resort to ambush this podium based on the fact that you hope to sell something and use self regulation to allow those who have obtained better results. to allow them the right to their opinion instead of disputing it forcefully because by your own admission you are not entitled to. that would be self regulation.

    Mr. bhathal says the Polaroid 110b was a brick and "
    The higher end Polaroids are just that, pure and genuine junk, and they still are, so are the lower end ones. They need modifications, surgery and adjustment to be reincarnated as something that they never were intended to be. The 110A has a pathetic RF/viewfinder combination. This got improved in the 110B. Otherwise the lenses that these cameras came with were very good. "



    well it is I who came up with the required " modifications, surgery and adjustment to be reincarnated as something that they never were intended to be." and there is no way / no how that I will have to endure further interferences from people using defamation in to proceed with solicitation in forums which forbid it.



    people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor, good name and reputation as a result of their own efforts.
    please do not twist the facts around . the record shows that it is you who has come to this website to appropriate a standing by intimidation by disputing the opinions of real users who question your product even in discussions where mine is not even mentioned.
    All the discussions in which you participate turn into a urinal and the only way things quiet down is if you are allowed to prevail as you have instructed us" As it was I who instigated this discussion I feel I should have a word in closing".

    What on earth gives you that idea? A word in closing should emanate from a genuine and well intended response and not an admission that you intended to have the first and last word ; the record shows that you and your buddy harass everyone by breathing down their necks to sell products.

    coincidentally I pointed to the following discussion where real users gave their opinions about products to the person who asked the question and immediately after these people were intimidated into having to change their position and having to justify their opinions repeatedly almost to the point of embarrassment.

    Mr. Frank R. I recognize my lack of communication skills but before one goes too far with concerns about presentation I remind you that in that discussion you appeared to have a legitimate opinion. one who is shared by most of the LF community and myself and which is 100% valid. you were forcefully confronted into making you change it. I applaud that you had the willingness to come back repeatedly and stick to your guns whereas a newbie or someone else might not have cared to bother further..

    If we consider that you aren't trying to sell anything and are a user of products; Do you really want to be confronted on public forums by the use of intimidation of your opinion by those who are trying to sell something? Isn't the purpose of a forum the ability to have a safe harbor from sales pitches and advertising so that one can get the opinions of users and not sellers.

    Unless this website is freed from the claws of people trying to sell products and using discredit against others that standing as a public forum is debased to a mere gathering of individuals for the purpose of bickering. if that is what you feel you deserve you have achieved it.
    I

    if you weren't trying to sell anything and had that much difficulty being able to hold on to your opinion perhaps you can waive the requests for literary expertise and consider that I am not trying to sell anything here either but have a right that competitors not be allowed to intercede between me and the public by using a public forum so as to answer the call and offer their products instead by debasing mine.

    It is unfair to suggest I would require more effectiveness so as to deal with the situation as the burden should not be mine but the real users should be actively engaged in preventing solicitation from polluting the forums.


    people have started threads by asking if anyone was using one. people using one responded and were again immediately attacked by Jones and palsy
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ijcw&tag=


    Mr. Flanigan the speed graphic is a coupled rangefinder 4x5 camera only and does not constitute prior art to a coupled rangefinder/parallax 4x5 camera
    In the thread titled " I want to buy a Littman camera the original poster insists"
    [my initial hesitations (about posting this question) were due to the tiring debates I have come across between william littman himself and some of his detractors, on every single post where a littman camera has been discussed. I am interested in littman's cameras and i'm interested in the opinion of real owners. and i am not interested in littman's comments (who will obviously defend his product), or the comments of people who just love to poke fun at littman. these two latter categories of photonet users (littman himself, and littman haters) please refrain.]

    What this person requests is what is expected of this forum by real users., It is the legal and moral obligation of this website to have the honesty to enforce the policies it represents must be respected by everyone in the same manner and it is the legal and moral obligation of this website to prevent people advertising products and services in the threads to admittedly bait me.admittedly instigate and defame me and admittedly taunt me into what they admit is a trap.

    Mr. Greenspun and Mr. Briggs

    I have stated repeatedly that I feel photo.net is a great website for photographers. I am a photographer but the turn of events lead me into a fork in the road where I got involved in making something which I offer for sale and in doing such I recognize the importance and value of being ready to accept criticism from the market who has the right to its own opinion.

    Whether I have a commercial interest which relates to patents or not is not a pre requisite to be able to expect that the criticism or approval of my efforts be based on a genuine response from the market and not as a result of instigation and solicitation in the forum threads.What I express is a sentiment shared by most and voiced only by a few for fear being confronted as has been the case with everyone who has dared object to these plugs.

    I have an obligation to be prepared to accept objective analysis from the marketplace and this website has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that is not replaced or stirred by competitors invalidating the opinions of real users and accredited press to then ambush a podium to insist that while in their own experience the use of better or lesser products has yielded no better results , that the pictures taken by my clients makes these people sick everyone else's opinion should be debased and that people should buy the products they plug here because . the person who insists has compared and that in his experience no product has ever yielded better results tells everyone he feels entitled to have a word in closing at each turn and that you should buy his product to which there is no comparison .and outperforms all others?

    Thank you.



     
  27. The law profession does not deal with absolutes or abstracts like "hansome" or "ugly", "clean" or "dirty" as these are very difficult to define. Nevertheless, when these concepts are taken into their proper context, the situation is different.

    The so-called patent for the conversion to a 4x5 of the Polaroid camera, clearly states in the abstract and text body that this effect applies to the models of the 110A, 110B body type, but not the other Polaroid models.

    And: ""A camera having at least a 4x5 format and a focusing element comprising a rangefinder element coupled with said focusing element for rangefinder correction and a parallax element coupled with said focusing element for parallax correction"

    (What is a focusing element for rangefinder correction? Even the so-called patent contains gibberish and is very poorly written)

    This comment was added later as an entry to this forum:

    Nowhere in that claim does it make any reference to conversion of a Polaroid camera; specific use of camera models or parts.

    ---Gibberish and nonsensical drivel--

    The above can only be read only in the context of the camera models as stated in the introduction of the so-called patent. Due to this, the claim referred to in the comment, is invalid, out of place and totally delusional.

    One cannot claim ownership of basic and fundamental concepts and applications of technology. If this is not understood by now, it is about time that this ludicrous claim gets corrected and annuled.

    I have offered my camera for an independent evaluation and comparison of performance with any other handheld of similar type. This offer was not reciprocated.

    For your information, I have adjusted the Zeiss rangefinder of my camera to accommodate the lens that is installed in it, which has a focal length longer that the original. If a manufacturer of a similar device does not know how to do it, it is not of my concern. This can be achieved, I have done it, only a little ingenuity is necessary. The camera will focus accurately throughout the range permitted by the bellows length. If the workings of linkages and kinematic motion are not understood, this becomes an impossible feat.

    As to the front standard and scissor arms, I too own a micrometer and machinist square, they keep the front standard parallel to the film plane at all focus settings. A very well executed original design still good today.

    Also, there is no need for shimming of the lens to attain infinity, as it is so claimed. This infinity setting is inherent to the design, my camera does not contain any shim whatsoever as well as counterweights, vibration dampers and other lame pseudo-technological devices.

    If a manufacturer of this type of devices does not know how to use a micrometer, I would advise for him spend some time to study the instructions on how to read a vernier scale, or the numbers in the digital readout. Shovels are not appropriate for small machinery construction, as was once mentionned somewhere.

    I may add, that my camera also uses the "red button" sitting on top of the camera for firing the shutter. This unique fact makes it easier to operate than others that do not have that feature. Firing the shutter is very smooth. Other cameras use a shutter cable release which is flapping in the wind and makes for uncertain composition while handheld, not mentionning blur. I would say that it would be more beneficial to provide this feature rather than the counterweights on the struts, which only add weight. The other "red button" will only give you a sore thumb.

    Again, discussion regarding vague subjects is moot, anyone knows that. False claims of ownership of concepts is intolerable.

    As a conclusion, I would like to say that:

    "People like to play with toys, not bricks!".
     
  28. Mr. bhathal
    such claim is not limited to a Polaroid camera means it applies to any camera which has both combined coupled parallax and combined coupled rangefinder and at least 4x5 size format.

    You don't have to like it. but you will require prior of a camera which had both features combined and such has to be determined as being proven prior.
    such prior art does not exist.
     
  29. You continue to misrepresent that my improvement amounts to counterweights.It is clear that your intentions are defamatory and that you do not ask these questions out of a genuine curiosity but as a means to create further dissent when it is made clear to you that the improvement allows for an adjustment; weight less than 20 grams; ans no considerable weight.

    If you insist everyone knows that false claims of ownership of ideas are intolerable then stop doing it.

    people like to play with toys and at some point they grow up.
    what happened ?
     
  30. Any person with nominal intelligence would immediately recognise that any bending of the struts, (which I might add takes some doing) would naturally occur at the bends and not the straight sections of that strut. Exerting pressure of 'several hundred pounds' as you state, upon the straight section will achieve absolutely nothing. It simply amounts to more false claims and inflated prices.
    I have not made mention of my cameras anywhere in this thread, nor do I need to...you have performed that task perfectly well for me.
     
  31. Hey Diwan,

    Can I contact you directly for info. on how I can modify an existing camera as you have? I have access to a machine shop and skilled techinical advice. I want to make one because I think it's a really nice tool, and because some schizo says we can't.

    Thanks
     
  32. Mr. Jones;
    Any person with nominal intelligence would immediately recognize that any bending of the struts
    will happen at the bends. and who cares where it would happen because what matters is the final resulting length as to ensure the front standard is straight.
    there is no room to provide length adjustment at the bends .
    Mr. Jones your response proves you haven't the slightest understanding of basic mechanical principles.

    The weakness is clearly in the bends but weakness or strength does not ensure that the front standard can remain straight. many sturdier front standards could be straighte
    1)providing for an adjustability as to correct length has to occur on the straight section because the bent section if adjusted in length would no longer match nor could it be ensured to retain tensile strength.
    2)providing for an adjustability as to correct length has to occur on the straight section because an interruption in length has to be present as to allow for such adjustability and the only section where there is enough length and space to do this is the staight section

    The hundreds of pounds of torque are utilized to make the setting permanent as there is an interruption in the strut within the adjustment as to allow for adjustability; when the setting is achieved the structure must be as strong or stronger than it was originally . that has also been achieved. and as stated earlier who cares if it bends. what counts is length.


    Mr. Jones every time someone confronts you with facts to show what you are doing you respond something that reads like( yes but not today) others announce their services and say yes but not at this time anyone with a nominal intelligence can see that and in any event you are misrepresenting the attributes of my camera so as to debase its value. and you always discredit my product before announcing yours .

    Mr. Bhathal could you give up the silliness and get a life your postings are clearly malicious!

    Anyone making a 4x5 camera can incorporate a rangefinder to it I have no patent claims for cameras having rangefinders or coupled rangefinders only
     
  33. Fyi, as long as we're talking of patents and their validity, after issuance, patents have a presumption of validity. However, of the patents litigated, about 1/3 are found invalid. If someone believes a patent to be invalid, he/she doesn't have to go through the time and money of litigation, however. A procedure exists for a patent to be reexamined in view of a "substantial new question of validity" (this can even be done anonymously). The applicable statues are 35 USC 301-307. The reexam must be based on a prior patent or printed publication (no testimony, for instance). There's a fee, of course (the USPTO is a money-making machine), but I believe it's in the couple hundred dollar range, a far cry less than the cost of a few hours of a patent litigator's time. There are significant drawbacks to going this route rather than through the courts (primarily the very limited participation of the requestor), so big companies usually don't go for a reexam, but for the small inventor it can be a useful tool.
     
  34. John, thank you for your input, but have you actually ever done that ?<p>It's not that easy.
     
  35. I was getting a bit bored, and was secretly hoping to hear from Mr. Littman again. His writings are fascinating entertainment.

    Perhaps there's a bona fide case here for the violation of Antitrust Laws, given that Mr. Littman seems to be aggressively pursuing a course that eliminates the possibility of any and all competitors.

    It would be interesting to hear from the moderators of this forum, if they consider the advertising revenue recieved from Mr. Littman a fair exchange for the legal conundrum of having to to be involved in a US Justice Department suit.

    That would make for fun entertainment, too.

    And just for the benefit of us legal amateurs, does anyone know where the line is between Anti-trust violations and RICO statute violations?
     
  36. Patents have been issued for many things. Not that this is directly related, but there's a patent for a boring tool .
    And often people patent things that they really, really need, such as a beaded bracelet for male genitalia. But occasionally, people get away with patenting the obvious. So, for example, if your baby wants to listen to music in the stroller, be careful because the stroller with CD player is patented.
    Some patents would be helpful here. I'd kill for a burp gas filtering and deodorizing device right about now. To prevent head injuries, a pneumatic device for boxing gloves to reduce head trauma might be nice to have around. But if you really don't want to face reality, a cleavage anti-wrinkle device, ( kudos to you, Midge Russell! ), could help stave off old man time. Why would one patent a horse bandanna?
    And who wants to earn a living off of a post circumcision diaper?
    I dunno. "Patent' has become a dirty word to me. It's very sad.
    I guess if I were really smart and invented a transgenic zebra fish embryo model for hematopoiesis and lymphoproliferative disorders, I'd want to protect it, because you can't have too many transgenic zebra fish embryo models etc. AFAIC. But if I invented an alien head, I think I'd save my money.
     
  37. Mr Van Cleave ; here is the statute which establishes the terms of a patent
    http://www.littman45single.com/05ccmc/patentcover.jpg
    I can relate to what Mr scwartz says; he should know well he obtained 2 patents which never amounted to anything as far as I know
     
  38. I don't know the history behind this thread -- apparently, some of you have posted responses to each other before?

    But as I read the additional postings today, after those of yesterday, I'm convinced that this whole page of postings should be removed from photo.net. There's just too much flaming.

    I'm not going to point fingers; there's quite a bit of it splattered all over the page, and not just from one person.

    I've been reading, and occasionally posting, on this forum for a few years now, and I've never seen anything like this.

    So, I'd appreciate it if you'd all just stop, right now. Live and let live.

    Many of us are involved in camera construction or modifications of existing equipment, and I've rarely if ever seen a real overlap or coincidence of ideas, other than making the equipment conform to the laws of physics. Each gizmo is a unique expression of an individual's or group's creativity, and that's a beautiful thing.

    Why not just step back and appreciate this?
     
  39. Mr. Jones I'm not advertising the shortcomings of my product but the ones of the original product which Mr. bhathal and anyone can confirm it was not intended to do more than its share and the use and abuse of 4x5 exceeds the smaller format . by the mere opening and closing the struts will bend backwards over time this is the same case in the original product without any modifications. I have verified at least 15 cameras made by you which have also been verified by users before I received some of them and none had a straight front standard as per expected tolerances of less than a millimeter in swing or tilt. but why take my word for it. here is a simple test anyone can perform at home to verify it.. place a caliper and rest one jaw on the back and use the other jaw as to determine if the front standard is straight. I guarantee you most if not all will have a considerable amount of error. as for the claim of adjusting them in minutes and lasting for 40 years that is also a lie because you have not had contact with these cameras for that long and everyone I have verified had error. if you did adjust them proves that adjustment by bending lasts only days.
    00IzGO-33762084.jpg
     
  40. Mr. Littman; coupled rangefinders have been used on Speed Graphics that are 2x3, 3x4, 4x5, and 5x7 camera bodies. The last three bodies is what I have used the most. Rangefinders were used on 5x7 speed graphics before ww2; one cannot "patent" and disbar the making of goods that have been made and sold legally when most poor folks were still driving a model T and dreaming about a model A Ford. <BR><BR>To all, the Wall Street Journal Tue Nov 28, 2006 front page has an article about the Supreme court is reviewing bedrick doctrines of patent law "obviousness". Part of the crap introduced in 1982 that favors patent holders might be turned back more like the old 1952 patent act ;"denying parents to inventions that in light of prior art in the field would have been obvious.. to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains."
     
  41. Mr Flanigan
    can you read english?
    all you are doing is creating dissent.
    that claim protects only in the even a camera has coupled rangefinder AND Coupled parallax so give it a rest! none of the cameras you mentioned had both.
     
  42. I simply find it hard to believe that 'fifteen' or so of my customer`s cameras wound up in the hands of one they sought to avoid!

    Rather than a crude hand caliper held against a plastic rangefinder housing and an angled lensboard facia, I prefer to check the alignment of the lens to the film plane on the bed of a lathe.
    The support struts are quite strong and resist bending considerably.
    Most cameras are still aligned even after 40 years, only around one in five show any sign of distortion. A very simple procedure to correct, it does not require rocket science or a force of several hundred pounds. I haven`t actually checked 1000 cameras in order to come to a conclusion. Doing so would be a fruitless exercise, not to mention slight overkill.
     
  43. My system of insuring all is aligned. This is carried out prior to establishment of the anchor plate position.
    00IzKw-33763384.jpg
     
  44. Use a square, for crying out loud.
    00IzMR-33763884.jpg
     
  45. Mr Littman: I was never *forcefully confronted into making you change it (my opinion)* as you say above.
    A newbie wanted to convert a Polaroid 110B into a 4x5 camera. I shared my opionion that I thought it was not a good idea because it ends up being a false economy. Newcomers often want to spend very little since they cannot afford much. Converting them often takes far more time and skill, and money, than they initially anticipate. The result is a camera that is an average performer at best and is decidely clunky looking (it is not an elegant design). They can experiment with other large format cameras for less and sell it for little loss if they do not like it.

    Now Noah Schwartz and Dean Jones begged to differ. That's when I realized that I might be affecting sales of their cameras. Dean and Noah have been very helpful and very nice on this forum and I did not want to harm them in any way. So while I kept to my opinion I heartily recommended that if anyone wanted to buy a converted Polaroid they should do so from Noah or Dean.

    *Do you really want to be confronted on public forums by the use of intimidation of your opinion by those who are trying to sell something?*
    That was not intimidation on their part, they shared their opionions and I respected that. The only intimidation on this forum is from you Mr Littman. I see that you have taken none of my sincerely offered advice. That is too bad.

    BTW: Dean and Noah are direct competitors. Did you notice that they have never treated each other the way you have treated everybody? Take a hint, Mr. Littman, offer your product and keep your mouth shut. You will look better in the process.
     
  46. Response regarding the technical aspects

    The first thing I told these people when I contacted them is that I was doing so to enquire about the existence of prior art; proof of obviousness claims or due diligence concerns and that all future communication would have such considerations.
    If I told folks at home they could use a caliper. it doesn't mean I use a simple caliper. I'm not going to disclose my tool which is my design/ digital and reads distance and angles.
    These people are again taunting me into providing them with instruction or risk discredit



    .
    "Use a square, for crying out loud.
    To check if something is square, use a square." Wow ... It took me 4 years to learn why Mr. Schwartz front standards I have examined were not parallel to the film plane.

    The man is correct under normal circumstances that would be true and that crude method was utilized by me in the summer of 2000 when as I had reported I had a lot of difficulty launching the product after discovering shortcomings in the original product.

    So here the thing; The bed on which Mr. Schwartz places the L square as to determine if the front standard is straight or not is not square to the original camera back but relatively square . first because it is a stamped metal part resting on three points and on nylon guides held by three anchor points / not 4 and all one has to do is apply a little finger pressure to these beds to see the lensboard oscillate left and right as if you were pushing a swing ; furthermore the hinge arrangement which holds the camera door in its supposedly square position is a straight bar which has a click stop determined only by a shape in a grove and held in place by spring tension these things are built like potatoes.

    Some minimal variance exists from side to side and I have removed this error by using hinges which are twice as strong/ adjustable in length and replaceable without the need of dismantling the entire camera to re rivet those which otherwise are riveted to the camera body under the finder.

    With all of those provisions considered the fact remains that one is not utilizing the original camera back and the parallel must be checked between the lens board and the back.

    If this was a molded structure with consistent expectancies then you could rely on measuring the lens board in relationship with the bed but in this case that is misleading.

    I suggested folks at home could use a caliper as a method of checking because as a self contained square which has 2 parallel planes connected to each other while it is crude as compared to my tool it is superior to an L square . All my calipers have the top jaw outer side being parallel to the inside as well ,so when you rest the caliper on the graflock back and not as Mr. Jones suggests( it is not resting on the plastic top ). Mr. Jones has proven at each turn he has no right to claim obviousness on any of these matters after volunteering his understanding of these subjects .

    The L square method suggested by Mr. Schwartz which can only check if the front standard is straight in relationship to the bed is absolutely inaccurate but far superior to Mr. Jones method where nothing is actually connected square with the mentioned camera parts.

    In Jones method the lathe chuck and the L square are not connected to each other. and while Jones will assure that his chuck is square to the lathe bed or toolholder this method has a degree of error of millimeter/millimeters incorporated into it as an expectancy.

    The instrument to measure for a user must be as parallel as a caliper and the measurement instrument for a maker must be able to make contact with both the back and the front standards as to determine a variance of millimeter so as to remove any error.

    .An error of at least a millimeter will render a false infinity setting sufficient to yield soft pictures and ineffective rangefinders.

    What Jones presents as his understanding of measurement in order to make determinations plus his statement made earlier proves none of these people understood what my improvement was intended to do when it is clear that anyone skilled in the art can see readily that the images disclosed show that the bottom section of the strut is fixed by two screws to the enclosure and that above that there is a third screw which is clearly different from the other 2 in that a long groove is visible that shows readily that if you loosen the screw you would be able to increase or reduce the length of the strut.


    Dean Jones , nov 29, 2006; 03:49 p.m.
    Any person with nominal intelligence would immediately recognise that any bending of the struts, (which I might add takes some doing) would naturally occur at the bends and not the straight sections of that strut. Exerting pressure of 'several hundred pounds' as you state, upon the straight section will achieve absolutely nothing. It simply amounts to more false claims and inflated prices. shows these matters are still not obvious to him and adding the insistance that the adjustment I suggest is not required will prevent him from claiming obviousness or prior art the same is the case with Mr. Schwartz as he did not even understand that you don't take for granted what someone else made before if you are using it to make something different and put your name on it.

    Polaroid is not responsible for what these people are doing or claiming.

    The original cameras performed in excess of the intended expectancy for the use of instant films but have issues present which must be addressed. there are a lot of issues all going in different directions and with inconsistencies I have addressed them all and then created a way as to remove any error and ensure it remains true.

    I don't know why these people are defending what cant be defended and easily proven false. nobody said its their fault that the arms bend without any effort by anyone the problem is that they deny it

    Someone could say "who cares what method is used to check something just as long as the results achieved are satisfactory" and he would be right .

    it is not my fault if some people have low expectations and are convinced that everyone else feels the same way .
    I have no involvement with any counterweights but sure have to allocate a lot of precious time to dealing with having to overcompensate for this burden
     
  47. So I am here at this long thread again only to say that I remember having this long conversation with one of the agents at Fotocare who claimed that the Littman camera was heavily sought after as a rental but its only flaw was the fact that its struts might be a little fragile. I spoke to william about it and he said that in order to erase this argument from the equation he would try and reinforce the struts on his new camera. Now I just received my new camera and I am glad to say that I love the new and inproved struts. Is there a major difference between the old and new in terms of strength, maybe only time can tell but how can anyone wrong the man for trying to improve his craft. Now I have been using the camera for little over a week and I must say it is delightful. Is it better than any other converted 110s out there, "I don't know," but I do know that I really enjoy the camera. I am so confused as to why all the diatribe. I wish someone can email me OT at Leicauser503@mac.com and help me with all the blows. As for images. I spent a month in the South photographing the culture of the descendants of slaves with a Littman. It was cool. I also met Darkroom guy today and we both talked about our varying interests and ownership of 4x5 handheld cameras and we did not throw blows so--there is hope yet.:) But i would like to share this image with the group and hopefully we can move on to talking about images from our cameras. Excuse the image, it has not yet been edited. ??
    00J03j-33779284.jpg
     
  48. Yes I know I spelt descendant incorrectly
     
  49. Ruddy, you are correct in thinking that the camera is OK. Any Polaroid converted to 4x5 correctly is an absolute joy to use when compared to any other large format camera. The problem that exists is the paranoia that surrounds it. There are many people worldwide who enjoy using a large format hand holdable 4x5 camera whether it`s an L45 or not. Users simply don`t need to go to the great expense, hype or rhetoric in order to achieve a result such as you`ve shown. The only objection I have to the whole scenario is that the L45 be deemed the ONLY credible camera and everyone else`s should be branded as an infidel.
    It`s plain bloody minded and is therefore unexceptable. I don`t believe the modified/reinforced struts you mention played an important part in the result you achieved, but I`d be happy to hear otherwise.
     
  50. Having said that, it`s a shame you elected to crop the head of the subject. Was that by choice or does the finder not depict the 4x5 frame correctly?
     
  51. Let me just say that the issue is whether the camera can frame correctly or not.
    A photographer is not an automat as you expect and if he chooses to cut off a section of an image or use unconventional framing then that is his choice.
    When I gave Ruddy his camera he had been using another Littman with a 120mm lens and the comment which surprised me from his usage experience is when he told me that the framing on my camera was always truer to what he was looking for and as he was using a Toyo thru ground glass simultaneously he had found that the lines corresponded less to what he expected and took a lot of fiddling to get the framing to be what he wanted .
    That is sufficient utility. more than expected
     
  52. Ok- the looney tunes show has gone on long enough. For pete's sake, how can a rangefinder framing be MORE accurate than a ground-glass? That's like saying a trebuchet is more accurate than a satellite-guided missile!
     
  53. Mr. Davis
    You are correct it cannot.that is why I stated I was surprised .
    His comment was not that it was more accurate per se but that he was able to obtain what he desired readily and easier with good results as in the case of the ground glass use it required a lot of tripod head fiddling just to get the lines as he wished.

    What he represented to me was that the framing was truer in regards to the amount of effort required and the time involved in achieving it which is the responsiveness factor which concerns me is not compromising quality .
    In any event that was my perception of his response. perhaps he prefers viewfinder composition over ground glass and that is his choice but if he feels that he can have the responsiveness and not compromise composition that is all which concerns me.
     
  54. In terms of composing the image, I elected to cut off the top in order to get everything else I needed in the picture. Now I must confess that this picture was the first taken on the trip and the first picture taken with a L45. I was still in Lala land when I realize the ease at which I was able to do this. Now in terms of its comparison to my Toyo, I told William that with the Toyo on a tripod, I found myself bothering with making sure all the lines in the background were straight and correctly lined up. I had to use a bubble level with my Toyo and I found that I did not have to do so with the L45. For me it was maybe more like the years of using Leica rangefinders on the street felt more comfortable than a more disciplined kind of taking portraits. It was strictly a preference in how easily I was able to compose the subjects I encountered on the trip.
     
  55. Here I was thinking the entire aim was to make the rangefinder image correspond to the ground glass image as close as possible, otherwise it`s a waste of time. When I have checked the images of both, (you can check the results on my website) I found them to be almost identical in appearance. All I`d like to clarify is whether Ruddy meant to chop off the guy`s head or did the counterweights prevent correct framing?
     
  56. Dean Jones asked:

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



    "I elected to cut off the top in order to get everything else I needed in the picture" quote from Ruddy Rowe
     
  57. Hi Dean! I'm still using the Polaroid and loving it. I hope all is well!
    00J0ST-33785784.jpg
     
  58. Hi Andrew! Great to hear from you....obviously your struts don`t require counterweights. Your pic is great!
     
  59. Please, can someone post here a picture of the shutter actuation mechanism on this camera?

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

    Can someone post a picture of the shutter release?
     
  60. In reference to the question to whether I make a hotshoe the answer is;I can make anything the proof is that everything on my camera stems from prototypes I have made myself
    but why bother when inexpensive over the counter parts that are staples of commerce are readily available.
    The method of making a weak tin brace suggested by Mr. Schwartz as a means of protecting the original plastic setup does not provide sufficient reinforcement for professional applications and if anyone remembers that people used to use heiland flashes or large Metz to shoot 4x5 whet the L45s offers is a hotshoe system which is attached to the metal frame of the camera.



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

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

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

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

    then Jones a proposed a back for where the spring tension applied to the filmholder had no predetermined tension
    and everybody knows that a camera back must have equal and predetermined tension on all 4 corners. and as I saw again and again that people who make their own parts end up justifying what cant be I decided I must be careful not to get dragged down this road to mediocrity based on what I can or cant make myself.

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

    If I make something for my own use I will live with the inconsistencies of making one at a time kind of part but I make things for others and taking such route at this stage in time would be inconsiderate.
    Therefore I became convinced that a well made back by a traditional manufacturer would be an asset to my clients and a good reliance to base my calculations on.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
  61. Wow, if only I could get someone to pay me per Guillermo's word. I might be able to
    afford one of his pricey PATENTED cameras (did I mention they are patented?). His
    cameras are patented by the way, in case you didn't know. They are patented.
     
  62. LOL at the subcategory of this thread "space cadets".
     
  63. What improves function in my product is the interconnection between the functions. this work requires a lot of machining and adjustment in excess of the basic components to achieve the purpose intended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No wonder that after an "artistic" application of hundreds of pounds the struts are bent. Can someone explain why not? If it is because of a mistake in units, then the manufacturer has demonstrated that, he does not know what he is talking about, and that he is clueless as to what he is doing.
     
  65. This whole thread is the most drivel ever posted. Why would you intelligent folks get into a pissing match with such a self centered egotist that claims to have invented the wheel? (or some such idiosity)
     
  66. Andrew that picture is hot. That thing is stinking up the place. It is so funky, it is making me stay up. Nice. I wish we could all share images like this. Does anybody know how to start a FLICKR gallery. That might be more interesting that spewing piss to see which person piss the farthest. Truth be told, there are quite a few people that make this camera. If one camera is better than the other, it should not matter, our interests must be the pictures that they take. It is not a question about superiority or inferiority but about photography. It should not be about who invented what but how does my picture look against the $5000 camera. I like my $$$$ camera. I am not boastful, I don"t even feel like I got a deal or got taken to the bank. I am just proud to be able to own something that will allow me to take photos.(Full stop) I wish we could all transfer some of this energy into some great photos like Andrew's.
    00J0l2-33792584.jpg
     
  67. In regards to the cable release issue as to what happens after one focuses the camera, there is no such issue.
    the focus composition and trigger happen as simultaneously as possible, in order but the trigger can be held simultaneously while one focuses
    the trigger is located at comfortable reach from the focus wheel.
    the second picture shows the cable release onto the shutter and which does not interfere with the field of view of the viewfinder.

    Again Mr. Bhathal maliciously misrepresents that My camera has a shake issue when triggering it. that is not true.
    And maliciously misrepresents that my caliper is resting on the camera housing as to make determinations when in fact one jaw is touching the graflock back which is film plane # 1 and the second jaw is used to verify the front standard.
    In the tool I use the front jaw comes within 1 millimeter from the front standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    the enclosures made by two halves are stainless steel of a grade much tougher that the cold roll used for those arms which bend easily
    and each side is thicker than the original strut therefore the materials used, the strict tolerances and the tight fit provide a structure which is stronger than required when before it was weaker.

    clearly reinforcing a section of a structure does not make the entire structure sturdier. but we tried to take that route and needed up with need of adjustment anyway and lots of weight so the perfect solution was to make these simply adjustable because breakage had not been an issue of concern. these arms hardly break mostly because they are so flexible .the problem was length. we added a length adjustment.
     
  68. here is an image of the focus and trigger being used simultaneously
     
  69. "what has mr. littman patented, and does it actually interfere with other people doing conversions?
    it seems that people are making too much out of nothing."


    Coupled rangefinder/parallax 4.times.5 camera

    I hope the link works.

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6608971.PN.&OS=PN/6608971&RS=PN/6608971
     
  70. Kelly, I think that we know they are not 'counterweights', that`s just an affectionate term given to a mysterious device. I guess most cameras don`t need such a novelty.
    I have found no valid use for them on my cameras to date, as the original Polaroid struts are very strong.
    I do have reservations about the poor guy hanging from a wire though.
    If that`s a mistake, it`s in poor taste...glad it wasn`t shot with a Razzle.
     
  71. Dean; I know must all probably know they are not counterweights, I just thought it was an odd improper term. Many folders work fine as is, and see their ruin thru a newcomers quick closing or opening when the links are abit tight. Thus the age old front standard tilt problem arrises.
     
  72. My first thoughts to the added "deals" what Diwan called "counterweights" was an adjustment; ie a way of tweaking the struts length. The parallelism problem with folders goes back over 100 years. Folders when new often work well. With age many get bent, see abuse. A 1/2 century old camera is going to see some wear, like a 1/2 century car. The ones we saw as kids were junkers in pawn shops, really abused ones that were in the 1950's just not worth fixing. These were often cameras that took a huge drop. Some folks used these hulks for parts, conversions since there cost was nil. A junker 110 was just a few dollars if that, a speed graphic with a 127mm was several months wages.
     
  73. "The parallelism problem with folders goes back over 100 years. Folders when new often work well. With age many get bent"

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

    Most people do not go thru the trouble of seeking more quality and be concerned with if it" may" bend. there are too many ifs
    age, materials, eventuality, wear and then the most feared is" new folks" be careful of the new folks.But while it is useful someone has volunteered that I was telling the truth Age is not the problem as any structure of similar design can have the same issue because if the guy says they often worked well when new then new cameras of similar design today can only be expected to work well often and work well is relative to expectations.
     
  74. Diwwan,Noah,Dean and anyone else really; I would like to avoid the quicksand surrounding all this and suggest a different conversion/alteration/remanufacturing project. Is there not some way to adapt a range finder to the lense coneand focus mount of a Foto Man 4x5? This would result in a handy 4x5 that would easily focus on the fly while hand-held. Perhaps some of those old Polaroid rangefinder parts could be grafted on in some effective way. I cannot do these DIY work-shop projects myself, but would really like to see someone do it.

    Regards;

    Drew Bedo
    www.quietlightphoto.com
     
  75. You'd better patent it.......QUICK!
     
  76. Drew, there`s no need.....The Polaroid converted camera has all the necessary refinements in its standard form. It is very lightweight, has a parallax corrected finder, a sharp lens and low cost.

    Noah has perfected the ultimate system, that of removable lenses in a bayonet mount...now that`s a really great idea as it saves having to unscrew the front element each time you shut the camera. I tend to favour the Fujinon W 150mm f6.3, a little slow, but blindingly sharp.

    My own camera runs a very compact Rodenstock Geronar 150mm, with the finder modified accordingly. It also allows closing without any removal of the front element. For the wide view, there`s nothing better than a Schneider Angulon 90mm f6.8, also on the slow side but captures a lot of real estate.
    Lens speed isn`t a problem, unless you have to use a ground glass, that`s way too slow.

    The 90mm set up has been used considerably and has a great DOF. With the rangefinder modified accordingly, it`s a really good combination. I never even bother with a ground glass screen anymore, as the finder remains accurate. Just in case it gets misaligned from impact, I overcame this problem by simply drilling an access hole corresponding to the mirror adjusting screw, you can then bring the finder into line with the G/G in seconds.

    A final touch was to remove the useless red switch, in the past, used to help release a sticking film. With the use of 4x5 film it`s now only an annoying decoration that spoils the line of the camera.
    These improvements result in a fine camera that`s a joy to use.
     
  77. "Now the demonstrable difference in tangible terms is that Ruddy's picture is perfectly
    sharp on the first try while Andrews picture is soft . Andrew also said he didnt mint he
    didnt need better and that his was a toy camera."

    So, one can draw conclusions that my camera has focus issues because of the picture in
    question (poorly scanned BTW), but one cannot make judgements of Mr. Littman's camera
    based upon the fact that somone using it chopped his subject head off? Selective logic.
     
  78. " the age old front standard tilt problem" and" The parallelism problem with folders goes back over 100 years" I have to add that the front standard struts on the Polaroid 110 series was one of the weakest of its kind if not the weakest. therefore " The parallelism problem with folders goes back over 100 years" was / is a definite concern sufficient that it led me to have to put it in writing/ requiring a contract for each sale because experience with these affairs told me the day would come when people would try to flip the issue around and say" why weren't we told about this?". or say it was a figment of my imagination /deny it was present /required and that it was just another excuse on my part to raise prices.
    We find ourselves here almost 6 years after I started testing methods to address this old age problem and everyone can see people are trying to compete by representing it never existed and would not be present on a camera with the weakest front standard in relationship to its weight.
    I think before I waste time making hotshoes which are a mouse click away I spend my time solving an old age problem while these people are still trying to represent it is negligible. The most important aspect of a camera is not negligible and solving it is not making a whole lot about nothing.
     
  79. Here are some examples showing pin sharp pictures taken with a Littman. Sharpness can be expected of any camera while composition and spontaneity are not always as easy to include. so I'm offering you all three
    http://marianovivanco.com/

    if your browser has pop up blocker you must hold down the ctrl key to activate the site
    once inside go to the( editorial )section and
    the following stories are shot with an L45s
    1)CITIZENS
    2)ALTA QUOTA
    3)RUGBY RAGE

    I could direct you to tens of thousands of pages but havent the time to compile that now again they will soon be posted in our galleries as soon as i have any time at all !!.
     
  80. This is just for those who think that the picture is in poor taste. DJ.
    I went to the South to do a story on the culture of the African Americans living in the South. While there I was spat at by white folks while having a breakfast at the omnipresent Waffle House. My one month experience there solidified the conclusion that while it was very different from New York or San Fransisco, Jim Crow is alive and well in the South. This young man Joseph Priest is a symbol of what I think still permeates the air and lives of young black men in the South. "Young Black men are still being hung, whether by the system, the politics of the region or by themselves." Now whether you agree with the picture or not, is of no care to me. The line was deliberate and it helps to punctuate my story.
     
  81. BTW I also did not set it up
    I have three other pictures showing me trying to evade the string. It was Joseph's idea to do this final picture and when I looked through the viewfinder and saw how it was composed I just snapped:)
    His picture was stronger than my other three composition. So was this a spiritual moment or a picture shot in poor taste.
    Again I am going to say, this energy being expended over cameras is foolish. The Razzle and the Littman can co-exist. Canon and Nikon did for years. And I am sure both put out patents claiming that this cog was theirs and oh this special screw was theirs.
    Truth be told, I have never heard anyone talk about the Razzle except for Darkroom guy who I met just last week. But I know there are people who will continue to promote the Razzle likewise there are photographers like Bruce Weber, and Walter Chen from whom I learn't about the Littman, who will continue to talk about their relationships with their cameras. Two different worlds with enough space for both to co-exist. So can we move on to talking about pictures and leave camera struts to photokina.
     
  82. Ruddy:

    I'm sorry, I got so caught up in laughing at Mr. Littman and his nuerotic obsession over
    patents that I forgot to compliment you on your quite strong photo. Very engaging and
    very powerful. You should be proud!

    Andrew
     
  83. I thought they were talking about pictures when people trying to advertise services they assaulted Ruddy creativity He appears to mind when he responds
    and I like Andrews picture. As you can see Ruddy bought a camera from me and that doesn't mean that he believes in Patents.

    I don't believe people starting threads to taunt and mock and deny the requirement for utility demonstrates these people are imposing a
    heavy toll on my schedule intend to coexist and a great dear of unfairness since it appears the problem was always required. I like Ruddy and respect him and his opinions but I have to do what is required to ensure that these slug fests don't disrupt my work any further.
    I like Andrews picture and do not wish to re start old battles but remind him and another person were in a thread titled after My product and Jones showed up and got both sales making assurances.that products were equal or his was better and mine was overpriced while he discredited my character
    The first instance turned out in a way that Andrew referred to as " one bad Apple" he then turned his experience as a means to demonstrate that wasn't the case and stepped right into the middle of a legal argument and the last thing I ever thought is that I would find myself bickering with another photographer over a camera. But I have patented a photographic convenience and there is no way that I am going to be deterred from my rights because those who use my products or those made by others are photographers. you patent a golf thing and you will have to sue golfers.

    When I was actively photographing professionally I had one instance where one of my agents went on to pursue a career in photography using first hand knowledge of my work after coming to the sets seeing my lab bills hiring my assistants and then holding my portfolio .happens all the time

    . Years later when I saw his book it was a carbon copy of mine. everyone had been telling me that was the case so I finally decided to check and could not believe my eyes. The funny thing was that while all my other agents kept me extremely busy with work this particular one said he could never get me a job but went on to make a name for himself with imagery which was a carbon copy of my work.

    Years before I had developed a new style and photographers know how expensive it is to try new things and I had spent almost 25g in that project which was so great that I risked another 4 to make a trip to Europe to show the work.

    In the meantime a fellow photographer calls me that there is this guy in town for a couple of days and needs an assistant and if I could help out. the job was fun and after we had coffee and I had my book and he asked to see it and asked me how I had done the technique
    and because he was such a pleasant guy and a charmer I never thought my project was at risk until I showed up at the magazines who absolutely loved the work except they couldn't hire me because they said someone else had just shown up with work that was very similar/ not as creative but they had already committed the budget to those stories and because editorial work must show variety the chance that I would get to use that technique or be recognized for it was remote.

    A few months later that technique took off and resulted in tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the guy who was very grateful and called me to thank me for the great tip. I told him that I had shown him my work in trust and that he agreed that if it was shown to him he would not utilize it.

    I have had all kinds of experiences with photographers most are marvelous and some are less and from my own experiences for over 30 years in the business plus many more as a child and teenager growing up at My grandfathers studio that I learned to separate the business from the human being and the artist.

    As an artist my heart goes out to all photographers as is the case as a person and therefore must ensure that a few don't hide behind the beauty of photography to instigate commercial interests and resort to the kinds of battles of the past. Ruddy is correct in insisting these are two different worlds and I insist it is incorrect that people trying to compete on the threads are allowed as businesses to misrepresent that by insisting otherwise.

    I love photography and I love photographers and Ruddy and others who have met me can confirm that I bend over backwards and I am a hard working person on behalf of my fellow photographers . People see things differently only when it happens to them. and I believe it is in bad taste on anyone's part to imply an expectancy that I would waive my commercial interest and to use the beauty of photography as leverage. not cute at all
    for an explanation of what constitutes inducement of infringement
    you can refer to the bottom of the following page

    http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=littmanphotodesign

     
  84. After all that, it might be better to avoid the whole scenario and save five grand.
     
  85. After all that it may be better to start with the obituaries and save everyone the grief of reading the rest since at the end they always say the good thing is these threads will hurt my sales.and these people have admitted to photo.net they are associated in a connivance when they told all of you a long time ago that "we're just trying to stop him. Or at least keep him busy." by resorting to these instances; therefore it is defamatory to propose or insist that people should not consider associating with someone/withdraw their allegiance insist people should make a decision based on an incomplete picture. much pivotal evidence was deleted from this thread that is a fact and it is false to imply that my clients would face Any such scenario and in any event what has been presented here is not the whole scenario. and the guy who posted before me joined yesterday. and that is his first post...
     
  86. When this unfair attack was imposed upon us where we did not yet have the findings to report as to the extent of involvement required by a user if there were a future need to adjust the parallelism on the front standard. We now report the following; The L45s parallelism issue has been tested thoroughly and here are the findings. 1) Setting up the front standard is a dedicated and involved effort on our part and require special tools to verify that the back and film plane are parallel within 50.000 of an inch tolerance. after which a linear measurement is determined.after that the user will never have to worry or require the use of complicated tools, expensive repairs or expect any downtime to his enjoyment of the camera. 2) in the event the struts would extend somewhat the owner user is provided with this 4 digit linear measurement i.e. 82.12 mm THE NUMERIC VALUE DISPLAYED IN THE PICTURE IS FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY and not the actual measurment which is information which belongs to the actual camera owner who ordered the unit . Each owner gets the numeric value inscribed in the camera interior and we keep it in our records. and all he has to do is take a digital caliper which costs 9.99 on eBay and open the jaws until this number is displayed in the dial and lock the thumscrew (A). 3) using this caliper with the linear measurment locked by thumsbscrew (A) the user measures the specified length. A) if there is a perfect fit the front standard is 100% parallel to the film plane and nothing is required. B) if the measurement locked into the caliper is smaller than the actual size in the struts all the user has to do is loosen the screws and allow the measurement to be contained by the tips MARKED IN THE PICTURE BY THE LETTER (B) of the caliper which act as if fingers/ tighten the screws with the caliper in place and repeat the operation on the other side. C) the whole operation takes less than 5 minutes and the error expected is less than 50.000 of an inch. D) you may be able to do this faster but even if it would take 1/2 hr a a couple of times in a lifetime it is absolutely effortless/ foolproof and 100% accurate. E) The flip side of this is that arms which do not have this protected improvement act in the following manner; when you bend one side to achieve proper length the other side is affected as well and this yo-yo effect compounded with the spring like response to bending metal results in inadequate and imperfect parallelism and the more you mess with it the worse it gets. creating this method for the users maintenance of the 100% parallelism required for the rangefinder to remain at Littman standards thruout time took a few weeks over the holidays and all pending cameras were required to be tested simultaneously and we report the following finding; Once the arms were identical in length while the front standard was parallel to the film plane we determined that all 30 cameras currently tested were absolutely parallel with the arms being at identical and symetrical lengths and as explained in a previous discussion the tool we use to measure parallelism is caliper like and if you lock it and you use it to measure distance between back and lens board and both sides are identical while perfectly square then any previous considerations pertaining to the L45s being a " brickolage/ conversion / based on old cameras is fully dismissed as the final assembly exceeds the parallelism performance and accuracy of anything else out there.otherwise a camera is camera obscura/ nothing but a box / enclosure and what counts are the precision/ internal/ external mechanisms which go to make it easier to use and more responsive. The pictures posted here are taken with a cannon digital. I dont have the time or funds to allocate to using 4x5 for such purposes nor feel there is a need for better pictures. We have not yet been able to allocate the time to introduce the L45s VI on our website nor update it as a result of these threads. We would gladly perform this adjustment for those owners who do not wish to bother with tech issues like that and the turnarround would be 1 day . the cost negligible and the conventianal repairs require infinity adjustmant and or/rf recalibrationsand or cam adjustment / time consuming unreliable and expensive.
    00JXJK-34446184.jpg
     

Share This Page