Littman 66 A+D Analog and Digital Medium format rangefinder

Not yet in production.

Spent a fortune. Made a prototype .

Findings:

Works like a charm.

Focus 1 ft to infinity with rangefinder.

Coupled patallax true for 6x4,5.

Added features

parallelism enables to shoot wide open with hih gain

as shown in the test shot posted shot at f 2.8.

Resolution Digital 80 megapixel

film: depending on the iso and quality of scan I guess.

Camera rear would be made by kapture group or similar

to enable shift of 1/3 of the frame each way

and full stitch of 2 frames for panorama.

Back would work by click stops with an added thumscrew

to lock positions if chosen.

Camera front.

80 or 60 mm Schneider Digitar

perfectible parallelism

tilt in the vertical and swing in

the horizontal

macro to 5 inches

Additional findings

need to make a smaller

body to approximate a Bessa II

in size for pantography reasons.

Use of medium format dslr is way down

and the actual dslr body may not cost that much

if u buy a leaf or phase one so I need to know if there

would be an interest for a HD rangefinder 80 mp

Digital camera.

I estimate cost to be between 6-8000 per unit and could come

down to 4500 if there was a high demand which Im not anticipating.

I have to now decide if its worth my time to pursue this further.

If so I will need to do a crowdfunding to finanse the final prototype

stage.

If I pursue this further the csmera will be introduced at the Next Photo Plus expo.<div></div>

Prototype 1 Rear view

I used a standard v plate sliding bk because was available

but if i make the camera the ground glass feature wont be

by sliding but an insert that will fit v mount.<div></div>

Diagonal view of prototype 1

Obviously the back is what it is

a mounstrocity at this stage because

I didnt have the right back or the right body

size but prototype 1 is about verifying the

viability of the utility which ergonomics won't

yield. so before I make it cozy I need to know

If its worth it from an utilitarian standpoint.<div></div>

Time is such an arbitrary measure...

They say the only true time is the present

and all else being just 3 dimmensional perceptions.

Maybe then it was indeed posted 146 days from now

and Im glad you are that far ahead of the game.

<p>You've achieved something here...I'm just not sure if there's a market for it. I'm familiar with your Polaroid conversions, which make sense. This one I'm really not so sure about.</p>

<p>Is the rangefinder focusing precise enough for 5.4 micron pixels? I doubt it.</p>

<p>Is the lens sharp enough for 5.4 micron pixels? I doubt that too. But then you describe using a modern Schneider Digitar in its place. And a smaller body. And adding tilt and shift. By the time you are finished with these modifications, how much of the original camera will remain? Would it not be better to start from scratch and build a better, really precise system from the ground up?</p>

<p>But then, there are companies which have already built really precise, compact systems for non-SLR digital back usage. Companies like Arca, Cambo, Hartblei and Alpa. Can your model compete on quality with them? Can it compete on versatility? (they take interchangeable lenses, in some cases even 35mm format lenses). Can it even compete on price? A price of "6-8000 per unit" seems awful high for something based on a 1950s platform and with a fixed lens. </p>

<p>So is your USP (unique selling point) basically the rangefinder? If that's the case, wouldn't a better starting point be a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 body? I've actually seen on ebay a Mamiya 6 converted for a Hasselblad digital back fitting. Compact body, good rangefinder, top quality interchangeable lenses, which are more suited to the 645-format digital back sizes. And yet, IIRC, it took quite a while to sell. </p>

Thanks Ray

The mamiya lenses arent Digital.no tilt shift but

Im sure it can be of service to some.

The test shot on mine at 645 pm in a rental shop lit only

by overhead neon at 2.8 aimed shot with no preparation says the rf plus

the parallelism rival or exceed auto focus.

My 45 makes no more sense on on paper than any other camera yet

in comparing a Pentax 67 has a synergistic math that makes it more apealing

than a Rz for editorial purposes.

The numbers on how many editorial success in one versus the other are staggering

despite any stats that may be higher on the Mamiya.

The winning stat isb synergy of function at the decisive moment.

This is impossible to document except by the preferential choice.

It would only make sense to those who put the

pedal to the meddle.

So My 45 was preffered for its synergy and the math shows in the images

As in the case of the Pentax.

Those who put the pedal to the medal and get the results say the math is there and

those who dont say the math is irrelevant and apearance similarities are all that is evident.

There is a difference in candidness and ease to obtain an artistic composition

if you seek that the Digital prototype has the same math.

I have accepted the math matters to some and not to others

maybe that epiphany happened 146 days ago.

<p>Leaf makes an AFi/Hy6 to 4x5 graflok mount that keeps the same spacing as film. It's an $800 piece but if you have a Hy6 mount digital back, then you can go back and forth between film and digital in a large variety of large format cameras. I use mine in my polaroid 110b conversions, linhof Technika, and Graflex cameras. It's really cool. You can find polaroid 110b conversions for under $1000 sometimes even half that price and so it's not really a small fortune to get into (keeping in mind that this is a small amount compared to the digital back).<br>

These days you can also buy chinese made digital back to 4x5 adapter plates on ebay. Not all will keep the same spacing, so you'd have to recalibrate your rangefinder, but its doable. <br>

I like the convenience of digital but the 4x5 film has a different look which I still appreciate. </p>

Thank you Eric for your thoughtful response.

I think us photographers tend to try to lego everything

and most think in terms of dividing and multiplying as to equate results

with diferent aproaches and formats.

The look of film versus digital is a loosing battle in my opinion

if viewed. as film versus digital

. I do however firmly believe large format having a more realistic

ratio yields a truer image in what relates to the line drawing aspect

of the image independant of the resolution.

The line drawing or outline is realism and obviously higher resolution also aids

realism but they arent the same thing.

as much as you can enhance the resolution of a 35 mm capture area you could never

enhance the realism which a lens far from film plane yields on lf

because it is a straighter projection.

When this is called" look" I think the answer most will give you is

"look digital is free and it looks as sharp :)"

And in reference to adaptor plates the Littman 45 takes a kapture group or similar plate to V H or whatever your

medium format back is.

Parallelism is critical as is focusing and rangefinder accuracy in that order.

The difference between Digital and film lenses is the latter are optimised for stopdown peaking at f22 and the digital for

usewide open and wider apertures.