Help us with our 4x5 field camera design

[paul.droluk]

George... the ability to handle a RFH, as well as all of the other many holder styles would

have necessitated adding a spring back, which adds weight and additional complexity. An

International Graflok Spring Back will be offered as an option, which will address your

concern. In the meantime we currently address roll film shooting with the Fotoman 612

and 617 cameras.

[george_jiri_loun]

Paul, if only you were not so sibylline... You say a back accepting RF holders would be too complex, heavy etc. And then you say it will be an option... By the way it is not necessarily true that you need a spring back for a roll film holder with a Graflok mount. You can construct the back of the camera in such a way that it accepts the Graflok mount(and sheet film holders) with no springs assembly (if the graflok mount is pushed against the body on just three sides of its circumference - you can then slide it in like a Calumet CN2 roll film holder). I have built several cameras (6x12, 6x17 RFH with a Graflok mount) on this principle, all working fine. The purpose is not to have a Fotoman 6x12 without 4x5 possibility but a 4x5 camera that can use both - a clear advantage if you don't want to chose just one of too. Anyway if there is the RFH option as you say, it's good.

[mr_callow]

Paul,

I am not certain that a clam shell back is required if the camera to accept RFHs or grafmatics. The film holder slot would simply need to be wide enough to accommodate the grafmatics and the sinar zoom style RFH. In addition the slot would need strong internal springs to hold the film carrier against the camera body -- I can only imagine this is already the case. A film slot of this nature would preclude the use of Horseman style RFH's, but you can't have everything.;-P

 

An added plus to this approach is that it would not add weight, would allow for some digital backs and would, i think, only require a small amount of re engineering.

 

I must reiterate what others have said. The ability of this camera to facilitate handheld shooting is very important towards its success. In my tiny little mind, ease of operation (framing is critical as are quick focusing) ergonomics (the trigger shutter release is an excellent idea) and weight should be paramount

 

I have checked out your web site and really like the simplicity of the cameras. I hope that you are successful and look forward to the

 

jdc

[mr_callow]

Camera.

[truant]

Looks alot like the Gran View

http://www.granview.com/

[ilkka]

Looks much better than the Granview. I can't get used to the look of that rubber hose handle...

 

But can't it be any smaller? This is like a 7x7" square. I would prefer something as small as possible, barely bigger than the film holder itself. A point and shoot camera should be easy to turn on its side for portraits so it should be possible to make the camera lower than it is wide (less square), at least 6x7" and maybe 5.5x6.5" when looking from the front.