Brand Camera Company

[fred_helferstine]

Has anybody heard of a camera company called Brand? If so can you

tell me anything about them/

[www.antiquecameras.net]

see<p>http://binoni.nu/lf/singleThread.php?messageId=00691D&forumId=1&order=ASC<p>

Dan<p>

<a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci">www.antiquecameras.net</a>

[jl-smith]

A very good camera. Originally designed to accept a rangefinder (a la graphic), but constructed much more like a rail view camera; I have not seen one with the rangefinder.

 

There are two varieties, I have both, and decidedly prefer one, perhaps the less common one. I will try to post the pictures, but the one I disfavor has external brackets on the rear std (though it is not bad, and my comments fit both). My preference.

 

The usual is named "Brand 17" for 17 inch bellows, certainly long enough for most work. I got one with red bellows, that seemed sort of stiff, hard cardboard-ish (but light tight). The other one has more typical pliable bellows, seem to be synthetic. Either may have been a replacement.

 

takes 4 inch lens boards, widely available, somewhat less common are 4 inch to graphic adapters. I do not think a recessed board would work, however, without some remodeling.

 

rotating film holder, variable stiffness to rotation, click stops. the ground glass is actually a little smaller than 4x5; the normal film holders actually cover a touch more area than the glass shows (fractions of an inch). I mention the slightly smaller size as it comes in if you want to change screens. And, this is a 1950 vintage screen, not state of the art. My has a slide-in pop-up view box, and daylight focus without cloth is possible.

 

The springs on the ground glass on mine were tight, and the spacers at the base of the spring infringed a little on a grafmatic (but no normal film holders), so I had to ground down one surface of the spring mounts. The spring back will not lift back far enough for a fat roll film holder (the springs can be changed). Polaroids, normal 4x5 holders, no problem (even before the grinding).

 

It does not do well with wide angles -- does not compress enough, though the bellows replacement would be easy enough (4 screws on front, 4 on back, a small wood face plate on either end.) Nonetheless, I think anything under, say, 105-110mm would be tight, and anything under 125-135 will have restricted movements (with std bellows). It may do acutally do a 90 if some sort of bag bellows were installed, but not with standard bellows

 

It had some marvelous design/enginerring, and the front std may be moved back, onto the normal central tripod mounting baseplate area, and that moved forward, for wide angles. You may also easily reverse front/rear position, depending on if you want focus to be moving rear std, or front std. All in all, many features foudn on upper end cameras. And, solid.

 

Operation and movements are great and easy, though none geared, and all screw tighten (they can slip before you get the screw tight). Zero locations have a click-in recessed/spring socket arrangement, but one might want to paint some white alignment marks, as locating those sockets otherwise takes some guess work.

 

the two rails actually are quite nice. It is one of the most rigid arrangements, yet collpasible and highly portable. There is a variable tightening collar on both rails, so one is used as the how stiff or lose do you want movements, the other for actually locking. It does take a little getting used to, but in operation is quick.

 

the side hand rail makes this a most handy camera to use, and actual hand-held shots are possible. It is light, and collapsed, quicker to get to shooting arrangement that a speed graphic (when used as a view camera).

 

I sold off a Wista years ago (which I miss), and a Omega 45 (which I also sort of miss). I kept the Brand (amongst others). The Wista was just neat, but nowhere near as easy to set-up or as sturdy as the Brand. Collapsed, the Brand also fits almost anywhere the Wista would. The Omega 45, full studio version, had easier to control movements, but I would not ahve taken it to the field. The brand fits that field-studio niche rather well, for such a cheap find.

 

 

Having given a formal yes endorsement, I can understand some folks will not like it. There are times I look to a more normal field camera, and no one is going to view this as a prestige item. To me, the limiation on wide angles (less than 125) is its major limitation.

 

let me know if you purchase, somewhere I have a xerox of the 3 or 4 sheet Brand instruction manual that maybe I can find.

 

 

 

 

[jl-smith]

my goof, I would stay away form the version with the side braces. I forgot the ofcus is by an odd oversized screw between the two rails. slow and awkward, though I would suppose very precise. The one I use has a std side focus knob (it is geared, the only movement that is).

 

I am osrry in the two picture photo I am not showing the middle screw. It is a real nuisance. I think it may have been prototype. But, if you find the other model, great.<div></div>

[jl-smith]

more. I have repainted mine. the diagonal knbos at the base are to losen teh rail extension for full extension. rest of knbs self-explanatory. the white marks on nuetral position marks I added.

[jl-smith]

side view.

[jl-smith]

final (sorry I stupidly posted at 520 width, not 511).

 

movements are more than adequate, even generous. as they are not geared and controls are simply sliding the standrds around, the cna be a little "sloppy" getting to position.

 

Again, fine camera, if you get the one without the huge central screw.

[jl-smith]

here is the offending screw. Stay away from this one (left), if you want a easy to use camera.

[tya_socks]

Hi, Trying to contact Lacey Smith, regarding instructions for a Brand 17 large format camera. I have one of these cameras making it's way across the water to England but I have no information on these at all any help would be great.Thanks, Cliff.