LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI front standard struts.

[william_littman]

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.

 

 

 

 

[diwan_bhathal]

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!".

[william_littman]

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.

[william_littman]

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 ?

[razzledog]

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.

[karl_knographer]

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

[william_littman]

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

[john_schneider2]

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.

[camera_conjurer]

John, thank you for your input, but have you actually ever done that ?<p>It's not that easy.

[j.w.]

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?

[camera_conjurer]

Patents have been issued for many things. Not that this is directly related, but there's a

patent for a

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=45&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=litman&OS=litman&RS=litman"> boring tool

</A>.

 

<p>And often people patent things that they really, really need, such as a

 

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=92&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=2&OS=litman&RS=litman"> beaded

bracelet for male genitalia. </A>

 

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

 

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=97&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=2&OS=litman&RS=litman"> stroller

with CD player </A> is patented.

 

<p>Some patents would be helpful here. I'd kill for a

 

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=114&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=3&OS=litman&RS=litman ">

burp gas filtering and deodorizing device</A> right about now.

 

To prevent head injuries, a

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=166&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=4&OS=litman&RS=litman">

pneumatic device for boxing gloves to reduce head trauma </A> might be nice to have

around. But if you really don't want to face reality, a

 

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=246&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=5&OS=litman&RS=litman"> cleavage

anti-wrinkle device, </A>( kudos to you, Midge Russell! ), could help stave off old man

time.

 

Why would one patent a

<A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%

2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=248&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=5&OS=litman&RS=litman"> horse

bandanna</A>?

 

<p>And who wants to earn a living off of a <A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/

nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=296&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=6&OS=litman&RS=litman ">post

circumcision diaper</A>?

 

<p>I dunno. "Patent' has become a dirty word to me. It's very sad. <p>I guess if I were

really smart and invented a <A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?

Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=342&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=7&OS=litman&RS=litman">

transgenic zebra fish embryo model for hematopoiesis and lymphoproliferative

disorders</A>, 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 <A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?

Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

adv.htm&r=154&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=litman&p=4&OS=litman&RS=litman">alien

head</A>, I think I'd save my money.

[william_littman]

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

[User_503771]

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?

[william_littman]

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.<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

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."

[william_littman]

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.

[razzledog]

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.

[razzledog]

My system of insuring all is aligned. This is carried out prior to establishment of the anchor plate position.<div></div>

[camera_conjurer]

Use a square, for crying out loud.<div></div>

[frank r]

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.

[william_littman]

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

[ruddy_roye1]

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.

??<div></div>

[ruddy_roye1]

Yes I know I spelt descendant incorrectly

[razzledog]

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.

[razzledog]

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?