terence_m.

David Odess. Good work. Good price. Good turn-around time. He's a pleasure to deal with.

Try the APUG panoramic forum: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum186/

 

And check out Jamie Young's website: http://www.jamieyoungphoto.com/cameras1.html

He has CLA'd my SWC/M and a few backs. Fantastic work. Great service. Fast turn-around. Reasonable price.

 

As soon as I can figure out which of my backs has the light leak, it'll be going to him too. Actually, I'm planning to rotate all of my equipment through him as time allows, as everything works so much smoother after his CLA's. I never knew the SWC shutter was supposed to be so silky.

 

I highly recommend him.

I have, and love, a 5x7 Deardorff. It's the classic, and feels wonderful, but is long in the tooth and needs a good tune-up. But if I had the money to spare, I'd be ordering a Canham.

 

5x7 Contact prints are a pleasant size, and it's easy to find a 5x7 enlarger for almost nothing in most U.S. cities these days.

Very sorry to hear about your illness.

 

Not a camera suggestion, but if you're in a wheelchair, Bogen makes/made a folding arm support with a big clamp at one end, and a tripod head at the other. Both ends have a ball mount, so it's very flexible, and one lever locks all of it at once. Very convenient. A friend of mine uses one attached to the arm of his wheel chair. It folds out down when not in use, but provides a great rigid support for even a fairly weighty medium format camera. I've borrowed it and used it with a 4x5 field camera and had no problem.

150mm with a 16mm extension tube is my favorite Hasselblad, tight headshot set-up.

Although it is a semi-successful design, the Rube Goldberg-inspired Kodak 35 RF definitely falls into the weird/flawed category. Rollei's 3003, the Lilliputian version of MF design, also seems to qualify.

 

I have a couple of the Kodaks, but the Rollei's price has price has denied me the joy of using one.

Given the cuisine there it might be wise to give up all utensils.

KEH. I've bought everything except film backs in "bargain" condition. It may have cosmetic flaws, but the glass is perfect and everything functions perfectly. Their "bargain" rating would be "excellent" at almost any other used dealer (living in NYC I've experienced quite a few). As the previous comment said, go for a back in KEH's "excellent" condition to avoid problems. Backs are just too finicky to take the chance on. KEH's prices are definitely the best when you factor in their return policy (14 days, no questions asked and longer if there are actual problems). I've only had to return two items to them and one was because I didn't do my research beforehand. Check out the recent thread in the medium format forum on apug.org for more info.

There's a fellow named Jim Chinn over on the apug.org site who is just beginning to do this. There's definitely a market, but it seems like quite a process to design, build, test, re-design, re-build, re-test, etc until you get a GOOD working solution. I think it's more of a passion than a profession.

I concur with all of the above. Bargain prisms, bodies and lenses are at least B&H excellent. Almost everything I've gotten as "bargain" has practically no wear except for a little brassing on bayonet lugs for lens hoods. I have yet to return anything in over five years, and [knock on wood]nothing has ever died except for one lens I killed with salt water. For film backs go with excellent or better. They are just too finicky when they are at all worn. Stay away from "ugly". I'm not sure where everything in between goes. Maybe they just don't buy it.

I bought one from them on this shipment. I love it. I always preferred waist-level finders for the type of landscape (natural and old industrial) shooting that I do. It's bright, accurate and obviously well made. My only two gripes are that it doesn't "lock" into the shoe tight enough for my tastes and moves to the perpendicular (sideways) position a little too easily. The tolerance is tight in that it does not wobble at all, but it can be slid out without too much effort (which happens in my bag quite often). Maybe I just got used to the original finder that seems to "click" in when pushed home. My ghetto solution has been to wrap a rubber band (actually a black, hair band) around the mount to keep it in place. Works like a charm and given the beat up SWC that I could afford, fits the look of the camera quite well. As with the mounting issue, the pivoting mechanism has a detent, but it's not rigid enough for my tastes. Again, no problem during use, but I have to tilt it upright everyone time I pull it out of the bag. That said, I would buy one again in a second, and I'm a pretty cheap fellow. I figured that after what I spent on the camera it seemed silly not to be able to shoot the way I want to. Especially if you like waist-level finders, the finder is a dream.

 

I'm not sure why they designed it to tilt to the side. The two times I tried it my brain could not adjust to a sideways image. Much worse than the first time I used a WLF and panned, or tried LF with the upside-down and backwards image on the GG.

After following the above advice, note that both of my backs require a fairly decent pressure to move the button to the right. More than I would have expected. Check the dark-slide first though.

Thanks. I'll look into it.

Having finally succumbed to the almighty SWC (albeit a fairly beat

up C T* SWC/M model) I can't afford a focuing attachment for it.

Although I normally don't do much up-close work the SWC has piqued

my curiosity. Are the distances marked on the lens measured from

the subject to the film plane? I tried using scotch tape as a

screen, but just couldn't tell even with a darkcloth. The camera is

quite sharp for general photos, but figured I'd ask the photo.net

folks before I blow a roll of film trying to figure it out.

Latent Image

West 26th St b/w 6th and 7th Aves

212-242-0215

 

Very reasonable.

Can't go wrong with the Shen Hao or Tachihara. If you're looking for something bigger try for a 5x7 Korona on the 'bay. A third the weight of an 8x10, and two thirds more square inches of film than 4x5. And the film holders are MUCH cheaper than 8x10. I find 5x7 small for contact prints of wide landscapes, but almost perfect for portraits or close-up nature shots. A 5x7 with a 150mm or 210mm G Claron is fairly cheap (by LF standards). Occassionally one pops up with a 4x5 back as well as the 5x7, so you could have both formats. It's pretty easy to mount any 4x5 back to the Korona camera if you can't find an original Korona one.

 

If you go the Speed Graphic route, look for a Burke & James Press camera. Usually much cheaper than a Graphlex Speed or Crown Graphic, and it has slightly better movements and a rotating back.

Thanks everyone. I think it's any easy choice.

Call me paranoid, but I always try to "know" the answer before I ask a repairman a question.

 

Sadly, I admit I have not taken any serious photos with it. Just a very quick roll to check spacing and approximate focus. Haven't enlarged any of them though.

I have a Rollei 3.5E I'm considering sending to Marflex, but wanted

an independent opinion (or ten). The slow speeds are off. The fast

speeds are pretty good. But the front panel can be wobbled when

racked in all the way. The lenses do not appear to move, but the

panel does. I found a few earlier postings about not buying a

Rolleiflex with such a problem, but what if you already have it? Is

it a fixable problem (ie. at a "reasonable" cost, say $150 beyond

the CLA)? There is no obvious damage indicating a drop or anything

such as that. The lenses are clean and clear. Other than it being

a Rolleiflex, the camera does not have any sentimental value. Do I

send it in?

I second (third?) the clear shower cap. Although it distorts the viewfinder image a bit,it doesn't sound like you're doing any critical/close focusing. I use it on a Rolleicord all the time. Should be plenty of room for a Hasselblad as they're almost too baggy for the 'cord.

There are a few threads on this on the other LF forum website. I started with an early 1900's German flatbed in 5x7. Except for the better quality workmanship and wood and fancier metal work it is almost a dead ringer for the Russian cameras on the auction site. Don't get one of those. They are over-priced given the odd format.

 

I have started a prototype camera made of MDF based on my flatbed. MDF is easier and cheaper to work with while I work out any bugs and home in on the right dimensions and proportions. It also starts out much flatter, although it's heavier and flexes a little more. The sliding lens boards similar to the Russian cameras are much easier to build than trying to do metal-work to accomodate moves like a modern view camera. smallparts.com has racks and pinions. As stated above, the back is the tricky part. I'm going to borrow the back I have for now. A friend built a back with a removable ground glass that is identical to a matching film holder, but without the darkslide and backing. Focus on GG, remove GG, replace with film folder, pull dark-slide and you're in business. Just make sure your camera is rigid enough that the process doesn't change the focus, etc.

 

If you don't get lucky finding an old beater on the auction website, try antique stores outside the "popular" antique areas. Even if the bellows are rotten, it can get you started in the right direction.

Looks like fungus to me. Without film in it, place the camera with the lens in a nice sunny spot with the lens facing straight into the sun (the stronger the light the better) for a day or two. That should kill it, and stop any growth. Obviously, don't place it behind anything that filters UV light out, like coated "low E" glass, etc.

I don't think shallower depth of field will help as you're probably already shooting at/around infinity. The lens will be equally focused/unfocused for everything close to the car anyway. I agree the panning will help. Even a very small amount of panning will blur the entire background, just as a shallower DOF would if you were closer to the subject. Personally, I think the shots are pretty good.

. . . Bush initially denies the large format processors are missing, later claims they were irrelevant anyway, and is now saying the processors were not there when he invaded . . er . . . came into office.

 

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. And two shows on Saturday.