psartman

I lost mine recently when photographing around a missile silo in North Dakota. Sadly, when I got online to replace it I learned they have been discontinued for several years. There are 50mm ones available but I really loved the compact 30mm version, combined with a double-sided Arca plate to use instead of an L-Bracket for vertical shots. If anyone has one they are willing to part with for $, I would be very grateful

 

 

Late to the party here, but I've recently discovered the Viltrox VX-T60, it really impressed me:

It folds very small, weighs 1.3 lbs and has a functional built-in ball head and Arca clamp (the ball socket is built into the leg spider, saving weight.) Max 24" high, which to me is much more useful than a simple table-top tripod. I’ve used it with full-frame Sony cameras and small zoom lenses. I’m not aware of anything else like it. Even with the pull-out tubular legs it’s actually quite steady and useful.

Late to the party here, but I've recently discovered the Viltrox VX-T60, it really impressed me:

It folds very small, weighs 1.3 lbs and has a functional built-in ball head and Arca clamp (the ball socket is built into the leg spider, saving weight.) Max 24" high, which to me is much more useful than a simple table-top tripod. I’ve used it with full-frame Sony cameras and small zoom lenses. I’m not aware of anything else like it. Even with the pull-out tubular legs it’s actually quite steady and useful.

<p>Mark E. is right-on here. To talk of cell phone cams strictly in pixel peeping terms is myopic at best. I know many professionals, including a few considered to be among the worlds best photographic artists, who love their cell phone cams. I shoot most of my more "serious" projects with medium and large format film, but I've been carrying a P&S digital for several years and it has been perfect for some "hunt and gather" type projects that I will certainly publish at some point. It appears that iphone 4 will now have a camera equal to a decent P&S (circa a few years ago). I'm all over it, one less piece of crap (my old P&S) to carry around.</p>

<p>Thank you, Pete, the Spherize filter (used in one dimension) is exactly the answer I was looking for when I found this thread via Google. It really doesn't matter if this issue is a "flaw" or not, it's about solving problems. People have lots of reasons for shooting the way they do, with the equipment they do, whether pro or not.</p>

<p>It may have been stated before on this forum, but I wanted to share my very positive recent experience with Eric Hendrickson who operates Pentax Repair Service in Tennessee. He did an emergency shutter repair on my 67 for me, worked on it the night he received it, and shipped it out the next day to me at a hotel where I was staying to work on a documentary project. He charged no rush fees and seemed to be about half of what Pentax would have charged. Great communication, he diagnosed the problem over the phone when I described it to him. His site says he also works on older non-MLU 6X7s and lenses that Pentax won't touch. I can't say enough about the guy.<br>

<a href="http://pentaxs.com/">Pentax Repair Service</a></p>

<p>-Paul Shambroom</p>

 

Bob- Have you seen a disassembled 6XXXX lens? Does this mod seem practical to you? I

would do the disassembly myself but have someone else do the mechanical adaption and

soldering for cable connections. I would take the lens mount off and put a pigtail or socket

for cable connections on it, then mount it just like a body cap. Then mount the shutter on

a board with a pigtail, just like the LF version. (with adaptions for #0 lens threads and

mechanical control of aperture settings.) My hope is that the camera body would require

no modification, it would just think the lens was attached and control the aperture and

shutter as normal.

What do you think?

Thanks for all your suggestions. I had looked into all of these. They all have too slow a

maximum speed (1/60 for Sinar, Schneider and Prontor, 1/125 for Horseman.) They are all

too large except for the Prontor. And they all seem about as expensive as the Rollei. As

much as I'd love to have an always-there assistant, this outfit will be for an extended

many-year road trip project.

<br>Seems like I should just bite the bullet and get the Rollei. I've also got this crazy idea

about stripping down a medium format Rollei lens to adapt the electronic shutter,

controlled by a custom cable to a Rollei MF body. (These are available pretty cheap.)

Anyone have any idea if the internal shutter is similar to the LF version? I've read that the

max aperture on the PQ lens shutters is 24mm, the same as a #0.

<br><br>Paul

(also: small, and affordable!) I'm trying to put together a shutter system for solo (no assistant) light-

painting with flash during daylight hours, hence all the above parameters. It needs to have a sync speed of

at least 1/250 so that I can do around eight exposures on a single sheet without too much ambient build-

up. I'm hoping it can be #0 size mounted on a Horseman 80mm board so I can use my existing lenses on

my field camera. (I plan to use two radio slaves: one to trip the shutter, and a second to fire the flash in

proper sync.)

<br>After a lot of research, the only solution I've found is the Rollei Electronic Shutter for the X-ACT2

system. Only problem is that the new price with controller, battery and cables looks to be +$2500, and it

seems very rare on the used market.<br>

Anyone have any experience or thoughts on this challenge?

<br><br>

-Paul

Erie

"I only wish I could find more No. 1 shutters,"

There's one right now on e-bay:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Compur-Electronic-1-Shutter-Large-

Format_W0QQitemZ280195021580QQihZ018QQcategoryZ107928QQssPageNameZWDVW

QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

-Paul

Is the Compur Electronic Shutter self-cocking or is it just electronic timed with a manual cocking lever?

Thanks.

The Horseman HF metal field camera. Not made for awhile but available used. Current

Horseman FA and HD too, but these are a little larger. Especially for backpacking, the HF

is the smallest and lightest metal camera I know of. No revolving back, but you can use

side tripod mount for verticals. Movements more than adequate for landscape, most

people overrate the need for extreme movements for this use. Horesman VH series lenses

are good and very lightweight but don't have the most modern coatings. Definately use

Readyloads or Quickloads. I don't think any camera with bellows is suitable for aerial work.

Try the Pentax 67 Forum: http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1549

I suspect this is a custom modification. The difference in perspective between 165 and

300mm is more important than any difference you'll see in optical quality, I'd bet.

Put the rf spacer between the rail stops and the front standard then shoot away. Put the

GG spacer under the standard ground glass. Both compensate for the non-standard

infinity focus of the Horseman Polaroid back. Why Horseman never made a Polaroid back

that uses the VH and VHR rotating bayonet mount (and focused at same infinity as the roll

film backs used on the rotating adapter) is a mystery, I had one custom made years ago, it

cost a small fortune and took many hours of design time. PLEASE don't ask where I had it

made, the guy died years ago.

People vastly under-rate the capabilities of high-speed MF film. I've shot Fuji color neg

400 and 800 for years with a Plauble Makina W67 and made 4 x 5 foot prints that

appeared grain-free until you got within a couple of inches. I think high speed 120 film

beats 100 speed 35mm for large prints, not just for shaprness but for overall tonal quality.

Remember, too, rangefinder cameras HAVE no mirror and are far easier to focus in low

light. With good technique you can get sharp hand held shots at 1/15 second (with the

W67, anyway.) Wide angle lenses like the 55 on the W67 allow slower speeds, but if you

don't mind the medium focal range, the Plaubel 67 or 670 with f/2.8 should be ideal. Ditto

on the earlier advice- they're great cameras when they work, which is not always. have a

backup for critical shooting.

I believe you can use 6x12 with the 4X5 adapter, but this adapter adds quite a bit of

extension, making it unusable at infinity with wide angle lenses. I don't know, but I'd

guess 105 is minimum, maybe 135. It's also quite clunky, I'd just get a 4x5 field, the

Horseman FA, HF and HD are all good. I DID modify my VH-R to take a 4x5 back at the

normal film plane, but it was major surgery. I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a

very special need for a rangefinder focus 6X12 like I did.

The flange-focal distance is NOT the same thing as the focal length. The FL accuracy is

what determines if the standard Horseman cam will work with the mystery Linhof lens. I

agree with Bob Eskridge, I've succesfully used another 65 (the Caltar/Rodenstock 65) with

the Horseman cam. I even use a custom cam made for a 47 SA with my 45

Rodenstock. With any non-horseman lens you need to adjust the infinity stops, not hard to

do with a loupe on the ground glass. I've been able to find used Horseman cams but you

need patience. Try Midwest Photo. Finding a recessed Horseman lens board (neccesary for

a 65) may be a bigger problem. Good luck.

I concur, the Horseman VH or VHR system is very flexible and a great tool to learn view

camera technique. I used a VHR for many years doing commercial location work, including

architecture and studio-type technology subjects (including very close-up table-top still

lifes.) I do have two of the above-mentioned custom wide boards (Bob- it would be great

for you to find a manufacturer and get back into this business!) The 45mm Grandagon can

be used at infinity with these (just barely on the front standard.)

I'm now doing exclusively fine-art subjects and use a Horseman HF, an early model 4x5

field camera, with a 6x12 back. It's the same size (a little smaller, really) as the VHR body

and takes the same lens boards. (Same as the current FA and HD) It fits in a small shoulder

bag with the film back, 5 lenses and a meter. How's that for flexibility?

I also have the 90mm 5.6 HR, it's a good lens. I had always assumed HR stood for

Horseman (made by Topcon).

I agree, the HF is a fine camera, the only real limitation is it does not have a revolving

back. You have to mount it sideways for a vertical shot, which is usually not a problem. It

may be the most compact and lightest metal field ever, I'm not sure. I use lenses from

65mm (in custom recessed board) to the Fuji 300T, which can be focused at infinity to

about 6 ft with an extended board. Good luck.

Is it possible to use the internal viewfinder with a 50mm by "guestimating" to the edges of

the visible window outside the 65mm frame line? I've been considering a M7 but normally

prefer wider than 65mm. I've used a Plaubell Makina W67 with a 55 for many years but it

has major reliability issues. To me, an external viewfinder is a problem for these reasons:

increased parellax error, hassle of moving eye to focus, and possiblity of knocking it off or

loosing it in a hazardous environment. Anyone use a 50mm M7 this way?

If you use a Bogen/Manfrotto "3D" tripod head (#3025 or 3028) or the Linhof 3-Way

Levelling tripod head #3663 (more heavy-duty), you can contort the head so that the

camera and lens are centered over the tripod legs.

Maybe. On the standard recessed Horseman board (the one

their 65 came on) you can focus to infinity but will get little or no

movement because the front standard is within the camera body.

A flat lensboard MAY focus to infinity but it will be way back in

there. I use a 65 Grandagon on a custom recessed board made

years ago by Scott Bonnet and the lens has a good range of

movements, but these boards are apparantly impossible to find

now.

Any machinists listening who want to make and market this

board again? Bob Eskridge, who visits this forum, used to sell

this lens board, he may have specs, etc. There seems to be a

low-level but constant interest in the Horseman metal field

cameras, I don't know why the company doesn't support these

cameras with updated boards and accesories?!

Again, search the archive for previous posts on this (includng

some from me). Short summary: I use a 45 Apo Grandagon (it

barely hangs on the back of the rail but works fine), and a 65

Grandagon (it clears the body on top for adequate rise and other

movements.) Both are used with a no-longer-made recessed

board, i forget the name of the guy who ws selling the remaining

stock. Maybe with enough demand someone will resume

production, the original guy was Scott Bonnett. On the long end I

use a 300mm Fuji T (tele) lens, it works fine on a standard #1

shutter board, but will only focus to about 5 ft.

Calumet imported this camera for many years and they may still

have the tooling and intruments for CLA of the body. They, or any

competent repair shop, can CLA the Seiko shutters.