dan_fromm2

Is naming and shaming prohibited here? I ask because it might be.

 

If it isn't, OP, you should name names.

A Mamiya RB67 with 50mm lens on 6x7 will deliver a perspective similar to the 38mm on 6x6. No DIY required and both use roll film. Did I miss something in the original post? Are you starting from a base camera, and want to change its functionality?

84 degrees < 93 degrees. There's a difference.

Yes, I will respond. Not as usual.

 

If you want a useful answer you should help us by telling us which focal lengths you're thinking of using on y'r proposed 6x17 camera.

The least expensive way to get SWC functionality is to find a 38/4.5 Biogon ex-aerial camera, have it remounted in a Copal #0, and use it on a Century Graphic. I've done this. Your many posts on APUG in which you claim poverty make me doubt that you can afford to do this. Ex-aerial camera 38/4.5 Biogons are uncommon as well as expensive.

 

Newer lenses with focal lengths around 40 mm that cover at least 2x3 (6x9 in metric) such as the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon and 38/4.5 Super Angulon XL cost even more. To find out which lenses might do for you, see short lenses for 2x3.xlsx

 

There's no puzzle. A wide angle camera needs a wide angle lens. End of discussion. On 6x6 a 38 Biogon covers a bit over 90 degrees. 90 degree lenses are expensive.

If you want to make a camera that shoots 6x6 lenses made for 645 won't don. Not enough coverage.

 

Re which lenses are in shutter, do your own research.

The significant gotcha is that using a 6x17 roll holder on a 4x5 camera requires an extension back. This limits the range of focal lengths that can be used.

No. There are several insertion type roll holders that can be used with 2x3 cameras with spring backs.

 

I use Adapt-A-Roll 620s. Toyo made a thick insertion type roll holder for 2x3 cameras, Linhof made at least one too.

Busch Camera

Close but no cigar. Wrong camera.

As thirteen thumbs has already pointed out, what the OP takes for a cable release socket is a PC socket.

 

The shutter doesn't have a cable release socket. If it did, the cable release socket would be behind the shutter release lever.

 

Lenses on boards for 6x9 Horseman cameras are usually in shutters that have no cable release socket. OP, scurry over to eBay.com and look at some of them. They'll give you ideas about how to make a cable release holder that mounts on the board. Hint: if you do it yourself, you'll need a very long throw cable release.

ok. What shutters do conform?

Bob, ignorance isn't exactly a sin. Laziness is.

 

Here's a link to a list of links that have, among them, answers to your question and many more.

 

Where to look for information on lenses.pdf

 

Help yourself. I've had enough.

Bob, shutters made in Rochester -- makers were B&L, Ilex and its successor Melles Griot, Kodak and Wollensak -- do not conform to the Compur/Copal standard. You can't put cells that fit a Copal #0 into a shutter from a 101/4.5 Wolly.

Make doesn't matter. Compur and Copal #0 and #1 shutters conform to the #0 and #1 standard. Type of shutter -- self-cocking, cock-and-shoot -- can, but not for the 58/5.6 Konica Hexanon/Omegon.

Bob, all #0 shutters will accept cells from a 58/5.6 Konica Hexanon/Omegon.

 

Only cock-and-shoot #0s will accept cells from a 60/5.6 KH. Press shutters have the diaphragm set farther back that cock-and-shoot shutters. The 60 KH's rear cell will foul a #0 press shutter's diaphragm. The 58's rear cell (different design) will clear. I have both lenses and both types of shutter.

 

Look at short lenses for 2x3.xlsx It is a list of lenses with focal lengths 65 mm and shorter that cover 2x3 (= 6x9). Most concerned about whether they can be mounted on and focused to infinity on my 2x3 Graphics. Incomplete like all such lists but I don’t think anything significant is missing.

I looked at the listing. The lens isn't in that poor condition.

 

I looked at completed listings for Baltars. They bring what I see as silly money. Silly or not, they bring it.

 

I looked at the listing. The tube that the OP thinks makes it a zoom lens has no glass in it. OP, think again.

For a full discussion of alternatives to Mercury cells that covers Zinc-air cells, see

 

horseman-4x5-exposure-meter

 

In my experience a 675 lasts ~ 2 months after the tab is pulled if not under load. The longest claimed shelf life is 4 years.

Resolution = speed then? How's that work?

Fair question. Damfino.

 

Since the lens doesn't seem to be usable as a photographic objective, this discussion seems moot and poorly anchored in reality.

Speed, RJ, speed. The devices wrote many, many lines/unit time. Look up the APS-5.

Speed, RJ, speed. f/2.3 is a tiny bit more luminous than f/9.

Hmm. The IBM 1410 is a computer. APS-4 and -5 are Autologic phototypesetters that were driven by a variety of computers, but not, as far as Google can see, a 1410. Are you sure the 1410 belongs in the same sentence with them?

Google search for "Hasselblad Winder CW modifiziert auch für 203FE/205FCC"

The third hit is an old listing on ebay.be. Click on the link, explore a little.

Peter, there's an art to searching. The seller's eBay userid is tangomaniac

Per Canon, there's a right way to work at magnifications above 1:1. MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Photo - Canon Camera Museum

 

Virginia, what you want to do is physically possible but is suboptimal.

I just took a look at my Selfix 820, non-special. I wouldn't do it. I'm not sure how the bellows is attached to the lip at the back of the box, suspect that enlarging the box will break the bellows lose.

 

If you're going to use the camera, use it as is. If you're going to sell it, well, mutilating it might -- no guarantee either way -- affect the selling price.

 

If you want to shoot slightly wider 2x3, look into getting a 2x3 Linhof Super Rollex roll holder and a camera that will accept it.

Ben, not to contradict you directly but there are 2x3 view cameras that are as flexible as their larger cousins.

 

2x3 view cameras have disadvantages relative to 4x5ers. The most commonly cited one is that focusing and composing on a 2x3 ground glass is harder than on a 4x5. I have 2x3 and 4x5 Cambos, don't see the problem but others do. 2x3 view cameras are less common, therefore often more expensive, than their 4x5 counterparts and they're less well-supported so accessories, e.g., lens boards, are harder to find and can be more expensive.

 

For many purposes, a 4x5er, even with a roll holder, is more cost effective. My first 2x3 Cambo was a gift. I later got a second one well below market. If I hadn't had the gift I'd have stuck with my 2x3 Graphics and would eventually have got a 4x5 something-or-other to be able to shoot 6x12.

Rodeo Joe wrote:

 

One more thought. It might be worth searching patent applications for anything filed by Zenza Bronica. Most lens designs get filed, and the application is usually filed by the head designer.[\QUOTE]

 

Joe, what you wrote looks reasonable but my friend Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info) tells me that it isn't so. His database of lens prescriptions taken from patents is light on lenses post-WW II. He's told me that manufacturers stopped patenting lens designs.