john_schneider2

Looks like the same troll, albeit toned down, as http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=29028

Yet another vote of support for the fine and honest dealings I've had with Andrew. He is also never too busy to answer a question about classic lenses unrelated to his eBay listings.

Jesse,

 

This may be a little late, but I saw one of these impressive beasts on the shelf at Photomark in Phoenix after Christmas. Their number is 602-244-1133 if you're interested.

Camera Eccentric at http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info.html has pdf's of several old Protar catalogs of various vintages. You should be able to find what you want there.

McMaster-Carr (http://www.mcmaster.com/) or Fastenal (http://www.fastenal.com/) have large selections of metric nuts/bolts down to, as I recall, 1.6mm or so. If it's a non-standard metric thread (like on my old Art Pan) then you'll have to go through Japan, but I would think they've now settled on a standard DIN metric thread.

I would get the Alodine and Alumiprep locally if possible. They come in quart and gallon containers. Because they contain phosphoric acid and the like, they are considered hazardous cargo and usually have a rather high hazmat fee added if they need to be shipped.

This site:

 

http://www.photobooksonline.com/books/catalogs.html

 

is offering an old Schneider catalog reprint that might shed some light:

(1939) Schneider Lenses. Illustrated catalog featuring the Xenar, Radionar, Xenon Kinoplan, Tele-Xenar, Angulon, Symmar, Aero-Xenar, Componar lenses and accessories, 48 pages, 5-3/4x8-1/4", reprint, $15.

The answer on anodizing was mostly for the sake of completeness. Its's great if you're making a lot of parts from scratch, but in a situation like this I feel it's unworkable and most likely unnecessary. If it were me, I would sand and scrape off the corrosion, clean it with Alumiprep to clean off all the oxidation, spray it with a can of zinc oxide primer, and then a black topcoat. I've made camera housings for salt water immersion, and then I do the whole hardcoat anodize/zinc chromate primer/epoxy topcoat, but that is blatant overkill for your situation.

Ronald is correct, an anodized surface is THE best way to protect aluminum (in particular, a hard-coat anodize, preferably with a nickel-acetate sealer). This is an involved process that makes lots of nasty waste, and even if you wanted to, I'm not sure you could do it at home. The problem is that the anodizing process isn't amenable to doing one part (at least not cheaply), and shops charge for the batch with a minimum cost ($100 at the last place I used -- Ft. Wayne Anodizing -- 5 years ago). If you did 20 frames or just one, the cost would be largely the same. Another issue is that, for the best job, the anodizer needs to know the alloy to select the proper chemistry and schedule. Not an issue if you're Keith Canham and make your camera from scratch, but if you have an unidentifiable alloy the anodizer will have to make a best guess and the results may be less than optimum. Wrought alloys like 3003 and 6061 anodize beautifully, cast alloys can anodize okay but sometimes unevenly, and high strength aerospace alloys containing copper like 2024 won't anodize at all. This is not to dissuade you from anodizing, just be aware that there are some issues.

The best way (i.e., the way it's done in aviation and aerospace) to deal with local aluminum oxidation is to mechanically remove (sanding, etc.) all the corrosion you can. Clean the corroded area with Alumiprep per the instructions (using gloves of course), treat the now-clean area with Alodine to chemically convert it to a good paint base, prime with a zinc chromate or zinc oxide primer, followed by the top coat of your choice. Nothing else works even half as well. A good auto paint store should have Alumiprep and Alodine, or you can order them from a homebuilder's supply like Aircraft Spruce. This process is a bit of a pain, so you'll have to decide if the benefits are worth it to you.

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.

But then again, Mr. Littman's (Litman's?) abusive rantings against competitors might open him to a charge of patent misuse, which renders his patent(s) in question unenforceable.

Wow, my brain couldn't get through three sentences of that turgid desecration of language before it caused a sympathetic response in my lower GI tract.

 

For all the (overly-simplistic) quoting of patent and copyright law that Mr. Littman does, I didn't find a single issued patent or patent application under his name (go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm and http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html and see for yourself).

There is not too much else of substance that I can add to the above answers; my love-hate relationship with my Pocket View got the better of me and I replaced the entire front standard with a unit from a Technika, added a gear rack for geared focusing, and remade the rail clamp so that it uses a big knob like a Linhof. Now I have much more what I was looking for, which was a lightweight Technikardan, but with a good bit of work. The Gowland is a nice camera within its limitations, but you have to decide if your shooting style fits within those limitations.

I have a Durst 138 upper column and condensor head. I'd like to either wall

mount this or mount it to a table like a Laborator 54 or 5x7 Devere. Does

anybody have experience with either option, or know what hardware might be

required? I can make most parts I might need, but I'd prefer to buy or copy the

OEM parts rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper.

 

Thank you, John Schneider

Look on eBay; there are often used 8x10 backs there, usually from B&J or Agfa cameras.

I recently bought a 6x9 Galvin monorail camera and would like to convert it to a

4x5 model. I have the necessary tools, but before I begin I'd like to see what

an original 4x5 Galvin looks like so I can remain close to Jim's original

vision. If someone out there has one of the 4x5 models, I'd surely appreciate

some detailed photos. Thank you very much. If you want to send the pics

directly to me, please email me at trimix@mindspring.com.

I recall seeing something similar in the past. I believe it's a right angle mount for a studio stand.

I remember seeing one in a Phoenix camera store in the last few months. It would have been either at Photomark (602-244-1133, ask for Rod) or Tempe Camera (480-966-6954).

Is anyone familiar with this lens and its capabilities? I found no

mention of it in Henney & Dudley, Kingslake, or Neblette's reference

books.

 

I got this lens a few weeks ago with a lot of miscellaneous large

format items (some process lenses, shutters, and misc. lenses) off

that auction site. The previous owner thought it must have covered

8x10 (he only shot 8x10), but had no memory of using it. I assumed

that the lens marking was a typo (11cm rather than 11mm) until I saw

an auction listing for the same lens

(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7598369818&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1).

 

 

The lens is bigger than the picture leads one to assume: about 2" dia.

x 1.25" long. There is a rotating wheel with four stops; looking at

the front element, both surfaces are convex toward the front of the

lens (sort of like a Metrogon or Hypergon). Thank you for any

enlightenment.

Here's a picture of the back of the unit. It lists the fuses for three input voltages like the manual states, but there is no rotary selector switch around the fuse holder. I opened the case and there is no obvious (to me) way to reconnect the wires to handle different input voltages. Since I can't see Ilford making three separate units for each of their primary markets (UK, continental Europe, and North America), perhaps it indeed handles all three input voltages with no selector switch needed. To check this I will hook it up to a Variac and check the output with a higher input voltage. Thank you both for your help.

I have an Ilford Multigrade 500 enlarger head system for printing on

VC papers that I would like to convert from 120 to 220 VAC. The

manual shows directions how to change the input voltage (120/220/240

VAC) to the 500S power supply unit by turning a selector switch around

the fuse holder, but my power supply has no such switch. However, the

markings on the power supply still list all three input voltages.

Does the power supply automatically adjust depending on the input

voltage, or do I need to switch the wiring inside (and if so, what

wires do I switch)? I have called Ilford but all the people who knew

these units have retired. Thank you very much for any help.

 

John

Thanks to everyone who contributed an answer. I bought the brochure from Glenn Evans and will be glad to make coies at cost if anyone wants one.

 

Cheers, John

After using a Technikardan 45 for years, I'm finally getting around to

using a 5x7 Kardan Master L that I bought about two years ago. I'm

trying to find information and any literature on the camera,

especially as regards the variable axis tilts.

 

I called Bob Salomon and he was quite helpful, but he could only tell

me so much, as all the literature on that camera was unfortunately

destroyed following the patent infringement suit. Does anyone have

any recent experience using the camera that they could share with me,

or have any literature that they wouldn't mind scanning/copying for me?

 

Thanks so much, John

Eric, do you still have this lens? I may have the corresponding 300A with a 360A rear element. I bought the lens from Midwest this summer but have not had a chance to use it yet. Some months ago I did e-mail Kerry the fact that this lens had a s/n very close to the 360A pictured on his website, but never got a response.

 

I will gather the other information in the next day or so and get back to you. I'd be curious to compare the results of my front element with my rear element and with your rear element.

 

Cheers, John Schneider