diwan_bhathal

The fact is that the Rodenstock Ysarex opened wide gives softer results than other lenses, this is not an indication of the performance of the camera. The 127mm Ektar is shaper wide open than the Ysarex.

 

The Ysarex was a moderately priced lens in its time, and it is still today. It gives average to good results. If one puts a more expensive lens on any camera one gets sharper results. This is not art, it is optics and optics design.

 

The strut "counterweights" still do not do anything, except increase the weight of the camera. As the specifications of L45 camera are not published, for artistic reasons, the tolerances are unknown.

 

It is a fact of machine design that the tolerances in supporting strutural members are dependent on the pin joint to which they are attached. Parallelism or no parallelism, "counterweights" or not, the tolerance of the pin junction between the strut and the front standard was not changed as the struts were modified.

 

The design was further weakened and by inserting the adjustable plates. How are these plates adjusted, by hand?

 

What is the method for locating the exact position of the plates? A micrometer based on the plastic housing of the rangefinder at one end, and to the standard at the other, then the measurement is taken, how many measurements? This is the worst method for determining parallelism. The parallelism involved here is between the front standard and the film plane.

 

Now, back to the "counterweights". How are these adjusted to the precision claimed? What is the tolerance needed not to compress excessively the pivot point at the front standard. Everyone knows that if you pull on one direction, it gets tighter on the other. If the Allen screw is excessively torqued, it can by this fact bend the remaining portion of the strut.

 

How does one guarantee that the smooth rotation of the pivot point is not forced. This is a friction joint, and any excessive friction will definitively bend the struts. What is the reference point from which the distance of the strut added to the tolerance of the joint is measured? To obtain perfect parallelism, the industry uses what is called a "seismic table" and an optical bench.

 

This manufacturer who is claiming perfect parallelism, perfect straightedness, does not even know the basic principles of tolerance measurement and distance evaluation without a fixed reference point. This is basic, even the machinist where he gets his parts made knows that, he does not seem to get it.

 

The "counterweights" do not do anything useful, they deteriorate the design of the camera. To cut these struts is the worst thing that can be done. The original stuts were machine stamped and this guarantees a certain overall lenght. The position of the "counterweigh" plates is variable and dependent as installed. This introduces an additional moving part that can get out of alignment during use, thus the camera needing "repair".

 

Cameras are precision machines. The Polaroid 110A/B was engineer designed, that is why it withstood so well the passing of time. That is why it can be modified as the design is so well done that it accommodates the needs of all cameras of this type, old and modern.

 

To cut the struts at will and without reason (read: under artistic license), is a sacrilege. The manufacturer does not have any clue of the basics of machine design whatsoever. He should leave these modifications to the professionals. Experience has showed that after forty years, these cameras can withstand continued use in their original form. I sincerely doubt that the modified L45 with the chopped up struts will have a long field life without re-adjustments. This modification has not been time tested.

 

This camera is only the work of an "artist", and not even that, it is in a sorry situation the original design was left. It is a waste of film to operate this camera at full aperture. The negative is so large, and so much film area is available, that it is a pity to leave all this space unused.

 

Artists should not butcher and modify devices for which they are unprepared, the mess that they create is evident. As the L45 was not volunteered for independent evaluation, all of its "magic" properties and claims, as being the best, the most responsive and the ultimate synergy are rubbish. Plain rubbish. All mentionned here, and using the "counterweights" as an example, is only hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.

 

We have only seen results from this camera only in photographs, not accurate measurements. These photographs do not mean anything, as I can do the same thing with my camera. The manufacturer has not even heard of inherent DOF. He should educate himself and read several books on optics.

 

His claim that the camera has very accurate focusing is also rubbish. As the lenses that can be fitted in this camera range from f/4.6 to f/5.6, the DOF from f/0.0 to the actual aperture number has taken care of the inherent inaccuracies.

 

If the L45 is said to be so precise in focusing, then it should be impossible to focus with it. This camera does not take into consideration that all eyes are not perfect, that all eyes do not focus at the same identical point. If it were not for the inherent DOF of lenses, rangefinders could not be used. The RF window of the 110B model is quite dim anyway.

 

The "counterweights" are rubbish, they solve an inexistent problem. They just mangle the equilibrium of the struts. The soft and hard focusing does not have to do anything with the camera, it is a lens property. The full accurate parallax correction is even more rubbish as the lenses installed have inherent DOF.

 

To resume, this camera is an artist made camera. This does not guarantee that its specifications are consistent. There are none. The systems that it uses are useless, as it was better to leave the camera alone. It is overweight, with the Graflok (the bear trap), and the so-claimed pressure at four points of a film holder will do nothing more than bend (distort) the longest point of the holder in a slight curve. Every mechanical designer knows that. Some pseudo-designers (read artists) are clueless regarding this point.

 

It was mentionned above that the torque applied was several hundred pounds. Well, let me humbly inform everyone that torque, is measured in foot-pounds or ft-lbs. For this case, instead of hundreds of pounds torque, it is more like a few in-lbs. The wheel nuts in everyone's car are to be torqued to 70 ft-lbs, and that takes a bit of force, everyone has experieced that.

 

No wonder that after an "artistic" application of hundreds of pounds the struts are bent. Can someone explain why not? If it is because of a mistake in units, then the manufacturer has demonstrated that, he does not know what he is talking about, and that he is clueless as to what he is doing.

Please, can someone post here a picture of the shutter actuation mechanism on this camera?

 

I suspect that even though the viewfinder mimics the projection of the image on the film area, the actuation of the shutter release cable, after having used the focus wheel, throws the camera off balance. The effect of this being a shifted composition from the intended one.

 

Can someone post a picture of the shutter release?

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!".

I would like to reiterate ad nauseum that my camera is not for sale. Additionnally I would like to indicate that my camera is not subject to any patent whatsoever, since it does not contain the conversions applied to the so-called patented Polaroid conversion.

 

To state that my camera will be subject to a retroactive jurisdiction by these so-called patents is clearly an act of accusation and coercion.

 

The fact is that if anyone can come up with a better device than currently produced available or not, this should not be considered as an act of promotion of a product, or peddling of wares. Again, my camera is not for sale. Questionning on the merits of such and other product does not constitute a libel, and does not imply soliciting. It is merely a common question to which other manufacturers are very willing to answer as all of them make public their specifications.

 

In the case of the L45 Single VI, these specifications are unknown, all we get is unintelligible drivel. Its merits, as stated are grossly exaggerated and moreover, the Wrath of God and all other Deities will fall on anyone that tries to question anything regarding the L45.

 

I have offered my camera for an independent evaluation with other handheld 4x5s, there are no overstated secrets surrounding it. There has not been any motion from the L45 to do so, on the contrary. Independent evaluation will show what has been exaggerated and what has not, as well as merits and shortcomings.

 

My camera has been qualified as being a toy, it is a toy that is vastly superior to any camera of this type made today. It is the lighter and smaller of the handhelds, has an bright RF with full parallax correction and accommodates all types of film holders. It does not copy existing cameras or any camera devices but, regrettably is not for sale.

 

The fact that my camera exists, and that it was shared with the photographic community, does not constitute any of the acts that it is accused of. It is a very versatile camera and promotes the ease and creativity of its user. The first time that I published a picture of my camera, I was deluged with accusations and forceful wordings.

 

The intent is to let camera tinkerers and innovators to continue improving on the tools of the photographic art, and not, as one of them does constantly and forcefully, to try to repress these advances. This is intolerable, patent existing or no patent at all.

 

How can one be accused of solicitation when the product that is solicited is not and will not be in the market?

 

I would seriously consider Mr. Shneider's comment,--abusive rantings against competitors might open him to a charge of patent misuse, which renders his patent(s) in question unenforceable--

 

This is clearly where we are heading to.<div></div>

As stated in the patent of the above link;

 

"to convert a 31/4.times.41/4 camera into a 4.times.5 camera with a coupled rangefinder/parallax combination that allows sequence shots taken at a higher speed than ever before possible for a 4.times.5 format, at about 1 shot/sec, and allows increased concentration on artistic aspect of picture taking and the ability to capture snap shots with spontaneity without asking the subject to wait until the camera is being readied. Additionally, the modified single window rangefinder 4.times.5 camera of the present invention provides a proper turn knob focusing system for accuracy and improved tolerances for a 4.times.5 format."

 

I guess that "Graphy" is also being patented as we speak.

Frank:

 

Yes, the struts have a very interesting design addition. I wonder if they are for vibration dampening.

 

I am trying to come up with a 5x7 of the same type as my other cameras. I have been asked repeated times if it will be possible to build one like that, RF coupled, handheld and of course, lighweight.

 

This 5x7 will be used to obtain contact prints, as the size of the negative allows "viewable" prints. The 5x7 format has a very pleasant aspect ratio, which mimics the 35mm type.

 

The main problem that I am faced with is the lens choice. Coupling the lens to the RF is trivial. The minimum focusing distance needs to be consider carefully, as the bellows extension is disminished for these longer focal lenghts.

 

Let's see what fruit this winter will bear. I hope also that you are coming up with some interesting stuff yourself. Please, do not forget to post your latest model.

I use the Unicolor rotary base all the time. I have the instructions for the tank. The recommendation for B&W is a reduction of development time of 15%.

 

On the other hand, common practice is to increase the development time by 30 seconds if a prewash is used to allow the developer to displace the prewash water.

 

Hope this helps.

While browsing my favorite auction site, in the LF section, I came across the

new and "improved" model of the LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI.

 

This latest version is to have a major improvement in the struts of the front

standard. The manufacturer has installed some sort of "counterweights" on the

front struts.

 

I read his explanation in the advertising, but could not understand it because

the prose in which it is written is quite disastrous.

 

I would like to ask if anyone in the forum knows why the "counterweights" have

been installed there and what exact function do they serve. I have never seen

anything like this. I have an identical Polaroid, and the struts are fine, they

do not twist nor bend and never need adjustment or repair.

 

What is the reason for this? The ad indicates also that it is a technique used

in bridge construction. Never seen the like of it.

 

Any thoughts? Is this an innovative technique or just added weight?

Mr. Fromm:

 

It is age and tired eyesight. Thank you for the encouragement.

 

Thomas:

 

Do you realize that both the Fotoman and the other one are only point and shoot zone focus, no RF on either. For that price, I would demand some focus control, it can be available. ut, not to worry, you have been given enough information here as to where to find a camera that will suit your needs. Please keep us posted of your decision and later on, if you wish, of your results. Best of luck.<div></div>

Mr. Fromm:

 

Please, do not drop me off your list, as I promise to cease the silliness.

 

What I consider to be quite sad is that I am steadily losing my eyesight. I was advised by a close friend to watch out for the dust specs on my prints---what dust specs?

 

I cannot see anything out of my Kalart RF. I can see something clearer out of the Zeiss RF. Replacing the RF mirror will not do the trick for me, as my glasses invariably get in the way.

 

I am learning now that handheld ability and modest price are two incompatible things. Perhaps it is the rarity of the instances in which this type of equipment is needed. Conversely, anything desired can be obtained if one is willing to pay the demanded price for it.

 

Yes, photography stores still offer top of the line equipment at their price. And yes, people tinker with some other equipment to obtain some other results, as how this results suit everyone, this is left to be decided.

 

The only thing that I know is that I am very happy with my camera, of my own making and definitely not for sale, as it is mine, and I have obtained very good results with it, at least that is how they look to me. I only do photography as a hobby and only for myself, not for business nor for glory.

Kelly;

 

You have made several important points. Yes, millions of photos have been taken with the Graflex cameras. Mine has an accurate RF, the problem is that I cannot see anything out of it, it is the side mounted Kalart. Yes, it is accurate, but faint and it is like looking into a peephole. Graflex provided the sports type viewfinder frame and this is for some reason.

 

Maybe some people can handhold these suitcases, maybe most of the people can see through the little RF peephole, we need to have the experience with this type camera and user impressions documented. For all I know, the Graflex came with the super powerful flash, and there may be a reason for it also.

 

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.

 

I have read somewhere, something like 140 000 of the 110 series were manufactured. There must be lots of them left.

 

If someone is a fool enough to pay ten times their value, then so be it. Without extensive work these are nothing more than inefficient bookends, oversize paperweights or perpexling conversation pieces. If this person wants to spend his money on them, it is their choice. Perhaps one day he will learn the actual value of this camera, but the past has shown that it is not the case.

 

There are also millions made of the pack cameras, the plastic ones, which are not even welcome in rubbish dumps. These seem to reproduce and multiply ad infinitum. Some of these have very nice RF/Viewfinder combinations that are the envy of the 110's and of the Graflex and many other cameras.

 

But, as a teacher of mine once said; invent a new word, then find thirteen dimwits to believe in it, and you will become a philosopher.

 

Again my question stands, why is there not any commercial production of a Graflex type camera or a copy of the actual ones that are handmade. To me, there is a need/desire out there for this type of equipment and no one is satisfying this demand, except with ludicrous claims for something that is not and will never be.

 

I just finished printing some of my 4x5 negatives from my plastic camera, I am always astonished at the results that I get from it. Hmmm...I have to check my Nikon to see if the batteries have not leaked.

Frank:

 

Sorry, I should have made a new paragraph, so that my entire posting would not seem to be totally addressed to you.

 

I see in forums that this same question gets asked repeatedly. Some people find an answer to it, both you and I did, as well as many others in a more or less ingenious way.

 

Thomas:

 

As of today there are several hand holdable 4x5 cameras. There is the Fotoman, which is a true point and shoot, no RF. Then there is the 110B mod with the Graflok back, the 110B with the slimline low profile back, and the one with the Razzle back. There is also mine, which is not a 110 type and has its own back, this one is not available for sale.

 

Readily hand-holdable and easily available at a reasonable price, maybe and perhaps a Graflex with top mounted RF, I may say. But I can state that I have a definite problem with its ergonomics.

 

The other alternative is to do like Frank R, to find a box and fit an LF lens and some sort of back to accept 4x5, but this already gets you into building your own camera, and you may not desire to go this route.

 

-- It seems to me that there should be more models available of handholdable 4x5 cameras. There are some, but the only one maketed and commercially available htat I know is the Fotoman with out an RF and the other Chinese made cameras. The rest are the handmade ones.

 

As to reasonability of pricing, some are extremely expensive for what they are, others can be very reasonably obtained.

Frank:

 

I started with a Graflex. Found that I needed three hands to operate it. Yes, the 127mm Ektar is a gem, but the RF is useless, therefore negating eye level focusing. It became worse than a 4x5 field camera. This one is not a brick, it is a suitcase. That is why this model went the way of the dinosaurs.

 

Afterwards, I built my plastic 4x5 handheld, which turned out to be a superb photographic device. If the Graflok contraption is eliminated, then the weight is reduced dramatically. If the 110 is trimmed down and carefully put on a diet, it becomes a good camera an very useful one.

 

Some people like some models for personal reasons. Myself, I prefer the all-plastic cameras as they are lighter. The 110 has that "retro" aura around it. It is good to see that all these obsolete bodies have been put to good use, same with the useless pack film cameras.

 

I have noticed that an urban mith exists out there that every LF newcomer to LF "needs" a camera that will be able to be contorted as a shrunk pretzel. They better read the what and why movements are used. If one is going to do table top photography, then get a rail camera, forget the rest, ample bellows extension and more movements that one can use. Same for architectural and the like.

 

For 99.9% of LF photography, the features offered by these cameras are not used, or very seldomly.

 

My handheld camera gives me more time to do photography than if using any other camera, that is, for most situations, as I do not have to carry accessories (tripod, shutter release...). Why do Leica users do not demand camera movements? Because that camera is good 99.9% of the time for all purposes. Same with mine, except that it has all the advantages of the large negative.

 

And yes, we get all these newbie questions of looking for a panacea for all photographic purposes. Personally, I do not recommend a Graflex for a beginner, as it is an impossible camera to use.

 

The Graflex were used with the superpowerful flash, always set at f/8 and all the results look like "deer in the headlights" because of the dazzling effect of the flash, no tonalities and mostly overexposed highlights. This is a very little known fact of the use of the Graphics. The flash was used extensively due to the un-ergonomic design of the camera.

 

I still do not understand why eveyone is advised to "get a Graflex". I would say, firt learn how to compose an image that has a valid visual message, instead of steering everyone towards equipment that they would not know how to use.

 

The fact is: If a negative that has a good image is produced, the negative is by itself a good image, it will give a meaningful print. Conversely, if a boring image is produced, there is no darkroom or magic bullet that will save the banality of the product.

 

Most of the reason for the darkroom artifices and gyrations is an attempt to save a bad image through technical tour-de-force.

 

If I were a beginner, I would start by learning how to take good photographs instead of looking for the larger negative to solve all the creative and vision learning process that a beginner has to do.

 

"I am a beginner and what camera should I get?"; the answer to this is, get a $7 grocery special and learn how to compose good photographs first. Later on, the LF equipment question answers itself and good results are guaranteed regardless of the equipment used.

 

LF is just regular photography. LF has a larger negative, but that it where it ends, the rest is just good 'ole photography.

 

...Not "Graphy", just photography.

Thomas:

 

Try this:

 

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/

 

A very good camera at a great price.

 

But: "What if? ...no more...".

 

Yes, you will be in a Patent Free Zone, with no "reward" on your head, and more importantly, with a perfectly healthy left thumb because ... no more? ... red button!

 

"What if?...", no, you will not get bitten by the Panther Gris that lurks around when you put your eye to the viewfinder.

 

This camera has a "straight lens" that takes normal style photos, not a modified one with the depth of field behind the photographer and front struts built like cantilever bridges. Razzle is good, no dazzle!

 

A handheld 4x5 is the best way to photograph most subjects with a 4x5. These are good overall cameras, not specialty cameras. Each situation requires a special solution, this camera is a very good compromise for most cases. Much better than the Graflex types.

 

Unfortunately, my handheld 4x5 model is not for sale.

Frank:

 

Cannot fully understand your question. What I did is to cut up the back door of the camera for full 4x5 image projection. To this back, I fitted my film holder device. I have full 4x5 image.

 

I did not cut up the "red button" because I did not feel to go get a jewelers saw. I should have done so, but I do not use that camera anymore, it is a brick.

 

I have been using only the newer version that has the RF in the middle of the camera and is much much brighter, has also the shutter release on the body, not in the akward position of the shutter release as found on the 110. Much easier focusing with this new camera which is lightweight, this thing is a feather.

 

I do not use the Rodenstock lens anymore, I fitted a newer lens that, as I just found out, leaves the Ysarex miles behind. More contrast and very good sharpness at all apertures. My shutter now goes to 1/500sec ~ a true 1/300sec.

 

Oh! I fitted a neck strap to the camera, so now I look like a tourist, hehehe...

Brett:

 

Since you are at it, a good idea is to remove the "red button" which is on the left side of the back of the camera. This will eliminate a sore thumb in the future and make the use of the camera more enjoyable.

Brett:

 

It is not clear what you are doing. You mention that you are positioning the Graflok back against the back door of the camera.

 

Typically the "back door" is cut up with a hacksaw to the dimensions of the Graflok. The Graflok is centered with the lens axis. Then it is glued/screwed somehow to the back door.

 

As to finding the distance for infinity focusing, this may vary depending on the position of the Graflok. There is a cure for this, just collimate the lens on the camera using another camera.

 

The way that this is done is by marking a pencil line on the GG of the Graflok, then by taking another camera and putting it in front of the Polaroid lens. This camera setting is at infinity. Look through and you will see the line on the GG. This may be blurry, to make it sharp, move the front standard of the 110B forwards or backwards until it is. Mark carefully this position, this is the infinity setting for the 110B lens.

 

If I recall, the back door of the 110B needs to be cut up so that it allows for the 4x5 image to be fully projected.

I have learned that there is a new model of the L45s Option 1. This month

seems to be the month of innovation; we have two handheld 4x5 cameras with

technological improvements. One of them was presented in this forum, the other

one on the most popular auction site.

 

The first of these cameras, uses the provided --Red Button-- to activate the

shutter from the body of the camera, just as a normal camera would. This

leads to less blurry photos and a steadier aim.

 

It was found that while holding the camera with one hand and reaching for the

shutter tripping level with the other hand, that there was a brain-motor

function disconnect that has ruined many a negative. The --Red Button--

coupled with the shutter removes this impediment.

 

The L45s Option 1 still retains the --Red Button--, or so it seems (for

ergonomic reasons?). I do not see any mention of it in the camera

description. I think that no improvement of this device has been made in this

version( could have been removed).

 

This button is located in the most awkward position in the Polaroid 110 camera

body, just below the left hand thumb ( ouch ! )as one holds the camera. The

other hand, obviously, is reaching for the tip of the front standard to

activate the shutter release. I can only imagine the consequence of this,

more blurry photographs and failed compositions. The decisive moment has thus

been overwhelmed by twisting forces (?oooops!).

 

In the first camera, the bellows and front standard unfold automatically by

spring tension. No paws in there to put fingerprints on the lens surface.

 

The L45s Option 1 has had problems in that the front door of the camera needs

to be opened by hand, then pulling out the front standard and bellows. This

model has a stop click by where the standard is pulled in position. This

results in that the struts, if pulled with sufficient force, will distort the

shape of the front standard struts and misalign the film plane from a range of

2000 to .25 ( I hope that it is not kilometers, -- a measurement unit has not

been specified-- ???).

 

Why has this been found out only now, is a mystery to me. The 110 camera

model is 40 years old and has been used continuously, no complaints regarding

this that I know of. Was this a stratagem to increase the weight of the

camera?

 

The other camera with identical lens, weighs in at 1.5lbs. The L45s Option 1

has been declared to be at 2.5Kgms ( 5.5lbs, the lightest ? ). This weight

includes, I presume, the reinforced front struts so that they become less

flimsy and ineffective ( due to blurry photographs, and need a mule pack train

to carry the loads).

 

Wouldn?t anyone think that it is time for an independent evaluation of the new

L45s Option 1 and other 4x5 handheld cameras?

 

( I do not recommend the 75 foot cliff rappelling test. The camera that

weighs 5.5lbs will be the one to be jettisoned first, thus rapidly failing the

test.)

 

We, in the photographic community, never had the opportunity for an

evaluation, a comparison of all the handheld LF cameras available. In other

formats, and with other manufacturers, specifications are clear, show units of

measurement and describe accurately the nature of the product and evaluations

are a normal thing to do. Is this too much to be asked of a camera that is

overweight and overpriced? This will eliminate the associated driveling

gibberish, assign correct units to measurements and define words correctly.

 

Also, a new word of interest to all practitioners of the photographic arts has

been introduced for the first time: Graphy?.

 

I am just tempted to ask myself if you --either you have it or not--this

Graphy. If you do not, do not bother trying, get out of photography as fast as

you can.

 

The reason why L45s Option 1 has a --Red Button-- to be used as an placebo

emergency switch to be used when the photograph fails, located just right

under your left thumb. I just came to this conclusion.

 

 

In the $20 4x5 camera I installed a lens and shutter that I had from a Polaroid 110A.

 

If I remember correctly, I paid $10 or so with shipping for the Kodak 3A model C, this is the one with the nice Rapid Rectilinear, a lens that amply covers 4x5.

 

The problem was that the bellows disintegrated. I had Polaroid bellows lying around and I installed them with the lens.

 

I should have made "baggy" bellows out of a piece of leather and then mounted the Rapid Rectilinear, which is a superb lens.

 

The speed of the Kodak ball bearing shutter from the 3A model C is 1/30th all the time, regardless of the shutter speed dialed in the shutter. With apertures available from f/7.7 to f/45, the shutter speed becomes irrelevant. The Rapid Rectilinear is a fantastic performer at f/11 and below, stunning results. ND filters can come to save the day if very bright conditions.

 

So, yes, it is possible to build an LF camera from a Kodak 3A under $20. Use the cheapest wood picture frames for the film back and plastic from photographic paper for bellows if needed. It can be done.

 

I do not take my Speed Graflex out anymore, I like this one, gives me good results and is a good camera for 90% of my photography.

Ivan:

 

Yes, it can be done very cheaply and simply. Have you seen this?

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DOGq&tag=

 

Great starting camera.

Vinny:

 

Yes, you can do it, it is not rocket science. Just make sure that your model has good bellows, and the rest is just patience.

 

The lens installed here is a Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm. Any lens which has more or less that focal lenght will work in there.

 

If you can get your hands on an Ektar 127mm from a Speed Graphic, that will be the best. These, today when bought separately cost less than the Rodenstocks that come with a camera attached which becomes instant junk. Moreover, the Prontor SVS that come with the Rodenstocks, are not that reliable, unless you want to get them serviced, which adds to the total cost of the camera.

 

Yes, you can do it. A sharp coping saw is what you need to do clean work.

Frank R: Thanks, this one is an improvement on the previous prototype. It does the same thing, except that the side mounted shutter release made lots of blurry photos so the "red button" connection to the shutter improves things quite a bit. A piece of complicated machinery to activate that thing. Took me a while to figure it out. Smooth shutter release now.

Finally.

Addtional image.

Another view.