luis_rives

"Waiting list of a few months"? I sent three lenses to a very trusted Leica tech in the U.S. about four years ago and it took almost a year and a half to get them back. This is the reason for my inquiry. I want to see if there are faster alternatives.

I did a search in this site for this Leica repair outfit in the UK but nothing came up. I was wondering if anyone has had experience with them and Leica repairs and CLA. Thank you.

Did a search here but nothing came up. Was not able to find this info on the web. I am looking for the image circle of the above lenses. I would like to confirm if they cover 5x7. Thanks.

Thirteen, I finally had a chance to try your suggestion and it worked perfectly. Thanks so much.

Anyone have any ideas on how to remove a bellows from a large format camera without tearing it? The goal is to remove the bellows carefully, refinish the camera, then reinstall the bellows. The camera in question is a B&J 5x7 factory finished in the hideous battleship gray color. The bellows is in excellent condition and would be a shame to destroy it because it cannot be removed from the camera . I have done a similar process to a B&J 8x10 but in this case the bellows was in very poor condition. Once the paint is removed the beautiful maple wood beneath will make for a handsome timeless camera.Thanks to all.

I can understand someone spending 4.2K on a new Canham 8x10 or 3K on a new Ritter 8x10, but not those same prices on used cameras when the new ones are technologically improved in several important areas. Several months ago I saw in one of the two major NY photo retailers, a used 11x14 Canham in mint condition for 4.5K, essentially the same price as a new 8x10. I was tempted to clean out my resources to buy it but 11x14 is just too large of a large format for me to handle either in the field or processing the negs.

I have a Leica M3 from my days when I used to do 35mm. From experience I know that Leica is no hype. Have never owned Hasselblad or Rollei but have also heard and read about their fine technical qualities. Large format is different. The camera is really a dumb box. As long as it is sufficiently rigid and provides a rich menu of movements it could be almost anything. Your response confirms my suspicions: hype.

So what is so special about the Deardorf 8x10? Its not a particularly light camera, there is no bail back, its not the longest extending 8x10. Yet the prices on the big auction side can start at 3K and go up from there, and this is for a used camera not in premium condition. As I see it, this is all hype. If I was going to spend that type of money on an 8x10 there are better choices at the same prices, such as the Ritter and the Canham, and these are new. Can someone enlighten me on this?

Here is a very useful hint: The Patterson hose that connects to the sink fits the funnel opening of the Jobo tank. The tank will fill with water and flow out of the slot at the top of the funnel. So that makes unattended washing a snap. I just connect it and let the water flow for 30 minutes. One can also make a hose like contraption with some high quality rubber hose and the end of the hose can be manually trimmed to fit the opening of the funnel.

You may use a single reel in a two reel tank. I use the following chem quantities: one reel tank 300ml, two reel tank 500ml. Don't go below those quantities or you risk uneven development. I know because I tried it. Those numbers make calculating the proportions of chem easier. The cog lid can be removed without damaging the top because I have done it. I previously used the MOD 54 but switched to Jobo because the MOD requires 1000ml of liquid to develop 6-4x5. This got to be expensive with the chems so I switched to Jobo and now develop 6-4x5 with 300ml of liquid. The two reel tank works perfect on the Unicolor base which is what I use. I also- use the two reel tank to develop 3-5x7 and 3-8x10 in separate sessions. Works perfectly.

The single reel Jobo tank which I believe is the 2509n is too small for any electric roller base. That is why I had to build my own roller base using casters. Using my hands to supply the rotational motion I have never experienced streaking with this setup. Someone industrious could rig an electric motor to a homemade roller base for use with the single reel tank.

I use the 2509n tank with the newer version of the 4x5 reel that will accept 6 sheets. Both purchased from a dealer in the big auction site that should be easy to find if you look for it. Both not cheap but with care these are items that will last a lifetime (I have a Patterson tank that is almost 40 years old in perfect condition). This setup uses 300ml of chemistry (this number makes it easy to calculate proportions of chems required). I made my own rotary base with some plywood and casters and my hands supply the constant rotary motion. I only rotate the tank in one direction. I get perfectly developed negs everytime. I also have the 8x10 rig from this dealer that I hope to use in the near future when I start doing 8x10. I also bought a second 8x10 reel that I modified to use 5x7 and hope to use that as soon as the weather warms in upstate NY.

It looks very nice. Thanks for your info. A review would not be bad because I have not found reviews of these cameras anywhere. Perhaps people think they are not worth the time reviewing because they are so inexpensive (relatively speaking). I have seen the prices in the VDS site, and they are very affordable (again relatively speaking). The site does indicate that the lead time is about 3 months so that is no surprise. The way to order these is over the winter when its too cold to go out making photos (as I look out the window snow is falling here in upstate NY). Or if one does not want to wait there is a dealer in the big auction site though he charges about 700 for the privilege of having the camera in stock. I use a Canham 4x5 that takes 110mm lensboards so it would be a matter of seeing if VDS could modify their front standard to accept those boards. I am certainly impressed especially since their weight makes them totally backpackable.

Les, I would be very interested in hearing about your experiences with the VDS 5x7. Its clear from the photos of it I have seen that it is not very refined. However it does not have the price of the Arca, Sinar, Ebony, et al. I completely agree with you about photography being more about the photographer, so long as the equipment does not impose severe limitations. I recently picked up a Burke & James 5x7 in beautiful condition for a great price. Weighs about 8 lbs but it is still backpackable. Can't wait until the weather turns warmer here in the Northeast. Still have my eye on an 8x10, and still thinking about the VDS, that's why I wanted to hear from you about the 5x7.

<p>Richard,<br> I had forgotten about Intrepid. I was already on their mailing list. I will certainly buy one. They will have limitations but its the least expensive entry into 8x10. I use mostly 4x5 so the Intrepid will be a good introduction to the larger film size. I have four lenses I use in 4x5 that can cover 8x10 so no need to spend money on glass. Given the cost of 8x10 sheet film I don't assume I will be using it all the time. Hopefully I will get lucky and find a used 8x10 Canham. Have never seen a used 8x10 Ritter for sale.</p>

<p>I doubt they are under 10lbs.</p>

<p>If anyone owns a VDS 8x10 I would like to hear their experiences with this camera. I am looking for a lightweight 8x10 under 10lbs and as inexpensive as possible. So far I have only found the Canhams 8x10 ($4.2K to 3.5K) and Ritter 8x10 ($3K). I have a Canham 4x5 that I use and like very much but his 8x10s are beyond my reach and they rarely come up on the used market.</p>

<p>Since my 4x5 is a Canham DLC45 (bought used on trade-in for 500), I am well aware how beautiful and practical the Canham large format cameras are. However, I have never seen a used Canham 8x10 for less than 4.5K so this is something that would be within my reach in my independently wealthy next life.</p>

<p>I have the Davis & Sanford tripod with the spring center column and the large mounting platform, which tips the scale at a hefty 11 lbs. I was hoping to find a modern CF tripod that could support the Monster for half the weight of the Sanford, but I think that is not going to happen. The other alternative is a lighter 8x10 camera but the only sub 10 lbs cameras of this format that I know of are the VDS at 2.3K and the Ritter at 3K which are expensive enough to give one a dose of sticker shock. I just find it hard to believe that there is no lightweight modern tripod/head combination that can support the Monster.</p>

<p>I recent acquired a Calumet C-1 "Green Monster" 8x10 in very good condition and I am looking for a carbon fiber tripod/head combination. I have weighed the camera and it scales in at 16 lbs. As for the legs, there are a variety of manufacturers claiming that their legs can support up to 55 lbs. which I figure is adequate for this camera. As for the head, based on my experience in using a ball head on my 4x5 setup, I would also like to use that type of head with the 8x10. Again, I have seen several ball heads claiming to hold up to 55 lbs, including the highly regarded RRS BH-55. I was wondering what other photographers can advise concering this type of tripod/head with the Green Monster. Obviously, I am trying to reduce the weight of the tripod as much as possible yet be able to support that type of camera. Thanks.</p>

<p>Bill,<br> I took a look at OA and I am not clear on its use. There is the 3-chem stock solution that gets added (as I understand it) to a working solution of 6.66g carbonate/liter solution at a 1:500 ratio. Does the carbonate solution have to be mixed every time one is going to develop film? Please clarify this for me. Thanks.</p>

<p>Update: It has been brought to my attention not to use a metal mixing utensil as this can react with the ascorbic acid in the 510. Preferred stirrer is pyrex glass or plastic typically used with photo chems.</p>

<p>"The only REALLY hard part of mixing 510-Pyro this way is getting every last ml out of the pyrex bowl ! It's like syrup on the pancakes."<br> I transferred the mixed dev into a plastic storage bottle and the trick is to make the transfer while the mix is still slightly hot and thus thin, but not hot enough to soften the plastic. I did not want to use the microwave because I wanted to keep the chems away from anything having to do with food prep. I found it very easy, just get the water to boil then dunk the pyrex cup, when the temp of the water drops just boil again and repeat.</p>

<p>Those of us that have use this developer are familiar with the fact that the most difficult part of the process of mixing the developer is getting the chemicals to completely mix into the TEA liquid. Here is my procedure which simplified the process:<br> All the chems in their proportion to 400ml of TEA put into a 1 liter pyrex cup with the TEA. Using an aluminum cooking pot brought water to a boil. The pot has to be sized and the water level so that when the pyrex cup is in the pot the level that is left over after the water is displaced matches the level of the TEA in the pyrex cup. Remove pot from heat, pyrex cup in pot and stir with a long handle stainless steel small spoon that is also used to break up the solids by pressing against the side of the pyrex cup. Remove pyrex cup from pot, add some water to pot to make up for displaced and boiled off water, and bring to boil again. Repeat the entire procedure until all solids are dissolved in the TEA. Should take about three to four cycles of heating and dunking the pyrex cup in the water before the solids are completely dissolved.<br> Happy Mixing!</p>

<p>Drew,<br> Would love to join the group, however, there is a small problem. I live in New York state and not independently wealthy to fly in every Saturday morning.</p>