Large Format photography group - From "zero to hero!"

What camera is it for Carl?

There are a couple of Chinese manufacturers on eBay that would probably be fine and much less spendy.
 
It's for my Arca Swiss Basic B (I think it's a B as it only has base tilt not axis tilt). I had a quick look for bellows on ebay but couldn't find much apart from old holey ones! I'll have another look today and see if I can find them :) ta!
 
Mine are pretty much as bad. Luckily I got a set of bag bellows with my camera combined with its short rail its all I need.

How long is the rail on your B? Can it focus more than a 210mm?

I've bought stuff from these guys before. Not sure how much more expensive the UK supplier is but not sure how much worse these can really be.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Professio...a-Swiss-4x5-Large-Format-Camera-/271477538626
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
Mine are pretty much as bad. Luckily I got a set of bag bellows with my camera combined with its short rail its all I need.

How long is the rail on your B? Can it focus more than a 210mm?

I've bought stuff from these guys before. Not sure how much more expensive the UK supplier is but not sure how much worse these can really be.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Professio...a-Swiss-4x5-Large-Format-Camera-/271477538626
Click to expand...

Cheers Steve :)

The rail is pretty long but I've only used a 150mm on it as it's my only lens, and I only really use it focusing on landscapes etc so the bellows aren't ever opened up too much.

I've just been looking at LF gear online and now I have a severe case of LF GAS. Those field cameras are so sexy. Good job I have no money :LOL:
 
If you don't need the reach, bag bellows should be pretty easy to make. Mine are just two sheets of thick but very supple leather glued together, they'll do upto 210mm.
 
Mine are the official ones so no manufacturing on my part but I'm sure they're are pictures on the web.

They're very simple bits of kit.

From memory it's two 250mm sheets of leather with the holes cut out and bound to the frames to fit the standards. They're then stuck together round the outside. Compressed they're basically flat extended they make a nice leather box.

This is how they look with a 90mm close focused.
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/49248828@N06/24233088686/in/set-72157659640983579/
 
Last edited:
With bag bellows, do you find that you need something like a thin metal frame in the centre to keep them from interfering with the image projected by the lens? Or do you just prod them by hand?
 
They look like a really good solution I think, and definitely much cheaper than buying new bellows. Think I'm going to need to get a bigger bag to put it all in now though as it's a pretty tight squeeze as it is with regular bellows, let alone bag bellows haha
 
Woodsy said:
With bag bellows, do you find that you need something like a thin metal frame in the centre to keep them from interfering with the image projected by the lens? Or do you just prod them by hand?
Click to expand...

Mine don't have anything, I think the way the seam is folded and the thickness of the leather keeps the rigidity but they sometimes needs to plucked to pull them out of light path.
 
How much of an effect do you guys think that these "cleaning marks" would have on an image? It's a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon which is a lot cheaper than usual because of the marks. Usually I'm not too bothered by a couple of marks but there does look like there are a lot of them on this!

thumbnail_N. Rhodesia 002.jpg
 
Probably negligable Carl.....if it's à stonking deal then take à punt!
 
Jeez, what did they use, a brillo pad?

In reality, I doubt it'd make a huge difference. I recall there was a test where someone hammered the front element of a lens and noticed only a drop in contrast, or something like that. As such, I suspect that these marks might not have much effect. The only exception would be when shooting into strong light; you're likely to see increased flare as a result of these marks.

How cheap is cheap, btw?

Also, If it's too good a deal to pass up, the good thing about LF lenses is that in time, you can keep an eye on the second hand market and look for people who are selling the front and rear lens groups separately. Just replace the front group as and when you can get it.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for that, I didn't think it was likely to make a huge amount of difference, but I didn't want it to be another one of those times when I buy something cheap because I'm excited, and then get left with a lemon (that seems to happen a lot!)

It's for sale for £85 but I don't know what the postage cost is yet. Sold prices on ebay seem to vary widely so I'm not 100% sure what the usual sort of price is, but there aren't too many below £120-ish in usable condition.

I really want a wider lens than the 150mm that I have at the moment, but I don't have a lot of spare cash to spend, and these lenses seem to be well regarded on other forums (Ken Rockwell also says it's good, but then it's Mr Rockwell, so...) Not sure how I'll get on with an f/8 lens, but we shall see :D If I get it and it's pants then I can just return it and lose the postage cost, so I think I'll give it a go!
 
F/8 lenses are fine until the light starts to fade. Even then, if you use a loupe and a dark cloth, you'd be surprised at how well you can focus on even the faintest detail. On the 'bright' side, F/8 lenses tend to weigh less :)
 
Woodsy said:
With bag bellows, do you find that you need something like a thin metal frame in the centre to keep them from interfering with the image projected by the lens? Or do you just prod them by hand?
Click to expand...

The latter, you prod and pull em by hand....the bellows that is!:naughty::D

Tbh i find that the bag bellows stay on the camera more than the standard ones......typically because i can't be bothered changing them, providing of course that they will stretch long enough to allow focusing with a longer focal length lens.

Never had a problem with them tbh, ...with a WA lens the two standards are very close together for infinity focus so there is lots of bellows material to keep out of the way , however typically, simply by design, the material spreads outwards as the standards move closer together, if not it takes nothing to pull them away from the frame.

Perhaps if using extreme movements, there could be an issue but that would be the case with any bellows i think.
 
Last edited:
I must admit I hardly use my 90mm, it's handy to have but on the duff focus screen in my arca it's just too dark. I think I've gotten used to slightly longer fl and find the 90mm a bit wide, ymmv. I have a similar problem with the 50mm on RB and rarely go wider than 65mm.
 
robhooley167 said:
There's a reason people stopped using glass! Just because it has been brought back, doesn't mean it should be...
Click to expand...

Heavy and breakable; on the other hand, astrophotographers preferred plates to cut film because of the dimensional stability. Perfect flatness is a help when using lenses with a small depth of focus as well.
 
I'm in agreement with the Hooley, I personally think that the cons far outweigh the pro (singular, which Stephen mentioned above) for modern use.
 
While i like the idea and think it would be great for one off's i'm not overly convinced by what they're saying. Firstly splitting the holders and plates projects into two kickstarters seems a little odd and their claims that modern glass doesn't meet the "lab grade" quality has to be utter BS. I'm sure they didn't care that much back in the 1800's when these were the norm and modern glass would eclipse anything they used back then. R&D costs, really? just google it and information is all over the place on what you do to ready a plate for use.

So while i admire the idea i'm not convinced by the people behind it.
 
AshleyC said:
While i like the idea and think it would be great for one off's i'm not overly convinced by what they're saying. Firstly splitting the holders and plates projects into two kickstarters seems a little odd and their claims that modern glass doesn't meet the "lab grade" quality has to be utter BS. I'm sure they didn't care that much back in the 1800's when these were the norm and modern glass would eclipse anything they used back then. R&D costs, really? just google it and information is all over the place on what you do to ready a plate for use.

So while i admire the idea i'm not convinced by the people behind it.
Click to expand...

This ^^^

I also quite like the idea and the example shots do look very nice indeed, but it does seem to be a bit of a... well, not scam exactly, but maybe slightly ambitious.
 
i think theyre aiming at the hipster market rather than people who've actually used LF gear before. Good luck to them, the costs dont look that bad tbh, $85 contribution for 10 plates seems reasonable when compared against a box of slide film! but i just dont like the way theyre presenting it.
 
AshleyC said:
their claims that modern glass doesn't meet the "lab grade" quality has to be utter BS. I'm sure they didn't care that much back in the 1800's when these were the norm and modern glass would eclipse anything they used back then.
Click to expand...

Just playing devil's advocate here; surely the point would be that compared to the 19th century we are now using small formats and normally enlarge. A box camera from the 1960s can produce perfect contact prints used with a plastic meniscus lens, so I assume that contact prints from imperfectly flat plates with optically inferior lenses would look perfect. Whether the same would be true when enlarged is another matter. Similarly, those who pay out for top quality lenses might wish to record the image on a medium capable of making the best use of those lenses.

It's only fairly recently that plates went out of manufacture - I can't recall exactly when, but certainly plates were available from one of the "minor" film makers until sometime this century, as I recall being surprised that they were still being made. Hence, there will be people around who used them and may have expectations of quality.

Note: I won't be backing the project as cut film works for me.
 
Just browsing the auction site and came across a seller called Camley Photographic, who also have a proper website. https://www.camleyphotographic.com/ They seem to specialise in LF and MF as well as other film gear, but a forum search got no results. They are based in Hove and I seem to recall one of the longstanding secondhand dealers being there as well, but the old brain hasn't quite figured it out yet. Anyone know or use them?
 
I don't recall hearing of them before. I looked up the address and find that it's a residential street not very far from where I live. As far as I can recall, the only secondhand photographic dealer in Hove was Stephen Sharpe (sp) who used to be in Holland Road. This could be an interesting find. But I can't justify another 5x4...
 
I've heard of them....in fact sometime ago i was interested in some of their gear and upon contacting them, found them to be very helpfull and quite knowledgable of LF equipment. As it was i found an alternative source à little cheaper but i've always kept their website link and occasionally take à look when i get à GAS attack:D

Another seller who knows his stuff and is very helpfull is Cliff.....pseudo. cliffpr

Hé don't come cheap mindst!
 
Last edited:
Just got round to loading some rpx 400 that I bought last year. A little disconcerting that it seems to be roll film cut to size rather than on thick sheets, I'm not sure what effect this may have except that I nearly loaded two sheets in each side of the holder.
 
anyone replaced their ground glass? I'm not overly happy with the glass on my wista, to see a decent image on it you have to be staring directly down the middle, any movement from that just darkens the image too much to be useful, so i thought its time to shell out on a new one but theyre a bit pricey. Can someone recommend a supplier of a glass that will be a real difference to viewing.
 
Last edited:
I had a couple of custom ground glass made for my Polaroid 110 by a guy in Lithuania via Ebay called Virgisst;

http://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/virgisst?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2754

They were excellent quality and made/delivered within 3 days to exact custom sizes. Their brightness was pretty good but to make them brighter I added a plastic fresnel screen on top of them and it made a massive difference.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/201450820438?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

23264039793_28d51c4e41_z.jpg


Cheers
Steve
 
I've just come across this 3D printed 4x5 field camera which looks quite interesting;


http://www.megatoniproduction.com/Toni45/e_Toni45mk3d_Main.html

I don't know anything about it other than what's on the site but the gallery images look good and the animated movements show a lot of range. The weight of the camera (minus lens/holder I assume) is only 1.1Kg which is also pretty good. Not bad for around £245 plus lens/holders.
 
Last edited:
thats pretty damn good and looks the business. Although it says holder and lens aren't included.

Oh i also got the ground glass from the guy in your link, a lot better than the default wista glass! Well worth buying from if anyone else needs a replacement.
 
Can somebody please tell me I'm mad before I spend more time drawing this up...

So, I've drawn up other ideas before for 6x9 and 4x5 field cameras with the usual Rise/Fall, Tilt and Swing movements on the front standard. Most cameras use knurled threaded nuts to lock/release each movement and then allow manual release, adjustment then lock again. Having come across some small but relatively strong stepper motors and controllers I've been thinking about motorising all 3 movements so they can be controlled by rotating knobs to a very fine degree of accuracy and also have a return to '0' function so they reset back to a 'flat' field if required. The idea being that the controls could be mounted in a remote which is connected to the main camera body and all adjustments can be made without actually touching the front standard at all while looking at the ground glass at the same time.

I realise it's a more complicated build than traditional threaded rods but I'm wondering if it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (wouldn't be the first time!)?

I've just started drawing up the front standard and have only got tilt/swing in place so far. The rise/fall would probably be done using a threaded rod which would lift/drop the whole standard but I'll have to draw that tomorrow!

IMG_1473807938.253831.jpg

IMG_1473807946.419957.jpg

I'd appreciate thoughts from anyone that uses a field camera, particularly how you find the smoothness/accuracy of manual adjustments.

Cheers
 
Mm, it's s clever idea Steve. I will say that at times it can be tricky to move the front standard whilst looking through the vf, its quite a long way away if you have the bed extended. It might not be a massive issue but if we haven't innovated then we'd still be living in caves. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top