[pure-silver] Re: Large camera plans
- From: "Mark Blackwell" <mblackwell1958@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:49:46 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Brown" <cliffordbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Large camera plans
Have you seen this site. There are others, but this might give you ideas.
http://www.cyberbeach.net/~dbardell/6x9field.html
Clifford,
Somerset. U.K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Large camera plans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <mblackwell1958@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:02 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Large camera plans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Zentena" <zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Large camera plans
On Saturday 02 December 2006 01:32, Richard Knoppow wrote:
Have you considered a Mamiya RB or RZ 67? These cameras
have excellent lenses and the 6x7 negative is large enough
to produce excellent tone rendition and sharpness on any
ordinary size print (meaning up to around 16x20). I don't
Only issue is weight. My RZ67 must out weight many light weight 4x5s.
I borrowed a friends RB 67 and it was heavy than my 4x5. It was quicker
to use, but really much heavier than my BJ Orbit 4x5. Its a good camera
but travel isn't its strong suit. Color to get 4x5 processed (I think
the last few sheets I did was about $10 for processing an a contact
print) is high enough that I am not likely to go play.
The BJ Press Camera I didn't think about, but I don't understand what
you mean Nick about the spring back. Does it accept regular 4x5 film
holders??
I didn't realize the Mamiya was _that_ heavy. The spring back is the
more or less standard back for view and press cameras. Its the kind where
the ground glass panel is mounted using springs and the holder is slipped
between it and the camera body. About 1951 Graflex began to offer what it
called a Graflok back for its cameras. This has a spring loaded ground
glass panel which acts like the regular spring back but is removable as a
unit. Its held in place by a couple of sliding metal strips, similar to
the way the lens board is mounted in many cameras. When removed various
accessories, like roll film backs, can be put in its place. The same back
was offered by other manufacturers as an "International" or "Universal"
back. Whether having this on a camera or not makes any difference depends
on whether you contemplate using accessory backs.
BTW, Graflex also offered a third style of back, mostly on Graflex SLR
cameras. This was called the Graflex back and was similar to the Graflok
in that both holders and the auxilliary ground glass panel were held in
by sliding metal strips. There are differences between the Graflex and
Graflok so that stuff which fits one will not work in the other.
Burke & James sold much equimpment under their own name. Most of it was
lower priced but good quality. The B&J press camera was offered to those
who wanted a press camera but at a considerably lower price than the
Speed Graphic. Like the Crown Graphic it did not have a focal plane
shutter. B&J cameras take the same lens boards and holders as the
pre-1947 "Anniversary" Speed Graphic. They are good quality cameras. B&J
also sold flat bed view cameras under their own name and monorail cameras
under the Grover name. The late B&J view is very flexible but has a
reputation for being floppy. It can be tightened up by some simple
mechanical adjustments. B&J view cameras were quite popular in their
time. The Orbit camera, if its the one I am thinking of, began as a Kodak
product called the Kodak 4x5 Master View camera. At some point the design
was sold to Calumet, who sold it as the model CC-400. Calumet made three
versions with different length bellows and rails. The same camera, or at
a very similar one was built by B&J as the orbit. B&J actually made a 5x7
version, I only ever seen one. These are good, servicable cameras which
will do most view camera jobs but, like all monorail types, are not ideal
for field use. I have a CC-400 among my collection.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Richard I think you are right about the Orbit. It does everything I want
with a 4x5 except for being portable. Mine has about a 25 inch rail on it.
Seems to do the job I need. All in all I guess I came out ok with it. It
came with a 210mm Ilex Acutar that had a 81/2 inch coverage and F 6.3 I
think to F 45 I believe. IIRC its on a Copal No 1 shutter. Suspect the
shutter is slow especially at the upper an lower ends of the scale but again
it hasn't caused me a problem.
Lighter, durable and flexiblity all would be keys. I knew about the BJ
press cameras but I hadn't thought about one for way to deal with the
lighter stuff.
Thanks to all for all the website locations. Each has been helpful for many
reasons. The main one is that I know for certain that building ones own
camera has been done successfully. Might do both buy a press camera and
build my own.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
