[pure-silver] Re: Wollensack Vitax lens? Which way is up-)
- From: Nick Zentena <zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:31:22 -0400
On Friday 18 May 2007 14:20, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Zentena" <zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:50 AM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Wollensack Vitax lens? Which way
> is up-)
>
> I checked the Cameraeccentric site. There is a single
> Kodak catalogue covering professional equipment, dated 1927.
> It does not list the No.7 camera but does show the No.4a, an
> 8x10 stand camera which _does_ have a short bellows: 22
> inches, so your camera may be complete. None of the cameras
> shown has a hinged back. I think these were typical of much
> earlier cameras.
This page discusses the 10a which seems to have replaced the 7a and the
9a.
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/eastman/eastman10.html
Sounds like the 10a could do both short and long lenses. I wonder if
the 7a
was the wider camera and the 9a handled the long end?
The 4a seems to have sold with a different stand. Now over the years
the
stand could have been misplaced. The tracks on my camera also seem a touch
longer then I can extend it. While it doesn't look like it somebody could
have shortened the bellows.
The movements are fairly stiff do you think wax on the metal would be a bad
idea?
Nick
=============================================================================================================
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:
