Some thoughts on the design of a lightweight 4x5

[Neil Barnes]

Being naturally inquisitive, and not having built a camera for years, I'm doodling a design for a 4x5 field camera. The main use of this would be for landscape work, where, with all the will in the world, dragging several kilos of camera and tripod across mountain and moorland is starting to be something of a pain...

My design criteria probably don't match other's - but I'd be pleased to hear comments, advice, whatever...

1) light weight. I don't have a target weight, but as light as I can get it and still keep it rigid. I'd love for it to be under about 500 grams without a lens. Whether this is possible or not I don't yet know.
2) traditional looks and materials. Which means a timber body and slide-plate - probably cherrywood or black walnut - both of which are easily available, reasonably low density, dimensionally stable, don't release nasty oils or saps, and look good. However I'm not wedded to tradition; I'm perfectly happy to use carbon fibre - flat or circular bar CF is reasonably inexpensive, stable, and with a low coefficient of friction - or plastic rack/pinion focussing rails.
3) it's got to fold. No ifs, no buts. Size is important as well as weight.
4) it should be capable of construction by anyone who can put a balsa glider together - no special tools should be required. Where there are parts which need to be shaped, they should be supplied shaped; there are plenty of people out there who can provide dimensionally accurate CF and also accurate wood cutting. I have nothing against lasers. I don't want to have to buy a milling machine...
5) as a landscape photographer, I rarely if ever need movements other than vertically. I'm prepared to accept the limitation of no twist or slide.
6) I normally use a 135mm lens; this would be the default lens. It should focus to 90mm and also accept at least 240mm on the extension.
7) the front standard should tilt back up to 15 degrees and forward flat for folding; an index at 90 degrees is an obvious need. A vertical shift of approximately 40-50mm upwards is proposed; no downwards shift.
the rear standard should tilt back to match the front and also fold flat forward. This makes the packaging interesting, but compact. Note that tilting the two standards back and raising the front is equivalent to dropping the slide.
9) the back should be able to accept a standard dark slide (say Fidelity, since that's what I have!) in either orientation. It may require e.g. a thumbscrew change to alter this.
10) this should be attainable for under five hundred quid; hopefully a lot less. I'm a poor man, and currently unemployed...

Any thoughts?

Neil

p.s. Cameleon appears to have stalled; Bulldog is available but doesn't fold; Bender appears to have fallen by the wayside...

[jennym]

Why don't you look at buying a used Chamonix? Very capable, around 1kg in weight, folds, and you should be able to pick one up within your budget.

Just a thought.

Jenny

[gari]

Your never gonna get a 500gm camera that will be stable enough to shoot, especially with a 135 lens. If it folds it will need some metal work for the hinging etc so it's gonna be more than 500gms, 1kg at least I would guess.
Not going to ask why it should fold, but a bulldog will be as compact as a folded camera so I am guessing it not about smaller/more compact.
Non folder would be lighter, easier to build and require less machining or parts sourcing, but as that's not an option I guess it's a moot point.

Like Jenny says, I would look for a used Chamonix, Tachihara or Wista etc. Should be under the £500 ceiling, especially a Tachihara.

Good luck with the project
Gari

[dave_whatever]

If you do suceed in making one Neil then put me down for one because it'd pretty much be the perfect camera!

I think a lot could be done to go lower than the weight of a chamonix or an rsw (about 1.4kg?). If you look at a chamonix yes they've laminated the baseboard with carbon fibre, but the majority of the camera is still wood and aluminium. Going 100% CF is an obvious start. Maybe another would be to replace all aluminium parts with titanium or even some more CF or polycarbonate. The ground glass could also be polycarbonate. None of this would give you a camera that'll still be going strong 60 years later like a linhof or mpp but it would do the job.

The choice between folding and non-folding is a tricky one. Yes a folder will be superficially more compact, but then you've got to factor in if you need to store lenses seperately. I feel my non-folding shen hao isn't supercompact, but i can leave any lens + lee holder on it ready to shoot, and the darkcloth wrapped around the front all fits within the rectangular footprint it occupies in my bag, wheras with a folder I'd probably have to find room for all that stuff seperately.

Like gari says, a non folder can be lighter and more rigid, and easier to build. And a lot faster to set up.

[timparkin]

If you do suceed in making one Neil then put me down for one because it'd pretty much be the perfect camera!

I think a lot could be done to go lower than the weight of a chamonix or an rsw (about 1.4kg?). If you look at a chamonix yes they've laminated the baseboard with carbon fibre, but the majority of the camera is still wood and aluminium. Going 100% CF is an obvious start. Maybe another would be to replace all aluminium parts with titanium or even some more CF or polycarbonate. The ground glass could also be polycarbonate. None of this would give you a camera that'll still be going strong 60 years later like a linhof or mpp but it would do the job.

The choice between folding and non-folding is a tricky one. Yes a folder will be superficially more compact, but then you've got to factor in if you need to store lenses seperately. I feel my non-folding shen hao isn't supercompact, but i can leave any lens + lee holder on it ready to shoot, and the darkcloth wrapped around the front all fits within the rectangular footprint it occupies in my bag, wheras with a folder I'd probably have to find room for all that stuff seperately.

Like gari says, a non folder can be lighter and more rigid, and easier to build. And a lot faster to set up.

Agreed about non-folders.. I've looked at this before and there is little 'space' benefit from having a folder..

Tim

p.s. I'm now having thoughts of hacking a Chamonix to bits..

[dave_whatever]

Though you probably could reep the size benefits of a folder if you put together a lens lineup like a 100mm WF Ektar, 150mm g-claron and a 200mm nikon or 203mm Ektar. This would be a very light setup all round.......but you would have a slower setup time.

[Neil Barnes]

As I said - I suspect my motivations will be different from others...

When I had a problem with the ECU on my car, instead of buying the (expensive!) commercial tool to interrogate it, I sniffed around until I was able to write some software that would do the job... nothing against other people's solutions but I want this to be mine, or my failure. So while a s/h camera may well be within the budget, it's not *my* solution.

I'd like it to fold as much as anything to protect the more fragile bits inside. My MPP press does a good job of this, so it seems a reasonably design idea. The bulldog certainly has more front movements than mine would have but the materials seem a little, um, agricultural? This is not meant as a criticism, merely an aesthetic viewpoint - if they do the job then they're a *good* material choice. The folding though comes as a 'free' benefit of tilting front and back standards, and a non-folder should be more rigid for the same weight or lighter for the same rigidity.

I shall do more thinking, and perhaps have a conversation with my CF man this week...

Thanks for your input - keep it coming!

Neil

[IanG]

There's a very good book I think 1902 on building cameras, I've a PDF of it somewhere I should be able to find & send you.

Look at British field cameras of the 1890's to 1920's they are light weight, sturdy, enough movements. I've just restored a Houghtons Duchess half plate camera and the book explains how to make something similar. This camera despite being a larger format is much lighter than a Wista, Chamonix, Shen Hao etc and still practical. So a 5x4 version would be better still. I made a conversion plate to use 5x4 for the Half plate camera, but I could easily make a modern style 5x4 back for it either from scratch or by just screwing a Graflex (Speed or Crown) back to the right sized board.

I've found the PDF of the book Photographic Cameras and Accessories, How to make Cameras, Darkslides, Shutters and Stands, Paul N. Hasluck. Cassel & Co 1902

Ian

[Robert J Fallis]

I'm seventy odd years old., and have this problem of camera pounds, this is my solution to the problem, and it will fit on a light tripod. it has no movements, and focus is by the front element of the lens a 10.5 cm Kodak, this on the 5x4 format gives a wide angle view. in order to check the focus the ground glass is fitted in a modified film holder. For close up work I intend to use old fashioned close up lens. but have not bought these yet..I did use the body as a point and shoot, and a pinhole..I have not yet fully tested the camera as I like to use paper negatives, and I haven't got a darkroom working as yet, to cut them



Bob

[Neil Barnes]

Ah, yes, the venerable Mr Hasluck. I have his 'Encyclopedia of Photography' and was offered two hundred quid for it when I had it on display at IBC last September (I was invited to present a stand on Victorian 3-d technology)...

Robert, I like the application of sticky tape - but if it works, go with it.

Neil

[Robert J Fallis]

Neil,
the aluminum duct tape is the only tape I know that will make a join light proof. so I use it to cover up a lot of sins

bob

[Neil Barnes]

A very useful tape, Bob - I may have to paint it matt black; I want to use it inside a carbon-glass-carbon (CSC) laminate lens plate for the same reason. (The CSC is light and stiff but not light-tight, which is a shame.

I'm currently redesigning something very similar to the Bulldog, but with CF/CSC parts. I need to confirm with my supplier that they can provide suitable channel, and a good way to make a rigid corner join.

Neil

[Joanna Carter]

Neil, just a thought; with such a light camera body, what's going to happen to the balance of the whole thing when you put a decent lens on the front?

[Neil Barnes]

It's part of my concern, Joanna. But I would assume that someone who is favouring a design like this isn't going to stick half a ton of glass in a number three shutter, if only for reasons of economy.

My immediate thought is that a budget lens - probably a s/h 'auction site' purchase such as a 105 or a 135 from a 'vintage' camera - might be the more likely first choice. A 300 prime is probably not the ideal lens for this camera.

The issue with any heavy lens is that it isn't balanced at the lens board, but somewhere in front of it. That presents a torque load to the tilt mechanism which may be difficult to manage without excessive complication - or a lot of friction and associated likely wear. With a simple slot-n-thumbscrew handling both tilt and shift there is going to be a practical limit on the mass of the lens, but I think it will be a practical matter to determine what that is. Keeping the front support both rigid and vertical is another issue, but perhaps one more easily managed.

Neil

[IanG]

Go for a budget post WWII 150mm Xenar (or coated Tessar). I paid £100 for a mint f5.6 Xenar early 2000's (year) serial number 18 months ago, so last production run. 135mm Tessar designs barely cover 5x4 and there's little room for movements, edges & corners are soft except af f22, the 150mm Tessar types are slightly better.

Your design constrain is size/weight and bellows draw so you need to decide what's the maximum extension you'll require as that affects the camera's focus bed length.

I have a WA Speed Graphic special and it's maximum FL lens is a 210mm with enough bellows extension for portrait use, this is a fixed bed camera, close I'd guess to a Bulldog.

Ian