A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Leaf Shutter questions for project camera



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 11th 04, 02:41 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


some good points again; try to avoid larger shutters, as they get both
thicker, heavier, and much harder to find cheaply ;-(

you might look into reverse -T mount adapters for nikon and others, this
would make your setup universal, not just for Nikon, but canon and other
oddball lenses (their tilt/shift comes instantly to mind..). the reverse T
takes the nikon lens and ends in a T-mount thread, such that it can go
onto T-mount bellows. That solves your nikon extension tube to X problem,
but universally, for all 35mm kits where reverse T is available. Now you
just need a ring threaded to take the T-mount to go to your shutter
mounting threads.

One non-trivial point here is the T-mount lenses are 54mm (as are my
topcor UV) lens registration, IIRC. Not only would the short and longer
telephotos also likely work to MF coverage, but you might get pretty good
coverage from wider angle older Tmounts with excess coverage (lots cheaper
than other shift lenses), yes, not as much as the shift lenses, but
perhaps enough to cover 645 or ?? Ditto, the fisheyes might work?

just a thought - ;-)

bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #42  
Old September 11th 04, 12:34 PM
Dan Fromm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
Good afternoon,

Dan Fromm wrote:

huge snip


Good luck,

Dan


Thanks Dan for all the great information.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!


Gordon, thanks for the reply. I just reread this thread. As usual,
everyone here, including me, is somewhat pushing what he knows best.
I suspect that you are too.

So I've re-examined my prejudices and asked myself what I'm missing.
I'm not sure I've missed much that's important, but of course I could
be mistaken. As usual, too.

If you and especially BobM will go to
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic/499521.html
you'll see a discussion of front-mounting. The news from it is that
if the shutter can be placed much closer to the lens than to the film
plane adequate coverage can sometimes be obtained, i.e., even a
"small" shutter need not cause vignetting.

I don't think a cheap Afga folder is a good starting point for a wide
angle camera that uses a lens made for a 35 mm camera. Yes, you can
get them for very little, but you'll have to make a new short bellows,
a new front standard, and something to hold it parallel to the film
plane and allow focusing travel. 6x9 folders are built to focus a
normal lens for 6x9, so are too long to make infinity with a lens that
makes infinity with its flange (Nikon example) 46.5 mm from the film
plane.

You have access to a machine shop. You be better off making a
complete camera more or less from scratch than to try to rework a 6x9
folder.

I wouldn't try a long lens for a 35 mm camera in front of a Copal 1 on
my Century, as the shutter will have to be closer to the film plane
than to the lens' exit pupil. Even if the lens was capable of
covering 2x3 at infinity, the shutter would prevent that. That 35mm
lenses corner resolution is not as good as their central resolution is
a strong hint that they can't cover 2x3.

I wasn't being frivolous when I suggested you start from a Century
Graphic. I don't have experience with the 35 ApoGrandagon, but a
poster on www.graflex.org reports using one on a Century. The
shortest lens I use on mine is a 38/4.5 Biogon, next shortest a 47/5.6
SA. Its a shame that John Stafford didn't buy a Biogon from me when I
had a heap of 'em, also that you didn't. To reiterate what I've
already said many times, mine cover 84 mm with good sharpness and
illumination. They are optically the same lens as is used in the SWC,
mechanically somewhat different.

I appreciate that since you have a 35 PC-Nikkor in hand, you'd rather
use it than buy another lens. So you're trapped in what is at best a
local optimimum. I susggest that you find the global optimum and
decide whether it is better enough than where you are now to be worth
moving to. It might not be, but you owe it to yourself to do the
exercise.

Cheers,

Dan
  #43  
Old September 11th 04, 12:34 PM
Dan Fromm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
Good afternoon,

Dan Fromm wrote:

huge snip


Good luck,

Dan


Thanks Dan for all the great information.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!


Gordon, thanks for the reply. I just reread this thread. As usual,
everyone here, including me, is somewhat pushing what he knows best.
I suspect that you are too.

So I've re-examined my prejudices and asked myself what I'm missing.
I'm not sure I've missed much that's important, but of course I could
be mistaken. As usual, too.

If you and especially BobM will go to
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic/499521.html
you'll see a discussion of front-mounting. The news from it is that
if the shutter can be placed much closer to the lens than to the film
plane adequate coverage can sometimes be obtained, i.e., even a
"small" shutter need not cause vignetting.

I don't think a cheap Afga folder is a good starting point for a wide
angle camera that uses a lens made for a 35 mm camera. Yes, you can
get them for very little, but you'll have to make a new short bellows,
a new front standard, and something to hold it parallel to the film
plane and allow focusing travel. 6x9 folders are built to focus a
normal lens for 6x9, so are too long to make infinity with a lens that
makes infinity with its flange (Nikon example) 46.5 mm from the film
plane.

You have access to a machine shop. You be better off making a
complete camera more or less from scratch than to try to rework a 6x9
folder.

I wouldn't try a long lens for a 35 mm camera in front of a Copal 1 on
my Century, as the shutter will have to be closer to the film plane
than to the lens' exit pupil. Even if the lens was capable of
covering 2x3 at infinity, the shutter would prevent that. That 35mm
lenses corner resolution is not as good as their central resolution is
a strong hint that they can't cover 2x3.

I wasn't being frivolous when I suggested you start from a Century
Graphic. I don't have experience with the 35 ApoGrandagon, but a
poster on www.graflex.org reports using one on a Century. The
shortest lens I use on mine is a 38/4.5 Biogon, next shortest a 47/5.6
SA. Its a shame that John Stafford didn't buy a Biogon from me when I
had a heap of 'em, also that you didn't. To reiterate what I've
already said many times, mine cover 84 mm with good sharpness and
illumination. They are optically the same lens as is used in the SWC,
mechanically somewhat different.

I appreciate that since you have a 35 PC-Nikkor in hand, you'd rather
use it than buy another lens. So you're trapped in what is at best a
local optimimum. I susggest that you find the global optimum and
decide whether it is better enough than where you are now to be worth
moving to. It might not be, but you owe it to yourself to do the
exercise.

Cheers,

Dan
  #44  
Old September 12th 04, 03:52 PM
Paul Friday
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Take a look at item number 3839625964 on Ebay.
It's a contender for making a thin shutter that fits behind the lens.
OK, so you only get one speed, but it's a neat device.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday
  #45  
Old September 12th 04, 03:52 PM
Paul Friday
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Take a look at item number 3839625964 on Ebay.
It's a contender for making a thin shutter that fits behind the lens.
OK, so you only get one speed, but it's a neat device.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday
  #46  
Old September 13th 04, 08:58 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Monaghan wrote:

some good points again; try to avoid larger shutters, as they get both
thicker, heavier, and much harder to find cheaply ;-(

you might look into reverse -T mount adapters for nikon and others, this
would make your setup universal, not just for Nikon, but canon and other
oddball lenses (their tilt/shift comes instantly to mind..). the reverse T
takes the nikon lens and ends in a T-mount thread, such that it can go
onto T-mount bellows. That solves your nikon extension tube to X problem,
but universally, for all 35mm kits where reverse T is available. Now you
just need a ring threaded to take the T-mount to go to your shutter
mounting threads.


I have one of the T mount adapters. I might consider that for a copy of this,
though at the moment I do not intend to make something different. The
PC-Nikkor shift lens is the lens that got me started on this, so the obvious
solution involves a Nikon bayonet mount.


One non-trivial point here is the T-mount lenses are 54mm (as are my
topcor UV) lens registration, IIRC. Not only would the short and longer
telephotos also likely work to MF coverage, but you might get pretty good
coverage from wider angle older Tmounts with excess coverage (lots cheaper
than other shift lenses), yes, not as much as the shift lenses, but
perhaps enough to cover 645 or ?? Ditto, the fisheyes might work?


Maybe for a different version. The bad part is if I made one with 54 mm mount
to film distance, then the PC-Nikkor shift lens would not work. Any shift
lenses in T mount?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

  #47  
Old September 13th 04, 09:17 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan Fromm wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

If you and especially BobM will go to
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic/499521.html
you'll see a discussion of front-mounting. The news from it is that
if the shutter can be placed much closer to the lens than to the film
plane adequate coverage can sometimes be obtained, i.e., even a
"small" shutter need not cause vignetting.


Great discussion link. That formula included for calculating vignetting really helps with
this. This also indicates that my thought of reversing the shutter to move the shutter plane
closer to the rear element is not a bad idea.



I don't think a cheap Afga folder is a good starting point for a wide
angle camera that uses a lens made for a 35 mm camera. Yes, you can
get them for very little, but you'll have to make a new short bellows,


There would actually not be any room for a bellows. The 46.5 mm mounting to film plane
distance, means that a somewhat flat plate fitting will solve the light tightness. The lens is
barrel focus, so moving the shutter and lens forward or back as a unit is not needed.


a new front standard,


Hard mounted shutter to body, with a bayonet mount on the shutter. Then the lens is supported
on the bayonet. I think most shutters should be strong enough that a mounting failure should
not be an issue. However, there may be some shutters that are not very strong, so maybe a lens
cradle might be an addition.

and something to hold it parallel to the film
plane and allow focusing travel.


Using Nikkor lenses with focusing helical built into them eliminates any need for a focusing
mount system on the camera. The PC-Nikkor shift lens also has shift capability built in, and I
have considered tilt movement as not conducive to hand held imagery usage.

6x9 folders are built to focus a
normal lens for 6x9, so are too long to make infinity with a lens that
makes infinity with its flange (Nikon example) 46.5 mm from the film
plane.


Yes, I would need to remove the lens mount, and the door from the folder body. After that, it
would no longer be a folder camera. The funny thing is that the Nikon lens on a shutter,
mounted to the folder body, is about the same overall length as the original folder in open
position. I still think that is fairly compact, though obviously the converted camera will
weigh much more.



You have access to a machine shop. You be better off making a
complete camera more or less from scratch than to try to rework a 6x9
folder.


I might actually do one like that, and just use an RB67 back (or similar). As a start, the
folder body is nice because the stamped steel construction is very rigid, and very compact in
size. Anything milled to hold film would be larger, and bulkier, though body weight might be
close.



I wouldn't try a long lens for a 35 mm camera in front of a Copal 1 on
my Century, as the shutter will have to be closer to the film plane
than to the lens' exit pupil. Even if the lens was capable of
covering 2x3 at infinity, the shutter would prevent that. That 35mm
lenses corner resolution is not as good as their central resolution is
a strong hint that they can't cover 2x3.


That is the tough part, that will only be confirmed by exposing some film. I am still leaning
towards a dummy, non working shutter at first (just a round lump of metal), and testing using
a lens cap shutter.



I wasn't being frivolous when I suggested you start from a Century
Graphic. I don't have experience with the 35 ApoGrandagon, but a
poster on www.graflex.org reports using one on a Century.


It should fit (the Nikkor shift lens), though it would be close. Of course, that is a much
larger camera body, and slightly tougher to use hand held.

The
shortest lens I use on mine is a 38/4.5 Biogon, next shortest a 47/5.6
SA. Its a shame that John Stafford didn't buy a Biogon from me when I
had a heap of 'em, also that you didn't.


I guess at the time I had not considered how I would use a wide view in my imagery, or my
work.

To reiterate what I've
already said many times, mine cover 84 mm with good sharpness and
illumination. They are optically the same lens as is used in the SWC,
mechanically somewhat different.


Oh, I do believe they are quite good. Also, I know the coverage I will get might not allow any
movements, though it is pieces already in my possession . . . so not a difficult experiment.
Besides, I will call this project an experiment, until I can figure out if it works well
enough for continued use.



I appreciate that since you have a 35 PC-Nikkor in hand, you'd rather
use it than buy another lens.


That was the most expensive part of this, though I have used this particular lens quite a bit.

So you're trapped in what is at best a
local optimimum. I susggest that you find the global optimum and
decide whether it is better enough than where you are now to be worth
moving to. It might not be, but you owe it to yourself to do the
exercise.


I am okay with finding that it might not work that well. I think some of the experience of
this could lead to other directions, or even better solutions. Building the first one is the
tough part.

Thanks for all your help, the great links, and the suggestions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

  #48  
Old September 13th 04, 09:17 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan Fromm wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

If you and especially BobM will go to
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic/499521.html
you'll see a discussion of front-mounting. The news from it is that
if the shutter can be placed much closer to the lens than to the film
plane adequate coverage can sometimes be obtained, i.e., even a
"small" shutter need not cause vignetting.


Great discussion link. That formula included for calculating vignetting really helps with
this. This also indicates that my thought of reversing the shutter to move the shutter plane
closer to the rear element is not a bad idea.



I don't think a cheap Afga folder is a good starting point for a wide
angle camera that uses a lens made for a 35 mm camera. Yes, you can
get them for very little, but you'll have to make a new short bellows,


There would actually not be any room for a bellows. The 46.5 mm mounting to film plane
distance, means that a somewhat flat plate fitting will solve the light tightness. The lens is
barrel focus, so moving the shutter and lens forward or back as a unit is not needed.


a new front standard,


Hard mounted shutter to body, with a bayonet mount on the shutter. Then the lens is supported
on the bayonet. I think most shutters should be strong enough that a mounting failure should
not be an issue. However, there may be some shutters that are not very strong, so maybe a lens
cradle might be an addition.

and something to hold it parallel to the film
plane and allow focusing travel.


Using Nikkor lenses with focusing helical built into them eliminates any need for a focusing
mount system on the camera. The PC-Nikkor shift lens also has shift capability built in, and I
have considered tilt movement as not conducive to hand held imagery usage.

6x9 folders are built to focus a
normal lens for 6x9, so are too long to make infinity with a lens that
makes infinity with its flange (Nikon example) 46.5 mm from the film
plane.


Yes, I would need to remove the lens mount, and the door from the folder body. After that, it
would no longer be a folder camera. The funny thing is that the Nikon lens on a shutter,
mounted to the folder body, is about the same overall length as the original folder in open
position. I still think that is fairly compact, though obviously the converted camera will
weigh much more.



You have access to a machine shop. You be better off making a
complete camera more or less from scratch than to try to rework a 6x9
folder.


I might actually do one like that, and just use an RB67 back (or similar). As a start, the
folder body is nice because the stamped steel construction is very rigid, and very compact in
size. Anything milled to hold film would be larger, and bulkier, though body weight might be
close.



I wouldn't try a long lens for a 35 mm camera in front of a Copal 1 on
my Century, as the shutter will have to be closer to the film plane
than to the lens' exit pupil. Even if the lens was capable of
covering 2x3 at infinity, the shutter would prevent that. That 35mm
lenses corner resolution is not as good as their central resolution is
a strong hint that they can't cover 2x3.


That is the tough part, that will only be confirmed by exposing some film. I am still leaning
towards a dummy, non working shutter at first (just a round lump of metal), and testing using
a lens cap shutter.



I wasn't being frivolous when I suggested you start from a Century
Graphic. I don't have experience with the 35 ApoGrandagon, but a
poster on www.graflex.org reports using one on a Century.


It should fit (the Nikkor shift lens), though it would be close. Of course, that is a much
larger camera body, and slightly tougher to use hand held.

The
shortest lens I use on mine is a 38/4.5 Biogon, next shortest a 47/5.6
SA. Its a shame that John Stafford didn't buy a Biogon from me when I
had a heap of 'em, also that you didn't.


I guess at the time I had not considered how I would use a wide view in my imagery, or my
work.

To reiterate what I've
already said many times, mine cover 84 mm with good sharpness and
illumination. They are optically the same lens as is used in the SWC,
mechanically somewhat different.


Oh, I do believe they are quite good. Also, I know the coverage I will get might not allow any
movements, though it is pieces already in my possession . . . so not a difficult experiment.
Besides, I will call this project an experiment, until I can figure out if it works well
enough for continued use.



I appreciate that since you have a 35 PC-Nikkor in hand, you'd rather
use it than buy another lens.


That was the most expensive part of this, though I have used this particular lens quite a bit.

So you're trapped in what is at best a
local optimimum. I susggest that you find the global optimum and
decide whether it is better enough than where you are now to be worth
moving to. It might not be, but you owe it to yourself to do the
exercise.


I am okay with finding that it might not work that well. I think some of the experience of
this could lead to other directions, or even better solutions. Building the first one is the
tough part.

Thanks for all your help, the great links, and the suggestions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

  #49  
Old September 13th 04, 09:19 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul Friday wrote:

Take a look at item number 3839625964 on Ebay.


Interesting design. It is not a great deal different from the idea of
the Polaroid Automatic Pack FIlm camera shutters, though those are
electrically controlled.


It's a contender for making a thin shutter that fits behind the lens.


Definitely, though getting a range of shutter speeds would be much more
usable.


OK, so you only get one speed, but it's a neat device.


Definitely a neat device. Also, this is not too complicated to
duplicate, though speed control is another matter. This one is smaller
than a Packard shutter, which was my other consideration for a similar
device. Thanks!

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

  #50  
Old September 13th 04, 09:19 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul Friday wrote:

Take a look at item number 3839625964 on Ebay.


Interesting design. It is not a great deal different from the idea of
the Polaroid Automatic Pack FIlm camera shutters, though those are
electrically controlled.


It's a contender for making a thin shutter that fits behind the lens.


Definitely, though getting a range of shutter speeds would be much more
usable.


OK, so you only get one speed, but it's a neat device.


Definitely a neat device. Also, this is not too complicated to
duplicate, though speed control is another matter. This one is smaller
than a Packard shutter, which was my other consideration for a similar
device. Thanks!

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 09:58 AM
zone system test with filter on lens? Phil Lamerton In The Darkroom 35 June 4th 04 02:40 AM
Name of photographer who used slow slit shutter? Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\) General Photography Techniques 6 April 6th 04 01:55 PM
camera ISO range questions Chris In The Darkroom 3 February 7th 04 10:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.