What camera is this?

Can anyone help settle a dispute and identify this camera:

http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/index.html

Is it a Calumet C400, and is there a website or something on it?

thanks much

thelasian wrote:
Can anyone help settle a dispute and identify this camera:

http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/index.html

Is it a Calumet C400, and is there a website or something on it?

thanks much

Looks like a CC-400, but it could be CC-401 (longer monorail).

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:45:00 up 14 days, 1:02, 3 users, load average: 4.37, 4.31, 4.28

Is there a site on this camera, its history, accessories, quirks,
lenses, etc.?

PGG wrote:
: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:39:10 -0700, thelasian wrote:

: Is there a site on this camera, its history, accessories, quirks,
: lenses, etc.?

: Try www.largeformatphotography.info

: I doubt there is a site dedicated to the CC-400. It was the workhorse of
: view cameras in the 60s/70s. Cheap, well-built, no frills.

What a workhorse they were and in my case still is!! I got mine cheap on Ebay
and it even came with the original manual.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

thelasian wrote:
Can anyone help settle a dispute and identify this camera:

http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/index.html

Is it a Calumet C400, and is there a website or something on it?

thanks much


It is a CC-400. These are very versitile view cameras with no
glamour whatever. They started life as a Kodak model, the Kodak 4x5
Masterview. At some date around the early 1960's the design was aquired
by Calumet who made some minor changes and built the camera in three
versions for many years. The three versions have different length
bellows draw and rail. The CC-401 has a bag bellows and short rail for
use with wide angle lenses, the CC-402 has an extended bellows and
rail.
Eventually, Calumet sold the design and it was built by Burke &
James and as the Orbit camera, and perhaps a couple of other names.
Don't let its unpreposessing looks fool you about its capability as a
camera.
Its been a long time since Calumet has made these guys but its just
possible that they may have copied instruction books for them. They do
have a small stock of parts.
Shown in one of the photos is a reflex finder. There was also a
compendium lens shade and filter holder available. I have no idea of
current value. I got mine several years ago at a local sale for $150 US
complete with original aluminum case and lens shade but no lens. If you
get an original Calumet case you will probably have to replace the foam
lining, it rots after a while.
While Calumet lensboards are flat metal with a ridge around the
edge the camera will take 4"x4" lens boards of the type used on
Anniversary Speed Graphics, B&J press cameras, and the graflex View
camera.
Not ideal for field use because it doesn't fold it is nonetheless a
very good camera usually available at bargain prices.

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, 90026

I have one in squeaky mint condition which was branded for Kodak as a Master
View. They are very good, rigid and light cameras..Evan Clarke


"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
PGG wrote:
: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:39:10 -0700, thelasian wrote:

: Is there a site on this camera, its history, accessories, quirks,
: lenses, etc.?

: Try www.largeformatphotography.info

: I doubt there is a site dedicated to the CC-400. It was the workhorse
of
: view cameras in the 60s/70s. Cheap, well-built, no frills.

What a workhorse they were and in my case still is!! I got mine cheap on
Ebay
and it even came with the original manual.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Sounds like a great camera. For reasons I don't understand the cc-400 is
looked down on by a lot of people. There is a reason that they were as
popular as they were!

People seem to have a hard time believing me when I tell them that the cc-400
was easy to carry out in the field. It in fact is a lot lighter the it
appears.


evan clarke wrote:
: I have one in squeaky mint condition which was branded for Kodak as a Master
: View. They are very good, rigid and light cameras..Evan Clarke


: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: PGG wrote:
: : On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:39:10 -0700, thelasian wrote:
:
: : Is there a site on this camera, its history, accessories, quirks,
: : lenses, etc.?
:
: : Try www.largeformatphotography.info
:
: : I doubt there is a site dedicated to the CC-400. It was the workhorse
: of
: : view cameras in the 60s/70s. Cheap, well-built, no frills.
:
: What a workhorse they were and in my case still is!! I got mine cheap on
: Ebay
: and it even came with the original manual.
:
: --
:
:
:
:
: Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
: -------------------
:



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Frank Pittel wrote:


People seem to have a hard time believing me when I tell them that the cc-400
was easy to carry out in the field. It in fact is a lot lighter the it
appears.

It's not the weight. It's that damn rail. My folding camera is about the
same weight maybe a bit more then my long bellows 400. But it folds into a
nice little package. Much easier to carry.

Nick

I used a short rail in the field. Did a lot of landscape work with. The
rail was still a nuisance, though. Finally traded "up" to a self-modified
Speed-graphic. Lost lots of movements but I didn't use most of them anyway.
The CC-400 cameras are definitely great cameras with lots of movements and a
revolving back with bail (bale?) to boot.

Todd

--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
news
Frank Pittel wrote:


People seem to have a hard time believing me when I tell them that the
cc-400
was easy to carry out in the field. It in fact is a lot lighter the it
appears.

It's not the weight. It's that damn rail. My folding camera is about the
same weight maybe a bit more then my long bellows 400. But it folds into a
nice little package. Much easier to carry.

Nick