homebrew panos RE: lens coverage - any plate camera conversions?

[Robert Monaghan <rmonagha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lyndon;

RE: longfellow and ensigns the article in BJP already cited suggested the
ensigns were chosen as they were cheap all metal cameras and readily
available in the UK (prices circa 20 brit. pounds?); the cameras were
stripped and chopped; only the film channel related pieces were kept, not
the lens mounts or finder; the lens goes into a metal mount screwed onto
joined bodies with lens and shutter at one end, very similar in look and
design to fuji G617 to my eyes. Most of these cameras are nice, modest cost,
but frankly too much work and mechanical finesse for me or most of us ;-)

your plate camera conversion idea would be interesting, but a rollfilm
camera seems an easier starting point. The ideal would be the Kodak #4A
which would be long enough for 18cm (versus the actual 15.6cm of the
so-called "17cm"  panoramic cameras, based on McKeown's film charts and my
memory ;-) But that camera is collectible at $400 US, and out of the
casual hacker league. I don't know of any cheaper ones using the same 
long roll-film format until you get to the aerial or torpedo specialty ones

the Kodak #3A series is the basis for my 6x14cm "postcard panoramic"; or
you could go with a more compact Kodak #1A for 6x12cm, but lose the option
of film shifting I previously discussed/posted. These cameras have the
advantage of being cheap and common, meaning $25 US buys one on EBAY ;-)
For that money, you get the 3 1/2" x 5 1/4" film channel and winding
mechanics, the bellows (often with pinholes that need black wetsuit
adhesive filling-up), a foldout lens standard, and lens and shutter (for
other projects if you elect to mount a 90mm f/6.8 angulon instead of the
longer lens on it now) - just load film and you have a 2:1 pano for $25! ;-)

another interesting pan hacking option would be a stereo camera using
rollfilm; but here again, the cameras seem to all be collectibles ;-( You
would have to replace the bellows and dual lens mount standard, but might end
up with a longer film channel in the long panoramic 16cm and 18cm range
and up in a few cases... 

I wonder what goodies the Russians might have that could be converted; 
the recent russian panoramic rollfilm back sale on ebay of 6x18.5cm back
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=301965526 - is 
interesting (vs actual 15.6cm for a 6x17cm length back?) - again, I 
haven't seen much info or online sources on these russian panoramic items?

the plate cameras seem sufficiently big that you might as well take a 
4x5" and Bender pano-back kit and do that, or simply cut film in half 
with a standard film holder, much cheaper than a custom back is not as nifty
I'd be interested in learning more about any quarter plate or similar 
conversions, but I suspect it would be easier/cheaper and more flexible 
to just get a non-collectible calumet c-400/440 and go from there?

Has anybody actually converted a plate camera, and with what results? ;-)

regards bobm

>quote: 
> I think there may be more to this Bob. The Ensigns were one of the few
small folding cameras to move the whole lens to focus (ie unit not cell
focusing.) This allowed a wider selection of donor lenses for projects
because you didn't have to find a lens in a focusing barrel. The 620 and
820 Ensigns are actually pretty rare these days because Ross didn't do at
all well in the 1950's against perceived "superior" German opposition. I
suppose in theory there is little to gain in a focusable panoramic,
perhaps you could use any camera and set the lens on infinity focus. > >

Has anyone considered an old half plate camera as a doner? I have one and
the body is aluninium diecast. It wouldn't even need to be stretched that
much if a way could be found to add in a film transport. > > Lyndon > > >