Do Zone VI lensboards fit Wisner cameras?
Andrew Koenig
disadvantage: I can't get the front and rear standards close
enough together to use a 90mm lens without misusing the front
swings. The reason is that there is a stop built into the camera,
claimed to be there to prevent people from focusing a 120mm
lens through the groundglass. It's not feasiable to modify the
camera to remove the stop.
I've thought about selling this camera to someone who doesn't
use 90mm lenses :-) and buying a Wisner (because I like the
centered rear tilt). If I do so, the question is whether I would
have to buy new lensboards and remount all my lenses, or whether
I could continue using my existing lensboards.
Does anyone know? The folks at Wisner don't, or didn't the last
time I asked them.
--
Andrew Koenig, a...@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
kc7...@my-deja.com
Can you use a recessed lens board on your Zone VI? If you ask someone to
measure the Wisner lens board and than measure yours than you would know.
Ted
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul and Paula Butzi
wrote:
>I have a Zone VI field camera that has one annoying design
>disadvantage: I can't get the front and rear standards close
>enough together to use a 90mm lens without misusing the front
>swings. The reason is that there is a stop built into the camera,
>claimed to be there to prevent people from focusing a 120mm
>lens through the groundglass. It's not feasiable to modify the
>camera to remove the stop.
FWIW, you need to be careful about which Wisner you switch
to. A Wisner 4x5 Technical Field suffers from the same problem -
you must use the front base tilt to move the lens plane closer to
the film plane, and then must use axis tilt to undo the base tilt.
I haven't tried this with the Pocket Expedition and newer Wisner
cameras, but understand that this problem is addressed with
them.
-Paul
--
Life is short, art is long, opportunity fleeting,
experiment treacherous, judgement difficult.
-Hippocrates (ca. 460 - 377 bc)
Andrew Koenig
>Can you use a recessed lens board on your Zone VI? If you ask someone to
>measure the Wisner lens board and than measure yours than you would know.
Recessed lens boards are a pain, and I'd rather not use them
if possible.
John Sparks
>I have a Zone VI field camera that has one annoying design
>disadvantage: I can't get the front and rear standards close
>enough together to use a 90mm lens without misusing the front
>swings. The reason is that there is a stop built into the camera,
>claimed to be there to prevent people from focusing a 120mm
>lens through the groundglass. It's not feasiable to modify the
>camera to remove the stop.
>I've thought about selling this camera to someone who doesn't
>use 90mm lenses :-) and buying a Wisner (because I like the
>centered rear tilt). If I do so, the question is whether I would
>have to buy new lensboards and remount all my lenses, or whether
>I could continue using my existing lensboards.
I switched from a Zone VI to a Wisner. Some of my Zone VI boards fit
some didn't (I think all the older 4 piece boards fit and the newer
boards that are just milled out of a single piece of wood did not, but I
can't remember if some of the older boards didn't fit as well). The
outside dimensions of the boards are the same, but the inner ledge of
the light trap can be larger and still fit the Zone VI but not the
Wisner. The boards could be made to fit with some work with a file or
dremal (sp?) tool.
However, the Wisner won't let you use a 90mm lens without using some
combination of movements to get the standards closer together either.
If you want to use wide angle lenses on a field camera, the Canham is a
much better choice (I have a 4x5 Wisner and an 8x10 Canham). You can
use lenses as short as 58mm (maybe even shorter) with both standards
vertical. This is true even on the 8x10. Keith Canham made me an
adapter so I could use my Wisner/Zone VI boards on the Canham, but I
don't think I'd do this unless I was trying to use both cameras with the
same lenses. Real Canham or Toyo boards mount more easily even if they
are a little bigger.
John Sparks
Andrew Koenig
John Sparks <spa...@sparks.cos.agilent.com> wrote:
>However, the Wisner won't let you use a 90mm lens without using some
>combination of movements to get the standards closer together either.
Ah, this is useful information. Thanks.
What's frustrating is that later generation Zone VI
cameras have no problem here.
Alec Jones
Check with Richard Ritter at: rrlg...@sover.net Richard used to assemple
those cameras for Fred and knows them inside/out. I had him perform some
modifications for me and I couldn't recommend him highly enough. He is
thorough, does super work, and is surprisingly economical.
See what he says - removing that stop might be the easiest way after all.
He modified several items of hardware on mine and it's like a new one now.
Alec
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@research.att.com> wrote in message
news:FvFEK...@research.att.com...
> I have a Zone VI field camera that has one annoying design
> disadvantage: I can't get the front and rear standards close
> enough together to use a 90mm lens without misusing the front
> swings. The reason is that there is a stop built into the camera,
> claimed to be there to prevent people from focusing a 120mm
> lens through the groundglass. It's not feasiable to modify the
> camera to remove the stop.
>
> I've thought about selling this camera to someone who doesn't
> use 90mm lenses :-) and buying a Wisner (because I like the
> centered rear tilt). If I do so, the question is whether I would
> have to buy new lensboards and remount all my lenses, or whether
> I could continue using my existing lensboards.
>
> Does anyone know? The folks at Wisner don't, or didn't the last
> time I asked them.
Carlos Herrera
Z6 boards when I owned a Wisner Tech. They will fit. Earlier Zone VIs
were Wistas and used Wista boards, but ...I thought Wisner had an
adapter so you could use them as well with his cameras.
CH
kc7...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <FvFEK...@research.att.com>,
> a...@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) wrote:
> > I have a Zone VI field camera that has one annoying design
> > disadvantage: I can't get the front and rear standards close
> > enough together to use a 90mm lens without misusing the front
> > swings. The reason is that there is a stop built into the camera,
> > claimed to be there to prevent people from focusing a 120mm
> > lens through the groundglass. It's not feasiable to modify the
> > camera to remove the stop.
> >
> > I've thought about selling this camera to someone who doesn't
> > use 90mm lenses :-) and buying a Wisner (because I like the
> > centered rear tilt). If I do so, the question is whether I would
> > have to buy new lensboards and remount all my lenses, or whether
> > I could continue using my existing lensboards.
> >
> > Does anyone know? The folks at Wisner don't, or didn't the last
> > time I asked them.
>
> Can you use a recessed lens board on your Zone VI? If you ask someone to
> measure the Wisner lens board and than measure yours than you would know.
>
Todd Caudle
tilt-the-front-standard-back dance to use wide-angle lenses. However, I put
a Schneider SA 75mm in a Linhof recessed lens board (plus Ron's
Linhof-Wisner adapter) and now I can focus at infinity without having to do
that. It's a bit of a hassle, but not as much as monkeying with the front
standard. BUT, while my Wisner boards were interchangeable with my buddy's
Z6 boards, my recessed board would not fit through the FS opening on his
camera.
--
Todd Caudle
www.toddcaudle.com (misc. landscape photos)
www.skylinepress.com (Colorado books & calendars)
Jess4203
of art (I love great wood work as well as the next guy) for $1000+ more than an
old or new Calumet or other cheapie, and then find out I can't use a standard
wide angle lens without contortions. I don't think so. I am not that taken
with precious construction. I would like to have a finely made camera, but if
I'm going to pay a premium price for it, it better do what I'd expect a field
camera to do at least as well as the garden variety ones. I thought the
drawback to my Gowland Pocket View was that I had to do a lot of fiddling to
make sure my standards were parallel, while you Wisner/Wista freaks just used a
click detent or something and didn't have to check your corners with a loupe.
I can get a 65mm lens on the Gowland with a flat lensboard and eke out a little
movement, I think I am WAY ahead now that I've heard about this latest
wrinkle. Maybe this whole thing is mystique and cachet.
Regards,
Roy
snowman
> Check with Richard Ritter at: rrlg...@sover.net Richard used to assemple
> those cameras for Fred and knows them inside/out. I had him perform some
> modifications for me and I couldn't recommend him highly enough. He is
> thorough, does super work, and is surprisingly economical.
I agree. I had same experience with Richard Ritter, even I what sent him was
a deardorff,not Zone VI. fast turn around, very very reasonable price
work is well done. Hope he will be in business for a long run (that is good
for all of us) hence this post.
C.J. Cheng
Art Reitsch
bellows. I can use the lens on this camera by moving the two standards very
close together. I get a focus on infinity. Movements? The only one I've
used is front tilt. With the two standard planes meeting at a point on the
ground under the camera I get the depth of field I want and with the
standards this close together it takes just a tiny bit of tilt.
Art
Andrew Koenig wrote:
> In article <8h2mel$f1c$1...@nonews.col.hp.com>,
> John Sparks <spa...@sparks.cos.agilent.com> wrote:
>
> >However, the Wisner won't let you use a 90mm lens without using some
> >combination of movements to get the standards closer together either.
>
> Ah, this is useful information. Thanks.
>
> What's frustrating is that later generation Zone VI
> cameras have no problem here.
Jean-David Beyer
Can you also use a 450mm lens on th Gowland with a flat lens board?
--
Jean-David Beyer .~.
Shrewsbury, New Jersey /V\
Registered Linux User 85642. /( )\
Registered Machine 73926. ^^-^^
Jess4203
Jean-David:
The Gowland has gone thru several modifications and several models, and Peter
would make up what you wanted and retrofit, etc., so what's true for mine isn't
true for all. I just checked mine, and I have 420mm of bellows draw, so, you
got me on that. For me, this isn't a problem, as I am far more interested in
wide than tele lenses for 4x5. A 12" copy lens and a 375 Tele-Optar are as far
as I go right now. I do know that Peter made a 4x5 with a 19" bellows. Given
that I have to go from flat out compressed bellows to about 1/2 inch of
excursion to pull infinity focus on the 65mm, I think you could install the 19"
(and, last time I checked, Peter would sell you one) and still get focus on the
65mm AND on the 450mm.
Now a 90mm is a standard wide angle for 4x5 (approximates 28mm on 35mm
format).Therefore I see nothing strange in expecting that a field camera which
one might expect would often be used for landscapes and/or interiors should be
able to pull infinity focus on a 90mm. That's one of my points. Another is
that the Gowland cost a couple of hundred dollars, used. You can't buy a
Wisner for $1200, I'll bet. On the other hand, I can get the 19" bellows for
$200 or less and modify my camera to take the 450 OR I can reverse a recessed
lensboard and do it that way for $20. I stand by my point that it is a serious
design error to have to fiddle with your premium field camera to get it to take
a 90mm when the current limits of 4x5 wide angle work are closer to 58 or even
45mm. I think there are far more people interested in that kind of thing than
are going towards 400mm+, don't you think??
Best Regards,
Roy
Dan Bereskin
lens with a Wisner without using the bag bellows, and a few people jumped on me
(some defenders also, to be sure). I agree with you, you should not have to
perform contortions with the camera in order to get it to work with a 90mm lens.
I would not say this is a design fault of the Wisner, though: I'm sure Ron knew
what he was doing, but chose different trade-offs. I personally don't have any
use for a field camera with a 22" or 23" draw, triple bed etc., which would appear
to be a contributing factor to the 90mm problem. IMHO, the most intelligent
design for a view camera is the Arca Swiss F line. It's great both in the field
and in the studio, rigid as can be, yaw-free, tremendously versatile given the
many different attachments that form part of the system, but they're obscenely
expensive and relatively heavy. Even with the Arca-Swiss, though, you need a bag
bellows for 90mm if you want any movements. I guess this just proves that the
perfect camera doesn't exist.
RWisn
camera design was indeed the Zone VI. It met all of my requirements including
being able to focus at 90mm. The camera could do this with no special
movements, with straight standards. We now make a camera very similar to
this original design, the Traditional. My Traditional will focus down to 90mm
with no special movements, and down to 75mm with the standard bellows and a
slight backward tilt of the front standard. Takes seconds and I do not think
it is beyond the abilities of any photographer.
The next design was the Technical Field. It too will focus down to 90mm, and
with a bag bellows will go to 0mm. The now popular ultra wide lenses did not
exist when this camera was designed, so the shortest lens we had to worry about
was a 65, which the TF handles easily by rolling the rear geared tilt forward
(still preserving a vertical rear standard. If you don't know how to do this,
call me). This camera continues to be one of our top sellers.
Recently, as the wide angle lenses have become shorter and shorter, we have
designed (Ikeep saying we, when I mean I) shorter and shorter capabilities on
our newer models. Remeber, we don't make one model in each size, we make FOUR.
The Expedition and Pocket Expedition model 4x5 cameras can each handle down to
58mm without even switching to a bag bellows. The Pocket has top rear focus
that enables one to use such short lenses quickly and easily, and the geared
front rise panel gives unfettered front rise even with the normal pleated
bellows because the lens panel is independant from the bellows. This is the
only 4x5 field camera with this feature in production today.
Though these cameras are very wide angle friendly, they can still focus a 480
Artar and the like.
We invite your personal investigation, including actually USING the cameras,
and of course, your continuing comments and input. That's how the cameras get
designed.
Ron Wisner
Pam Niedermayer
really just be a discussion of which camera does what for
whom. It's just not necessary that we all decide the Gowland
is or is not a better overall camera than a Wisner, nor vice
versa. I truly don't understand the apparent hostility in
your first message on this topic. No one is trying to
convince you to buy a Wisner.
Pam
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
Jess4203
we have about 17 posts arguing the correct web address for skgrimes). I don't
think the Gowland is anywhere near the camera the Wisner/Zone VI/ Wista is. It
does have its virtues, just as they do. It is very light, has lots of
movements, accomodates short (65mm or less) and long (420mm bellows draw on my
model, more on others) lenses, and is rather cheap, at least on the used market
(~$300??). It is not pretty, doesn't have geared movements and might not be as
steady as other cameras, although it has been steady enough for my needs.
I don't feel particularly hostile about this, just very definite. I see today
Mr.Wisner has posted about his cameras and the information I was commenting on
was wrong and the Wisner does focus a 90mm without contortions, which is what I
would expect from such a fine designer as Mr.Wisner. His newer cameras even
accomodate the shorter WA lenses --- bravo, Ron, you are keeping ahead of the
market and exceeding expectations!
It does seem to me a fairly basic requirement for a premium price field view
camera to focus a 90mm lens without contortions, with standards in their
neutral positions. After all, they are called "field cameras" because they are
supposed to be easier to use in the field. Would you buy a modern car which
didn't shift into reverse without stopping to set two levers first?? I don't
think so. Is it hostile to say it's just nuts to spend a lot of money for a
camera which doesn't include basic state-of-the-art features?? I guess I'm
hostile, then.
I would not quarrel with Mr. John Moneybags Fussbudget buying a new $5000
Dusenbussel 4x5 with a hand rubbed finish that requires 15 adjustments to
mount a 90mm lens. If it is a piece of art and/or a status symbol and he wants
it, great. If it is marketed as a great 4x5 field camera, it ought to be one,
competitive in features with what else is available if it is similar in price.
Best Regards,
Roy
Tom Micklin
>
> I would not quarrel with Mr. John Moneybags Fussbudget buying a new $5000
> Dusenbussel 4x5 with a hand rubbed finish that requires 15 adjustments to
> mount a 90mm lens.
HEY.....don't get hostile..........I just bought one of them with the
optional Fisher-Price extension rail to accommodate an 8 1/2 inch lens.
Tom :)
TJ & JJ
> <snip>
> The next design was the Technical Field. It too will focus down to 90mm, and
> with a bag bellows will go to 0mm. The now popular ultra wide lenses did not
> exist when this camera was designed, so the shortest lens we had to worry about
> was a 65, which the TF handles easily by rolling the rear geared tilt forward
> (still preserving a vertical rear standard. If you don't know how to do this,
> call me). This camera continues to be one of our top sellers. <snip>
>
> We invite your personal investigation, including actually USING the cameras,
> and of course, your continuing comments and input. That's how the cameras get
> designed.
>
> Ron Wisner
Ron:
Very glad you decided to join this thread. I don't mind admitting I never thought
of using the Technical Field's rear geared tilt as way to handle short lenses, and
from what I've read in newsgroups, neither have a number of others. It's
perfectly obvious once it's pointed out. The TF is an amazingly versatile camera.
Terry James
--
*****************************************************************
E-mail: lhp....@ns.sympatico.ca
Kerry L. Thalmann
> The next design was the Technical Field. It too will focus down to 90mm, and
> with a bag bellows will go to 0mm. The now popular ultra wide lenses did not
> exist when this camera was designed, so the shortest lens we had to worry about
> was a 65, which the TF handles easily by rolling the rear geared tilt forward
> (still preserving a vertical rear standard. If you don't know how to do this,
> call me). This camera continues to be one of our top sellers.
Hi Ron,
(posted and emailed)
Thanks for jumping in with some of the particulars of your different
models. BTW, I used a Tech Field (4x5, plus 4x10) as my main camera for
2 1/2 years. MY particular camera would NOT focus MY particular 90mm
lens (90mm f8 Nikkor W) to infinity without employing either a slight
back tilt of the front standard, or running the geared back tilt
forward. I also found I needed to switch to the bag bellows to get more
than a smidgen of front rise with this combo. In other words, the
camera was very wide angle capable, but not the most wide angle friendly
camera I have used. As you mention below, you've addressed these issues
on some of your newer models.
> Recently, as the wide angle lenses have become shorter and shorter, we have
> designed (Ikeep saying we, when I mean I) shorter and shorter capabilities on
> our newer models. Remeber, we don't make one model in each size, we make FOUR.
> The Expedition and Pocket Expedition model 4x5 cameras can each handle down to
> 58mm without even switching to a bag bellows. The Pocket has top rear focus
> that enables one to use such short lenses quickly and easily, and the geared
> front rise panel gives unfettered front rise even with the normal pleated
> bellows because the lens panel is independant from the bellows. This is the
> only 4x5 field camera with this feature in production today.
I like these two features (although I do not require the lens panel rise
to be geared). They definitely make the camera more wide angle
friendly.
> Though these cameras are very wide angle friendly, they can still focus a 480
> Artar and the like.
>
> We invite your personal investigation, including actually USING the cameras,
> and of course, your continuing comments and input. That's how the cameras get
> designed.
Very generous of you to offer, so I'll take you up on it. I seem to
recall having a similar conversation over on Compuserve a year or two
back, but it was regarding the design of your upcoming (at that time)
5x7 Pocket Expedition model, so I'll take this opportunity to address
what I'D LIKE IN A 4x5 FIELD CAMERA (I put that in bold, since I only
speak for myself and realize MY needs may be very different from
everybody else's). I'll be blunt, not because I wish to be overly
critical of any of your designs, but because I have very specific needs
and I'd prefer to cut to the chase rather than beat around the bush.
Start with the Pocket Expedition concept and then strip off the "fluff"
(IMHO, of course). First, lose the rear rise. If I may be direct (and
this is not just a criticism of your cameras, since other makers also
include a rear rise on some models), I find this the single most useless
feature I have ever seen on a field camera. It may be useful in the
studio, but is the studio user the intended target audience for a sub
four pound field camera? As I said, I used a Wisner Technical Field for
2 1/2 years, and never once did I encounter a situation where I wished
to use this "feature". I am currently using two cameras (a Linhof
Technikardan and Toho Shimo FC-45X) that both "feature" rear rise, and I
still find it useless. On the Technical and Pocket Expedition models
the rear rise adds FOUR more knobs to an already crowded rear standard,
it adds weight and compromises stability (not saying your cameras are
unstable - they're not, just that they could be equally stable, or more
stable, and weigh less without this feature).
Second, get rid of all the geared movements. Sure they are nice, but
again, they add weight, and in this instance, in certain situations,
they actually make the camera more difficult to use. I am referring to
cold weather shooting. Again, I speak only for myself and based on my
specific needs. I shoot A LOT in sub-freezing conditions, plus, I have
very large hands (I could palm a basketball in 6th grade, thank goodness
the rest of my body eventually caught up to my hand and foot sizes). I
also admit I have never used the Pocket Expedition in the field, only
played with it in the store (on multiple occasions). But, for me, I
found all the little, closely spaced knobs difficult to access even with
warm fingers and no gloves on. I have found other cameras I have used
in the field (Canham DLC, Linhof Technikardan, Toho) to be easily
operable with numb fingers and/or gloves on. Again, perhaps my needs
are unique, but for me, the ability to operate a camera with gloves on
is a MAJOR selling point. It's something that doesn't show up on the
spec sheet, but it is one of the first things I look at when considering
a camera.
I really, really like the Pocket Expedition concept with the ability to
use lenses from the latest ultrawides up to the 450mm Fujinon C without
additional accessories. The only reason I didn't buy one the first time
I laid eyes on it was all the extra (for me) features that I don't
require that add weight and make the camera hard to operate (for me) in
cold weather. Cramming all those features into such a compact,
lightweight camera is truly an engineering marvel (spoken by someone
with a background in engineering). However, all those additional
features actually make the camera LESS desirable from my point of view.
If you were to offer a model like I described, it would weigh even less
than the Pocket Expedition, maybe even less than my slightly modified
Toho (2 lbs. 12 1/2 oz.). And, unlike the Toho (390mm max. bellows
draw) could accommodate the 450mm Fujinon C without an extender board.
It should also be easier and less expensive to manufacture than the
Pocket Expedition.
One final minor point. I'd also like a synthetic (nylon or similar)
bellows. If not standard, as an option. Although I think your leather
bellows are stunningly beautiful, and of the absolute highest quality, I
live and work in a VERY damp climate. Many people who have not used
your cameras may think that a wood camera with leather bellows is
impractical in such a damp climate. As someone who used one for 2 1/2
years, I strongly disagree. I never had any problems with either the
wood camera body, or the leather bellows during those two and a half
years. However, I would be concerned about the repeated wetting and
drying of the leather bellows over the long term. I never let a light
drizzle stop me from shooting (in fact for some subjects, I prefer it),
and I also occasionally get caught in a real hellacious downpour. Even
though I am constantly waterproofing my leather hiking boots, I still
detect premature cracking of the leather at flex points due to the
repeated wetting and drying cycle. I doubt if an occasional wetting and
drying of your leather bellows would pose any problems. However, as
much as I shoot in the rain, it could take a toll over the long term.
For my peace of mind, based on where I live and how I shoot, a synthetic
bellows would be a plus.
I hope you take no offense at my candid comments. I certainly meant
none. Based on my experience with my 4x5 Technical, I have often
recommended your cameras to others, and am convinced you make a product
of very high quality and stand behind what you sell. Also, I admire
your willingness to discuss your designs with the users (and potential
users) of your cameras and all the other contributions you've made to
the large format community over the years. I have watched as your
cameras have evolved over the years from the Zone VI to the Traditional,
to the Technical, to the Expedition, to the Pocket Expedition. With
each step, the cameras have gotten closer and closer to MY ideal camera
(one that can take lenses from 58mm - 450mm, weigh as little as possible
and be operated in the field with gloves on). Perhaps my needs are too
specialized, but based on what I said above, you are only one small step
away from making MY perfect camera. Then, rather than relying on two
cameras (one for everyday shooting and one for backpacking), I could
actually have one camera that meets all my needs and it would have the
quality of a Wisner.
Thanks for listening,
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
large format equipment reviews and recommendations
Paul and Paula Butzi
>I guess I will have to weigh in here with some facts. Our first true field
>camera design was indeed the Zone VI. It met all of my requirements including
>being able to focus at 90mm. The camera could do this with no special
>movements, with straight standards. We now make a camera very similar to
>this original design, the Traditional. My Traditional will focus down to 90mm
>with no special movements, and down to 75mm with the standard bellows and a
>slight backward tilt of the front standard. Takes seconds and I do not think
>it is beyond the abilities of any photographer.
I think the issue is not so much that it's beyond my abilities as a
photographer to use a camera with the 'slight backward tilt of the
front standard' but that when you have the front standard tilted
backwards slightly, any adjustment of front rise/fall means
refocusing. It's not impossible, it's just a pain and slower
than using a camera which doesn't require this.
>
>The next design was the Technical Field. It too will focus down to 90mm, and
>with a bag bellows will go to 0mm.
I interpret this as saying that a 4x5 TF will focus down to 90mm
without using the 'slight backward tilt of the front standard' and
without rolling the back forward and readjusting the rear standard.
But when I measure the minimum bellows draw on my 4x5 TF
serial # 842, I get 107mm with the rear standard all the way forward
and the front standard all the way back just short of running the
focusing gear off the end of the track.
> The now popular ultra wide lenses did not
>exist when this camera was designed, so the shortest lens we had to worry about
>was a 65, which the TF handles easily by rolling the rear geared tilt forward
>(still preserving a vertical rear standard. If you don't know how to do this,
>call me). This camera continues to be one of our top sellers.
When I roll the rear standard forward using the rear axis tilt, I get
a minimum bellows draw of 84mm. What am I missing? Are your
specs based on a recessed board?
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 3/2/00)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
Dan Bereskin
some of them may have some value! I was impressed with Kerry Thalmann's logical
explanation of his own needs, and it got me to thinking that it might be time to
consider a camera dedicated to field use which is aimed at reducing weight and
minimizing the complexity. The feeling I have, which is just a guess, is that
when
Dan Bereskin
earlier message-it seems to have been transmitted before I got finished typing.
Here's what I meant to say, at any rate. First, I'm at the opposite end of the
spectrum from you in terms of experience, but I have used a Wisner T.F. a fair bit,
and I know a little about Ron's history. For what it's worth, here' s my theory.
When Ron left Picker/Zone VI years ago, he had to quickly establish a reputation for
innovation and quality, if he had any hope of being able to compete with Zone VI,
and to stay in business. He was very young, presumably didn't have a lot of
capital, and he had to get it right the first time. Ron has a gift for innovation,
and I think he has worked very hard over the years to create ingenious designs
intended to distance his products from those of competitors, especially Zone VI.
Some of his innovations have been patented, and understandably he makes a point of
mentioning this in his ads. He was also very committed, and still is, to quality
control and after sales service. I have the feeling that he has pushed the level of
innovative content beyond what is necessary for most of his buyers. Ron could reply
that he's selling all the cameras he's able to produce, he now has an impressive
export business, and he can't make a camera that's suited for everybody. Also, he
needs to be careful about cannibalizing his own market. Therefore a new design
really needs to be aimed at increasing market share. What I believe has happened in
the past five years or so, is that the value of the Wisner name has surpassed
technical innovation as a selling tool, and Ron would not be the first CEO to have
failed to notice this. IOW, buyers today would be attracted to buy Wisners over
Zone VI, say, even if they were virtually identical-because of the power of his
brand. Interestingly, this is exactly the reverse of the situation which confronted
Ron when he started. The conclusion from this is that I think Ron can now afford,
perhaps for the first time in his company's history, to direct his innovative
talents towards simplification and cost reduction. He needs to be persuaded that
sometimes, less is more. In view of the importance of his name, I have the feeling
that he might actually be able to make more money with a simplified camera than he
can with some of his present complex designs, which are very labour intensive, while
still being able to sell the simplified cameras for less than the complex ones.
This could well improve his market especially overseas, where photogs are even more
sensitive (so I'm told) to weight and bulk than we are here. I for one would love
to see a "minimilist" Pocket Expedition-what a great thing that would be!
RWisn
Your message was long and I have not had time yet to respond to it fully, but I
do appreciate your thoughts. I guess someone has already said it, that we
cannot be all things to all people. That is why we frequently customize
cameras for our customers. If there is something specific that you really
want, we will build it for you.
RW
Jean-David Beyer
> The conclusion from this is that I think Ron can now afford,
> perhaps for the first time in his company's history, to direct his innovative
> talents towards simplification and cost reduction. He needs to be persuaded that
> sometimes, less is more.
If I remember the 4x5 line correctly, the T.F. was first. That may be "complex.' IIRC,
the Traditional model came later. It does not have the geared rear tilt or the rear
rise and fall. This is a simplification and (presumably) a cost reduction. The last
time I looked, it sold for around $300 less than the T.F. model. So this has not
entirely escaped Mr. Wisner's attention.
Dan Bereskin
camera, marketing is an issue. The Traditional seems to me to be positioned as a less
sophisticated, cheaper to make, and therefore less expensive version of the T.F. In
fact, for many people, it is probably the superior camera in terms of
cost-effectiveness. I bought the T.F. because I'm a gadget freak, and the "patented rear
axis tilt" seemed like an intriuging feature, though I don't think I've used it once.
Also, I had the feeling that the T.F. would be easier to sell eventually than the
Traditional on the basis that there is more demand for it. What I was thinking about in
my earlier post is a camera that is promoted as a featherweight 4 x 5, while maintaining
an acceptable level of rigidity, adequate draw for most field applications, and above
all, ease of use-big knobs, and the smallest number of knobs. Promoting it as a stripped
version of the pocket expedition would be the kiss of death, I think. On the other hand,
if you end up with a different set of trade-offs, including lower weight, easier to open,
easier to control, this could create customers who now are drawn to fold-up metal
cameras. I'm quite delighted I don't have to run the company-but am glad that Ron seems
to be doing so well now. He deserves it.
Kerry L. Thalmann
> If I remember the 4x5 line correctly, the T.F. was first. That may be "complex.' IIRC,
> the Traditional model came later. It does not have the geared rear tilt or the rear
> rise and fall. This is a simplification and (presumably) a cost reduction. The last
> time I looked, it sold for around $300 less than the T.F. model. So this has not
> entirely escaped Mr. Wisner's attention.
According to Ron Wisner in an earlier post in this thread (and my own
recollection - whatever that's worth), the Traditional was his first
design. Followed later by the Tech Field - an upgraded model with
longer bellows, geared rear axis tilt and rear rise. So, the
Traditional was NOT a cost reduction of the Tech Field. To date, each
successive Wisner 4x5 model has increased in price over the previous
(current prices: Traditional - $1495; Technical Field - $1850;
Expedition - $2195; Pocket Expedition - $2495). Only Ron can say for
sure if this trend will continue. And, quite frankly, as long as he's
selling cameras like hot cakes, I see little reason for it to change (in
spite of my own desire for a lighter, less feature laden version of the
Pocket Expedition).
Kerry L. Thalmann
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the response. If there is no hope of a production model like
I described (sort of a cross between the Pocket Expedition and the
Traditional), then I would be interested in discussing the possibility
of a custom made camera. Just out of curiosity, about how much do you
think a camera like this would weigh (same min/max bellows draw as the
P.E., with non-geared rising front panel and top rear focus, but no
geared movements and no rear rise, and aluminum hardware)? I'm guessing
that many of the parts could be borrowed from the current Pocket
Expedition (since that's what we'd be starting with and removing
"features"). In addition to weight savings, for me, the other important
issue is ease of use under field conditions. If we get serious about
doing a custom built camera, I'll call you and describe exactly what I'd
like to see in this department.
Thanks again for your response, for building such great cameras, and
taking the time to listen to an opinionated photographer with very
specific wants and needs in a field camera.
Kerry L. Thalmann
Hi Dan,
You make some very interesting points, and I am in complete agreement
with your conclusions. Of course, I have no insight into the
particulars of Ron's business, so I can't say for sure if a minimalist
Pocket Expedition would be more profitable (maybe call it a Baby
Expedition in tribute to the Baby Deardorff, or perhaps Vest Pocket
Expedition ala the Vest Pocket Kodak), or how it would effect sales of
his current models.
Ron and I had a similar conversation on Compurserve quite a while back
WRT to the 5x7 Pocket Expedition, and I think I didn't make myself 100%
clear. I'm not looking for an entry level camera that sells for less
than the Traditional and would compete with the Tachiharas and Wistas.
I'm looking for a speciality camera for hiking and backpacking that
offers a longer bellows than the 12" fixed bellows models, is reasonably
sturdy, less feature laden and as light as possible. Although this
would be a "lesser" camera than a Wisner Technical, I don't think it
would necessarily have to sell for less. After all, the recent trend in
Ron's cameras has been the lighter the camera, the more it costs. So,
like backpacking and climbing gear, light weight is a selling feature
that people are willing to pay a premium for. Just look at the
Expedition compared to the Technical Field. The designs are very
similar, but the Expedition has a shorter bellows and anodized aluminum
hardware rather than the lacquered brass of the Technical. So, in terms
of complexity, the cameras are very similar, but in terms of material
costs, I'm guessing the Expedition costs slightly less than the
Technical. Yet, the Expedition sells for $345 more. Clearly, people
are willing to pay more for "less" camera.
The camera I proposed in my earlier post would have even lower material
and assembly costs (shorter bellows, less metal hardware, less wood,
simplified assembly, etc.), but I think it would still sell well priced
in the ballpark of the Tech Field (or perhaps between the Tech Field and
the Expedition) - in other words in the $1800 - $2000 range. So, like
you said, such a camera might realize greater profit margins than some
of the more complex current models. Of course, this is all just
speculation. Only Ron can say for sure. He knows the business end of
making large format cameras probably better than anybody in the world.
He has generously offered to build me whatever my heart desires. I may
just take him up on it. I KNOW what my needs are, but I have NO idea if
MY perfect field camera would sell in quantites greater than one. Ron
has a better handle on that than I do. So if he says, "Yeah, I'll build
you one, but I don't see any market potential for such a specialized
camera", then he's bound to be right. I anticipate an interesting phone
conversation with Ron in the near future where we mull over this idea
and the possibility of a custom built camera to meet my needs. If
you're interested in a similar camera, let me know. Maybe we could get
him to make it two of a kind rather than a production run of one.
John Stafford
Kerry L. Thalmann <large...@thalmann.com> wrote in message
news:3941F0B0...@thalmann.com...
> [... snip excellent articles]
> I'm guessing the Expedition costs slightly less than the
> Technical. Yet, the Expedition sells for $345 more. Clearly, people
> are willing to pay more for "less" camera.
As you infer,we don't really know that the less complex camera costs less to
produce. It may very well be that given the current workflow and setup of
Wisner's operation, any exception costs more than the mainstream, even a
simpler camera.
This issue of camera lightness is a huge challenge. I'd not like to be the
chap who put out a flyweight, state of the art camera at enormous expense
only to have a significant number of vociferous consumers utterly fail with
them because of the natural shortcomings of a light camera in the field.
To digress a bit regarding "state of the art" - Composite materials (CF, all
that.) How are the CF based products faring in this regard? I work at an
institution which does composite materials research, manufacturing, and
teaching. (We have the first accredited undergraduate program in the field.)
I'm fortunate to be able to speak to those who actually do product research
in that area. It should surprise noone that a truly ground-breaking
materials product can utterly fail when it has to compete in a product-area
which includes a signficant visual factor (such as a fine wood and brass
camera) because composites are, fundamentally, so ugly and plain to the
consumer.
I spoke to a NG photographer last year who said that there was no way she
could justify the shortcomings of the lightweight equipment. She simply has
to schlepp what she needs. Period. Her dream is to have an assistant. Or a
donkey. I think she's on the right track.
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> Kerry L. Thalmann <large...@thalmann.com> wrote in message
> news:3941F0B0...@thalmann.com...
> As you infer,we don't really know that the less complex camera costs less to
> produce. It may very well be that given the current workflow and setup of
> Wisner's operation, any exception costs more than the mainstream, even a
> simpler camera.
Yes, agreed. A single one-of-a-kind, or low production run camera would
probably cost more than a more complex camera that is built in higher
volumes. However, if you do an apples:apples comparison using similar
production volumes, a simpler camera that uses less material and fewer
parts, should be less expensive to produce. That's what I meant to say
the first time.
> This issue of camera lightness is a huge challenge. I'd not like to be the
> chap who put out a flyweight, state of the art camera at enormous expense
> only to have a significant number of vociferous consumers utterly fail with
> them because of the natural shortcomings of a light camera in the field.
That may well be very true, but that was not what I was proposing. The
camera I was describing would use the same wood and anodised aluminum
materials that the current production model uses. The weight would be
reduced not by using higher risk, more expensive materials. It would be
reduced by removing complexity and "features" that I find unecessary for
the way I use a field camera. The only material change I mentioned (in
an earlier post) was that I'd prefer a synthetic material for the
bellows covering. Although they haven't been around as long as leather,
vinyl and nylon have been used for a long time for bellows
construction. In fact, just off the top of my head, I'm guessing that
synthetic materials are more commonly used than leather for bellows
construction these days. So, the properties of these materials, for
this application, should be well understood.
Still, if somebody wants to built a really light weight 4x5 out of
carbon fiber, or some other space age composite, I'd be happy to test it
(yes, I already know about the Carbon Infinity, but I seem to recall it
weighed about 7 lbs., so that's not what I'm looking for here).
> To digress a bit regarding "state of the art" - Composite materials (CF, all
> that.) How are the CF based products faring in this regard? I work at an
> institution which does composite materials research, manufacturing, and
> teaching. (We have the first accredited undergraduate program in the field.)
> I'm fortunate to be able to speak to those who actually do product research
> in that area. It should surprise noone that a truly ground-breaking
> materials product can utterly fail when it has to compete in a product-area
> which includes a signficant visual factor (such as a fine wood and brass
> camera) because composites are, fundamentally, so ugly and plain to the
> consumer.
Yes, different materials do have different visual appeal. I'm sure when
they first started to build tripods out of aluminum rather than wood, a
lot of people said they'd never own such an ugly piece of equipment.
And although woodend tripods are still available (and some users swear
by them), the vast majority of tripods sold today are made of aluminum
alloy. I've been using Gitzo carbon fiber tripods for a couple years
now and love them. When they first came out (about six years ago, I
believe), I heard they had some problems with adhesive failure between
the legs and collars. From what I've read, that problem was quickly
addressed by chaning the adhesive. In any case, I haven't heard of any
failures since the very early production models, and I have certainly
not experienced any problems with mine. Back to look and feel... this
is one case, where I prefer the look of carbon fiber over aluminum
(either silver, or anodized black). The Gitzos use a braided carbon
fiber that creates an interseting pattern when viewed closely, or just
looks like flat black when viewd from a distance. But honestly, "good
looks" were not a factor when I was shopping for a tripod. In addition
to weight savings, one other advantage of carbon fiber in this
application is the way it feels in the hand. Unlike metal tripods, that
can become quite cold (NEVER lick your tripod when the ambient
temperature is below zero), the carbon fiber does not make your fingers
cold and numb on cold days (one of the advantages often attributed to
wood tripods).
Back to large format cameras. They already come in many various
materials (several different types of wood - mahogany, cherry, ebony,
rosewood, walnut, etc., metal - mostly black anodized aluminum, and even
ABS). Although a metal camera like the Canham has a much different look
than a wood camera like the Wisner, I don't think looks alone have a
huge impact on sales in this specialized market. I think most large
format users are sophisticated enough to choose the best camera that
meets their needs with little thought to appearance (the way a camera
feels in the hands, which is at least partially attributed to the
material choice, probably is more significant than the way the camera
looks).
> I spoke to a NG photographer last year who said that there was no way she
> could justify the shortcomings of the lightweight equipment. She simply has
> to schlepp what she needs. Period. Her dream is to have an assistant. Or a
> donkey. I think she's on the right track.
Well, if she shoots for National Geo, I'm guessing she shoots 35mm,
which is a completely different market (not to mention a different
shooting style from the typical LF landscape shooter). In the 35mm
market, I can see why she'd prefer the heavier prime lenses and more
feature packed, better built heavier bodies. She's shooting very high
volumes, often under very difficult situations in very remote
locations. She needs equipment that perfoms reliably under such heavy
use and extremes of environment. Most of the lightweight zoom lenses
sacrifice optical performance and have much slower maximum apertures
than primes (or even high quality, fast zooms). I can see why someone
shooting for NG would shun the current lightweight offerings in 35mm
lenses. She probably shoots a lot hand held in low light situations
when fast primes are probably the only viable option. She probably
doesn't use a tripod a lot, but if she does, one of the carbon fiber
models may save a couple pounds (but probably not enough to keep her
dreaming of an assistant - either two-legged or four).