clarence
ダメ
Hello,
The panoramic format always enthralled me, but the costs were a barrier to entering this particular realm. The cheapest 35mm panoramic camera would probably be a Horizon, and even a used model would cost over a hundred pounds.
I learnt about the Nimslo, a financial disaster with 4 separate lenses that created photographs with the illusion of 3-dimensionality. The wonder of it, though, was that it could be gutted and transformed into a homemade panoramic camera:
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-nimslo.html
Someone else who made a Nimslo panoramic has photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo-montage/
But having little experience with disembowelling cameras and inter-species mating, I dared not experiment with any of that. In any case, I was dreaming of medium-format panoramas. 35mm was for me, always too much of a compromise. Huge Fuji rangefinders danced daily in my head, always frustratingly out of reach.
Then I came across this:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/postcard.html
For less than US$50 in equipment and supplies, one could fashion an adapter to use 120 rollfilm in an ancient 5 1/2" x 3 1/4" rangefinder/viewfinder camera. There was no surgery, no lens hacking to be done at all. Suddenly, it seemed possible for me to get those 6 x 14 negatives and transparencies that I had always dreamed of.
Can it be true?
Clarence
The panoramic format always enthralled me, but the costs were a barrier to entering this particular realm. The cheapest 35mm panoramic camera would probably be a Horizon, and even a used model would cost over a hundred pounds.
I learnt about the Nimslo, a financial disaster with 4 separate lenses that created photographs with the illusion of 3-dimensionality. The wonder of it, though, was that it could be gutted and transformed into a homemade panoramic camera:
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-nimslo.html
Someone else who made a Nimslo panoramic has photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo-montage/
But having little experience with disembowelling cameras and inter-species mating, I dared not experiment with any of that. In any case, I was dreaming of medium-format panoramas. 35mm was for me, always too much of a compromise. Huge Fuji rangefinders danced daily in my head, always frustratingly out of reach.
Then I came across this:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/postcard.html
For less than US$50 in equipment and supplies, one could fashion an adapter to use 120 rollfilm in an ancient 5 1/2" x 3 1/4" rangefinder/viewfinder camera. There was no surgery, no lens hacking to be done at all. Suddenly, it seemed possible for me to get those 6 x 14 negatives and transparencies that I had always dreamed of.
Can it be true?
Clarence
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Andrew Davidhazy is quite the technician. I have seen some cameras that he has built. They are quite amazing.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Someone should get g'man to make one of these. 
yossarian
Well-known
Hmmm...."Greyhound" camera. Say it out loud. Sounds pretty good. Beats the hell
out of "Rectaflex".
Fred
out of "Rectaflex".
Fred
R
RML
Guest
I'm wondering which cameras might be those 122 film cameras that Robert Monaghan speaks of. Is there an easy way to find that out somehow? I don't think most eBay sellers know the difference between 120, 220, 127 or 122 film.
clarence
ダメ
Hello,
This website belongs to a UK dealer in second-hand equipment:
http://www.vintagecameras.co.uk/kodak.htm
I found it really useful because they actually indicated the film format beside their vintage cameras.
Clarence
This website belongs to a UK dealer in second-hand equipment:
http://www.vintagecameras.co.uk/kodak.htm
I found it really useful because they actually indicated the film format beside their vintage cameras.
Clarence