Hi folks, I'd like to hear comments about the V-Pan from anyone who's used this camera. I like the idea of using view camera adjustments on the 617 format. Is the camera sturdy and rigid enough? The rail seems a little puny. Do the movements lock positively? Do you need to take extra caution when inserting the RF back to avoid bumping the camera? Is there a problem with the film transport, flatness, or anything else related to the RF back itself? Would I be better off getting a 5x7 camera and investing in the 617 RF back, granted this may be more of an investment? Any other positive or negative experiences that you can share will certainly help and mostly appreciated. Regards, Henry

-- Henry Suryo (henrysuryo@coopercarry.com), April 06, 2002

Answers

Is the camera sturdy and rigid enough?

Yes. But....

Do the movements lock positively?

Yes...

Do you need to take extra caution when inserting the RF back to avoid bumping the camera?

Not in my experience but I really think the camera needs to be attachedto the tripod head in two places to preventthe camera from tipping back from the three pound weight of the magazine. i came up with a way a way to do this.

Is there a problem with the film transport, flatness, or anything else related to the RF back itself?

No.

Would I be better off getting a 5x7 camera and investing in the 617 RF back, granted this may be more of an investment?

for architectural work a better solution will be the forthcoming (I've gotten tired of waiting) 6x17cm back being made by Keith Canham (Canham Cameras) for the MQC camera as this will have tilt & swing on the rear standard. Even better would be to get a 5x7 ArcaSwiss F camera or a 5x7 Sinar P or C and have that camera modified to take the Canham 6x17 back. as that will add rise and fall as well as the other movements.

Art Photo makes or made a 6x17 adapter for 4x5 cameras but you are extremely limited as to what focal length lenses you can use (like between 120mm and 180mm). the depth of the attachment rules out shorter focal length lenses and the design of the back also rules out longer lenses before you get into vignetting.

A final thought is the very expensive Glide camera system. It is very elegant but well over $5,000 before you even think about a lens.

I assume you have alreewady ruled out using a 6x12 RFH on a 4x5. Having shot with both the 6x17 format and the 6x12 format, I can understand why. The two are really different. in terms of how you see and compose the image.

-- Ellis Vener Photography (ellis@ellisvener.com), April 06, 2002.

death to bad html tags!

-- Ellis Vener Photography (ellis@ellisvener.com), April 06, 2002.

Hi Ellis, Thank you for your response, it certainly opened up several options for me to consider before investing my limited funds. Actually, I think I would like the 6x12 format also and certainly the 6x12 RF backs available are more cost effective for me. I would only need to get a 8x10 to 4x5 reducing back for my 8x10 Deardorff and the back itself, and use my existing lenses on their boards, rather than a whole new camera. Do you know if these 6x12 backs are universal to any 4x5s? Do they fit between the GG and the frame like a standard film holder or Polaroid holder? Also, do you know if Art Photo has a website? How can you fit a 6x17 back on a 4x5? Wouldn't you need at least a 5x7? Thanks in advance, I know I ask a lot of questions. Regards, Henry

-- Henry Suryo (henrysuryo@coopercarry.com), April 06, 2002.

Hi again, I realized that this issue has been addressed several times in previous postings. I apologize for not having review these listings prior. Apparently all the available backs have some drawbacks to their design. I would like to narrow my options to the insert type RF backs without having to remove the GG first for convenience. I can't seem to decide which make is the best trade off for this type of backs. Is there one where the roll doesn't do the "reverse wound"? Thanks again, Henry

-- Henry Suryo (henrysuryo@coopercarry.com), April 06, 2002.

The best RFH is the Sinar Vario II. it will slide under the groundglass. Have you considered 4"x10"?

-- Ellis Vener Photography (ellis@ellisvener.com), April 07, 2002.

An simpler, even more cost effective approach I discovered in the past listings of this great forum is to use a "half darkslide" method. I can get 2- 3 1/3 x 10 shots on a sheet of 8x10 which is a 1:3 aspect ratio. But while we're on the topic, it seems like the Sinar Vario Zoom 2 back is a great option since you can get multiple formats and has the desirable features aforementioned. They're quite expensive, though. I guess good things come at a price... Thanks much, Henry

-- Henry Suryo (henrysuryo@coopercarry.com), April 07, 2002.