Re: Re: 8x10 camera

I agree with the below pricing and it's not a bad deal.

I have two of these "B&J Commercial View" cameras. They are in the
'workhorse' category and should last longer than either of us if taken care of.
But it's _not_ a great field camera! The camera alone weighs in at over 16
pounds! And it's huge. You'll need a _real_ tripod to hold it too!

On the plus side, this camera is apparently nicely refinished and is the heavy-
duty model. You can tell this from the dual screws that hold the extension
rails in place and the wider, dual-slot rear standard uprights. The lesser model
uses a single screw for the extension rails and the rear standard upright is
half the width and has only one slot.

On the down side, it is missing the catch & pins for the folding extension and
back. These are very minor and could be bought at any hardware store. There
are also two screws missing from the bottom of the rear standard upright.
These hold it steadier and in a straight position, on either side of the bottom
slot. They have to be removed for shifts & swings and sometimes are not
replaced...

Although it says "complete", it shows no ground glass or the GG retainers? If
this is missing, you can get an excellent replacement for 20 bucks from
http://www.satinsnowglass.com/ . I have two of these and they are just
wonderful! The retainers are something you'd have to make?

I would say that _if_ this setup is what you want, the cost is fine. If it's not
what you want, then it's not right at half the price...

Rich...

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:31:18 +0000, jpptprnt@verizon.net wrote:

>Adam.
>
>Ok from the top
>
>Lens 300mm B/L tessar 150 to 200
>
>Film holders 9 times 20 to 30 180 to 270
>
>5x7 back 50.
>
>So far 380. to 520.
>
>Ok you paid 180 dollars for and 8x10 in what looks like great shape.
>
>Goooooo foorrr iiittt
>
>
>Jan Pietrzak
>
>
>>
>> From: "Adam. Waterson" <artistboi@speakeasy.net>
>> Date: 2004/08/02 Mon PM 04:59:46 GMT
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>> Subject: Re: 8x10 camera
>>
>> This is what the guy originally wrote describing the camera and the
>> lens... Is 700 too much?
>>
>>
>>
>> The 8x10 view camera is a Burke and James - not sure what the model
>> number or type is. It has a 30-inch bellows draw, a re-positionable
>> back (horizontal and vertical), and features full movements front and
>> back - shift, tilt, swing, rise, and fall. It has the removable
>> extension rail for the full 30-inch bellows draw. It also comes with a
>> 5x7 reduction back. I'm also including nine 8x10 film holders and two
>> packs of 8x10 film - 23 sheets of Kodak Ektachrome 64T (tungsten), and
>> 23 sheets of Ilford Delta 100.
>>
>> The camera is complete and restored. I stripped all the old gray
>> factory finish paint, cleaned, sanded, and re-stained the wood a
>> beautiful red mahogany. The bellows is light tight. I used a vinyl
>> spray dye to change the shade of the bellows from the factory bright
>> red to a maroon to better complement the wood finish. I also replaced
>> the missing carrying handle with a new luggage-quality leather handle.
>>
>> The lens is a Bausch and Lomb 8x10 Tessar Ic, 11-13/16-inch (300mm)
>> focal length, f4.5 to f45, in a Wollensak Betax Number 5 shutter
>> (speeds of T, B, 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, and 1/50. Shutter works properly
>> at all speeds. Glass is very clean and clear for an optic this old. It
>> makes clear, sharp shots.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2004, at 12:23 PM, Tom Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> > It looks like a wonderfully reconditioned B&J. I believe they were all
>> > ugly gray when first made, someone did a very nice looking job.
>> >
>> > I have one of these in 11x14. It is a good, not great, view/field
>> > camera. Compared to a Wisner or such (much much more $$) the B&J
is
>> > heavy, doesn't fold into a fully protected box (only important for
>> > backpacker types), is less rigid (the back of mine moves slightly if
>> > aimed downward and then loaded with the film holder weight). There are
>> > no center detents or even center markings for the movements.
>> >
>> > I don't want to sound too negative. I have happily used mine for
>> > perhaps 12 years. I like mine, just don't expect it to be a $3000
>> > Wisner! With a bit more care, you can take the exact same pic as the
>> > $3000 Wisner, but it will take extra care. I'll keep mine and spend
>> > the difference on film :-)
>> >
>> > As has already been said, check the bellows!
>> >
>> > Check Ebay. I think, even with 7 holders and a reducing back, you may
>> > be "slightly" overpaying. You will need a lens board and lens (4x5
>> > lenses generally won't work, not enough coverage).
>> >
>> > The 11x14 (and I "THINK" the 8x10) were sold with an extention bed
>> > that allowed long lens and macro shooting. Mine screws into the back
>> > of the bed and allows the bellows to be full extended. This seems to
>> > be missing from yours. You can probably find one on Ebay (but it won't
>> > match the nice finish on yours). If long lenses or macro is important,
>> > you truly will want that extender.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, August 2, 2004, at 07:56 AM, Adam. Waterson wrote:
>> >
>> >> hey, I'm thinking about buying my first 8x10 camera... It is from a
>> >> private seller who is a friend of a friend. he sent me some images.
>> >> it is complete, with 7 film backs, a 5x7 reducing back, a lens....
>> >>
>> >> http://www.chubbychili.com/1___still/d___not_mine/8by10a.JPG
>> >> http://www.chubbychili.com/1___still/d___not_mine/8by10b.JPG
>> >> http://www.chubbychili.com/1___still/d___not_mine/8by10c.JPG
>> >> (since we're not allowed to send attachments, i am referring u to my
>> >> website)
>> >>
>> >> I offered him 700, what do u guys think?
>> >> Adam.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > --------------
>> > Tom Ferguson
>> > http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 2 14:28:10 2004