# Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 13, 2015)

```
<p>I must admit, I’m one of those people that make fun of the PowerShot N whenever possible. I shake my head at the fact this <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081864-REG/canon_9547b001_powershot_n2_digital_camera.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">camera actually got a sequel</a>!</p>
<p>That being said, photographer <a href="http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/24205/paul-richters" target="_blank">Paul Richters</a> decided to convert one into a rather cool waist level Rolleiflex style shooter. Below is a schema from <a href="http://www.diyphotography.net/spoil-point-shoot-making-waist-level-shooter/" target="_blank">DIY Photography</a> that breaks down what was needed to convert the PowerShot N into a new era Rolleiflex.</p>
<div id="attachment_18329" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.diyphotography.net/spoil-point-shoot-making-waist-level-shooter/"><img class="wp-image-18329 size-medium" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/schema-575x575.jpg" alt="schema" width="575" height="575" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for the full article</p></div>
<p>I might actually try this, I love the idea!</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.diyphotography.net/spoil-point-shoot-making-waist-level-shooter/" target="_blank">Read the full article at DIY Photography</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.diyphotography.net/spoil-point-shoot-making-waist-level-shooter/" target="_blank">DIY Photography</a>] via [<a href="http://petapixel.com/2015/01/12/canon-powershot-n-transformed-waist-level-rolleiflex-style-camera/" target="_blank">PetaPixel</a>] & [<a href="http://photo.stackexchange.com/users/24205/paul-richters" target="_blank">Paul Richters</a>] | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909815-REG/Canon_8230b001_PowerShot_N_Digital_Camera.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">PowerShot N $129 at B&H</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RobPan (Jan 13, 2015)

Rolleiflex? The Rolleiflex is a two-eye reflex. You mean Hasselblad, which is a single lens reflex. 

Kind regards,
Rob.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 13, 2015)

RobPan said:


> Rolleiflex? The Rolleiflex is a two-eye reflex. You mean Hasselblad, which is a single lens reflex.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Rob.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jan 13, 2015)

Love to see a EOS M mount camera in this form factor, that would be golden.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 13, 2015)

BozillaNZ said:


> Love to see a EOS M mount camera in this form factor, that would be golden.



YES YES YES!

Add a 36x24mm sensor model with EF mount and a new lens series that can use this EF mount and the volume between flange and sensor. These weren't compatible with EF SLR's ... o.k., but very interesting for high quality wide angles.


----------



## TAF (Jan 13, 2015)

BozillaNZ said:


> Love to see a EOS M mount camera in this form factor, that would be golden.



Even better would be a FF sensor with EF mount. That would be my ideal camera.

5D3w (for waist level)


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 13, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ... photography paul-richters decided to convert one into a rather attractive and neat waist level Rolleiflex style shooter


*lol* lovely idea. That made my start this day


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 13, 2015)

RobPan said:


> Rolleiflex? The Rolleiflex is a two-eye reflex. You mean Hasselblad, which is a single lens reflex.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Rob.



I guess you've never seen a Rollei SL66 http://www.sl66.com or a Rollei Hy6 http://www.digital-photography.org/reviews_price_comparisons_medium-format_645_digital_camera_backs_for_Hasselblad_Mamiya_Contax_Rollei/Sinar_Hy6_medium_format_digital_camera_reviews_compare_prices.php


----------



## RobPan (Jan 13, 2015)

Hmmm, I mean: pooh! No one I know associates Rollei with a single lens camera. As far as I know single lens Rolleis never made it. Yes, some were sold, and they were good cameras indeed but nowhere as famous as the TLR. The twin lens Rollei is a classic, and some of the best photographers used it (or the Rolleicord if they could not afford a Rolleiflex). Or am I too old?
My own Rollei dates from 13-3-1934 (date written with pencil on the back of the mirror!).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 13, 2015)

Who knows Nikon will produce something like this, for users of DF...
Thus opens a new market to sell a dozen cameras worldwide.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2015)

It's worthy of Surapon!


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 13, 2015)

This is like converting a 1997 VW Jetta into a taxi cab from 1965.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 13, 2015)

Aha I identified one of the components; 'round screw with hole' = bicycle cantilever brake parts as shown below.


----------



## photo212 (Jan 13, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> Aha I identified one of the components; 'round screw with hole' = bicycle cantilever brake parts as shown below.


Now tell me where it goes? The instructions never mention it.


----------



## jefflinde (Jan 13, 2015)

Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 13, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is


Advantages of a camera at waist level? ???

Photographers with 1.8 meter high, shooting people comfortably with 1.2 meters? 

Children are not included in this category because a powershot not have the necessary speed.


----------



## zim (Jan 13, 2015)

AlanF said:


> It's worthy of Surapon!



+1 would have put money on it before starting to read the topic although I'm sure he would have used pipe insulation somewhere ;D . Where is CRs very own mad inventor anyway, hasn't been around for a few weeks?


----------



## mrzero (Jan 13, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> jefflinde said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is
> ...



Metric conversions aside, I find the flippy screens useful for shooting from a different/lower angle. The twisting side-hinge style (think 60D, 70D, or G1X mark I) allows you to get low for horizontals or verticals. The top-hinge style (i.e G1X mark II or G7X) is a bit more sleek but seems like it would not allow for low-angle vertical framing, although I have not yet used one. Much easier on the knees.


----------



## TAF (Jan 14, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is



Stability. A camera held to your face with your elbows locked to your chest is quite stable. A camera at waist level against your body with the neck strap taut is even stabler. Further, it provides a distinctly different perspective in your photos. Someone recently mentioned the work of Vivian Maier. Check out her work and you'll see what I mean.

That same camera held upside down over your head lets you shoot over the crowd.

The 'viewfinder on top' has a number of advantages. I've got several Rollei TLR's, and still use them. I've also got an Angle Finder B (modified) for my 5D3 to sort of simulate the capability.

As I've stated before, the optimum mirrorless for me would be a FF with an EF mount with the viewfinder on top. Like the Rollei SL66 (or more to the point, the 3003).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 14, 2015)

photo212 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Aha I identified one of the components; 'round screw with hole' = bicycle cantilever brake parts as shown below.
> ...



They're recessed at the side and are apparently used to mechanically connect the block to the camera via the neck strap connectors on the side of the canon body.


----------



## martti (Jan 14, 2015)

If you take that particular screw out of somebody else's bicycle you might get involved in something like involuntary manslaughter. CAn you make it so that the image in the viewfinder swings the other way than the camera like in the real Rolleicord? That would be cool.


----------



## RobPan (Jan 14, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is



For instance: child photography. Better to have the camera on a low level than photographing them far from above. Stability is another advantage. Pull the camera straps taut. 
The _Exakta Varex_ had an interchangeable waist level finder, very practical and useful. (Grandpa speaking.)
Kind regards,
Rob.


----------



## martti (Jan 14, 2015)

Canon F-1 had an interchangeable prism as well. You could remove it and look directly at the ground glass from above.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 14, 2015)

martti said:


> If you take that particular screw out of somebody else's bicycle you might get involved in something like involuntary manslaughter. CAn you make it so that the image in the viewfinder swings the other way than the camera like in the real Rolleicord? That would be cool.



Why steal if you can buy?


----------



## martti (Jan 14, 2015)

it is cheaper if you steal it of course, whitey!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 14, 2015)

martti said:


> it is cheaper if you steal it of course, whitey!



??? :


----------



## RobPan (Jan 15, 2015)

martti said:


> Canon F-1 had an interchangeable prism as well. You could remove it and look directly at the ground glass from above.



Yes, it did. Though I do not remember ever using it. Oh well, once or twice. The Exakta however, had a buit in film cutter*, something I miss badly on the 5D3, which does not even have film transport knobs. A pity. But surprisingly, it does have a film rewind button on the left side which has been reassigned as a mode selection button: M, Av, Tv etc. Which is a clear example of the idea that new things are often lookalikes of their predecessors (e.g. the first cars looked much like a horse drawn coach). b.t.w. the fact that one does not have to buy film for present day digital cameras has certainly saved me (and you!) a lot of money! The very expensive 5D3 already nearly payed its price back to me in film costs (film+developing). Something to remember when thinking about buying a digital camera.
Kind regards, Rob.

*) If, after say four or five exposures you were in a hurry to see the results, you could cut the film, and in a dark place remove the short strip from the camera in order to develop it. The unexposed remainder you could still use. Remember that the Exakta at the time was being produced in East-Germany, which was a rather poor country.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 15, 2015)

If the waist-level viewfinder is to be true to form, then the image has to be upside-down and left to right.
This was the main reason that waist-level viewfinders got taken over by penta-prisms.

My first SLR camera was an Exacta Varex.
Not only was the film cutter handy, but the camera was designed for left handers.
Where are the lefty cameras today?


----------



## Rocky (Jan 15, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> If the waist-level viewfinder is to be true to form, then the image has to be upside-down and left to right.
> This was the main reason that waist-level viewfinders got taken over by penta-prisms.
> 
> My first SLR camera was an Exacta Varex.
> ...


You are right about the left and right reverse on the finder. But the image in the finder IS NOT up side down.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 15, 2015)

RobPan said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > Canon F-1 had an interchangeable prism as well. You could remove it and look directly at the ground glass from above.
> ...


The proper way to us this function is to have a reusable emty film cassetts on the recieving end to keep the explosed film in the cassette such that it will be in total darkness.. Before you want to cut the film, you will advance the film by 2 frames and cut it. 
Exakta was made in Dresden way before the second world war. It was a united Germany. It was pretty wealthy.


----------



## martti (Jan 16, 2015)

Exactas were manufactured in GDR until the 1970s.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 16, 2015)

martti said:


> Exactas were manufactured in GDR until the 1970s.


Your are right on this. I did not make it clear that the Exakta has been manufacturing in Dresden all the time, from 1933 until 1970. From 1939 to 1969, all Exakta has the film cutting knife. The last model (VX1000) does not have the film cutting knife.


----------



## martti (Jan 17, 2015)

Goodbye, Lenin. Goodbye, Honecker. Goodbye Trabant. Goodbye Exacta and Zeiss Jena.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIjSaHUKD5I


----------



## RobPan (Jan 18, 2015)

Rocky said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > Exactas were manufactured in GDR until the 1970s.
> ...



O yes, it had! I had an Exakta VX1000 and it did have the film cutting knife. 
Kind regards, Rob.


----------



## Cet (Mar 8, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> Maybe I am just clueless but what is the point of doing this? Other than to say that you can? Is there some advantage to holding a camera like this? People complain about not having a viewfinder and how unimaginablely difficult it is to frame a shot but with this you have to look down and not even close to where your subject is. Please let me know if I am missing something. Honestly I am curious what the draw to this is



This is great for street photography. You want to avoid eye contact as you want to avoid interacting with the people you photograph as a street photographer to preserve the authenticity of the situation. You do not want people to pose but to act as normal as they do when they do not know that they are photographed.


----------

