5x7 Recommendations

Alan9940 · Apr 23, 2007

I'm thinking about getting a 5x7...which one (new) would you recommend that falls into the "affordable" category; for example, my wallett tells me to skip the Ebony!

Thank you for any thoughts and recommendations.

Amund · Apr 23, 2007

The "cheapest" Ebony 5x7 is $4795, wich makes my $1295 Shen-Hao FCL-57 a bargain I wrote a few words(and pictures) on it here

MikeK · Apr 23, 2007

Alan9940 said:
I'm thinking about getting a 5x7...which one (new) would you recommend that falls into the "affordable" category; for example, my wallett tells me to skip the Ebony!

Thank you for any thoughts and recommendations.

I am really pleased with my Tachihara 5x7; you can see it here Dead Link Removed

Reasonably priced; and I purchased mine new from MidWest Photo

Hope this helps

Best

Mike

Nick Zentena · Apr 23, 2007

The older models are much more affordable then anything new. Something like an Ansco 5x7 won't set you back much more then $200 depending on condition.

Downsides

Weight
Not ultra wide lens friendly. Or at least less wide then some of the moderns
Obviously used.

Curt · Apr 23, 2007

I have a Kodak 2D, while not a Canham, it is a fine camera. I got it a little rough so I stripped it and refinished it. I left the hardware which has a paint in gold and patina. It was a "find" though and a lot of dogs are out there with bad bellows. The camera I have had a new bellows and the seller didn't even mention it in the ad. I was prepared to buy a new one but didn't have to.

Then there are the holders, and do you want to contact print or get a 5x7 enlarger? Good luck.

papagene · Apr 23, 2007

Like Curt, I have a Kodak 2D. Stripped it down and refinished it. Bellows are light tight and it works just fine. Paid $200 for it... fun to use.
Take a look.

gene

photomc · Apr 23, 2007

Alan, have been working with an old Burke & James for the past couple of years and think it was the right way to approach 5x7 (Love the format BTW). That said, I have been 'wanting' to upgrade to a nicer camera, but am currently torn between a 5x7 Canham or replacing both the 5x7 B&J and 8x10 Korona with the 8x10 Canham with a 5x7 back. It is indeed a BIG step up in $$, but from everything I have read it is also worth the $$.

The problems with the older cameras, that I have had, is they are not quite as stable, and there is a spare amount of baby-sitting (you spend a bit more time fiddling with the camera to get everything set) before making an image. Then there is the difference in weight, if something goes wrong with the older camera it is not as easy to repair, etc.

All of that said, there is still a certain pleasure to working with the older cameras. Maybe nostalgia, not sure but the fact that you can still make a very good image with a camera that is 40, 50...100+ years old leaves you with a lot of satisfaction (or it does for me).

Good luck with the quest - the B&J cost me $150 with a 4x5 back, found someone here that had a 5x7 back for another $100. Not bad for an older camera that has given me great service...it just wants to be treated kindly and I can not complain with the work I have produced with it.

Bandicoot · Apr 23, 2007

I used an old Kodak Specialist 5x7 monorail for years - it was my first LF camera and I used it both 'full-size' and with a home-made 4x5 back. It worked very well, but took time to set up and is very heavy.

Later I started using a Graflex Century Graphic for 6x9, and then added an 'old style' Arca-Swiss 6x9 monorail. I liked the Arca so much that I got a 4x5 as well and more or less stopped using the old Kodak. Then a few years on I found a used ('old style') Arca 5x7 in somewhat poor condition. The price was right and as I already had Arcas I didn't need all the parts from it, and the ones I did need were amongst those that were in better working shape.

Since I got that I've gone back to doing more 5x7 work than I had done for a long time. Many of the monorail solutions for doing 5x7 are really not very portable, but the Arca is light but rigid and can be packed in a fairly small space. I do recommend looking at this as another option, a possible alternative to all the field cameras being recommended. Which you will like - monorail or field - is a personal thing and related to the sort of work you do, but do consider both alternatives.

Peter

Curt · Apr 23, 2007

Like Curt, I have a Kodak 2D. Stripped it down and refinished it. Bellows are light tight and it works just fine. Paid $200 for it... fun to use.
Take a look.

Mine looks like this one owned by Gene, I have the extension rail for mine and it and the rail and film holders fit in a California Innovations pop cooler. They are available at Walmart. In fact Walmart is a good place to get cooler type carriers cheap. The 2D is very respectable, I was at the Valley of Fire with it and some people there who saw it made all kinds of nice comments, like "that's a real camera" etc.. I have a Seneca also in 5x7 and 8x10 but the Kodak, even though it is a bit heavier, is very solid and won't let you down. I also have a C1 with an 8x10 and 5x7 back but I don't think I will ever take it out again unless it is setup next to the truck. Even then it's too heavy. Live and learn. It was cheap and I restored it and made it look and work very nice but as a 5x7 it's like a 5x7 field camera with an extra 20 pounds of weights handing on it. I am amazed when I see Brett Weston pick one up attached to a tripod and put over the shoulder and walk it around in the video by Art Wright. It might be a good base for an 8x10 horizontal enlarger project.
Curt

Loose Gravel · Apr 23, 2007

You don't have to buy new, good used equipment is just as good or better because you don't feel so protective. Anyway, I have a Deardorff. It's a good camera and does most things at 7 pounds. There are lots of them. The wooden Canham isn't bad.

Roger Hicks · Apr 24, 2007

Dear Alan,

Gandolfis are gorgeous but if you're in the US probably unaffordable because of the collapse of the dollar. If you're elsewhere in the world, seriously consider one. I have a Variant with 4x5 and 5x7 backs but would love a Traditional (formerly known as Precision). The one on the whole-plate chassis, for preference.

Otherwise, Canham. Superb construction and standards of service equalled only by Gandolfi.

Cheers,

R.

Ole · Apr 24, 2007

photomc said:
... The problems with the older cameras, that I have had, is they are not quite as stable, and there is a spare amount of baby-sitting (you spend a bit more time fiddling with the camera to get everything set) before making an image. Then there is the difference in weight, if something goes wrong with the older camera it is not as easy to repair, etc. ...

In my experience old cameras can be just great. My Gandolfi Traditional is from the 1950's, and if I need a more stable camera than that (for an even heavier lens) I'll dig out my 1900's German plate camera. Both cameras are wonderfully stable, relatively lightweight (at least compared to a Linhof Technika III 13x18cm which is the only camera that might possibly be more stable), easy to rapair, and parts are still easily available for the Gandolfi.

neutrino · Apr 24, 2007

Do you interested in it? Nagaoka 5x7

It is an expensive, rare and lovely camera

http://photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=680256

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 24, 2007

For the money Neutrino's ad mentions, you can find a used Canham Woodfield 5x7, which I would highly recommend. I've had one for six or eight months now, and been extremely pleased with it AND Keith Canham's service on it as well. I got mine used from Midwest Photo, and I think it was one of the early production models. It developed an issue with the mounting system for the back, and Jim and Keith got me a new back with the improved design that eliminated that flaw, sent to me FedEx, at no charge. Talk about great service! The camera is extremely light and compact ( I can take it around in the same bag that my 4x5 fits in ). My only complaint is that some of the controls have two locking levers instead of one, so it takes a few seconds more to set up. Minor complaint.

Russ Young · Apr 24, 2007

It all depends on your budget. You cannot beat the woodfield Canham- love mine and you will not outgrow it. When you have more moolah, get a 4x5 or 4x10 back to go with it.

My first large format camera was the studio Agfa Portrait- heavy and definitely not wobbly like many old wooden cameras but its a 5x7 horizontal only format. Underneath that ugly battleship gray paint is a spectacular cherry wood body...I sold mine about ten years ago, regretted it, and bought another on on fleabay recently for under $100 with the sliding back which allows you to make two vertical images on a 5x7 sheet.

Have had several Korona 5x7s, all light and compact but wimpy and a small lens board. Nonetheless, more than decent cameras for the price.

ALWAYS ask the seller if the bellows are good or else you'll need to drop another $200 on your bargain!

Good luck,
Russ

Neil Miller · Apr 24, 2007

Gandolfi Variant Level III in 5x7 - lovely camera, tons of movements, but a bit on the heavy side.

Regards,
Neil.

removed account4 · Apr 24, 2007

Alan9940 said:
I'm thinking about getting a 5x7...which one (new) would you recommend that falls into the "affordable" category; for example, my wallett tells me to skip the Ebony!

Thank you for any thoughts and recommendations.

alan

before i recommend a camera or 2 what you want to photograph with it -
portraits, landscapes ( limited movements ) or architecture ( need lots of movements ). there are lots of choices -
from a studio/rail/view camera (like a toyo where you can cobble together what you need because they built the componants to be like that )
to something like a wooden field camera ...

wooden field cameras seem to be very affordable these days ...

just wonderin'

john

wfwhitaker · Apr 24, 2007

I won't give a recommendation, per se. As John pointed out, your choice is dependent on how you want to use it. I have two 5x7's, a Deardorff and a Wisner. The Deardorff is a wonderful camera. They were the first and they pretty much nailed the design. Reasonably lightweight, adequate bellows extension, generous movements, intuitive operation. My camera has been modified to accept Technika-style lensboards so many of my lenses can be used on different cameras. A 4x5 reducing back allows use of that format, too.

The other 5x7 I have is a Wisner Technical Field camera. This is probably one of the best cameras Wisner produced. A solid camera, it offers about 30 inches of bellows extension and all the movements you could need. The 5 1/4 inch lensboards which seem ridiculously small on 8x10 and larger cameras are luxurious on a 5x7. Lenses I can't use on the Deardorff are mounted to use on the Wisner: a 12" Velostigmat Series II variable soft focus, an 11" Verito, a 305mm Kodak Portrait. Yes, this is a folding 5x7 field camera you can mount an Ilex #5 shutter on. The bed is a quadruple extension, meaning there's the bed which is fixed to the tripod and there are three sliding extensions. Front and rear are rack and pinion; the third is another front extension which slides by hand and can be locked in place. Overall bellows extension is around 30", but the camera can accommodate lenses down to 75mm. The bellows is very flexible thin leather. Below 6" extension a bag bellows allows more movements if needed. There is a 4x5 reducing back with international Graflok hardware. This camera came also with an aftermarket V-Pan 6x17 back.

The Deardorff is a good, solid, easy-to-use field camera. The Wisner offers a lot more flexibility, but at a cost of added weight - it's around 10 pounds. It depends on how you want to photograph. Used 5x7 Deardorffs are plentiful; Wisner Tech Fields not so much.

Having said all the above, I will add that I did at one time have a Canham wood 5x7. I sold it and have regretted it since. If I were to start over in 5x7 I would give that one serious consideration. Its quirky operation is nothing that operator training and muscle memory can't overcome. With the ability to add the 5x12 rear standard that one would cover a lot of territory.

Rob Skeoch · Apr 24, 2007

I think the Canham is the way to go... has so much flexibility in it's design.

-Rob

Roger Hicks · Apr 24, 2007

wfwhitaker said:
The Deardorff is a wonderful camera. They were the first and they pretty much nailed the design.

Are you sure about this? As fas as I am aware, the Deardorff was introduced in about 1920, around the same time as the Gandolfi Precision (now metamorphosed into the Traditional), and I don't know of any features in either that were a significant advance on (for example) Sanderson or Underwood, both of which were significantly earlier. But I could be wrong. My knowkedge of 'woodie' history is slender.

Cheers,

R.

wfwhitaker · Apr 24, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Are you sure about this? As fas as I am aware, the Deardorff was introduced in about 1920...

Oh, Roger! I knew someone would call me on that! No, I'm not sure of anything. For that matter, if you want to count all the English-style compact folding plate cameras which went before, then it was very far from first. But to set the record straight, then, "Deardorff was one of the first modern wooden field cameras." It's probably safe to say that the Deardorff is the de facto standard when it comes to wooden field cameras. I'm not sure about that, either. But it's always the one I think of first and what I compare other cameras to. But I'm speaking for myself, of course.

Alan9940 · Apr 24, 2007

Thank you very much to all of you for your considered replies...you've given me much fodder for thought.

Sorry that I didn't mention any particulars about what I shoot or my anticipated use of the camera; primarily I shoot what I guess would be called the natural scene. My primary considerations when looking at any field camera is: weight and, more importantly, rigidity when all controls are locked down. It would be nice if it was "packable", but not essential. I care little for how beautiful the camera looks, rather I seek good tools that can get the job done! On the 5x7, it would be nice if I could use my 19" Artar with a little extra bellows for somewhat closer focus. I wouldn't expect to do close-ups with this lens, but I might want to focus on something closer than infinity!

Again, thank you to all, but I do wish to respond to a couple of posters in particular:

Amund - I've looked at the Shen-Hao FCL-57 mostly due to it's unique design. After all, I'm no stranger to rather unique cameras in that I own a Toho 45X (Roger Hicks knows about this one!) How solid is the Shen-Hao with longer lenses?

RogerH - I am in the U.S. so any Gandolfi is probably out of the running since our $$ is, what, like half the Euro now?!

To all who recommended the Canham, I am looking at this one very seriously. I've heard nothing but great things about their service and, besides, I'm not far from where Keith lives! I'm also very intriqued by the fact that the 5x7 back can be removed and replaced with 4x10; a very useful format, IMO, for our beloved Southwest, rivers/streams/brooks, etc.

By the way, RogerH, as far as I'm concerned the Deardorff was the best 8x10 field camera available when I bought mine circa 1980. The best design? I think not. I can't tell you how many times I've had to "man handle" the rear standard to re-engage the focus track after it "jumped the track!" This camera is fairly rigid when everything is locked down, but it gets this rigidity mostly from it's weight. All that said, though, I used my 8x10 'Dorff exclusively for about 10 years and produced many wonderful images with this camera.

Alan9940 · Apr 24, 2007

Sorry, one additional question to all who recommended the Canham 5x7: are we talking the wooden or metal version?

Thanks, again.

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 24, 2007

I'm referring to the wood version, as that is what I have. it is plenty rigid when locked down, and very lightweight- 6lbs no lens, same as my Shen-Hao 4x5! It will let you focus a 19" lens at substantially closer than infinity - I think the bellows draw is something on the order of 22-24".

Roger Hicks · Apr 25, 2007

wfwhitaker said:
It's probably safe to say that the Deardorff is the de facto standard when it comes to wooden field cameras.

At the risk of being accused of anti-Americanism by the usual suspects, I'd say this is only true in the USA. Elsewhere in the world, those who have actually seen or handled them (as distinct from reading Americans' opinions of them) cannot see what the fuss is about. I had read a lot about them before I ever saw one, so perhaps my expectations were unreasonably high, but I was surprised at how very ordinary they are.

If I could stand 'smileys' or emoticons I'd strew this post with them, but please take it as read that there is no personal attack, anti-US attach or even Deardorff attack intended: I just can't see why they're so well regarded.

Cheers,

R.

5x7 Recommendations

Alan9940

Amund

MikeK

Nick Zentena

Curt

papagene

Membership Council

Attachments

photomc

Bandicoot

Curt

Loose Gravel

Roger Hicks

Ole

Moderator

neutrino

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Russ Young

Neil Miller

removed account4

wfwhitaker

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser

Roger Hicks

wfwhitaker

Alan9940

Alan9940

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Roger Hicks

5x7 Recommendations

Membership Council

Attachments

Moderator

Membership Council

Advertiser

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency