Canham 8x10 Light Weight

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[MTGseattle]

Nice video Andy.

The "standard" 8x10 wood/metal field from Canham uses 158mm square boards. I sourced a Toyo to Technika style adapter for mine. I think it is Toyo "G" and maybe some others? that are 158mm

Also interesting are the varying differences in how much machining of parts Keith has done over the years. (lightening holes).

Your bellows has a much more aggressive taper to accommodate that smaller front standard.

Mine also has no centering or "zero" marks on the front standard bearers.

 

[MTGseattle]

Sorry.
I see you very thoroughly explain the bellows issue.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Great review Andy. I feel jilted since all I have is an old Burke & James 8X10 and not a pretty one like the Canham is. Still, the old Burke & James 8X10 is perfectly fine for me and it sure seems simple compared to the Canham. At my age and memory simple is very important! Yes, it doesn't have all the movements of the Canham, but I never had a problem with that so far. It also has a large square board and large square bellows. I also have a 4X5 reducing back for it, which comes in handy. If I used 8X10 more I would upgrade, but 4X5 is now about it for me so I invested in a new Chamonix 45N-2, which is pretty light weight and much smaller compared to the Burke & James. If I didn't have a bunch of 8X10 film I'd probably sell the 8X10, but you never know when you might get the urge to see a nice 8X10 contact print or a scanned and printed enlargement.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Great review Andy. I feel jilted since all I have is an old Burke & James 8X10 and not a pretty one like the Canham is. Still, the old Burke & James 8X10 is perfectly fine for me and it sure seems simple compared to the Canham. At my age and memory simple is very important! Yes, it doesn't have all the movements of the Canham, but I never had a problem with that so far. It also has a large square board and large square bellows. I also have a 4X5 reducing back for it, which comes in handy. If I used 8X10 more I would upgrade, but 4X5 is now about it for me so I invested in a new Chamonix 45N-2, which is pretty light weight and much smaller compared to the Burke & James. If I didn't have a bunch of 8X10 film I'd probably sell the 8X10, but you never know when you might get the urge to see a nice 8X10 contact print or a scanned and printed enlargement.

The Chamonix is a nice looking camera. I almost bought one when they first came out, but wife said that I would have to sell something first...

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Chamonix is a nice looking camera. I almost bought one when they first came out, but wife said that I would have to sell something first...

.......and it probably would have been that beautiful Canham 8X10. Wise choice Andy since you have a 4X5 reducing back to cover both formats.

 

[MTGseattle]

I would need to email Keith to make sure, but my understanding is that once he changed to the lightweight (and the last “standard” models were sold), that the only model he built was the lightweight.

After seeing the reducing back part of me wants to press and see if Keith would build me one, but I think using 4x5 camera makes more sense.

I’d be curious to hear from a 5x7 wood/metal field owner if the front standard parts are the same. Standardized parts here and there to simplify manufacturing.

John. The Chamonix is a nice camera for sure.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would need to email Keith to make sure, but my understanding is that once he changed to the lightweight (and the last “standard” models were sold), that the only model he built was the lightweight.

After seeing the reducing back part of me wants to press and see if Keith would build me one, but I think using 4x5 camera makes more sense.

I’d be curious to hear from a 5x7 wood/metal field owner if the front standard parts are the same. Standardized parts here and there to simplify manufacturing.

John. The Chamonix is a nice camera for sure.

I believe the 5x7 takes the 110 TOHO boards. Another interesting thing is that I believe that I can take out the 4x5 back from the reducing back, and pop in a 5x7. I've always wanted a 5x7 back, but that would mean I'd have to buy some holders. The main drawback though is the lack in variety of films.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I would need to email Keith to make sure, but my understanding is that once he changed to the lightweight (and the last “standard” models were sold), that the only model he built was the lightweight.

After seeing the reducing back part of me wants to press and see if Keith would build me one, but I think using 4x5 camera makes more sense.

I’d be curious to hear from a 5x7 wood/metal field owner if the front standard parts are the same. Standardized parts here and there to simplify manufacturing.

John. The Chamonix is a nice camera for sure.

Yes, I like my Chamonix a lot, but it has its drawbacks too. My main gripe is that the front standard has to be disengaged/unscrewed to fold the camera unlike Andy's Canham or even my old Burke & James. Not that big of a deal in the summer, but a pita in the winter when your fingers are freezing. At least here in northern Michigan anyway. Still, it would be one of the last cameras I sell off. It looks very pretty on the shelf when it's not in my camera bag.

 

[lobitar]

Thank you for your trouble with making all these great videos, mr. O'Neill! As for the Canham one has to admit things have happened since they made my Agfa-Ansco 8x10. The weight, of course, but especially the changing of the bellows from behind, pure genious. But as I never backpacked, but used to carry a shoulder bag, and now only do cityscapes, and only where I can take my bike - and because of the money, the Canham would be a good deal more than the $50 I paid for my Agfa abt. 30 years ago - I have to stick with my Agfa (and my Plaubel 8x10). By the way, what is the weight of your Canham?
Edit Sep.8: My version of the Agfa is 6.1 kg (without the 4" lens board and the tiny 8" Zeiss lens, they are 250 g together).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you for your trouble with making all these great videos, mr. O'Neill! As for the Canham one has to admit things have happened since they made my Agfa-Ansco 8x10. The weight, of course, but especially the changing of the bellows from behind, pure genious. But as I never backpacked, but used to carry a shoulder bag, and now only do cityscapes, and only where I can take my bike - and because of the money, the Canham would be a good deal more than the $50 I paid for my Agfa abt. 30 years ago - I have to stick with my Agfa (and my Plaubel 8x10). By the way, what is the weight of your Canham?

Thanks! It's 3.8kg.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have a Canham 8x10, the standard wood field version, with a two-digit serial number (so within the first 100 units made). Because it is one of the really early ones, it takes the big Toyo 158mm lens boards, which is part of why I bought that one (I got it used). One good thing about the Canham cameras is that if you want/need to modify it, you can call Keith and he'll sell you the parts/make them from scratch.