Canham Metal Field Camera

[jeroldharter]

I am thinking of buying a Canaham metal field camera. I fiddled with one at the Sivler conference last spring and now I have the bug. I use a Toyo AII 45 field camera now, but I want something with longer bellows. From what I read, it is easier to use a 65-75 mm lens with the Canham also.

I have not found any recent reviews. I read some old ones that complained about the back standard being to flimsy, some knobs stripping, controls to small etc.

I would appreciate if any current users could give me their opinions/advice about the Canham 45 metal field camera.

Also, I am tempted to get the 5x7 with reducing back. From what I read, the bellows are the same length as the 4x5 but I would have the option to try 5x7. Any opinions on why the 5x7 with reducing back might be a bad idea?

 

[big_ben_blue]

I only own the DLC45. It's a nice compact camera, but it does have some minor issues when it comes to wideangle work. The shortest lens I can use without problems on a flat lensboard is my 90mm. Anything shorter, and the compressed bellows put too much pressure onto the standards (at infinity I should add), making the use of the [friction] movements rather difficult and unprecise. A recessed lensboard would help a bit I suppose. If I remember correctly, there is an optional bag bellows available.
Other than that, the swiss cheese design of the Canham makes for an ideal travel camera.

 

[BradS]

I shared an intimate weekend with a well used DLC45. I absolutely fell in love with the camera. I had no trouble with it at all. I don't think I can add anything to the published reviews. What they say about the back is true - it isn't rock solid but, it was never an issue. You focus, and when you go to load a film holder, the back...well, the top of the back can be displaced front to back a little bit, but when you let go, it springs right back. It's not like the back moves and you loose focus or your locked down position, it is just "springy".


It is an amazing camera....like no other. Simply brilliant design. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to buy one if I had the money and were in the market. I like the idea of buying the 5x7 and getting a reducing back too.

 

[Robert Hall]

I have used a 4x5 and a 5x7 for some years now. I like them both. Tons of bellows for the size of camera. They have a very nice aesthetic and they are well built.

I would suggest the 5x7 with a reducing back. It gives one a little more room for movement and if you ever want to do the 6x17 back you have the option.

I have knocked mine out of focus once or twice, but this is unusual. They also take some adjustment from time to time, but so do my other view cameras.

I don't think I would be happier with a different camera.

 

[jeroldharter]

... They also take some adjustment from time to time, but so do my other view cameras. QUOTE]

What sort of adjustments do you mean? Is that something you can do or must you send the camera in for a tune-up? Thanks.

 

[doc4x5]

While I do not own a Canham, I have played with them at workshops. They are light, flexible and have a long bellows. Their weakness, admitted by some of their owners is rigidity. I own both a Toyo 45A, which I am selling, and an Arca-Swiss F-Line Field camera, and both are totally rigid when locked. The Canham DLC flexes a bit.

Good luck with your decision.

Eric

 

[StreetShooter]

Like doc4x5, I've not used a Canham before. So, this is posted in response to your question about using a reducing back.

I use a Dorff 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back and find it's a great way of going. You simply change backs and you're right as rain.

I wouldn't hesitate going this route again.

Cheers

 

[Robert Hall]

On adjustments... By all means, something one can and should do themselves. Think of it as getting to know a new friend.


My friend bought one, got a little concerned when it didint act like her 35mm. I showed her that it was quite a different animal. She is now quite comfortable with it.

If you have questions, talk to Keith. There is no users guide with a LF Camera.

 

[photomc]

If I could figure out a way to justify it, a 5x7 Canham, with a 4x5 back would come to stay with me. Right now, it is just not possible but I would dare say it is something I have considered very seriously. The B&J "TANK" has served me very well (all the movements in you can ask for) and I use it with both 5x7 and 4x5 backs...as mentioned above, just take one back off and put the other on and away you go - like going from vert. to horz. no problem.

The plus of the Canham (a few others I guess, not sure) is you can convert it to a 5x12 as well. That said, there is a good thread on the Shen Hao over on the LF forum about the 5x7 and I would say for the $ it looks pretty nice as well.

 

[palewin]

As another DLC45 owner, I'd like to expand on a couple of earlier comments. First, occasional adjustments: AFAIK, everything can be done with three hex keys. I have had a couple of the adjustment knobs loosen, it was simple to re-tighten them with the smallest hex key. Keith mentioned (at PhotoPro) that some people over-tighten the focus locking levers, which ultimately loosen the mechanism. On more recent DLC45s, Keith has installed little pins which prevent overtightening; he will install these on any DLC returned to him for CLA. Rigidity: I've never noticed any functional lack of rigidity (i.e. anything that moves will spring back into position when you let go, so doesn't affect the photograph). What can happen is that the locking levers for the back and front swing may not be fully tightened down; then when you put in the film holder, or reach around to cock the lens, you can make the standard shift. But a bit more pressure on the locking lever eliminates the problem for me. As I write this I see a certain "problem": you aren't supposed to overtighten the focus locking levers, but you have to tighten the front & rear swing locks pretty tight, so I guess you develop a feel for it over time. Final thought: every camera is a compromise. My Sinar F was more rigid, but nowhere near as compact, and not as light, for carrying. My ZoneVI/Wista was lighter, but didn't have as much bellows extension, and felt more fragile. So for my purposes, the Canham is the right compromise; everyone has to make that analysis for themselves.

 

[Steve_7x]

The changeability of the MQC5x7 (Metal) to a 4x5 is diferent then on most cameras (like the B&J). The MQC5x7 has a grafloc back and you remove the 5x7 GG and frame and insert a 4x5 plate that has the complete 4x5 back on it.

The Pro of this is that the 4x5 reducing back is about the size of a 5x7 holder aas opposed to the entire 9x9" (or so dimension of the rear back)

The Con is that the back sits further back by a few mm's. Not a problem with longer focal lengths but when using shorter lenses you have more bellows compression then on the DLC4x5.

My suggestion - owning and loving both - is if you wish to shoot 4x5 only - buy the DLC4x5. If you want to shoot 5x7/6x17 then go witht he MQC5x7. The 5x7 is not the correct camera if you will shoot mostly 4x5,

Steve