Comparing DLC cameras to others

I’ve been out and about around the city with my Canham DLC 4x5, a recently acquired wide angle bellows, and some likewise new to me very wide lenses (72 / 58mm).

I’m clearly a little rusty with this camera although I’ve been shooting LF for 25+ years and own the Canham since 2009. I posted elsewhere about tripod head issues, but I’m having some camera specific issues too - the Canham is metal, folds / unfolds, and does not have any zero detente’s. I was advised to zero camera movements by ‘touch’ to verify standard alignment and that’s probably sufficient for landscape and / or with longer lenses. However for urban buildings / streetscape and wide lenses, I’ve had shots where even quite marginally non-aligned (to touch) standards have produced surprisingly unsharp results across parts of the shot. Of course very wide lenses are very unforgiving of any inaccuracy of alignment. The older DLC also has lousy bubble levels which is an inconvenience.

The DLC is generally a wonderful camera, but I’m wondering if I could find a better tool for my photographic needs - something that can be compact for portability, assembles accurately and has good movements & controls? I could sell the Canham and for similar money buy f.x. a Toyo View VX125, an Arca Swiss F, or a Linhof Technikarden. I have a sense of these cameras but haven’t used any of them. If it’s not already clear, my preference is a light metal 4x5 with plenty of movements.

Maybe there is little advantage to any of them. There are previous threads comparing these cameras, but maybe someone here has experience of these cameras compared to the DLC?

I should finally acknowledge that as I get older I get less tolerant of tools that ‘kinda’ work. Getting out to shoot LF film is not a convenient thing to do. It’s a commitment and film isn’t cheap anymore. Having to fiddle around just to level and align a 4x5 in Northern European winter weather and diminishing light, is less tolerable than it once was!

I have an Arca Swiss F-Field and F-Metric, and I also have a Technikardan. I've never used a DLC but my 8x10 is the Canham metal JMC. If one of those is best it would be close between the Arca and the Linhof, with maybe a light edge to the Linhof. In many ways the Linhof is the perfect 4x5 for me. Focusing is much easier on it that the other two because of axis tilts (my Arcas don't have orbix front tilt.) It also folds up very quickly.

That being said, I am moving toward retiring and maybe selling the Linhof because it is what it is. Its a 4x5 with 450 or so mm extension, and it really can't become something else. The Arca can become a 6x9 or a 5x7 (and maybe someday an 8x10), so its the better camera to become "one camera to rule them all.")

I'd see if you can get some time with the Technikardan, and preferably a 45S. It more securely locks the standards' tilt and swing at zero than the 45. Some people complain about folding it up with the bellows in place, but I always found it quite easy, though I don't use the Linhof method.

The main "dumb idea" in the TK is that the two rail extensions slide out of the front, so if you need to rack out to 45mm, the tripod mount is pretty far from the weight center. The Arca is much better in that respect since the entire base rail is an Arca Swiss qr plate.

abruzzi said:

I have an Arca Swiss F-Field and F-Metric, and I also have a Technikardan. I've never used a DLC but my 8x10 is the Canham metal JMC. If one of those is best it would be close between the Arca and the Linhof, with maybe a light edge to the Linhof. In many ways the Linhof is the perfect 4x5 for me. Focusing is much easier on it that the other two because of axis tilts (my Arcas don't have orbix front tilt.) It also folds up very quickly.

That being said, I am moving toward retiring and maybe selling the Linhof because it is what it is. Its a 4x5 with 450 or so mm extension, and it really can't become something else. The Arca can become a 6x9 or a 5x7 (and maybe someday an 8x10), so its the better camera to become "one camera to rule them all.")

I'd see if you can get some time with the Technikardan, and preferably a 45S. It more securely locks the standards' tilt and swing at zero than the 45. Some people complain about folding it up with the bellows in place, but I always found it quite easy, though I don't use the Linhof method.

The main "dumb idea" in the TK is that the two rail extensions slide out of the front, so if you need to rack out to 45mm, the tripod mount is pretty far from the weight center. The Arca is much better in that respect since the entire base rail is an Arca Swiss qr plate.

Click to expand...

Interesting comments. Thanks.

How is the Technikarden for wide lenses? I have 58mm. I assume it has a bag bellows option?

Of the cameras I listed I think only the Toyo View has geared movements. With your Arca Swiss & Linhof, do you find control of camera movements, and zero-ing position, to be convenient and accurate?

The Toyo VX isn't all that light, requires rather large lensboards, and is hard to find components for. I'm glad I went with the Sinar F system from the start - very versatile, spare parts or outright conversion options abundant, and at the present, pricing quite affordable. Multiple bellows options. Outdoor portability? I've backpacked at least 15,000 miles with the system, and shot is all kinds of weather, especially at high altitude. And in my case, I had these routinely equipped with a 18 inch rail and extra long bellow; a dedicated wide angle kit with shorter rail would have been lighter.

There's no need for geared controls out in the field. In fact, that can be something of a liability because bits of sand or grit can get in there. Reliable detents and centering can be helpful. And an extendable screw-together sectional rail (versus a telescoping rail like with the Technikardan) can be valuable, since you can balance the camera at any point along the rail, making the system more resistant to vibration.

Ardpatrick said:

Interesting comments. Thanks.

How is the Technikarden for wide lenses? I have 58mm. I assume it has a bag bellows option?

Of the cameras I listed I think only the Toyo View has geared movements. With your Arca Swiss & Linhof, do you find control of camera movements, and zero-ing position, to be convenient and accurate?

Click to expand...

the Arca can have some geared movements if you opt for the F-metric. That gives you geared rise/fall and shift. The Orbix option gives you geared tilt on the front standard only. Though I agree with Drew that I haven't found gearing all that usefull on a 4x5.

For zeroing the Arca has a fairly noticable detent at the zero position for swing and tilt. No detent for rise fall and shift, but clear and very visible rulers to visually confirm centering.

For the Technikardan, one of the reasons I suggested the 45S was your concern with zeroing. The 45 (which I have) has a detent. The 45S has a lock. You can't move the standard out of the zero position for swing and tilt without explicitly depressing a small locking lever and moving the standard. The foldup process requires tilt in the zero position, but requires swing outside of the zero position. When the foldup is complete both standards are swung 90 degrees away from zero. When unfolding the camera the standards swing back toards zero and lock when they hit zero. I have a Technikardan 23S also which is how I've had experience with the "S" models locking approach. Rise/fall and shift on the TK, like the Arca have no detent, but have a very clear visual indicator.

The TK does have a bag bellows. Somehow I ended up with two, and I have used them. They're one of the easier bellows systems to switch out in the field. The Arca isn't bad to switch out, but can be a little fiddly to get the frame in place. (the Sinar is also very easy.) The widest lens I've used on my TK is a Nikkor 75/4.5, and I think it can do that on a flat lens board, with the bag bellows. 58mm might be do-able with a relatively deep recessed board, but you won't get much wider than that, and at that short of a focal length, focused to infinity the standards will be tight up against each other so swing and tilt will be impossible. The Arca can get a bit wider but it may need a recessed board to hit 58. My Arca F-Classic converts to a 6x9 version and I have a Mamiya 50mm ƒ6.3 in a recessed lens board that covers 6x9 and can focus to infinity on the Arca.

A couple other points I haven't mentioned.

First, as I said I don't have a DLC, but I do have Canham JMC. IMO it is a great camera if the goal of saving weight is the highest priority. Previously I was using a Toyo 810Mii which is a great camera that weighs something like 5 ponds more than the JMC. The engineering is less refined than the Linhof or Arca, but it really does everything it can to get a metal 8x10 below 10 lbs. I'd assume the DLC is simlar so I'd say if precision is your concern, you find more in the Arca and Linhof.

Something no one ever asks about when shopping for view cameras is the compendium lens shade. As it turns out both the Arca and Linhof have available small, lightweight, easilly attached and easilly adjustable compendiums. The other cameras I have or have had are downright clunky compared to those two, so I almost always use them because they are so fast and easy. I'd give the not to the Arca one over the Linhof. Once in place the Arca is mostly adjusted by grabbing the bellows and twisting or pulling. The Linhof is more adjustable, but have a number of finger screws to loosen or tighten down an adjustment. The Arca ones are expensive and rare to find used. The Linhof ones are expensive and fairly cheap and easy to find used. I'd like me you have a few uncoated lenses, the compendium is very worthwhile.

The Linhof has an advantage that the Technika 99x96 lens board it uses is probably the most common lens board out there used by lots of other cameras. Half the time I bought used lenses they already had Technika boards attached. They are also very small but still large enough for a Compur/Copal 3 shutter. They are also cheap--a new aluminum board (by a Chinese manufacturer, but shipped fron the US) can be purchased for less than $20 shipped. You'll pay more than double that for a similar Chinese made Arca board. Since I'm moving a number of lenses from Technika boards to Arca boards I just spent some time 3D modeling the 110mm Arca board and am sending them off to 3D print for about $8 each.

What are subject matters that you enjoy photographing?

Neil Poulsen said:

What are subject matters that you enjoy photographing?

Click to expand...

I’m often shooting urban streets- often distinct buildings but in a street context. Obviously it’s not ‘street photography’ but it’s also not exactly ‘Architectural Photography’ in the classic sense. Still it requires working outdoors - often under time pressure (shifting light / weather / street activity / traffic lights!) so requires a quick and reliable set up, but also movements. I often work from a height of 2 metres or more - using my Gitzo ‘Giant’ and a small plastic IKEA step to stand on. Carrying tripod in one hand, step in the other, I need to fit the camera / lenses / holders / meter / loupe / darkcloth into a backpack.

DREW WILEY said:

The Toyo VX isn't all that light, requires rather large lensboards, and is hard to find components for. I'm glad I went with the Sinar F system from the start - very versatile, spare parts or outright conversion options abundant, and at the present, pricing quite affordable. Multiple bellows options. Outdoor portability? I've backpacked at least 15,000 miles with the system, and shot is all kinds of weather, especially at high altitude. And in my case, I had these routinely equipped with a 18 inch rail and extra long bellow; a dedicated wide angle kit with shorter rail would have been lighter.

There's no need for geared controls out in the field. In fact, that can be something of a liability because bits of sand or grit can get in there. Reliable detents and centering can be helpful. And an extendable screw-together sectional rail (versus a telescoping rail like with the Technikardan) can be valuable, since you can balance the camera at any point along the rail, making the system more resistant to vibration.

Click to expand...

Thanks Drew. I owned a Sinar F with standard & wide bellows for a decade before buying the Canham. I agree with every positive observation you have made on the camera. And I’d add another- I really miss its brilliant DoF and Swing / Tilt calculators. Undoubtedly it’s the best all round bang for the buck 4x5 out there. I paid $500 for my Sinar F in 1999, and I think I can still get one for close to that.

But the Sinar also has problems. Even if it can be disassembled it is bulky. And the big clamp / cradle the rail sits in that attaches to the tripod head is far too tall - placing the wind catching bellows / standards too far away from the apex of the tripod. The design makes it susceptible to wind vibration. Maybe that’s why you suggested in my previous thread that you attach the camera directly to the tripod without use of a head. That is too cumbersome to level for my needs. And finally, if the Toyo View has very large lens boards (it does) than the Sinar boards are equally large and bulky.

In saying all this the capabilities and cost of the Sinar do make me consider it as a second / alternate camera to the DLC.

You can consider this a non-sequitur of sorts, but here are two observations:

1. I switched from the 4x5 DLC to the 5x7 MQC Canham and found the 5x7 metal version much nicer to work with all around.
2. I rarely rely on the bubble levels on my cameras when doing architecture. I have an electronic level that I use on the back standard to check for a level shot as well as parallelism of the rear standard to the building.

abruzzi said:

A couple other points I haven't mentioned.

First, as I said I don't have a DLC, but I do have Canham JMC. IMO it is a great camera if the goal of saving weight is the highest priority. Previously I was using a Toyo 810Mii which is a great camera that weighs something like 5 ponds more than the JMC. The engineering is less refined than the Linhof or Arca, but it really does everything it can to get a metal 8x10 below 10 lbs. I'd assume the DLC is simlar so I'd say if precision is your concern, you find more in the Arca and Linhof.

Something no one ever asks about when shopping for view cameras is the compendium lens shade. As it turns out both the Arca and Linhof have available small, lightweight, easilly attached and easilly adjustable compendiums. The other cameras I have or have had are downright clunky compared to those two, so I almost always use them because they are so fast and easy. I'd give the not to the Arca one over the Linhof. Once in place the Arca is mostly adjusted by grabbing the bellows and twisting or pulling. The Linhof is more adjustable, but have a number of finger screws to loosen or tighten down an adjustment. The Arca ones are expensive and rare to find used. The Linhof ones are expensive and fairly cheap and easy to find used. I'd like me you have a few uncoated lenses, the compendium is very worthwhile.

The Linhof has an advantage that the Technika 99x96 lens board it uses is probably the most common lens board out there used by lots of other cameras. Half the time I bought used lenses they already had Technika boards attached. They are also very small but still large enough for a Compur/Copal 3 shutter. They are also cheap--a new aluminum board (by a Chinese manufacturer, but shipped fron the US) can be purchased for less than $20 shipped. You'll pay more than double that for a similar Chinese made Arca board. Since I'm moving a number of lenses from Technika boards to Arca boards I just spent some time 3D modeling the 110mm Arca board and am sending them off to 3D print for about $8 each.

Click to expand...

Thanks Abruzzi for incredibly relevant and precise information. The TK 45s seems great , but the Arca Swiss (a little like the Sinar) has that systems / modularity advantage. I love the ability to use whichever Sinar bellows I didn’t have on the camera as a compendium shade and with the DLC that’s always been messy - relying on a combination of fixed lens hoods or holding dark slides.

I don’t have plans to move up in format, but having an 8x10 enlarger / 300mm Rodagon In my darkroom always tempts consideration of that down the line. So a modular camera is tempting.

Finally the DLC uses Toyo 110mm boards. I’m wondering if they are interchangeable with the Arca Swiss 110mm boards you have mentioned.

The Sinar rail clamp makes it really easy to mount or remove the camera from the tripod,
and alleviates the need for any kind of supplementary tripod head if one need to travel light. The ordinary version can be a bit tipsy if not locked down tightly. The version II holds the rail much more tightly. But I now use the full-surround old Norma version rail clamp, which is much shorter and has a lower center of gravity, and is very secure. Actually, in recent years I've mainly switched over to the older Norma system entirely, at least for day hikes. I still have my F2, plus certain P studio components. Nearly every component is interchangeable if needed.

Now that I'm in my mid 70's, I must confess to using a lightweight 4x5 Ebony wooden folder more and more instead. For some of those hundred-milers in the mountains up until my early 70's, I combined that with Horseman 6x9 roll film backs, since 4x5 Quickload and Readyload sleeves are no longer made.

I have on multiple occasions fitted a complete ready-to-go (not broken down) Sinar 4x5 F system into a customized wheeled (but otherwise backpack-style) regulation carry-on for sake of airline travel. But the Ebony folder is obviously more convenient for that, while still leaving extra room for my 6x9 RF and a tripod, and film holder, rain parka etc.

On this forum, I'm well known for advocating going "headless" with view cameras. That's the most solid, lightweight, and stable, and even cost-effective way of going about it, especially for 8x10 work. That's how I've done it with all my view camera for decades. Easy and intuitive with some practice, even on very uneven terrain. That's how the early surveyors did it even atop remote precarious summits. I learned it early on from my father, who had been a Govt surveyor when he was young, and still had his antique brass transit with its maple set of legs.

Board-wise, unless lenses are particularly large in shutter diameter, I simply use a Sinar adapter board which accepts much smaller Technika style lensbords. My Phillips 8x10 was also made to accept to common Sinar boards, which makes things convenient.

One doesn't see Toyo VX cameras very often. I remember chatting with Mark Citret one day maybe 20 yrs ago, who was using one of those for a commercial architectural shoot near my office. He had mixed feelings. The rise/fall gear toothing on the standards has been known to prematurely wear down.

djdister said:

You can consider this a non-sequitur of sorts, but here are two observations:

1. I switched from the 4x5 DLC to the 5x7 MQC Canham and found the 5x7 metal version much nicer to work with all around.
2. I rarely rely on the bubble levels on my cameras when doing architecture. I have an electronic level that I use on the back standard to check for a level shot as well as parallelism of the rear standard to the building.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

First question is why the 5x7 seems nicer? I haven’t looked at it closely but always assumed it was basically a bigger DLC.

Second question - what sort of electronic level could check for parallelism between camera standards?

Ardpatrick said:

Interesting.

First question is why the 5x7 seems nicer? I haven’t looked at it closely but always assumed it was basically a bigger DLC.

Second question - what sort of electronic level could check for parallelism between camera standards?

Click to expand...

I think the main reason the 5x7 is nicer is due to the larger camera body having more room for your fingers around the various controls (lock knobs), plus it has a bit more weight to it than the DLC making it a more stable camera. Even without changing to a bag bellows, I've used the 5x7 with a 75mm lens too.

I use a small digital level similar to this (below). I can sit it on top of the standard for left-right leveling, and then place the side of it right against the ground glass to check for a 90 degree angle.

The best kind of checker for verticality and parallelism of the camera standards, along with lateral leveling, is a simple square-shaped "angle finder" which operates by means of a GRAVITY pointer, not electronics or bubble levels. It's basically a flat plumb-bob style mechanism which freely swings on a calibrated degree dial. I always kept one of those in my architectural shooting kit.

]I don't know where that is now - probably in the same container as my portable lasers, but not with my precision miniature levels, which incidentally would have cost around a hundred dollars apiece back in the 80's if I hadn't gotten them as free or highly discounted sales samples directly from the manufacturers. Hardware store style bubble and bullseye levels, and even torpedo levels, tend to be statistically unreliable due to inferior quality control. Add something like double-faced foam tape or a magnetic strip to attach them, and they're even worse.

Unfortunately, the term itself, "angle finder" implies many dissimilar kinds of gadgets; so I'm trying to find a relevant example for sale on the web, but am getting repeatedly led down the wrong path ... Oh, but by typing in specifically "gravity angle finders" I instantly got three hits. The flat 4x4 inch Johnson model looks like the best, and its only $15. These weigh next to nothing.

I've sold machinist's precision tools and levels, and commercial quality leveling lasers too (not the home center toy versions of either), had one of the largest inventories of pro levels in North America, did prototype testing for pioneering laser manufacturers - forget all that, and just get a basic mechanical gravity angle finder with a long enough edges to bridges minor anomalies in the camera surface castings it contacts. Miniature devices won't do that well.

But film holders don't necessarily alway seat correctly in camera back, and worse still, there's no guarantee the film itself will seat either dead square or totally flat in the film holder itself unless you are using a fancy pin-registered vacuum precision holder. So some minor image readjustment when enlarging or post-scan editing is inevitable.

Re: The 5x7 Canham - yes I can see the benefit of scale for what are tactile controls.

Thanks for the thinking around leveling tools. I use an acrylic camera level block - the kind that has a cold shoe attachment - it’s clearly not optimal. I hold it against the standards / ground glass but then I have to unlock the tilt locks on each side of the standard and adjust for vertical parallelism, and re lock tilt on both sides, all with one hand, as my other hand is holding the bubble level block to the standard! Not very convenient and thus not very accurate. Definitely one instance where geared movements would be far superior with only one hand available!

And then there’s the question of horizontal parallelism. As I said there are no detentes on the DLC. Instead there is an aluminum block on the rail, that the standard swings around. In theory, by touch one can feel whether the standard feels parallel to the block. There are no markings, and minimal visual signals, so with something like my 58 / 65 / 72mm lenses, almost undetectable levels of asymmetry can affect focus producing very unnatural visual effects. Add in lens shift / rise and the consequent torsion of even a bag bellows.

Obviously if I take sufficient care to carefully check each standard for vertical and horizontal parallelism I can get great results. So my methodology is a consideration, but it’s all rather cumbersome. This is the core issue I’m trying to resolve.

Fantastic advice - thank you folks.

DREW WILEY said:

The Toyo VX isn't all that light, requires rather large lensboards, and is hard to find components for. I'm glad I went with the Sinar F system from the start - very versatile, spare parts or outright conversion options abundant, and at the present, pricing quite affordable. Multiple bellows options. Outdoor portability? I've backpacked at least 15,000 miles with the system, and shot is all kinds of weather, especially at high altitude. And in my case, I had these routinely equipped with a 18 inch rail and extra long bellow; a dedicated wide angle kit with shorter rail would have been lighter.

There's no need for geared controls out in the field. In fact, that can be something of a liability because bits of sand or grit can get in there. Reliable detents and centering can be helpful. And an extendable screw-together sectional rail (versus a telescoping rail like with the Technikardan) can be valuable, since you can balance the camera at any point along the rail, making the system more resistant to vibration.

Click to expand...

Agreed on the weight. They are very compact though. Most Toyo VX's come with an adapter to use much smaller Linhof style boards. (At least mine did.) The gearing mentioned is only for rise and shift - very usable for architectural photography though. Accessories are easy to find - they use accessories for the regular Toyo viewcameras.

Indeed, Mark went back to the Norma after stripping VX gears the second time.

Also watch out for bellows pushing the standards out of square when they are compressed with very short focal length lenses.

On balance I’d probably rather have a Linhof TK than the Arca - on the other hand while Arca certainly isn’t cheap the Linhof accessories are wildly expensive, like. A wide angle bellows is probably close to $1,000 by now.

The thing about detents is they are great if everything is in fact perfectly square when in the detents. It took me a while to get that sorted out to my satisfaction but really the standards on a LF camera, detents, markings are probably never going to be perfect.

For a while a I had a camera without detents and what I ended up doing was making a “jig” I could use to quickly and accurately square/zero everything.

DREW WILEY said:

One doesn't see Toyo VX cameras very often. I remember chatting with Mark Citret one day maybe 20 yrs ago, who was using one of those for a commercial architectural shoot near my office. He had mixed feelings. The rise/fall gear toothing on the standards has been known to prematurely wear down.

Click to expand...

@DREW WILEY Thanks for the gravity angle finder suggestion. I will get one and try it not only for LF camera, but also for aligning my enlarger.

Back to the original topic: I have Wista DX wooden field camera and Arca Swiss F-Line monorail. Both are quite fast to set up in the field. And the Arca Swiss has the most precision feel and refinement. It is even slightly better than Sinar F/P in terms of workmanship. I have bag bellows for the Arca Swiss but never used. My wide angle 4x5 landscape stops somewhere around 90mm.

I don't hike with the Arca Swiss, but it can be packed down smaller than similar Sinar system.

I only briefly toyed with a Toyo VX. I recall the user planning to go back to his Sinar. More likely, just like with me, the commercial era of routine film view camera use in the architectural field was winding down, and giving way to MF digital capture, which I had no interest in. The next time I encountered him, he was using the Arca MF digital system instead, which had the advantage of instant visual feedback. But that same feature also equated to the annoying disadvantage of clients hovering like vultures behind him, viewing the same screen in order to micromanage him. The minute they were gone, he started complaining to me how it was ruining his enjoyment of photography as a trade.

My Sinars have always been very fast to set up. Even the compendium stays in place. I just pull the already assembled camera out of the pack top compartment, plop in on the tripod platform (or back then, right into the rail clamp already on the tripod), extend the bellows, and go to work with the composition and related movements and focussing. Even a lens can already be in place if reasonable. Shortening or lengthening rail sections, or changing bellows, takes only a moment.

But I've never gotten ahold of an Arca to compare them. And as far as Canham goes, I don't think I'll ever get past coveting his wooden 5X7 version. I simply can't justify yet another film format, however.

Milpool said:

Indeed, Mark went back to the Norma after stripping VX gears the second time.

Also watch out for bellows pushing the standards out of square when they are compressed with very short focal length lenses.

On balance I’d probably rather have a Linhof TK than the Arca - on the other hand while Arca certainly isn’t cheap the Linhof accessories are wildly expensive, like. A wide angle bellows is probably close to $1,000 by now.

The thing about detents is they are great if everything is in fact perfectly square when in the detents. It took me a while to get that sorted out to my satisfaction but really the standards on a LF camera, detents, markings are probably never going to be perfect.

For a while a I had a camera without detents and what I ended up doing was making a “jig” I could use to quickly and accurately square/zero everything.

Click to expand...

Making a wooden jig is a very good idea.

I carry a small 15cm steel rule in the DLC bag, but as the front and rear standards are different sizes, using the rule to verify distance between front & rear match on both sides isn’t super easy. A short wooden block with verified right angle corners, might be customised to fit easily between standards and verify alignment. It would add minimal weight.

Re Detents - I think Keith Canhams thinking was that they can get in the way and be more trouble than they are worth. But that thinking is debatable in my shooting style.

I mostly agree with you. They’re helpful for me because for the kind of pictures I do I almost never use swings/tilts, and I want/need the standards as square as possible. I currently use a Kardan RE that has detents and luckily they were accurate because adjusting them is not fun. Precision Camera used to be a good place to send a camera that needed this kind of adjustment. However for many people detents can indeed get in the way especially if they are “deep” like they are on my camera because it can be tricky to do very small tilts/swings.

If I had all the money in the world I’d have one made without detents but with some sort of depth gauge (maybe lasers) at each corner between the standards.

As it currently stands ideally I’d have two cameras. One regular view camera and one that has no tilt/swing (ie permanently aligned standards with rise/fall/shift). Nothing like that exists though. A few cameras come close in principle though not in practice.

There’s a photographers machinist not too far from me. I’ve often thought about having him make me a nice ultra precise, perhaps adjustable alignment tool/jig for easy/fast use in the field. Maybe one day.

Ardpatrick said:

Re Detents - I think Keith Canhams thinking was that they can get in the way and be more trouble than they are worth. But that thinking is debatable in my shooting style.

Click to expand...

Milpool said:

As it currently stands ideally I’d have two cameras. One regular view camera and one that has no tilt/swing (ie permanently aligned standards with rise/fall/shift). Nothing like that exists though. A few cameras come close in principle though not in practice.

Click to expand...

What you’re describing are the various pancake technical cameras in the digital medium format world—rise/fall and shift, but no swing or tilt. There are a number of manufacturers, bu here is Arca Swiss’ version for 4x5.


Unfortunately it relies on lenses with focusing helicoids, and is more optimized for wide angle use.

Yup, something like that but with extension / ability to use regular lenses would be nice. At one time I thought something like the Walker XL might work decently for me but in the end it had some no-go characteristics and would probably have been more trouble than it was worth.

abruzzi said:

What you’re describing are the various pancake technical cameras in the digital medium format world—rise/fall and shift, but no swing or tilt. There are a number of manufacturers, bu here is Arca Swiss’ version for 4x5.

RL3di Technical Camera

RL3di is a multi-format performer, optimized for wide-angle photography using 4x5 film, or for extended stitching using a digital back. Our professional-grade technical camera has been designed for the photographer seeking unmatched precision and control. The RL3di features a finely pitched...

arca-swiss-usa.com

Unfortunately it relies on lenses with focusing helicoids, and is more optimized for wide angle use.

Click to expand...

Milpool said:

Yup, something like that but with extension / ability to use regular lenses would be nice. At one time I thought something like the Walker XL might work decently for me but in the end it had some no-go characteristics and would probably have been more trouble than it was worth.

Click to expand...

If you really don't want movements and want perfect parallelism, you could buy a cheaper camera (f.x. Toyo Field camera) and 'fix' the front standards in the workshop so there is no swing / tilt and perfect parallelism. Then you would have a relatively compact, inexpensive camera that uses fairly standard lens boards etc.

I need movements, so that's not an option for me.