Folding 4x5 recommendations - very wide to long lenses

[MarkL]

I’m in the market for my ultimate folding 4x5 field camera for landscape work. I very much want a model that can handle my range of lenses from 58mm up to my 355 G-Claron if that’s possible, or at least 75 to 300mm. I have my eye on the Chamonix 45F-2, or maybe 45N-2. According to Hugo of Chamonix, either of these can handle the 58mm (even without a recessed lensboard), AND the 355. So, I’m wondering if anyone has actual experience using very wide lenses on the Chamonix folding models, and what they think in general of them (I’ve heard pretty much nothing but good so far). I'm currently using a Zone VI and am ready to move on.

There are also some Shen Hao cameras that might fit the bill. Ebonys seem too hard to come by and expensive. Then there’s the expensive Linhof Technicka 3000 which could be the ultimate but I’m not sure that can even take a 300mm.

Can anyone chime in with their experiences with any of these cameras, using a wide range of lenses?

Thanks!

Mark

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I can recommend a Canham Wood Field. It will take anything (you might need a bag bellows to do the 58mm, I've never tried anything that wide on it) on your list up to and including the 355 G-Claron. Although using that lens on 4x5 is a bit of duck hunting with an elephant gun. If you're going to focus the 355 at infinity or close to it most of the time, then the Chamonix would be fine. If you need to use it closer, then you want something with a longer bellows. I'd also look into the Canham DLC if you're open to a metal folding camera. The Canham Wood Field is basically a 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back, thus the ability to handle the longer bellows (25 inches max extension). The DLC has 20 inches for max extension, and the minimum is 53mm, so you could use your 58 on it with a flat board. I know Hugo is a great representative for Chamonix, and he offers excellent support, so that's not an issue, but Keith Canham goes above and beyond- I had a problem with my Wood Field, which I bought used, and he repaired it under warranty and did so in a timely fashion so I would not be without my camera during my trip to Argentina. I also had opportunity to call him about doing some customizations to my camera, and I spoke directly with him and we figured out the best way to handle my problem, and I had the modified part back to me within four days of my having shipped it to him in Arizona. I'm a big enough fan of his cameras I actually have three - a 5x7, a 5x12 and a 14x17.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I was able to focus a 38mm SAXL on a Chamonix 45N1 with (I think) a flat lens board. However, even with everything moved all the way forward, the base was in the frame. That may have only been with vertical but I can't remember.... if so, the camera could be rotated 90 degrees. It will also focus a 450mm lens with the extension rail and top-hat board. I didn't check to see how close I could focus with the 450 setup. If I remember correctly, the normal 'universal' bellows worked with both... but I might have had the bag bellows on with the 38mm.

 

[MarkL]

Flying Camera: Wow, thanks for the info. I'll look at the DLC metal camera. The wood model could be a bit large. I know what you mean about the 355 being a monster, but I do own it so want the chance to use it. I do use a 300 a lot.

 

[MarkL]

Old-n-Feeble, wow a 38. That's so wide you could probably look through that and see yourself! So how do you like the Chamonix? Does fastening down the front standard work ok for you, and how about the focusing mechanism? I think I'm leaning more towards the F1.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I haven't used the camera. I haven't done analog photography in a long time. I just tried those two lenses on the Chamonix. That stated, I'm sure I would be very happy with it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd be worried about the weight and potential vibration of a 355 in big no.3 shutter at long bellows extension on a lightweight folder. For that reason, I use a 360 Fujinon A instead, which comes in a no.1 shutter.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

I use a Toyo 45AII regularly with a 58mm SAXL with a recessed lens board, and with a 300/5.6 Nikkor with the 4" extension back. The 45AII camera with the 300/5.6 lens minimum focus is 1 meter with the 4 inch extension back, requiring 440mm shutter to film plane distance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's a hecka lot easier handling focal length extremes using a monorail design camera rather than folders. I often use a 4x5 Ebony wood folder on long backpacking trips to save weight and bulk, and due to my age. But for dayhikes I find a Sinar Norma monorail much more versatile and faster to set up. Just sayin' .... The Ebony handles the 360 fine; but these are out of production. Canham and Chamonix are also nice.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you can afford the Canham, get it. Probably the best camera made these days. Keith is a nice guy too...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've always felt that the 5X7 wood folder was the sweet spot of Keith Canham's entire line. One of these with a 4X5 reducing back would be a modern equivalent to the classic ole Deardorff Special.

 

[MarkL]

I'd be worried about the weight and potential vibration of a 355 in big no.3 shutter at long bellows extension on a lightweight folder. For that reason, I use a 360 Fujinon A instead, which comes in a no.1 shutter.

Maybe I should ditch the 355 for the 360...it's quite a chunk to carry around!

 

[MarkL]

I've always felt that the 5X7 wood folder was the sweet spot of Keith Canham's entire line. One of these with a 4X5 reducing back would be a modern equivalent to the classic ole Deardorff Special.

Drew and Flying Camera: it looks like Canham has a 4x5 and a 5x7 that seem to have identical features. Since I don't intend to ever shoot 5x7, is there any reason to get the 5x7 with 4x5 reducing back that you both mentioned? Maybe for the longer bellows, but for backpacking the size could be an issue. Also...I love wood, but do the wood Canhams have any advantage over the metal DLC? These all look great. I wonder how they compare to the highly regarded Ebony!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I’m in the market for my ultimate folding 4x5 field camera for landscape work. I very much want a model that can handle my range of lenses from 58mm up to my 355 G-Claron if that’s possible, or at least 75 to 300mm. I have my eye on the Chamonix 45F-2, or maybe 45N-2. According to Hugo of Chamonix, either of these can handle the 58mm (even without a recessed lensboard), AND the 355. So, I’m wondering if anyone has actual experience using very wide lenses on the Chamonix folding models, and what they think in general of them (I’ve heard pretty much nothing but good so far). I'm currently using a Zone VI and am ready to move on.

There are also some Shen Hao cameras that might fit the bill. Ebonys seem too hard to come by and expensive. Then there’s the expensive Linhof Technicka 3000 which could be the ultimate but I’m not sure that can even take a 300mm.

Can anyone chime in with their experiences with any of these cameras, using a wide range of lenses?

Thanks!

Mark

I have a Linhof Technikardan and have used it with a 65mm wide -angle lens but never with anything longer than 210mm.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If I am not mistaken from memory, the 4x5 Canham is a 5x7 with a 4x5 back on it. At least the wood one is anyway, I think.

I spent an afternoon in Az. with Keith and his son years ago. A friend wanted to get one, but he had never seen one, so we took a road trip... He still has it and still uses it. Replaced the 8x10 for him since he was getting older. Keith was building a massive camera while we were there. Can't remember the details anymore or who it was for, but it was huge. I also remember something about parts that don't wear out due to the way they were made. Maybe Scott can fill you in on that. I am just going off memory.

Hope that helps you.

 

[andrew plume]

Hi Mark

good luck with your search - one aspect that occurs to me.................is you ought to consider the strength of the front standard if you're intending to use a heavy lens, I would have thought that any Sinar, particularly with their large lens boards would fit perfectly, btw I've owned a few and also a 5 x 7 Canham woodie but I never used a very heavy lens with it

regards

Andrew

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Drew and Flying Camera: it looks like Canham has a 4x5 and a 5x7 that seem to have identical features. Since I don't intend to ever shoot 5x7, is there any reason to get the 5x7 with 4x5 reducing back that you both mentioned? Maybe for the longer bellows, but for backpacking the size could be an issue. Also...I love wood, but do the wood Canhams have any advantage over the metal DLC? These all look great. I wonder how they compare to the highly regarded Ebony!

The wood 4x5 is just the 5x7 with a reducing back. That said... I've taken mine with me (and used it as a 5x7) to Argentina and to San Francisco. I've taken it in 5x12 form to San Francisco as well. I have a camera bag that can be worn as a backpack that I use to travel with it, five lenses, my meter and barkcloth, and in the expandable side-pockets, a dozen film holders. Granted that completely fills the bag. When shooting 5x12 I have one of those old Zone VI "cooler" bags that holds the camera, six 5x12 holders, and two to three lenses, plus my meter and darkcloth.

The advantage of the wood 5x7 is as you mentioned, the longer bellows, and having greater mass overall, less susceptible to wind and vibration. And being an "old-looking" wood camera, you'll get lots of attention when out shooting with it (this could be good or bad). The 4x5 DLC is more compact, and lighter, and can use a wider lens with the standard bellows. It all depends on what lenses you are going to use most, I think. If the longer lenses will be something you'll shoot with often, and the extreme wide only occasionally, then the wood field would be your better option. If you shoot a lot of extreme wide and only rarely use the long lenses, and then mostly at infinity, then the DLC would be better. Also, if you can get yourself somewhere that has both cameras in stock, I'd recommend highly that you go handle them in person to see which you like. The DLC has its own quirks with regard to folding for transport/storage.

 

[MarkL]

Hi Mark

good luck with your search - one aspect that occurs to me.................is you ought to consider the strength of the front standard if you're intending to use a heavy lens, I would have thought that any Sinar, particularly with their large lens boards would fit perfectly, btw I've owned a few and also a 5 x 7 Canham woodie but I never used a very heavy lens with it

regards

Andrew

Thanks Andrew, and all. Let's just say I'd like to be able to use a lens in the 360 range. I could think about selling my heavy lens and getting something lighter if need be.

My Zone VI is not actually a bad camera, and has plenty of bellows for the long lens, but I can't use a wider lens than 90. I'd like a better designed camera that's a joy to use. I had thought the Technika 3000 might be the ultimate but I've never even seen any Linhof, much less used one, and the price is astronomical.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi Mark

good luck with your search - one aspect that occurs to me.................is you ought to consider the strength of the front standard if you're intending to use a heavy lens, I would have thought that any Sinar, particularly with their large lens boards would fit perfectly, btw I've owned a few and also a 5 x 7 Canham woodie but I never used a very heavy lens with it

regards

Andrew

Most if not all lenses that are appropriate for 4x5/5x7 will be supported by the Canham front standard just fine. I have a Nikkor 450M that I've used with my Canham, and that's a big heavy chunk of glass, and overkill for the format (it's also in a Copal 3, like the G-Claron, and weighs a similar amount). I mostly use the 450 Nikkor and the 355 G-Claron on my 14x17, which uses the Toyo 158mm lens boards (even bigger than Sinar). The few lenses I have that would challenge the front standard on a Canham I would never try to pair with it in the first place ( the 405mm Kodak Portrait lens, the B&L 16" f4.5, the 600mm Apo-Germinar). Remember that the structure on the camera is aerospace-grade aluminum.

 

[MarkL]

Flying Camera: You're always so extremely helpful and knowledgeable...I appreciate it. Great idea about trying them out in person, but there don't seem to be any dealers on the east coast. Have you handled a comparable Chamonix or Shen Hao?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unlike lots of LF stuff, compact light modern lenses remain in high demand and tend to still be expensive. I noticed that there are two 360 A lenses on the auction site at the moment. It's rare to ever see them available. Another favorite compact lens of mine which I use for both 4X5 and 8X10, and sometimes even 6X9 roll-film backs, is the Fuji 450C. But because these lenses throw huge image circles, you need a good lens shade. It also distinctly help to have an oversized tapered bellows rather than excess light bouncing around a cramped box bellows. In this respect, the Canham 4X5/5X7 would offer an advantage over most basic 4X5 folders, though it's going to be a couple pounds heavier than most, and needs a bit more serious tripod. Still, I'd classify it as a very portable camera. You can easily make up the weight difference simply by using lighter lenses in smaller shutters.

 

[Ed Sawyer]

Agreed with the recommendations of the DLC, I love mine. Keith is a great asset to the community as well, can't go wrong with his stuff.

 

[Kilgallb]

If you want light weight I can recommend the TOYO 45CF. The CF means carbon fibre. I use mine with a 90mm to a 210mm for landscape. Backpacking it is easy. The person I bought it off used it down to 75mm, but you need to drop the bed to do that which somewhat complicates focusing.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want light weight I can recommend the TOYO 45CF. The CF means carbon fibre. I use mine with a 90mm to a 210mm for landscape. Backpacking it is easy. The person I bought it off used it down to 75mm, but you need to drop the bed to do that which somewhat complicates focusing.

I don't think the 45CF is going to work for his application - it goes neither wide nor long enough. IIRC it has a maximum bellows draw of 14" (360mm+/-) which means that his long lens would be only focusable at infinity. Given the relatively small size of the lens board, and therefore the body opening, I don't know if the rear element of his G-Claron would actually fit through the front standard, or if he'd have to remove the rear element, mount the lens, then open the back and re-attach the rear element to put it on, and reverse the process for removing the lens. That 355 G-Claron is a BIG lens.

 

[MarkL]

A lot of food for thought. Weight isnt really an issue. These Canhams sound great. Still hoping to hear also from Chamonix and Shen Hao users, about their build quality and usability. Thanks everyone!