Folding camera - for 72mm XL + up to 210mm: LMT?

[Neil Grant]

..what are the pitfalls of a used, but not ancient, Master Technika?

 

[xkaes]

Weight, cost, no rear movement -- but if the price is right and if you like shooting off-tripod, WEEGEE...

 

[abruzzi]

Weight, cost, no rear movement -- but if the price is right and if you like shooting off-tripod, WEEGEE...

there is some, limited rear movement by loosening the rear thmbscrews, pulling the back out then you can make some limited movements.

What a MT is and can do should be pretty easy to find online. A couple comments from owning one--

• the bellows are not on frames, so if they're bad its a bit of work to replace. Not impossible, but not easy.
• the later MTs had a focus rail inside the camera as well as on the main bed. This made it easier to focus very short lenses. I think that feature began with the MT 2000. Mine doesn't have it and with a flat board, I can barely get a 90mm onto the main rails, so anything wider will need a recessed board.
• the top flap that allows rise on the front standard with very short lenses is actually hinged by the leathertte, so if thats in bad shape the flap may not stay in place well.

aside from that they're simple and easy to use. Maybe a touch costly, but mine cost less than the Shen Hao I bought before it they're almost the same weight--2.6kg vs 2.4kg.

I'd worry how well it would handle the 72xl.

 

[Bob S]

Weight, cost, no rear movement -- but if the price is right and if you like shooting off-tripod, WEEGEE...

It has rise, fall, tilt and swing on the rear standard. That was why it became a Technika. It was the first metal folding camera with these back movements.

 

[Bob S]

there is some, limited rear movement by loosening the rear thmbscrews, pulling the back out then you can make some limited movements.

What a MT is and can do should be pretty easy to find online. A couple comments from owning one--

• the bellows are not on frames, so if they're bad its a bit of work to replace. Not impossible, but not easy.
• the later MTs had a focus rail inside the camera as well as on the main bed. This made it easier to focus very short lenses. I think that feature began with the MT 2000. Mine doesn't have it and with a flat board, I can barely get a 90mm onto the main rails, so anything wider will need a recessed board.
• the top flap that allows rise on the front standard with very short lenses is actually hinged by the leathertte, so if thats in bad shape the flap may not stay in place well.

aside from that they're simple and easy to use. Maybe a touch costly, but mine cost less than the Shen Hao I bought before it they're almost the same weight--2.6kg vs 2.4kg.

I'd worry how well it would handle the 72xl.

Up to the 150 lenses should be on recessed boards. That is why you had a problem with your 90.

 

[MarkS]

You're better off with a rail camera. The Linhof's closed-box design makes working with wide-angle lenses awkward. That's also true of wooden folding field cameras, by the way.
I'd suggest a Toyo VX125; well-made, compact, designed for the focal lengths that you mention.

 

[Bob S]

You're better off with a rail camera. The Linhof's closed-box design makes working with wide-angle lenses awkward. That's also true of wooden folding field cameras, by the way.
I'd suggest a Toyo VX125; well-made, compact, designed for the focal lengths that you mention.

How do you mean awkward?

 

[MarkS]

I mean that the clamshell nature of a flatbed field camera (or Technika) makes adjustments difficult and restricts the available movements with a very wide lens. It can be done, yes, and I've done it quite a bit over the years. The OP wants to use a 72mm lens on 4x5; most of those cameras are right up against their limits with a lens of that f.l.
A compact rail camera (I should have mentioned the Technikardan) doesn't have all that hardware in the way. I only mentioned the Toyo because I recently saw a friend's example for the first time and was quite impressed. Might as well do it the easy way- LF photograph is difficult enough without fighting your gear.

 

[grat]

I have to disagree with Mark S-- I have a Cambo SC with the standard 21" bellows, and even folded up, it's a pain to use with any lens shorter than 120mm. Even with a bag bellows, the two standards collide (which to be fair, is probably an idiosyncrasy of the Cambo). My Chamonix (folding wood field camera) can use down to a 75 without much effort-- not much movement, but you can focus to infinity. A bag bellows would help with the movements.

 

[xkaes]

LF photograph is difficult enough without fighting your gear.

I thought that was the whole point.

 

[xkaes]

My Chamonix (folding wood field camera) can use down to a 75 without much effort-- not much movement, but you can focus to infinity.

I have no trouble at all with my 65mm (it has a 73mm flange focal length) on my folding TOKO 4x5. Sure, there's not much movement available, but that wide, I don't need much. More importantly, the image circle of the 65mm lens is just barely larger than the 4x5 film -- so I can move it as much as the IC allows. The camera is NOT the limiter.

 

[grat]

I don't have a 65, so I've never tested it.

Officially, minimum bellows draw on the Chamonix is 45mm.

 

[el_37]

I have to disagree with Mark S-- I have a Cambo SC with the standard 21" bellows, and even folded up, it's a pain to use with any lens shorter than 120mm. Even with a bag bellows, the two standards collide (which to be fair, is probably an idiosyncrasy of the Cambo). My Chamonix (folding wood field camera) can use down to a 75 without much effort-- not much movement, but you can focus to infinity. A bag bellows would help with the movements.

The Cambo SC is horribly unsuited to using any wide angle lenses. Using that camera to judge monorail wide angle lens suitability or usability is akin to using a Visoflex to judge SLR photography.

But Cambo's main business back then was catalog houses and budget users who were shooting table top stuff, so there was no real call for using wide angle lenses on the SC- it was the wrong tool for the job.

Nobody who required constant use of wide angles with any movement back in the film days was using a Cambo. Sinar, Arca Swiss and the Linhof Technikardan were the monorails of choice for that kind of work.

 

[el_37]

From your posts it seems you really want to use the 72mm XL- and I will tell you from experience it is an awkward lens to use on a Technika. The huge front element, mounted on a small recessed board on that small front standard is not a winning combination if you intend to use it more than occasionally.

 

[Bob S]

From your posts it seems you really want to use the 72mm XL- and I will tell you from experience it is an awkward lens to use on a Technika. The huge front element, mounted on a small recessed board on that small front standard is not a winning combination if you intend to use it more than occasionally.

Unless you mount it on the correct board for the Technika! The 001015 Comfort board.

 

[grat]

The Cambo SC is horribly unsuited to using any wide angle lenses. Using that camera to judge monorail wide angle lens suitability or usability is akin to using a Visoflex to judge SLR photography.

But Cambo's main business back then was catalog houses and budget users who were shooting table top stuff, so there was no real call for using wide angle lenses on the SC- it was the wrong tool for the job.

Nobody who required constant use of wide angles with any movement back in the film days was using a Cambo. Sinar, Arca Swiss and the Linhof Technikardan were the monorails of choice for that kind of work.

I do not disagree-- but the comment I was responding to said "you're better off with a rail camera", and as you (and I) have observed, not all rail cameras are created equal. I was startled by how bad the SC-2 is for wide-angle work, so I thought it was reasonable to point it out and hopefully save someone else from the same problem.

Personally, I've got at least two cameras that handle wide-angle lenses better-- the Chamonix can in theory handle a 45mm (!), and have movements if you have a bag bellows.

 

[GLS]

The Technikardan S45 will handle all those lenses with aplomb. I have the 72 XL and use it with mine occasionally. No problems whatsoever provided you have the bag bellows.

As mentioned above, the VX125 is another alternative. I did consider that when shopping for a LF camera, but ultimately the base tilts put me off.

 

[Photowithfries]

Testing my monorail Cambo SC1 this morning shows the camera works fine with a 150mm, a 90mm, and a 57mm. The format is for a 120 roll film back which nearly disqualifies my comments here but for one, the "nut" connecting the rail to the tripod can go just behind the standards so they can be moved much closer together. The short rail normally used with wide angle lenses is my standard rail on this camera. All is moved forward on the rail so it does not show in the view but still close to the nut as possible for stability. The 90 works fine in this configuration, the 57 works fine when a bag bellows is used. The camera just needs a little time to settle down before a long exposure is made. This makes the camera work great for tabletops, and architectural, and landscape. It also does not draw as much dust while sitting between shooting sessions as the larger versions...

 

[Photowithfries]

Back when using a Cambo 4x5, there was a recessed board, bag bellows, short rail set up which worked very well with w/a lenses back to 65mm, with movements. It would also work fine with up to 300mm lens with the normal rail for portraits. Fun to use with most of the money having been put into the lenses rather than the camera. With it going up to 106 outside today, studio shooting is still as fun as it ever was!