for the deardorff fans out there...

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm looking at getting a more field-compatible 8x10 than my current Calumet C-1. The C-1 is a nice machine, and is great in the studio, but it weighs a ton and is something less than easily portable in the field. I know 'dorffs are quite popular, and can be had used for a reasonable price, so I'm considering one. What are the upsides and downsides to one, things that a regular user would know from experience with handling one? What do you find are its strengths, and what are the limitations?

 

[photobum]

Upside: Beautiful camera and craftsmanship. Holds it's value, you should never loose money. Most important, is that it is so instinctive to use.

Downside: Expensive to buy. 13 lbs. Not as rigid as other more modern designs.

Another downside is that once you have and use one, you can never have to many Deardorff's. Now I have dreams of having Jack make me a 7x17. Whoa, cool.

 

[avandesande]

You can cut the weight in half from the c-1 going to a phillips or wehman

 

[df cardwell]

DEARDORFF UPSIDES

Excellent range of lenses, with no extra rails or bag bellows. Downside, can't use a 24" protar cell, or cooke 27, without an extension. An extension, however is easy to make.

Remarkably rigid and precise. Downside, many cameras have been used hard, and the metal parts need replacement. Downside 2: many owners think a wooden camera be improved if they take it apart and put it back together. Like taking a Martin guitar apart. Upside: hardware replacement can be done.

The cameras are superb, and are worth more than their reputation suggests. The biggest downside is that contemporary shooter have an irrational belief in metal; that it offers a more precise and reliable camera than one of wood. A good camera is a good camera, and like a Gandolfi, Canham or Linhof, the more you use it, the better you adapt to it.

My Deardorff was made in 1951, like me. I got it out of a pawn shop in 1971. It was completely restored in 1997, except for the knobs which are pleasantly worn.

In use, it is completely intuitive. It is a perfect design. Yes, I know it like the back of my hand. but every Deardorff shooter I know ( lots ) feels the same way.

Downside: a sometime shooter probably will be happier with a metal camera. It is easier to put your faith in technology than your self. A Deardorff, like photography, demands a comittment. And it returns the investment handsomely.

.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I got the C-1 because it was a good deal on a very solid camera, and it got me into 8x10 for not too terribly much money - $600 for the C1, 2 lensboards, recessed board, three or four film holders, compendium hood, and a box of Bergger 8x10 film. I'm not one of those hardline "must be metal" or "must be wood" types - my 4x5 is a Shen-Hao.

I've noticed from looking at pictures of 'dorffs that they do seem to have rather limited movements, and are fairly compact. I didn't know if they also had limited bellows extension, which it sounds like they do, at least compared to my C-1. I also didn't realize they were in the same weight category as the C-1. That's probably why they last as long as they do, despite the abuse some of them have taken.

 

[Jeremy]

The only thing I miss on my 'dorff is front shift, but with a combo of back and front swing I can get the little bit of shift I need. Bellows really aren't limited in my opinion as they come in at around 30"

-Jeremy

 

[df cardwell]

Perspective is everything !

An 8x10 Deardorff, w/ front swings, weighs 12 pounds.

It's max extension: 30 inches. ( the single cell of a 27" Cooke is about 29 inches. That puts it a whisker away from infinity. A 24" Protar is about 26", and can be used except for closeups. This is important if you are likely to use a convertible lens. I forget how old I am. )

Minimum extension is 3 1/2 ". I use mine for 4x5, and have no trouble with a 90mm lens. You get huge movements with its minumum extension.

The movements of a Deardorff limited ? You're joking, right ?

Lens tilt, 30?; lens swing, 20?; Front Rise/Fall, 6 1/2".

Back tilt, 30?; back swing, 20?.

No swings is not a concern for a photographer out of the studio, you shift front and back if you need shift... which you shouldn't. You gain stability and compactness.

And, to be fair to the C-1, even if it's nickname is 'big moose', you're looking at the comparison wrong way round. The Deardorff is rugged because it's made from instrument grade mahogany, and steel, and is a perfectly evolved design. Again, it is light.

The Calumet is LIGHT for what it is because it is designed and made extremely well, and made of magnesium.

The simple reasons to get the Deardorff over the C-1 are: compactness, short lens facility, and ease of use. If you use lens, up close, longer than 20 inches, the Deardorff needs an extension, the C-1 doesn't.

.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've been known to do some macro work at 1:1 or better with my 14" Commercial Ektar - so the 34-36" of bellows on the C-1 is a very nice to have, bordering on requirement. It is as much a matter of cantankerousness and clunkiness as weight that makes the C-1 hard to put in the field. I think what I need to do is get my hands on a 'dorff and play with it a bit to see if I'd be comfy with it.

 

[df cardwell]

Try it first, brilliant.

With 1:1 extensions, you get miracles with a second, light tripod under the front standard... with ANY view camera.

When I realized that, I began going into the field with a medium tripod and a lightweight tripod instead of a conventional heavy tripod and was very happy with the results.

Especially hiking, it made a vast imporovement.

.

 

[Donsta]

I use a Gitzo 1325 for 8x10 up to 12x20 - for 12x20, I have a carbon fiber monopod which I put under the front standard. It adds an enormous amount of rigidity and takes about 3 seconds to put into place (I have a QR which I leave on the camera).

 

[John Kasaian]

I like my V8 'dorff. Its no showpiece, but it is light, strong, compact (for an 8x10) and its easy to do all the perspective stuff. I use lenses from 159mm to 480mm on Her. An elderly pre-A-100 Reis tripod holds her up and I feed her wooden Eastman Graflex or plastic Lisco film holders. Certainly there are lighter 8x10 kits out there but for the quality and the price, a 'beater' 'dorff like mine is hard to beat. I'd love to have a 'spare' around in case my 'dorff needs to go in for new bellows, or sprouts legs and walks away one day.

Maybe I'm wierd, but I find that 'dorff is kind of inspirational---it makes me want to get out there and make photos.

 

[bobfowler]

If I were in the market for a NEW 8X10 field camera, I'd go with a Canham Standard Traditional. The Standard weighs in at 9.4 pounds, the lightweight at 8.4. At my size, a extra pound isn't going to kill me.

These cameras are beautifully made and can easily convert to 7x17 or 8x20. If you ever get a chance to handle one, you'll know what I mean...

 

[Alex Hawley]

I like my V8 'dorff. Its no showpiece, but it is light, strong, compact (for an 8x10) and its easy to do all the perspective stuff. I use lenses from 159mm to 480mm on Her. An elderly pre-A-100 Reis tripod holds her up and I feed her wooden Eastman Graflex or plastic Lisco film holders. Certainly there are lighter 8x10 kits out there but for the quality and the price, a 'beater' 'dorff like mine is hard to beat. I'd love to have a 'spare' around in case my 'dorff needs to go in for new bellows, or sprouts legs and walks away one day.

Maybe I'm wierd, but I find that 'dorff is kind of inspirational---it makes me want to get out there and make photos.

I'm another guy with a beat-up old 'Dorf. And I agree completely with what John said. It makes me wanna go out and DO IT!

 

[jonw]

Put me in the V8 support group. Of the many pluses and few minuses which have previously voiced, IMO, I like the fact the dorff does not need an extra extension rail. It is an excellent 8x10 and provides me with all the flexibility of shooting 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10. If I have to have something more portable, then I carry my 4x5 tachihara.

 

[photobum]

Reading some of the comments I would never say that either of my 'Dorff's are "Remarkably rigid". One is new and the other is in very good condition. However I have never found it to be a problem. Racked out to 20 or more inches the 8x10 is going to have some sway. The 4x5/5x7 has some sway past 15". Just let the camera settle down after inserting the film holder.

Upside that have not been mentioned. The sliding lens board gives some nice rise when using short lenses. The sliding back boards give you 2 5x8's or 2 4x10's per sheet of 8x10. I have the boards for my 5x7 too but never use them.

 

[dphphoto]

I've had both. I was given a C-1 several years and sold it. It was the clumbsiest, most rediculous piece of garbage I've even been saddled with. But then, I got it several years after buying my NFS 'dorff. What can I say?
I sold the C-1. I'd never sell the 'dorff, and I'd love to get a newer one if I could find any way to justify it. But since mine's solid, and I don't need the front swings to do landscape, what would be the point?
You can always find a decent, reasonably priced 'dorff on eBay. Bruce's Cameras on eBay sells reproduction boards that look like the originals. How can you go wrong? Dean

 

[vet173]

Hello, I'm John and I'm a dorffaholic.

 

[df cardwell]

Hi John

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Actually, to be fair to the C-1, it makes a good studio camera that you can if you really really really want to take into the field. But it is heavy, and it is clumsy with the way they executed the tailboard. I like the rear focus with it for portrait work because it establishes the subject/lens distance, so it is easier to compose without having to dance back and forth as much with the tripod to get your framing right. I'm very interested in a Canham WHEN I'm in the market for a new camera, but $3500 is definitely NOT in my budget at the moment, especially with building the 20x12 portrait camera in progress.