Linhof Technika - Are they worth the money?

[Tom Duffy]

I think the point I'd emphasize comparing a wood field camera and the Technika is the absolute precision and rigidity of the Linhof. When you lock the bed in place nothing has any slack or bend. Once, to get a little more reach, I mounted a 360mm G-Claron with a Copal 3 shutter on the Technika at triple bellows extension and everything remained solid.
This precision also means that you can shoot at a wider aperture than with a wood camera and still get good sharpness in all the corners. Film curvature is a common problem with both systems but I found I could generally shoot at f8 with the Technika while needing to stop down to f16 or f22 with a good wood camera.
The universal viewfinder allows very quick landscape setup and shots from a car. (You're gone before anyone has a chance to object to your tripod and the light doesn't change while you're setting up.) The viewfinder also allows for a "semi" dynamic focus without resorting to the groundglass; work great for people pictures.
The geared front standard rise is pretty amazing, as well.
The camera by design is a technical camera. Front tilt and drop are way inferior to a wood camera and back movement is something to avoid.

 

[Cybertrash]

[...]I made an adapter to use Linhof/Wista boards with my PP's.

Forgive me for quoting an old post but I'm really interested how this was made. I recently bought an MPP and have a bunch of Linhof boards lying around, would be nice to be able to use them on the MPP

 

[Ian Grant]

Forgive me for quoting an old post but I'm really interested how this was made. I recently bought an MPP and have a bunch of Linhof boards lying around, would be nice to be able to use them on the MPP

I made a prototype using wood, I need to really get them machined from aluminium. I'll dig it out. I now have quite a few MPP lens boards so haven't taken it further but need to speak to a friend who's an engineer.

Which model MPP ? Send me a PM.

Ian

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have loaned a Super Technika once, and felt that for my purposes (i do not shoot handheld) it was a terrible device....

Heavy, front movements are limited and fiddly, wide angles are a pain, the rear movements system is impractical.

I shoot with extensive movements for both landscape, architecture and 'macro' (well closeups practically) and the Technika doesn't suffice for me.

Yes it might be 'rugged' but so what, my humble Shenhao goes from backpack to tripod to backpack and it holds up fine while on the motor.

YMMV.

The Linhof Technika does exactly what it is designed to do, and does it superbly. It does not, however, do what it was not designed to do. It's a 'technical" camera, not intended for extreme movements, there are Linhof monorails for that.
I've used mine handheld, photographing bobsleds running at Mt van Hoevenberg; used it extensively for product photography; but mostly for landscape, woods, and closeup - it has served me perfectly for 30 or so years. Horses for courses.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I kept myself aside of the discussion as I never owned an Ebony or any other wooden camera, but I knew that this was going to end exactly this way! I desired to own a Linhof since, as a kid, I read about this brand (which was absolutely unknown among casual photographers) on a book, where it was presented as the most perfect and desirable camera set ever made, ridiculising Hasselblad and other brands that were considered as "pro"-stuff by the men-on-the-street. It was introduced as a camera that "not everybody would be able to operate", no less! Since then, I have set as peak of my career as non-professional advanced amateur photographer to own and to know how to operate technical large format cameras made by Linhof. Finally, a dozen years ago, the digital madness gave me the opportunity to afford one.

Excepting bellows draw, about which the Linhof wins hands down, you may find out that indeed there's nothing "more" than you can do with the Linhof than with the Ebony, but that owning and operating the Linhof alone gives you a physical pleasure. At least in my case, this pleasure has a great part in the game of being a non-professional photographer, and personally I have always felt that I was missing something until I finally had among my cameras a Linhof, the greatest name in photography, the Camera of all cameras, so often imitated, never surpassed nor equalled.

I see that the magic word "Linhof" has caught another soul!

My Deardorff V8 is very nice too - pattern grade mahogany no less.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have a Linhof Standard Press. Though not a Technika, it's a well built, well designed camera. They've been around for over a hundred years and have been charging a premium for their cameras so they're doing something right.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I owned a Tech IV 6x9 (baby) Linhof years ago. They have an elegance to them that's hard to resist. They set up well, and they're built like tanks. I sold mine, because it didn't have the facility with super-wide lenses that I like. This is especially true of the Tech IV 6x9, given they're design. But, it's also true of the larger 4x5 Techs. If I were to have any of the Techs, it would have to be a Master. (For my purposes.) That said, John Sexton has sure done great work with his Technika Master 4x5's.

I have a rail camera that I really like; it easily meets all my super-wide needs, it's about the same weight as a Tech Master, and I can use lenses up to 450mm. I enjoyed using the Technica; but, my rail camera better meets my needs. I doubt that I will ever go back.

 

[MarkL]

To anyone looking for a very good and flexible 4x5 folding camera, you might consider the Chinese-made Chamonix. When I wanted to replace my Zone VI, I got the 45F2 with the optional extension and a bag bellows. I can use my 58mm all the way to my 450mm (with plenty of extension beyond that). I've never seen a Linhof but I did consider them until I saw the price. The Chamonix 45F2 is only about $1,000. It seems rigid enough, although I'm sure Linhof is king of that and I'd love to work with one some day!

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/045F1.html

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a Linhof Standard Press. Though not a Technika, it's a well built, well designed camera. They've been around for over a hundred years and have been charging a premium for their cameras so they're doing something right.

The Technika III is sometimes referred to as the Standard Press, but then there's also the Technika Press which is the rigid bodied Linhof, so Technika doesn't refer to the style of camera.

Ian

 

[GLS]

To anyone looking for a very good and flexible 4x5 folding camera, you might consider the Chinese-made Chamonix. When I wanted to replace my Zone VI, I got the 45F2 with the optional extension and a bag bellows. I can use my 58mm all the way to my 450mm (with plenty of extension beyond that). I've never seen a Linhof but I did consider them until I saw the price. The Chamonix 45F2 is only about $1,000. It seems rigid enough, although I'm sure Linhof is king of that and I'd love to work with one some day!

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/045F1.html

I am currently considering buying my first LF camera, and was researching the Chamonix cameras a bit. They're attractive cameras, and look nicely made. The weight is also appealing, as is the price. However I have serious reservations about the design of the camera movements themselves (which was made quite clear from Mike Thomas' video review on youtube). Front rise/fall & tilt are all set with a single control, as is front shift/swing. The back swing/shift movement is completely free-form and looks pretty useless in terms of precision. The back tilt capabilities look nice, but fiddly to use. Same with having to detach/re-attach the front standard to different set-points on the camera bed when changing focal length.

All of this suggests the camera would be very fiddly and frustrating to use, particularly when precise movements are called for.


Edit: I am quite a meticulous person by nature, and the above would no doubt irritate me no end. I would dearly love to get an Arca-Swiss F of some description, but that is some serious change to drop on something I'm not sure I would even use much.

 

[MarkL]

Regarding the front standard, the 45F2 is an improvement over the 45F1 in that the rise/fall and the tilt are controlled by separate knobs. It uses an ingenious and convenient knob within a knob for those. For front shift and swing, you loosen the same knob that you use to attach the standard to the bed and I think it works well.

It took me a while to adjust to attaching/detaching the front standard to the bed but it’s pretty quick to do. There is a name for that camera design but I don’t know it. There are five places to attach the front standard. I think I’ll tape little labels to my lens boards indicating which is best for which lens.

I do kind of like the focusing knob.

My biggest complaint is the rear standard, although it does have separate asymmetrical and symmetrical tilts if you were to need those. Once you loosen the two large knobs which secure the rear standard down to the bed, the swing and forward/backward movements are free to adjust all over the place. That could be ok and is quite flexible but there aren’t detents for neutral position. The camera works well with a "BlackJacket" dark cloth.

I’m kind of meticulous as well and I think you’d be ok with this camera, especially if you want one lightweight camera for a huge variety of lenses. It probably takes wider than 58mm but that’s my widest lens so I’m not sure.

 

[GLS]

I believe the design is called a Phillips type.

Thanks for the info about the F1 vs F2; I had missed that.

What then are the principle differences between the F2 and the N2 cameras? They both have the same specs as far as I can make out, with the only difference being the finishes and the fact that the F cameras have asymmetrical back tilt. Are there more? I have to say, I prefer the titanium hardware of the N.

P.S. - Sorry for hijacking the thread somewhat

edit: Nevermind. I found a video with the differences. The N2 additionally does not have rear shift, or the independent rise/fall/swing controls on the front standard of the F2.

 

[MarkL]

Oh yeah thanks, Phillips type. About a year ago I compared the two and I can't recall the differences besides the asymmetrical tilt of the F2 (which I don't need but maybe thought I might), but it was pretty clear I wanted the F2 over the N2 at the time. If the N2 doesn't have the separate rise/fall & tilt knobs that the F2 has, that wouldn't be so great. You can email Hugo using the address on the Chamonix contact page though and he could indicate any differences.

 

[Arthurwg]

I did have an RSW45 for awhile. Great camera and best of all, light and compact, making it great for travel. You would not say this about the Linhof.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Likewise. I'm sure a Technika is worth the price. But is it worth the weight for what is does (or doesn't do)?

 

[AgX]

The Technikas are a hybride from a view- and a field-camera. Intended to be able to be used for instance one moment for table-top, the next for architecture, then again for reportage.
They make sense if such hybride characteristic is benefitial.