New 8x10 Field cameras

[DREW WILEY]

I've always admired Canham's wooden folders for the mid-priced category. At the more stratospheric levels of price, along with Ebony, Lotus
makes some lovely wooden cameras. There are lots of excellent choices out there. I've been shooting an 8x10 Phillips for many years; but these are no longer made, so their prices used are quite high.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

I realize what you are saying, now that I have price references from most. A few cameras range into the US$ 5,000.- + shipping ! The craftsmanship on most is fantastic, and some look like they can take some abuse, crappy weather and clumsy handling. Service on all I've contacted so far has been very good.

 

[vdonovan]

I have not seen a Chamonix but I have seen a Svedovsky.
The Sved is very well made indeed, but it is not what I would call finely made. There have been little problems with bits and bobs of the hardware, but the makers are extremely good at sorting things out.
Given the price differential, I'd be very surprised if anyone did not consider the Sved very good value indeed for a brand new 10x8.
NB It does not have rear swing (but it does of course have rear tilt)

I've had a Svedovsky for about six months and I agree entirely with your comments. It's a great camera for the money, but it's not a perfect camera. A perfect camera would cost much more!

I do miss rear swing. I have a Shen Hao 4x5 and now I sort of wish I had waited and purchased a Shen Hao 8x10 so that the movements and controls would be the same on the two cameras.

The Sved would be a perfect camera for students or workshops: sturdy, easy to use, and inexpensive.

 

[wildbill]

chamonix.

 

[bdial]

A Ritter would be my choice, my F3 and its motor drive out weighs it.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

So far, I've gotten quotes and delivery times from 6 manufacturers. Price difference between the lowest and highest. is nearly US$ 2,600.-, and delivery times run from two days to six months. Interesting fact is that the most expensive brand also has the longest lead time. Best price so far has been Ritter, followed by Canham, and I've only heard good things about them. Never have had a chance to use these brands. They look solid and the hardware appears to be designed for business. Any word of advice on these cameras ?

 

[RobC]

I rekon the wooden ones may have to source materials and they may want to season the wood for a period to be sure its stable.

I have only heard good things about walker cameras but have never used one. I had my beady eye on a 5x7 at one time but decided to go back to 35mm in the end. The option for only a wide angle with only 400mm bellows extension and fixed back may be deal breaker for you anyway, for some it is a deal maker. I guess it depends on exactly what functionality you are looking for in the camera and we don't know that.

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

I do enjoy getting up close and personal with my subjects. With a 240 mm and a 360 mm the Walker's bellows extension could be limiting.

 

[rmann]

So far, I've gotten quotes and delivery times from 6 manufacturers. Price difference between the lowest and highest. is nearly US$ 2,600.-, and delivery times run from two days to six months. Interesting fact is that the most expensive brand also has the longest lead time. Best price so far has been Ritter, followed by Canham, and I've only heard good things about them. Never have had a chance to use these brands. They look solid and the hardware appears to be designed for business. Any word of advice on these cameras ?

I have owned both a Ritter and a Canham - liked the Canham much better. The Ritter is light weight as a plus but I found the many tubes and clamps in the design time consuming to set up and take down. The Canham once you have used it while is quick to set up and folds into a much easier to transport package.

 

[RobC]

I do enjoy getting up close and personal with my subjects. With a 240 mm and a 360 mm the Walker's bellows extension could be limiting.

Yup, It's no good for macro work although having said that I don't know what the coverage of a 150 lens would be at macro extensions for 1:1 but it may work. Depends how close you want to get.

 

[wildbill]

fwiw, A friend who owned a chamonix, ritter, and others said the ritter wasn't nearly as sturdy as the others.
I have not personally used the ritter. When I was searching for a new 8x10 camera, Richard Ritter said if I didn't like his camera after trying it out, I could return it for a refund. So there's that. In the end I felt the design was too fiddly for me and decided to build a camera myself. http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!camera/c65q

 

[Alan Gales]

fwiw, A friend who owned a chamonix, ritter, and others said the ritter wasn't nearly as sturdy as the others.
I have not personally used the ritter. When I was searching for a new 8x10 camera, Richard Ritter said if I didn't like his camera after trying it out, I could return it for a refund. So there's that. In the end I felt the design was too fiddly for me and decided to build a camera myself. http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!camera/c65q

I have heard the same thing about Chamonix versus Ritter. I have also heard that when you completely lock the Ritter down it is stable. It sounds more fiddly than the Chamonix. The Ritter is lighter and has more bellows draw than the Chamonix though. As you well know there is always a trade off.

Vinny, maybe you should start making and selling the Wild Bill cameras!

 

[knj]

So are all the new cameras mature. Meaning are there likely to be significant improvements or refinements in the future. I have be mulling over the same question as the op. On the other hand it is for future use, nothing in the near future. Cash flow is good now so buy now or wait. Of course I realize some of the designs are decades old.

Ken

 

[Alan Gales]

So are all the new cameras mature. Meaning are there likely to be significant improvements or refinements in the future. I have be mulling over the same question as the op. On the other hand it is for future use, nothing in the near future. Cash flow is good now so buy now or wait. Of course I realize some of the designs are decades old.

Ken

What would be a significant improvement or refinement?

An improvement to one person isn't to another and every design seems to be a trade off somewhere. You have to decide on what features you need and the price you can afford and make your best decision from that.

Welcome to APUG!

 

[RobC]

My opionion is that lightweight field cameras are not very rigid. That is why I pointed out Walker cameras which are reputedly very rigid. But if it doesn't have the required extension then obviously its no good.

With 8x10 you have bigger and heavier lenses hanging off the front of the bellows so strength and rigidity becomes even more important than for 4x5.

I guess as per usual, the best advice is to see if you can out with someone who uses 8x10 and see their kit in action to give you a better appreciation of what an 8x10 camera is like to use, how rigid it is etc etc etc. I don't think it gets any easier with the bigger format, infact quite the opposite with longer shutter times requiring even more stability in the setup and care about vibration from wind.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Alan, my guess is KNJ is wondering if all the "bugs" have been worked out with the newer cameras.

 

[RobC]

So are all the new cameras mature. Meaning are there likely to be significant improvements or refinements in the future. I have be mulling over the same question as the op. On the other hand it is for future use, nothing in the near future. Cash flow is good now so buy now or wait. Of course I realize some of the designs are decades old.

Ken

view cameras aren't like digital cameras with bells, whistles and pointless functionality. They are very simple mechanical devices, dare I say agricultural in concept and design, where all the known glitches have been ironed out long ago. Everyone knows the front and rear standards need to be rigid and everything locks into place and won't move due to gravity or by putting a darkslide in. There really isn't anything more that they need. Then its just a choice of which available movements you think you'll need and finally personal choice on look of camera, wood or metal and weight. There is usually a trade off between weight and rigidity. Rigidity always trumps weight if you want hassle free image taking. A camera with fixed rear standard makes life easy. Only thing is that you want to be able to focus with the rear standard. You'll find out why if you ever do any macro work and you only have front standard focussing. So design is important but all these things are available on most current models. Don't expect any groundbreaking improvements in the next century. LF cameras don't need them. And mostly you never need anywhere near the amount of movements that these cameras have avaliable.

 

[knj]

view cameras aren't like digital cameras with bells, whistles and pointless functionality. They are very simple mechanical devices, dare I say agricultural in concept and design, where all the known glitches have been ironed out long ago. Everyone knows the front and rear standards need to be rigid and everything locks into place and won't move due to gravity or by putting a darkslide in. There really isn't anything more that they need. Then its just a choice of which available movements you think you'll need and finally personal choice on look of camera, wood or metal and weight. There is usually a trade off between weight and rigidity. Rigidity always trumps weight if you want hassle free image taking. A camera with fixed rear standard makes life easy. Only thing is that you want to be able to focus with the rear standard. You'll find out why if you ever do any macro work and you only have front standard focussing. So design is important but all these things are available on most current models. Don't expect any groundbreaking improvements in the next century. LF cameras don't need them. And mostly you never need anywhere near the amount of movements that these cameras have avaliable.

I think this is what I am looking to hear.I am tired of the planned obsolescence of digital devices(cameras, computers, phones). Still, there are new and improved versions of Chamonix 4x5. I suffer horribly from GAS. Maybe that is the appeal of a Deardorff or other classic.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

 

[RobC]

I think this is what I am looking to hear.I am tired of the planned obsolescence of digital devices(cameras, computers, phones). Still, there are new and improved versions of Chamonix 4x5. I suffer horribly from GAS. Maybe that is the appeal of a Deardorff or other classic.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

Take up Fishing and Golf as well as Photography, that should help satisfy your syndrome.

 

[knj]

Golf is boring. I enjoy bass fishing. I have three boats, three baitcasting rod and reels and could always use more. It is more expensive than photography.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

 

[Alan Gales]

Still, there are new and improved versions of Chamonix 4x5.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

This is exactly what I am talking about. First came the O45N1, then the 045N2 and now the 045F1. The N2 was considered an improvement over the N1 but I know (from the internet) the fellow who bought the very last N1 because he preferred it over the N2. The N2 and F1 are selling side by side for a reason. Some prefer the new F1 with it's Asymmetrical Tilt but others prefer the lighter weight and cheaper price of the N2.

My Wehman was innovative when it came out with it's clamshell design and if you waited around the front standard was changed in material at the bottom. Bruce said it was unnecessary but people wanted it. Then came the higher priced lighter weight Wehman. It shed just a little weight but cost like $500 more so again a trade off. If someone waited around for the next model it would have been a mistake because Bruce had to quit making them due to health problems.

My point is that if you want to shoot 8x10 then buy a camera and go out shooting. Any new innovation is minor. Even digital SLR's are getting like this. With digital the next thing is mirrorless innovation and if you have gas then you can jump on that bandwagon! I just saw a rumor that the new Fujifilm X-pro2 may be coming out next January!

 

[RobC]

This is exactly what I am talking about. First came the O45N1, then the 045N2 and now the 045F1. The N2 was considered an improvement over the N1 but I know (from the internet) the fellow who bought the very last N1 because he preferred it over the N2. The N2 and F1 are selling side by side for a reason. Some prefer the new F1 with it's Asymmetrical Tilt but others prefer the lighter weight and cheaper price of the N2.

My Wehman was innovative when it came out with it's clamshell design and if you waited around the front standard was changed in material at the bottom. Bruce said it was unnecessary but people wanted it. Then came the higher priced lighter weight Wehman. It shed just a little weight but cost like $500 more so again a trade off. If someone waited around for the next model it would have been a mistake because Bruce had to quit making them due to health problems.

My point is that if you want to shoot 8x10 then buy a camera and go out shooting. Any new innovation is minor. Even digital SLR's are getting like this. With digital the next thing is mirrorless innovation and if you have gas then you can jump on that bandwagon! I just saw a rumor that the new Fujifilm X-pro2 may be coming out next January!

Can't wait, fuji may close up business by then

 

[Alan Gales]

Can't wait, fuji may close up business by then

Yeah, I know you are joking but unfortunately they have done it before.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...6019089_GF670_Rangefinder_Folding_Camera.html

 

[Peter Rockstroh01]

Yesterday I picked up the Chamonix 8x10. BIG difference to my C1 ! I'll have to have some lensboards made this week, in order to test the camera next weekend. The camera's movements are controlled quite differently from the Calumet's, but despite the light weight, the structure feels sturdy. Lets see how she does in crappy weather and strong winds. I have an old (1930's) brass and wood tripod that weighs nearly 30 pounds, which makes little sense with this camera. It'll be a relief not to carry that thing anymore !!!
Thanks for all your feedback on cameras ... and Viagra !

 

[Alan Gales]

Congratulations Peter. From what I have read here and on Large Format Photography Forum, everyone who bought a Chamonix 8x10 were very happy with the camera.