Novel format camera recommendations

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi all:

I dove straight from MF to 8x10 a couple years ago, and am considering adding a couple other formats to my repertoire. I am interested in full plate (6.5x8.5) for far flung travel work, and 14x17 and 12x20 for larger chloride and platinum prints and monumental landscapes.

I bought a Deardorff v8 as my first view camera because it seemed like the archetypal 8x10 camera and a good baseline tool to develop technique in large format photography. Additionally it is rather beautiful which makes it a pleasure to work with and makes portraiture (when I do it) even more special to the sitter.

However, going forward my priorities are more clear and I am exploring other makers for future formats. What I need now from a camera is:

-Comparable extension and movements to a Deardorff. I use these, often to the limits of my lens. Front rise should be generous in particular.

-Foldable for field work.

-Rigidity and precision. This is where the v8 is a little lacking. It’s a little too bouncy for comfort after you extend it a little bit. I have some soft negatives from longer exposures, presumably from the wind. I always intend to achieve the maximum sharpness potential of the format I’m using. With the deardorff I don’t like things wobbling so much between focusing and putting in the film holder- and the camera is in great shape. I also found an intermittent light leak around the wooden lens board after two years of intermittently fogged negatives (for the longest time I thought it was lens flare).

-ability to take heavy plasmat lenses. This is where the moderate wobbliness of the Deardorff also reduces confidence. I really have to tighten the shifting front rise pretty hard. I can feel the front standard groan under the weight of the lens. With the apo Sironar S 300 and 360, it has sometimes slowly slipped downward in the process of setting the movements, focusing etc.

- maximum precision in focusing and the movements, and the ability to make fine adjustments with ease and accuracy. An accurate “zero” setting would be a nice plus too.

-resilience to field work, backpacking, minor impacts, weather, etc.

- since I’m always out with the camera, working out of a backpack, low weight for the full plate camera would sure be beneficial, but secondary to the above.

- I am an aesthetically inclined person, but the camera doesn’t have to be so pretty and “classic” as the v8. It’s all about the pictures themselves now.

- I’m open to new or used, and will spend on the best tool, within reason.

I look forward to your thoughts. There seem to be a numbing number of choices, even for the off-standard formats I’m interested in.

Sorry for the length of this post!
-Jarin

 

[Lachlan Young]

Chamonix or Richard Ritter are probably the makers you should look into - I've been slowly working through assembling an old Rochester Optical/ EKC whole plate Empire State No.2 into an ultralight non-folder with the bellows maxing out at 12" - probably not the camera you are looking for however, especially given that unless the front rise is seriously rebuilt, any of the bigger plasmats are going to be too heavy for the fairly primitive locking mechanism.

 

[btaylor]

Gandolfi whole plate.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I have to admit that in a picture, the Ritter cameras look a bit suspect and homemade, but people keep bringing them up.

Chamonix is probably a solid contender, although the movements seem a bit more confined than the ‘dorff.

Lotus looks like a less substantial deardorff from what I can glean from the design.

Thoughts on Canham? Ebony?

Jarin

Chamonix or Richard Ritter are probably the makers you should look into - I've been slowly working through assembling an old Rochester Optical/ EKC whole plate Empire State No.2 into an ultralight non-folder with the bellows maxing out at 12" - probably not the camera you are looking for however, especially given that unless the front rise is seriously rebuilt, any of the bigger plasmats are going to be too heavy for the fairly primitive locking mechanism.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have to admit that in a picture, the Ritter cameras look a bit suspect and homemade, but people keep bringing them up.

Chamonix is probably a solid contender, although the movements seem a bit more confined than the ‘dorff.

Lotus looks like a less substantial deardorff from what I can glean from the design.

Thoughts on Canham? Ebony?

Jarin

I've done processing/ printing/ scanning work for people who use/ used Ebony & Canham - by their accounts, both are excellent, but of course Ebony has shut down due to the owner wanting to retire - and I suspect prices might rise on some models as they become collectables. My own preferences design-wise tend towards the non-folding design from Ebony etc. Canhams seem to fit the post-Deardorff niche rather well but with some significant upgrades - I don't care for the folding method of that type of flat-bed camera design however.

The Ritter seems a bit ugly, but enormously strong - the rails are carbon fibre as I understand it - never seen one or encountered anyone with one though. Have heard conflicting accounts on the Lotus especially regarding how well made they are, though have only handled some of their accessories like the contact frame which seem fine for the purpose.

There are a few more makers (especially in Eastern Europe) but they tend to be more about functionality than aesthetics - which I don't mind at all - if it gives me the camera I want at a price I can afford, I'm all for it - but it's really a question for you to resolve in terms of personal taste. I'm probably looking for different things than you are - decent amounts of rise, fall & possibly some shift are the main movements I want, and keeping the weight down if possible - I generally don't care for lenses with focal lengths much longer than the long dimension of whichever format I'm using & I often don't need super close focus (less than 1m) either.

In an ideal world, Mike Walker would make his astonishingly tough cameras in more than three formats...

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

For 6.5x8.5 an old Rittreck View might work. They're cheap and plentiful on eBay - mostly made for the Japanese market, so that's where most of them are. I just ordered one to use with 5x7. Most come with a 4x5 reducing back, but backs are available for 6.5x8.5 and other formats. Forerunners of the Wista metal field cameras.

 

[Vaidotas]

Your requirements is for monorail.
So get it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

He stipulated heavy plasmat lenses on the front. In big shutters, these can be the weight of a brick. At long bellows extensions, the lightweight field cameras mentioned so far are NOT a good match. I personally prefer lighter smaller-aperture lenses, which are often optically superior anyway, like Fuji A's and C's, Nikkor M's, and G-Clarons. Replacing a set of lenses can be expensive. But that's how to get best results with lighter weight cameras more suited to hiking. Big clunker lenses make stabilization of monorails harder too. Seen it all. But outdoing Dorff performance is not difficult. ...Seems like you're asking for a lot of contradictory features all at once, even format wise. How do you plan to carry an ULF camera - on a pack frame or via elephant and mahout? If that's the route you go, you're probably going to have to get specialty lenses anyway, having sufficient coverage. Or are you thinking about something more conventional, like 8x10?

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi Drew:

My 8x10 'Dorff is a bit tight in the pack, and it's outright bulging once I add the lenses, 3 holders, cloth, french flag, accoutrements, etc. I have Apo-Sironar S 300 and 360, an Apo-Ronar 480 and a Apo Macro Sironar 180. It weighs about 45 pounds and gets tiring, of course, (especially at high altitude) but the primary problem is that the f64 bag is just a little too tight and I have to take out stuff to get to other stuff. I really love the negative size, but figure if I shrink the gear even slightly, it will make the work much smoother. Maybe then I can even fit water and small snacks somewhere! Also, my 300mm in full plate will then behave like a 360, the 360 like a 420 and maybe I get a 240mm to work as my widest lens and keep either the macro or 480 at home. I've found that 300mm in 8x10 is a little non-descript and would prefer a slightly wider taking angle. 240mm for full plate might be the ticket.

Sometime this spring or summer, I'll pick up a much smaller late Dagor and Commercial Ektar to compare to my big plasmat with movements and see if I see a difference at f/16 or f/22, my absolute widest stops for landscape although some portraits dip down to f/8 1/2. I pretty much limit enlargement to 4x. If comperable for landscape, maybe I'll prefer one of these anyway for portraiture and save several pounds in my bag.

As far as 14x17 and 12x20, obviously those would stay close to the car.

J

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, you're on the path. I've always preferred real external frame backpacking packs to dedicated camera packs for view camera use, in order to fit not only my camera gear but all kinds of camping gear and food too. There's no need for a bunch of redundant cushioning and dividers that can easily be replaced with simple bubble wrap or light fomecore board dividers. I often use my goosedown coat to cushion the camera. In my younger years I did use large plasmat lenses; but I was accustomed to 90 lb packs in the mtns up until I was about 60. I turn 70 in a few months, so tend to be always scheming how to get that pack down to 60 lbs for a two-week outing. I've used several mid-200's for 8x10: a 250/6.7 Fuji W, a 250/9 G-Claron, and a 240/9 Fuji A; they all have similar coverage and are petite. Dagors have their own rendering; but don't get suckered into "cult lens" prices for them; they aren't necessarily any better than more modern lenses costing a fraction as much on the used market. I rarely use a 300 on 8x10. I really like my Fuji 360A, and sometimes use a Kern 14 inch Dagor too. Another favorite is the 450 Fuji C.
I was out the other day with my 600 Fuji C - a lens which will work well on ultra large format too. You might find Commercial Ektars a little soft - not soft in sharpness but low in contrast. Some people like them, some don't. They're bulky. For portraiture I prefer older tessars, though dagors can be nice too - but don't expect them to have nice out-of-focus rendering (bokeh) like old tessars. A fairly modern tessar popular with portrait studios was the Fuji L series, which includes a 420. The still newer Nikkor M tessars are wonderful for landscape work, but are clinically sharp and don't have pleasing background blur in my opinion.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Yeah - we'll get there. LF photography seems like lifelong tweaking and learning.
Your last post raises a few new questions.

For full plate, I'm inclined toward:
Chamonix - can get new, seems solid, they make their own holders
Ebony - Very reputable, more movements and extension than Chamonix (great!), but how often is one of these likely to come around? ...in full plate ?!
Canham - would he entertain making a whole plate camera? I'll have to ask. What are people's thoughts on this camera maker? The cameras seem lighter than Chamonix, but are they as solid?

14x17 / 12x20
Chamonix or Canham again. if this is a custom camera, I wonder about the possibility of a 17x20 rear standard that can be used for 12x20 (horizontal) or 14x17 (vert/hor) film. What is the brightest screen for these ULF cameras? I have a Maxwell screen for my 8x10, but this is as big as he makes. Any ULF is a couple years away for me, but starting to think about it now. Two tripods?

I have a bias against Nikkors because their 35mm lenses always made "flat" (not dimensional) pictures compared to Zeiss and Leica. Maybe this is irrational to carry over to LF. I also carry irrational bias with Fuji, assuming such a film/camera/electronics/optical business would be "...master of none." Perhaps also ignorant and unfair. So, I picked the most reputable modern lens from what I could tell - the sironar Ss. It will be very interesting to obtain a few lenses from different families and compare to my standard thus far. Unfortunately it seems you need to buy a bunch of stuff to try out and just sell back what you don't use.

Drew: What do you use for a pack? Does it hold your tripod too? What do you use for a tripod?

Is there a Tessar out there that would be higher contrast than a Commercial Ektar? Modern Aside from contrast, how would the look of a newer Tessar differ from a Kodak C.E? A high performance lens with good Bokeh would be the ideal for third world trips, serving portraits as well as lanscapes.
A 4.5 Ektar would eventually be fun too...

For ULF it seems I would need a 19" (480mm), a 24" (600mm) and a 30". Any recommendations here?

Jarin

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, it's a lifelong journey. But if you accept that, you'll start to recognize that the journey itself is more rewarding than the presumed destination. I'm not referring to just the technical aspect, but learning to see. And that's where many photographers get derailed. They're in such a hurry to get from point A to point B that they bypass the most essential aspect - actually seeing things. Big camera help by slowing us down and making us take a deeper look. But I'm not a ULF photographer myself. I mostly enlarge rather than contact print, and do it in both color and black and white, so 8x10 is the largest format convenient for me. A number of current ULF shooters also have cabinet shop skills and make their own cameras; and for lenses they frequently employ graphics barrel lenses due to not only the wider range of focal lengths available, but also the optical properties, which are generally superior to regular taking lenses, and the more favorable pricing on the used market. A good ULF hauler could be jerry-rigged from a game-carrying frame (like for elk or deer). The companies that make those can make customized packs too. But for my own needs, just up to 8x10, I prefer classic US made 70's vintage external frame packs from Kelty, Camp Trails, etc (not the newer import stuff, which is inferior). Although these packs were expensive new, they often turn up in people's closets or garages totally unused all these decades later. I once traded a half-empty quart of varnish for an unused one at a local yard sale. But don't expect to find spare parts. That's why having extra packs to cannibalize helps, now that they sell so cheap. I have carbon fiber tripods for long-distance trips, but otherwise prefer Ries wooden tripods. I never use a tripod head, but bolt the camera right to the platform top of the tripod, just like a surveyor would do with a modern theodolite or old transit. After a little practice, adjusting things using legs only becomes fast and instinctive. My 8x10 is an early Phillips, serial number nine!. Chamonix and several other companies have copied this simplified design. Keith Canham is a great guy. In my opinion, the sweet spot in his line is the 5X7 wooden folder; but I'd want a little more support on the front standard to his bigger cameras. I do have a 4x5 Ebony folder. They were the most precisely made wooden cameras ever, worthy of their high price. But there are still plenty of other good choices. ... Don't confuse the rendering characteristics of 35mm brands in relation to the much wider range of lenses available for view camera use. I kinda like the flatter rendering of my classic Nikkor 85/1.4 Ais for black and white film, though if I still shot color slides, I'd probably prefer the Cosina-Zeiss 85/1.4. Don't transfer that to view camera lens characteristics. Most of the hyper-crisp late view camera lenses, regardless of brand, don't have particularly flattering background bokeh, but characteristics often desirable for landscape and commercial photography. So you might want to think of a wholly different set of lenses for portraiture, where too much crispness or contrast might be a disadvantage. The 4.5 Ektars or similar lenses from Zeiss won't be as sharp as truly modern lenses, but are apt to give you a more classic rendering with portraits, if you are interesting in that kind of photography. But I have an old single-coated Zeiss f/9 graphics tessar that does a lovely job and was dramatically cheaper to acquire. You really don't need a lot of lenses overall if your choices are good to begin with. Portraiture doesn't require a lot of excess image circle either, whereas the strong tilts and swing of landscape photos, and significant rise of architectural shots, often do. And you're completely wrong about Fuji. They are absolutely equal to German lenses, and often better, with niche types other companies don't provide. They're even a bigger company. Their view lenses might have been under-marketed in this country, but everyone who uses them knows about their high quality. No general purpose plastmat is equal to the "super-plastmat" Fuji A series, though they have smaller maximum apertures. Fuji also makes some of the very best, most expensive video lenses. So back to ULF and your question about a 19" and 24" - I'd point you straight to the Fuji 450 and 600's, depending on just how large you mean by ULF. Longer than that and you're going to have to select from Apo-Nikkors, Apo Artars, etc, re-purposed graphics barrel lenses. A different forum, the Large Format Forum, which many here also belong to, has lots and lots of more specific answers.