Question Concerning Intrepid 8x10

[F4U]

Having owned a Horseman 8x10 (the one with the L brakets) for a number of years, it has proven to be such a heavy beast that taking it into the field at this point in life is rather prohibitive. Even though I've done a conversion that eliminates the rear L bracket, it's still heavy and awkward . Looking around the internet, another camera called the Intrepid 8x10 caught my attention . Note that I am an X-ray film user. I'd like to ask opinions on this Intrepid 8x10 camera. As an aside, I also wonder why the used ones on ebay cost more than a brand new one ordered directly from the company that makes them. Thank you.

 

[abruzzi]

As an aside, I also wonder why the used ones on ebay cost more than a brand new one ordered directly from the company that makes them. Thank you.

the ways of eBay pricing are mysterious and confusing.

Intrepid started off as a Kickstarter (I believe) for a 4x5 camera. They've iterated the 4x5 model several times, and added 8x10 and 5x7. Generally I hear good things about them, but have never used them. They are one of the lighter LF cameras, and reletively inexpensive. If they meet your needs in terms of features and capabilities, I suspect they are great deals. Based on the specs, the main issue I'd have is the 510mm max bellows. My first 8x10 had 500mm bellows and I kept running up against that, so I got a camera with 800mm bellows and that suited me much better (though heavier.)

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio @F4U

I happen to have an 8x10 Intrepid. If you're looking for something light-weight, then this does indeed fit the bill. There are several caveats to it, though. I wrote about my experiences earlier:

I got one of the early ones; bought it second hand from a guy who upgraded to Sinar. I already had a Sinar but never used it due to it being so g*d&mn heavy.

I've been using the Intrepid for a while and it sure is light weight and fairly quick to set up. I see some improvements on the video which may (or may not) alleviate some of the issues I have with my older version:

Bellows easily creeps into the image frame. Basically, with a 300mm lens, movements are virtually out of the question; I get maybe 20mm of rise or fall and beyond that, it gets problematic. Tried all manner of
things with clamps and elastic bands, but nothing helps. I get the impression that the bellows on the one in the video is of a different type; maybe it fares better. I tried my 165/8 Super Angulon on the camera and it's a non-starter. It's literally impossible to fill the frame; the bellows are always in the way. It's not the baseplate that's the problem.

The 'rotating' back design is slightly different, too. Mine also clamps with two magnets, but in addition has two screws to secure it. This in principle is a nice touch, were it not for the fact that the screws are fidgety and never really want to align well. The back is held in place with (heavy-duty) elastic bands, which seems to work better/more conveniently than the camera I see in the video. I have no trouble sliding in and out the film holder.

I see the baseplate is a new design; mine is still plywood with nuts sunken into it, although I notice that this is still the case for the part that the front standard screws into on the new version. I doubt this will hold up to long-term use. But so far, no complaints.

I wonder if they managed to get the focus mechanism to be a little more user friendly. It's also virtually impossible to focus a somewhat heavy lens (I mostly use a 300/5.6 Symmar S) downward; the whole contraption is just too shaky and unstable for that. Which brings me to...

...the front stand, which is just plain annoying to work with with the kind of (heavy) lens you typically need for 8x10. It's a flimsy, rickety design and securing the lens so it doesn't tilt inadvertently involves screwing the front stand so tightly that I fear it'll wear out the ironware prematurely.

Being as lightweight as it is, it's a rather effective wind vane.

The ground glass is meh. Also, I don't think a fresnel is available for it, although one could be fashioned to fit. I've not yet gotten round to this, yet.

However....since it's relatively light weight, I have actually used it, which I could not (or barely) say about my Norma. Also, it's an 8x10" camera that's available new and at a very attractive price.

Having said that, I've recently unpacked the Norma due to the issues listed above which make the Intrepid less than optimal to work with.

Since I wrote that (April 2024), the Intrepid has remained in its box and the Sinar has been the 8x10 I've actually been using. Yets, it's heavy and unwieldy, but it's also less frustrating than the Intrepid.

 

[Alan9940]

I have two Intrepid 8x10's: the original Kickstarter version and a v2. The current model is v3. These cameras are what they are; lightweight, inexpensive, unrefined cameras. You will learn a few new words using one in the field, it's not particularly solid in even the lightest wind, the controls don't really lock down completely, and be prepared for things to break and/or fall off the camera. If you get one, I hope you're handy with tools and DIY type stuff.

All that said, the Intrepid 8x10 enables this old photographer to pack an very reasonable weight pack over miles of trail; something I definitely couldn't do with my Deardorff any longer. If you're patient and willing to fiddle a bit with the camera, you can certainly produce decent work with it.

Oh, and I wouldn't plan on hanging heavy plasmats on the front standard.

 

[retina_restoration]

Having owned a Horseman 8x10 (the one with the L brakets) for a number of years, it has proven to be such a heavy beast that taking it into the field at this point in life is rather prohibitive. Even though I've done a conversion that eliminates the rear L bracket, it's still heavy and awkward . Looking around the internet, another camera called the Intrepid 8x10 caught my attention . Note that I am an X-ray film user. I'd like to ask opinions on this Intrepid 8x10 camera. As an aside, I also wonder why the used ones on ebay cost more than a brand new one ordered directly from the company that makes them. Thank you.

As to eBay prices: I expect those prices reflect that fact that if you buy from the eBay seller, you’ll have the camera in days, as opposed to the six weeks (plus shipping time) it’s going to take for Intrepid to produce one. So sellers can ask a premium for that opportunity, used or not.

There is a long-running thread discussing this topic elsewhere on the forum and on the Large Format forum. This camera comes up in discussions often, and the summaries are much the same.
The 8x10 Intrepid is an inexpensive camera whose main features are its price, and light weight. Most everything else is a compromise, notably the materials and build quality. That said, I have never had anything break or fall off the camera and have not found it especially “fiddly” to work with. But if you’re expecting it to compare favorably to a Horseman or a Chamonix or something costing 5x or more, you will be disappointed. The Intrepid is a “get the job done” camera, not a work of engineering perfection.

Many Intrepid users value it most for its light weight.

 

[koraks]

I have never had anything break or fall off the camera

Me neither - well, not really. Fiddly - yes. The fact that the bellows only too easily intrudes on the image area is irritating to say the least. There's only a small margin between unfastening the screw lock that locks the front tilt and removing the bolt altogether. The bed lock slips easily. The locking screws on the back don't always catch very nicely; changing orientation is a little iffy as a result. They are all minor things and with a little bit of care, you can work around the limitations for the most part. The reduced coverage due to the bellows issue is a bit of a problem, though. Rise & fall are limited to very tiny amounts.

Oh, and I wouldn't plan on hanging heavy plasmats on the front standard.

I've used mine mostly with a 300/5.6 Symmar S and rarely with a Super Angulon 165/8. It's....finicky, let's put it that way. A physically lighter lens is a lot more comfortable to work with on this camera.

 

[F4U]

As to eBay prices: I expect those prices reflect that fact that if you buy from the eBay seller, you’ll have the camera in days, as opposed to the six weeks (plus shipping time) it’s going to take for Intrepid to produce one. So sellers can ask a premium for that opportunity, used or not.

There is a long-running thread discussing this topic elsewhere on the forum and on the Large Format forum. This camera comes up in discussions often, and the summaries are much the same.
The 8x10 Intrepid is an inexpensive camera whose main features are its price, and light weight. Most everything else is a compromise, notably the materials and build quality. That said, I have never had anything break or fall off the camera and have not found it especially “fiddly” to work with. But if you’re expecting it to compare favorably to a Horseman or a Chamonix or something costing 5x or more, you will be disappointed. The Intrepid is a “get the job done” camera, not a work of engineering perfection.

Many Intrepid users value it most for its light weight.

Thank you for these answers, although the droopy bellows don't sound hopeful. This is my Horseman, which allows me 1 1/2 inches of front rise or fall (3in. total). The lens I would be using for the Intrepid would be this old Bausch & Lomb 12 inch Tessar, which is all the lens I ever intend to buy. The light yellow-green filter that stays taped to it provides some measure of "correction" for the Fuji HRT green X-ray film I use.
Is it possible to post a link to the exact discussion quoted above, so I can avoid wasting time searching and ending up reading a long, less informative thread?

As for the Intrepid being less of an instrument of impeccable machining and fine fit, I'm sure I can manage. I drive a 1956 Studebaker with 3 on the tree and no power anything. Gets the job done just fine.

 

[koraks]

1 1/2 inches of front rise or fall (3in. total)

That's about 5-10x what I get with a 300/5.6 Symmar-S on the Intrepid. I'd have to measure it, but it's not much. It's basically too little to be useful for anything; I've pretty much given up on using rise or fall with this camera/lens combination. I tried clamping the bellows or somehow lifting them out of the way, but nothing really helps. Everything is OK though if I just forget about movements apart from a little tilt.

 

[retina_restoration]

Thank you for these answers, although the droopy bellows don't sound hopeful. This is my Horseman, which allows me 1 1/2 inches of front rise or fall (3in. total). The lens I would be using for the Intrepid would be this old Bausch & Lomb 12 inch Tessar, which is all the lens I ever intend to buy.

My most oft-used lens on the Intrepid is my Turner-Reich Gundlach 8x10 lens (about 300mm) in the Betax shutter. It's neither the lightest lens I've used on this camera, nor is it the heaviest. (I just weight it: it's 1050 grams/2.5 pounds. The 240mm Symmar-S is only slightly heavier - not as heavy as I thought) I expect your Tessar in the Betax weighs about the same.
With the focus fully extended, you'll find that much weight is stressing the camera, but I'm not inclined to use the camera in this way.

Is it possible to post a link to the exact discussion quoted above, so I can avoid wasting time searching and ending up reading a long, less informative thread?

I realized it's not on this forum, it's over at the LFPF. See: https://www.largeformatphotography....epid-8x10-Mk-III-Post-your-thoughts-on-design

As for the Intrepid being less of an instrument of impeccable machining and fine fit, I'm sure I can manage. I drive a 1956 Studebaker with 3 on the tree and no power anything. Gets the job done just fine.

I think that if you approach the camera with that attitude, you will find it usable. For those who are acquainted with more precision cameras with far better build quality, the Intrepid is definitely going to be disappointing to use and create frustration. Because I'm not expecting it to be anything more than it is, I get along with it just fine.

That said, Koraks mentioned the bellows sag on his camera, and I have a later iteration of it and found the bellows far sturdier and less inclined to intrude into the image path. I had the first gen 8x10 and it definitely had this problem. I resolved it by attaching a folded piece of duct tape to a middle pleat of the bellow, used a hole punch to make a hole it it and then ran a thin dowel through it which contacted the back standard at one end and rested on the front standard at the other, and this resolved the issue entirely. Just insert the dowel when needed and remove it when you're done.

I wouldn't buy this camera used unless you are certain it's a more recent version (NOT the first gen) and that it's not been damaged by the owner. Yes, that means buying from Intrepid directly, which includes a 6 week (or more, in my experience) wait time.

 

[grahamp]

On my Intrepid 810 (Kickstarter model) the bellows have a double taper. So with longer lenses or a lot of front shift you have to work out where to clip the bellows or support it. I can usually get it out of the way, but it is another thing to remember. The longest lens I have is a 450mm.

I plan to swap out my front standard for one with a single axis, double control for the rise and tilt - the prototype works, but I need to stiffen the uprights a bit more.

If I worked solely with 8x10, I'd probably change cameras, but it works for what I do.

 

[koraks]

I resolved it by attaching a folded piece of duct tape to a middle pleat of the bellow, used a hole punch to make a hole it it and then ran a thin dowel through it which contacted the back standard at one end and rested on the front standard at the other

Smart; I like that. Thanks for sharing this hack; I'll probably do something along these lines next time I dig up the Intrepid. I've also got a fresnel sheet lying around somewhere I'd like to put on it.

 

[Alan9940]

Smart; I like that. Thanks for sharing this hack; I'll probably do something along these lines next time I dig up the Intrepid. I've also got a fresnel sheet lying around somewhere I'd like to put on it.

+1 I don't use my 8x10 v1 all that much, but I'm definitely going to remember this bellows tip! Not that anyone will be buying a v1 model, but another thing with the bellows is you don't want to get it wet! That will pretty much ruin it.

Also, I will add that I've had that bellows issue with my 8x10 v2 and 450mm lens. It's a little frustrating when you don't notice these things in the field, but sigh when you see the developed film. As others have said...the Intrepid will get the job done, but ya gotta be willing to work at it.

 

[retina_restoration]

+1 I don't use my 8x10 v1 all that much, but I'm definitely going to remember this bellows tip! Not that anyone will be buying a v1 model, but another thing with the bellows is you don't want to get it wet! That will pretty much ruin it.

The bellows material on my 5x7 Intrepid and the newer 8x10 Intrepid is a rubber/plastic material that is impervious to water. I've gotten mine wet on many occasions and it has zero effect.

 

[Alan9940]

The bellows material on my 5x7 Intrepid and the newer 8x10 Intrepid is a rubber/plastic material that is impervious to water. I've gotten mine wet on many occasions and it has zero effect.

My comment was related specifically to the first v1 model. My v2 has the rubber/plastic material and I've never had any issue with wetness with this bellows material.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here's a video I made of my friend Stephen's Intrepid...

 

[grahamp]

I find the best check for bellows intrusion is to look back at the ground glass from the front. Usually with the lens off, but sometimes with the lens wide open. I found this out doing 4x10 and 5x8 with an internal mask...!

 

[F4U]

I watched that video. Not too bad, I guess, for what it is. Kind of rickety when inserting a film holder. But I suspect half of that situation is the tripod and tripod head. I will be using my Salamander surveyors tripod. It has no head. Just a big solid base. With no head, camera aiming is done by shortening or lengthening tripod legs. It's kind of heavy, but not unmanageable for short jaunts into the field from the car. At my age I'm not going to be doing any mountain hiking and the like. But a couple hundred yards from the truck will be entirely manageable. My Horseman lets you go about 40 feet, before you set it down and go back for the tripod and bag.
Seeing the video, I was dismayed that the spring back has only the top 2 holding clamps; none on the bottom.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I watched that video. Not too bad, I guess, for what it is. Kind of rickety when inserting a film holder. But I suspect half of that situation is the tripod and tripod head. I will be using my Salamander surveyors tripod. It has no head. Just a big solid base. With no head, camera aiming is done by shortening or lengthening tripod legs. It's kind of heavy, but not unmanageable for short jaunts into the field from the car. At my age I'm not going to be doing any mountain hiking and the like. But a couple hundred yards from the truck will be entirely manageable. My Horseman lets you go about 40 feet, before you set it down and go back for the tripod and bag.
Seeing the video, I was dismayed that the spring back has only the top 2 holding clamps; none on the bottom.

What I liked about it other than it's light weight, is the quick and easy set up and break down.

 

[BHuij]

I have owned the 4x5 Mk II and 4x5 Mk IV from them. My current 4x5 is the Mk IV (and I think the Mk II is my avatar here on Photrio).

I have no firsthand experience with the 8x10. Perhaps it is extremely different from the 4x5.

In case it's not, and I suspect it isn't, I'd say it's probably the best option for anyone who wants to hike around with a large format camera. Yes, it is not going to be as buttery smooth when making tiny adjustments to focus or movements. But I have not found mine to be difficult or inconvenient to use in the field. I don't struggle to get good focus or precisely dialed in movements. And the lightweight factor is incredible when I'm actually backpacking it somewhere.

 

[koraks]

I have no firsthand experience with the 8x10. Perhaps it is extremely different from the 4x5.

There's a funny thing with large format photography. As you go up in size, problems don't add up. They multiply. Exponentially.

 

[retina_restoration]

There's a funny thing with large format photography. As you go up in size, problems don't add up. They multiply. Exponentially.

Agreed. I own the Intrepid 8x10, the 5x7 and the 4x5, and I can say without hesitation that the minor flaws of the 4x5 became exacerbated in the 8x10 model.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kind of rickety when inserting a film holder.

No worse than an awful lot of 8x10 folding cameras. Unless you you jump to a monorail with a bail back, or one of the tiny handful of non-folding 8x10 field cameras, they all flex a bit.

As you go up in size, problems don't add up. They multiply. Exponentially.

It also goes the other way - what's comfortable in 8x10 becomes grossly excessive/ bulky/ heavy in 4x5.

 

[ic-racer]

If you are an experienced 8x10 user, then I think you'd like something like Shen-Hao or Chamonix better than the interpid. I got my Shen-Hao 8x10 about 15 years ago when they first came out and have never thought about replacing it with anything else.

I do have had my eye on a Horseman 8x10 monorail. Mostly because I keep the Shen-Hao stashed in its backpack and don't like unpacking the backpack and all to use it in a studio setting. I'd like the Horseman to be able to be set up all the time.

 

[F4U]

If you are an experienced 8x10 user, then I think you'd like something like Shen-Hao or Chamonix better than the interpid. I got my Shen-Hao 8x10 about 15 years ago when they first came out and have never thought about replacing it with anything else.

I do have had my eye on a Horseman 8x10 monorail. Mostly because I keep the Shen-Hao stashed in its backpack and don't like unpacking the backpack and all to use it in a studio setting. I'd like the Horseman to be able to be set up all the time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not all 8x10 folders flex. And weight isn't necessarily the determining factor; design and quality of materials and construction is. But you're never better than your weakest link; so the stability of the tripod support system has to be factored too.

Of course, there's a practical limit to everything; so if you have a lens the weight of an anvil hanging out over a very long bellows extension, any kind of portable camera is likely to have a problem with that.