Question re: Toyo Backs

[rpsawin]

I'm interested in moving up to a LF camera and am currently looking at a Toyo 45AX. I'm confused by the "reversable" -vs- "revolving" back. What is the difference between them and does the revolving back provide a significant amount of increased functionality?

The camera will be used primarily for landscape/seascapes and occasionally for architectural/industrial sites.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Bob

 

[Nick Zentena]

Reversable means you take the back off. Turn it 90degrees and put it back on. Revolving usually means you flip some sort of catch and rotate the back. On some cameras this lets you go less/more then 90 degrees.

I can't imagine it making a serious difference unless you develop a taste for having the back at an angle. The thing I wish more cameras had is bails.

 

[rpsawin]

Thanks Nick.

Bob

 

[bwakel]

I have a 45A with the revolving back and it is useful but not so useful that I'd make it a major buying criteria. If you find a 45 at a good price without the revolving back I'd grab it. As an entry to 5x4 it's a very compelling camera at a very good secondhand price.

Barry

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have cameras (not Toyo) with both styles of back. Generally a revolving back adds more weight and cost and doesn't provide much practical advantage over a reversible back. I'd pretty much always take a reversible back over a revolving back.

One potential advantage of a revolving back is that you could use a tripod head with only fore/aft tilt and level the scene by rotating the back, but in practice this doesn't always work, because you then have to level a square lens shade separate from the camera to avoid vignetting, or you might have bellows impingement on the scene, so I've rarely done this with my revolving back cameras.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Also, quite a lot of revolving backs don't actually work when part-revolved: there's some cut off. Not always, but often enough to make it worth checking.

And some don't lock properly, so they rotate when you're inserting the film holder.

I marginally prefer reversing backs (and I have both).

 

[rorye]

I have a 45A with the revolving back and it is useful but not so useful that I'd make it a major buying criteria. If you find a 45 at a good price without the revolving back I'd grab it. As an entry to 5x4 it's a very compelling camera at a very good secondhand price.

Barry

Exactly my thoughts too.

 

[jovo]

The only difference between the AX and the IIA that I can find is the revolving vs reversing back. The difference in price, however is $539 at B&H. There is just no way that the revolving back is worth that difference in cost even if you really favored it for some reason. In fact, I have cameras with both, and I find myself always forgetting to lock down the back that revolves. The reversing back is locked in from the get go and takes maybe 2 seconds, if that, to change. Go for the reversing back....the AX is a fine camera.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

If you plan to use short lenses, typical with roll film holders, but important even with wides on 4x5, there's another factor to consider. The revolving version pushes its film plane back some distance compared to the reversing camera. This means even more bellows compression/binding at short extensions.

 

[rpsawin]

Thanks all...this certainly helps my decision as well as my budget.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[Dave Wooten]

You can also get a revolving back (as an added accessory) quite cheaply by getting another model toyo--rail---they are usually much less than the 500 plus add on price for the AX etc...they will fit your AX. I would go for the AX if i were to get a new toyo 4 x 5..

 

[raucousimages]

For a field camera I like revolving backs because it is one less thing to drop (arthritis) but reversing backs work fine. In the studio I use revolving backs whenever possible. I found removing the back is a distraction to the subject when I am shooting portraits where rotating is less of a distraction.