Stephen's New Intrepid!

Check out this super light weight 8x10. I finally got to see one, first hand.

Well dang, now I want a cuppa coffee and a donut. Thanks Andy.

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.

I have an early model (Kickstarter vintage) too, and I'd say most of those comments are fair. The bellows do need to be clamped sometimes to keep them out of the picture. I have used a 90mm with the 4x5 reducing back and an adapter to move the front standard mounting back further, but wide angle is not the forte of this camera.

I do use an internal mask at the rear to do 4x10 and 5x8. The 5x8 is not something that can be done with a half dark slide.

The only area I think I will change is the front standard. I have a plan to convert it to separate front tilt and rise controls, but that will require a slightly wider front standard.

The newer versions have corrected some issues, and left others, but for my 8x10 use the one I have is fine. If 8x10 was my dominant format (and I had the money) I would probably choose something else.

Some of the plastic clips sold to hold closed bags of chips (crisps) work well to clamp bellows folds - they have rubber grips and no teeth.

I agree that the comments opined by koraks above are accurate for the original Kickstarter camera. I have both this one and the version 2 model (this isn't the latest version.) In general, I prefer the second version over the first. My only complaint with it is that it has these two U-shaped 3D printed clips on each side of the upper rear standard that, I suppose, are meant to make one feel more secure about the back not separating with fiddling with a film holder. Personally, they drive me a bit nuts because they're always getting hung-up on my dark cloth. Two changes I'd love to see them make is to bevel the two side-tabs where you insert a film holder. The lip on a film holder can easily get caught on those darn tabs! (I noticed Andy had that very issue in the video) It would, also, be helpful if there was a bail contraption, small handle, or something making it easier to remove a holder.

IMO, using heavy lenses on, at least, the two versions I own is problematic. I use flyweight Fuji A and C lenses without issues. FWIW, there is a fresnel available from Intrepid. Their first fresnel attempt was a disaster, but the one they sell now is workable. Ya can't see the corners of the ground glass if you move your head just a bit off center, but that might be an issue with any fresnel this size. Dunno.

Yes, the Intrepid does have its limitations and quibbles, but it's attractively priced and the one thing I LOVE about it is the weight. As a youngster in my 70's, I can carry this puppy a WHOLE lot further than my 8x10 Deardorff. This very advantage enables me to continue enjoying my favorite format!

I watched the video with interest. There's point where the camera is quite wobbly on the tripod, it's something I've thought of in the last year or so, after buying a second-hand Gitzo No.2 tripod head, the platform the camera screws to is approx 5½" x 3¼". I noticed how much more stable my LF cameras are on this head. I will post a separate thread about this, in the next day or so.

In general all the comments mirror reviewers and my own observations of the few Intrepid cameras I've seen. If I needed a light weight 10x8 camera maybe, but I carry a minimum of 6 DDS film holders and they weigh enough, plus extra lenses.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

I watched the video with interest. There's point where the camera is quite wobbly on the tripod, it's something I've thought of in the last year or so, after buying a second-hand Gitzo No.2 tripod head, the platform the camera screws to is approx 5½" x 3¼". I noticed how much more stable my LF cameras are on this head. I will post a separate thread about this, in the next day or so.

In general all the comments mirror reviewers and my own observations of the few Intrepid cameras I've seen. If I needed a light weight 10x8 camera maybe, but I carry a minimum of 6 DDS film holders and they weigh enough, plus extra lenses.

Ian

Click to expand...

Yes, his tripod head is not suitable.

Andrew O'Neill said:

Yes, his tripod head is not suitable.

Click to expand...

8x10 tends to be hard on tripod heads...

Btw, thanks for the video; it's really informative. How did you like the camera, having been able to fondle it?

koraks said:

8x10 tends to be hard on tripod heads...

Btw, thanks for the video; it's really informative. How did you like the camera, having been able to fondle it?

Click to expand...

I would give it a 7 out of 10. I guess I'm just spoilt with my Canham. I need a camera that can accommodate WA lenses. And the back separating like that is something that Intrepid should really fix. Would I buy one? Probably not. But that light weight... hard to beat! Something to consider in the future, if I want to continue with 8x10 work... but probably by then, the price of film to feed it will be beyond my pension.

I'm not familiar with the Canham; I've only ever been near a Toyo 810 and several Sinars. But based on that experience, I can echo your "7 out of 10". It's more than adequate - but not quite 'good'. It does get the job done, most of the time, and under most(ly favorable) conditions.

Andrew O'Neill said:

the price of film to feed it will be beyond my pension.

Click to expand...

Foma is keeping me in this. Without them, I would have bailed out already.

The Toyo 810M is pretty bad for WA lenses, since there is a significant bed in front of the lens. You have to tilt the bed down to get it out of frame. Right after I bought the Toyo, I discovered the Canham JMC, which from what I can tell should be good, no matter how wide (l maybe even a 75mm) and seem to go out to ~800mm or so, though I expect the Toyo is more rigid at those extensions. I mount the Toyo on a older Gitzo 5-series tripod and 3-way head.

koraks said:

Foma is keeping me in this. Without them, I would have bailed out already.

Click to expand...

Same for me.

CatLABS 80 has been keeping me in 8x10. I have lots of Fomapan, but in 4x5. I need to play around with the smaller stuff to see if it's for me or not...

Andrew O'Neill said:

CatLABS 80 has been keeping me in 8x10. I have lots of Fomapan, but in 4x5. I need to play around with the smaller stuff to see if it's for me or not...

Click to expand...

I've heard the old Catlabs 80 was Shanghai and the current MkII is Foma 100, but that seems to be rumor. Obviously Catlabs isn't coating their own film, so it seems believable. I have some 8x10 of the old stuff, and it is occasionally a tiny bit large on the long axis, making it a little tight closing the end flap, so I could believe that it is Shanghai (I've never had that issue with Foma.)

abruzzi said:

I've heard the old Catlabs 80 was Shanghai and the current MkII is Foma 100, but that seems to be rumor. Obviously Catlabs isn't coating their own film, so it seems believable. I have some 8x10 of the old stuff, and it is occasionally a tiny bit large on the long axis, making it a little tight closing the end flap, so I could believe that it is Shanghai (I've never had that issue with Foma.)

Click to expand...

I've heard that rumor about CatLabs 80 also, Alan, but don't know if it's true or not. I have enough 8X10 film to keep me going all summer, but if I needed some, I'd probably turn to the big auction and pickup some Shanghai GP3 8X10. Actually, if I don't get my 8X10 refinished and back together soon, I might have enough 8X10 film for a lot long than this summer even.

I'm pretty sure that the current CatLABS 80 is Shanghai...

Andrew O'Neill said:

I'm pretty sure that the current CatLABS 80 is Shanghai...

Click to expand...

I shot Shanghai 120 film when it came wrapped in red paper years ago. The emulsion itself was very good, but the numbers bleed from the backing paper was the worst. It was dirt cheap then, so I'd used it to test cameras I had repaired. Worked perfect for that. Then Shanghai came out with new stuff, and it was perfect with excellent emulsion coating, good backing paper, good tape adhesive and the price was still very good. I really liked that and should have really stocked up on it because after a short run it was gone. Rumor had it that Shanghai was remodeling their factory. After what seemed like a year or more, they were back, but it wasn't the same after that. It was almost like they went from a factory to garage manufacture. I had a terrible time with the film itself coming off the backing paper in both my Rolleiflex and Hasselblad backs. It makes a real mess, take my word for it. The 4X5 sheet film I bought is just fine, and I imagine other sheet sizes are also. I just finished a roll of 120 (the last of my stash) in one of my Rolleiflex cameras yesterday and after exp 12 I did my normal wind on, and I could tell something wasn't right. Yup, the sticky seal tape had adhered itself under the pressure plate and ripped off the backing paper. Also, they raised the price enough that I'd rather use Kentmere 100 as my cheap go-to 120 film and not have the risk. Shanghai's sheet film is a different deal when it comes to price, with no risk that I've seen so far. Those are just my thoughts and experience.