Technical camers vs field models

[Alexz]

I do some kind of "research" on field 4x5 camera market towards maing up my mind for my first 4x5. Often I come upon 4x5 folders referred as Technical camera, whilst others are field cameras. Checking the specifiactions in many case I wondered to reveal that technical cameras are more limited movements-wise and bellows draw comparative to competitively priced field cameras, albeit in most cases beign metal-made rather then wooden.
few examples I figured so far are Wista Techical and probably Horseman 45FA
(though there are many other technical models).
I'll be grateful if someone could clarify what exactly measn the camera being "technical" and why it suits more (or less ?) for a landscape/moderate architecture work.

Regards, Alex

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In theory, a "technical camera" is like a "press camera" with back movements, though there's a lot of ambiguity among current models. I wouldn't worry too much about this designation. I suppose the first camera to be called a "technical camera" would have been the early Linhof Technika which had swings and tilts at the film plane like the current version.

 

[Rafael Macia]

I do some kind of "research" on field 4x5 camera market towards maing up my mind for my first 4x5. Often I come upon 4x5 folders referred as Technical camera, whilst others are field cameras. Checking the specifiactions in many case I wondered to reveal that technical cameras are more limited movements-wise and bellows draw comparative to competitively priced field cameras, albeit in most cases beign metal-made rather then wooden.
few examples I figured so far are Wista Techical and probably Horseman 45FA
(though there are many other technical models).
I'll be grateful if someone could clarify what exactly measn the camera being "technical" and why it suits more (or less ?) for a landscape/moderate architecture work.

Regards, Alex

Hi Alex,
You might think "clamshell" (flatbed folding), like a Linhof or a Wista(copy), or a wooden or metal "field camera, the second type has an exposed bellows. If you are travelling about, the protection afforded by the "clamshell" design is great. An exposed bellows is fragile in case with other equipment.
Both "technical" and "field" have no real specific meaning, as both share attributes of the other. (movements etc...... )

 

[mikewhi]

I'll be grateful if someone could clarify what exactly measn the camera being "technical" and why it suits more (or less ?) for a landscape/moderate architecture work.

Hi:

I've owned both, so maybe I can help. I owned the black Wista 4x5 technical camera (SPX model, I think). And of course I've owned many wlledn field cameras.

Technical cameras are much more solid than a wooden camera. I know there are field camera users who feel their cameras are 'very solid', but you must get a technical camera in your hands and the difference will be very obvious.
These things are rock solid. Also, the Wistas came with geared movements so you would just twist a knob for rise\fall, tilt, etc. This made setting movements very smooth and precise. Wooden cameras usually require you to grab the front standard and adjust it my hand which is not as precise and smooth as the technical camera.

With the technical cameras (at least with the Wista) you can get extention bed rails and longer bellows to really expand the max bellows draw avaiable - by quite a lot, too. Technical cameras often have a drop front rail so that if you are using wide angle lenses, the end of the bed won't get in the picture. Aany field cameras get around this by letting you slide the front standard all the way to the front of the bed (like Canham cameras). There may be some technical camerase that offer more movements than field cameras, but there are virtually no limits to my Canham wooden field camera. More movements would help out in architecture photography.

Overall, you can use both for landscape and architectural use. The technical cameras are just a lot more solid and offer machined geared movements. You really get the feel of using a fine machined piece of equipment with a technical camera.

-Mike

 

[df cardwell]

If you consider the time when the term 'technical camera' was invented, it will make more sense. There was a choice between a full movements studio camera and the wooden view cameras (kodaks, anscos, etc) and press cameras. The studio cameras, obviously were too big to take to the field, and the normal wooden field camera lacked the precision many photographers needed. The technical cameras were rugged, and offered limited movement with precision adjustments. A great example would be the Linhof Tch IIIs of the '40s and '50s. Great cameras, and unique at the time, but obsolete today.

Nearly all the currently made 'field cameras' today use the best features of the Technical Cameras: Canham, Gandofi, Ebony, and so on. In addition, the current crop of 'field cameras' are more useful, having MORE movements.

A Canham, for instance, was designed to outperform both traditional technical cameras and traditional field cameras.

 

[MikeS]

The technical cameras were rugged, and offered limited movement with precision adjustments. A great example would be the Linhof Tch IIIs of the '40s and '50s. Great cameras, and unique at the time, but obsolete today.

Why do you consider a Linhof Tech III obsolete? It's almost as usable as the current production Linhof Master Tech, do you also consider it obsolete?

-Mike

 

[Donsta]

You tried buying the most basic accessory for it recently - a new lensboard?... It's obsolete. Doesn't make it unuasable though.

 

[df cardwell]

Why do you consider a Linhof Tech III obsolete? It's almost as usable as the current production Linhof Master Tech, do you also consider it obsolete?

-Mike

comparing a tech III to a Tech IV is exactly the point !

it's obsolete because the parts are unavailable, and the movements limited relative to the general expectations of 'field camera', let alone a 'Linhof'.

it's obsolete because the lens doesn't tilt forward: it seems most folks buy a linhof to go out with a 75mm and do a Muench near/far composition.

the ground glass and lens board are not compatible with other cameras...

i guess it's obsolete because our expectations have outpaced the camera

of course, saying it is obsolete does not mean incompetent.



Mine still works. But it has profound limits relative to a Tech IV. Or a Canham.

 

[MikeS]

comparing a tech III to a Tech IV is exactly the point !

it's obsolete because the lens doesn't tilt forward: it seems most folks buy a linhof to go out with a 75mm and do a Muench near/far composition.

Learn something everyday! I didn't know a III couldn't tilt forward! (I have a IV) Yes, that would be a severe limitation!

the ground glass and lens board are not compatible with other cameras...

That should hardly matter, as long as you can get the lens boards and/or ground glass. I mean the lens boards for my IV are not compatible with a Speed Graphic, nor a Speed Graphic's with a Linhof

of course, saying it is obsolete does not mean incompetent.

That is what I thought you were trying to say, that is, when I think of something as obsolete, I think there's no reason to use it, not the more correct meaning of the word, as you used it.

-Mike

 

[df cardwell]

That is what I thought you were trying to say, that is, when I think of something as obsolete, I think there's no reason to use it, not the more correct meaning of the word, as you used it.

-Mike

Obsolete... I think we're just different definitions under the same listing.

I guess what I'd be willing to use myself is one thing, what I'd suggest for somebody else, maybe different. Like giving directions for walking across Grandpa's field. I know where I might walk... but I might direct company on a safer route !

 

[emsemil]

In my view the Technika III (especially the earlier version with only one distance adjustment wheel) is the best model for hand held 4x5 photography. Even hand held, I will often raise or lower the lens plane to preserve parallel lines. With the Technika III this will not shift focus, whereas it will do so with the later Technika models (for those, the rangefinder will not give accurate readings when raising or lowering the lens plane).

Furthermore, the above mentioned version of the Technika III does not weigh as much as later models, which is important for portability.

I would therefore hesitate to call the III obsolete. For my purposes it is the best Technika model. New lensboards are still being made for it by aftermarket producers and used ones can easily be found on ebay.

 

[MikeS]

Even hand held, I will often raise or lower the lens plane to preserve parallel lines. With the Technika III this will not shift focus, whereas it will do so with the later Technika models (for those, the rangefinder will not give accurate readings when raising or lowering the lens plane).

That's news to me. I have a Tech IV and I've used front rise while hand holding the camera, using the rangefinder, and I've never had a focus shift as you mention.

-Mike

 

[John Cook]

To briefly interrupt the Linhof debate and get back to the original question, generally speaking a technical camera has more movements than a press or simple field camera.

These additional movements often duplicate the function of other movements and could be considered redundant. For example, a rising front and a falling back do essentially the same thing. Or you can tilt the camera back and tilt both the lens standard and ground glass standard back to vertical.

These extra movements tend to make camera operation faster, an important commercial consideration with a heavy workload and impossible deadline. For studio table-tops and extreme architecture they are often extremely useful.

The downside is that more movements increase cost, weight and tend to reduce rigidity.

The Technika mentioned above was designed in the days when all things German were "made from cast iron and ran on diesel". An exception to the rule, it is both rigid and loaded with movements (but far less than a studio monorail).

When I refer to rigidity under normal circumstances, I am talking about cameras such as the simple version of the Ebony, the RW45 versus the more complicated Ebony models.

 

[emsemil]

Mike,

The focus shift occurs in Linhof Technika IV, V and Master versions, whenever you lower the platform so that it does not show in the final picture (essential for wide angle lenses in vertical picture taking mode). The lens standard will then also have to be tilted backwards to preserve parallelism with the negative plane. In that position, shifting the lens standard up or down will shift focus.

In the Technika III, at least the one I have, the rangefinder is adjusted to work with the Angulon 90 mm lens with the platform in the lower position and the lens standard tilted backwards. Shifting the lens standard up or down in that position does not affect focus.

I hope this explains better what I meant to say before.

 

[MikeS]

In the Technika III, at least the one I have, the rangefinder is adjusted to work with the Angulon 90 mm lens with the platform in the lower position and the lens standard tilted backwards. Shifting the lens standard up or down in that position does not affect focus.

I hope this explains better what I meant to say before.

I also have an Angulon 90mm lens, and it's also setup as yours is (bed dropped to first notch, standard tilted back) and shifting the lens up or down in that configuration doesn't affect focus at all. So, I still don't know what you're talking about.

-Mike

 

[mikewhi]

Can any of you Technika users tell me what advances were made with the Technika Super III 4x5? Did it have more movements?

Thanks.

-Mike

 

[df cardwell]

Can any of you Technika users tell me what advances were made with the Technika Super III 4x5? Did it have more movements?

Thanks.

-Mike

The difference between cameras is simply the RFDR. With a RFDR, it is properly called a Super Technika. No RFDR, it is a lowly Technika.

 

[MikeS]

Can any of you Technika users tell me what advances were made with the Technika Super III 4x5? Did it have more movements?

Thanks.

-Mike

Each newer version of the Technika had more movements. The IV has more than a III a V has more than a IV and the Master Technika (the model still being made) supposedly has yet more. I can't verify any of this, as I only have a IV, and haven't handled any of the other models. As far as the differences between a Super Technika and just a Technika, any model with a rangefinder is a 'Super' model, any model without one is just a Technika.

You should also note, there were actually 5 different models that were called a Tech III, with the last one looking much more like the newer IV's as it has the same door as the later models, and 2 focusing knobs, rather than the flat door with single focusing knob of the earlier models. This also made it heavier than the older models, a reason some folks like the earlier models better. There is a website that goes into detail about the technikas:

http://www.cameraquest.com/techs.htm

Check there, and all your questions will be answered!

-Mike

 

[Ole]

And besides, the numbering for 5x7" models is different: The Technika III 13x18 has rangefinder, revolving back, and more generous movements than the 9x12 III...

 

[emsemil]

Mike,

I do not own a Technika IV, so I cannot respons to your statement properly, I am afraid. However, I do own a Master Technika, which for the present purposes is identical to the Technika V. For those cameras at least, the former base tilt of the lens standard (which I have on my Technika III) has been replaced by a center tilt. Since the whole standard is no longer tilted back with the bed dropped (rather, the lens is tilted back vis-à-vis the lens standard) the distance between the center of the lens and the negative plane is changing when the lens is raised. I verified this with a ruler on my Master Technika yesterday evening.

Forgive me for assuming that the center tilt function was introduced already with the Technika IV (or can it be that your Technika is really the last version of the Technika III?).

I hope this explains the topic to everyone's satisfaction.