Thoughts on Canam 5x7 wood vs metal and 6x17 back

...but what really drove me bananas was not only that Keith couldn't find this problem but that he lacked the tools necessary to diagnose it. The good news is that this experience got me into using monorails again and now I'm safe in the arms of a nice bench camera that when placed in its zero detents is actually zeroed out.

Sandy....with your reputation as a LF photographer and innovator I take everthing you say very seriously! And frotog...absolutely no sweat;you did not get under my very necessary wig at all. Heck, if we can't have friendly and informative discussions here, then what is the use of this thread? Its hard to believe, and very upsetting, that Keith was unable to diagnose and fix the problem with your camera. I have no affiliation with Keith, and was merely giving you my own limited observations. As was stated, no one camera can be all things to all people. Moreover, I did point out the annoying problem with the rear shift lever. In addition, Keith's cameras certainly don't have the sense of rigidity that one gets when working with an Ebony. However, once one knows the idiosyncracies of the Canham camera then one can learn to live with them because the advantages that Sandy and others alluded to makes the Canham a reasonable choice. I think that Sandy's point about over tightening of some of the levers has been noted by Keith because the newer cameras ( I think ) incorporate a "post" that prevents over tightening of the levers. It may well be that Keith can retrofit the "limit posts" ( my words, not Keith's ) if the camera is sent back to him. Worth a call if the over tightening is a problem.

Sandy...with your extensive experience, if you were to suggest an "all purpose 4x5 field camera" now would you care to share your choice with us? Thanks.

Ed

Mahler_one said:

Sandy...with your extensive experience, if you were to suggest an "all purpose 4x5 field camera" now would you care to share your choice with us? Thanks.

Ed

Click to expand...

If cost were an issue I would consider a Shen-Hao. The Tachihara is in the same cost range but of the two I prefer the Shen-Hao. If cost not an issue, an Ebony would be tempting.

Sandy King

I'll chime in and add that I have been using the new Chamonix 4x5 for the past month to write review on it and have come to the conclusion that of all the 'budget' priced 4x5's it is my clear favorite. If cost is not an issue I'd take another tack. Look at the available metal fields such as the Toyo AX and AII also Linhofs, Horseman and Wista.

The Ebony is a beautiful camera but IMO it is over engineered and way more complicated than it needs to be. I used one for a while a few years ago and was underwhelmed.

Ted- I think it sounds like the Ebonys are more like Rolls Royces - Rolls Royce describes their vehicles as "over-engineered", but as a critic once put it in a car magazine, they're "overbuilt and under-engineered". The Ebonys are overbuilt so they don't have to be engineered to the same degree that a Canham or a Linhof has.

TheFlyingCamera said:

Ted- I think it sounds like the Ebonys are more like Rolls Royces - Rolls Royce describes their vehicles as "over-engineered", but as a critic once put it in a car magazine, they're "overbuilt and under-engineered". The Ebonys are overbuilt so they don't have to be engineered to the same degree that a Canham or a Linhof has.

Click to expand...

My standard practice is to type a reply like this, then let it settle a while before posting, to prevent a hot reaction from being forever available on line. In this case I'm making an exception.

Crap.

Ebony cameras are neither overbuilt nor under-engineered. They're extremely precise and well made, probably the most so of any wood cameras available. Weight specification of the wood 5x7 Canham is 2.72 kg; for a mahogany SV57 it's 3.0 kg. Hardly "Rolls Royce tubby." Ebonies are expensive primarily due to extreme cost of doing business in Japan and the use of titanium metal parts (which probably also accounts for the small weight difference). After years of holding my tongue in this type of thread, I finally "let it all hang out" here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=306668&postcount=3

While an SV57 costs nearly twice as much as a wood 5x7 Canham, I bought the Ebony. There is no reason to doubt what anyone says about Keith Canham's accessibility and responsiveness. For me, however, comparing products was ultimtely the best basis for making a decision.

Ted Harris said:

I'll chime in and add that I have been using the new Chamonix 4x5 for the past month to write review on it and have come to the conclusion that of all the 'budget' priced 4x5's it is my clear favorite.

Click to expand...

I forgot about the 4X5 Chamonix. It is a real beauty with very interesting features in the budget price range. Unfortunately you will most likely have to wait a lot longer to get a Chamonix than a Shen-Hao.

Sandy King

sanking said:

I forgot about the 4X5 Chamonix. It is a real beauty with very interesting features in the budget price range. Unfortunately you will most likely have to wait a lot longer to get a Chamonix than a Shen-Hao.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

I've got my copy ordered from the next batch to be released in July.

Sal Santamaura said:

My standard practice is to type a reply like this, then let it settle a while before posting, to prevent a hot reaction from being forever available on line. In this case I'm making an exception.

Crap.

Ebony cameras are neither overbuilt nor under-engineered. They're extremely precise and well made, probably the most so of any wood cameras available. Weight specification of the wood 5x7 Canham is 2.72 kg; for a mahogany SV57 it's 3.0 kg. Hardly "Rolls Royce tubby." Ebonies are expensive primarily due to extreme cost of doing business in Japan and the use of titanium metal parts (which probably also accounts for the small weight difference). After years of holding my tongue in this type of thread, I finally "let it all hang out" here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=306668&postcount=3

While an SV57 costs nearly twice as much as a wood 5x7 Canham, I bought the Ebony. There is no reason to doubt what anyone says about Keith Canham's accessibility and responsiveness. For me, however, comparing products was ultimtely the best basis for making a decision.

Click to expand...

Sal- you're right of course- the Ebony isn't nearly as "overbuilt" as a Rolls. It's an unfortunate fact that their pricing, whatever the reason, makes the comparison common. That and the fact that many of their owners talk about them in the same way that Rolls owners talk about the cars. Probably a more accurate comparison would be Rolls to De Golden Busch.

And whatever the comparison, to Rolls or to Jaguar, tubby or svelte, I'd love to have an Ebony.

The Canham arrived today and my first impressions are very good. It's very well built, a work of art and stable even with the bellows at full extension. Lever locks are a non issue and lock very easily. Set up and take down are no more difficult than my Deardorff. The bellows interchange is so nice. Why couldn't others be that clever. I'm guessing that I will be selling my Shen Hao in the very near future but will never part with my old friend the Sinar Norma.

Don Dudenbostel said:

The Canham arrived today and my first impressions are very good. It's very well built, a work of art and stable even with the bellows at full extension. Lever locks are a non issue and lock very easily. Set up and take down are no more difficult than my Deardorff. The bellows interchange is so nice. Why couldn't others be that clever. I'm guessing that I will be selling my Shen Hao in the very near future but will never part with my old friend the Sinar Norma.

Click to expand...

I think you made a good choice, and good value for the money.

BTW, the lever locks have never been an issue with the wood Canham. My comments about the levers were only meant to pertain to the metal Canham.

Sandy King

I also think the Canham is a good choice and darn good value. Value wasn't as important as quality and how strong the camera is at full extension. As to the metal cameras, I suspect they're excellent as many have said but in the end i guess i'm a bit of a traditional fellow and love the look and feel of wood over cold metal. of course I've used my Sinar Norma for almost 40 years but rarely carried it in the field. My field cameras other than architectual assignements was almost always my Master Technica ( sold it a few years ago, kick myself) and my Deardorff cameras. Another reason for selecting a Canham over others was the ability to use the 6x17 back. I think there's a near 100% chance that I will add that this year. I love the 6x17 format and have used my 6x17 Fuji for many years but my version can not take any other lens. I wanted the versatility of other lenses and like the idea of shooting sheet film when I want. Also the flexability of adding other format backs is attractive. I considered the Ebony 6x17 but the price is just out of sight comparing the bersatility vs the 5x7 Canham. No question it must be a fine camera but it's nearly $7k and then a $1k back and all you can shoot is 6x17.

Do you really mean to say that you are concerned about a 0.07 degree misalignment between your front and rear standards? I doubt that that would be of any practical consquence unless you are at the limit of your focusing capabilities, have the aperture wide open and intend to enlarge big time. It would be rather difficult to even measure such small divergence. Best regards, Markus Albertz

frotog said:

Sorry to have gotten under your wig Mahler_1. I thought the OP wanted honest opinions, even if they run afoul with the fan club. But clearly once you've ponied up several grand for a camera this is no longer the case - at least for the time being.

It's entirely possible I got a dog and that not all of his cameras are as poorly put together as mine. It turned out that the front and rear standards diverged 7/100th's of a degree from parallel - something that can be disastrous for critical focus at large aperatures...especially for landscapes enlarged really big

Click to expand...

This evening I started exploring my new Canham with the 4x5 back. I guess I made an assumption that all 4x5's have a grafloc back. Thinking about it I don't think I've ever seen a photo of the back of the camera and from the photos of the 4x5 metal I saw a grafloc back on it. To my surprise the wood does not have a grafloc. Not a big issue because i really wanted to get the 6x17 back for the 5x7 back and feel it's more usable than the 6x12. I do have a Shen Hao 6x12 back that i will probably sell now. Why no grafloc?

Last evening I spent a little more time learning the Canham. I discovered that even though the canham doesn't have a grafloc back the 4x5 back will open up enough to allow the Shen Hao 6x12 back to slide in. With the GG protector it's a perfect fit with room to spare. I knew the 5x7 would do this to accomidate the 6x17 back and it looks like the 4x5 was designed the same way. Excellent!

Hello Don,
As I saw the deal @ Feb 17, EST, I told myself that, I am the one! I am on this! BUT, shame on me, after couple of emails of RD, while I am still thinking, it's gone. I just told my wife, it's Don, who officially got this puppy.
Let us know how is going, based on your profound experience of LF. I always compare it with my linhof23/rollei Tlrs, if size matter. then I might jump into it.
andrewren.com

Don Dudenbostel said:

The Canham arrived today and my first impressions are very good. It's very well built, a work of art and stable even with the bellows at full extension. Lever locks are a non issue and lock very easily. Set up and take down are no more difficult than my Deardorff. The bellows interchange is so nice. Why couldn't others be that clever. I'm guessing that I will be selling my Shen Hao in the very near future but will never part with my old friend the Sinar Norma.

Click to expand...

Happy to know about the lever locks Don and Sandy. I don't know about the wood cameras of course, but the metal camera have some "play" in the rear standard, i.e., note when the camera is on the tripod that one can sort of "jiggle" the rear standard a bit. I imagine that is the way the camera is built in order to gain all the weight savings, and movements. If the
"shift" lever isn't completely tightened then the jiggling can turn into a bit of small movement along the shift planes when either the dark cloth is moved about, or the film holders are inserted.

How are things going Don?

Ed

Don Dudenbostel said:

Last evening I spent a little more time learning the Canham. I discovered that even though the canham doesn't have a grafloc back the 4x5 back will open up enough to allow the Shen Hao 6x12 back to slide in. With the GG protector it's a perfect fit with room to spare. I knew the 5x7 would do this to accomidate the 6x17 back and it looks like the 4x5 was designed the same way. Excellent!

Click to expand...

I thought the Canham had a 5x7 Graflok back for the 6x17 RFH? If it does why do you need to slide the holder in?

So far I really like the Canham. No film through it yet but some dry testing. It's a different animal than any other LF camera I've used but no more different than getting in a Volvo after driving a Honda. The camera seems to be very solid even it full extension. I'm quite pleased with this and feel it's a good choice for long glass. No grafloc back but it does allow a 6x12 back to easily slide into the spring back of the 4x5 and no question the 6x17 will easily slide into the 5x7. First impressions are a very nicely finished camera with a great deal of thought as to making improvements on the basic cameras like the Ansco/agfa and Deardorff. I'm talking wood here and not metal. The interchange of bad and regular bellows is really nice and simple. Locks hold firm with little pressure and stay where they're set. No creap problems on my camera. Levers are different and flip locks are a bit different particularly the positioning but as I said it's no more of a problem than the differences of instrument and controll placement of a Volvo vs a Honda.

I spoke to Kieth Canham about ordering a Linhof adapter board. Very nice man as everyone said and very helpfull. I also commented about placing drag on the focusing system to keep the bellows from pulling the focusing rails back when the bellows is near full extension. The bellows is a bit springy and wants to pull the standards together throwing focus off if you don't hold the focus in position while you set the lock. No big deal bit a variable drag system on the focus would be nice. Up to this point this is the only comment that I've had and suggestion.

Andrew I would say I'm sorry you didn't get the camera but then I wouldn't have gotten it. If this makes you feel any better it's in near new condition and came with bag and standard bellows, 4x5 and 5x7 backs, boards and GG protectors, 10 4x5 and 5 5x7 holders. All in very fine condition. Hope you get the next one. With patience there's always a great deal in the works. Also if you're wanting one I'm going to be selling my mint Shen Hao 4x5 with bag bellows and case for $500. Lovely camera and would have kept it but the bellows was too short for my long glass.

I'm headed out of town tomorrow on a commercial shoot in an area of great subjects. I'm going to load some 5x7 B&W tonight and give it a run tomorrow. I'm certain the first few trecks will be a little awkward but I expect it to be second nature in short order.

Thanks for everyone comments on helping with my choice. I can say I think everyone was honest and factual which is greatly appreciated.

Thanks Don. Looking forward to your new results.

Cheers


Andrew