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
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?