Toyo 45A or Linhof Master Technika?

Now that I’ve acquired a monorail camera, I’m also looking at foldable cameras to take backpacking.

I’ve got my eyes on two listings. One’s a Linhof Master Technika of unknown vintage, but in great shape. The other is a Toyo 45A of more recent vintage, also in great shape.

The Linhof is about twice the price of the Toyo—is it worth the extra money? The Linhof certainly looks like a piece of precision German engineering versus the everyman’s Toyo.

One other request: can anyone recommend a good psychiatrist to cure me of G.A.S.?

GAS is incurable, but a spouse may be able to slow it down.

Both cameras are well made. The Toyo has simpler controls, making it lighter and cheaper. I have both cameras listed for sale on this forum.

Kumar

The Linhof is an amazing camera, but not my choice for backpacking. It is heavy, and once you add to its weight the three (or more) lenses you are going to buy (trust me), film holders, tripod (you better get a strong one for that camera), and all the other stuff you need, you won't make it to the top of that mountain.

Had one and absolutely loved it, but traded it for a wooden camera precisely because I nearly broke my back lugging that thing around.

So, choice will depend on what type of backpacking you had in mind. Also depends on how much movements you need.

I'll add that with the same lens, you won't see a difference between a photo made with the Linhof or with the Toyo. Wista cameras are also an excellent choice.

If you're going to do backpacking with the 4x5, you'll want to avoid heavy lenses. Here's a good ressource for lightweight lenses:

SodaAnt said:

Now that I’ve acquired a monorail camera, I’m also looking at foldable cameras to take backpacking.

I’ve got my eyes on two listings. One’s a Linhof Master Technika of unknown vintage, but in great shape. The other is a Toyo 45A of more recent vintage, also in great shape.

The Linhof is about twice the price of the Toyo—is it worth the extra money? The Linhof certainly looks like a piece of precision German engineering versus the everyman’s Toyo.

One other request: can anyone recommend a good psychiatrist to cure me of G.A.S.?

Click to expand...

I battled the very same issue and ended up buying both. The Linhof is better made but,after a few years now, the Toyo gets far more use.

I owned a Technika years ago and they really are wonderful camera but they are heavy. The 45A will do everything you need and it won’t feel like a bag of bricks.

At around 6 pounds the Toyo is heavy compared to other 4x5 options. My Tachihara weighs less than 4 pounds, an inexpensive Intrepid even less. It really adds up when backpacking!

My entire 5x7 kit including two lenses and everything needed, including the backpack, weighs about 10 pounds excluding the tripod. About the same for the 4x5 kit.

Lenses about one stop slower than the common f5.6 also tend to be a lot lighter, such as the Fujinon A f9 series and Nikkor M f9 lenses - very sharp and lightweight.

Excess weight will limit where you can go and how far you can go, and a heavy burden will limit creativity.

Less weight is a heck of a lot better than excessive features that are not often used. Every ounce needs to be useful to make it into my pack!

I wouldn't ever carry a metal "field" camera backpacking, or even on day hikes. They are simply too heavy. I won't even carry my larger Zone VI wooden camera except on shorter trips; it weighs in at around six pounds.

I like wooden folders that are in the 3-4 pound (1.5-2 kg) range. Many are quite full-featured. I did lots of architectural work in my erstwhile home-town of Vienna, Austria carrying a Wista SW and four lenses plus holders and accessories in a backpack on my bicycle. Try that with a Technika...

You might want to expand your search to include Chamonix, Tachihara, Wista, Shen Hao, etc.

Best,

Doremus

I did all my LF backpacking with a Toyo 45CF ~ 3lbs and 3 lenses: 90mm f4.5 Grandagon. 150mm Apo-Sironar S, and 300mm Nikkor-M. The 150 folded-up with the camera and was my most used lens for landscape. Next was the 90mm which, after years of backpacking with it, bought a 90mm Nikkor-SW f8 to reduce bulk (and weight) but went back to the Grandagon.. The 300 was my telephoto but I didn't use it that much. It was similar to the 150 in size and weight and adding it to the pack didn't take up much room.

Thw Master Technika is a more deluxe and versatile camera than the Toyo folder, which is basically entry-level, but decently built and sufficient for some people's needs. Most later Techikas, if in good shape, are going to cost a lot more than just twice the cost of the Toyo, depending on their condition and what mated accessories comes with them.

I really dislike the phrase, "Entry-level." It stinks of excess consumerism, and is used (along with people's egos) to "up-sell" everything from cameras to cars to RVs to houses. ("Consumer" is another term I dislike; it's as if the "unwashed masses" (consumers) main purpose on this Earth is to make those at the top, even more rich.)

^^The OP asked about GAS, so there are my thoughts. Take this to heart and it's the first step... ;-)

Professional photographers see cameras as tools, and if that tool is heavily burdened with crap that isn't needed, it's not a very efficient tool. NOBODY can tell the difference between a photo taken with an inexpensive Intrepid camera that costs $350, and a $6,000 Linhof. What a bonus that the Intrepid is half the weight! This should be a no-brainer!

Let's keep in mind that the OP was asking for advice regarding a backpacking camera.

The Technika can do almost everything, but you pay for that in weight and cost. Rangefinders, hand grips, viewfinders, all add weight and cost. Superb engineering (few mechanical devices are built so well) adds weight and cost. Did I say something about weight and cost?
If you plan to carry your camera any distance, get the Toyo. There are lighter choices as well. I've never gone backpacking (overnight camps, many miles) with a 4x5 so I'll defer to those who do.

"Consumerism" has ZERO to do with my own comments. And I know the definition of appropriate"tools" far better than most. Technikas were pretty much standard for outdoor photography pros at one time due to their portability and dependability. My older brother used one, even from helicopters and planes using the optional rangefinder viewing system. Of course, many people needed something lighter and more compact, so back then little wooden Wista folders were quite popular too, along with similar brands. And there were all kinds of compromise models like the Toyo folder.

But I went with the Sinar system, even for decades of intense field use. I've literally walked at least 15,000 miles of steep terrain using the Sinar. And for my purposes, anything resembling a Toyo folder or Intrepid would not have been adequate. I needed the extra features, especially the ability to use long rail extensions for sake of longer lenses, without the need to default to bigger bulkier telephoto-style lenses. I also needed the ability to reconfigure the camera as needed for architectural photography, even during road travel to and from trail destinations. And better built cameras are often a bargain in the long run, especially modular systems like Sinar offers, because any affected components are easily switched out if needed, often alleviating complex pricey repairs.

Added all up in a serious backpack, the complete camera system with holders and tripod etc, etc, plus a couple weeks worth of food, high altitude camping gear, appropriate clothing and shelter, and certain mountaineering aids, and an 85 lb pack load was customary. Desert backpacking could be even heavier due to all the extra water being toted. Most mountaineers would regard that amount of weight, or even more, as simply normal on treks, and would therefore stay in shape. My attitude is, why not? It sure beats running around on a treadmill like a hamster in some stinky city gym.

But eventually, age started getting to me (I'm now nearly 74), and I bought a supplementary little 4X5 Ebony folder for sake of long-haul backpacking. But I still shoot a long-railed 4X5 Sinar Norma, or an 8X10 folder, for day hike usage, along with various MF options. AND YES, if you specialized in large highly-detailed Cibachrome prints, or now Fuji Supergloss ones, like me, every bit of extra precision counts, and adds up to the end-product quality. You CAN see the difference. Even my film holders are more precise in the case of 8X10 color film usage, and need to be.

So it's all relative to your personal requirements. If it's just for sake of relatively small magazine or book reproduction,
anything 4X5 is basically oversized overkill these days. But it was important back when editors wanted reasonably large chromes to select from right atop a light box. Yet even now, view camera movements can be a distinct advantage
in certain genre, including architecture and landscape, as well as for personal reasons. And I find them quite enjoyable to shoot, and the bigger negatives a distinct advantage in the darkroom.

If you're backpacking, then you're probably doing landscape photography and don't need a technical camera. Here's from a Shutterbug review of the Toyo:

The 45CF incorporates all the camera movements for creative control, including front standard rise and fall, tilts, swings and shifts, along with a drop-bed adjustment. A full range of lenses, from a 90-400mm are fully compatible when mounted on a flat Toyo lensboard. A lens window shows which lens is mounted without the need to open the camera. The 45CF includes a reversible film back with a grid ground glass with 6x7 and 6x9 format markings. Roll film and even digital backs are easily attached via the built-in Graflok sliding locks. There's also a dual-spirit level, accessory shoe mount, two tripod threads, extra-long bellows extension and compatibility with many Toyo-Field accessories.

The rise and fall are at least double that of the heavier technical AX and the longer bellows allows for a longer lens without resorting to the extension option.

Tom, what you're missing is that long lens usage with the Toyo require telephotos; and the net weight and bulk of the cumulative system itself is what one needs to keep in mind, not just the camera body per se. Even triple-extension Technikas require a telephoto to attain a 400mm focal length. And the extra leverage of a longer heavier lens barrel hanging over the front often mandates a heavier tripod and head too, to provide sufficient stability against that extra front end torque on the cumulative support system, especially out in the wind and weather.

I seriously doubt those ole Shutterbug reviewers had an inkling of the kind of experience needed to make meaningful comments about real-world field usage. Take a look at what those who actually specialized in that kind of career chose instead, and the extremes of climate and remoteness of distance Technikas were carried into. Magazine reviews didn't require blood, sweat, and tears, just some cigar smoke, a typewriter, or now a keyboard.

Gosh, do you remember back when you could just walk into Gasser there in downtown SF, and actually handle just about every model of technical and view camera then in production, and look at almost every LF lens offered by the "big four" (Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon) ? That was sure a help before I spent my own money.

In this case, he's trying to compare a basic Toyo 45A - which has always been considered a good value on a limited budget - with a high-end precision device understandably costing considerably more. If a standard old Toyota Corolla gets you around fine, go for it; but if you think you need the higher performance of a BMW, and can afford it, well there's that too, plus many other potential options out there. And in terms of technical cameras, I wouldn't overlook the Horseman FA, which is a scaled back lighter weight cousin of the Technika, more limited in focal length range, but likewise precisely made with optional rangefinder focus. And in terms of lightweight folders, today's Chamonix models are exemplary of what can be done with modern composite materials.

300mm Nikkor-M was the longest lens I always brought with me carried for landscape work but rarely used it. Most of my work was with the 150mm Sironar which gives me the same FOV as the120mm Nikkor-SW. Initially I paired the camera with a Manfrotto Carbon one 440 tripod but switched to the Gitzo G1349 which was overkill for that camera and bought the Gitzo GT0540 for backpacking with it. In fact I once did the entire JMT with the 0540.

DREW WILEY said:

"Consumerism" has ZERO to do with my own comments. And I know the definition of appropriate"tools" far better than most. Technikas were pretty much standard for outdoor photography pros at one time due to their portability and dependability. My older brother used one, even from helicopters and planes using the optional rangefinder viewing system. Of course, many people needed something lighter and more compact, so back then little wooden Wista folders were quite popular too, along with similar brands. And there were all kinds of compromise models like the Toyo folder.

But I went with the Sinar system, even for decades of intense field use. I've literally walked at least 15,000 miles of steep terrain using the Sinar. And for my purposes, anything resembling a Toyo folder or Intrepid would not have been adequate. I needed the extra features, especially the ability to use long rail extensions for sake of longer lenses, without the need to default to bigger bulkier telephoto-style lenses. I also needed the ability to reconfigure the camera as needed for architectural photography, even during road travel to and from trail destinations. And better built cameras are often a bargain in the long run, especially modular systems like Sinar offers, because any affected components are easily switched out if needed, often alleviating complex pricey repairs.

Added all up in a serious backpack, the complete camera system with holders and tripod etc, etc, plus a couple weeks worth of food, high altitude camping gear, appropriate clothing and shelter, and certain mountaineering aids, and an 85 lb pack load was customary. Desert backpacking could be even heavier due to all the extra water being toted. Most mountaineers would regard that amount of weight, or even more, as simply normal on treks, and would therefore stay in shape. My attitude is, why not? It sure beats running around on a treadmill like a hamster in some stinky city gym.

But eventually, age started getting to me (I'm now nearly 74), and I bought a supplementary little 4X5 Ebony folder for sake of long-haul backpacking. But I still shoot a long-railed 4X5 Sinar Norma, or an 8X10 folder, for day hike usage, along with various MF options. AND YES, if you specialized in large highly-detailed Cibachrome prints, or now Fuji Supergloss ones, like me, every bit of extra precision counts, and adds up to the end-product quality. You CAN see the difference. Even my film holders are more precise in the case of 8X10 color film usage, and need to be.

So it's all relative to your personal requirements. If it's just for sake of relatively small magazine or book reproduction,
anything 4X5 is basically oversized overkill these days. But it was important back when editors wanted reasonably large chromes to select from right atop a light box. Yet even now, view camera movements can be a distinct advantage
in certain genre, including architecture and landscape, as well as for personal reasons. And I find them quite enjoyable to shoot, and the bigger negatives a distinct advantage in the darkroom.

Click to expand...

Well good for you, but as you noted you're talking about the past.

You say that something like a Toyo or Intrepid is a "compromise" (here we go with consumerism-speak again). How in the world are they a compromise if the added features in a Linhof (or Sinar) are never ever needed and never ever used by 99% of LF photographers? It's a lot like buying a big giant 4 wheel drive 1-ton truck with the "off road package" or "towing package" and never ever using it for those purposes - purchased only to strut around town as an ego boost. What a waste of money and resources in a world with dwindling resources!

I don't know if you've noticed, but during the past 30 or more years there's been a big trend toward light and ultralight backpacking. It's not just the gear; it's a mindset of only taking what's necessary (within reason to stay safe). The combination of lighter gear (which is often less expensive than "traditional" gear) and an ultralight mindset has been a boon for many as we get older. It has allowed me to go further and longer as I go into my 60s. To add a 20 or 30 pound camera kit to that would be inconceivable, having spent considerable time and effort lightening the load especially when there are far better and less expensive options.

And by the way, my Fujinon T 400 isn't too heavy for my "compromise" cameras, even on a lighter tripod. Being a telephoto the bellows doesn't have to stick out as far, and it's therefore less affected by wind. There may be a weight difference between the older and newer version. I have the new one, but I rarely (never) carry it on a backpacking trip. Every ounce counts!

I have a Toyo and good lenses that have worked very well for my needs. Whichever way you choose what hasn’t been mentioned is the backpack. If you don’t already have one be sure to get a well made adjustable one that fits your size and has room for your gear as well as being at least water resistant.

How did Intrepid get into the conversation? The OP specifically asked about Toyo and the Technika. The only specs I can find put them in 100 grams of each other. They also put the Toyo at 320mm of bellows and the Technika at 430mm of bellows. Different people have different needs, but that alone would drop the Toyo from my list. Otherwise, the Toyo looks like a fairly capable camera, if you don’t need longer bellows extension. If condition between the two are similar, and prices are similar, I’d get the Technika, though I do find the geared rise/fall on the Master Technika front standard is very finicky.

People think the weight of a field camera is a paramount issue, it's not. It's the tripod, dark cloth, film holders, light meter and all the other misc. accessories. And they all weight the same no matter what camera you have. I would recommend the 45AR thought. You can't believe how useful a revolving back is.

The whole point of Technical cameras is that they potentially doubled as handheld cameras, but with a greater range of features than Press cameras like Graflex. For example, my brother used his Master Techika not only from the air handheld, but attached to a Kenro gryro for handheld shots of heavy machinery industrial interiors to get crisp results when the sheer constant floor vibration made ordinary tripod usage unrealistic.

Most of the "coffee table books" on my shelves contain Technika images. The places Shirahata used a Technika in the Himalayas and Karakoram Range are a testimonial unto itself, though he did have Sherpas and porters carrying most of the expedition supplies and photo gear. It was "the" outdoor 4x5 in the opinion of many pros at one time.

But I'm more of a long lens addict, and did a certain amount of commercial architectural photography on the side, so fortunately settled on the Sinar monorail system instead as my go-to "everything" 4X5 camera (not with respect to 8X10 format, however - in that case, I went for a lightweight Phillips folder back when they were remarkably affordable). A monorail is much easier to balance on a tripod than a flatbed camera; so one can save a certain amount of tripod weight.
And by using just the rail clamp rather than a tripod head, even more redundant weight is saved. In fact, I don't use tripod heads of any kind with any of my view cameras. No need.

But back to Axelwick - who are you to pontificate over what features one needs or doesn't need. I've certainly used every option my own extensive Sinar kit provides, and with good reason. In this very post, I explained the valuable usages of certain special options of the Technika, which spelled the difference between getting paid or not. And it's NOT just about the past. I plan to be out on the trail tomorrow with my Sinar Norma equipped with an 18-inch rail.

And please don't lecture me on the trend of "ultralight" backpacking. I grew up doing that before it was ever labeled as such. I also know how dangerous it can be especially above timberline, and have had multiple vacations ruined due to having to rescue and guide out someone under-equipped for a sudden severe storm. I've also encountered my fair share of too-late incidents which became body recoveries. I also know darn well the deficiencies of ultralight tent materials - those were all designed in the first place right in this neighborhood, and I know both the people and materials involved; and both me and some of my pals were guinea pigs for the prototypes!

But in my case, the Sinar system made a lot of sense - it was much quicker and easier to operate in bad weather than any kind of folder, including a Technika, and way more compatible with long lenses. And investment-wise, most of those long lenses doubled for 8x10 usage, whereas teles would not. A single tele weighs more than three conventional ones if you pick versions using small shutters. Ultralight 4X5 cameras like little wooden Wistas were in common use all along, but were nowhere near as durable or rigid as what I chose.

But as I already mentioned with respect to inevitable advancing age circumstances, I wisely invested in lighter gear too. I purchased a little Ebony 4X5 folder as a reasonable if less quick alternative to my Sinar needs, and resorted to roll film backs once Quickload and Readyload sleeves were no longer available. I now avoid the need for ice climbing with heavy loads, or camping on high ridges and summits, and leave behind my serious Bibler tent, and now make due with a Big Agnes tent half the weight, and necessarily restrict my campsites to less extreme places. I also invested in a couple of 6X9 "Texas Leica" Fuji rangefinders as yet another ultralight option which has proven excellent for those scenarios where its fixed 90mm lens is sufficient (my Pentax 6x7 two-lens backpack kit weighs almost as much as my Ebony 4X5 kit).

DREW WILEY said:

But in my case, the Sinar system made a lot of sense - it was much quicker and easier to operate in bad weather than any kind of folder, including a Technika, and way more compatible with long lenses.

Click to expand...

Your experience gives me incentive to try using my Sinar F2 out in the field.

Here's a tip to make a Sinar F2 more portable in the field; find a Sinar Norma rail clamp.
It's much shorter than the F-series rail clamp and makes that very capable camera significantly more compact.

beemermark said:

People think the weight of a field camera is a paramount issue, it's not. It's the tripod, dark cloth, film holders, light meter and all the other misc. accessories. And they all weight the same no matter what camera you have. I would recommend the 45AR thought. You can't believe how useful a revolving back is.

Click to expand...

I do not agree completely. If the camera is light, the tripod can be light as well. And choosing the rest from the light side makes a huge difference. An Angulon weighs a fraction of a Super-Angulon. A Grafmatic weighs a fraction of 6 holders or 3 double-sided holders. And a Gossen Digisix weighs a fraction of a Sixtomat. It all adds up. For years I had a Linhof Kardan Standard, not even 2KG, Bellows folded and moved to one side, a light tripod strapped to the monorail that I carried around with ease in the field...

Baseline: I'm 6'5" 250 lbs and 34 years old. Carrying 75-80 pounds in the field is not difficult for me.