What the hell is with the linhof technika

[Larry Bullis]

A less expensive Linhof

Nobody's mentioned the Technika III. They can be acquired at a much lower price, and of course have more limitations, but for general use when extreme movements aren't likely to be needed, they are great. It has the back movements, front rise and shift, but no forward tilt. You can get forward tilt by dropping the bed and using the rise and rear tilt to adjust for what you need. The rear movements and the front rise are the most important; if I needed fancier movements, I'd break out the Cambo. The III is built like a tank and stands up really well under the heaviest use. For me, that's essential.

I had one for a long time and used it a LOT, even though the rise was worn and I had to clamp it in place when using it much out of straight on normal. I had recovered it myself in brown leather, and made several lensboards for it myself, the one for a 90 mm angulon having an image of my eyes photo-etched into it using circuit board resists. The III has only one cam, but that's all I needed, because the cam matched the 127 ektar, the only lens I needed to use with the RF. I usually used it on the tripod, for landscape and architecture.

I really don't consider the Technika to be a press camera at all. I suppose it has been used that way, but why use a camera with so many capabilities for a single, limited purpose? Now, of course, the function of the press camera is performed by the digital slr.

My III was stolen in a breach of confidence. I've often been tempted to publish the name of the guy who stole it but I suppose I could get into some sort of trouble, so I don't.

I've missed it and have been looking to replace it, but I found a technika 70 which is now on the way to me. Since I'm older than I was when I was so often packing the III around, and strangely, getting older every day, it ocurred to me that 120 rollfilm ought to be just fine. The camera coming has the roll back but lacks the standard ground glass one. I'll want to replace that because the rangefinder doesn't help much when you use the movements.

The Linhof is really a lightweight compared to my OTHER camera - the Kodak 8x10 Master View. That thing will keep any floor from floating out into space.

 

[JRJacobs]

The Linhof is really a lightweight compared to my OTHER camera - the Kodak 8x10 Master View. That thing will keep any floor from floating out into space.

Ha, I am sure that is true!

I have seen the 70 and it is a neat camera - I am sure you will enjoy it immensely. Sorry to hear what happened to your Tech III - that is a shame.

 

[eddym]

I've missed it and have been looking to replace it, but I found a technika 70 which is now on the way to me. Since I'm older than I was when I was so often packing the III around, and strangely, getting older every day, it ocurred to me that 120 rollfilm ought to be just fine. The camera coming has the roll back but lacks the standard ground glass one. I'll want to replace that because the rangefinder doesn't help much when you use the movements.

I'd LOVE to have another Tech 70!!! Mine was stolen about 25 years ago, and I still miss it. I had three cammed lenses: 65mm f5.6 Angulon, 100mm f5.6 Symmar, and 180mm f5.6 Tele Artar. Later I found a 100mm f2.8 Xenotar with cam. Had the groundglass back and a 120 Super Rollex. It was a wonderful machine!! The meter worked, and I used it with the incident cover, which gave quite accurate readings.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've had a 2x3" Technika for a few years now, and it's been very handy, particularly for travel with our toddler, when I'd really like to bring a view camera, but just don't have the space to carry the 4x5" or larger, associated equipment, and all the extra baby stuff. Maybe that's why they call it a "Baby" Technika.

 

[John Kasaian]

I think Technikas are cool! John Sexton and Roman Loranc do incredible work with them! $2000 seems steep but if the camera was in mint condition with lots of goodies, then the price would be quite attractive compared with a new one.

I have a 5x7 Speed Graphic that has effectively put my 4x5 Crown out to pasture---for a hand held 5x7 it is slick! I once thought of replacing it with a Technika (and still would if it ever wears out or walks off) but the price of a 5x7 Technika is far too expensive for me then and now.

 

[Larry Bullis]

If Ulrich means the Speed Graphic is the Rolls and the Linhof the VW, I quite agree. The Linhof is half the camera a Speed Graphic is. It has no focal plane shutter which means it's not as good covering sports or action as the Speed. The Speed can use barrel lenses which opens a world not available to Linhof.
To answer your question, the Linhof is just a metal press camera.

I have two baby graphics, which are a lot of fun for the reason you mention. However, otherwise the two aren't comparable at all.

I have a black Stetson, so if I want to use a Linhof with my 85mm barrel mounted series V Zeiss Protar, I'm not deterred in the least. If it's too hot to wear the hat, I have a piece of black velvet glued to a card. There'd be no point in using the f/18 protar with a Graphic; you'd never be able to take advantage of the huge image circle. With a Technika, you can. I've done a great deal of architectural work with shutterless lenses with a Technika and other view cameras as well.

Shutters are convenient, but not always necessary. Ask any pinhole photographer.

I'd never use either for sports. WAY too slow. We live in the 21st C.

 

[ragc]

I've never handled a Technica, but own several field cameras in 4x5 and 5x7. These include the ultra-light Chamonix 4x5 and the Wista 45SP, which some refer to as the "poor man's Technica. Even though the Chamonix is a very fine camera, and much, much lighter I prefer taking the metal-bodied, geared Wista out. It gives me a sense of security knowing that I can get into rough terrain in bad weather with a camera that can take it. If I run into any trouble I can always hit someone over the head with the Wista, and it will certainly do damage (to the person, not the camera).

 

[sangetsu]

Linhoff Technicas are selling in Japan for over $10k new... The one I saw sitting in the display case had been there so long that the leatherette was lifting off the metal.

 

[Van Camper]

I don't know of any camera mfr that has a problem with the leatherette peeling except Linhof. They can sure charge the price, but it doesn't look it (you see many peeling)? A quality camera should show quality everywhere. They cannot even put a hinged door at the top of the body (like Horseman FA), and instead rely on the leather to act as a hinge. I've complained before to Bob Solomon about this problem, but they don't seem to care as long as they get their money. How does it look if someone asks about the camera, but it's peeling, then your supposed to tell them it is the best camera money can buy....hmmm. It's a third of the price of a car, very simple technology, a simple problem to switch to a better leatherette and put a hinge on.

 

[berrybrian]

They Last. They Handle.

After more years than I like to admit, I still use a Linhof Technika III for most of what I do. And I have a room full of other cameras. Because ... it has the movements, the handling, the sturdiness, the build quality. Other cameras -- my Graphic, my Cambo, my Arca, my Deardorff -- mostly let me down a little too often. I am a field photographer first; and I can consistently pack a reasonable bag (not a case) and come back with the picture without stretching some camera to the limits of its design, when I use that Technika. With, I ought to say, all eight lenses.
I also have, and use, a Sinar Norma (the others are gone now), but that is no field kit. There are some things the Linhof does poorly -- wide-angle work, for example -- but it does well what I do most often: portraits in the field, working fast: woods and buildings and mountains, in all weathers and winds; pictures when the light is going fast and I have to be faster... yes, I wish it were lighter, but just as solid.

 

[Paddy]

What am I missing? Isn't this just a metal press camera?

I think what you're missing,...is a minimum amount of research, easily done on the web, to learn what the quality, and control differences are between "press/technical/field/studio cameras. Is this just an idle armchair rant, or do you actually have a specific shooting purpose to fulfill? It's just gear after all; simply a means to an end.

The auto brand analogies only work up to a certain point. For example: fry a Rolls engine, and it'll have to get shipped back to the U.K. for a rebuild. Do the same with a VW, or Toyota and it'll usually be done in a few days. They both get you from A to B. They both meet the minimum requirments for safety, etc. But one of them is typically way overengineered, overbuilt (overpriced too), is a status symbol, and costs way more to service. If I had the cash would I buy the more expensive option? Who knows,...maybe. Suit yourself. If you can't drive for sh*t, then do you think a Audi Is6 is going to improve it for you? Will a Leica improve your creative skills? NOT. It's just a freakin shutter box.

 

[Shan Ren]

I have had a couple of Tech 4's for quite some years now. Both bought second (one very second) hand. Solid, easy to use, pretty much unbreakable, and I have tried unintenionaly a few times. I have used, but never owned, other field cameras, including a Wista, a Horseman and various Graphics. If, for some reason, I had to replace one or both I would get another, without hesitation. I think they will last longer than me, and probably the next person/people who has/have them.

And while having a Linhof does not in itself make me a better photographer, the ease of use, combined with the knowledge that everything works, and will continue to work, means I can concentrate on being the best I can be.

Scrimp on hotels and clothes, not gear.

 

[2F/2F]

They are excellent and versatile cameras. They can do everything a Crown can do, and more. Graflexes are very well-built cameras...but Linhofs are exceptionally well-engineered and well-built cameras.

The person who taught me 4x5 was a staff photographer for Northrup for his whole professional career of over 20 years. The only 4x5 he ever owned was a Technika. Yes; the same Technika lasted him his entire professional career (along with Hassies and Nikons).

They are very versatile, durable, precise, and compact little buggers.

Now, are they a greater value than a Crown or Speed? No way. You get more bang for your buck with a Graphic. However, bang for the buck is something that is not the most important factor for many photographers.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I've used 4x5 Crown and Speed Graphics, way back in the old days. I bought a 4x5 Speed graphic for old times sake, later sold it. The Graphics in the right hands are still superb cameras,
regardless of their significant history. I think that a Graphic, in good shape with a modern lens/shutter would be a very useful camera and would own one today save for the fact I have no way to process the 4x5 neg., yet.

I have been coveting a friend's 4x5 Busch Pressman and at least from my point of view these could stand up to the Technika's reputation.

For a short while, in the '80s, I had a 2x3 "Baby" Technika with three cams and three lenses. It was a thing of beauty and performed very well. It was acceptable but I found
the Hasselblad system to be superior for my purposes at the time.

 

[ronlamarsh]

Linhof

I just saw one go on ebay for almost 2 thousand dollars....that's dollars, not pesos!

What am I missing? Isn't this just a metal press camera?

Bobby,

A linhof technika is by far the most precisely engineered,easy to operate,rugged and dependable example of a 4x5 field camera in exsistence. I have a Tech III that I paid $500 almost 10yrs ago and would not trade it for any new field camera out there except a new Tech IV or V but I don't think anyone is that stupid. The bellows are still in fantastic shape and all the mechanics work as they should. These cameras are the Lieca of the 4x5 field camera genre and if you've ever owned and used an M3 doublestroke you'll know what I mean.

 

[Joachim_I]

My 6x9 Technika ("Studienkamera 70") once fell from a luggage drawer at about 2m height to the airplane ground. Although it was protected by a small bag, I expected the worst when I heard the sound of the camera knocking on the ground. However, the Technika survived without any scratch or problem.

When I bought the camera second hand in 2000, I had it serviced by Linhof in Munich. The camera came back as new although it was already 30 years old at that time. The costs were reasonable and the service quality was outstanding.

By the way, including the latest Linhof 6x7 roll film back and a relatively modern Symmar-S 100mm lens, I paid about as much as a new Canon 45mm tilt and shift lens would cost today (this ignores inflation, of course). No reason to complain.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Imaging quality aside (and that's a big selling point for the all-conquering Linhofs), that Linhof (the name of which is very obscure; I'm only familiar with the Master Tecnika) probably weighs as much as my EOS1N+PDBE1+24mmTS-E (2.3kg) -- a combo I've been using continuously since 1997.

All the view cameras seem big beasts. Something else caught my eye: I recently manhandled a Hasselblad 503CX with 80mm Planar lens which tipped the scale at around 2.6kg. An awkward beast to get up close and personal with, but up grabs at $2000 mint second hand (estate sale).

 

[Joachim_I]

that Linhof (the name of which is very obscure; I'm only familiar with the Master Tecnika)

Studienkamera is German for "study camera." According to advertisements from that era, the camera was meant for scientific excursions. I guess that explains the strange name. It is simply a Technika 70 without rangefinder.

probably weighs as much as my EOS1N+PDBE1+24mmTS-E (2.3kg)

The camera is 1.6kg. Add a lens and a roll film back and you are probably right. But that's fine for me given the larger negative size of the Linhof. Nothing wrong with the Canon. I just wanted to make the point that prices for 2nd hand Technikas are not outrageous compared to some current stuff.

 

[Fred De Van]

If Ulrich means the Speed Graphic is the Rolls and the Linhof the VW, I quite agree. The Linhof is half the camera a Speed Graphic is. It has no focal plane shutter which means it's not as good covering sports or action as the Speed. The Speed can use barrel lenses which opens a world not available to Linhof.
To answer your question, the Linhof is just a metal press camera.

Linhof does have a focal plane shutter and always did. It is removable device consistent with the modular concept of a sophisticated well designed, eminently flexible, camera system which was by intent and in execution is far more than a metal press camera. (Current name =Point and Shoot with flash bulbs)

Linhow owners tended to have and use their lenses on other cameras. Barrel lenses were not a advantage. They added a FP shutter if needed. Graphic owners were newspaper photogs and often had no other cameras.

I have used extensively and owned both camera systems. A graphic is great for that which it excells at and I can think of NO situation in which a Graphic (My favorite is the Super graphic) is interchangable with a Linhof Technica V (Graphics do not have back movements). How often have you seen a flash bulb unit as part of Linhof kit?

To a carpenter everything resembles a hammer.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Still dreaming of a Master Technika 2000 sometimes...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Linhof focal plane shutter, I believe, is from the Tech V era. It has that same tan leatherette used in the late 1960s and 70s. They had a relatively short production run and are fairly rare, and Bob Salomon, the US Linhof rep, has posted on the LF forum that it was discontinued due to service problems (despite which, they still command a substantial price on eBay).

 

[Fred De Van]

The Linhof focal plane shutter, I believe, is from the latter the Tech V era. It has that same tan leatherette used in the late 1960s and 70s. They had a relatively short production run and are fairly rare, and Bob Salomon, the US Linhof rep, has posted on the LF forum that it was discontinued due to service problems (despite which, they still command a substantial price on eBay).

Thanks David. I was too young to be aware of much before the Tech V which is what I had, used and loved. I was always aware of the FP shutter but could find no use for it. (maybe because I had a Super D Graflex.)

The premise for the FP shutter statement was from someone who obviously has never used one, and my response though mostly factual was to a flawed premise.

It was the Graflex, not the Graphic which was used in sports I.E. the Big Bertha and similar contraptions with fast focus, long focus barrel lenses which were stellar at sports. Thay were based on Graflex, not Graphic bodies. Anyone who has used a Barrel lens with the Speed knows what it takes to get the shutter open to focus, and then closed to the correct point to make an exposure, repeat in reverse, especially at one of the higher speeds (tension 6). Sports, not a chance, a still life will grow mold while you go through all the steps and contortions.

Most of the lenses which do fit the limits of the focus track and couple with the rangefinder are equal to today's wide angles. There were few tele lenses that worked. f 5.5 mostly, and not particularly sharp. The lenses they had for sports ranged from 35mm equlivelents of about 28mm to 85mm, and nearly all had shutters. The Super D Graflex was the great sports 4x5 box.

 

[Fred De Van]

The Linhof focal plane shutter, I believe, is from the latter the Tech V era. It has that same tan leatherette used in the late 1960s and 70s. They had a relatively short production run and are fairly rare, and Bob Salomon, the US Linhof rep, has posted on the LF forum that it was discontinued due to service problems (despite which, they still command a substantial price on eBay).

It all just came back to me. The source of the mechanical problems was the system which allowed the Linhof Shutter to be self capping.

The Speed Graphic shutter was nothing more than a very long strip of rubberized cloth with successively smaller slits in it. It was around 4-5 feet long. You had to wind a small key and lock switch to go from end to end and back again. Then there was the tension settings...

A. Set all Shutters at B or T (open)
B. Compose, Focus on the ground glass
C. Wind to shutter Closed and set to before 1/1000 slot
D. Insert Holder
E. Check everything is closed in proper sequence and tension set
F. Remove Dark slide
G. Expose

The Linhof was a huge version of a Leica or Exakta, which was light years ahead of the Graphic shutter band. It was only 2 big curtains, smaller and self closing and simple to use, as it attempted to repeal a few laws of phyics. It jammed in damp conditions, at the sight of model, a timely critical moment and/or, your paying customer.

As utterly crude and often unusable, the Graphic shutter was, it was as reliable as it was fraught.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]
The camera is 1.6kg. Add a lens and a roll film back and you are probably right. But that's fine for me given the larger negative size of the Linhof. Nothing wrong with the Canon. I just wanted to make the point that prices for 2nd hand Technikas are not outrageous compared to some current stuff.

I saw a mint condition Linhof (?Teknika) in a 2H dealer's showcase last Thursday, but it looked huge, even when folded. The late Tasmanian landscape photographer Peter Dombrovskis used an old Linhof Master Teknika Classic and carried 3 lenses (90mm, 150mm, 300mm). It was commonly reported this set up weighed quite a bit more than 2kg and was his usual kit on his extended expeditions into South West Tasmania. Family friend Melva Truchanas (widow of Olegas Truchanas, who was a father-figure and mentor to the young Dombrovskis), remarked ruefully in a tribute piece in 1998: "it was the camera that killed him!".

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have a 5x7" Press Graflex SLR with a focal plane shutter, and it's remarkable how well it's held up since around 1920. I'm fairly sure the curtain has been replaced at least once, but the relative simplicity of the mechanism makes it very reliable.