Suggestions for lightweight 8x10

[AnzaRunner]

Hello all. You guys were great in helping me pick the perfect 4x5 camera for my uses. I brought it along on a landscape shooting trip, and was very satisfied with the results. I've become very disenchanted with digital, and have even sold off some of my canon EF lenses that were not seeing much use. My Toyo 45AII is rock solid, and I have zero complaints about the camera. I see myself keeping this camera for a VERY long time.

Now I'm tempted to test the water with 8x10 for the times when carrying extra size and weight is possible. I do really like Toyo, and I see they have a folding 8x10 field camera on the market. It is quite heavy, but that is to be expected. I'm looking for any suggestions on some high quality 8x10 folding field cameras with rock solid build. If there is anything lighter than the toyo, I'd love to hear some suggestions. I'd like to start doing some research, so any models you guys can name would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Ben

[Scott Whitford]

http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html

[F-Liner]

Look at Canham, Chamonix and Phillips (if you can locate one). Also, do a search on the forum...many threads on this subject. Good luck with your quest.

[Mark Woods]

After much thought, I sold my Kodak 2D and bought a Deardorff 8x10 and haven't looked back.

[Ralph Barker]

At the lower end of the budget scale, you might also consider the Tachihara double-extension model. Not as light-weight as some of the more expensive 8x10 field cams, but the build quality is respectable, excellent for the price.

[Richard M. Coda]

Arca-Swiss... $$$

[Robert Fisher]

Richard, Arcas are great $800 cameras.

[Walter Calahan]

My KB Canham lightweight wood 8x10 is about the same weight as my 4x5 Arca-Swiss.

I never carry it, though, I put the backpack I use to store it on a 3-wheel baby jogging stroller to push it around.

[Gem Singer]

Been there, done that.

I finally settled on the 8X10 Canham Traditional (wood). Canham also makes a light weight 8X10 Traditional, but it does not save very much weight.

Tried the all metal 8X10 Canham. it was lighter weight, but I couldn't relate to it's controls.

Last week, I handled a Phillips 8X10, I think it was the "Compact" model. I was surprised how much lighter weight it was, compared to my Canham.

If the Chaminoix 8X10 is similar in weight to the Phillips, that would be the one I would choose if I was contemplating a light weight, reasonably priced 8X10 camera today.

[Gem Singer]

I misspelled "Chamonix". Sorry about that.

[Richard M. Coda]

Richard, Arcas are great $800 cameras.

Where did it say $800?

[Frank Petronio]

You can only have two out of the three desired factors: budget, weight, strength ;-)

It helps to really analyze what you will be doing... everyone says they want a superlight camera but the reality is that if you are going backpacking you're more likely to take the 4x5 anyway, so maybe weight isn't the first or second priority? In which case a heavy but solid and inexpensive monorail is the best bang for the buck. As uncool as they might be....

The metal Toyo 8x10 field is a nice camera, although I remember Chris Jordan complaining that he stripped the focusing gears due to dirt and they were not "economically replaceable".

[Mike Castles]

Richard Ritter makes a nice light 8x10, his website (http://www.lg4mat.net/LFcamera.html)

Also, my Rambles (blog) contains photos (http://mikecastles.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/new-ritter-7x118x10-camera/) and my impression (http://mikecastles.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/ritter-7x118x10-re-visited/) of the camera after using it.

[Jim Rhoades]

Old, heavy, (13lbs.) not so ridgid but the most instinctive and wonderful 8x10 you can find, a V-8 Deardorff.

[Ole Tjugen]

You can only have two out of the three desired factors: budget, weight, strength ;-) ...

Frank is right, pick any two.

Mine is a Gandolfi Traditional. Not the lightest, but far from the heaviest. Not the cheapest, by far. Not the strongest, but very very close. Since I bought it second-hand (and unused, as far as I can see), the price was not too bad. Among wooden cameras I find it difficult to believe that there could be a more stable one which still allows a fair selection of movements - a classic rear-focussing German "Reisekamera" has a more stable front, but no front tilt at all. The weight is as low as it can be while still being strong enough to support a 360mm f:5.6 Symmar - which incidentally weighs almost half as much as the camera.

[bulrich]

Just got a Chamonix 810 and it was tons lighter than my Ebony RW810. Great camera. Even makes me a bit worried it's so light.

[Daniel_Buck]

I've settled down with a Chamonix 4x5 and 8x10 for my backpacking, they are both good cameras and serve my purposes nearly perfect! :-)

[John Brady]

My Ebony slw810 weighs in at 7.5 pounds and is rock solid. Its a non folder but still very compact and simple to use. It doesn't have all the movements of a traditional view camera which is why it is so solid and light. Also it favors wide angle so if you're a tele shooter this won't be the one for you. Not cheap but well worth the investment. For me it is perfection.

www.gladesgallery.com

[Henry Suryo]

Please pardon the shameless plug, but since you ask for suggestions: FS: 8x10 Phillips Explorer (Revised) (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=46002).

Definitely the lightest, smallest, most rigid 8x10 around and I'm certain to regret selling it, but my Deardorff's been with me longer and sadly can't keep both at this time.

[mccormickstudio]

I'll also give kudos to the Chamonix. My backpack with Chamonix 8x10, three lenses (some big), five film holders and misc gear is a manageable 26 pounds, tripod not included. They may currently be on a long lead time - check with Hugo Zhang on this list.

[Bruce Barlow]

"Alice," my Richard Ritter 8x10 (named after one of his cats), weighs a little over 6 pounds, handles like a dream, and makes many more good photographs-per-100 negatives than my Sinar Norma, at half the weight. It's the cat hair inside the bellows from Alice: she slept on them while Richard assembled the carbon fiber and aircraft aluminum bed, cherry back, and front. Cat hair magic.

I wrote a "first impressions" article for View Camera magazine, which you can download from the "Free Downloads" page on my web site, www'circleofthesunproductions.com. Richard's video, "The Richard Ritter Ultra Large Format Camera Owner's Manual" for a measly $15 (including postage to anywhere including Mongolia) is also an excellent introduction to Richard's innovative design, which he uses on his ULFs and his 8x10s.

BTW, I have no financial interest in Richard's camera business. We split profits on the videos, which ain't much. We enjoy teaching workshops together. He is an excellent friend, a true treasure to the LF community, a major innovator in LF tools and cameras. and we enjoy going to breakfast together at the Dam Diner. Pretty good, I'd say.

[MIke Sherck]

Wehman. 8 1/2 lbs, superb quality, solid in use.

Mike

[Jim Rhoades]

Bruce, by any chance are you going to be with Richard at Peter's Valley?

[Michael Nagl]

Wehman. 8 1/2 lbs, superb quality, solid in use.

Mike

Must be joking.
I had one, but not for long. Carelessly built. Impossible to get standards aywhere near parallel. Poorly designed, too. Beware unless you don´t like precision at all.

[MIke Sherck]

Must be joking.
I had one, but not for long. Carelessly built. Impossible to get standards aywhere near parallel. Poorly designed, too. Beware unless you don´t like precision at all.

Really? Mine was wonderful -- solidly built, easy to use and I had no problems with parallelism in any axis. Mine was a 2001 model -- I sold it last spring and am on the list for a new one this year. Can't wait!

Mike

[Michael Nagl]

Yes really. Maybe mine was the special model for overseas shipping.

[Jrewt]

I like my wehman, which is a 2004 or 05 standard model. My standards open up pretty square, but I don't see how that matters exactly. The view camera affords me movements, and I always use them. Do many people actually need an 8x10 to open up perfectly parallel, and then not use any tilt/swing/rise?

[Michael Nagl]

Well I do. I level the base of the tripod, put the Linhof on it and I know the back is the way I always want it: Strictly upright. When I took pictures of buildings with the W. (mine was a 2007 lightweight model) I didn´t get parallel lines in two out of three pictures, which was due to the ridiculous detents, and to the fact that the film plane had about one centimeter of play when locked down. This may be of no consequence when you are out in the wilderness or doing portraits, but it made the camera unusable for my purposes.

[Bruce Barlow]

Bruce, by any chance are you going to be with Richard at Peter's Valley?

Dunno. Haven't thought about it. If lots of you sign up, maybe he'll need me as a gopher. Enrollment is the issue: if it's light, it's Richard's show (ans he did it well by all accounts last year). If it's a stampede, we, who knows? Peters Valley sounds like a great facility that allows us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do (such as stuff in the dark).

So sign up, you new east coast LF-ers!

[Kirk Fry]

5 lb 8x10 back “Lite” $ 1,550.00

http://www.petergowland.com/camera/

The lightest of the light. That is even lighter than my Crown.

K

[jb7]

Richard, Arcas are great $800 cameras.

All this talk about the weight of cameras made me get the scales out-
and I was surprised to find how heavy it was-
it seems lighter, maybe because of it's size-


Arca Irish 8x10* (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=45345) 4,070g, inc. 450mm telescoping rail, without lens or board-

A similar Arca Swiss 8x10 has got to be lighter-
anyone have a weight handy?

Maybe I only have one of the desired factors, budget...
though it seems strong enough, I don't have anything to compare it to-


joseph

[John O'Connell]

5 lb 8x10 back “Lite” $ 1,550.00

I have the highest respect for Gowland cameras, as an owner, but I think using a Gowland 8x10 is quite a different experience than a metal Toyo 4x5. If you're coming from a Toyo 4x5 and want a similar experience in 8x10, you're not going to get it from the Gowland---you need to be comfortable working without features like detents or captive bolts.

[JasonC]

A 7.5lb (3.4kg) 8x10.

http://www.toho-machine.co.jp/FC-810.htm

Jason.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the highest respect for Gowland cameras, as an owner, but I think using a Gowland 8x10 is quite a different experience than a metal Toyo 4x5. If you're coming from a Toyo 4x5 and want a similar experience in 8x10, you're not going to get it from the Gowland---you need to be comfortable working without features like detents or captive bolts.

As another Gowland 8x10" user, I agree, it's not for everyone.

[AJ Edmondson]

The Wista Wood Field (dbl ext) isn't too heavy and seems to be solid enough. I am not particularly fond of the necessity to use both hands for moving the rear standard (swing is achieved by moving each side) and the front standard can be somewhat awkward (disengage the bottom of the lensboard to achieve tilt) but I still prefer it to the old Kodak or the Calumet C which I used for years!

[Ole Tjugen]

... Mine is a Gandolfi Traditional. Not the lightest, but far from the heaviest. ...
It weighs in at 4140g. Far lighter than I would have thought, compared to the "superlights"! I won't be swapping that camera for anything else.

On another note, my 24x30cm plate camera weighs 4280g. That weight is including the huge universal iris lens mount. And it has 85cm bellows, reducing inserts for the plate holders down to 18x24, 13x18, 10x15, 9x12 and even 6.5x9cm. I must try the 640mm Suter Aplanat on 6.5x9cm some day...

[David Finch]

I have a Kodak Master. It isn't light, it has no brand cachet, and it sure isn't pretty in either the Deardorff/Ebony or the Phillips/Chamonix sense. But it's a great camera in the field: rock-solid, easy-to-use, reliable. Put it on a Majestic tripod and head, stick on a 7 1/2" Wide Field or 12" Commercial Ektar, put it in the back of your '47 Chrysler Woodie, and go out and make real pictures.

[tim loose]

I would vote for the Phillips. It is a very solid, lightweight camera which has done well by me. I have one of the early Compacts (#52) and love it. Hard to get lighter. The other good thing is that its value keeps rising. Although I don't intend to give it up my heirs will appreciate it.

[Ben Syverson]

I would double check the alignment for each setup anyway, so I don't mind leveling the Gowland each time I use it. It only eats up about 30 seconds...

[Scott Davis]

I've got a Zone VI Ultralight (about the same weight as a Canham 8x10 wood field camera) which is a terrific camera. I'm just not using it now - I've become rather fond of other formats/proportions and it is gathering dust. If you're interested, let me know and we can talk about price and package options.

[Martin Aislabie]

Have you considered the Walker 10x8 Tital XL ? - http://www.walkercameras.com/XL_8x10.html

Martin

[John O'Connell]

One point often made in these "lightweight" 8x10 threads is that the lightweight cameras don't affect the weight of the kit very much. Each filmholder weighs ~22 oz. Small 8x10 lenses are usually in No. 1 shutters, rather than No. 0 shutters. Tripod preferences vary, but the smallest tripod/head setup I use with 8x10 weighs about 6#.

Back when I had two lenses, my 8x10 kit weighed about 40#. My camera weighs 9#. So even if I switched to a Black Beast, my kit would only have increased in weight to 49#. In other words, camera weight isn't very material in 8x10.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If I want, I can get the 8x10" Gowland kit with tripod down to around 18 lbs. with tripod, maybe a little less now that I'm using Mido holders, but I tend just to carry more film.

To go as light as possible, I limit myself to wide-normal lenses, so I can leave the extension rail at home and use a lighter tripod (a small Linhof Report), usually without a head, which is fine for landscapes, or I can add an Acratech leveling head or Acratech ball head, if I think I'll need it. The standard Blackjacket is a real weight saver over a traditional darkcloth. I've got some compact lenses or a Busch Vademecum set that I can use with the ultralight kit. For filters I bring 3" gels and a clip-on gel holder with barndoors. The Digisix meter and some intuition and experience usually are enough to get exposure and development times where I want them. It all fits in a knapsack designed for laptop computers.

[Ben Syverson]

Camera weight really does matter, because it cascades down to a lot of your other gear. A lighter camera means a smaller ballhead. It means a lighter tripod. It means you can use a light-duty bag to carry it.

I haven't weighed my field setup, but to estimate... It would be 6 lbs for the Gowland and lens, 2.5 lbs for the tripod and ballhead, and then maybe 3.5 lbs for two holders. That gives me an estimated total of 12 pounds... It feels just about the same as when I have my laptop and DSLR in my bag.