PDA

View Full Version : Chamonix 45N-2 coming



olwick
1-Jan-2010, 13:59
FYI: I sent a mail to Hugo Zhang (Chamonix) asking about 45N-1 availability as well as the focus problem that some have reported. Here was his response:


Or you can wait for our 45N-2 cameras which will come out in 8-10 weeks which will fix the problem. 45n-2 is improved version and will be more expensive and weight a little more too.

Currently we have only 45n-1 in maple left. We will have some 45n-2 in teak. The factory has run out of walnut wood.

Apologies if this has been mentioned before. I'm just about to move into Large Format and have been using the search function to read through hundreds of previous posts. I'm impresssed by this community.

Thanks,

Mark

John NYC
1-Jan-2010, 17:24
Is Hugo coming out with an updated 8x10 also?

olwick
1-Jan-2010, 17:26
Is Hugo coming out with an updated 8x10 also?

I don't know. I didn't ask about that.

Mark

John NYC
1-Jan-2010, 17:54
Does anyone know if the current 8x10 has the same focus issues as the 45n-1?

lilmsmaggie
1-Jan-2010, 20:27
"45n-2 is improved version and will be more expensive and weight a little more too."

Kinda vague. Did Hugo give some indication as to how much the new 45n-2 camera would cost?

olwick
1-Jan-2010, 20:31
The quote I posted was pretty much the entire e-mail. He didn't include any more details.

Songyun
1-Jan-2010, 20:31
Does anyone know if the current 8x10 has the same focus issues as the 45n-1?
Oh, no ... again... quick answer NO.

John NYC
1-Jan-2010, 20:38
Oh, no ... again... quick answer NO.

That thread on the 45n-1 focus problem was really annoying to the participants it was clear by reading it. And if the 8x10 had the same... er, let's call it design decision or not was also not clear to me. So, just to be clear, you are saying the same "design decision" was not made in the 8x10?

Ulrich Drolshagen
2-Jan-2010, 02:11
That thread on the 45n-1 focus problem was really annoying to the participants it was clear by reading it. And if the 8x10 had the same... er, let's call it design decision or not was also not clear to me. So, just to be clear, you are saying the same "design decision" was not made in the 8x10?
I don't have an 8x10 but I was following the threads too. It was said several times that the 8x10 doesn't have a fresnel lens. So it can by definition not suffer from the same design decision.

Ulrich

John NYC
2-Jan-2010, 17:35
I don't have an 8x10 but I was following the threads too. It was said several times that the 8x10 doesn't have a fresnel lens. So it can by definition not suffer from the same design decision.

Ulrich

Thanks, I didn't see that mentioned in the thread. I was skimming for 8x10 info and must have missed it. I did not want to read the whole thing; can you blame me?

Hugo also just sent me a PM saying basically the same thing as you said here.

Pavel+
4-Jan-2010, 07:38
No hint of what the differences in features and prices may be?

john wood
6-Jan-2010, 20:00
Hugo emailed me, saying it will cost 'around 10% more' (than 45N-1).

GPS
7-Jan-2010, 11:45
FYI: I sent a mail to Hugo Zhang (Chamonix) asking about 45N-1 availability as well as the focus problem that some have reported. Here was his response:

"Or you can wait for our 45N-2 cameras which will come out in 8-10 weeks which will fix the problem. 45n-2 is improved version and will be more expensive and weight a little more too."

Apologies if this has been mentioned before. I'm just about to move into Large Format and have been using the search function to read through hundreds of previous posts. I'm impresssed by this community.

Thanks,

Mark


Hugo emailed me, saying it will cost 'around 10% more' (than 45N-1).

On Chamonix official site, from the "old" famous explanation about the focusing error in their 45N-1 camera:
...We have done repeated tests with this method and the result is very satisfactory. The small hole will not interfere with your composition on the ground glass and will easily prevent possible focus shift.
For all 45N-1 camera users, I sincerely apologize for this design error caused by my improper judgment. This warns us to be more careful in future and we will fix this error. For future 45n models, this 16mm hole on the Fresnel lens will be standard.
Hass

I sincerely hope that the new Chamonix 45N-2 camera model will have a better solution
to the now famous problem than a 16mm hole on the Fresnel. For the 10% price increase sake at least, if not for other reasons...:) ;)

Daniel_Buck
7-Jan-2010, 11:54
hm... I guess I've never encountered this focusing problem.

Vlad Soare
7-Jan-2010, 23:14
Many other users haven't. It only shows with certain lenses, and only under certain circumstances. As far as I'm concerned, since I never liked Fresnel focusing screens, I've removed mine. Fortunately, the 45n-1 comes with a removable Fresnel lens, unlike some of the other cameras. I would have removed it anyway, focus shift or no focus shift. So now I couldn't care less about this "problem". :p
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that people who have never owned or used a Chamonix are more outraged by this "problem" than actual users. Strange, isn't it? :confused:

John NYC
8-Jan-2010, 05:21
Many other users haven't. It only shows with certain lenses, and only under certain circumstances. As far as I'm concerned, since I never liked Fresnel focusing screens, I've removed mine. Fortunately, the 45n-1 comes with a removable Fresnel lens, unlike some of the other cameras. I would have removed it anyway, focus shift or no focus shift. So now I couldn't care less about this "problem". :p
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that people who have never owned or used a Chamonix are more outraged by this "problem" than actual users. Strange, isn't it? :confused:

I don't think this thread shows any outrage about it; but the other big one was definitely a tough read, which is why I missed the point I was looking for. I was curious because I am about to buy an 8x10 and I wanted to consider that in my process if it affected the 8x10. It certainly might not have been a deal-breaker for me though, since I don't use a fresnel on my 4x5.

Vlad Soare
8-Jan-2010, 06:05
I don't think this thread shows any outrage about it
Indeed, this doesn't. I was referring to all threads on this subject, not particularly to this one. :)
Luckily, the ground glass of the Chamonix sits in its own groove, so you can remove the Fresnel lens without affecting the position of the GG, and thus without affecting the focusing accuracy.

David Aimone
13-Jan-2010, 14:54
Well, I did it. I put myself down for a 45N-2. It's my first LF camera. It will be an adventure, won't it?

So, I do have a Rodenstock 150mm lens, but I'd also like a 90mm for the Chamonix. Any recommendations on good, affordable and fairly light???

David Aimone Photography (http://davidaimone.zenfolio.com)

SW Rick
13-Jan-2010, 15:05
Take a look at the Caltar (Calumet) lenses- rebadged Rodenstocks that sell used for a heck of a lot less than comparable quality lenses. I have a 90mm 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon-N MC, which I use with my 45N-1 and love, but would have gone for the Caltar version if one had been available (and saved a good amount of money).

Lachlan 717
13-Jan-2010, 15:33
Take a look at the Caltar (Calumet) lenses- rebadged Rodenstocks that sell used for a heck of a lot less than comparable quality lenses. I have a 90mm 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon-N MC, which I use with my 45N-1 and love, but would have gone for the Caltar version if one had been available (and saved a good amount of money).

I really don't get buying expensive cameras and then putting cheap lenses on them. Seems to me like it should be the other way around... Especially with your first LF camera.

It smacks somewhat of DSLRs with kit lenses to me.

Robert Hughes
13-Jan-2010, 15:45
I really don't get buying expensive cameras and then putting cheap lenses on them.
I prefer cheap cameras with cheap lenses - fewer LPM's but more character! :cool:

Rick Moore
13-Jan-2010, 16:10
I really don't get buying expensive cameras and then putting cheap lenses on them. Seems to me like it should be the other way around... Especially with your first LF camera.

It smacks somewhat of DSLRs with kit lenses to me.

The Rodenstock Caltar-N lenses are the same lenses as those sold by Rodenstock as Sironar-N and Grandagon-N. Only the name and the price are different.

David Aimone
13-Jan-2010, 16:25
There are a couple of version of Caltar 90mm on KEH...from $225 to $489, with slightly different configurations. That's about the same as most of the Grandagons on there...well maybe slightly lower.

Then, I've heard the Nikkor f/8 is lighter (if you can deal with the darker viewfinder).

Ah, decisions... anyway, I have time until the 45N-2 ships...

Lachlan 717
13-Jan-2010, 16:25
The Rodenstock Caltar-N lenses are the same lenses as those sold by Rodenstock as Sironar-N and Grandagon-N. Only the name and the price are different.

Depends who you believe. I frankly don't believe that they are; I doubt that the Quality checks were anywhere near as tough if they came from the same production line. Simple economics tell you this would be the case if they are to be sold cheaper.

I am more likely to believe that they are the result of Rodenstock's regular QC programme rejecting inferior quality glass and putting them into rebranded shells.

I doubt that there is a huge issue with these lenses (the glass would have been recycled if there was too great an issue), but I don't think they are as good as a [badged] Rodenstock.

And, as such, still don't understand why you'd buy an expensive camera and put inferior/cheap glass on it.

Songyun
13-Jan-2010, 16:49
I really don't get buying expensive cameras and then putting cheap lenses on them. Seems to me like it should be the other way around... Especially with your first LF camera.

It smacks somewhat of DSLRs with kit lenses to me.

What lens do you think could match that camera? :D

Songyun
13-Jan-2010, 16:52
Depends who you believe. I frankly don't believe that they are; I doubt that the Quality checks were anywhere near as tough if they came from the same production line. Simple economics tell you this would be the case if they are to be sold cheaper.

I am more likely to believe that they are the result of Rodenstock's regular QA programme rejecting inferior quality glass and putting them into rebranded shells.

I doubt that there is a huge issue with these lenses (the glass would have been recycled if there was too great an issue), but I don't think they are as good as a [badged] Rodenstock.

And, as such, still don't understand why you'd buy an expensive camera and put inferior/cheap glass on it.

So you mean Sinaron would be better?

Brian Ellis
13-Jan-2010, 17:16
Depends who you believe. I frankly don't believe that they are; I doubt that the Quality checks were anywhere near as tough if they came from the same production line. Simple economics tell you this would be the case if they are to be sold cheaper.

I am more likely to believe that they are the result of Rodenstock's regular QA programme rejecting inferior quality glass and putting them into rebranded shells.

I doubt that there is a huge issue with these lenses (the glass would have been recycled if there was too great an issue), but I don't think they are as good as a [badged] Rodenstock.

And, as such, still don't understand why you'd buy an expensive camera and put inferior/cheap glass on it.

Do you have anything to back up your speculation? Nothing I've read, including a series of articles by Lynn Jones in View Camera magazine some years back and another by Kerry Thalman that gives the provenance of each model of Caltar lenses (Schneider, Rodenstock or Komamura, depending on who had the contracts in what years) has ever said anything that would support your speculation. All I've read has indicated that the only difference is the brand name.

But Lynn participates here, perhaps he'll chime in and provide more information. However, until he or someone else in a position comparable to his tells us that Caltars are in fact Rodenstock or Schneider rejects, I think it's safe to assume that's incorrect.

Lachlan 717
13-Jan-2010, 17:26
What lens do you think could match that camera? :D

My point is in relation to having many cheaper, yet just as adequate, cameras to buy (especially as a first LF camera) and then seeking cheap lenses for it. It is not
directly related to Caltar lenses.

Darin Boville
13-Jan-2010, 17:43
Why not just test the lens you have? It seems obvious from reading threads here over the years that the QC variation in LF lenses is (ahem) large--no doubt dwarfing any theories about "rejects" being recycled into Caltars.

I have a mix of Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikkor, Fujinon, and a Caltar, too. All is well.

--Darin

SW Rick
13-Jan-2010, 20:52
I really don't get buying expensive cameras and then putting cheap lenses on them. Seems to me like it should be the other way around... Especially with your first LF camera.

It smacks somewhat of DSLRs with kit lenses to me.


The question was what lens might be affordable, light, etc. I made a reply to that question. Affordable does not mean cheap, and expensive does not mean quality.

What is there about many like you on this forum who go on the attack and denigrate something you obviously know little or nothing about? Speculate all you want and pay twice what is necessary if that makes you happy. If you need to be seen using the "finest brands", go to it.

Lachlan 717
13-Jan-2010, 21:14
What is there about many like you on this forum who go on the attack and denigrate something you obviously know little or nothing about? Speculate all you want and pay twice what is necessary if that makes you happy. If you need to be seen using the "finest brands", go to it.

Intersting tactic of going on the attack and denigrating me by accusing me of going on the attack and denigrating others.

Also interesting that you accuse me knowing little or nothing without providing any evidence that you actually do.

Finally, if you took some time to consider what I had written, you might see that I was questioning someone buying an expensive camera as his first LF camera. You
might so take some rime to read some of my other posts where I suggest buying the best glass you can afford rather than spending it on the camera and realise that I am far from a camera Narcicist.

D. Bryant
14-Jan-2010, 12:22
I am more likely to believe that they are the result of Rodenstock's regular QC programme rejecting inferior quality glass and putting them into rebranded shells.


And, as such, still don't understand why you'd buy an expensive camera and put inferior/cheap glass on it.

Based on my experience with Caltar lenses your statements are way of the mark, to put it politely.

Don Bryant

Lachlan 717
14-Jan-2010, 12:51
Based on my experience with Caltar lenses your statements are way of the mark, to put it politely.

Don Bryant

Way of, or way off, to ask politely?

D. Bryant
14-Jan-2010, 13:55
Way of, or way off, to ask politely?

Sorry - way off!

Don Bryant

Lachlan 717
14-Jan-2010, 14:39
Sorry - way off!

Don Bryant

No worries, Don.

I guess that my opinion of these lenses has somewhat fogged my main point, that being that I don't understand putting more emphasis on the box than on the glass.

If that can be addresses, good. If others still want to contest my opinion on lens quality, so be it. It's just an opinion (possibly like the OP's thoughts on what's important to him!!).

CarstenW
14-Jan-2010, 14:39
How can I buy a Chamonix from Germany, only directly from http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/?

Lachlan 717
14-Jan-2010, 14:41
How can I buy a Chamonix from Germany, does anyone know?

Perhaps this will help:

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/faq.html

CarstenW
14-Jan-2010, 14:52
Perhaps this will help:

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/faq.html

Thanks, missed that on first glance.

D. Bryant
14-Jan-2010, 19:00
No worries, Don.

I guess that my opinion of these lenses has somewhat fogged my main point, that being that I don't understand putting more emphasis on the box than on the glass.

If that can be addresses, good. If others still want to contest my opinion on lens quality, so be it. It's just an opinion (possibly like the OP's thoughts on what's important to him!!).

Well I know from experience that the Caltar MCs are excellent products and it's impossible to tell the differnce in the output of the branded versions when working in the field.

I don't think one is diminishing the emphasis on quality glass by purchasing modern Caltar lenses.

Don

bhampson
23-Jan-2010, 12:39
Back to the 45N-2....

Does anyone know if Hugo is away? I don't seem to be getting any replies to my emails requesting purchase information.

Sorry if this is not in the correct place in the forum.

Bradley

lilmsmaggie
23-Jan-2010, 14:10
Back to the 45N-2....

Does anyone know if Hugo is away? I don't seem to be getting any replies to my emails requesting purchase information.

Sorry if this is not in the correct place in the forum.

Bradley

I heard from him about two weeks ago. He usually responds very quickly to inquiries.

hugoz_2000@yahoo.com Maybe he just a bit busy at the moment. I'd try him again.

bhampson
23-Jan-2010, 15:25
Thanks Maggs :)

Will try him again when I get back in town next week.

gregvds
25-Jan-2010, 06:03
Any news, any pics of this new 45N-2??

I'm highly interested. It could be also very interesting if Chamonix would offer a front and/or back upgrade...

David Aimone
25-Jan-2010, 07:12
Hugo is around. I believe early to mid March release, about the same size and weight, and about 10% more in price. Other than that, patience at this point...



:cool:

Cymen
26-Jan-2010, 13:54
Hugo is around. I believe early to mid March release, about the same size and weight, and about 10% more in price. Other than that, patience at this point...

:cool:

His reply to me had everything in the thread so far but mentioned slightly heavier too. I decided on a wood and metal color combination for a 45N-1 but I waited too long so I'm on the list for a 45N-2. For anyone who is curious, there are still some 45N-1 available with maple and not sure what metal color(s).