Printable View
Looks like I missed a recent opportunity to buy a 7x17 camera on this Forum, and now I am thinking to get a Chamonix 7x17 or 8x20 as I plan to visit Beijing this summer. Has anyone tried Chamonix 7x17 or 8x20 camera? Any feedbacks on their rigidity, min/max extension, dimension, weight and etc. shall be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
If I remember correctly, Hugo has a 7X17.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ling Z
Not sure if you know/if you're interested; however, Shen Hao makes a 7x17.
You can find details HERE.
Lachlan.
Just curious, what is the allure in a 7X17 image or an 8X20 one? I love the panoramic look, but 7X17 (more like 6.625 by 16.625) seems tiny on the 6.6" side by comparison to the much longer 16.625 end. I'm sure it looks fabulous on the wall, but just seems like one shooting such an expensive piece of gear for only a 6.625" (exposed) height doesn't make a lot of sense. Hopefully I get to see some contacts of this size, but curious.
Did you ever see a movie in Cinemascope? That's 2.35:1. 7x17 is very similar at 2.43:1. The shape relates well to some subject matter and compositions. Obviously it won't work for all compositions, but it does for a lot and it's a much different look than more common "squarer" formats. The 7" dimension may be "tiny" compared to some formats, but it's the overall image that counts. And it's a format which remains reasonably portable. In the end either you like it or you don't.
Well, if you ever get to the southwest, phoenix, Arizona area, feel free to look me up for 7x17...the prints are better, much better in person than on the web, but you can get somewhat of an idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by audioexcels
You answered your own question. They have a lovely presence. 7X17 handles very much like an 8X10. They're not hard to work with. An 8X20 though only a percentage bigger is more like an 11X14 to handle. And a 12X20 is a 14X17. No way around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by audioexcels
I started ULF 18 months ago with an old 9 1/2 x 20" camera and some 8x20 reducing back. That camera's rail was broken so now I use a Chamonix 7x17 which is 1/2 the weight and truly a pleasure to use. But somehow I miss the feeling of holding a 8x20 negative in my hands. Luckily Chamonix is making a replacement 9 1/2 x 20" camera for me.
I know I would be perfectly happy with a 7x17 if I had not touched a 8x20 first, the way I was happy with my Arca 4x5 before I touched that old Wista 8x10.
My 7x17 will be sold with some holders and leftover films when my 8x20 arrives.
And your 8X20 will be sold when your new 12X20 arrives. :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hugo Zhang
Seriously why not 12X20 with 8X20 back?
Songyun,
The next one is a 16x20. That will be my last one too. I can always have 12x20 and 14x17 backs with it:)
Hugo