help choosing an 8x10

Hiya all, I'm looking at buying another lighter 8x10" camera without going completely overboard with the price. I am using a 8x10" Korona at the moment but that thing is a sumo, a real nightmare to schlep about.

Would gravitate instantly to a Chamonix, owning a 4x5 version and loving it, but don't really want to pay close to 3k with postage and duties. Have seen how difficult it is to get one 2nd hand here too!

So I'm now looking at a Gibellini WAN and a Svedovsky. Both a similar weight and price. Prefer the more classic look of the latter but realize it has no rear swing. Does this really matter when the front has swing?

Anything else I should consider? Other camera options in the $2000 and lower range?

Cheers, Gareth

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...0+Field+Camera

Thanks, i imagined it had been covered!

FWIW, Koronas tend to be on the lighter end of the spectrum for the chosen format.

Actually you're totally right. Just had it on the scales.

I thought it was going to be a big difference but it's exactly the same. 5kg :| Something had convinced me it was a lot heavier than the other two cameras I mentioned.

Maybe I don't need an upgrade afterall. Or are the other two cameras going to be a lot more rigid? Bearing in mind I now use manfrotto long lens supports that lock things up which I previously never.

Just saw a great mod on the thread you sent linked too.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ard-conversion

https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/product...id-8x10-camera

Worth a look, but they are at least a 12 week lead time.

Was also thinking intrepid until I was told any camera under 3.5kg will struggle with vibration. Is this really true? The wait is not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman

Was also thinking intrepid until I was told any camera under 3.5kg will struggle with vibration. Is this really true? The wait is not a problem.

---

It all depends on how windy it is. Wind vibrates bellows like crazy especially if you have it stretched out very far.

The Ritter weighs 6.4 lbs. My Wehman weighs 8.7 lbs. The lightweight Wehman weighed 7.2 lbs. The Wehman is no longer made. Used Wehmans and Ritters are hard to find. Chamonix 8x10's are a little heavier I believe and are also hard to find used.

It's definitely a trade off going with a lightweight 8x10 camera but I can't carry around a metal Toyo. :)

I use two of these on the front and back rail of my 5x7 and 11x14 cameras. It really seems to help keep everything rigid at long extentions. I have never tried them outside in the wind though. Has been so long since I've shot 8x10 sheet film. It's always wet plate portraits indoors.

http://whitemetal.com/canon/long_lens_support/index.htm

I've also got the Brubaker wind stabilizer kit.

http://www.filmholders.com/wskit.html

Supports are nice. I don't have anything like that but I don't shoot 8x10 if it is very windy. There is a lot of stuff to block the wind around here too. I used to do some architectural sheet metal. It could be fine on the ground but when you were atop a large building it could be quite windy. I remember strong breezes blowing foam roofing insulation all over! Wide open spaces can be rough for 8x10 too. ;)

I think for the price it could be worth just taking a punt on the intrepid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman

I think for the price it could be worth just taking a punt on the intrepid

---

The Intrepid people were on APUG asking opinions before they made their first 4x5. I told them that a budget lightweight 8x10 would be interesting because there is no real competition (price wise) with the used market. Their 4x5's are receiving great reviews. If the 8x10 is like their 4x5 cameras then it could be a great deal. I paid $1500 for my used Wehman and the last ones I seen sold were in the $2000 range. Used Ritters and Chamonixs go for more.

Could always visit Brighton to take a good look at one too

Century Universals are pretty light. Lighter than 'dorff V8s anyway

You've already been given some good answers, but let me chime in.

I've owned 4 8x10 cameras - in this order:

Gundlach Korona (similar to Kodak 2D) --- Kodak Century Universal --- Wista (Tachihara) double-extension --- Wehman "Ultralight"

The Korona was actually kind of light, as you've discovered. The Kodak was nice in terms of capabilities but was so heavy. The Wista I bought thinking it was lighter but ended up not being lighter and I decided I didn't like the paper bellows anyway. And finally...the Wehman is perfect for me since I tend to hike long distances. The Wehman is one of only a few "swiss-cheese" models with holes bored out on the bed. Since the extension /cover can be removed and I rarely use longer than a 300mm it is really lightweight at 6.25 pounds. That's almost half the weight of the Wista I had previously. I am able to hoof it farther and with less effort, giving me more opportunity to actually photograph.

You haven't mentioned what you are shooting. You said something about indoor wetplates? Is that what this camera is for? If so, out of the cameras I've had, I would recommend the Kodak Century Universal. It's a little cheaper than modern cameras (under $1000 or maybe a bit more now, haven't checked), is rigid and has lots of extension for closer focusing. For landscape it's the Wehman 100%. Even the "normal" non ultralight one, since you aren't likely to get the UL camera from me or the few other people that own one!

The Intrepid is also very interesting. I'm trying to get my hands on the 4x5 model to try, but haven't yet. The weight for the 8x10 is seriously impressive, as well as the 4x5. And of course the price is good. I would consider getting on their wait list and just use your Korona until you get it. At worst you can resell it for not much less than you got it for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

You've already been given some good answers, but let me chime in.

I've owned 4 8x10 cameras - in this order:

Gundlach Korona (similar to Kodak 2D) --- Kodak Century Universal --- Wista (Tachihara) double-extension --- Wehman "Ultralight"

The Korona was actually kind of light, as you've discovered. The Kodak was nice in terms of capabilities but was so heavy. The Wista I bought thinking it was lighter but ended up not being lighter and I decided I didn't like the paper bellows anyway. And finally...the Wehman is perfect for me since I tend to hike long distances. The Wehman is one of only a few "swiss-cheese" models with holes bored out on the bed. Since the extension /cover can be removed and I rarely use longer than a 300mm it is really lightweight at 6.25 pounds. That's almost half the weight of the Wista I had previously. I am able to hoof it farther and with less effort, giving me more opportunity to actually photograph.

You haven't mentioned what you are shooting. You said something about indoor wetplates? Is that what this camera is for? If so, out of the cameras I've had, I would recommend the Kodak Century Universal. It's a little cheaper than modern cameras (under $1000 or maybe a bit more now, haven't checked), is rigid and has lots of extension for closer focusing. For landscape it's the Wehman 100%. Even the "normal" non ultralight one, since you aren't likely to get the UL camera from me or the few other people that own one!

The Intrepid is also very interesting. I'm trying to get my hands on the 4x5 model to try, but haven't yet. The weight for the 8x10 is seriously impressive, as well as the 4x5. And of course the price is good. I would consider getting on their wait list and just use your Korona until you get it. At worst you can resell it for not much less than you got it for.

---

Thanks for the reply.

I will be using it for both indoor wetplate and landscapes, but mostly I am buying to get back into 8x10" film for plt/pd contact prints

I never take the 8x10" Korona out as I find it too heavy and cumbersome. Especially as the Lowepro backpack I've got to carry it in is an absolute monster too. I'm glad I was alerted to the fact that the Korona is virtually the same weight as a Gibellini, Svedoksky or even a Chamonix. Could have spent a lot of money and discovered the camera was no lighter!

When I do wetplate on loacation with my darkbox and flash units I am using a 5x7" Korona and a Dallmeyer 6D. Absolutely love this combination and the results I am getting with it. However the Korona is starting to fall apart and am on the look out for another 5x7" in better condition. At home I've stopped using my 8x10 for portraiture as my other brass lens doesn't seem to pick up the same amount of texture, not sure why that is. Less DOF imaginably. I've been meaning to try the dallmeyer on whole plate and 8x10" but haven't got round to it yet with it being stuck on a 5x7" korona lens board.

I agree with all the points you raised about the Intrepid. I actually placed an order for one earlier today! I'm really hoping they bring out a 5x7 reducing back too! Then I can use it for both formats of film. Love them 5x7" contact prints too. Also means I can use the ready modified 5x7" film holders i have for wet plate and can use the dallmeyer on both formats without switching lens boards or getting an adaptor board made. yay!

Sounds like a good match for you, especially the reducing back (I am sure you could have one made by someone even if Intrepid don't make one, though that'd be a smart idea, maybe send them a message?).

Have sent them a message on their Facebook page! Requested a 4x10" back too! agreed one could be made easily enough though.

Now only if they made a 11x14"that's lighter than my 11x14" 2-D!

Not shabby for around 5lbs rig, tho it may not have the finesse of some other models available.

http://vdscamera.com/en/letoltheto-i.../termekleiras/

.....Aaand you can get a 5x7 or 4x5 reducer.

Les

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leszek Vogt

http://vdscamera.com/en/letoltheto-i.../termekleiras/

---

The pics under the 8x10 section show two very different cameras. I don't know anything about these, have you used them?

Edit: Found a bit here on the forum by a member/sales agent that I don't really trust. Later comments revealed possible issues with the bellows leaking light.

I assume the older photos are of a "prototype." Newer photo looks like basically a Tachihara rehash with some weight-reducing features. Price seems high to me. But that's just my opinion. I wonder if anyone is actively using this camera on the forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman;1415

..........................

I've also got the Brubaker wind stabilizer kit.

[url

http://www.filmholders.com/wskit.html[/url]

---

I think I have mentioned this before but the Brubaker "invention" is a poor imitation of a device that was used on many Continental travel cameras from the 1890's onwards - those bigger than 13x18. I have original fittings on two of my cameras. Note that these were fitted on both sides of standards. Very effective in windy conditions! Now these cameras are tailboard types, so the standards/base and rods form a very stable square. The Brubaker system will not provide real bracing and rigidity!

I have been doing some backpacking with a 5x7 camera (1400 gram including lens) in pretty rough terrain, and unless you go all ultralight, carbon tripod, drilled-through filmholders etc ... :) my own experience is that the weight of the camera is not going to change the game if you are going to have to schlepp around a dark box for wetplates, or a big honking tripod (like I did), for example.

Start at the other end - what changes can you make in how you carry the stuff?

Hi Steven, I'm glad you said this. I was thinking that the bracing would be better on both sides of the camera. I was very disappointed with what I got for the money in all honesty. It seems to make some marginal difference but nothing close to the manfrotto tripod support.

Could you post a picture of your original fittings?

Many thanks,
Gareth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimi

I have been doing some backpacking with a 5x7 camera (1400 gram including lens) in pretty rough terrain, and unless you go all ultralight, carbon tripod, drilled-through filmholders etc ... :) my own experience is that the weight of the camera is not going to change the game if you are going to have to schlepp around a dark box for wetplates, or a big honking tripod (like I did), for example.

Start at the other end - what changes can you make in how you carry the stuff?

---

Hi Jimi, I've got a really sturdy carbon fibre gitzo with a large base plate that is absolutely no problem to carry by hand. I mentioned I am buying this primarily for film use, albeit I will use it for wetplate too in which case it won't be carried for long distances from the car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman

/.../ I mentioned I am buying this primarily for film use, albeit I will use it for wetplate too in which case it won't be carried for long distances from the car.

---

All good - it will be interesting to see what you end up with. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimi

All good - it will be interesting to see what you end up with. :)

---

An intrepid, I just hope it's sturdy! Won't feel too precious about modding it though.

anyone know where I can get one of these style tripod fittings from....

Attachment 171895

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman

anyone know where I can get one of these style tripod fittings from....

Attachment 171895

---

Try eBay item number 291667430276.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lachlan 717

Try eBay item number 291667430276.

---

For many applications a common T-nut available at any hardware store for less than a dollar will suffice. They come in several styles and in the sizes for standard tripod screws. Some can also be mounted on the inside of the camera, which is much stronger than that ebay item which depends on three tiny screws to hold the camera on the tripod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

For many applications a common T-nut available at any hardware store for less than a dollar will suffice. They come in several styles and in the sizes for standard tripod screws. Some can also be mounted on the inside of the camera, which is much stronger than that ebay item which depends on three tiny screws to hold the camera on the tripod.

---

I saw that the end was blocked. I was going to lathe the end cap off so as to all's it to be used "upside down".

Even used the right way up, it should hold okay. I'd never only use the screws; there'd be a decent glue used as well. That would make it as strong as the timber. This would be fine for an extension arm application, but I'd never use it for 8x10+ cameras.

Is the US thread the same as the standard tripod threads? I have an idea that the tripod is a standard 1/4 or 3/8 Whitworth, where the nearest equivalent US threads would be UNC? My thought would be 'fits but not quite right'.

Life would be so much easier if everything were metric, but I guess it's too late for that...

Neil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman

Hi Steven, I'm glad you said this. I was thinking that the bracing would be better on both sides of the camera. I was very disappointed with what I got for the money in all honesty. It seems to make some marginal difference but nothing close to the manfrotto tripod support.

Could you post a picture of your original fittings?

Many thanks,
Gareth

---

Here are two of my 18x24cm tailboard cameras with the original (extra equipment!) mounted. Originally these were supplied with bronze rods. I have experimented with both new bronze rods and with aluminium hollow rods -which work just as well and are easily availble in the right (metric) size. To be effective, the front standard has to be the same width as the the rear standard, unless you can design some kind of universal joint!

I can see that that a good many of my UK cameras could also accept these fittings, although I have never seen them mounted.
The shown fitments are on both sides of the standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnacle

Is the US thread the same as the standard tripod threads? I have an idea that the tripod is a standard 1/4 or 3/8 Whitworth, where the nearest equivalent US threads would be UNC? My thought would be 'fits but not quite right'.

Life would be so much easier if everything were metric, but I guess it's too late for that...

Neil

---

The American ASA specification published in 1952 for 1/4 and 3/8 tripod screws was for UNC-1A threads. If England specified Whitworth threads, us photographers might never notice.

Thanks, that's great.

So if I bought another wind stabilizer *groan* and attached them either side it would work much better like this? Maybe there is a way of making one a lot cheaper.

best,
Gareth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvman

Thanks, that's great.

So if I bought another wind stabilizer *groan* and attached them either side it would work much better like this? Maybe there is a way of making one a lot cheaper.

best,
Gareth

---

To cut down on wind you can also sometimes shoot from inside a tent or possibly even the back of your vehicle if you own an suv or van. I've never done it but I have seen pictures of photographers in wide open spaces doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

The American ASA specification published in 1952 for 1/4 and 3/8 tripod screws was for UNC-1A threads. If England specified Whitworth threads, us photographers might never notice.

---

I think the BSP specified Whitworth, but I don't know when. The difference in the thread forms is tiny. As you said, perhaps a difference without a distinction for all practical purposes.

Neil