Printable View
I have a 4x5 and 8x10 Chamonix and love the quality, craftsmanship, ease of use, light weight, and price of their cameras. I am now preparing to buy their 16x20 with a 14x17 reducing back for the very reason you are considering their 16x20 with an 11x14 back. You can't go wrong with Chamonix. Hugo Zhang is great to work with, and Chamonix ships immediately.
But, I don't play the Lottery!
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Vinnedge
If you enjoy the Deardorff "feel" I echo the sentiment that it is a nice idea to "upsize" from a V8 to a V11. That said I have found that my V11 is really too big and heavy for the kind of things that I used my 8x10 for so it isn't exactly a straight swap. Many of the newer 11x14s (Chamonix springs to mind) are considerably lighter so might be a better bet if you are wanting to be at all portable. They might even end up cheaper due to the scarceness of V11s.......
V11s do use the same lens boards as the V8, or at least mine does.
What an envy-able problem to have!
I'd be no help, I'm afraid, but when I think of prints from those negatives I'm thinking "contacts" and 11x14 is the darn near perfect big head format.
So if you get the 16x20 by all means consider getting a reducing back for it.
My 2-cents (and worth exactly what ya paid for it! :) )
I have had Deardorffs and nownhave an 11x14 and 8x10 Chamonix. I'm a woodworker and make very fancy, precise pool,cues for a living. If you think Deardorffs are works of art, you should know that the Cahamonix blows them away. My new 8x10 is almost the finest wooden object I've ever seen. My 11x14 kit is lighter than my 4x5 Arca kit, you should try to see a Cham in person...Evan Clarke
Have you considered a Wisner 16x20? Long bellows draw and while not a lightweight good for studio and manageable in the field with some muscle and not too far to go from the truck.
I have a Canham 14x17 that I do take in the field from time to time. Canhams have their quirks, but I do love the camera overall. What's not to like about a sub- 20 lb. 14x17? It has enough bellows draw to exceed 1:1 macro using a Nikkor 450 M.
This is an interesting thread. One I found myself in 20 years ago. I was shooting my V8 and was just not happy. They were after 8x10 in size and that was not big enough. I found a V11 and thought I was all set. But still not big enough. I had an old early Empire State 14x17. I went to a friend who was a radiologist and he gave me some ugly but working X ray holders. I started shooting. Now everything just got BIG. The camera, Holders, Contact frame etc..............HELP! Then a 8x10 Fotar enlarger came my way. Oh boy. I set it up and enlarged my first 8x10 neg to 20X24. With practice this became my preferred method of making big prints. And all I have to do is lug my V8 like I was doing all along....
Ken