Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T
I have both a Toho FC 45 and a Chamonix 045N (original). The Toho is definitely much easier to get into my Osprey Atmos 50 because it can fit into the little nooks and crannies in the pack, whereas the Chamonix needs a dedicated area that isn't always available in my pack. I use the Toho for the ultralight backpacking trips (since I'm a wimp) and the Chamonix when I go shorter distances, and as my normal 4x5 camera.
Hey fellow Toho person... :)
It seems that the Chamonix is about the same size as the Toho bellows, and is also more compact since there isn't a separate mounting frame?
- Toho: 7.25" x 6.5" x 2.5" (doesn't include the mounting frame)
- Chamonix: 7" x 6.8" x 3"
My 10-year old backpack was 4000 cu-in and was starting to fall apart. I recently upgraded to the Osprey Argon 85 (7100 cu-in), and it is a really nice backpack, great support, and also has compression straps in case you're carrying a smaller load. I also tried the Arc'Teryx Altra 75 and didn't care for it, even though it weighed less than the Argon.
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
It seems that the Chamonix is about the same size as the Toho bellows, and is also more compact since there isn't a separate mounting frame?
But the Chamonix is more boxy. The Toho bellows, because it is tapered fits into my pack a little easier. I actually keep the monorail assembly attached to the tripod head so it isn't in my pack.
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GPS
Look Rick, if I say something which is against rules of the forum, say what it is. If not, and you don't like what I say, go wherever you like to take a break. Like it or not, everyone has the same right to say what he wants and discuss it as long as he wants. Who are you to count my posts and say they are too many, Mr. Calculator?
There's a fine line between 'discussion' and 'annoying'.
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pocketfulladoubles
There's a fine line between 'discussion' and 'annoying'.
The line is not so fine, but there are definitely people who have trouble separating the two.
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Luis, what do you mean, they are at a loss about it? They cannot understand why [I]your[I] camera cannot focus to infinity or why the camera itself doesn't focus there??
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luis a de santos
I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera
I have been in conversation with Hugo Zhang about the minimum bellows draw on the 045N-2. The advertised draw at the time I ordered the camera was 45mm. My camera only manages 52mm due to interference between the front standard frame and the new rear tilt mechanism. At 52mm the interference makes front swing impossible. I traded messages with another 045N-2 owner and his camera has very adequate clearance and is able to attain the 45mm figure. Go figure. Hugo has edited the published spec on chamonixviewcamera.com to read 52mm for the 045N-2.
Even with 52mm minimum draw, you should still be able to attain infinity focus without a recessed board with a 65mm Nikkor with the front standard in the rearmost position and the rear standard slid forward. What is your measured minimum draw (film plane to lens board flange) with the stock "universal" bellows?
I don't know if this represents an assembly issue or mixed components in the parts bin, but it certainly does seem strange.
Steve
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luis a de santos
I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera
Did you push the rear standard all the way?
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pocketfulladoubles
There's a fine line between 'discussion' and 'annoying'.
Again I'll point out that the Ignore User function works very well for me. Except when others quote those I've set vBulletin software to ignore. :)
Try it, you'll like it.
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luis a de santos
I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera
hello luis, you can not use the last hole nearest to the back for the widest angles.
You must mount your front standard in the second or third to the last hole and move your back forward. This works to keep the front of the bed from being in the photograph
steve