Choice of "Lightweight" 20x24 cameras....

[Kodachrome25]

I am starting to investigate possibly setting my self up with 20x24 for contact prints and massive black and white chromes so in addition to finding a decent lens that would over the format ( 760-900mm ) I have narrowed the camera choice to either the Ritter at 24 pounds or Chamonix convertible at 42.

Obviously either maker has a great reputation, it is just a matter of build preference, stiffness, weight, movements and bellows draw. The Ritter has really got my attention as being "Local" if any issues arise, 60" bellows standard, being convertible *and* 18 pounds lighter than the Chamonix.

Ritter's holders are also a bit cheaper but I am not sure of the weight yet, the Chamonix holders are 7.16 pounds each, I figure three is about what I would budget for in terms of money and weight liability.

Weight will be a consideration even with a crew of three people hauling this gear around, but if the Chamonix is a much better camera for some reason, I would like to hear why...

So there you go, ULF peeps chime in on what way you would go...

[Louis Pacilla]

I am starting to investigate possibly setting my self up with 20x24 for contact prints and massive black and white chromes so in addition to finding a decent lens that would over the format ( 760-900mm ) I have narrowed the camera choice to either the Ritter at 24 pounds or Chamonix convertible at 42.

Obviously either maker has a great reputation, it is just a matter of build preference, stiffness, weight, movements and bellows draw. The Ritter has really got my attention as being "Local" if any issues arise, 60" bellows standard, being convertible *and* 18 pounds lighter than the Chamonix.

Ritter's holders are also a bit cheaper but I am not sure of the weight yet, the Chamonix holders are 7.16 pounds each, I figure three is about what I would budget for in terms of money and weight liability.

Weight will be a consideration even with a crew of three people hauling this gear around, but if the Chamonix is a much better camera for some reason, I would like to hear why...

So there you go, ULF peeps chime in on what way you would go...

What's the largest format you have worked with up to this time? I ask because there are MANY considerations other then just weight of camera & coverage of lens. EVERYTHING gets BIGGER & MORE EXPENSIVE & HARDER to find.

BTW- I get your taking your time getting set up & that will help.

[Kodachrome25]

What's the largest format you have worked with up to this time? I ask because there are MANY considerations other then just weight of camera & coverage of lens. EVERYTHING gets BIGGER & MORE EXPENSIVE & HARDER to find.

4x5..

I understand this is damn near "On your own" territory that might include some custom work from the likes of S.K. Grimes, friends with machine shops, etc. I figure that if I commit to this, it might be closer to two years before I even expose my first sheet of film.

I did numerous searches and there really is no sticky or anything that is a guide to the larger formats, so here we are......the basic questions get asked first, the details file in behind.

[Bruce Barlow]

Richard can probably do most, if not all, the custom work you might contemplate. He's a wizard in most areas.

We once made a video of a 20x24 he made with an extra 3-foot section of bellows, for a total of 9 feet of extension. The 3-foot extension was removable so that it could be a "field camera," too. We made the video to show the new owner how to set it up.

[Kodachrome25]

Richard can probably do most, if not all, the custom work you might contemplate. He's a wizard in most areas.

We once made a video of a 20x24 he made with an extra 3-foot section of bellows, for a total of 9 feet of extension. The 3-foot extension was removable so that it could be a "field camera," too. We made the video to show the new owner how to set it up.

I saw that, pretty slick setup. I think 60" of bellows will be fine for what I want to do with it, landscape beyond 20 feet.

[vinny]

fwiw, I've handled the 8x10 chamonix but never a Ritter. I was about to pull the trigger on either an 8x10 Ritter or Chamonix so I consulted a friend who had owned both. He said the Chamonix was much more rigid. I understand carbon fiber is a very lightweight material but 18lbs lighter leads me to believe there has to be a compromise somewhere. Five feet of bellows is a pretty big sail. I would want to get my hands on both before laying down the $$$$.

[Kodachrome25]

I understand carbon fiber is a very lightweight material but 18lbs lighter leads me to believe there has to be a compromise somewhere. Five feet of bellows is a pretty big sail. I would want to get my hands on both before laying down the $$$$.

It's the Ritter that weighs 18 pounds less and none of the Chamonix cameras use a solid component of carbon fiber but rather wood that is laminated in it, not a bad thing as I own and use a 45N2. The bellows on the Chamonix max out at 36", not a lot of wiggle room depending on lens used, the 60" ones on the Ritter would be fairly ideal for a 30"-35" lens I would imagine.

As far as seeing both in person, that is going to be up to me finding people who own them, hence the inquiry via this thread...

[ic-racer]

It's the Ritter that weighs 18 pounds less and none of the Chamonix cameras .

I'd go with the more sturdy camera. Weight shouldn't be that much of an issue because you are not going to by physically carrying this right? You will use a golf cart or something to move the camera, the lens, filmholders and the massive tripod around, right?

You know my solution. Use a tiny format camera (8x10) and enlarge to what ever size I want. It is hard to imagine a darkroom with enough space to comfortably process 20x24 prints without enough space to house an 8x10 enlarger

If you are going to be doing UV based processes then just ignore the above...

[Kodachrome25]

I'd go with the more sturdy camera. Weight shouldn't be that much of an issue because you are not going to by physically carrying this right? You will use a golf cart or something to move the camera, the lens, filmholders and the massive tripod around, right?

You know my solution. Use a tiny format camera (8x10) and enlarge to what ever size I want. It is hard to imagine a darkroom with enough space to comfortably process 20x24 prints without enough space to house an 8x10 enlarger

If you are going to be doing UV based processes then just ignore the above...

I process 20x24 paper in a Jobo 3063 drum, will likely do the same for the film. If working from the vehicle, I would employ a crew of two people for the camera ( 24 pounds ), three holders ( 15 pounds ), lens ( 4-8 pounds ), Ries A100-2 tripod ( 14 pounds ), etc. If hauling it farther which is desired, then it will be a a crew of 3-4...so if the Ritter is rigid enough, you bet we will be moving this thing around up to 4 miles round trip.

As for printing it, contact only but most importantly, ULF B&W transparencies via reversal process...this last one needs to be sorted out and will be one of the biggest deciding factors of if I go for it or not.

Otherwise I will stick to 4x5 which is just fine for big enlargements and *very* portable....

[Bruce Barlow]

I've had no trouble with rigidity with either my Ritter 8x10 or 5x7...

My basis for comparison is my Sinar Norma 8x10.

Just sayin'.