4x10 Canham Holders do NOT fit my Lotus Camera

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Wayne,

Thanks for the response and confirming my measurements.

Will,

I bought the holders used from Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange. I'm sure he'd take them back if I wanted to return them. I'm still undecided about what to do. The real appeal of the Canham holders is the possibility of a reliable source of reasonably priced (by 4x10 standard) holders should I need more down the road. That was based on the incorrect assumption that they would fit my camera without modification. If I have to modifiy these four holders, and anymore I get in the future, this option starts to loose a lot of its appeal.

One other possible option it to get a second back made for my camera. Ironically, I just posted another thread on this topic the day before the Canham holders arrived. In that thread, I was thinking about getting a back for the Wisner size holders to use with my camera. I have accumulated several holders in this size (Mido IIs, old wooden x-ray holders and some fairly modern 4x10 plastic Lisco x-ray holders). The goal was to have one camera with two backs so I could use holders in both the Wisner and Canham sizes. That was before I learned that the Lotus holders are not identical to the Canhams. I'm not too excited about getting TWO more backs made for my camera. When I first started this 4x10 project, Keith Canham offerred to sell me one of his 4x10 backs (just the back, not the bellows and rear standard) for $425 - which is about the price of one new Lotus 4x10 holder these days. Perhaps he would be willing to do a custom version of his back to fit my camera. The Canham back is designed so that the film holder and ground glass frame assembly simply mounts on a flat carrier board that then mounts to the rear format frame. This carrier board on the 4x10 Canham is quite a bit taller, but not quite as wide as the Lotus back. Point is, changing this carrier board would be the only modification required to mount a Canham back on my camera. I'll probably talk this over with Keith and see what he can do. If I go this route, I'll probably just sell all my Wisner size holders to help pay for the Canham back and more Canham holders. I've actually managed to go from not enough holders to too many - well at least too many different sizes.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

So this question isn't intended as a Troll. But why in the world if you're going to shoot 4x10 don't you just shoot 8x10 and crop it (either in the camera or when printing)? The cost and bother of such a specialized format must vastly outweigh the weight savings (I know you're very hyper when it comes to weight).

Bill,

Not a troll at all. This is a perfectly valid question and a very sane approach to shooting 4x10. In fact, it is how I originally got into 4x10 back in the early 1990s. Back then, I used an 8x10 Deardorff with a 4x10 slider board to shoot two 4x10 images on each sheet of 8x10 film. When I decided to get back into 4x10, I also started again with this approach and one of Jay Bender's 4x10 split darkslides. So, why didn't I just stick with this approach and be happy? This is a simple question with a rather long answer.

First, I'm not a big 8x10 shooter. The only 8x10 camera I own is a 60+ year old Eastman Commercial "All Metal" (which I'll probably end up selling as I haven't used it in a couple years). While this camera was rather advanced for it's day, it's a bit bulky and heavy compared to most modern 8x10 field cameras. Including all the accesories (extension rail, sliding tripod mount, etc.) needed to use all of my lenses it weighs about 12 1/2 lbs. The bulk of this camera, and a few 8x10 holders pretty much fills up my entire pack. As my goal is to shoot both 4x10 and 4x5, this presents another problem - no room for my 4x5 kit in the pack, and I have never seen a 4x5 reducing back made for this camera. Even if one did exist, or could be made, this camera does not handle lenses shorter than 150mm very well. It has a fixed bellows that becomes too compact to allow movements with such short lenses. This is also an issue for 4x10 shooting. As some of my 4x10 lenses either barely cover, or don't quite cover 8x10 ideally I'd like to be able to center the lenses for each 4x10 half of the 8x10 sheet of film. This requires 2" of front rise for one half and 2" of fall for the other. And that's just to center the image, if I wanted to actually use a little front rise, I'd need even more rise capability. For long lenses, this is not a problem. However, for the 110mm, it definitely is. The inability to center the lens also results in incresed light fall-off in the corners when using ultrawide lenses.

So, wouldn't a new, more modern 8x10 camera solve many of these issues? Yes, most of them. Even the smallest new 8x10 would still be bulkier than a 4x10. Then there is the cost issue. Originally, I considered trying to locate a used 8x10 Phillips Compact or Explorer. It seemed like a good solution. Problem is, they are hard to find and expensive. I've seen a few on eBay go for well over $2000. Then I'd still need a 4x5 reducing back, new lensboards, more 8x10 holders, etc. And it still wouldn't have a bag bellows for centering my 110mm Super Symmar (mounting the lens off-center on the lens board would help some). In any case, while looking for a good deal on a reasonably priced, lightweight 8x10 that would meet all my needs, I stumbled across what seemed to be a better solution to meet my needs.

As I mentioned above, when I decided to re-enter 4x10, my first priority was getting some good film holders. I picked up a couple of the Lotus holders on eBay for a little over $100 each - a bargain compared to what they cost new. And then, I got an even better deal on a several more Lotus holders from Midwest Photo Exchange. So, now I had a pile of nice holders and only needed a camera. I decided to cobble together my own custom camera from bits and pieces of other cameras. I started with one of the older 4x5 ARCA-SWISS monorails as my base platform ($350 off eBay). The modular nature of the ARCA-SWISS cameras makes them ideal for such projects. The original plan was to make my own back by cutting down and re-assembling the back of an old 8x10 Kodak 2-D, and then order a custom bellows from Camera Bellows of England. I actually got pretty far down this path when a unique opportunity presenetd itself. I bought a 4x10 Lotus conversion kit off the German eBay site for about $450 (back when $1 ~ 1 euro). This included the complete 4x10 rear standard and the 4x10 bellows. It just so happened that the front of the 4x10 Lotus bellows is a very good match for the ARCA-SWISS 6x9 front format frame of my prioject camera. I actually completed this camera and it turned out pretty well (I'll post a link to a photo tonight). So, for about $800 I had a nice 4x10 camera that easily handled all my lenses, collapses nice and compact for transport and weighs less than 6 1/4 lbs.

Since I completed that camera, I have acquired a newer ARCA-SWISS F-Line that is my main x5 camera. I'm in the process of converting my 4x10 Lotus Swiss to work with the newer F-Line chassis. The goal is to end up with one camera for both 4x5 and 4x10 shooting. This will consist of a 4x5 ARCA-SWISS F-Line Field (4x5 back and 6x9 front standards) and a 4x10 conversion kit (4x10 back and bellows). This will let me shoot both formats and everything easily fits in my pack.

For the cost of a new ARCA-SWISS, I could have bought a pretty good 8x10 camera. However, it would still be bulky and perhaps not handle wide angle leses as well. Also, I sold my 4x5 Linhof Tehnikardan to pay for a used ARCA-SWISS F-Line. Cost wise, that was pretty much a wash (and while the Linhof was a fine camera, I actually like the ARCA even more).

Of course, this is all just rationalization for why I chose a "true" 4x10 camera over a more conventional 8x10. Ultimately, I plan to make 4x10 "my format" over the next several years. I've always been drawn to this format and would like to amass a significant body of 4x10 color landscape images. Emotionally, I like working in the format that matches my intended output. Visually, I just think I see better in 4x10 if I'm carrying around a 4x10 camera and composing on a 4x10 ground glass. Composing on 4x10 is a lot different than 8x10 (or 4x5). I just find that carring around a long skinny camera and a bag full of long, skinny film holders puts me in the proper farme of mind for creating 4x10 images. Perhaps that's not the most rational statement in the world, but in actual practice it seems to work for me.

Kerry

[Ralph Barker]

Kerry, 0.04" isn't much of a difference, although obviously critical in this case. Rather than using a jointer or machine-driven milling of some sort, I'd suggest simply a medium-grit sand paper attached to a strong, flat surface. Then, holding the film holder square to the surface, move the film holder against the sandpaper with a firm, smooth, uni-directional movement as one might use with a hand plane, keeping the number of sanding strokes consistent between the edges. A few strokes will likely be all that is needed to trim the 0.04" from the plastic holders. I'd also leave the dark slide in position, and vacuum the holders thoroughly after the operation.

[Wayne Firth]

Kerry,

That's a good answer regarding using a dedicated 4x10 camera. I know a lot of people want to use 8x10 cameras and crop or the other methods but it just isn't the same as thinking in the format. Perhaps this is not obvious until you actually start to see and think in this skinny format. There is a great difference between toting around an 8x10 and toting a 4x10. It's half the camera and half the holders and half the film, after all. I never could see much point in reducing backs. If I carry a big camera, then I want the reward of the big picture. If I can settle for small film then I am going to reward myself by carrying a lighter load of gear.

Most of what I do is in some panoramic format. These formats are so close to natural vision that it is hard to return to non-panoramic formats after seeing in wide vision for so long. I feel like I have tunnel vision. I was hooked on long skinny pictures after seeing Jay Dusard's Open Country years ago which he shot with an inexpensive homemade camera.

If I was going to dedicate the next several years to 4x10 photography then I would just fix the camera to take both kinds of holders. When I put the Lotus holders in the Canham camera I probably can't fit a credit card between the holder and the rail. It's really a tiny gap. Good luck on your project.

Wayne