When is an Ebony not an Ebony?

[Jerry Greer]

Ted,

I've had two RW45's, one I had for a little over four years and the new one that I just received and is perfect just as the first. I purchased the second just to have a new one and the old one has a new loving owner in Colorado. My first one was superb in every way and my second is just the same with a better finish. I use lenses from 65mm (standard lens board) all the way to my Fujinon 450 C (mounted on Ebonies own extension tube) with no problems on either end. BTW, my four year old RW was as tight as the first day that I received it. My recomendation is to contact Ebony through their website and I'm sure they will work it out. One other thing, where did you purchase your RW?

www.jerrygreerphotography.com

[Dan_4341]

In my various camera 'tribulations' in 4x5 and8x10 format, I've encountered a wide variability in the quality control of some brands of cameras (all bought new) that I've tried. Ithink that when Wisners' got more popular the QC became less consistent. And when Toyo changed factory locations (or something like that), their QC also became inconsistent (judging by my experience and others that I've heard about). The same thing may have happened to Ebony (except to a lesser degree) because their cameras have been so popular and now they can't keep up with demand.

Toyo 45AII - one I had in the early 1990s was built well, fit and finish great. I sold it and bought others. Bought it again just about 1 year ago and it was poorly put together - not as tight, poor finish (blotches spot painted), etc. - returned it to the dealer.

Wisner - 4x5 tech field in early 1990s - great camera - everything fit perfectly, solid, finish perfect, delivered on-time. Mid 1990s or later - 4x5 basic - defective, returned, was fixed promptly, but still didn't have nearly the fit and finish of the earlier camera (but there was a difference in models).

Horseman HD 45 - one sample - very solid, rigid, precise, but knobs were too small for my liking, also very limited extension.

Ebony 45S & SU - bought and sold twice. Cosmetic scratches on the metal in places. Very rigid for a wood camera, but not as rigid as any metal camera I've every had. Very easy to use, and certainly rigid enough.

Ebony 8x10SV (bought and sold twice over the last 10 years) - first model was just about perfect (but again, not as rigid as a metal camera, but didn't expect it to be). Second one - clamp for securing the lensboard was mis-placed (too high) so it didn't hold the lensboard securely unless totally pushed in. The slighest movement would drop the board. You guessed it. I had a damaged lens thanks to it. Had it fixed by a work around method and sold the camera back to the dealer.

Gandolfi 8x10 traditional - the most rigid wood camera I ever had (due to their special way of angling and securing the back and front standard. Developed a crack in the bed. Didn't affect the operation of the camera, but ticked me off. I found the ground glass hard to focus with. Sold it.
Should have kept it and replaced the ground glass. Now they're too expensive.

Ebony RW810 - my current camera. Relatively light (11 pounds approx), very quick and easy to use. Downside is the limited bellows extension (it's only double extension). Rigid enough (not quite as good as the Gandolfi, but more than good enough for practical use). Great groundglass.
Finish came a few scratches on the metal, but it doesn't bother me.

Deardorff - I tried buying two (used), but each was described in better condition than they were actually in - returned both to private party/dealer (bellows pinholes, flopy controls/lock-down).

Canham 4x5 & 8x10 - tried out in dealers showroom. Great fit and finish. Didn't like the lever controls and flexible nature of the design, so didn't buy.

Toyo 8x10M - rental - very rigid and precise. Very heavy and no handle provided. Not as easy to set up and use as my Ebony RW.

Haven't tried the Phillips, nor the Wehman 8x10, but hear very good things about them (but they only make 8x10 or maybe larger on the Phillips, perhaps).

If I was doing 4x5 again, and wanted an easily transportable camera and didn't mind the great expense I go for the Master Technika 2000.

[Mark Davies]

Hi there. I have recently sold (on ebay and most regretabbly) an Ebony 45SU. I was absolutely thrilled with it and only sold it to fund further majic bullet chases. I am now deciding which majic bullet will serve my purposes next and look like buying a Horseman Woody. I am not expecting it to be able to match the Ebony in finish or functions as the 45SU was a super camera. However, I do expect it will be a very nicely made camera and serve the purpose well. When I win millions (ho, ho, ho!!!!) I will definitely go back to an ebony.

However, to address the issue of an Ebony not looking good out of the box: I suggest if you were to contact Hiromi at Ebony with your concerns he would take action through his US representative Ian Wilson to make sure the problems are rectified. I have always found Ian to be most helpful.

Mark

[robert_4927]

as i entered the ULF world I immediately priced myself out of an Ebony. Great cameras I'm sure with even a greater reputation. My father inlaw has a background in metallurgy and when the discussion of Ebonies came up he asked, " why the prestige". I explained their second-to-none craftsmanship, titanium metal work and of course, service. He went on to explain that the titanium is probably more of a marketing ploy than a structural advantage. He pointed out the titanium in my new golf driver. Larger size head, lighter materials, faster club head speed= ball go father. Titanium used in the aircraft industry, lighter with the same or close to the properties as T6 aluminum. But in a camera he asked why? The aluminum or brass that was used in other cameras probably has as good as, if not better structural properties as it's titanium counter parts. But then again you wouldn't have the prestige of owning titanium. Now I've never owned an Ebony and probably would hesitate to spend that kind of money considering the abuse i can put on a camera. (to me these are tools and at times I treat them as such). All I know is the titanium driver didn't do squat for my golf game. So I would think it would be safe to wager it won't have much impact on my photography either. So when they come out with a solid titanium 8x10 that weighs 1.5 lb I may consider having a look at one, provided they don't cost as much as a japanese car as the current Ebony 8x10 does. So i'll continue to take photographs with the cameras i have and concentrate on composition and not have to worry whether or not I'm going to scratch a worth-its-weight-in-gold camera. As for my new titanium driver. Well It is not as long as my old steelhead driver and I've done a comparison. You see, I can throw the steelhead driver farther than the titanium one because it is a little heavier, Making it the longer driver....lol

[Jerry Greer]

Quote: “He went on to explain that the titanium is probably more of a marketing ploy than a structural advantage.”

This is BS!

Robert, if your father-in-law knows nothing about view cameras then he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If you’ve never put your hands on an Ebony then you don’t either. My RW45 is just an oz. under 4lbs and this is a direct reflection of the fine grade of mahogany also the titanium and most of all Hiromi’s great design. See, I spent 7 years racing mountain bikes, titanium ones with titanium spokes and as I recall I’ve never saw aluminum spokes on a bike and for very good reason. I know the difference between aluminum and titanium by just simple usage in a practical demanding situation. It’s simple, titanium is lighter and much stronger than aluminum, period! I’m not even going to bring up the differences with brass and steel. This also allows the camera maker to use less material and keep the same strength making it much lighter or as in Ebony’s case keep the material about the same with less weight but a MUCH stronger camera. Just for kicks, compare an Ebony RW45 to a Calumet “ultralight” it uses aluminum. The Calumet is flimsy! Compare the SV45Ti to a K. B. Canham 4x5 wood field. Again, the Canham’s a great camera but it does not compare in rigidity, they use aluminum. It also weights in a 6lb!

Please don’t confuse the use of titanium in the Ebony cameras as a marketing ploy or just “prestige” and the reason for owning one. If you’ve never even touched one or even compared the camera to a Wisner, Wista, Canham, etc. then I would suggest that you do just that. Go compare them before you throw out this false testimony when you know nothing about the camera other than a name. I think that you are just trying to make yourself feel better about not becoming an Ebony owner when deep down you wished that you were just that, an Ebony owner! Oh, and yes I’m qualified to speak for Ebony, not that I’m an expert in metallurgy but that I’ve been a working professional landscape photographer for 14 years with 5 of them carrying an Ebony RW45 view camera into the field.

Cheers,

Jerry Greer
www.jerrygreerphotography.com

[robert_4927]

jerry, but i've done just that, a side by side comparison and i still can't seem to justify the cost. Don't get me wrong the ebony is a gorgeous camera and I have actually shot with one for a weekend. I've been playing with these cameras for 30 yr. and i don't need to make reference to how long " professionally" or what i carry in the field, photography is not about that to me. But for the life of me I can't seem to tell the difference between the negatives I shot with the ebony and the negatives I shot with that 50 year old Dorf. You make a good point about the mountain bike.. Titanium would reduce weight where seconds matter in a race. And if you would like a list of manufacturers that make aluminum mountain bikes they are available online. Titanium is a great alloy but in my opinion not really needed in a view camera. How much weight do you need to cut out of a 4x5 anyway ?If that is an issue I suggest you contact your physician. Seriously though, you shoot with what ever you like and Ebony is a fine camera. My comments were on the use of titanium in a view camera. I've talked with other camera manufacturers and they seem to feel the same way... cost justifying the means. I didn't mean to strike your Ebony nerve and I'll probably be eating these words about titanium the next time I carry the old 8x20 Korona and three film holders into the field. to me it is not about equipment and as a "14 year professional landscape photographer" I'm sure you'll agree (maybe not) it's about vision, light, form, function...ect ect..I would love to see what that Ebony is doing for your negs that my old dorfs and koronas aren't doing for mine. I promise you if that is the magic bullet I'll sell all my cameras and buy an Ebony. I agree with you whole heartedly about titanium moutain bikes, strong, light and a clear advantage over the heavier aluminum. If my camera every goes over a 15ft high jump and does three flips and lands back on its tripod legs I'll consider titanium.....lol....until then it's back to my old cameras...( now where did I put that duct tape to fix this bellows)....lol

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

It’s simple, titanium is lighter and much stronger than aluminum, period!

Jerry,

I won't dispute your other claims (I know NOTHING about racing bikes), but this statement isn't true. While the exact density depends on the specific alloy, titanium is substantially denser than aluminum. Typical titanium alloys have a density of approximately 4.5g/cc. Commercial aluminum alloys (including all varieties of 6061 - commonly used in camera building) have a density of about 2.7g/cc.

Where titanium has an advantage is in strength/weight ratio. This is why titanium alloys make an excellent choice for racing bike frames that need to be light, but still strong enough to support the rider and deal with the mechanical stress involved in this particular application.

Obviously a camera is used differently than a racing bike and what is the ideal material for one may, or may not, be the ideal material for the other. Using clever mechanical design, aluminum can be plenty strong enough for this particular application and still be lighter than titanium. I'm not saying one material is inherently "better" than the other for building cameras. It is really a combination of the material and an intelligent design that takes advantage of that material's properties. It is possible to build cameras of exceptional rigidity using either material (ARCA-SWISS and Ebony, for example)

If you want a REALLY light material, look at magnesium alloys. They typically have densities in the 1.7 - 1.8g/cc range. Various mg alloys are finding increased use in portable electronics applications where weight is a concern. And yes, magnesium is flammable, but most mg alloys are perfectly safe for consumer applications. In fact, I have an mg alloy tripod head that has yet to go up in flames. I have also seen high end lap top computer cases made from mg alloys. By using cast designs, it's possible to incorporate complex mechanical structures (honeycombs, for instance) that result in parts that are both amazingly light, yet very strong and durable.

Of course, other factors such as production and material costs factor in and often swamp the other issues. I am convinced it would be possible to build a fully functional 4x5 field camera that weighs about 1 - 1.5 lbs (1/2 the weight of the lightest commercially available products) using magnesium alloys, polymers, carbon fiber and maybe a little titanium for high stress areas. Problem is it would make an Ebony look darn cheap by comparison. I doubt if there's much of a market for a $50,000 field camera.

Kerry

[QT Luong]

Jerry, I agree that the Ebony is more rigid than the Canham, but note that the Canham 4x5 is in fact a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back.

[avi]

>>"If you have SO MANY issues, you could just send it back to the dealer/mfg and spare us all".....

I think Ted's problem with his Ebony is a quality control matter we should all be aware of. You should have read the post about a delayed shipping of a Gnass product because the company was moving. That was one I thought was a utter waste of bandwidth and the incessant whining of the poster was out of hand.