Deardorf or C-1 for field use?

[Dave Moeller]

Robert-

I have the Green Monster and I'm very happy with it. I find it easy to set up and to use, and on my Berlebach 4032 it's as solid as a camera can be. I've never had a problem with the camera being steady, even in a decent breeze. I have not used a Deardorff, but I do have experience with other wooden 8x10 cameras and I find the Calumet to be worlds ahead in sturdiness. But you pay the price for that sturdiness in weight. The C-1 is heavier than any other 8x10 I've used, although only by a few pounds as it's the magnesium model.

The Deardorff does have some magic to it. By all accounts it's amazingly easy to use, and wooden cameras do look nicer than metal cameras. Plus the weight savings of a few pounds might make the difference for how far you're willing to walk with your camera. (Figure out the weight of your entire kit, though...you may find that the difference with a camera, a few lenses, film holders, and all of the other things you'll be carrying may make the few pounds difference fairly meaningless, or you may find it very important.)

I got the C-1 because it did everything I wanted a camera to do, the deal on it was unbeatable at the time, and I'm pretty much a monster physically so the extra pounds were not of concern to me. It's been a true workhorse, and I wouldn't trade it for anything (no, not even a Deardorff). But that's because the camera makes me happy...figure out what you really want and then get it. The surest way to end up spending more money is by buying stuff that you don't really want...in the long run you'll probably end up selling it, and buying what you wanted in the first place. Even if you sell a piece of equipment for what you paid for it, you'll end up paying shipping twice.

As to your original criteria, I can tell you that the Calumet (the magnesium model) is extremely sturdy, cheap, has plenty of extension (although I've not actually measured mine, but I use a Nikkor 480mm lens for close-up work), and has all of the movements I need (basically everything except rear rise/fall). It's my understanding that the Deardorff is lighter, has more movements (base and center tilt on the front versus center only), costs more and is not quite as sturdy. I personally find the C-1 very easy to use, but others have complained about the usability of the camera so perhaps I'm just lucky that the camera is right for me. The Deardorff may not be as sturdy as the C-1, but judging by the prints I've seen, people learn to work with the camera quite well.

Having had opportunities to "move up" to more expensive and more modern 8x10 cameras, I find that I passed because the C-1 is the right camera for me. I believe it'll be my 8x10 of choice until I can no longer carry it, at which point I'll be moving to MF anyway. For many others, the same is true of the Deardorff. I think they're both very capable cameras, and that the biggest tradeoff is weight versus sturdiness. If you can make a choice based on which of those is more important, then choosing between the cameras should be pretty easy. Personally, I think decisions like these are best made without thinking about cost, unless cost is a limiting factor for you.

Best of luck with your decision.

[Michael Jones]

E. Keck:

The knob you are likely referring to was there from the beginning: 1923. It raises the lens board panel, not the front standard tilt and rise as Brian is referencing. Please go to the camera section of this forum for a review of Deardorffs or here:

http://deardorffcameras.0catch.com/

for a longer history. Enjoy.

Mike

[Brian Ellis]

"Brian - perhaps because mine is a 1967 View Series model, there is a little knob on the front that allows the lens board to rise or fall independent of the tilt. Do you know when they added this feature? In other words, not all 'Dorffs have a pair of wing nuts for the combined use of tilt and rise/fall. This could matter to Robert, something to look out for."

Mike really answered the question but FWIW mine had the same knob you're talking about. That was a very nice feature of the camera and I've often wondered why more manufacturers haven't adopted it. But as Mike says, that's for the lens board and it only goes up about 1-2 inches IIRC. Especially with architectural photograpy, more than that is often needed and then you have to use rise on the front standard. You also need rise on the front standard when using short focal length lenses.

[Ed K.]

Michael, Brian - the point was only that while yes, the pair of wingnuts control front tilt/rise together, the lensboard feature negates some of the headache of it. The gross adjustment goes with the wingnuts, the final adjustment with the lensboard for rise. Even with an extra 3 inches of coverage, divided by two, that leaves only an inch and a half rise or fall before the edges start darkening up, so that board rise feature is not so bad to have. I wish I had more lenses that would
accomodate extreme shifts well, as it is so nice to put the horizon one side of center, and include building tops, etc.

I once muttered to myself "the only camera you use with a carpenter's square and a hammer", but it does work. The great thing about the 'Dorff is what it isn't most of the time.

I missed a great deal on a Green Monster prior to getting the 'Dorff. It went for about $750 with a good tripod, head, and three lenses plus film holders - Deal!! Depending on the time of year, a complete user 'Dorff is ridiculously overpriced for what it actually is, which is why I mentioned that once in the 'Dorff category, a person should consider others. Had the waiting list for Wehman's field camera been less, I might have gone that way, although the rise and fall on it are too limited for 4x10 shooting last I checked.

All that said, the darned thing works, and it has a sort of soul to it. Some cameras have a good fit for their owners, sort of like a person's selection of a violin, er, well or a dog. The 'Dorff is a good old friend for me, and I'm sure that Green Monster and Kodak owners have their friends too.

Nobody asks me whether one of my pictures was taken with a Deardorff or not. More often, they ask what kind of zoom lens or how many megapixels when they see the 8x10 slides or prints...

Anyone fortunate enough to have a working 8x10 system, that one likes to use, and one that brings back good photos is fortunate indeed. I guess the main thing is that a camera meets one's needs and likes, and lately, can be aquired in working order within budget.

Meanwhile, it is a beautiful record day here, so the 'Dorff gets tossed in the truck for a few cityscapes this afternoon... Whatever you pick, enjoy it!

[Robert_5479]

Thanks for all the input!

I think Dave has some very relevent points that relate to my situation, especially the sturdiness vs weight consideration. I got the Green Monster, for now anyways. I won't be walking far with it and it only weighs about two pounds more than a dorf. I love the look of a deardorf and hope to own one someday, but for now I'll scare the hell out of the wooden camera folks with the Green Monster from hades :-)

Thanks all,
Robert

[Mark Shubin]

My feelings are that even though a black C-1 weighs 4 lbs more than the green model,so what.If you don't have the money for a Deardorf use the most sturdy camera that fits in a pack.And one you can afford.