Deardorf or C-1 for field use?

[Robert_5479]

I plan to get an 8x10 for both indoors and occasional road trips involving a minimal amount of hiking, maybe 1/2 mile at most.

I was going to use a Cambo SC combined with a custom short rail and container while on the road, but in the end a monorail may take to much time for setups while traveling/hiking.

Which would be preferable based on wieght, extension, price, features and sturdiness, a Calumet C-1 (green monster version) or the classic Deardorf? I'm not worried about looks...that would be an easy choice :-)

Thanks! The collective wisdom of the users here is truly an invaluable resource.

Regards,
Robert

[Ben Calwell]

Robert,

This is from the perspective of a middle-aged man. I used to own a C-1 and got rid of it because, for me, it was WAY too heavy and cumbersome for field work. I've never used a Deardorff, but I did lift one once at a camera store, and it felt, to me, significantly lighter than the Calumet. So, if you're not a young, in shape guy, my two cents would be get the lighter Dorf or another wooden 8x10, such as an Ansco or Kodak 2D

[John Kasaian]

Robert,

I'd recommend the deardorff unless you're very strong, have a great HMO and into pain!

[Michael Jones]

For cost or studio use: a C-1.

For ease of use, simplicity to set up, base tilts, weight and re-sale: Deardorff.

Been there, done that, sold the C-1.

mike

[Ed K.]

Can't comment on the green monster, and sometimes, the price would be impossible to resist.
Rear frame on a Deardorff is base tilt, front standard is center tilt or base tilt, but really, mostly center tilt in practice. 'Dorff FS is a real field camera. Not the lightest field camera around, but reasonable enough, and even if a tad rickety when wiggled with a hand, it settles down for razor sharp shots. 30-32 inch bellows draw is good too, while it also accomodates a 150mm without a bag bellows.

The two cameras are wildly different in price for a good user. 'Dorfs are going for enough to consider other cameras too, whereas the C1 seems to go at a low price with great functional value. In spite of its sometimes clunky and unhelpful low-tech design, the 'Dorff is just right in actual use. I believe in another thread, someone said "go 'Dorff young man" - they were right.

For the 'Dorff, you can still get parts from Jack Deardorff, who recently started making new Deardorffs from the old plans, and some unused old stock / parts. If you can, get the front swings variety (FS) instead of NFS. Also, there are no detents for positions on the 'Dorff except for some notches on the rear frame to indicate that it is at a right angle. If you need to line up parallel lines, etc, try to get one with the grid ground glass, which will help spot possible convergence problems. I've done some field work with a Sinar P2, which has all the detents, geared movements and so on ( great studio camera! ), and I can tell you that the 'Dorff is a dream in the field by comparison, so you're right to consider a field camera for outdoor use.

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned two Deardorffs, I'd highly recommend Deardorff for field work. The only slight disadvantage I found was the fact that front rise and tilt are controlled by the same knob. But that wasn't a big deal and the camera was otherwise a total pleasure to use. Normally I'd say its weight (12 lbs) was a drawback but not in comparison to the C-1 you're considering.

[Ed K.]

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.

[Jay Staton]

Robert,

If you have a thousand bucks burning a hole in your pocket, get the Dorff. It is a great camera. But if you want to get a sturdy 8x10, just as light for field work, get a Kodak 2D. Its cost, on ebay, is under $300. Add to its cost a 240mm lens, 6 film holders, plenty of film to practice your art with for the next 3 months, and enough chemicals to develop all that film, you are still under $1,000.

Does the viewer of your great shots look at your pictures and say, "Wow! Those must have been taken with a Dorff."? I think not.

Heck, you might even have enough money left over to buy some good hiking shoes.

Good luck,

Jay

[Percy]

Hi.
Got an Orbit 8x10...same as C 1. Great camera. Yes. it is heavy. Heavy enough to
knock the living dog crap out of a would be robber. It's metal. A man's camera.
Not for the girlie man crowd. Get one. As my dear uncle would say: time to man up!

Fear not the darkness. The black (aluminum) monster is our friend, albeit an 18lb. friend.

[Scott Davis]

If you can find one of the magnesium green C-1's, think about it. Don't consider an aluminum one(they weigh 4 lbs more. All black ones are aluminum, some green ones are also. To tell the difference you have to put it on a scale). I've got one, and it is a great studio camera, but a mediocre field camera. It's not just the weight, but the general design of it means that you more often have to fiddle with camera alignment on the tripod to maintain balance because of the tailboard design. That tailboard, when folded for transport, clanks around and always has you nervous that it will somehow bounce and break your groundglass (it never does though). The tailboard and mounting block also make the camera too big for just about any backpack, so it is a pain to take into the field more than a few hundred yards from the car. That said, the 32+ inches of bellows is a wonderful thing (I can do 1:1 macro with my 14" Commercial Ektar !). The movements it has are fairly generous - front swings, rise/fall/tilt, rear swings, tilts and shifts. You can use a 150mm lens on it at infinity (with limited movements) without a recessed board. Accessories for it are inexpensive generally, and Calumet still makes some spare parts for it.