If I had gobs of money lying around, I'd probably get a MT or other "nice" camera for landscape and an inexpensive Graphic for RF shooting with a standard 135 lens. The Graphic (side mounted) RFs are easy to adjust and don't require cams, and they are cheap enough that you can use them in foul weather. Considering how easy it is to drop a handheld camera (I've done it more than I want to) a Graphic is a pretty good option.
I just took a peek at B&H's web page, and found that the Technikas were all "special order" or "taking orders" items. Wonder if this means that we are about to see new Technika models?
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
There are usually a few new Technikas on the shelf at B&H, even if they say "special order" on the website. Not sure if those are considered demos, though, and not for sale.
Wonder if this means that we are about to see new Technika models?
Probably just means that they are no longer willing or able to keep as much working capital tied up in slow-moving specialty stock. The Technikas aren't alone in this respect. B&H has converted many items that used to be stock to "accepting orders" or "special order" status.
"Wonder if this means that we are about to see new Technika models?"
Nope, means they sold all they had and haven't placed a new order yet.
German view camera manufacturers do not introduce new product this far ahead of Photokina. They always introduce new product at Photokina. That brings photographers, press and consumers to their booth and ensures that they get PR from the show.
Brian
I'd seriously consider getting a technikardan as a field camera (I'm fortunate to have both the TK & MT). As mentioned earlier, they are indeed very different tools, but if I had a choice of only one it would most definately be the TK. Maybe it's because I cut my LF teeth on it before adding the MT. However, I believe it has alot more to do with being a more intuitive, flexible and "well thought out machine" especially where movements are concerned.
I leave the camera complete most of the time but if it needs to be collapsed it's a simple operation and bellows aren't a problem because it's possible to remove them in seconds. It takes a huge selection of lenses even on flat panels and doubles-up as a studio camera if neccessary. And last but not least they're around half the price (put the rest towards lenses, accessories and film!). Don't get me wrong, I don't regret buying the MT but I see it as a complement to my linhof system. I hope this helps because I only considered the TK based on recommendations in this forum.
Brian-
I've used a 2000 (lots) for about 3 years now, and feel qualified to make some comments about owning and using it, if I may. My work involves almost exclusively landscapes, most of the time including architectural elements. Certainly you're aware of the adage "there's no one camera perfect for all situations"; compromise applies to the 2000 as well.
Here's what I like about mine:
-It is nice and compact, with nothing fragile to worry about during transport- ie: rangefinder accuracy. If you travel often by plane, motorcycle, or small car you'll really appreciate this feature. I have a bag with 5 lenses, meter, 6x12 back, readyloads, filters, etc., and it fits under the seat in front of me on commercial flights.
-Flexibility. I use a 58, a 300 and everything in between with no fuss whatsoever. The wide angle mechanism is simple to use, unless you're wearing gloves or have really chubby fingers.
-No camming of lenses. My lenses (all modern) can be used to near their limits on coverage, in most circumstances. The bellows is remarkably flexible. The flap on the top is useful, too.
-Quick to set up. A number of small lenses will fit inside the folded camera, including 150 sironars, etc. I leave an SS 80 on a recessed board on/in the camera and, once on the tripod, it takes just a few seconds to be focussing on the gg. I often open the camera and peer through the gg before tripod mounting to determine tripod placement and rough framing. The hinged hood is adequate for this operation.
-Super smooth operation- the fit and finish are impeccable, as you might expect. Unbelievably rigid- it's unnerving to use other cameras in wind once you've tried one of these.
-Resale value, if you want/need to unload it. Currently, mine's worth more than I payed for it new... Still, the 2000 is $1500 cheaper than the MT.
Notice something? Some of these features are inherent to both cameras. As are some of the...
Things I don't like:
-No spirit levels! Keeee-rist. That's a design un-feature worthy of the codgers at GM.
-If you find yourself using complicated filtration (like the Lee system), the drop-bed situation can be a hassle. The holder, filters and hood can be impinged upon by the bed. This forces you to tilt the bed to the 15 deg detent, then, tip the front standard back to match. If your shot requires precisely parallel standards (architecture, poles, tall trees, etc) this isn't easy to achieve- there are no detents on the front standard at 15 deg, nor at 30. This is an engineering oversight, in my opinion. Makes me cuss in cold temperatures.
-No real front drop, unless you futz around a lot for the indirect, and then only a bit. I solved the problem by installing a tripod mounting plate on the top of the camera as well as the bottom; there's a mount under the hotshoe. By the way, the camera's serial number is on the hotshoe mount- the easiest piece to remove/lose/swap on the whole thing. WTF is up with that?
-If you prefer to focus by scale, (like your Horseman) there is a plastic rail on the bed of the 2000 upon which you may install your own mm scale- why wasn't it included from the beginning? Another Teutonic mystery.
-Impractical for the giant lenses a la 90/75 XL.
-Yup, it's heavy (but lighter than the MT).
With both these cameras, handholding is a fantasy, unless you're shooting very fast film- and/or are willing to accept less than perfectly sharp results.
I'm always on the tripod, and that's the key for your decision. If you're on it, you might as well use the glass and get the most from your 4x5 experience. If you plan on using movements, you'll have to be on the tripod anyway. The rangefinder is just extra weight at this point.
All in all I love the camera. I have a 45TKs also and I use the 2000 far more- I've found it to be a quick set up, a pleasure to use, and provides great results.
My apologies for the length of this post- I hope it helps with your decision.
jbhogan
If I have a second chance to buy it... I will choose for TK 2000.. I already have the classic one for three years, I never have any chance to use rangefinder ...
You will get older sooner or later, not only tripod (which mine is carbon already) ...you still need lighter camera for lighter set .. believe me..
One correction to my previous post- there is a serial # on the body- under the hotshoe (also with the serial #). Mine was/is covered with the extra tripod mounting plate. Ooops, sorry 'bout that.
jbhogan
I don't have any problem with mounting the camera upside down. If I'm shooting view camera style and I think I might need front drop, I just leave the shoe in the case, and if I'm shooting rangefinder style and need the shoe, it's not an issue.
While it's true that any camera will make sharper images with a tripod, there are also certain kinds of shots that are best done handheld, and those benefit from a larger film format as much as anything. I often think that if I need a tripod, I might as well shoot 8x10" or 11x14", but if I need something light and handy, the little 4x5" Technika is just the thing. It's all relative.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks