Cost for SK Grimes mod to the Technikardan 45

**MJSfoto1956** · 22-Dec-2006, 09:03

Several of you have pmailed me inquiring as to the cost to do the mod to the Technikardan 45S shown in the 2nd issue of MAGNAchrom. (see www.magnachrom.com to register and download the free copy)

Here is the picture of the mod:

I have just received email from Adam at S.K. Grimes that to modify your own TK45 as shown would cost $500 plus shipping and handling. You can contact him directly (I have no economic interests in this).

As a side note: I also just received an email from Bob Salomon of H.P. Marketing who strenuosly denies that the TK45 exhibits this torque-induced deflection behavior. I maintain that mine has behaved in this manner since new and that several other users of BetterLight backs have also experienced this torque deflection in the rear standard. (keep in mind that we are talking about 1-2 mm of deflection which amounts to 83-168 pixels out of alignment, which in my book is significant and problematic especially when you are doing composites and/or panoramas)

To allay Bob's concerns, I have agreed to meet with a noted Linhof expert (he too had never heard of this behavior). If he and I can agree that my camera is defective, then I will issue a full detraction in MAGNAchrom magazine and then also promptly send my camera to Marflex for repair. (and for those of you also experiencing similar behavior, you would then be wise to consider sending your cameras to Marflex as well)

However, if the expert and I can reproduce this behavior on his equipment then I will then add his observations to the article in a new revision of the 2nd issue of MAGNAchrom.

So I have a question to the LF audience on this forum: who here owns TK45's??
And have any of you experienced similar torque-induced deflection of the rear standard?

**tim atherton** · 22-Dec-2006, 09:12

Mine's the first version of the TK with the solid rather than sectioned L supports, but yes, it certainly does exhibit it that. I was trying it with a digital back at the University here and with the extra weight, it was noticeable enough. (with a film holder, it's not really an issue).

I'd add the whole camera was serviced maybe 18 months ago.

Switched to an old chrome and steel Sinar P (2 I think?) and no problem at all.

Much more "boing" in the whole frame/body of the TK, which has never bothered me with film, but seemed more of an issue with digi backs

**Jorge Gasteazoro** · 22-Dec-2006, 09:12

I had a TK 45, the previous model and never saw this problem when the lever was in the locked position. I have the feeling that you have worn out the or the locking part was defective since I never saw this behavior, which I should have seen when you put the film holder.

**naturephoto1** · 22-Dec-2006, 09:17

Hi Michael,

I have owned a Linhof Technikardan 45S for quite some time (since I believe September of 1994). I can not remember having experienced the problems with the camera that you have mentioned, but I have never used anything as heavy as the BetterLight Back on the camera. I have used heavy lenses on the front standard including Nikon 500mm T ED which has performed extremely well. One of these images was used by Bogen/Gitzo at Photo Plus and is in their corporate Headquarters. The digitally printed 40" X 50" copy is almost as sharp as the 19" X 24" copy.

Rich

**tim atherton** · 22-Dec-2006, 09:20

I should add this particular back was probably over 2lbs - 35oz or something I think. That's much more than any of my film holders weigh sat in there.

The back standard may flex a bit when I put in a film holder, but it returns to its "zero" position once it's in place. The weight of the digi back basically caused a small amount of "sag"

Knew I shouldn't have sold the Arca... :-) (not really a problem - as I only ever use other people's dgital backs)

**David A. Goldfarb** · 22-Dec-2006, 09:41

Looks like an effective mod, but my solution is just not to expect one camera to do everything. My Tech V and Sinar P handle those heavy Super Rollex backs and the DaYi 617 back just fine as well as some heavy lenses, and I'd expect them to do just as well with a digital back. Of course the Tech V doesn't have quite the versatility of the TK45, and the Sinar P doesn't have the portability of the TK45.

wfwhitaker · 22-Dec-2006, 09:55

Originally Posted by MJSfoto1956

...If he and I can agree that my camera is defective, then I will issue a full detraction in MAGNAchrom magazine and then also promptly send my camera to Marflex for repair.[/B]

At the risk of sounding pedantic, wouldn't that be a retraction?

**neil poulsen** · 22-Dec-2006, 11:27

Would a retraction really be warrented, since the camera will have been proven to have had this problem? It seems like an update would be better, letting people know about the attention and potential redesign that the Linhof team was willing to provide.

**RichardRitter** · 22-Dec-2006, 11:34

When was the camera designed and released to market?

When was the BetterLight back designed and released to market?

**robc** · 22-Dec-2006, 11:46

I would have thought that an M679 was the better option for digital anyway but if that back is for a 4x5 or larger then was it sold with a disclaimer about being too heavy for some camera models. i.e. why is the assumption that it is the fault of the camera which has been around for a long time and not the back which adds excessive weight to camera back?