"What About an Ebony?"

[Natha Congdon]

I use a Linhof Tech in 4 X 5 and the Ebony at 8 X 10. Metal is more rigid than wood, it's just how God made them and the best manufacturer in the world can't change it. That being said, at 8 X 10, the Ebony gives the best combination of weight, movements, quality and convenience of use out there, and that's why I chose it. The asthetic of a metal camera is quite different from that of a wood one, which you will prefer really does depend as much on your personality as comparison of spec sheets. Ebony cameras are beautifully designed and extremely well-made, and I'd be happy to talk to you any time about my experience with mine.

Nathan

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Charles,

You wrote:

"I guess what I am trying to understand, is *why* some people still prefer wooden field cameras in light of comments such as those made by Q.-Tuan Luong and Philip Greenspun. Is it because of appearance, nostalgia, or some functional or practical reason such as weight?"

In spite of Tuan's comments, I think it's very significant to note that the large format camera he uses is a WOODEN 5x7 Canham. And believe me, he totes it all over the backcountry (we spent four days hiking and photographing at Mount Rainier last week and he's now in Alaska) in all sorts of harsh environmental conditions.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last question. Although some people simply prefer the "look" and/or "feel" of a fine wooden camera (just like some people prefer a Steinway to an electronic keyboard), I think one advantage wood still has as a material is light weight. Granted, there are some tremendously light metal cameras (Toho, Gowland, etc.), given similar designs and capabilites, a wooden camera will be lighter. It's simply a matter of the relative density of the materials. By using wood for the camera "box", it is possible to build a camera that is both sturdy and light.

That said, all wood cameras are not created equal, but then neither are all metal cameras. There are different types of wood, different designs and different levels of assembly quality. I haven't yet had my hands on an Ebony, but I have two on the way that I will eventually be reviewing for my largeformat.homepage.com. I also have a 5x7 Lotus on the way.

I'm currently using metal cameras, but have used several wooden models in the past. I find the whole notion that wooden cameras are somehow fragile or sensitive to be preposterous. For many years I lugged a little Anba Ikeda Wood View up and down hundreds of miles of trails in everything from rain forest to desert to mountain to coast. This is one of the lightest, and least robust wood fields ever made. And guess what, it held up just fine. The most fragile parts of any field camera are the ground glass and bellows. Protect these bits while it's in your pack and you'll be fine. Yeah, metal is a more robust material than wood, but are you going to take pictures or pound nails? All this talk about which cameras will and won't survive being dropped is a bit nonsensical. My advice: DON'T DROP YOUR CAMERA. And that advice applies whether your camera is wood, metal or some polycarbonate 35mm autofocus wonder. Cameras aren't designed to be dropped. To make a purchasing decision based on such criteria is to impose unrealistic constraints on the problem.

When shopping for a field camera, I consider all models regardless of materials. To me, functionality (bellows length, movements, ease of use, etc.), weight, quality of construction, price, etc. are much more relevent than the material choice for the body. Afterall, if wood was so inferior, why are so many camera makers (Wisner, Canham, Phillips, Lotus, Wista, Tachihara, Zone VI, Ebony, etc.) still using it, and why are so many photographers still making great images with wooden cameras?

Kerry