8x10 decision, final. Lotus or Canham?

[Michael Nagl]

Well now,
I still haven´t decided which 8x10 I will get... Anyway, all but two cameras I have eliminated from my list, as there are just two cameras that have the rear standard shift possibilities I want (for making 10x16s via stitching): The Lotus and the (wood) Canham.
Now of course the Canham looks better.
On the other hand, Frau Ströbele of Lotus was charming to the extreme when we had a phone conversation today.
On the other hand, the Lotus is more expensive.
On the other hand, that´s not the basis on which I want to decide - sub auspicie aeternitatis, what`s 1700 Euros -
On the other hand, it would be an act of narrowminded chauvinism if I, as an Austrian, bought an Austrian camera.
On the other hand, if it needs a quick CLA, I wouldn`t want to have to send it round the globe for that.
On the other hand, The Big Mutmansky says the 7X17 Canham is better than the Lotus
On the other hand, TBM might be a chauvinist
On the other hand, I don`t think so
On the other hand, everybody keeps posting that things fall off their Canhams
On the other hand, it looks a lot better
to be continued ad infinitum ad nauseam --- so PLEASE all You who have the experience I lack, give me advice!
Thanks,
Michael

[Terence McDonagh]

Go with your gut. You'll always question yourself if you don't.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Michael,

You are very fortunate. There is no wrong answer to your dilemma. Both cameras are wonderful and both companies a pleasure to deal with. You can't go wrong with either. Both are thoughtfully designed and very well made. Pick one and go take some pictures. You will soon be so busy and happy you won't have time for regrets or second thoughts.

Kerry

P.S. I actually LIKE the appearance of the Lotus cameras, but then I've always been partial to natural cherry furniture.

[Walter Calahan]

You live in Austria - get the Lotus.

If you lived is the US, I'd say get the Canham.

I haven't read things falling off Canhams. Haven't had anything fall off my Canham 8x10 light weight camera. I've had to tighten a set screw from time to time from use, but who hasn't.

One thing Keith Canham is great for is his customer service, even to people who buy used Canhams. He has a stellar record for helping anyone who owns his cameras. Charm is one thing. Action speaks louder than words.

In the end it's your money getting a tool to explore your vision as a photographer. Get the machine that will make life easiest.

[Craig Roberts]

have you given any thought to a 12x20? No stiching needed. Both amnufacturers can supply a 12x20.
CRaig

[Michael Kadillak]

With the strength of the Euro, I would take advantage of the lower costs and get the Canham. All things considered, the camera only holds things static and as Kerry said they are both far more than adequate as upper tier cameras. I love my wooden Canham. Spend the difference on lenses, holders and sheet film.

Get the camera and start making images!

Cheers

[Michael Nagl]

Feels good to be able to get advice from the grandseigneurs of the grand format, thanks! Craig: No color film that size, so --- gladly!- I don´t have to cope with that temptation.
By the way, I´ve laid hands on a Manfrotto (Bogen) 410 geared head today, looked cool, light and precise. Anyone used it? Is it enough for 5 kilos of camera?

[Michael Mutmansky]

The Big Mutmansky thinks the Phillips is better than both of those.
On the other hand, TBM likes and uses Lotus filmholders very much.
On the other hand, TBM especially likes talking about himself in the third person.

Some people prefer one thing over another. I found the Lotus cameras a little more floppy than the Canham when I tried it about 7 years ago. The Canham is not the most rigid camera in the world, either, but as I've said in the past, I think Keith made a good compromise of weight, functionality and rigidity within the constraints of the camera design that he has.

In other words, he makes the camera 'rigid enough' for practical use. In this case, building more rigidity into the camera wouldn't necessarily make it a more functional camera.

If you are thinking of stitching digitally, I would not get either camera. I'd stick with a much smaller camera.

I've had knobs unscrew on my Canham on several occasions. I have yet to lose anything, thanks to the little bag that I keep the camera in. After the first time, I got a small set of spare bushings, washers and knobs from Keith so that I wouldn't be totally stuck if on a trip with a missing part. No big deal.

I like the look of the Lotus very much, but I strongly recommend that you remove looks from the consideration. They are irrelevant to the purpose of a camera (it's a tool, not a piece of decorative furniture). In the Miesian prioritization hierarchy, aesthetics, while not disregarded, are secondary to functionality. Who are you to go against the great standardbearer of modernism?

In the scheme of things, both will make fine cameras and great images in the hands of a skilled operator.

I think I would probably give preference to the locally-made camera for the generally idealistic notion that purchasing locally is more responsible consumerism for a variety of reason.


---Michael

[Jack Flesher]

Two more irrelevant cents of advice, for what it's worth...

I've owned a Lotus and Phillips and messed around with a few Canham 8x10's. In the end, they are all great cameras. The Lotus is probably the finest wooden camera I have owned; everything about it was done right. I found it to be quite rigid, easy to fold and set up, and easy to use. By contrast, I felt the Canham (wooden version) was more wobbly and less intuitive to fold and unfold, though I'm sure one would get the hang of it in time. I also preferred the larger 4-wing knobs on the Lotus over the smaller T-nuts on the Canham, but that is a minor nit.

Regarding the Phillips -- it is a great camera, but not for everybody. It is more limited in its movements -- you still get there, but with more effort than either the Canham or Lotus. This is mainly because the Phillips has no rear movements save base tilt and a very limited, somewhat indirect swing, so everything else is done up front. But in fairness, it is exceptionally rigid yet lightweight, and it does everything most of us need in a field camera.

So, if money isn't an issue, the Lotus is tough to beat. When comparing costs, the Canham becomes significantly more attractive. Both are lookers in my view. Finally, when considering what you really need the camera to do, weight and cost, the Phillips (or even the new Shen Hao copy at sub $2000) become pretty attractive, though certianly not as sexy looking as the Lotus or Canham.

Cheers,

[Brian Ellis]

Well there's just no accounting for some people's taste. : - ) I thought the one Lotus camera I've had the pleasure of playing around with was the most beautiful camera I've ever seen. And I disagree with Michael about the importance of aesthetics in the tools you use. I certainly wouldn't buy a camera solely because it looks nice but if I'm debating between two cameras that about balance out in terms of functionality and cost but one looks nicer than the other, I'll go with the better looking one every time.