Ted's right, Bob's right. While it would be nice to have cameras like the Technika undergo even more development it's just highly unlikely given the currency exchange rate, the costs involved and the small market. As someone who recently bought a new Technika 3000 I would have appreciated if the price were lower, but I do appreciate that they in fact still make new cameras.
Come on now. There is no way to compare the precision, the performance, the reliability, the versatility of a new Technika vs a new Horseman. And there is no way you can compare the lifetime performance of a new or used Technika vs the rather short lifetime performance of a Horseman.Originally Posted by Van Camper
You really were not making the decision based on the construction of a Linhof being less then that of a Horseman when both cameras were in front of you were you?
Do you really think the casual shooters like John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, Ray McSavvey, The Menschs, Mary Ellen Mark, etc. would not have found that same point of despair as you did? And there are literally 1000s of more highly satisfied users of MT and MT2000 and now MT3000 cameras who have never even thought to mention the function of the flap to us over the past 30 years.
Van,
We don't build a camera for you specifically. If ours does not suit you for some reason then you are perfectly welcome to buy something else. But the flap that seems top attract so much of your attention is and never has been a problem.
As for leather peeling, it happens, it is also easily put back down. Since the III was introduced in 1946 the Technika has undergone few changes and lots of use and history. The condition of a used camera is not indicative of all cameras. It simply indicates use. How hard is hard to tell on most Technikas.
Don't justify your choice of cameras based on condition of used models seen in a store or how the flap is made. All things considered there is no large format camera made with the history, precision, consistency and following of the Linhof Technika. And that is thanks to its fit, feel, finish, reliability, etc.
None of the Asian models have even approached Linhof's capability. Perhaps there is one that is lighter, or one that folds smaller, or one that has more movement or one that takes a wider lens then a MT but no Asian, European or US made camera puts it all in one package with one camera that can take the abuse and punishment and retauin its' value like a Technika can.
And Van,
For decades Linhof offered a 23 to 45 conversion back for the 45 Technika. They still offer 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 roll backs for the MT or any other International Back camera. On any Technika 45 these backs fully revolve.
My friend has a Horseman, I have a Technika. The Horseman is a fine camera and the Technika is a great camera. I think someone here is being a wise apple and trying to get a rise out of Bob.
I made a simple little gizmo that gives you asymetrical tilts on a Tech IV ! ---------- the thing about getting a Linhof Technica is this - you just ran out of excuses!
I think a set of spirit levels would be nice on a Technika. One on top and one on the side.
Well, I'd like to see an integrated viewfinder/rangefinder, but the only cameras that seems to be capable of that are converted polaroids.
I'd love to see a modern Polaroid 110B or 900 that could fold with a 135mm f3.5 Xenotar or Planar.
I have no idea what the market size of something like that would be, though, since there seem to be far more landscape folks around here.
Oh come on – there's a world of difference between a wooden field camera and a metal technical camera. Perhaps you should ask Toyo to customise one of their metal technical cameras for you and see what sort of response you get (what's the Japanese for "eff off"?).
Richard
Personally, I like my Tech IV. For me, the camera has sufficent movements-this may not be true for everyone else however. But think about it-How many times could you use a 50-60 year old camera and really be happy with its performance? Not many I would guess. I have only had one problem (a broken hinge point on the front) which was repaired fairly easily and for not too much money.
Would I like some improvements? Certainly. But in the current state of economies, the cost/benefit ratio is pretty steep. Now if we're just daydreaming, a better handling of short focal lengths would be first on my list. I only use a 90mm, but that is not perfect. A little lighter would be nice along with a little more bellows draw. After that I have run out of suggestions.
As the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy" count yourself lucky that we have cameras and lenses of the quality that we do.
Dick P
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks