my new Wehman

[Michael Nagl]

In former Yugoslavia, a lot of jokes were made about the car they built, the YUGO. One of them went like this: How do they test if the doors close tightly enough at the Mercedes Benz factory? They lock up a cat in the evening, and when they come back the next morning and the cat has died of suffocation, the seals are o.k.. - How do they test the door seals in the YUGO factory? They lock up a cat in the evening, and when they come back next morning and the cat is still there, the seals are ok.
Folks! My Linhof Bi-Kardan was from Mercedes country. And carrying it certainly felt like carrying a Mercedes. As 5x7 colour negative film is no longer available, I had a good excuse for getting an 8x10. I wanted a light camera with a lot of front shift. I can do very well without Transnistrian Esowood and Kirgisian Yak Leather, and I am unwilling to pay for such goodies. The Wehman looked like just the right offer.
Now, after two weeks of taking pictures, I wouldnīt say that this is a bad camera. Itīs super light and it gets me there. If some of the pictures I made with it were technical failures, the camera was not to blame. Alas, while my back and my mind repeat that all is well, my hands miss the Linhof.

[JJ Viau]

I also have a new Wehman since Christmas, after a Sinar P2, a Toyo Field and lately a Canham wood in 8x10 and I came to the situation that I am perfectly happy with the Wehman and not missing anything from any other camera (not even a fresnel lens..). I also got happy lately with mono coated lenses, so it is perhaps the beginning of wisdom.......

JJ

[Michael Nagl]

JJ,
I spent a lot of time pondering the issue - what do you see as the advantages of the Wehman over the Canham?
I have also come to like the ground plexi. What bothers me most is the front standard, especially that there is too much play in the zero position. Try it with a short lens. You can get an unvolutary Scheimpflug if you are not careful.
But - donīt listen to me! Stay happy!

[vinny]

What bothers me most is the front standard, especially that there is too much play in the zero position. Try it with a short lens. You can get an unvolutary Scheimpflug if you are not careful.
But - donīt listen to me! Stay happy![/QUOTE]


I've had my wehman for over a year and haven't experienced the "play" you speak of. Are you saying the bellows is pushing the front standard forward?
I've used my with my 165 super angulon, 135, and 90mm grandagon w/o any issues like that. The 165 is 3lbs so you have to be careful but the results are sharp.

[Michael Nagl]

Vinny,
what I discovered was that having the camera set up in front of a long faraway horizon - things farther away than 5 kilometres, so letīs say at "infinity" - what my 150mm lens produced was a sharp image on the left, and a blurred one on the right. Shifting focus from one edge to the other would require a movement of the film plane of about 3 mm or 1/8 inch. Note that the front standard was "zeroed", i. e. the groove on itīs lower side was resting on the rail. It showed that none the less a swing movement of about one or two degrees (roughly estimated) is possible, which affects the parallelity of film plane and horizon.
Bitter!

[vinny]

Vinny,
what I discovered was that having the camera set up in front of a long faraway horizon - things farther away than 5 kilometres, so letīs say at "infinity" - what my 150mm lens produced was a sharp image on the left, and a blurred one on the right. Shifting focus from one edge to the other would require a movement of the film plane of about 3 mm or 1/8 inch. Note that the front standard was "zeroed", i. e. the groove on itīs lower side was resting on the rail. It showed that none the less a swing movement of about one or two degrees (roughly estimated) is possible, which affects the parallelity of film plane and horizon.
Bitter!

What did Bruce Wehman have to say about your issue? You have contacted him, right?
I'm sure he'd take a look at it and make it right.

[JJ Viau]

Hello Michael,
Let´s have that conversation when my Canham has sold!
Seriously, what you described with the Wehman happened to me on the canham. I got used to recheck the focus after having screwed the filter on the lens or packed up the bellows. With no axis tilt on the Wehman I can´t imagine that it can be an issue.
It is really a fine experience to take a look at the Maxwell screen installed on my Canham and be able to focus very precisely but I find the Wehman very liberating: I don´t care how I transport it and where I put in when photographing and I find the handling very straight forward (probably since having used a Toyo before). There is one think I love about the Wehman: the asymetric back swing. I think it is also very addictive.
Basically I feel confident with the Wehman and would rather try to do everything with a pretty simple camera than having all possibilities at hand but still feel ill at ease about carrying the camera everywhere or setting it in the field. I guess that´s just me...I like Wehman and Toyos!

JJ

[paul stimac]

The Wehman is designed for rugged field use. You wouldn't want to take a Mercedes on a jeep trail.

[Michael Nagl]

Well, I sure did not buy the Wehman for it´s sophistication. I like simple cameras. My old Leica is a simple camera; and the Wehman is, too. The big difference is that the latter was obviously built and finished in a hurry, so it has an air of hurry and stress and not of meticulous work. And, like many here, I guess, I am a meticulist.

[JJ Viau]

I would say: a look on the ground glass and a slight compensation with back swing makes everything allright. This camera, like others too, does not have an absolute zero swing position for the back (nothing that clicks in), so I can live with that. As long as what you see on the glass is what you get on the film I can leave with the back not being exactly parallel to a part of the camera bottom plate, I do all the fine focus visually anyway...
This problem on a studio camera with a positive zero swing position would be a problem tough.

JJ