Suggestions for lightweight 8x10

[jb7]

Richard, Arcas are great $800 cameras.

All this talk about the weight of cameras made me get the scales out-
and I was surprised to find how heavy it was-
it seems lighter, maybe because of it's size-


Arca Irish 8x10* 4,070g, inc. 450mm telescoping rail, without lens or board-

A similar Arca Swiss 8x10 has got to be lighter-
anyone have a weight handy?

Maybe I only have one of the desired factors, budget...
though it seems strong enough, I don't have anything to compare it to-


joseph

[John O'Connell]

5 lb 8x10 back “Lite” $ 1,550.00

I have the highest respect for Gowland cameras, as an owner, but I think using a Gowland 8x10 is quite a different experience than a metal Toyo 4x5. If you're coming from a Toyo 4x5 and want a similar experience in 8x10, you're not going to get it from the Gowland---you need to be comfortable working without features like detents or captive bolts.

[JasonC]

A 7.5lb (3.4kg) 8x10.

http://www.toho-machine.co.jp/FC-810.htm

Jason.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have the highest respect for Gowland cameras, as an owner, but I think using a Gowland 8x10 is quite a different experience than a metal Toyo 4x5. If you're coming from a Toyo 4x5 and want a similar experience in 8x10, you're not going to get it from the Gowland---you need to be comfortable working without features like detents or captive bolts.

As another Gowland 8x10" user, I agree, it's not for everyone.

[AJ Edmondson]

The Wista Wood Field (dbl ext) isn't too heavy and seems to be solid enough. I am not particularly fond of the necessity to use both hands for moving the rear standard (swing is achieved by moving each side) and the front standard can be somewhat awkward (disengage the bottom of the lensboard to achieve tilt) but I still prefer it to the old Kodak or the Calumet C which I used for years!

[Ole Tjugen]

... Mine is a Gandolfi Traditional. Not the lightest, but far from the heaviest. ...

It weighs in at 4140g. Far lighter than I would have thought, compared to the "superlights"! I won't be swapping that camera for anything else.

On another note, my 24x30cm plate camera weighs 4280g. That weight is including the huge universal iris lens mount. And it has 85cm bellows, reducing inserts for the plate holders down to 18x24, 13x18, 10x15, 9x12 and even 6.5x9cm. I must try the 640mm Suter Aplanat on 6.5x9cm some day...

[David Finch]

I have a Kodak Master. It isn't light, it has no brand cachet, and it sure isn't pretty in either the Deardorff/Ebony or the Phillips/Chamonix sense. But it's a great camera in the field: rock-solid, easy-to-use, reliable. Put it on a Majestic tripod and head, stick on a 7 1/2" Wide Field or 12" Commercial Ektar, put it in the back of your '47 Chrysler Woodie, and go out and make real pictures.

[tim loose]

I would vote for the Phillips. It is a very solid, lightweight camera which has done well by me. I have one of the early Compacts (#52) and love it. Hard to get lighter. The other good thing is that its value keeps rising. Although I don't intend to give it up my heirs will appreciate it.

[Ben Syverson]

I would double check the alignment for each setup anyway, so I don't mind leveling the Gowland each time I use it. It only eats up about 30 seconds...

[Scott Davis]

I've got a Zone VI Ultralight (about the same weight as a Canham 8x10 wood field camera) which is a terrific camera. I'm just not using it now - I've become rather fond of other formats/proportions and it is gathering dust. If you're interested, let me know and we can talk about price and package options.