I specialized in the business of large format and professional photographic equipment service for almost 12 years, so I'm pretty clear on the how's and why's of the problem. I've handled quite a few Technikardans and serviced several as well.
The problem is accentuated with short focal length lenses.... i.e. it will be less obvious with a 600mm but much more obvious with a 47mm XL.
I know this is a bit off the original question, that being said. I have recently sold my beloved Wista Field 4x5 and purchased a used Technikarden 45s. I have not looked back. The camera is rugged, lightweight (respectively) and instinctual to work with. After a few outings the movements and controls are very easy to adjust. I am quite happy. Now I just need to find a hood for the ground glass and perhaps a 75mm lens.
Maybe I'm not getting this. Where do these TK's tilt? Is it at the base in some looseness in the rail when locked down or does the P-back acutally make it tilt at the tilt pivot? I've never gone shorter than 65mm and use the newer, lighter plastic Polaroid backs but have older metal ones that were never a problem. I can see where my Sinar C would never tilt, while the TK COULD but doesn't. I must say my heavy Speed Graphic rig doesn't seem to tilt but as you say, who would know way out at 600mm+? I recheck my levels just before shooting and I stay level. I've used my TK professionally for 17 years now and haven't really noticed a problem. Maybe I'm the lucky one or am not critical enough.
Hi Bob, Not talking about base tilt. I was asking if he gets tilting from the base because of the weight and less-than-tight lock down. Or wether he gets tilt within the tilt pivot because the Polaroid back is too tight for the camera. I get neither on mine so I wanted to understand.
No one has made a strong or compelling case regarding the value of the changes in the TK45S. The owners of the older version uniformly praise it as being lighter and more compact. One contributor said that the TK45 has slightly longer extension than its successor TK45S, a comment that I suspect is a case of bellows envy. Some contributors mentioned experiencing the older version slipping out of adjustment when weighted down by the Polaroid back, but presented no evidence that this was due to the TK45 design or widespread. I have to acknowledge that I have experienced the same problem of slippage, especially when inserting a Polarid back. I thought it might be due to same grime or other lubricant accumulating between the surfaces that are pressed together to inhibit movement after I have set the levers. Alternately I suspect that maybe some spring had weakened with time -- the camera is nearly 12 years old and shows wear and tear. Bob implied that the event was rare, unexpected, likely easily remedied, and not a recognized design flaw. I am curious to know what is the corrective action that needs to be taken with the TK45 that has a slippage problem. I find it difficult to understand how the average user would find the indents on the TK45S preferable to degree markings, but as an expert, Linhof probably did verify this. I would assume that Linhof designed enhanced crashproof resistance of the TK45S to deformation in a quest for engineerng perfection. Our readership can reveal whether deformation of the TK45 has been a common problem. I experienced this deformation after my camera crashed to the ground off a cliff. I sent it to Marflex, Marflex fixed the problem, and I remain a happy camper. I would appreciate some contribution by Bob as to what is the nature of the problem and how it arises, that led to enhanced strengthening of the standards on the TK45S and decision to put in indents.................................................Regards, David.....
The extension on the old and new cameras are identical as are all other specs save the addition of detents (which were due to requests from owners and potential owners) and the additional very slight increase in weight due to the detents and, possibly, the 3 piece front standard whioh is wider then the one piece older standard.
If someone experiences slippage it is time to have the camera serviced. There are no springs.
apart from scales for swing (ceterum censeo!), detents and 3-piece standards there are some more slight differences between TK and TKs. Linhof manuals and brochures provide following data:
TKs TK 2x3 4x5 2x3 4x5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Length 125 125 95 100 Width 165 215 160 210 Height 210 255 210 260 Weight 2800 g 3000 g 2200 g 2900 g Extension 340 485 330 510
All measures except weight are in mm.
According to the manual the shortest focal length for TK is 47 mm (at that time there was no shorter focal length for large format available). I heard with TKs one could use even the Apo-Grandagon 35 mm (Bob Salomon could confirm that). With some minor modification or a special recessed lensboard it should also be possible to use TK with the Apo-Grandagon 35mm or the Super-Angulon XL 38 mm.
If one wants to hike with a 2x3 the differences of weight and size between TKs and TK can really matter. With 4x5 differences are not substantial ... except the scales for swings (ceterum censeo!) and possibly maximum extension if one needs the 25 mm for macro work and/or long lenses.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks