Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

[stevebrot]

I think the original discussion here about Chamonix levels came out of a conversation between Brian Ulrich and myself regarding the imprecision of levels on our 8x10 Chamonix cameras. When initially set up, there were differences between the front and back standard levels, creating additional work to level the camera by using an external level. Brian and I both shoot more sub/urban archaeology and need that level calibration, especially on the 8x10, which is not an inexpensive camera (in that price range, the levels should work).

So (as a designer myself) I have been thinking about a solution. While I am completely unaware of the manufacturing sequence, I am wondering if the levels on my camera were not installed in the making of each standard, prior to building the camera. If so, then a better solution would be to route the level channels with a little bit of variability, and install the levels after the build of the camera by setting up the finished camera, calibrating and then installing to ensure a cohesive read among all the levels.

I'd like to add that after using my Chamonix 8x10 for 2 years, there is nothing made that I would trade it for. For my purposes, it is the best 8x10 available. And frankly, I am ecstatic that a company like Chamonix is pushing large format forward unlike any other company (listening to our comments and improving on their product). Let's not forget all of the amazing films and papers that are now gone, and the struggle (especially for manufacturers) to keep our passion alive in LF.

Thanks for the background information. In addition to the accuracy issue, I also ran across a few threads with complaints about overly viscous fluid and leaking levels. The quality of the levels on the new camera seems to be excellent, though I would have to characterize them as being "generally" accurate. They are useful for quick setup in the field, but probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics.

Steve

[GPS]

Thanks for the background information. In addition to the accuracy issue, I also ran across a few threads with complaints about overly viscous fluid and leaking levels. The quality of the levels on the new camera seems to be excellent, though I would have to characterize them as being "generally" accurate. They are useful for quick setup in the field, but probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics.

Steve

You start to be quite an expert on these bubble levels - in just about 10 days you have changed your opinion about them several times already. Don't worry - once you have really used the camera a lot, you'll be able to make some review of a better value. So far you just adjust your opinion according to the experience of the other, more experienced users.

[stevebrot]

@GPS,

For the sake of those who have "turned you off" I have abstained from quoting your latest jab.

I take it that condescension is your specialty. I did not say anything new in that comment than what I said before. As for the accuracy of the levels, I suggest that you buy a Chamonix and test them for yourself. For myself, I find them to be generally accurate and acceptable for field use. In reviewing my last set of negatives the horizons are level and the trees are straight.

My suggestion to you is that you seriously consider your role here and elsewhere, whether you are making a positive or negative contribution, and whether the people in your life still take you seriously as a result. You are intelligent and good with words. Use your talents for better things than making enemies.

Steve

[Sal Santamaura]

...For the sake of those who have "turned you off" I have abstained from quoting your latest jab...

Thank you Steve!!!

[kev curry]

... The quality of the levels on the new camera seems to be excellent, though I would have to characterize them as being "generally" accurate. They are useful for quick setup in the field, but probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics.

Steve

How can the levels be simultaneously described as ''excellent'', then ''generally accurate'', and then ''probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics'' in the same paragraph?
Maybe you should have a read through the words that you penned and ask yourself if anyone could legitimately attach any value to them.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kev, I think what he was trying to say was that the manufacturing of the level itself was excellent but precisely installed in relation to the back itself.

[GPS]

Kev, I think what he was trying to say was that the manufacturing of the level itself was excellent but precisely installed in relation to the back itself.

Kev, I think that what Kirk was trying to say was that the manufacturing of the level itself was excellent but NOT precisely installed in relation to the back itself...

[Kirk Gittings]

I think what GPS was trying to say about what I was trying to say was essentially correct.

[kev curry]

Thanks girls. I would hate to be the little guy at the end of the assembly line responsible for positioning those wee levels on the back of the cameras;-)

[Mike Anderson]

Thanks girls. I would hate to be the little guy at the end of the assembly line responsible for positioning those wee levels on the back of the cameras;-)

or the Chamonix User Manual tech writer - oh wait there is none.

Seriously now, a user guide seems like a worthwhile addition. I don't have Chamonix, but it's obviously not idiot proof (no offense anyone) and just seems incomplete without a user guide. It doesn't even have to be printed, just put online in web pages or as a PDF.

That's one Chamonix non-owner's opinion.

...Mike