Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

[stevebrot]

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.

Easy:

• The units themselves appear to be well made and have appropriate viscosity and bubble size
• Generally accurate means just that. It would be a little like saying that kev curry generally knows what he is talking about. For most purposes I think that both would be acceptably true.
• Not adequate for archeology or forensics means just that as well. In archeology, for example, photographs are often used to determine subsequent metrics for items shown in situ and the standard for such work is very strict.

This whole bubble level thing is getting tiresome. For record:

• I actually own the camera and have actually seen and used the levels
• I have compared them to a 6" bullet (torpedo) level that I own
• While agreement is not exact (sometimes one way, sometimes the other, never more than about smidgen out-of-bounds either way), the difference is not critical for general photography. Remember too that any variance is the product of both the devices.
• As a convenience, I feel that the levels are valuable
• If they were grossly inaccurate (like those on my tripod legs and tripod release clamp, for example), I would say so.

To further muddy the waters, I have two fairly expensive 4' carpenter's levels. Put against the same wall, they never agree. I guess that means they are both junk. Or maybe it means that the house is poorly built.


Steve

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek on that last analogy...)

[stevebrot]

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

Ummm...yeah...I think

There is room for error in the installation of the levels (duh!). This would be the case regardless of the materials used in construction, country of origin, or brand of camera. Much depends on the accuracy of the manufacturing jigs/dies, the process precision, the calibration procedures, and QA processes. For all I know, they might just slap the things on, say "Good enough for government work (or export)" and send them out the door. If that is the case, I count myself lucky since mine are accurate enough for my noob purposes. Perhaps (as GPS suggests) I will become more anal (that's scary ) as I gain experience and soundly condemn the levels when I do a follow-up review. Time will tell.


Steve

[kev curry]

There is room for error in the installation of the levels (duh!)...

Steve

It would be quite a technical challenge to precisely position each of the tiny bubble levels on the back of a small camera. Even the makers of 'quality' spirit levels aimed at the building industry routinely churn out inaccurate ones.
I find it easier to just ignore those pesky wee levels anyway and instead rely on my peepers for finding true, but then again, I'm not Indiana Jones's LF photographer, and even If I was I'd search to the ends of the earth to find the Holy Grail of accurate torpedo levels for my brown leather camera satchel

[Jack Dahlgren]

To further muddy the waters, I have two fairly expensive 4' carpenter's levels. Put against the same wall, they never agree. I guess that means they are both junk. Or maybe it means that the house is poorly built.

Steve

Steve,

I think it is your absolute certainty about things new to you (which also seems to change as wind blows or you read another thing or two on the internet) which stirs up nitpicking comments.

I've been in the design and construction industry and when you have two levels that don't agree you have a very simple problem to solve. Find the best one. Get rid of the other. It takes less than a minute to determine if a level is accurate.

Your summary of specifications and other people's opinions is sort of similar. Some times you say one thing, the next time you say another, never really knowing which is correct. Full of self-certainty, but to the observer, empty of accuracy or constancy - an unreliable standard.

Of course, the most delicious part is that the levels are almost meaningless except as being the easiest nit to pick.

I would suggest that perhaps a bit of humility in your pronouncement, or even some original work - who better to write the missing user manual? - would lessen the animosity and do better credit to you than the current review and comments.

[stevebrot]

Steve,

I think it is your absolute certainty about things new to you (which also seems to change as wind blows or you read another thing or two on the internet) which stirs up nitpicking comments...

Thank you Jack for your thoughtful comments. I could spend hours of my time and dozens of paragraphs describing what I did or did not do, but it would be of little value at this point. I guess I could sum it up by saying that I should probably have ignored the posts regarding the levels and build quality, done some measurements, and saved the results for a follow-up future review. That would have spared me much grief and kept me out of the line of fire until I had some time to establish some credibility here.

As it is, I will plug away at mastering the camera and ask questions when I have a problem regarding LF technique. If I have an issue with the camera or see an area for improvement, I will communicate those directly to the people at Chamonix. At some point, I will likely write a follow-up review detailing what I have learned about the camera over time. In that review, I plan to address its strengths and weaknesses as well as issues uncovered and Chamonix's response to those issues.

Steve

[Vidarhag]

Thanks for the review, have the 045N-1 my self and likes it!
Well written review and interesting to hear your thoughts on largeformat photography, started a few years ago and still learning (a lot)
Should use the chamonix more instead of running around with the Aero- Ektar/Anniversary graphic . . . But soon (hopefully) its more springlike in Norway and that should mean some more time to walk around with a 4x5.

Vidar.

[lilmsmaggie]

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

Doesn't have to be extremely detailed. Most camera user guides aren't. They're just in multiple languages. Even a simple diagram showing controls/knob/levers, etc. and what they're used for goes a long, long way.

Steve has a gift for descriptive writing. Maybe if there's enough interest, maybe he could be convinced to writ a brief user guide

[Mike Anderson]

Doesn't have to be extremely detailed. Most camera user guides aren't. They're just in multiple languages. Even a simple diagram showing controls/knob/levers, etc. and what they're used for goes a long, long way.
...

Or, the universal language of the new millennium:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j7axnQhQWg

This wasn't made by Chamonix, but a company like Chamonix (small company, I'm assuming) could easily produce a set of these videos as basic guides to their product line. It would make good advertising as well as provide instruction.

Much easier to produce than old fashioned text/illustration based documentation. You don't need a writer (or translators), all you need is a video camera and someone who knows the (Chamonix) camera. Work out some short "skits" that don't need narration to illustrate the basic operations of the camera, video it, put it on youtube and put links to the videos on your website.

In some ways it's better than traditional "static" documentation.

...Mike

[Paul Kierstead]

I could spend hours of my time and dozens of paragraphs describing what I did or did not do, but it would be of little value at this point.

I quite enjoyed your review and comments. Having been through some of the same process myself (http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ead.php?t=8579) w.r.t. to starting with a new camera, I feel very confident that your confidence in your conclusions is a bit misplaced, but I think when you declared yourself a newbie that is covered quite nicely and no one has space to complain; you stated up front that it is a newbie's observations. And, although your opinions will change, a newcomers observations are very useful and interesting. This is particularly true since I think a lot of purchasers of Chamonix products are relatively inexperienced, so they should know what they are in for, good and bad.

I thank you for the effort and think you remained remarkably civil, all things considered, though ignoring the level tempest would indeed be a good idea

6 years on my requirements for a camera have changed quite a bit. Recently I sold all my Canon [D]SLR gear to focus on MF & LF photography in large part because LF changed what and how I wanted to shoot. In another 6 years, I expect my requirements be different again, though not as much as the first 6 years (unless affordable digital LF backs magically appear). Your requirements in a few years could be totally different; you might abandon LF, or become LF only, or decide nothing less than a Linhof is worth owning. But either way keep posting your impressions for those who find them useful and take the opinions of the detractors as possibly useful but not necessarily as a fight

[stevebrot]

Doesn't have to be extremely detailed. Most camera user guides aren't. They're just in multiple languages. Even a simple diagram showing controls/knob/levers, etc. and what they're used for goes a long, long way.

Steve has a gift for descriptive writing. Maybe if there's enough interest, maybe he could be convinced to writ a brief user guide

I might. Hugo Zhang and I have been having some conversation along those lines.

Or, the universal language of the new millennium:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j7axnQhQWg

What a great idea! It would be nice to have both a written guide and a video since there are some things that are easier to describe than to show and vice versa.

Steve