Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 164

Thread: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    84

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesFromSydney View Post
    I suspect there's no good way to fix this without blowing the cost of the camera out, given the prices for after-market glass. I have the 45N-1 and it's also the only real issue with the camera.
    There are only two practical ways to fix the problem I know of:

    1. Remove the fresnel. Some say that it is impossible to use a loupe together with a fresnel anyway.

    2. Correct for the focus shift by shimming the groundglass by 0.5mm. I have done this by cutting 5 frames made of acetate sheet in the size of the groundglass with margins in the size of the rebate the goundglass is sitting in. These sheets of 0.1mm thickness are made for use with overhead-projectors.

    I have checked the accuracy with a collimator on the cheap following a suggestion made in the German LF-forum here.

    It works as follows:

    You need a spyglass focused on infinity (a star will work) and a torch.

    First look with the spyglass through the lens of the camera onto the groundglass and focus the camera. You will clearly see the markings on the groundglass. There is a cross in the middle or instance. These marks are on the mat side of the glass. So you have a correct reference.

    Then load a holder with an old negative. on which you draw some marks with a pencil. Put this under the groundglass and look with the spyglass and the torch through the lens. The distance between the spyglass and the lens doesn't matter so there is space to place the torch appropriately.

    You will see the pencil lines you have drawn clearly in focus. I fact you can see the grain of the negative in focus if it's HP5 ore something like that. Otherwise you will have to work on your shimming.
    The focus shift of about 5/10 mm was mentioned somewhere in the bashing-thread. It seems to be correct.

    Ulrich

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,482

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Steve, in one post you say the bubble levels do not agree with each other, then you say, then that they are off by half a degree due to the manufacturing imprecision and then you wish everything was this well made...
    Good that in your last post about it you finally find them to be - precise...
    GPS

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,482

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Quote Originally Posted by stevebrot View Post
    ...
    I guess my copy is both true and has all five of its levels installed correctly. Is it that way on every camera that comes out of the shop? Probably not. Is it of critical importance? Maybe. As I suggested in the earlier comment, if it is a big deal to you, level the camera using a instrument that you trust. Better yet, pay the big bucks for a technical camera with laser calibrated alignment and geared movements and hire a Sherpa to carry it for you.


    Steve
    As you wrote in your first post, the rear and the front standard bubble levels did not agree. In your last post about it you say all the levels are within bounds. Did the disagreement between them disappear too?
    If not, and the difference is stil there, what part of the camera do you suggest should be leveled "using an instrument that you trust"? Just curious...
    GPS

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Mateo, California
    Posts
    743

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    GPS, let it rest. Besides, he isn't recommending leveling with an instrument you trust (one of rdenney's tubas perhaps?) but instead recommends a sherpa and geared movements. Surely that is a better horse to beat.

    For what it is worth, I found the certainty present in a number of the pronouncements in the review disconcerting when coming from someone who has not used a LF camera before. But overall, it is a good recitation of the facts as they are known.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Vancouver USA
    Posts
    110

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    What an incredibly testy bunch we have here.

    A little reading of the content is in order, I think:
    • My initial look at the bubble level accuracy showed minimal variance
    • My repeat was done more carefully and showed them to be accurate
    • My suggestion was that a separate level might be appropriate if the user had doubts about the built-in devices.

    My take on many of the comments on the this thread:
    • There appears to be an ongoing war regarding Chamonix cameras
    • On one side we have people who are really jazzed to see a quality product with a few weak points at a moderate price point
    • On the other side are others who find it offensive that anyone would consider a cheap camera made by eight guys in China worth using.

    I obviously fall into the first group. After all, I bought the camera and was pleasantly surprised at what came in the box. It meets my needs 2+. To address and validate some of the comments of the second group, I can offer this:
    • No, the Chamonix 045N-2 is not a technical studio camera. It is not even a technical field camera. A person would be a fool to try and use it for such.
    • No, it does not bear one of the hallowed names, nor is it backed by a support network.
    • Yes, the built-in bubble levels could be viewed as being sort of silly (see the first bullet point). After all, field cameras are generally not used for that kind of work. It is sort of like putting spoilers on a Jeep.
    • On any moderately priced photography product, one of the main concerns is build quality. It is appropriate to be skeptical about whether the camera is true when assembled, parallel when zero'ed, well-designed, and made of quality materials.

    As for my inexperience with LF...I freely admit that and framed my review within that context. I guess that the main strength that I bring to the review is that I actually OWN the second generation camera and have actually used it too. I also looked at and handled several other cameras in my price range and above before ordering the Chamonix and felt that the Chamonix represented the best value for my needs (light, portable, rigid, etc.). I still feel that way. Will I change my opinion in the future as I gain experience? Perhaps. I intend to post a follow-up review at six months or maybe a year.

    While I have very limited experience, I am not totally ignorant. My move to LF came as a result of long-term frustration with the lack of movements on my small format film and digital cameras. No, I did not even consider Ebony, Arca-Swiss, or Technikardan. All of those wonderful cameras are well beyond my budget. I knew that from the time a store clerk showed me a Technikardan back in the late 1980s. Drool hit the counter and I wanted one on the spot, but the price tag emphatically said no. Am I ignorant of what these cameras have to offer? No. Is the Chamonix a compromise in features/quality? Maybe. I guess I will find out.


    Steve

  6. #36
    Dave Karp
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,250

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Steve,

    This would be a great candidate to turn into a review article for the home page. Try contacting QT if you are interested.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Vancouver USA
    Posts
    110

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Quote Originally Posted by David Karp View Post
    Steve,

    This would be a great candidate to turn into a review article for the home page. Try contacting QT if you are interested.
    I had considered that and may do so in a revised version once I have a few more "miles under my belt" with the camera. If there are issues with durability or usage, I want to be sure they are addressed. Ditto for customer service and support.


    Steve

  8. #38
    Eric Biggerstaff
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,149

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Steve,

    Congrats on the new camera! It will bring you many years of pleasure and will be great to use. Like most on this forum, I have used several camera over the years with my current favorite being a 100 year old 5X7 that works just great and has never had a thing done to it as far as I can tell.

    You started off with a very nice piece of equipment, take care of it and it will be as fun to use 10 years from now as it is today. Just beware however, that view cameras (and LF lenses) are sort of addictive, once you have your first one many more are sure to follow.

    Have fun and be patient, it takes time to really learn LF but the lessons are worth learning.
    Eric Biggerstaff

    www.ericbiggerstaff.com

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Quote Originally Posted by stevebrot View Post
    What an incredibly testy bunch we have here.

    A little reading of the content is in order, I think:
    • My initial look at the bubble level accuracy showed minimal variance
    • My repeat was done more carefully and showed them to be accurate
    • My suggestion was that a separate level might be appropriate if the user had doubts about the built-in devices.

    My take on many of the comments on the this thread:
    • There appears to be an ongoing war regarding Chamonix cameras
    • On one side we have people who are really jazzed to see a quality product with a few weak points at a moderate price point
    • On the other side are others who find it offensive that anyone would consider a cheap camera made by eight guys in China worth using.

    I obviously fall into the first group. After all, I bought the camera and was pleasantly surprised at what came in the box. It meets my needs 2+. To address and validate some of the comments of the second group, I can offer this:
    • No, the Chamonix 045N-2 is not a technical studio camera. It is not even a technical field camera. A person would be a fool to try and use it for such.
    • No, it does not bear one of the hallowed names, nor is it backed by a support network.
    • Yes, the built-in bubble levels could be viewed as being sort of silly (see the first bullet point). After all, field cameras are generally not used for that kind of work. It is sort of like putting spoilers on a Jeep.
    • On any moderately priced photography product, one of the main concerns is build quality. It is appropriate to be skeptical about whether the camera is true when assembled, parallel when zero'ed, well-designed, and made of quality materials.

    As for my inexperience with LF...I freely admit that and framed my review within that context. I guess that the main strength that I bring to the review is that I actually OWN the second generation camera and have actually used it too. I also looked at and handled several other cameras in my price range and above before ordering the Chamonix and felt that the Chamonix represented the best value for my needs (light, portable, rigid, etc.). I still feel that way. Will I change my opinion in the future as I gain experience? Perhaps. I intend to post a follow-up review at six months or maybe a year.

    While I have very limited experience, I am not totally ignorant. My move to LF came as a result of long-term frustration with the lack of movements on my small format film and digital cameras. No, I did not even consider Ebony, Arca-Swiss, or Technikardan. All of those wonderful cameras are well beyond my budget. I knew that from the time a store clerk showed me a Technikardan back in the late 1980s. Drool hit the counter and I wanted one on the spot, but the price tag emphatically said no. Am I ignorant of what these cameras have to offer? No. Is the Chamonix a compromise in features/quality? Maybe. I guess I will find out.


    Steve
    You wrote an excellent review of an excellent camera and are better qualified to write a review of it than most, certainly better than people who don't even own the camera but have nothing better to do than carp about its bubble levels.

    Hell, the Linhof Technikas I owned had one little target level and it was placed on top of the rear housing where it couldn't even be seen when the camera was on a tripod. I don't remember one single person ever criticizing Linhof for putting a level on their $4,000 cameras in a position where it was basically useless. Yet Chamonix puts bubble levels all over their $800 camera and there's supposed to be a major problem with the camera because the levels might be half a degree off or whatever the problem with them is supposed to be. Amazing.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Nuremberg Germany
    Posts
    1,053

    Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen View Post
    You need a spyglass focused on infinity (a star will work) and a torch.
    You don't need a torch if the bellows is removable. In this case place the camera in bright light.

    Peter
    I'm not weird. I'm limited edition.

Similar Threads

  1. Chamonix camera 45N-1 focusing error
    By GPS in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 191
    Last Post: 7-Dec-2009, 15:17
  2. Bellows extension viability for the Chamonix 045N
    By rugenius in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21-Sep-2009, 07:52
  3. Adventures with the new HP G4050 - A newbie's review
    By Padu Merloti in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 14-Jun-2007, 07:40
  4. Chamonix is coming!
    By Hugo Zhang in forum New Products
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 25-Mar-2007, 11:45

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •