Detailed Comparison of Chamonix with Phillips Compact II

[Drew Wiley]

Right on that link, Sal, it says that to get a vertical composition with the Alpinist, you have to tilt the tripod head 90 degrees. But as you said, there is an interesting video of the newer Alpinist X, which does have an innovative VH switch feature. It looks like a wonderful camera, but understandably has a high price point. I have never actually seen any Chamonix Alpine model, but have gone out and shot with someone who used the regular Chamonix 8x10, and it is a fine camera.

The only negative aspect I detect in that X camera is that some of the controls are rather intricate, and possibly difficult to use in severe weather with gloved hands. I prefer simplicity in bad weather.

I'm amazed at how well my old Phillips has held up, and like its Spartan features. If I need all kinds of movements and features, I use the Sinar system instead. I seldom shoot any lens shorter than 360 on my Phillips - a 240 maybe only 5% of the time; so I personally have no realistic need for a fresnel or screen brightener.

[gypsydog]

Drew, what is the maximum bellows extension on your original Compact?
Thanks.

[zbvision]

Hey Sal,

I posited these questions to Oren via pm. He is busy at the moment and from perusing the forum I believe you have a Phillips Compact II and are more than capable of answering them, so I will post them on this thread as well.

I know there were slight variations between Compact II production runs. What’s the total weight of your Compact as well as the max bellows extension? I’ve heard of people having a Compact II as light as 7.9lbs from the mid 90’s and as heavy as 8.8lbs from the early 2000’s. I’ve also heard of people having 26” max bellows extension as well as 26.25”.

Is this camera really rigid enough at 18”+ bellows extension that one could use a Fujinon C 450mm f12.5 with it?

Is s the Compact II still your go to camera for field work? Do you enjoy the ergonomics in comparison to other 8x10’s you’ve owned? Is the weight savings of 4 pounds in comparison to the Deardorff v8 I’m currently using, really worth the astronomical price point in today’s market?

I’m glad you brought up the Alpinist X because other than the Compact II, that is the only other view camera I would sell off my Deardorff v8 in order to acquire. I wish someone had both the Alpinist X and Compact II so that a detailed comparison could be made.

[Drew Wiley]

The original Phillips compact has less bellows extension. For example, it can easily handle my 450C Fuji lens, but the 600C requires a tophat board. This doesn't personally bother me much because I don't use the 600 very often, and in fact do most of my long lens work with a 4x5 Norma instead. The camera is VERY rigid. That's never been an issue. And I've worked in some terrible wind, which of course has to be strategized. Half the battle is having a secure tripod attachment. I simply bolt it to the platforn top of my big Ries maple tripod, or else an especially firm big CF tripod. No need for a tripod head - that is always the weakest link; and by dispensing with it, you also save weight.

[Sal Santamaura]

...What’s the total weight of your Compact...I’ve heard of people having a Compact II as light as 7.9lbs from the mid 90’s and as heavy as 8.8lbs from the early 2000’s...

I checked years ago; it was 7.8 lb. "naked" with the original ground glass and without the ground glass protector. I've a Kirk quick release plate attached that has a ribbed rubber pad, which I don't want to remove since it's so conformed to the camera's base, and there's also that Maxwell fresnel, both of which add a little weight.

...I’ve also heard of people having 26” max bellows extension as well as 26.25”...

Mine goes to around 26-1/4 inches, but that's splitting hairs. Does one measure from the front surface of the lensboard to the ground side of the viewing screen? How does one do that with such precision? And do you really work in ways where that quarter of an inch would make any difference?

...Is this camera really rigid enough at 18”+ bellows extension that one could use a Fujinon C 450mm f12.5 with it?...

Absolutely. In fact, I have that lens, but, finding it inadequately sharp at the extremes of its image circle, also bought a much heavier 450mm f/8 CM Fujinon W, which is in a Copal 3 shutter. The Compact II laughs that one off too.

...Is...the Compact II still your go to camera for field work?...

As decades fly by, gravity makes even a Compact II heavier than it used to be. If one defines "field work" as photographing close to the car, I take the Phillips. Should more than a short walk be involved, I follow Adams' protocol, namely, use the heaviest camera I can carry. Degree of format downsizing from 8x10 is proportional to distance that must be covered.

...Do you enjoy the ergonomics in comparison to other 8x10’s you’ve owned?...

That's the easiest question you asked. I've never used any other 8x10.

...Is the weight savings of 4 pounds in comparison to the Deardorff v8 I’m currently using, really worth the astronomical price point in today’s market?...

Only your ability to carry heavy loads and your financial situation can make that determination for you. However, note that Dick Phillips gave up dentistry and started selling cameras as a result of designing his first 8x10 Compact for himself. He came up with the camera upon concluding that his 8x10 Deardorff, which he'd purchased after attending an Ansel Adams workshop, was too heavy.

[Drew Wiley]

My own experience with the Fuji 450 C is that it is superbly sharp center to edges on 8x10; and I tend to print big. But I also typically stop down to f/45 when shooting 8x10 (I also use it for 4X5). Of course, when you can make use of some rear tilt instead of all front tilt, that also keeps you better centered in the image circle. The published image circle for the 450 even at f/22 is a whopping 486mm, and further stopped down, it would really be huge.

One of Dick's Phillips' selling points when he started out is that his design was more rigid than other 8x10 wooden folders. I've handled other cameras and believe that to be true. Only massive geared monorails like the Sinar P were better in that respect. One reason was his innovation of custom dimensionally stable laminates. My camera is composed of epoxy-impregnated cherrywood laminated to layers of fiberglass. It's before the black paint finish; so the old epoxy finish has yellowed quite a bit. Chamonix substitutes a more modern wood/carbon fiber ply.

My early version has basic rack and pinion focus gearing along both sides of the bed, and not the central lead screw screw focus like the later Phillips models. I actually prefer it that way - the simpler the better when you're out in bad weather. It's only a single extension bed, so you don't need arms a long as an orangutan to operate it.