In another thread, I was asked why I prefer the (8x10) Kodak 2d to the Deardorff...
There are a few reasons:
1) the Kodak is lighter by a few pounds (my Deardorff weighed in at just over 15 pounds and the Kodak 2d weigh a little over ten).
2) the Kodak seems stronger, more sturdy than the Deardorff. The Deardorff always felt a little flimsy to me - especially the front standard and front extension. That and I was always worried about it getting "hurt".
3) damned lensboards for Deardorff cost a small fortune....and everybody selling Deardorff board seems to really have 2-D boards with the corners rounded...which don't really fit Deardorffs to well. Of course, original Kodak lensboards are basically unobtainable these days but they are easier to make. Ok...these are minor nits.
However, the Deardorff did have more movements capability...and of course, the Deardorff is much better looking than the ugly old, un-refined Kodak 2D.
uhm, so....anybody else have any reasons they prefer one or the other?
Bookmarks