Is the Technikardan 45S my only option?

[Bob Salomon]

.....
I will say that folded up, the bellows are open and so subject to abraison at the corners where they project beyond the edges of the rear standard. I get about 4 years out of a standard bellows.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate,
When the first TK was introduced we showed it first to Ken Hansen Photo in NYC and Lou Shu made the same comment. So we called Jim Domke and asked him to make an extra large Lens Wrap for us which we sold as a Linhof Camera Wrap for the TK. After a few years he asked us if we would let him add it to his line of Lens Wraps which we agreed to so it became the largest Domke Wrap. Today we sell the Large Novoflex WRAP for the TK. This is made from neoprene so it not only can be stretched for a tight fit but also adds some padding for protection. Either of these will greatly extend the life of your bellows.

[Nathan Potter]

Bob, great thanks for that info - was not aware of those wraps and I'm guessing neoprene is perfect for that application.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Neal Chaves]

I had a Linhof Color and liked it very much. It was even faster to set up than a folding field camera. I had a big LowePro bag and I would put the camera away by taking off the rail clamp and closing the front and back tight on one end of the rail. Then it slid into my bag with the rail on top across the other compartments. It would go in like this with any lens, not just the normal, so it was ready to go as soon I pulled it out and put it into the rail clamp which remained on the tripod when I was working. You can exceed the covering power of just about any 4X5 lens with the Linhof Color, and as you say the price can't be beat.

I only sold it because I got out of all Linhof equipment and went back to TRF Crown Graphics and Toyo views and put all my lenses in Crown Graphic boards, used with adapter boards on the Toyos.
Never looked back except for that Color. "Like what "it" does not like." said Mr. Gurdjieff, and he was right.

[Matus Kalisky]

Side note for the Novoflex lens wraps - they are really great. I use the largest one as a camera wrap and several smaller ones too. One of them serves as a "case" for 5 film holders.

[Sal Santamaura]

Bob, your post that I linked, from a 2003 thread titled "Technikardan vs. Technikardan-S," said

"...Originsl L made from one piece of metal with 2 90°. Later one has 3 straight pieces with a joiner block."

Was that post incorrect?

Yes that is correct. In addition, the S has a beefier front L.

Still not sure what you're saying. Was your 2003 post incorrect? Were the original Technikardan standards built up from multiple pieces and the S version went to monolithic?

[Joe Forks]

I've got an original TK sitting on my desk, both front and rear "L"'s are one piece, and the rear "L" is beefier than the front.

It was hard to fold the first time, after that no biggie. I love this camera, it's a joy to use, and the only thing I miss about my wista tech is literally pitching it in the back seat with a lens folded up inside. So now it takes three minutes to set up instead of two.

[Sal Santamaura]

I've got an original TK sitting on my desk, both front and rear "L"'s are one piece, and the rear "L" is beefier than the front...

Thanks for that Joe. I was certain that, over the years, Bob had mentioned a number of times the newer S version went to multiple-piece built-up standards. His 2003 post that I linked to in this thread was the first one to come up when I searched for the history. Glad I wasn't hallucinating.

The miscommunication here appears to be related to sturdiness. Bob seems to be saying that the Technikardan S has a stronger front standard than the original camera, even though it's assembled from multiple pieces while the first version was monolithic.

[Nathan Potter]

Sal and Joe, I've used both the old and newer versions a lot and can't tell any practical difference between the two, at least as far as robustness is concerned.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for that Joe. I was certain that, over the years, Bob had mentioned a number of times the newer S version went to multiple-piece built-up standards. His 2003 post that I linked to in this thread was the first one to come up when I searched for the history. Glad I wasn't hallucinating.

The miscommunication here appears to be related to sturdiness. Bob seems to be saying that the Technikardan S has a stronger front standard than the original camera, even though it's assembled from multiple pieces while the first version was monolithic.

The S standard is wider then the non S standard. The front and rear standard on the S are the same. On the original the front standard was substantialy narrower then the S front standard.

[mortensen]

So, if I decide to go with the TK, the S-version would also be a bit heavier?
(nevertheless, I need the zero-detents for fast setup, so it is a no-brainer for me)

Until now it seems, that the only 'true' competitors to the TK45S is the Toyo VX125 and Arca F-Metric Compact, both of which are much more rare to find second hand (my budget rules out buying new in any case with this class of cameras). And for my needs, I think the Toyo's design and bellows has an edge over the Arca. Mark my words: For my needs