Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

[Keith Burnett]

It is nice that Kerry had the opportunity to respond with his current philosophy. I quite appreciate it as I am sure others do.

The Linhof M679 is probably a tank. I can't imagine that it really belongs in the same league as the cameras we have been discussing. I believe it was actually designed as a platform for digital imaging, primarily in the studio.

A story of personal anguish follows in the spirit of our discussion.

About six months ago I called Badger Graphics to inquire about the Ebony SV23 and the Ebony 23S. I really wanted a 23S partially for financial reasons. The gentleman at BG told me that he just sold his 23S "demo" that morning to a person in NY for substantially lower price than usual. Furthermore, there was no negotiation on the price of a "new" one. Now that demo had been sitting around for over a year (or more) and nobody bought it. Then I make a "random" call and it had sold that morning!!! He told me that another one would probably never be available no matter how long I was willing to be patient. Did it break my heart...NO. But did I react emotionally...Yes. While this may seem irrational I honestly felt cheated. The "coincidence" was just too...you know...improbable. I subconciously resolved to not buy the Ebony because of this. What stupid logic...but so far I am sticking by it (because it's MY stupid logic). Keith

[Glenn Kroeger]

Well, so much for Keith's advice :^)

Kerry's right about the Toho's eliminating weight advantages to smaller formats.

He also seems to get film much cheaper than I do. Lately, I have been figuring the cost of QL sheets at $5.50 with processing. My only complaint with QL was bulk not weight. I always felt compelled to protect the packets from light and bending, and never found anything much better than their original boxes to store and protect them in.

As Kerry points out, all of these comments are personal experience. I arrived at the AS69 as my system after about 20 years of lots of buying and selling. The net has made that easier and less costly. Everybody has to find their own comfort point, and the chances of hitting it with the first camera are slim. Hopefully other's comments shorten the learning curve to less than one decade.

For me, lenses were also and issue. I always found 75mm too wide, and 90mm too long and heavy in 4x5. The 55mm combined with the 2:3 aspect ration just works well for me, giving me the equivalent of a 90mm on the short dimension and a 75mm on the long dimension. Of course there is now the 80XL.

For me, a compelling reason to stick with 4x5 would have been the availability of ISO400 color film. The B&W folks get TriX and TMax 400 but there are no fast films where they are both needed and the grain is acceptable. Pushing Provia 100F is one choice, but a bit expensive unless you do your own E6 processing.

[Jeffrey Goggin]

Although I've never shot a photo with an M679, I've played around with one at a local dealer (Photomark in Phoenix, AZ). While it's no doubt a wonderful studio camera, IMO, it's much too heavy for field use (per the brochure, it weighs approx. 3800gm or 8.4lbs). I understand there is now a version that offers direct rise and fall, whereas the earlier versions didn't. Overall, it's a very impressive system but not one I would want to carry very far. (Mind you, my Toyo 23G weighs even more at just over 9lbs but it was quite a bit cheaper, too. We all have to compromise sometimes...)

[Ellis Vener]

You mentioned in your last post your desire to stick with roll film and the perceived desire for a binocular reflex finder. You also brought up the Canham DLC. Let me suggest that camera as the center to start with. Get Canham's Linhof to DLC/MQC adapter board. This will let you use smaller boards which will help on bulk. Next: Get the Sinar Vario II roll film holder. This back will let you use 120 or 220 film in 6x4.5 ,6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12. It is designed to slip under the groundglass of any 4x5 camera that has the Graflok clips (as the Canham does ). For viewing the groundglass frame of DLC is designed to take the Cambo viewing accessories like the monocular finder or the bino reflex. You can even go "whole hog" and get the Canham compendium shade!

For a tripod & head I'd recommend the three way Linhof head and the Gitzo 13xx carbon fiber tripod.

Another alternative camera would be the Hasselblad Arc body.

[Trevor Crone]

Wilfried, I would like to assure you that the 6x9cm Ebony's have graflock backs, therefore they will take the Horseman viewer (product code 22551) designed for their VH 6x9cm technical camera. I know because I use one on my Ebony SW23. Rega rds,

[Steve Clark]

Ellis, {or anyone else}, Can you offer a quick description on the ease of use and weight on the Sinar Vario II? Thanks

[Glenn Kroeger]

Steve: The Vario I weighed 980 g. I wouldn't expect much difference in the II.

[Steve Clark]

Glenn, thanks for the weight, but thats a little to brief on how it operates...I`m curious how they arrive at the differant formats on that holder.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Steve: I don't own one, so I gave you all the info I had... there was a thread a few months ago about this holder and its operation. Seems that the readout shows the number of cm (or mm) of film left at any point, so you can calculate how many of a give size you have left. I also know that is uses a cassette for film loading, and that several users have indicated they buy extra cassettes. Finally, I believe that it uses a captive pair of curtains rather than a true darkslide. There, now I REALLY don't know any more.

[John Hicks]

I have a couple of gripes about the Canham....

First of all, slickness and smoothness have been sacrificed to some extent for the light weight and huge extension. It's certainly not bad, but some better me thod for adjusting drag on some of the controls would've been nice.

If a lot of front rise is used with the bellows compressed the back can be for ced into an unwanted tilt. The obvious solution is to use the bag bellows, but t hat could mean having to lug around two bellows depending on lenses used.

I think the camera's lots better and more versatile than several other high-en d field cameras I've used; all have some sorts of limitations.

Good idea about the Sinar rollfilm holder. Using a standard rollfilm holder fo r which the back has to be removed can be a major pain in the posterior so a sli de-in holder would be nice; imho the usual Calumet slide-in rollfilm holder is p retty poor.

Comparing the Canham and the Galvin, the Canham folds into a _much_ smaller pa ckage than the Galvin and is much smoother. The Galvin is an interesting little camera but is pretty crude; it's sort of like an old Calumet 4x5 in miniature. O toh, it's pretty cheap. The only 6x6 rollfilm holders I know of that'll fit the Galvin are the old Graflex 12 holders, which probably will leave lots to be desi red in film flatness. Another limitation of the Galvin is that the stock camera can't use very short lenses; a recessed board and/or different (non-interchangea ble) bellows may be required.