I am looking to purchase an inexpensive 4x5 setup; I'd prefer to get a field camera but Calumet cameras seem to be well made and are incredibly inexpensive.
Anyone know why?
I should note I've only seen them on the web.
I'm looking at a used Cadet or this 4x5 View Camera Single Rail with rotating back system...
I have the monorail calumet like the grey one in your post, its the second one I've owned. Not very portable due to being heavy and a long rail, but I keep it set up around the house. Its rugged, and versitle for my needs. Can't understand why they are so cheap either. For field use I have a tachihara, speed graphic, graflex slr, and some other oddballs laying around. The Calumets sometimes show up in local camera stores, and my recent purchase was less than $100 with a pretty good lens and some film holders.
Wayne
Two of the possible reasons:
Quantity.
Perceived as being a "beginners" LF camera.
Large and heavy (except for the Cadet).
The gray camera is good. Sturdy. It has a handle. It has a bail back for easy insert of film holder. I would try to get one with a fresnel screen already installed. Makes it easier to see and focus.
Jon
my black and white photos of the Mendocino Coast: jonshiu.zenfolio.com
The old battleship gray ones are just fine and do everything a 4x5 camera is supposed to do, and are workhorses that have been used professionally for generations. They're inexpensive because, well, they're not fancy and there were lots made and in general the price of 4x5 cameras are low. I haven't used the newer Cadet ones but would look askance at the single standard. Probably lighter, which is not necessarily a good thing for a camera, as it allows for more shake, and that think looks like a spring.
I have heard that the Cadets are pretty flimsy (they look it) and the lens boards are not the standard Cambo/Calumet size. You can pick up later Cambo/Calumet cameras for $150 to $200. These can be lighter than the early gray one that you are looking at.
There is an abundance of monorail cameras out there due to the pros going digital and most amateurs wanting a field camera. Another reason the Cambo/Calumet cameras are so cheap is the competition from used Sinars. Older Sinars are not a lot more on the used market than the Cambo/Calumets.
A monorail is a great way to start 4x5. It's easier to understand and has more movements than a field camera. If you buy a field camera later you can always sell the monorail for near what you paid. I would recommend keeping it for portraits and still life's. Most field cameras do not have a lot of bellows draw.
I spent over two years with my Calumet C1 monorail 4x5. I carried it in a backpack and hiked anywhere I would've with a field camera. I would still be shooting that one if it wasn't for the theft that deprived me of it. In LF photography, a camera is nothing more than a light-tight chamber used to introduce a lens to film. The only disadvantages I can think of for the cheap, used, monorails is size and weight. I wasn't bothered too much by either. If I would've replaced the monorail with a field camera then my pack would've weighed 53 pounds instead of 56. I bought my first Calumet monorail camera for $20. Then I learned about lens upgrades and it was worse than dope.
Yeah. I'm familiar with Photoshop. It's the place I buy my film.
I have two of the grey metal ones; one with the normal rail and one with the long rail. They make great cameras for the studio but they are heavy to carry around. If you don't mind the size/weight then they are very good even for the field; they have a lot of movements and a nice rotating back and ground glass.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
The only limitation on the CC-400 at left is that it will not accommodate short lenses. Even a 90 will require a recessed board. The bellows are not interchangeable, so it is what it is.
There was a short-rail model with flexible bellows and a revised front standard to address this issue--a CC-402 I think. A 90 is fine on that camera, but nothing really shorter.
These cameras also don't have a Graflok/International back, so they cannot be used with holders requiring that attachment method. The bail back is, however, pretty deep, so it will accommodate even the thicker slide-in accessory holders. That's why the Calumet roll-film holders were always designed as slide-in models.
The Cadet really is a lightweight, in terms of stiffness, and no more flexible than the CC-400. If you want a newer Calumet, get a Cambo SC which was also branded as a Calumet 45, 45n, or 45nx. These are fully modular, lighter than the CC-400 (though bulkier), and are still dirt cheap on the used market. You can also find a zillion accessories for them at any given time. They also do not handle really short lenses, though in this case "really short" is shorter than 65. With bag bellows and a recessed board, a 65 is no problem, as long as you don't mind being stabbed in the chest by the long monorail (solution: Find another rail and cut it to the desired length with a hacksaw).
Rick "who still owns a CC-400 and a 45n, but now uses a Sinar" Denney
I used one alot and always found the rail poking me the throat a pain in the butt (neak?). But that's just me, bitch bitch bitch about everything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks