Drill a TK

[John Hennessy]

Has anyone gotten daring enough to drill out the standards and rails of a Linhof Technikardan to lighten it? Canham cameras have more holes than Swiss cheese and are much lighter than a TK. Drilling the standards would not appear to be as much of a challenge as the rails. The rails have such close tolerances any burrs would impact sliding.

It is a well thought out camera so the fact that Linhof does not drill holes may indicate that its designers have found it to be contraindicated. Or that the designers have strong backs.

Just guessing I'd say one could save about 500 g.

[Bill_1856]

The designers at Linhof apparently don't use the stuff they make. There has not been any innovative designwork done there for a long time. For example, the Technika is long overdue for an update with interchangable bellows and lighter materials, improved wide angle usablility, and a recognition that today's lenses are so much bigger than the stuff available when it was introduced over 50 years ago. But I digress: seems to me that saving one pound by swiss-cheesing a Technicardan isn't worth fooling with it.

[Bob Salomon]

" Technika is long overdue for an update with interchangable bellows and lighter materials, improved wide angle usablility, and a recognition that today's lenses are so much bigger"

The Master Technika 2000 hadles lenses from 35mm up with the bellows on the camera and the focusing systems built into the camera.

Just what benefit will an interchangeable bellos add?

And the only lens that does not fit are those with a rear element larger than the hole in the body. And those lenses will not fit any camera with a Technika type lensboard. You could also ask why a modern lens company would make a wa lens that would not fit into the hole without modification.

This is somewhat like the time the old Schneider company went and redesigned the Componon and changed the design just enough that you could not make an 6x10 print with a Beseler enlarger with a 50mm lens. Rather then check with Beseler, Omega, etc. for a set of specs they simply changed the lens specs. Not so bad except Beseler was the distributor for Schneider enlarging lenses at that time. Solution? Beseler began importing Komuranon lenses.

[Mike Troxell]

I've never been a fan of drilling any LF camera. No matter how you do it, your're probably going to weaken the camera in some way. Personally, if I wanted to save weight, I'd look for a lens with a smaller shutter. Using a Copal 0/1 instead of a Copal 3 will probably save as much weight as you would save drilling out a LF camera.

[Michael Kadillak]

Why not just buy a camera with the holes already in it? To accomplish the rather meagor improvement in weight reduction you will sacrifice the full value of a completely functional camera that is doing what it was designed to do. And it is a mistake to assume that removing metal will not have an effect on the integrity of the metal remaining.

Goodness. Would it not be a whole lot easier to just go to the gym and get in decent shape? Just my two cents.

Cheers!

[Frank Petronio]

It's like bicyclists weighing each part and spending $10,000 on a carbon fiber and titanium wonder, only to have the frame snap in a high speed downhill. Especially since the rider could drop his/her own weight far safer and easier.

If you want a superlight camera, get an inexpensive Toho or Gowland, save the TK for days when you wither the burden

[Bill_1856]

"Is pervect now, vy should ve change?"

[Mark Sampson]

Why not drill a Technikardan? Because the camera body is a small fraction of the location kit's total weight. Lenses, holders, case, tripod, focussing cloth, many small accessories... and I'd bet many users are not backpacking into the mountains, and even have an assistant to help haul things (like lights). Or heaven forfend, are working in a studio and not moving their camera more than a few feet.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Sounds like a great way to ruin a perfectly usable camera.

Seriously, the "L" shaped standards of the Technikardan need to be quite rigid to remain in alignment and not suffer from vibration during exposure. One of the improvements of the TK45S over the original TK45 was a more robust three piece "L" standards. This added weight to the camera, but made the front standard more rigid. Obviously, someone at Linhof thought this was a good idea. You're talking about doing the opposite, making the standards weaker to save a little weight. I seriously doubt you could save anywhere near a pound without seriously compromising the rigidity of the Technikardan.

Same goes for the rail. Even if you could drill the holes without affecting the smoothness of operation, you would once again compromise rigidity. The location of the tripod sockets at the rear of the rail on the Technikardan present a very unbalanced load at full extension. This unbalanced load puts a LOT of stress on both the extended rail and the tripod head. It is for this very reason that Linhof offers an accessory tele/macro bracket for the TK45S. Once again, you might save a couple ounces, but in the process severely weaken a part of the design that is susceptable to very high stress. Not a good idea.

Now, if you look at a Canham DLC, you will see that the design is VERY different in both respects. The standrds are supported from BOTH sides, not just one side like the "L" standards of the Linhof. Also, the Canham extends both fore and aft, unlike the TK which only extends forward of the tripod sockets. This means that it is always possible to balance the weight of the Canham directly over the apex for everything from minimum to maximum extension.

Both designs are revolutionary and totally unique. To think that you can turn one into the other with an electric drill or Dremel tool totally ignores the basic design parameters and the thought that went into the original designs. There are very good reasons the Technikardan is built the way it is, and equally valid reasons why the Canham DLC looks like Swiss cheese and is over 2 1/2 pounds lighter than the TK45S. If you REALLY want to save a significant amount of weight, sell the TK on eBay (before poking holes in it) and buy a Canham. Or, do as I have done for years (and Frank recommends above) and get a truly lightweight camera (like a Toho) for the times when you really need to go light.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

The Technika series are what they are - technical cameras derived from early press camera designs. A camera that folds up into a compact, nearly indestructable self-contained box. Their greatest strength ("the box") is also their greatest weakness. Although Bob likes to point out how wonderful the MT2000 is with wide angles, truth be told, you can get little or no movements with lenses shorter than 75mm due to interference from "the box".

The Master Technika 2000 hadles lenses from 35mm up with the bellows on the camera and the focusing systems built into the camera.

Yes, it is true that the MT2000 can focus lenses down to 35mm, but just try using rise/fall or shift with anything shorter than 75mm and you will be severely limited. For example, when using a 72mm Super Angulon with the MT2000, the amount of displacement is SEVERELY limited by the camera body ("the box").

For the Linhof Master Technika 2000 brochure (page 7 - recommended wide angle lenses):

Lens: Schneider Super Angulon XL 5,6/72 Lens Standard Adjustment: Lens Rise 14mm; Lateral Shift 5mm right, 2mm left

From the Schneider Brochure - The complete spectrum of taking lenses:

5,6/72 Super-Angulon XL lens displacements in mm vertical/horizontal at f/22, with lens focused at infinity (4x5) 48/42

The 72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL has enough coverage to allow 48mm of rise and 42mm of shift on the 4x5 format. And, according to Linhof, with this lens, the camea is only capable of 14mm of front rise, 5mm of right shift and 2mm of left shift.

Just what benefit will an interchangeable bellos add?

Absolutely none, because it is the body of the camera ("the box"), not the bellows that is the limiting factor when using wide angle lenses with any Technika model. As long as "the box" exists, there is no point in having interchangeable bellows on a Technika.

When the original Technika was conceived, there was no such thing as a 47mm lens that covered 4x5, or a 72mm lens with a 229mmm image circle. Back then, it was the lenses, not the camera that generally imposed the limits of movement with wide angle lenses. That has changed a LOT over the last 15 - 20 years. Linhof has updated the Technika series over the years in an attempt to accomodate shorter lenses with larger coverage, but as long as "the box" exists, they are fighting a losing battle. These changes have been evolutionary. In order to take full advantage of today's ultrawide lenses, you really need to use a camera of more revolutionary design - like the Technikardan which has interchangeable bellows and easily handles with widest lenses without imposing the limits of "the box".

This is not meant to bash the Technika cameras. They are very well built and ideally suited to certain applications. But, there is a reason they aren't the mainstay of professional photographers who specialize in architectural photography. For those photographers, something like a Technikardan or an ARCA-SWISS are a much better tool for the job.

Kerry