Thinking of "downsizing" from a Linhof Tech Master, to a Tech IV

[Vick Ko]

Hello

I'm thinking of "downsizing" from a Linhof Tech Master, to a Tech IV.

The reason is that I think I have too much money tied up in the Tech Master, and the IV will for all intents and purposes, suit me fine. The Tech IV also needs to be restored, so there is a bit of an unknown there, for the true condition of the mechanics. I'm hoping that the mechanics, and the RF still work.

But, is it a good idea? Are there fundamental issues with a IV that I should be concerned with? I know that the cams for a IV need to be matched to body and lens, and the IV doesn't have the top flap that opens.

Anything else?

regards
Vick

[karl french]

How about a Tech V? I decided I wasn't using the extra movements of the Master and the price difference was attractive. You can use the same cams on a Tech V and a Master. Oh, I'll be selling my Tech V very soon, as I only really want to shoot 8x10 these days.

[E. von Hoegh]

Hello

I'm thinking of "downsizing" from a Linhof Tech Master, to a Tech IV.

The reason is that I think I have too much money tied up in the Tech Master, and the IV will for all intents and purposes, suit me fine. The Tech IV also needs to be restored, so there is a bit of an unknown there, for the true condition of the mechanics. I'm hoping that the mechanics, and the RF still work.

But, is it a good idea? Are there fundamental issues with a IV that I should be concerned with? I know that the cams for a IV need to be matched to body and lens, and the IV doesn't have the top flap that opens.

Anything else?

regards
Vick

Better find out what it will cost to get the IV up to snuff, then make a decision. The IV is 20~ years older, so bellows...

[Vick Ko]

Yes, I'm counting on replacing the bellows.

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, I'm counting on replacing the bellows.

What about the rest of it? They're pretty trouble free, if taken care of. On mine even the original bellows are perfect.

[Thomas Greutmann]

I have both a Tech IV and a Master. For lenses longer 90mm and longer there isn't really a difference between the two, in practical terms. For lenses 90mm and shorter the Master is better suited (more front rise, front rise is easier to operate). This is why I prefer the Master.

Also, for most lenses I have found that generic cams work just fine on the Tech IV: a 150mm cam works with most 150mm lenses, and so on. I have cammed my Tech IV for about 6 different focus lengths this way, from 90mm to 360mm.

Greetings, Thomas

[Bob Salomon]

The IV is very old. So old that the factory no longer makes or has repair parts specific to a IV. In fact a V is also so old that that is also true for a V. And since the original Master Technika will be 41 years old this coming August there are no replacement parts for some of those original ones as well!

Now, why change from a Master? You want less movement? Or do you want less drop bed ability? Maybe you want to make a rise in the front almost impossible with short lenses due to the position of the rise knob? Or do you prefer more complicated camming requirements? Maybe you want to carry more weight, 5.7 LB for the Master vs 6 LB for the IV.

[Vick Ko]

hmmm. Compelling argument, Bob.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I can see making such a decision up front, just to save the costs, if the price were right, figuring an additional $1000-1500 or so to restore a IV and have lenses cammed, but if you've already got your Master set up, it seems like a pain and not cost effective to now sell it and set up a IV. Better to sell the IV and get out there and expose some film.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Hello

I'm thinking of "downsizing" from a Linhof Tech Master, to a Tech IV.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Brian Ellis]

You may have trouble finding parts to renovate a Tech IV if they're needed. Linhof apparently made some internal design changes between the Tech V and the Master that aren't visible from the outside.

One that affected me was a change in the interior system for using the back adjustment knobs work (the four knobs that you loosen in order to move the back). One of the knobs on my Tech V broke when it fell off the tripod. The only reason it could be fixed was that Marflex happened to have the internal pieces for a Tech V back on hand. Otherwise I'd have been out of luck.

Bob Salomon could of course address this parts question with much more knowledge than I have. But even apart from that, having owned a Tech V and a Master, there's no way I'd replace the Master with a Tech IV. If nothing else that old system of handling front rise on the IV would be a deal killer for me. While you may pocket some extra money from a sale of a Master and the purchase of a Tech IV, you'll give it right back when you sell a Tech IV instead of a Master. And if you're like most LF photographers, it's not a question of IF you sell, it's a question of WHEN.

[Bill_1856]

I've got a bridge that I'd like to sell you....

[Cor]

As Brain already said: front raise on a IV is weak spot: more than once I had composed an image, and than decided to use a filter or the compendium; when installing those on the front standard, the front standard is very easiely pushed down again.

A tech V has a crank system for raise, but on some models the gears (?) or teeth are easily brken, a point to pay attention to when buying a V.

Best,

Cor

[Henry Carter]

If you already own a Master Technika, you have one of the finest 4x5 cameras ever made - period. Even so, in this day and age it has depreciated considerably in value, and you may think that you have more money tied up in it than you really do.

You have the most charming and beautiful woman on your arm, and you want to save on the cost of dinner by switching to her older uglier sister instead?

Keep the MT and get rid of the IV.

[Jac@stafford.net]

A tech V has a crank system for raise, but on some models the gears (?) or teeth are easily brken, a point to pay attention to when buying a V.


It is not a camera fault, but due to ham-fisted operators who try to crank it when locked.

[Jac@stafford.net]

That is just plain silly. You have the best Linhof. Any issues are with the operator.

[jbenedict]

If the Master is paid for why change?

If you want to take your camera in a situation where it might get ruined (Consider our friend with the Toyo 45a in another thread) and don't want to chance your pretty Master, I could see getting a IV. Otherwise, use the Master.

[Richard Johnson]

I wonder what he did since he asked the question last year?

I notice that used prices for Masters fluctuate between the low $2000s and higher $3000s, while the IVs are from $500 for a restoration project to $1500 for one with a new bellows and good condition. Maybe the average is only about $1000 price difference for comparable condition cameras? Considering that recamming the lenses is going to be what... $400 each? It doesn't make sense unless you decided you never wanted to use the rangefinder feature and bought the IV on the cheap side.

Of course you could sell all the Linhof stuff and just get a cheaper 4x5 if you wanted to recoup your investment in them.

[Bill_1856]

You're out of your mind (IMO).