PDA

View Full Version : weight of Rittreck View



HeinrichVoelkel
27-Sep-2013, 04:03
Hello, I'm considering a Rittreck View and can't find any info how much the camera weights?

Anybody owning one and a kitchen scale?

Regards and thanks in advance.

Simon Benton
27-Sep-2013, 05:04
Rittreck View with 4X5 back weighs around 9lbs 3 ozs. - should be much the same with the 5X7 back. Great camera and whole plate and 8X10 backs are also around but hard to find at reasonable prices.

ndrs
27-Sep-2013, 09:58
As a reference for future readers, I add my results here in international units:

Body with 13x18/7x5 back, smallish tripod plate, no lens: 4100 g
Body with 9x12/5x4 rotating back, smallish tripod plate, no lens: 4300 g

Rittreck cannot be folded with a lens mounted, so these are the weights one has to carry.

HeinrichVoelkel
27-Sep-2013, 11:43
thank you all for the info, boy this heavier than I thought.

flyboyx
28-Sep-2013, 21:08
they are tanks. good camera but a tank none the less. the good news is that these days they can be had on ebay for somewhere around the 300.00 range. if you shoot 4x5 only, i would go with something smaller and lighter. if you do intend to shoot 5x7, you won't find a better camera for the price i don't think. personally, i shoot 4x5 and 6x12 so i use a wista sp. i believe it is around 5 lbs or so. the going rate for this newer wista model is 3 times the cost of the rittreck you mention above. with 5 lenses, my back pack is full and heavy but manageable for a guy in decent shape.

depending on the type of shooting you do, there aren't many accessory choices for the rittreck. about the only thing i have seen are various backs for 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. if you intend to shoot 5x7 or bigger, this would be a good camera for you as long as you don't have to carry it too far.

if you are looking at this camera based on its price but intend to shoot 4x5, i suggest getting a wista "d" or "n". personally, i prefer the "d" model because it is the same camera as the sp but it does not have the swing movement on the front standard. the n model is the same as the vx but it also doesn't have front swing. the going rate is about the same as the rittreck at 300ish dollars. it weighs half as much (about 1/3rd smaller) and will accept all the accessories the newer wista metal folding cameras are designed to use. heck, i couldn't resist such a good deal. i just purchased another one off ebay this morning. great cameras, lots of movements, cheap prices. what could be better?

HeinrichVoelkel
4-Oct-2013, 01:02
@flyboyx: thank you for the info on the Wista camera line, great suggestions, I'm shooting 4x5 at the moment, but would like to upgrade to 5x7 for the next project, but still not sure about this 5x7 thing, cost is considerable higher and the quality gain????, I just don't know.

Regards
Heinrich

evan clarke
4-Oct-2013, 04:35
hi, i have one with all the backs that were made for it. 5x7 is almost twice the negative area of 4x5 and the aspect ratio really suits architecture and such. QT Luong did his entire National Parks project with 5x7 http://www.terragalleria.com/

HeinrichVoelkel
4-Oct-2013, 05:26
Hello Evan, do you use 5x7 frequently or do you rather reach for 8x10 if you want superior quality over 4x5? Curious.

flyboyx
6-Oct-2013, 18:14
5x7 is pretty awesome for a fact. It has some serious disadvanteges as you alluded to. Cost of film is crazy high compaed to 4x5. Equipment is bigger and heavier. Lenses are mor expensive. For me personally, 4x5 is big enough because every piece of eqipment I own needs to fit and be carried in my backpack. There is no way that will happen for me with a rittreck or likely any 5x7 for that matter because I have 5 lenses to carry as well.

Now and again I wish I could shoot 6x17cm. I guess I can buy a 5x7 back for my sp if I really get the wild hair up my rear. Then I would need a film back........

With all that said, if I did decide to switch to 5x7, I would get the lightest wood camera with as many movents as I could afford. Probably the price tag will be around fifteen hundred bucks for the camera alone to fit that bill.

Bogdan Karasek
27-Jun-2014, 20:39
The Ritteck View sounds like the camera that I need. I have a Deardorff 8x10, with reducing backs to 5x7, 4x5, 3x4 and I have several of the various sized Speed and Crown Graphic (13) but I want a dedicated 5x7, no reducing backs, no elarging backs tp 8x10. Just a straight 5x7.

Anybody have one?

SMBooth
27-Jun-2014, 22:43
Not to sell :)

Tin Can
27-Jun-2014, 23:11
Off topic, but my all metal Prewar 5X7 Linhof weighs 3480 grams with a Sironar-N 180mm in Copal shutter folded inside. Even room for a mounted filter and release cable. This one uses standard 5x7 DDS. The back does rotate and bellows go to 22 inches. It's in excellent condition and not for sale.

Just listing it for an example of quality and lightweight. I don't know why they made them so much heavier post WW II. Not necessary as far as I can tell.

Simon Benton
28-Jun-2014, 04:34
I have one - PM sent

Jim Noel
28-Jun-2014, 10:43
The Ritteck View sounds like the camera that I need. I have a Deardorff 8x10, with reducing backs to 5x7, 4x5, 3x4 and I have several of the various sized Speed and Crown Graphic (13) but I want a dedicated 5x7, no reducing backs, no elarging backs tp 8x10. Just a straight 5x7.

Anybody have one?
SInce you have an 8x10 Deardorff, why not a 5x7 Deardorff? Much quicker to get under the cloth and ready to make the image when cameras are similar. My old 5x7 has beenm neater for years now. I have owned, used and loved it for more than 40 years. I tried the 8x10 with reducing back but never liked it.

Panda00
1-Jun-2020, 12:00
I'm new to LF so have a newbie question about Rittreck View. Is the body the same for all sizes, just the back varying? It looks (Ebay) like 4x5's are quite a bit less, even when adding the cost of a 5x7 back - if that works! Can't find the answer anywhere. Thanks!

Tin Can
1-Jun-2020, 12:11
The body is the same. Backs change format.

IMHO it is best as 5X7 as it is heavy for 4X5 and way clumsy as 8X10

Joseph Kashi
1-Jun-2020, 21:02
I just used my postage scale and weighed both of my Rittreck 5x7 kits with the factory 5x7 back and then also with the factory 4x5 back substituted for the 5x7 back. In both configurations, both Rittrecks weights 9 pounds 6 ounces, as others report above. No significant weight difference between using the 4x5 and 5x7 backs.

I then weighed my more or less ultra-light 5x7 folding wood camera that others on this forum note may be an MSK Osaka, which the Net suggests was made by Tachihara. With a substitute wood bottom plate and small Arca Swiss plate, that camera weights an even 5 pounds, but is much less rigid than the Rittreck.

That 4 pound - 6 ounce difference may or may not be a deal-breaker for you, just as the Rittreck's better rigidity may be important. After removing some focus rail stops, I am able to comfortably use a Rittreck with a 14" Red Dot Artar with Copal 3 shutter unless the subject is closer than about 7 feet. So, it's pretty useful with heavier lenses than can be accommodated on a wood 5x7.

Given that a decent quality Rittreck goes for $300-$500, it's a significantly better deal than the metal 5x7 Canham field camera, which costs about $3,200 new.

Joseph Kashi
2-Jun-2020, 01:09
I'm new to LF so have a newbie question about Rittreck View. Is the body the same for all sizes, just the back varying? It looks (Ebay) like 4x5's are quite a bit less, even when adding the cost of a 5x7 back - if that works! Can't find the answer anywhere. Thanks!

The Rittreck body is the same size whether the standard 5x7 back is attached or the 4x5 reducing back. Same size, same weight regardless of which back is currently attached. I have no experience with the enlarging backs but from what I've seen, they look a bit awkward.

B.S.Kumar
2-Jun-2020, 07:17
I've sold a fair number of Rittreck cameras, and briefly used one. As Joseph confirms, they are extremely rigid. A few people are concerned about the bellows extension, which is ~396mm. But from what I see on this forum, most people tend to use 240mm or 300mm lenses with 5x7, which are eminently usable with this camera. It is possible to use longer lenses with a Linhof Technika adapter and a set of extension rings on a Technika board.

The WP and 8x10 extension backs are okay, but not very easy to use, and then the limited bellows draw kicks in. However, the 6x10 back is a nice, if uncommon format. I have also seen a home-made 5x8 back.

Kumar

Tin Can
2-Jun-2020, 07:36
Things i like about my Rittreck 5X7

Very pretty all metal camera, mine came with a lens board adapter to use Linhof lens boards. Very handy, takes up almost no space too.

I also have the OE tilting lens hood, very strong useful design

I read somewhere, it was sold as a studio portrait camera with the very unusual feature, of Micro Focus rear tilt, perhaps to tune the eye iris focus perfectly after other adjustments

The folding metal GG hood is easy to use and keeps the folded camera GG safe from breakage

Bellows were/are available from Japan on frames until recently

Simon Benton
2-Jun-2020, 07:46
I have used the Rittreck View for many many years with the 5 X 7, whole plate and recently with the 6 X 10 back. I also have a 4 x 10 back that I adapted. I had an 8 X 10 back but it was clumsy and vignetted with longer lenses and I sold it. The 6 X 10 back is great to use. Camera is heavy but is rigid and as has been said is built like a tank.

Oren Grad
2-Jun-2020, 07:47
I don't know the source of this ad - probably one of the big monthlies like Asahi Camera or Nippon Camera. Note that there was a 6x9 rollholder adapter as well as the other formats, and that 6x10 and 8x10 were apparently not yet offered when this ad appeared.

204394

I had a Rittreck outfit with the 4x5, 5x7, yatsugiri (WP) and sort-of-6x10 backs. I say "sort-of-6x10" because the holders were enough smaller in both dimensions that it required two cuts to a sheet of 8x10 film to fit, not one, which was a nuisance.

Panda00
2-Jun-2020, 07:48
The body is the same. Backs change format.

IMHO it is best as 5X7 as it is heavy for 4X5 and way clumsy as 8X10

Thank you!

Chauncey Walden
2-Jun-2020, 09:36
I have the 4x5, 5x7, 6x9 rollfilm (a sliding back), and 6.5x8.5 (WP) backs. I haven't used the 4x5 or 6x9 backs but use the 6.5x8.5 almost as much as the 5x7. Yes, it is heavy but very stable. I have sent a PDF of the manual to quite a few folks on the list.