PDA

View Full Version : Ginger or Mary Ann?



Mark Sawyer
13-Dec-2004, 21:45
All things being equal (price, condition...), which would you prefer, an 8x10 Deardorff or Kodak Master View? And why? Yes, I'm trying to make a decision. (I suppose the Deardorff would be Ginger...)

Charles Hohenstein
13-Dec-2004, 22:14
Wow, would Mrs. Howell be a Linhof?

Michael Kadillak
13-Dec-2004, 22:30
Mary Ann. Kodak Master 8x10 is metal and bullet proof. Rigid, but modest in weight. Takes less than five seconds to get it ready for a shot. Open up the clam shell, pull the front standard to its vertical position and lock down, and draw it to the desired focal length and screw it in place and you are good to go. Focus at the rear. No playing with the bellows to rotate the lens panel past the front standard to lock it down and no steep pitch wooden screws to come loose. Was my first 8x10 and still is the best.

The Toyo M 8x10 has a similar design albeit a bit heavier. My wooden Canham 8x10 takes a bit longer to open up and get ready for a shot, but I like the longer bellows and the fresnel.

Don't really think that you could go wrong either way as Deardorf users swear by their usefullness. I think that it comes down to a preference for metal versus wood and what is available to you at the best price/condition combination when you are ready to drop the cash.

Go with what feels good to you and get out there and shoot.

Cheers!

Brian Ellis
14-Dec-2004, 05:48
I've never used the Master View. I did heft one once and it sure didn't feel like it was "modest in weight" to me (but then at the time I hadn't owned an 8x10 so perhaps anything would have felt very heavy). It should be easy enough to find its exact weight. Deardorffs weigh 12 pounds plus a few ounces.

I've owned two Deardorffs and have really liked both. One thing to perhaps think about is the fact that there are a lot of Deardorffs out there and I know of at least two people who have an inventory of parts and perform repairs. I don't know what's available in the way of parts and repair service for the Master View. Deardorff lens boards are also readily available or you can easily fabricate your own since they're wood. I don't know about the availability of Master View boards.

If I were buying an 8x10 today I'd look closely at the Wehman. I think it weighs about four pounds less than a Deardorff, it has the asymetrical back that Ebony charges around $800 for, and you'd be getting a brand new camera. Everyone who owns one seems to be very happy with it. Cost is around $1,900, which is probably a couple hundred dollars more than a Deardorff in excellent condition. I don't know what Master Views sell for these days, I have the impression that the price has gone up in the last few years.

Frank Petronio
14-Dec-2004, 06:45
Go for Jenna Jameson - a full out Sinar Norma 8x10. Do it right.

George Losse
14-Dec-2004, 07:00
Michael Smith was having some KMV lens boards made and was selling them a while back. I think he still is. Check out his site at:


http://www.michaelandpaula.com (http://www.michaelandpaula.com)

They were listed in the "For Sale" section of the Azo board.

John Kasaian
14-Dec-2004, 08:26
Mark,

I've had both cameras and they are both excellent. I kept the 'dorff because I found it suited me better---I liked working with the 'dorff better than the Masterview, but thats a personal preference based on the unmeasurable. YMMV.

As far as the Masterview being more bullet proof than the 'dorff, I'll have to add the if you break something on the 'dorff, you reach for the wood glue. If you break something on a Masterview, you have to find someone who can weld alloy!

Either camera will do the job, both IMHO will grow in value over the years. I don't think you'll go wrong with either.

John Kasaian
14-Dec-2004, 11:31
The Ginger and Mary Ann comparison is woefully inadequate! IMHO, the Masterview is more of an androgynous "ice queen" Post-modernist Annie Lenox opposed to the Deardorff's celebritorial Neoclassic femininity "volcano goddess-ness" of Sophia Loren;-)

John Kasaian
14-Dec-2004, 11:34
Then again, you could go with the "Gilligan(Century Universal?)"

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
14-Dec-2004, 11:54
John,

I would think that a Gilligan would be more of a Korona, while the Skipper would be a Century... What about the professor? Certainly some sort of monorail.

Mark Sawyer
14-Dec-2004, 13:50
(a previous reply disappeared into the internet netherworld; my apologies if it pops up here later.)

Thoughts so far:

The Professor would be a Linhof; not quite sure what Mrs. Howell would be. Probably some expensive, high maintenance miniature format collectable, (just not up to the 8x10 quality of Ginger and Mary Ann, you know...)

The Master as "androgynous 'ice queen' Post-modernist Annie Lenox"? I was thinking more "Seven of Nine" from Star Trek...

No, John, the 'dorff would be Ginger. Sophia would have to be something more exotic, maybe a Gandalfi or Ebony, you know, something *really* out of my league. (I'm just not worthy!)

Don't want a Sinar Norma; I don't do monorails. It would be cool to have a camera named "Norma," but that big thing sticking out the front is just too, well... phallic. (Sorry- did I just ruin that camera for everyone following this thread?)

I've already got a Gilligan (2D), and a Skipper (Agfa); both good cameras for what they are.

The Wehman is interesting, but out of my range at $1900. I could be just as happy with a used but serviceable 'dorff or Master, and they go by semi-regularly at under a thousand. Besides, I've never seen a used Wehman.

I did notice something in a Wehman review on this forum. It mentioned the Master wasn't very stable with long lenses. I remember this from somewhere else to; anybody know the story first hand? And anyone know the real weight of the Master? (I've seen it at 13+ and 19 pounds. Felt closer to 19 when I hoisted one years ago, but not sure...)

BTW, I make my own lensboards and could handle most repairs, so that's not an issue.

I'm not in a hurry on this, so the procrastination goes on. (If only there were a Heather Locklear 8x10...)

Jim Rice
14-Dec-2004, 15:30
I figure the Calumet C-1 is the Skipper.

Mark Sawyer
14-Dec-2004, 17:33
I figured it was the robot from "Lost in Space."

N Dhananjay
15-Dec-2004, 09:21
Re the Master being unstable at long extensions:

Keep in mind that the Master has a set of telecoping tracks. Rack all of them out and you have a bunch of cantilevers - not exactly the most stable situation. But the Master is well-thought out, and clearly the designers realized this. One of the telescoping tracks has a tripod hole. It is easy to slip a monopod into this - Bogen makes a nice one that can be clamped to the tripod leg. Also, I have heard that the original bellows are shorter than the total extension for this reason - to provide tension and keep everything a little more taut and stable.

Both the Master and the Deardorff are very nice cameras - a great deal of thought has gone into their design, which makes working with them a pleasure. Which means it will come down to which one fits your hands better. The ergonomics of one will likely work better for you just because of the shapes of your hands, the way your mind works etc. It would be ebst if you could play with both for a little while and decide which one works better for you. Maybe you can locate forum members in your area who own these two cameras and would be willing to let you play wit them.

Cheers, DJ

Mark Sawyer
15-Dec-2004, 10:28
Thanks, DJ! I have a nice Bogen monopod I've never used before, but I hate adding one more thing to carry around in the field. Fortunately, I usually shoot with shorter lenses, but I do like to do details, so that's a minus on the Master.

I agree that they're both nice cameras, and for the price, quality, features and versatility, I can't think of anything that beats them. (Still looking for suggestions, everybody...) I liked the Master I played with years ago, but I'm starting to lean towards the Deardorff...

tim atherton
15-Dec-2004, 10:49
Mark,

I've had twoDeardorffs over the years - neither was pristine but neither was that beat up either - I'd call them average.

And getting anywhere close to fully extended, neither was what you would call solid.

I've also used a Kodak Master and fully extended it was certainly at least as solid.

The difference was more between how the wood and metal flexes. (I also think you are more likely to find more loose jointed Dorffs than loose jointed Master cameras. The Dorffs get looser not only form wear and tear, but just from loosening joints, old glue, shrinking/swelling/warping wood etc. The Masters really only get loose from just wear and tear - a really well used/abused version of either is going to be loose. But I feel comparing two "average" versions of the cameras at full extension, the Master is probably more solid - the Master might flex somewhat, but the Dorff will "wobble" more....)

How often do you use 28/30 inches of bellows?

Personally - if I didn't have a Phillips now - I'd pick a Master in nice to good condition if I was doing it again

BTW - both Dorff's were over 13lbs - one closer to 13.5lbs I think the Master was just over 12lbs - but there wasn't much in it really

Michael Kadillak
15-Dec-2004, 11:49
I completely agree with Tim.

Before I got my Kodak Master Camera several years back, I took a wooden 8x10 through its paces (Zone VI or Tachihara?) and the rigidity issue is exactly as Tim described. I use both wooden and metal cameras and I have a preference for metal. Wood is a dynamic material and will change modestly over time. Its natural elasticity is a positive. Metal is static and is strong as long as you do not try to drill holes in it for expectations of weight reduction that alters the materials internal stress.

I like the way that Canham gets away from conventional wooden screws in his wooden cameras that can loosed over time by using bolts and screws. And that is something to think about with any wooden camera. I took a Kodak Master and re-finished it with a black wrinkle finish that is durable and I was surprised at its simplicity when I disassembled it.

Cheers!

wfwhitaker
15-Dec-2004, 13:02
As long as we're on the subject, one more factor to throw into the equation... If you have plans to use any of the old portrait lenses which may require a Packard shutter, you'll find the Master less accommodating. The way the front standard is designed with its rather unique moat-like light trap does not lend itself well to the installation of a Packard. A Packard which will be small enough to fit on the back of the lens board will surely vignette the relatively large apertures which portrait lenses usually employ. That leaves front-mounting a Packard as the only option short of major camera modification.

The Deardorff is a little better in this regard. The front "throat" is a little less restrictive. And with patience you can find the adapter for the Deardorff which is essentially a box with a Packard mounted within.

It's not a big distinction and probably not a deal-breaker. My choice actually was for the Master and I love it. It's a terrific design, very straightforward to use and has a very generous amount of front rise. Lens boards from Michael Smith are expensive, but they're very nicely done and work great. Much better than the originals.

As for my desire to use portrait lenses, I found an Agfa which uses 7" lens boards. Works great for that and was a good excuse to buy another camera! :-)

Mark Sawyer
15-Dec-2004, 17:39
Complicating everything else, I *might* have a line on an early Wehman in my price range, but won't know for a couple of days. After looking at them on the web (still never seen one in person,) they seem like perhaps the most practical user out there. (The Martha Stewart of cameras?) This is getting complicated...

The packard shutter is a good point; I have a modern one that I could chop up for a Deardorff, but no way could I get it on a Master, and I do have several barrel lenses. And the lensboards for a Master do appear to be a major hassle to fabricate, and expensive to purchase. But it still seems like a good solid camera...

Wood construction on the `dorff or Wehman might cause minor problems, but it's never been an issue on my other wooden cameras, which are far older and of slightly less quality.

You guys were supposed to help me decide, not confuse me with the facts...

John Kasaian
15-Dec-2004, 19:18
Mark,

You've got to decide for yourself, but as Leonardo DaVinci once said:

"If you don't buy the 'dorff your life will, forever after, be one vast surging regret."

...well...he didn't really say that, but something close to it and he said it in italian not english ;-)

John Kasaian
15-Dec-2004, 19:26
...and the Professor would be the Linhof, Mr Howell would be the Gandolfi FWIW, Hans Conried did a guest "walk on"---"fly in" really, of a Wrong Way Corrigan type character that landed on the island by mistake. I think he'd have been a Scoville!)

Frank Petronio
15-Dec-2004, 20:59
And Clifford Ross's 9x18 would be the Minnow.

Peter Galea
15-Dec-2004, 22:47
Buy the Deardorff. It will be the favorite tool in your arsenal. It looks good, feels good and just plain works.

N Dhananjay
16-Dec-2004, 06:19
I hate to add to your confusion. But re the stability at long extensions, I doubt the Deardorff will be much better. Any time you get into long lenses, any folding design will end up with a bunch of cantilevered bits. I agree with the others regarding patterns of wear and tear etc. The Wehman is a great rig, and felt pretty solid to me at long extensions, probably thanks to the design, although you must admit it is unfair to compare a new camera where everything snaps into place just so with a 60 year old camera that has been ridden hard over the years. Like I said, you will likely be best served by actually getting your hands on them and seeing which one falls into place for you in terms of movements, knobs etc. Cheers, DJ

Jim Rhoades
16-Dec-2004, 07:52
I have the Deardorff and find that is a most intuitive camera. That makes it very fast and easy to use. I use a 25" lens sometimes and think the worries of stability are overstated. When cranked out all you do is wait a few seconds after you pull the darkslide. You would do that with any 8x10 using 25 or 30 inches of bellows.

In the wind any camera cranked out will have a bellows sail problem.

"One vast surging regret" I like that, it's so true.

Mark Sampson
16-Dec-2004, 08:11
Remember, condition is all-important. The Kodak Masters were made roughly between 1946-56, and the Deardorffs were made well into the 1980's. Many cameras will be heavily worn and well-cared-for ones will be worth more money. I use a KMV and the biggest issue I have with it is the awkward placement of the tripod socket. It's still a fine, usable camera.

K. Nicolaisen
16-Dec-2004, 09:23
A full out Sinar Norma - Yes, The shutter takes it all: You can use any Barrel mount lens includind 4 inch Petxvalīs -yes itīs the diameter. Besides, it is Swiss quality from before the world went astray.

Frank Petronio
16-Dec-2004, 09:49
Not only are system monorails a bargain compared to a $1500 Dorf, they aren't that that heavy (Normas and older Arcas) and they don't catch as much wind... Fred Picker used a 8x10 Norma for those reasons.

Mark Sawyer
16-Dec-2004, 11:14
Actually, I wouldn't mind a Norma for studio work, but I already have an old (!) Agfa which is great for that. (Really!) I need a light and compact field camera. NO MONOPODS! (Don't know why I worry about size and weight while lugging around a Ries tripod...)

BTW, if anybody wants a really lightweight 8x10, the old Seneca Improved is about 7.5 pounds, and nice ones go for $300 or so on ebay. Not very rigid, and very limited movements, though, and slightly unusual lensboard size.

Mark Sawyer
8-Feb-2005, 10:06
Epilogue:

I just bought a KMV with a 12" Dagor on ebay for $1500. Advertised as in excellent condition with six film holders, an extra lensboard, and a case. More than I wanted to spend, but probably around fair market value and it's what I wanted (I think), so I can't complain. Thanks for all the input, everybody!

Yep, me and Mary Ann. Hope we'll be a good couple...