4x10 Canham Holders do NOT fit my Lotus Camera

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Just a word of warning about yet another possible pitfall for those considering the 4x10 format. I have a 4x10 camera that consists of a Lotus 4x10 back and bellows that I have adapted to mount on my ARCA-SWISS F-Line chassis. I have several of the beautifully made wooden Lotus 4x10 film holders that, naturally, work wonderfully with this camera. I just purchased some 4x10 Canham holders to supplement my stock of Lotus holders (with the weak dollar these days, new Lotus 4x10 holders are running almost $420 each - compared to $100 each for the 4x10 Canham holders). Much to my surprise (and disappointment), the Canham holders do NOT fit my 4x10 Lotus back. I found this rather odd, since I have always been told the 4x10 Lotus was designed to take the Canham holders.

The difference is small - I measured several Lotus holders, as well as the four Canhams that arrived today. On average, the Canham holders are about 0.040" wider. Now, 40 thousandths of an inch may not sound like much, but it's enough to keep the Canham holders from fitting in my Lotus back. I also tried the Lotus holders in a Canham camera. They fit, of course, but are slightly loose.

During this process, I also noticed that the location of the film in the holders is different. I'm not talking about the T-distance (film plane distance) which appears to be the same (within reasonable tolerances). I'm referring to the actual x, y dimensions. In this case the actual image area of the Lotus holder is shifted to the right by about 1/4". Not a huge amount, but it could mess up a carefully composed shot if you attempt to fill the whole frame.

One caveat, I have been told by Lotus that my particular 4x10 back is a very early production model. I have no idea if the design of their back or holders have changed over time. Has anyone else attempted to use a 4x10 Canham holder in a 4x10 Lotus Camera?

I may consider having my 4x10 Lotus back modified to accept the Canham holders (but, I'd still have to deal with the image being shifted - in this case, to the left by 1/4"). In the meantime, I would not recommend assuming 4x10 Canham holders will fit a Lotus Camera. So, not only do Canham and Wisner have different size holders for their 4x10 cameras, it appears Lotus does as well. With all three camera manufacturers using proprietary holders, is it any wonder the 4x10 format has never really caught on?

Kerry

[wfwhitaker]

Would it not be simpler and easier to trim the Canham holders to fit the Lotus back? I suppose it depends upon how heavily invested in Lotus you are...

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Will,

The Canham holders are made from plastic. I'm not sure if I could trim them down without chipping or cracking.

I have several of the Lotus wooden holders, and the Lotus back on my camera. I was just looking for some relatively inexpensive holders so I wouldn't have to reload as often.

I thought I'd post this as a warning to anyone who has, or might be buying a Lotus 4x10 camera and planning to use it with the more affordable Canham holders.

Kerry

[Gary Samson]

Kerry,

I had this same problem with new 12x20 film holders. I ordered and received a 12x20 Wisner camera but the holders were not delivered as promised and after several months of waiting I purchased two S&S holders from Quailty Camera after they assured me that the holders would fit the Wisner. The S&S holders were a little too big - only then did I learn that Wisner used a differant standard to build his holders. I have used modern and vintage view cameras (4x5 to 11x14) for nearly 30 years and never had this problem until the Wisner episode. I had mistakenly thought that manufactures of film holders subscribed to specific standards. I was certainly mistaken.

Gary

[wfwhitaker]

"The Canham holders are made from plastic. I'm not sure if I could trim them down without chipping or cracking."

Oops! I obviously was thinking of wood. Hope it won't be too difficult to modify the Lotus back. And then you'll shim the Lotus holders?...

It's a shame that something so simple has to be so complicated!

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Gary,

Unlike the more common sizes, there is no ANSI standard for 4x10 or the banquet formats. I found this out back in the early 1990s when I bought my first 4x10 camera - a Wisner. Keith Canham was the first to market with a dedicated 4x10 camera. Keith makes his holders from parts he get's from Fidelity. He basically uses the "long bits" from 8x10 holders, cuts the "wide bits" in half and glues them back together. So, they are basically just like 8x10 holders only skinnier. Wisner, on the other hand, based his 4x10 camera on some old X-Ray holders that had been discontinued 30 some years ago and are all but impossible to find (thanks to eBay, I have managed to accumulate a few over the years) . These are more like long 4x5 holders, rather than skinny 8x10s. The Canham holders are substantially wider than the Wisners. This, I've known for years. I was surprised to learn that the Canham holders would not fit the Lotus as I had been told the 4x10 Lotus was designed based on the Canham style holders. They are close, but not exactly the same. Too bad these three companies could not get their act together and agree on one common standard. It sure would make life easier for the people that buy their cameras.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Will,

I'm still undecided on how I'll proceed. The Lotus holders are beautifully made and fit the camera perfectly (as one would expect). It's hard to believe that back in 1997 they sold for $95 each. I was fortunate to pay even less than that for mine which were slightly used. At nearly $420 each, I simply can't afford to buy any more. The Canham holders seemed like a good alternative - they would be, if only they fit my camera. If I do modify the back, I'll probably leave the Lotus holders alone. It is the width of the Canham holders that's the problem, not the film plane location. As it's only about 0.040", it wouldn't have much affect on the fit of the Lotus holders.

Kerry

[wfwhitaker]

"[Canham] ... makes his holders from parts he get's from Fidelity. He basically uses the "long bits" from 8x10 holders, cuts the "wide bits" in half and glues them back together. So, they are basically just like 8x10 holders only skinnier."



Just not skinny enough. Perhaps it would be possible for Keith to make some which are sliced just a tiny bit narrower so that they then fit the Lotus. It doesn't seem right to modify the nice Lotus to a "standard" which doesn't even exist. That seems to compromise everything. But that's just me...

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Will,

Maybe I'm just getting greedy (or lazy, take your pick). Perhaps I should just be happy with the Lotus holders I have and just reload more often. I have enough to get me through a day of busy shooting. I just hate to spend time reloading when I could be shooting (or sleeping). The Lotus holders are a pleasure to use and fit the camera like a glove.

In addition to the Lotus and Canham holders, I have also amassed several 4x10 holders in the Wisner form factor (Mido IIs, wooden X-ray holders and some nice fairly modern plastic Lisco X-Ray holders). I have enough of these I was thinking it would be worth the money to get a second back, in the Wisner size, made for my camera. S&S is now making nice wooden holders in this size. They are around $200 each, which makes them a bargain compared to current price for new Lotus holders, but still twice as expensive as new Canhams.

Or, maybe I should just sell everything but the Lotus holders and back, buy a bunch of film and go out and do some shooting (and a whole lot of reloading).

Kerry

[Wayne Firth]

Kerry,

Since the holders are only .040" too wide. I would just trim the Canham holders. I would use a belt or disk sander or a router to shave off a bit from each side. It's just plastic and you don't have much to risk. I wouldn't mess with the Lotus camera or holders. I have both types of holders and assumed that they were exactly the same size. I will check the sizes for you since your problem might just be a one time manuafacturing glitch somewhere.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Wayne,

Thanks for the response. I've considered using a belt sander to shave ~0.020" off each side of the Canham holders. My main concern is dust. I'm worried that a bunch of plastic dust particles will get in the light trap, be impossible to clean out and will lay in wait only to jump out and ruin my best shots. I may try it with one of the holders to see how it works. I could place some tape over the ends and around the edges of the darkslide to seal out most of the dust.

Before attempting modification of the Canham holders, I would like to know how yours measure up compared to your Lotus holders. The 0.040" number I posted was a typical number. The actual differences measured between 0.032" and 0.056"

Also, have you noticed that the actual image area on the Lotus holders is about 1/4" shifted to the right, compared to the Canhams? If so, do you just allow a little extra room at the edge of the frame when you compose? It just seems a little weird to me that Lotus would make their holders almost, but not quite the same as the Canham holders.

Kerry

[Keith Pitman]

I bought my Wisner 4x10 back from Lotus (Burkhardt Kiegeland) on Ebay some time ago. It was new and unused and still had the tags attached. I suspect that he had purchased the back to measure it in order to produce his 4x10 camera. Perhaps the Lotus back you have was made to the Wisner standard.

Since I couldn't get film holders from Wisner, I corresponded with Lotus and they indicated that I could get Wisner-type holders from them. Eventually, I decided to have my 4x10 back modified by Canham to use the Canham-type holders. This was the most economical way to go and, also, seemed to ensure a better availability of film holders.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kerry,

Welcome to the world of non-ANSI-standard camera sizes...

Keith has posted the dimensions for his camera backs and holders on his website at:

www.canhamcameras.com/Film Holder Specs.html (http://www.canhamcameras.com/Film Holder Specs.html)

You can see if your holders deviate from his dimensions.

Shaving the plastic may be possible, but then those holders will never be 'right' in the Canham backs, which is what they were designed for. I think I would not make the modifications to the holders, as they could cause someone in the future problems since they will be non-standard. I would make the modification to the back, since it is already a non-standard item.

---Michael

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hi Kerry,

The film holders I got custom made from S&S are beautiful and fit my Wisner back nicely. They based the construction on a Lotus holder that I sent to them. This Lotus holder is made to fit the Wisner back. I don't want to add to the confusion, but are the early Lotus holders (which fit the Wisner backs) different from those they make now? The S&S holders are $175; not cheap, but certainly less then $420 for the Lotus ones. Good luck with your search!

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for all the responses. Nice to know I'm not the only devotee of the neglected 4x10 format.

Perhaps the Lotus back you have was made to the Wisner standard.

Nope, I have some of the Wisner compatible holders and they are MUCH skinnier than the Canham and Lotus holders.

www.canhamcameras.com/Film Holder Specs.html

You can see if your holders deviate from his dimensions.

Thanks for the link. This is very useful information. I don't have the holders or measurements in front of me, but I do recall my Canham holders were in the 5.3xx" wide range. The Lotus holders were in the 5.28x range.

I would make the modification to the back, since it is already a non-standard item.

I am reluctant to modify the back. I have more of the (very expensive) Lotus holders than Canhams. The Lotus holders fit the back beautifully. I hate to mess with something that works as well as the Lotus back/Lotus holder combination. Perhaps I may just bag it and get used to reloading more often (I've become spoiled by Quickloads and Readyloads in 4x5).

The film holders I got custom made from S&S are beautiful and fit my Wisner back nicely.

Yes, the S&S holders are very nice and reasonably priced for mand made wooden holders of this quality. Sandy King was kind enough to loan me a sample for an article I am working on.

They based the construction on a Lotus holder that I sent to them. This Lotus holder is made to fit the Wisner back. I don't want to add to the confusion, but are the early Lotus holders (which fit the Wisner backs) different from those they make now?

I am a victim of my own actions on this one. You see, back when I had my 4x10 Wisner the ONLY holders I could get for it were the Mido II style. Mine were poorly made and suffered for assorted light leaks. After a few years of fighting this problem, sending holders back to Mido for repair, and still suffering far too many light leaks, I gave up and sold my entire 4x10 outfit - to Burkhardt Kiegeland. Burkhardt was also unhappy with the 4x10 Mido II holders and decided to do something about it. He started Lotus View Camera and their very first product was 4x10 holders to fit the Wisner camera. For a brief time, these holders were sold by Wisner at the bargain price of $95 each. Eventually Lotus started making their own cameras and ceased supplying holders for Wisner. They supposedly designed their own 4x10 camera to be compatible with the 4x10 Canham holders (which I just learned is not 100% true). So, at various times Lotus has made 4x10 holders in at least two different sizes - the skinnier Wisner size and their own almost-Canham size. As my Lotus back and holders are several years old, I have no idea if their current products are identical to mine, or if they are indeed Canham compatible.

Perhaps I should just be thankful that I have a nice Lotus back and several very nice Lotus holders that fit it well and leave it at that. After my problems with my original 4x10 Wisner camera and the Mido II holders, when I decided to re-enter the 4x10 format, I bought the holders first and then bought a back to match. As I got a good deal on my Lotus holders, that stategy worked well until I got greedy and wanted even more holders. Live and learn.

Kerry

[Mark_3899]

Kerry,
Trimming is the best idea, but the way to do this is run them on a jointer. If you have a friend or know a woodworker who has one. it will do a clean job and keep them square. Just feed them through slowly. If you lived in NJ I would do it for you.
Good Luck

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Mark,

I hadn't thought of using a joiner. Yes, it would be important to feed them slowly to avoid excessive heat that could melt or warp the plastic. Thanks for the offer, but I'm in the Portland, OR area - a long way from New Jersey.

Kerry

[Wayne Firth]

Kerry,

I just measured my holders and I get measurements similar to yours. I don't have a caliper large enough but I used a machinist rule to get a difference of about .040 inch or about 1.5 mm. The Lotus holder is about 134mm wide and the Canham is about 135.5 mm. I stacked nine Lotus holders on edge on a table and noticed slight variances in their widths. I guess this is to be expected with handmade objects. I did this with three Canham holders and they appeared to be the same width. I think shaving a little off the plastic holders would be the way to go, either with a jointer or a good router mounted to a table and used as a jointer. I never noticed the difference in holders because my Canham and my homemade cameras are made for the slightly wider Canham holders.

The Canham holders in the Canham back are quite snug with no play. The Lotus holders are about 1mm narrower than the Canham back.

I never noticed the 1/4" offset in image either, but you are correct about that as well. I noticed that in addition to the offset the Canham image size is slightly longer than the Lotus. I guess that I don't compose tight enough for any of this to make a difference to me. That's why I made the homemade camera as a fast shooter. Thanks for bringing up the subject, though. I learned something today.

Wayne

[wfwhitaker]

Kerry,



I'd have some serious reservations about trimming plastic film holders. You're talking about taking about .020" off either side. That's only about 1/64". But do you know what the wall thickness is? Is there enough material there to do that without compromising the structural integrity of the holder? And if you start trimming away plastic, how do you know that it won't relieve internal stresses which could possibly warp the holder?



A jointer doesn't sound like the correct tool for the job. Maybe it would work, I honestly don't know. But I think a much better solution is to have the edges milled properly. That's assuming that the plastic these holders are made of will tolerate milling of any sort. If so, then it sounds like a job for Keith Canham. He's got the tooling, the experience and he sold you the holders to begin with.



Early on you indicated that you'd "just" bought these, suggesting that they're new. Again, perhaps Keith would be willing to take them back in exchange for some new ones which he could possibly assemble to your required dimensions from the outset.

[Bill_1856]

Kerry, I have enjoyed reading a lot of the material that you have posted over the years, as well as ink and paper articles. So this question isn't intended as a Troll. But why in the world if you're going to shoot 4x10 don't you just shoot 8x10 and crop it (either in the camera or when printing)? The cost and bother of such a specialized format must vastly outweigh the weight savings (I know you're very hyper when it comes to weight).

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Wayne,

Thanks for the response and confirming my measurements.

Will,

I bought the holders used from Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange. I'm sure he'd take them back if I wanted to return them. I'm still undecided about what to do. The real appeal of the Canham holders is the possibility of a reliable source of reasonably priced (by 4x10 standard) holders should I need more down the road. That was based on the incorrect assumption that they would fit my camera without modification. If I have to modifiy these four holders, and anymore I get in the future, this option starts to loose a lot of its appeal.

One other possible option it to get a second back made for my camera. Ironically, I just posted another thread on this topic the day before the Canham holders arrived. In that thread, I was thinking about getting a back for the Wisner size holders to use with my camera. I have accumulated several holders in this size (Mido IIs, old wooden x-ray holders and some fairly modern 4x10 plastic Lisco x-ray holders). The goal was to have one camera with two backs so I could use holders in both the Wisner and Canham sizes. That was before I learned that the Lotus holders are not identical to the Canhams. I'm not too excited about getting TWO more backs made for my camera. When I first started this 4x10 project, Keith Canham offerred to sell me one of his 4x10 backs (just the back, not the bellows and rear standard) for $425 - which is about the price of one new Lotus 4x10 holder these days. Perhaps he would be willing to do a custom version of his back to fit my camera. The Canham back is designed so that the film holder and ground glass frame assembly simply mounts on a flat carrier board that then mounts to the rear format frame. This carrier board on the 4x10 Canham is quite a bit taller, but not quite as wide as the Lotus back. Point is, changing this carrier board would be the only modification required to mount a Canham back on my camera. I'll probably talk this over with Keith and see what he can do. If I go this route, I'll probably just sell all my Wisner size holders to help pay for the Canham back and more Canham holders. I've actually managed to go from not enough holders to too many - well at least too many different sizes.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

So this question isn't intended as a Troll. But why in the world if you're going to shoot 4x10 don't you just shoot 8x10 and crop it (either in the camera or when printing)? The cost and bother of such a specialized format must vastly outweigh the weight savings (I know you're very hyper when it comes to weight).

Bill,

Not a troll at all. This is a perfectly valid question and a very sane approach to shooting 4x10. In fact, it is how I originally got into 4x10 back in the early 1990s. Back then, I used an 8x10 Deardorff with a 4x10 slider board to shoot two 4x10 images on each sheet of 8x10 film. When I decided to get back into 4x10, I also started again with this approach and one of Jay Bender's 4x10 split darkslides. So, why didn't I just stick with this approach and be happy? This is a simple question with a rather long answer.

First, I'm not a big 8x10 shooter. The only 8x10 camera I own is a 60+ year old Eastman Commercial "All Metal" (which I'll probably end up selling as I haven't used it in a couple years). While this camera was rather advanced for it's day, it's a bit bulky and heavy compared to most modern 8x10 field cameras. Including all the accesories (extension rail, sliding tripod mount, etc.) needed to use all of my lenses it weighs about 12 1/2 lbs. The bulk of this camera, and a few 8x10 holders pretty much fills up my entire pack. As my goal is to shoot both 4x10 and 4x5, this presents another problem - no room for my 4x5 kit in the pack, and I have never seen a 4x5 reducing back made for this camera. Even if one did exist, or could be made, this camera does not handle lenses shorter than 150mm very well. It has a fixed bellows that becomes too compact to allow movements with such short lenses. This is also an issue for 4x10 shooting. As some of my 4x10 lenses either barely cover, or don't quite cover 8x10 ideally I'd like to be able to center the lenses for each 4x10 half of the 8x10 sheet of film. This requires 2" of front rise for one half and 2" of fall for the other. And that's just to center the image, if I wanted to actually use a little front rise, I'd need even more rise capability. For long lenses, this is not a problem. However, for the 110mm, it definitely is. The inability to center the lens also results in incresed light fall-off in the corners when using ultrawide lenses.

So, wouldn't a new, more modern 8x10 camera solve many of these issues? Yes, most of them. Even the smallest new 8x10 would still be bulkier than a 4x10. Then there is the cost issue. Originally, I considered trying to locate a used 8x10 Phillips Compact or Explorer. It seemed like a good solution. Problem is, they are hard to find and expensive. I've seen a few on eBay go for well over $2000. Then I'd still need a 4x5 reducing back, new lensboards, more 8x10 holders, etc. And it still wouldn't have a bag bellows for centering my 110mm Super Symmar (mounting the lens off-center on the lens board would help some). In any case, while looking for a good deal on a reasonably priced, lightweight 8x10 that would meet all my needs, I stumbled across what seemed to be a better solution to meet my needs.

As I mentioned above, when I decided to re-enter 4x10, my first priority was getting some good film holders. I picked up a couple of the Lotus holders on eBay for a little over $100 each - a bargain compared to what they cost new. And then, I got an even better deal on a several more Lotus holders from Midwest Photo Exchange. So, now I had a pile of nice holders and only needed a camera. I decided to cobble together my own custom camera from bits and pieces of other cameras. I started with one of the older 4x5 ARCA-SWISS monorails as my base platform ($350 off eBay). The modular nature of the ARCA-SWISS cameras makes them ideal for such projects. The original plan was to make my own back by cutting down and re-assembling the back of an old 8x10 Kodak 2-D, and then order a custom bellows from Camera Bellows of England. I actually got pretty far down this path when a unique opportunity presenetd itself. I bought a 4x10 Lotus conversion kit off the German eBay site for about $450 (back when $1 ~ 1 euro). This included the complete 4x10 rear standard and the 4x10 bellows. It just so happened that the front of the 4x10 Lotus bellows is a very good match for the ARCA-SWISS 6x9 front format frame of my prioject camera. I actually completed this camera and it turned out pretty well (I'll post a link to a photo tonight). So, for about $800 I had a nice 4x10 camera that easily handled all my lenses, collapses nice and compact for transport and weighs less than 6 1/4 lbs.

Since I completed that camera, I have acquired a newer ARCA-SWISS F-Line that is my main x5 camera. I'm in the process of converting my 4x10 Lotus Swiss to work with the newer F-Line chassis. The goal is to end up with one camera for both 4x5 and 4x10 shooting. This will consist of a 4x5 ARCA-SWISS F-Line Field (4x5 back and 6x9 front standards) and a 4x10 conversion kit (4x10 back and bellows). This will let me shoot both formats and everything easily fits in my pack.

For the cost of a new ARCA-SWISS, I could have bought a pretty good 8x10 camera. However, it would still be bulky and perhaps not handle wide angle leses as well. Also, I sold my 4x5 Linhof Tehnikardan to pay for a used ARCA-SWISS F-Line. Cost wise, that was pretty much a wash (and while the Linhof was a fine camera, I actually like the ARCA even more).

Of course, this is all just rationalization for why I chose a "true" 4x10 camera over a more conventional 8x10. Ultimately, I plan to make 4x10 "my format" over the next several years. I've always been drawn to this format and would like to amass a significant body of 4x10 color landscape images. Emotionally, I like working in the format that matches my intended output. Visually, I just think I see better in 4x10 if I'm carrying around a 4x10 camera and composing on a 4x10 ground glass. Composing on 4x10 is a lot different than 8x10 (or 4x5). I just find that carring around a long skinny camera and a bag full of long, skinny film holders puts me in the proper farme of mind for creating 4x10 images. Perhaps that's not the most rational statement in the world, but in actual practice it seems to work for me.

Kerry

[Ralph Barker]

Kerry, 0.04" isn't much of a difference, although obviously critical in this case. Rather than using a jointer or machine-driven milling of some sort, I'd suggest simply a medium-grit sand paper attached to a strong, flat surface. Then, holding the film holder square to the surface, move the film holder against the sandpaper with a firm, smooth, uni-directional movement as one might use with a hand plane, keeping the number of sanding strokes consistent between the edges. A few strokes will likely be all that is needed to trim the 0.04" from the plastic holders. I'd also leave the dark slide in position, and vacuum the holders thoroughly after the operation.

[Wayne Firth]

Kerry,

That's a good answer regarding using a dedicated 4x10 camera. I know a lot of people want to use 8x10 cameras and crop or the other methods but it just isn't the same as thinking in the format. Perhaps this is not obvious until you actually start to see and think in this skinny format. There is a great difference between toting around an 8x10 and toting a 4x10. It's half the camera and half the holders and half the film, after all. I never could see much point in reducing backs. If I carry a big camera, then I want the reward of the big picture. If I can settle for small film then I am going to reward myself by carrying a lighter load of gear.

Most of what I do is in some panoramic format. These formats are so close to natural vision that it is hard to return to non-panoramic formats after seeing in wide vision for so long. I feel like I have tunnel vision. I was hooked on long skinny pictures after seeing Jay Dusard's Open Country years ago which he shot with an inexpensive homemade camera.

If I was going to dedicate the next several years to 4x10 photography then I would just fix the camera to take both kinds of holders. When I put the Lotus holders in the Canham camera I probably can't fit a credit card between the holder and the rail. It's really a tiny gap. Good luck on your project.

Wayne