New Chamomix 4x5 or used Wista, Zone VI....

[jmontague]

I know that I will get a lot of opinions, but I am thinking of moving up from my Burke & James Press to a "true" 4x5 field camera.

Since a new Chamonix is about the same price as a used Wista, Zone VI, etc., which is the better choice? I love the look of the Chamonix in the photos on their web site, but looks do not necessarily equate to function. I appreciate your thoughts. Ebony and Canham are way out of my budget.

Of course, I can just stick with my B&J and have a lot of $$ for film, chemicals and the like.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[vinny]

The chamonix is the most versatile if you want to use short/long lenses. It's rock solid. Get one and sell it for very little loss if you don't like it.

[Peter De Smidt]

It depends a bit one what you want to shoot, and you're style. For landscape photography, I use 120mm, 210mm, 90mm, 300mm and 450mm lenses, going from most used to least. I have a Toyo 45AX, which are great bargains these days. I've owned and used Sinar, Arca Swiss, Ebony, Kodak, Horseman, Chamonix, Toho, and probably a few others, but I prefer the Toyo, especially given it's cost. It's solid and very fast to use. I didn't like the rear locking arrangement on the Chamonix, as adding rear extension can also change alignment. Obviously, lot's of people use these cameras with great success. It was just something I didn't like.
The Toyo probably isn't as good with lenses wider than 90mm or so, and to get up to 450mm, I use an extension. For me, those things, and the slight amount of added weight, don't matter much. They might for you.

[Lachlan 717]

What's missing from the B&J?

If it's not doing something that you think you need for your shooting, then, of course, look elsewhere.

But, when you peel back the layers of the onion, these are just boxes that you bung a lens on one end and an organic component on the other.

[Richard Johnson]

I've had a lot of cameras too. The Chamonix/Phillips is a wonderful value, very robust yet lightweight... great for a moderate range of lenses with movements. The only downsides I can think of is that it won't fold up with a small lens mounted (like the Wista and Linhof field cameras will - but the Toyo will not) and that extreme focal lengths are compromises (as they would be with most compact field cameras).

Come to think of it, the only advantage of the Wista/Zone VI is folding up with a small 135 mounted. The Chamonix will be more solid and allow great movements.

[Alan Gales]

I have never even held one but if I were buying a 4x5 today I would want a Chamonix.

When Frank Petronio failed to call it a matchstick camera, bought one and praised it's rigidity I was sold on Chamonix. I believe Frank eventually sold it and went back to a Crown Graphic but hey, that"s Frank! ;)

Affordable price new, rigid, versatile, light weight and pretty. Of course everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

[Two23]

I own a small pile of cameras, and the Chamonix 045n is my favorite.


Kent in SD

[soeren]

Yes I like my F1 a lot too. Wish I could afford an 8x10". Only downside is the bellows don't allows for IR shooting. There are the Argentum cameras too, they seems lower priced but Ive never seen one live so can't comment.

[Kodachrome25]

Only downside is the bellows don't allows for IR shooting.

I shoot both Rollei IR400 and Efke IR820 in my 2012 45N2 with no issues at all.

[soeren]

Really?? Vauv then Ill try it out for myself. In -13, I think there was some talk about it and I recall the outcome was it wasn't IR opaque. IIRC even Hugo Chang should have said so. But if it's possible it's possible no matter what they say. Me like :D
Best regards

[soeren]

Thos was one of the threads from that time that led me to believe the chamonix bellows is not IR-opaque
http://apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/chamonix-45n-bellows-not-infrared-proof.48552/page-3

[vinny]

Thos was one of the threads from that time that led me to believe the chamonix bellows is not IR-opaque
http://apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/chamonix-45n-bellows-not-infrared-proof.48552/page-3
I started that thread. My camera wasn't usable with IR film. I now have the 45n-2 and I'm not sure if I've tried IR or not...........

[jose angel]

Jmontague, there are lots of different options, the ones you mention are quite different between them. We don`t know about you and your shooting style, or your preferences.

Which B&J do you have? Field, monorail, press? Think that there are differences in the setup time (operational speed), the "positiveness" of the zero detents, the length of the bellows, the movements (architecture vs. portraiture), weight, price, versatility, handling, manufacturing quality, parts availability, etc. Canhams and Ebonys are great, but they may not suit your needs (or more important, your preferences).

The ones I use most are technical type ones (actually my favorite is the oldest I have); but right now I`m in a project that ask for long lenses, so I`m switching to a studio monorail with an extra bellows. I`m happy I`ll have the possibility of back shift and focus ability.tilting swing movement.

Personally, I consider very important the ease of working with tilt (swing) movements. If you use to tilt, it may worth to check yaw free models.

But at the end, if your B&J suits you well, why to spend on another? Or maybe it could be a good idea to buy a complementary one (e.g. Press > monorail). Or maybe you`d be better with a tripod upgrade, or better lenses, or whatever other thing to improve your photography.

[Drew Bedo]

I have a Wista-made Zone VI. I like it and it is a visual jewel. However the bellows draw is limited and, camera is fragile . . .and it is now over thirty years old. For thi time being, it is what I have.

My recommendation would be to get the Chamonix. It is a new camera made with modern materials. It is rigid with light weight and has any movement you will need.

[Bill_1856]

Is there something that your B&J won't do? Don't forget, you'll now have to drag along a tripod!

[vinny]

the guy wants to buy a new camera and we're attempting to talk him out of it??????????????????????????????????

That's like my wife saying "what's wrong with the 4 routers you already own?"

[Drew Wiley]

I think you're on the right track already. Chamonix looks like a nice product for the money. But glad I bought my Ebony when they were about half the price they
are now!

[Drew Bedo]

A man doesn't need a reason to want another camera. A brand new one is always a good thing.

[Alan Gales]

A man doesn't need a reason to want another camera. A brand new one is always a good thing.

You are a wise man, Drew! :)

[jmontague]

Thanks for all your input. There is certainly nothing wrong with the B&J Press. In fact it has lots to like: front tilt, rise and fall, and shift. No swing, however, unless I turn the camera in its side and use the tilt like it is swing. There are also no back movements but, with the drop bed, I can simulate modest rear back tilt. So, it is pretty versatile for a press camera.

I also have a Toyo 45G rail camera, but that is quite the beast to take on a hike. I really want to learn the use of all possible movements, which the Toyo is great for. But I would like that versatility in the field, as well.

Ok, let's face it, I just want a new toy that is also a great tool for me as my skills grow.

[richardman]

I will offer it at the FS: if the time comes, but I am getting a Gibellini, so my Chamonix F1 may go up for sale. Would be tough to justify keeping both.

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks for all your input. There is certainly nothing wrong with the B&J Press. In fact it has lots to like: front tilt, rise and fall, and shift. No swing, however, unless I turn the camera in its side and use the tilt like it is swing. There are also no back movements but, with the drop bed, I can simulate modest rear back tilt. So, it is pretty versatile for a press camera.

I also have a Toyo 45G rail camera, but that is quite the beast to take on a hike. I really want to learn the use of all possible movements, which the Toyo is great for. But I would like that versatility in the field, as well.

Ok, let's face it, I just want a new toy that is also a great tool for me as my skills grow.

It should be pretty easy to narrow down your choices here: just make a list of your needs/desires and compare them to a list of each of the camera's shortcomings. Just so you know, I own Wista wooden field cameras (three of them) and a Zone VI/Ritter camera (the larger and last version). I haven't handled the Chamonix. So, to help in that regard, here is my assessment of the cameras I own.

I carry a Wista DX or the Wista SW (basically a DX with an interchangeable bellows) 95% of the time. I like them for the following reasons:

They are small and light.
They fold up with a small lens mounted.
They have all the movements I need even for architectural work in cities (I'll qualify this later in the shortcomings...)
With recessed and extended lensboards I can use lenses from 65mm to 300mm

Shortcomings of the Wista DX:

Even with a recessed board, the bellows often hampers movements with shorter lenses. I don't use e.g., a 90mm f/5.6, but instead one of the f/8 models in that focal length. I can take advantage of all of the image circle of my 90mm f/8 Super Angulon, but would likely run out of movements with the larger lens and it's larger image circle. The SW has a bag bellows that allows works with lenses up to 210mm; when I'm planning on using a lot of movements, I grab that camera. There are tons of DXs with crinkled bellows due to people trying to stretch more movement out of them than they can deliver. I have one that has such badly crumpled bellows that it won't close anymore. So, if you're planning on using a large-image-circle short lenses a lot, maybe you'd prefer a camera with interchangeable bellows or one with "universal" bellows like the Chamonix. If you do decide on a used Wista, make sure the bellows are in good shape.

If you plan on using lenses longer than 240mm with a Wista, then you'll need an extended lens board. Still, this will only get you up to about 300mm. If you want to use longer, you'll have to go telephoto or get a different camera.

The DX offers front and rear swing and tilt, front rise and fall and shift on the rear standard. I wouldn't buy a camera without shift, since I use that a lot. That said, like most field cameras, the DX's movements are limited. I often find myself using the "point and swing/tilt" trick to get a bit of extra rise or shift out of it. I'm fast and comfortable with this, and accept this as an acceptable trade-off for the light weight of the camera. Similarly, I'm at home with base tilts and non-yaw-free movements; some find them awkward...

Be aware that the Zone VI/Wista and the Wista DXII do not have the shift feature. This is a deal-killer for me...

Older DXs have the tripod socket under the rear standard; more modern ones have a centered tripod mount. The former allows larger lenses to be folded up inside the camera (an advantage for me when hiking a lot) but the camera is less steady with the 300mm/extended board. The center mount balances the camera on the tripod better, but only allows a pretty small lens (135mm/203 Ektar, etc.) to be closed inside the camera.

Zone VI/Ritter version.

This camera is wonderful after I made a couple of modifications (even if not so nicely finished as I would like) but is simply too large and heavy for me to carry around most of the time. It weighs almost twice what the Wista does. If you have the bag bellows (if you can find one), the camera can get the most out of your shortest/largest-image-circle lenses. The bag bellows are harder to find now though. I modified my camera to take Technika recessed boards so I can get a fair amount of movement with the regular bellows. If you don't do this, movements with a 90mm on a flat board are limited by the bellows. Similarly, I had to add a stop for the front standard past the rack-and-pinion focusing limit so that I could realistically use a 450mm lens. When doing this, I simply focus with the back standard since the front is held in position past the limit of focusing by pins that I added. Works great, but otherwise, 360-400mm is about the longest lens to use if you're focusing on anything but infinity.

FWIW, I did a whole lot of shooting with a low-end Woodman for many years. It had a couple of features I liked a lot. First, it was really, really light (lenses didn't fold up in it though). Second, and most helpful for me, was that I could mount lenses on Technika boards upside-down. With the off-center lens mounting, that meant that I could get a few mm more rise; I used this trick a lot. Downside: cheap bellows that needed patching a lot and limited rear tilt (design flaw).

The Chamonix 45n looks like a good camera to me, but has a couple of things I would like to actually handle first before I would purchase one. First, the fact that the front rise and tilt movements are controlled by a single locking mechanism might be problematic; I'd have to see if I could live with that. Setting up looks a bit fiddly too, especially with gloved hands in cold weather; I'd have to try one out... However, the universal bellows and the longer bellows draw look really interesting.

Hope this helps some,

Doremus

[scheinfluger_77]

the guy wants to buy a new camera and we're attempting to talk him out of it??????????????????????????????????

That's like my wife saying "what's wrong with the 4 routers you already own?"

;) +1 at least!

[Roger Cole]

I just read over this thread again. Does anyone know if the new universal bellows of the Chamonix is IR opaque? (I also read the thread on APUG from 2009 again.) I did buy a few boxes of Efke IR820 when Efke went under, still safely stashed in my freezer, but this alone probably wouldn't steer me away from the Chamonix. I might try to get a Shen Hao bellows for it or something if it's still a problem, though.

I am planning to get a new 4x5 in the coming year. I have pretty well decided on a Chamonix (possible exception being if something else suitable turned up used at a too good to resist price) but I'm not sure between the 45n-2 and the F1. For that matter I'm also trying to sort out, from the comment on their web site that the new version of the 45n-1 has " added support for the tracks" exactly which features of the n-2 it lacks, and why one would buy one for the same price instead of the n-2. Other, that is, than the snazzy looking red bellows. So basically I'm looking at, I guess, three very similar models of Chamonix. The price difference is almost inconsequential, and the slight weight difference is totally inconsequential. I'm familiar with the (slight, in my view) advantage of axis tilt versus base tilt. I'm used to what amounts to base tilt on my Linhof Tech III. But I am not sure what "added base and asymmetrical tilts" actually means, either in terms of camera geometry or practical usage.

So does anyone have an opinion on:

1. Is the F1 worth the small additional cost over the 45n-2?
2. Is there a reason to consider the new 45n-1 over the n-2?
3. (Not an opinion but fact question) - any answer on the new versions of the bellows and IR film?

[soeren]

Ad1. Depends. Do you need or want assymetric Tilt of the back? The N2 was out of stock when I ordered and I accepted the additional cost of the F1 and I havn't regrets about that.
Ad3. I have thought about testing the bellows and will come around to that eventually just need som infrared light which is pretty scarce right now :)

[Roger Cole]

Need? Since I'm not even sure what asymmetric tilt IS, I'm pretty sure I don't need it. But whether I want it depends on just what it is. Might be one of those things I don't need but once I had I'd be glad I did. I'll go googling for that. It says it has "base and asymmetric" tilts but the n-2 (and I presume this design is the same in the n-1) clearly has base tilt so that's...odd. By "asymmetric tilt" do they really just mean axis tilt? That's handy for architecture folks and maybe some still lifes, table top etc but I certainly don't need it. And if I DID for those things I'd probably get a monorail in addition, as good ones can be had so inexpensively now anyway.

[soeren]

https://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ebonycamera.com/media/asymmetrical.movements.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjxqpPxv8fLAhWGHJoKHVViCK0QFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEmbLvzzLfxNiZ2VAlebjNvhyJfZA

[Cor]

Thanks for the link, Soeren.

A question/assumption I had is answered clearly in the text:

In conclusion, it’s important to understand that rear swings and tilts affect perspective in a manner that
front swings and tilts do not. Notice that the perspective is slightly different in all the examples when the
rear swing and tilt movements were employed. When perspective control is important, then swings and
tilts are best employed at the lens plane. The convenience of asymmetrical movements can still be utilized
to determine the relative degree of movement required. These movements are then transferred to the
lens standard, remembering that they must be reversed, i.e. in the opposite direction of the movements
on the rear standard. After the movements have been transferred to the front standard, reset the rear
standard to its detent (zero) position and refocus. When perspective control is not a primary issue, swings
and tilts are best employed at the film plane. The reason is that when the lens is swung or tilted, the image
circle projected by the lens is no longer a circle, but becomes oval-shaped relative to the film plane. The
ovalling of the image circle reduces coverage and thus may limit the extent of lateral movements (shift or
rise/fall) that can be utilized

[John Layton]

Sounds like you already know what you need in terms of range of functions. Just be very, very careful of the "maximal functionality/minimal weight" equation, especially if you like using relatively long lenses (like 300 and up on a 4x5)...unless you absolutely know that you can live with the compromises. Extremely good advice above regarding designs featuring separate front rise/fall and axial tilt controls. Lots of other "small" details - for example the focus locks...does their operation cause the focus to shift a bit? Does the focus move by itself with a heavy lens and strong down (or up) angle? Does a zero-detent actually create problems when you're trying to rotate and lock a movement just a wee bit off axis? Does insertion of film holders jeopardize "locked down" back movements? Can you leave a given controls' locking mechanism partially tightened...allowing for decisive tweaks without needing three hands to hold things in place - prior to a final lock-down? In the case of cameras with longish bellows...are the "anti sag" clips/velcro strips/whatever - placed thoughtfully, so that when you rack back from, say, using a 450 to a 210 while photographing a given scene - you can quickly/easily mitigate what might otherwise be too much sag? If you go with a full-area focus screen, meaning without cut corners...is there some way for air to escape from inside the bellows while doing a quick compression to accommodate a much shorter lens? If your focus screen incorporates a fresnel, does its focal length represent a good choice for you...given your range of focal lengths? Is the interior opening of the front lens panel large enough to accommodate the rear elements of your chosen (and likely future) range of lenses? If you like using very short FL's (say in the 47-65 range for 4x5) - how much flexibility/functionality still exists with resulting bellows compression...especially if the "standard" bellows is not swappable to a bag bellows? Conversely, if you like using very long FL's (say, 450 non-tele for 4x5, assuming your bellows can accommodate) - are your back movements adequate enough to substitute for front movements that might otherwise be physically difficult to reach? Can you trip a #3 shutter with a finger placed gently anywhere on the front standard...and not feel any vibration? And very important...is the overall design of the camera such that its use can quickly become intuitive enough that you don't find yourself needing to look at the various controls - while losing your concentration on your subject?

As for going with a new versus a used camera - you should get others to chime in on how a given camera wears itself in with use. A good design will age "correctly," so that functions which rotate and/or slide will continue to remain smoothly adjustable while locking down securely.

Pardon me (seriously!) for blathering on. I'll admit to being helplessly obsessed (for better and for worse!) with LF design, and know that I'm likely preaching to the choir on most/all of the above. At any rate, it would be great if you could somehow spend a bit of time with several different models to see what might work for you.

[Bill_1856]

It ain't on your list, but have you considered a nice used Linhof Master Technika?

[soeren]

Id fancy a Technika but even used it's a slightly different price and....... ahem.........weight.

[Roger Cole]

https://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ebonycamera.com/media/asymmetrical.movements.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjxqpPxv8fLAhWGHJoKHVViCK0QFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEmbLvzzLfxNiZ2VAlebjNvhyJfZA

Thanks for this. I skimmed it, and need to read it carefully when I have time. I was aware of the perspective differences. Even though my Tech III only has awkward lens tilt (you can get it by fiddling with the drop bed but the easiest way is to just mount the camera sideways and use the swing as tilt) I most often prefer back tilt for just that reason. If I'm using tilt it's usually in a landscape and the back tilt causes things closer to the camera to look a bit larger. Fred Picker in his usual exaggerated way called it "looming." That's hyperbole I think but the slight relative size increase of foreground objects does tend to lend more of a sense of depth. Of course if you have geometric shapes or other forms that you need to render without distortion then you need to use the front tilt.

At any rate, it sounds like asymmetric tilt is an advantage. I don't think either the cost or weight penalty of the F1 relative to the 45n-2 is significant so it becomes a question of whether the design adds any annoying amount of complexity or makes operating the camera more "fidgety."

I also hope the OP doesn't mind my piggybacking on his thread. :)

[Roger Cole]

Id fancy a Technika but even used it's a slightly different price and....... ahem.........weight.

The IV and later are very nice, sturdy cameras, but in addition to cost and weight they aren't real good with short lenses. My III is ok with a 90 but I wouldn't want to try anything much shorter and even the 90 has the bellows pretty compressed. I prefer to move to something that takes either a bag or universal bellows and allows use of at least a 65 with some movements. I don't HAVE a 65 yet, but especially for use with color film in a roll film holder (because mainly of the cost of color sheet film) I want one.

[soeren]

I use a 75 on a recessed lensboard but it is possible to focus to infinity with my 65 on a plain one. Maybe i can do some shots of the 65 setup during the easter hollidays.

[soeren]

Fred Picked? I seem to run into that name regularly these days. Is one or more of his booke worth buying?

[Peter De Smidt]

Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop gives a good, easy to follow method for film and development testing. If you don't need or want to do that, then it won't be much use.

[Roger Cole]

Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop gives a good, easy to follow method for film and development testing. If you don't need or want to do that, then it won't be much use.

Agreed on both counts. I have it - not a bad little book for what they cost now, but only if you want to do those things.

Fred was the owner of Zone VI studios, known to be rather opinionated, and wrote advice and ads in the Zone VI catalogs that were part useful, part opinion, and always rather colorful. Saying that back tilt caused a foreground rock to "loom" being a minor example. It does make foreground objects (happened to be a rock in his example) look somewhat larger than front tilt (which won't change relative shape and perspective) or no tilt, but the effect, while real and sometimes beneficial in landscapes, isn't usually very pronounced in my opinion and I wouldn't say it makes things "loom."

He also advised that every print should have at least a small area of maximum black and pure paper base white. I think that is quite possibly the single worst bit of advice I have ever read.

[Michael R]

At any rate, it sounds like asymmetric tilt is an advantage. I don't think either the cost or weight penalty of the F1 relative to the 45n-2 is significant so it becomes a question of whether the design adds any annoying amount of complexity or makes operating the camera more "fidgety."

I also hope the OP doesn't mind my piggybacking on his thread. :)

Roger,

There's a decent intro to asymmetric movements on the Ebony website (link below). The F1 would work the same way. With the the F1 you can use either asymmetric or base tilt on the back). I don't think it adds anything in the way of being fidgety.

When you tilt the back, the "pivot" point will stay in focus. What asymmetric rear movements do is put those pivot points for tilt (and/or swing) on the ground glass (the focusing screen has markings on it to show you where). Since the part of the image corresponding to those markings stays in focus as you tilt, under some circumstances this system can make it easier/faster to focus when applying tilts (less trial and error).

http://www.ebonycamera.com/media/asymmetrical.movements.pdf

Essentially the F1 can do everything the N1/N2 does, plus the asymmetric rear tilt. I got a N2 recently as a second 4x5 so that I don't have to haul around my monorail when I don't need it. The only reason I ultimately chose the N2 over the F1 is that I preferred the way the rear sliding mechanism works on the N2. The F1 and N1 work the same way. It's a relatively minor difference (probably doesn't even matter once you start using either one), and I waffled on it for a while because asymmetric tilts can be handy. I guess ideally what I wanted was a F2 (which doesn't exist), but really I could have gone either way on the F1 vs N2. For what it's worth, I'm very happy and impressed with the Chamonix. Whether you go for the F or N models, you get a lot of camera for the price. Well made and versatile.

My two cents.

[Roger Cole]

Awesome, thanks for the information. I knew about the pivot point remaining in focus and one reason some prefer axis tilt. It sounds like this just causes an effective pivot point that is between the base and axis and marked on the ground glass.

I will read the Ebony article when I have time. It will probably be at least 2 - 3 months before I can pull the trigger anyway.

[soeren]

148501

65mm f8 focusses @ nearinfinity then tilted randomnly.
Sorry for the 90 degree tilt. Our part of the world is not level this morning.

[soeren]

Confirmed the info i got about the bellows not being ir opaque. Had one darkslide loaded with two sheets of efke IR 820 and one darkslide with two sheets of Tri-X. Loaded one and Pulled the slide for approx 60sec with shutter closed repeated with the Tri-X. The "Unexposed" sheets and the "exposed" Tri-X were clear and the "exposed" ir820 was fogged. :(

[Roger Cole]

Well that stinks. Wonder if the red bellows on the new 045n-1 might be a different material?

I want to get a new camera soon and the Chamonix looks like the best, but I want to be able to use the boxes of frozen Efke IR820 I have, and possibly Rollei IR in the future as well.

[scheinfluger_77]

Why not just drape your dark cloth over the bellows when ready to shoot? Or some other type of drape tested for IR light fastness.

[Roger Cole]

Might work, depending on the extension the bellows are at and the size of the cloth (and that it is IR opaque - the folks using black t-shirts might have a problem with that.) I use a BTZS focusing hood, far superior to anything else I've tried. I'd have to try it to see how easily I can get it around the bellows without disturbing the camera position or letting it hang off the front and get in front of the lens.