8x10 opinions - Phillips Compact II or Wehman?

[John_6104]

Greetings LFers

Knowing the full risk of possibly raising the ire of everyone who hates camera comparison questions, I am taking the chance and asking for any opnions of the Wehman field camera vs. the Phillips Compact II. Any takers from anyone who has experience with both? I'm searching for a strong, relatively "lightweight" alternative to my Deardorff. Thanks for any responses. Regards, John

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm always surprised at how lightweight Deardorffs are. Are you sure you can't trim a little weight elsewhere in the kit?

[Frank Petronio]

Isn't it more a matter of fit and finish, pride of ownership, etc.? Both are great cameras but one's a more like a sports car and the other is a like dune buggy.

[Steve Hamley]

The Phillips certainly seems to be a trendier camera. IIRC, the Wehman has a considerably longer bellows if that's a factor, and is well suited to rough use according to Bruce.

Other nice options are the Canham traditional or lightweight (9.4 and 8.4 lbs), the Ebony RW810 (10 lbs), and if you can get one used or money is no object, the mahoghany Ebony SV810 (about 11 lbs). The SV810 is considerably lighter than either of the two Deardorffs I've owned, but not much difference than the Canham traditional.

Steve

[Bill_1856]

You can have the Wehman for Christmas. You can have the Phillips for Christmas Next Year. (Maybe.)

[Herb Cunningham]

Having lived true to the motto "Moderation in NOTHING", I have owned a lot of cameras, four or five 8x10s and all manner of smaller ones.
Check out the kit: Are you a long trekker? If not, camera weight is insignificant compared to:

tripod, lenses, how many 8x10 holders does it take to weigh 10 lbs, etc.

It boils down to format size more than a particular camera. I use 8x10 and 5x7, and the 5x7 seems like nothing after a day of 8x10, but I still use mostly 8x10.

there ain't no perfect camera

[Brian Ellis]

With 4x5 I think it makes sense to worry about camera weight if you're walking with it. But 8x10 is so big and heavy with other things (film holders, probably bigger lenses, boards, tripod, backpack, etc.) that I'm not sure a camera weight difference of even 3 or 4 pounds makes much of a difference. I used to own a Deardorff that weighed about 12 pounds, now I own a Kodak 2D which weighs about 10 pounds and I sure don't notice any difference when the pack is fully loaded and on my back.

[tim atherton]

Brian,

I think it can do - it probably depends how obssessive you are... (and what your goals are)

Although i do many other things with it, my inital aim with 8x10 was to be able to put the camera over my shoulder on the tripod and walk around for a few hours making urban landscapes (I now also do much the same making forest scrubscapes or along the shoreline)

Originally I hade a Dorff - mine was something over 13lbs. With a strong/sturdy enough tripod and head to support it, that came to about 23+ lbs - then there were 3 or possibly 4 lenses in bigger boards, plus 5 max film holders.

Now, with a Phillips 8x10 + lighter tripod/head it comes in at around around 15lbs (and with my new Explorer will be around 12lbs). Lighter film holders means they either weigh less for just 5 or I can more easily carry 8 or 10 for close to the same weight. Lenses are in smaller Technika boards.

(Also - most of my lenses have always tended towards smaller/lighter - 159mm Wollensak, 210mm kowa, 450mm Fuji - even the 250mm Fuji isn't too large. By comparison, the 165mm SA is massive and only goes along when I know I really might wanrt it - and the 12" Ektar is in between)

I find my current set-up is much more easily carried around and useable than the Dorff set-up - overall, probably 10lbs+ lighter at best - for me that makes a big difference - carrying a kit around for a few hours that weighs maybe 20lbs+ rather than 30lbs+

[John_6104]

Thanks for the reponses.

I guess my perspective is a bit different from more experienced LF photographers. I primarily shoot 35mm or 2 1/4, where a net weight savings of 8 or 10lbs is a big, big deal.

I'm fairly new to 8x10-- shooting for about two years, long enough to know that I'd like to stick with it. If weight is the only thing I don't like about the format, there's no harm in trying to improve the situation as much as I can, especially if it's going to bring me more enjoyment. That's how I'm rationalizing it.

I settled on the Wehman and Phillips because of their touted rigidity, ease of handling, and weight. The Canham I tried and fairly liked but passed on because I did not like the knobs. I imagine that the Wehman would set up a little faster than the Phillips. The 4" bellows difference between the two cameras isn't such a factor for me as I tend to use short- to medium- lenses. The cost difference of $1000ish is significant but because I'm seeing this as a long-term investment I'm trying not to let this influence me too much.

[Roger Richards]

John, I am coming from where you have been, a 35mm/6x7 user (and 4x5), and several months ago began using 8x10. I have no experience with the Wehman, but from what I have read from owners they all like it very much, and consider it to be 'bullet-proof' in construction.

I was fortunate enough to purchase a Phillips 8x10 Explorer (5.9 lbs) from Dick Phillips with only a two month wait, the result of a phone inquiry at the right time. It is a superbly constructed camera, and a pleasure to use. The lack of weight compared to the previous 8x10 I had bought, a Tachihara (about 11lbs), is considerable. I am from a photojournalism background, and so assembling a kit that is as light as possible was a priority. If your needs are similar then you will not regret buying a Phillips.

You commented about the Canham. I am not familiar with them, but a professional acquaintance of mine, who over the last two years has become well known for his 8x10 color photographs and was invited to join a legendary photo agency, had this to say in a recent correspondence: "I love the Phillips. I recently bought a Canham and it is just too slow and complicated. It does more, but without the simple elegance of Phillips."

[CXC]

These are 2 great cameras, you won't go wrong with either one. Here's what this happy Wehman owner (and never-Phillips-toucher) thinks are some important issues. Phillips users, correct any errors, please.

1. Bellows length. If you shoot with a 600mm or do macro stuff, Wehman wins.

2. Bag bellows. W. doesn't offer one, and the supplied bellows is restrictive with very short lenses like a 110mm. Whereas Phillips...?

3. Bomb-proofness. W. absolutely has it, I believe more than P.

4. Rear swing. W. has geared asymmetrical rear swing, a real luxury in a reasonably priced camera. If you aren't already, it will make a (rear) swinger out of you.

4. Front shift and swing. W. controls both with a single knob that is okay in a pinch, but is less than optimal. If P. has a more convenient design, and you use such front moves, this could matter.

5. Price, availability, esthetics, etc. You decide.

One thing I have discovered about W. is that if you stick to shorter lenses (in my case up to 355mm), you can leave the front extension plate in the car, and go shooting without it, which lowers the weight and bulk, and also makes the camera faster and easier to use.

Best of luck with your decision.

[CXC]

Oops, sorry about the two #4.'s...

[Steve Hamley]

Anyone having trouble getting to Bruce Wehman's web site? I haven't been able to connect for several days.

Steve

[Oren Grad]

No problems getting into Bruce's website last night.

CXC, on the Phillips as well, front swing and shift are controlled by a single knob, as are front rise and tilt, though tilt can be fixed at zero with a little twist-tab.

[martin_4668]

I have seen a picture of the upcoming Arca 8x10 Misura....very nice.
metal fieldcamera with 110-500mm extension and only 3,8kg.....I cant wait to see it.
Arca expect to be able deliver 1Q next year.
www.photografica.com

[CXC]

Oren's info should be seriously considered by anyone who uses front tilt and rise simultaneously. As gravity comes into play, it can be tough to get one right without clobbering the other. The only excuse for this combo is the desire for absolute minimum weight, which is why it is present in the Phillips, as well as my Gowland.

Presumably this also means that front tilts are on axis on the Phillips, another, admittedly minor, difference from the Wehman's base tilts.

[Oren Grad]

Yes, front tilts are axis tilts in the Phillips design. I prefer axis to base tilts, so that suits me. Ideally I'd prefer to have tilt separated from rise, but for my typical uses it's not a big deal and not remotely enough of a problem to outweigh the advantages of the Phillips design for me overall. But those whose photographic tasks require making very precise and repeatable adjustments of both parameters might be better off with a different camera.

[CXC]

Oren, if you are still listening, could you enumerate the Phillips design advantages which you find valuable? All I know is that it is light and stiff; what else? And what are the longest and shortest lenses you use?

[Oren Grad]

CXC, the Phillips is really intended for general-purpose field work with lenses in the wide to normal range - all of the design tradeoffs were made with that in mind, and that's how I use it.

What I most like to photograph is general outdoor scenes from close to midrange. On the one hand, I rarely do ultra closeup work, and on the other, I don't care for the overtly compressed look produced by long lenses. My favorite focal length for 8x10 is 270, although I'll often use a 240 or a 300 instead because there's no 270 available in the lens type that I prefer, the Apo-Sironar-N/S. On the long side, I will rarely use even a 360, let alone anything longer than that. On the short end, I have a 155 which I rarely use - it's a problem solver for extreme special situations only.

When working in the field, I like the fact that the Phillips is rugged and doesn't have to handled with kid gloves. I like the ample direct front rise, very important when you tend to shoot wide on a squarish format like 8x10 - I can't recall the last time I had to fuss with front and rear tilts because I ran out of direct rise. And finally, I do have trouble carrying much weight. So for my purposes, the Phillips design is pretty close to ideal. My only real dislike - and it's a mild one - is that because the front standard floats free when the camera is folded and needs to be screwed into a socket in the bed during setup, the Phillips is a bit slower and fussier to set up than, say, my 5x7 Nagaoka, which I can snap open in seconds with my eyes closed. But, of course, there's no comparison in ruggedness and stability, and I think the tradeoff is well worth it for 8x10.

For users who are happy with one of the small lenses in Copal 1 that can cover 8x10 - for example, I've used my Phillips Compact with the 270 G-Claron and the 300 Geronar - it's possible to assemble a backpacking kit that's ideal for hiking around for a few hours at a time. The camera, with one small lens, three holders, meter, focusing hood, and a sturdy 8 or 9 pound tripod adds up to a very functional outfit that weighs far less than many folks here routinely lug around in a 4x5 kit. In assembling that sort of outfit, the weight difference between a Phillips and a Deardorff is huge, and you can't make it up by paring back any other component in a kit that's minimalist to begin with.

For those who are into longer lenses, I'll add that the Phillips design maintains decent rigidity all the way out to maximum extension. But obviously, if you like to use really long lenses or work very close with moderately long lenses, you're going to be out of luck. For my own purposes, I've never run out of bellows even with my Compact, which has a bit less bellows draw than the current Compact II.

[tim atherton]

I'd add just a couple of things to Oren's comments.

I follow much the same set-up - using a 159/165mm quite frequently with the CompactII - but most often used lenses are probably 210/250mm.

However, I also use a 450mm Fuji with it and have had no problem. I've done some reasonable closeups (not 1:1 stuff - but fairly close) it's not overly awkward, though you are reaching the limits of the bellows (and they are shorter on the Explorer).

A 300mm or 370mm lens is perfectly fine

Other than that, Oren is spot on in characterising the Phillips

[CXC]

Tim & Oren,

Thanks for the info. So how much rise? I've never owned a non-monorail for which I didn't run out of direct rise sooner or later, so lotsa rise is particularly valuable to me personally (Wehman has 2"). Most of my front tilts are in pursuit of indirect rise, so reducing that need effectively cancels my misgiving about the tilt/rise combo knob.

[tim atherton]

rise is 2"+ maybe 2.2" or so?

[Oren Grad]

The front standard on my Compact allows for about 2 3/4" of rise.

[John_6104]

Thanks for the great thread.. this was exactly what I was hoping for. Tim and Oren, can you tell me how you pack your Phillips?

[Oren Grad]

I usually take the large F64 backpack. If I'm really desperate to keep things ultrasmall and light, I can actually fit the Phillips, one lens, meter, a couple of holders and a hood into the small F64 backpack. It's less convenient, because of the way things have to be stuffed into the limited space, but it is doable.

[CXC]

Coincidentally, I also use the f.64 large backpack to carry my Wehman, with 4 lenses, but usually only 2 film holders.

[Michael Jones]

I used to pack my Explorer, a 190 wf ektar, 8 Mido filmholders & clamshell along with meter and releases, etc in a 12x18x4 Orvis briefcase carried on a shoulder strap. Made going through airport security a treat, though. In my experience, you cannot beat the Phillips for portability or rigidity
(and I've owned a bunch: Deardorff, KodakMasterView, Sinar, Zone VI and Wisner.)I used to pack my Explorer, a 190 WF Ektar, 8 Mido film holders & clamshell along with meter and releases, etc. in a 12x18x4 Orvis briefcase carried on a shoulder strap. Made going through airport security a treat, though. In my experience, you cannot beat the Phillips for portability or rigidity
(and I've owned a bunch: Deardorff, Kodak Master View, Sinar, Zone VI and Wisner.)

But as Herb points out, the most important feature is how a camera works for you. All “feel” different and some just won’t work for how you work. For example, I have to have rear base tilts. I don’t care how many front movements I have. It’s all in your photography. Good luck.