New Intrepid "Black" Edition 4x5 Camera - No Plywood! Also...

[Corran]

Intrepid announced a new, anodized alumin(i)um camera:

https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/black-edition-4x5

It saves a bit more weight and clocks in at 2.2 pounds.

So I put one in my cart, to check what the price was minus VAT, and then checked the conversion rate on PayPal...and then PayPal froze up so I backed out, and somehow accidentally ordered one! Well, I guess the universe said "Now you will try" since I've been kinda curious to try the Intrepid for years, so I'll give my thoughts when I get it.

PS: Final cost to me at today's conversion was $362.72.

[Kiwi7475]

Seems they swapped the plywood parts with 3D printed parts. On first look the metal parts are the same as the regular version?

[Tin Can]

Good for you, why not!

I restrained myself, it does look good and vastly improved since V1 which I had, liked and sold.

My 660 gram with lens 4X5 Seneca Chautauqua UNO (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/chautauqua-seneca-uno-circa-1904) will have to do. Mine looks mint compared that one.

I wish somebody made a camera like it

[Corran]

Kiwi, I've only seen a v4 Intrepid in person once, a local friend had one, so I'm not sure what all's been changed. I just saw the weight and I was immediately interested.

From the basic specs there's a good chance I will not be a fan - because I like wiiiide lenses and the Intrepid has never been the best tool for that usage it seems. We'll see if I can make something work, between recessed boards or whatever.

Cute camera Randy! How did they make it so light? Lack of movements / bellows? I recently got my hands on an old Eastman 5x7 and it is also surprisingly light. Different woods?

[Tin Can]

I won't go into the Seneca more on this thread.

Right now ANY business that can SELL anything is more important.

More elsewhere soon


Kiwi, I've only seen a v4 Intrepid in person once, a local friend had one, so I'm not sure what all's been changed. I just saw the weight and I was immediately interested.

From the basic specs there's a good chance I will not be a fan - because I like wiiiide lenses and the Intrepid has never been the best tool for that usage it seems. We'll see if I can make something work, between recessed boards or whatever.

Cute camera Randy! How did they make it so light? Lack of movements / bellows? I recently got my hands on an old Eastman 5x7 and it is also surprisingly light. Different woods?

[Andrew Plume]

Can't go wrong................hopefully at that price Bryan

And how many Cameras do you currently own, please?

regards

Andrew

[Corran]

Lots

[Andrew Plume]

Yep, thought so

regards

Andrew

[Corran]

Is that a problem, Andrew?

[Andrew Plume]

Christ no, merely taking an interest

[Michael Roberts]

Congrats Bryan!

Looks pretty sweet, much nicer than the ply versions.

Any word on an 8x10?

[Corran]

On their Instagram account, they mentioned there would not be an 8x10 version due to the limitations in size they could 3D print items.

[John Layton]

...but what about a 5x7?

[Vaughn]

Looks to be a fine machine -- could replace my Gowland Pocketview if it needed replecement...weights about the same (2.5 lbs w/ 150mm lens).

[Corran]

...but what about a 5x7?

I wonder how many folks have asked Intrepid to make a 5x7? Wouldn't hurt to email them if that's your jam. My guess is the market for 5x7 cameras is dwarfed by demand for 4x5 / 8x10. I could be wrong.

[paulbarden]

I wonder how many folks have asked Intrepid to make a 5x7? Wouldn't hurt to email them if that's your jam. My guess is the market for 5x7 cameras is dwarfed by demand for 4x5 / 8x10. I could be wrong.

I suspect the bottom line is that they can barely cope with the volume of orders as it is. Designing and adding a new format product is likely beyond their capacity right now. But if they made one, I'd buy it.

[Corran]

An interesting note regarding that - apparently these new "Black" edition cameras are assembled or at least the parts are prepared, and so the lead time is actually less than their normal offering.

Personally I think their issues with getting product out in a timely matter is directly related to their pricing. I think their pricing is about 20-30% too low. Higher price, more profit, less demand, would perhaps even out their production volumes while keeping gross income the same. But I'm just an armchair observer so I could be totally wrong.

[Kiwi7475]

An interesting note regarding that - apparently these new "Black" edition cameras are assembled or at least the parts are prepared, and so the lead time is actually less than their normal offering.

Personally I think their issues with getting product out in a timely matter is directly related to their pricing. I think their pricing is about 20-30% too low. Higher price, more profit, less demand, would perhaps even out their production volumes while keeping gross income the same. But I'm just an armchair observer so I could be totally wrong.

For 20-30% more, the delivered quality should also increase. It’s so close to being a very good product, but it’s not and, for many it’s barely acceptable at the current price (YMMV). In other words, all other things equal, I don’t think it would sell 30% less at 30% higher price, but quite less.

[Alan Gales]

Personally I think their issues with getting product out in a timely matter is directly related to their pricing. I think their pricing is about 20-30% too low. Higher price, more profit, less demand, would perhaps even out their production volumes while keeping gross income the same.

Shhhhhh! :)

[Alan Gales]

Congratulations on your bargain. After you have if for a while, I think a lot of people here would appreciate a review. It may be a great answer for the newbies asking which camera to buy.

[paulbarden]

For 20-30% more, the delivered quality should also increase. It’s so close to being a very good product, but it’s not and, for many it’s barely acceptable at the current price (YMMV).

I agree. I have the 2018 8x10 and its build quality is barely acceptable. I had to request a replacement focus bed (gears skipped badly) and the one I got as replacement is barely any better. I regard it as very much a "make do" product. There's no way I would pay 20-30% more for it than I did. I suspect a lot of people would feel the same way.

[Andrew Plume]

John, Paul

They're working on the 5 x 7, :) scroll down on this link:-

https://twitter.com/Intrepidcamera

regards

Andrew

[Corran]

For 20-30% more, the delivered quality should also increase. It’s so close to being a very good product, but it’s not and, for many it’s barely acceptable at the current price (YMMV). In other words, all other things equal, I don’t think it would sell 30% less at 30% higher price, but quite less.

As I don't have any direct experience with using Intrepid cameras previously, I have no comment on their quality, but indeed if most of the reported issues were ironed out (presumably doable with a bit less volume of manufacturing?) that would help and increase the perceived value.

I'll definitely post about the camera and build quality when received.

[John Layton]

Andrew...indeed it looks like they're working on a 5x7 - but with the older plywood design/construction, and I already have one which I banged out and cobbled together myself recently. I would be very interested, however, if this new "Black" edition were to be offered as a 5x7.

[Andrew Plume]

Thx John

Let's hope then that the good folk at Intrepid are watching all of our posts on here

regards

Andrew

[lantau]

Andrew...indeed it looks like they're working on a 5x7 - but with the older plywood design/construction, and I already have one which I banged out and cobbled together myself recently. I would be very interested, however, if this new "Black" edition were to be offered as a 5x7.

I hope you did notice that this black edition is a time limited offer. It's not there to stay. Then again, if turned out to be a huge success and of higher quality, then buyers might press them into offering this instead of the wooden version.

After reading here and elsewhere I decided to buy a Sinar F2 instead of an Intrepid as my first LF camera. Simply because of the unlimited flexibility. But I still haven't been turned off the wooden 4x5 and may buy one as a light weight second camera, later this year. Probably with the enlarger add on. 4x5 enlargers have become rare and unaffordable.

[Peter De Smidt]

My Intrepid 8x10 MKII is almost a good camera. As received, there were just too many quality issues/strange design issues, most having to do with the back. Hopefully, they'll get there eventually. I'm making a 5x7 back for mine.

[Alan Gales]

After reading here and elsewhere I decided to buy a Sinar F2 instead of an Intrepid as my first LF camera. Simply because of the unlimited flexibility. But I still haven't been turned off the wooden 4x5 and may buy one as a light weight second camera, later this year. Probably with the enlarger add on. 4x5 enlargers have become rare and unaffordable.

You made a great choice. The F2 is straight forward and easy to learn on plus you can do anything you want with it. It's also light weight for a monorail so easier to take out into the field. The "F" in F2 stands for field.

For your second camera you may want to look at a Crown Graphic. They are inexpensive and very sturdy. Yes, they are limited in movements but you have the F2 for when you need them.

Welcome to the forum!

[Luis-F-S]

I chose a Deardorff V5 for my first camera and the Sinar F2 as my second. I own 3 F2 4x5's, the first bought some 20 years ago for architectural work, and the other two bought recently for spares/parts. The two recent ones ran around $350 ea, which was a bargain in comparison to what I paid for the first one. I used the F2 in the field for architectural work and it never let me down. I had an adapter made to allow me to use the classic lenses for the V5 on the F2. Modern lenses from 58mm to 300 mm were mounted on Sinar boards. It's a Great camera, you won't regret it. Instead of the enlarger add-on, you may want to look at a dedicated 4x5 enlarger. They're largely being given away in many areas. Look on Craig's list and for ads in you area! L

[Corran]

My new "Black" Edition Intrepid arrived today. I decided I'd try making a "first impressions" type video for the YouTube, but before that, here's a few thoughts:

- I'm very impressed overall with the build quality and condition on arrival. No issues with my camera upon unboxing as some folks have had.
- I was very worried about the compatibility of the Linhof boards, but they work fine for the most part - a couple were very slightly too thick, but a slight tweak to the lens board lock mechanism fixed that.
- The weight is phenomenal - 1112 grams or 2 lbs 7.2 oz as measured with no lens/QR plate. This is over 1/2 a pound lighter than my Chamonix!
- The feel of the focusing is terrible. It's very rough and coarse. Also, it focuses "backward" compared to my Chamonix - perhaps made for Canon shooters? :).
- This wasn't unexpected, but the camera is tough to set square or put back to neutral. I think this is a valid trade-off for the weight reduction.
- The design of the rotating back is awesome.
- I will have to shoot with it and really get hands-on before I can say much about it in actual use, of course.

Overall I am very pleased. I look forward to getting out and using it. The only downside, which I already knew, is the inability to use really short lenses. On the other hand, the difficulty of zeroing out movements probably makes using ultrawides an especially difficult task, so I will probably consider this a 90mm and up camera.

Video coming soon when I can finish rendering/uploading.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sounds interesting, Bryan. Thanks for the impressions! I'm looking forward to the video.

[Corran]

Here's the video. I'm not a YouTube personality so forgive my somewhat rambling video. Perhaps I will try to practice making these kinds of videos and do scripts/etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9MQYvGfPwI

[David Schaller]

Here's the video. I'm not a YouTube personality so forgive my somewhat rambling video. Perhaps I will try to practice making these kinds of videos and do scripts/etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9MQYvGfPwI
Nice job Bryan. It was very useful to see your comparisons. Thanks for sharing.

[Peter De Smidt]

Good job!

[Corran]

Thanks y'all, glad it could be useful. Might take it out tomorrow, at least in the backyard.

[Michael Roberts]

Bryan, can the front extension (rail? whatever they call the part the front standard bolts into) be reversed? If so, it looks like you might be able to get the far socket much closer to the rear frame (closer than the standard rear socket, that is) for short lenses.
Just a thought.

Glad you are pleased with the camera overall!

[Corran]

Michael, good idea, but unfortunately no. The actual part where the focus screw connects to the rail is bolted onto the back part of the rail, which is why there is no closer mounting point. Looking at the design closer, if they extended the focus rail by an inch and had the focus screw slightly further back, it would accommodate wider lenses, but then the camera, when folded, would have that focus thumb wheel / screw sticking out of the "box" the camera makes when collapsed, which is I assume why they did it this way. I wonder if putting the screw/rail attachment a bit further up the bottom of the camera and moving the first standard attachment all the way to the back would work? I bet this would make lenses around 75mm hard to use, with the first attachment point too short and the second one then being too long, but it would be an interesting compromise. On the other hand, I'm guessing that very few Intrepid owners are pushing the boundaries of ultrawide lenses, wanting to use the 58mm XL or 47mm XL lenses that I happen to quite enjoy :).

How the Chamonix achieves shorter focus is the entire rear standard can be moved forward on a slotted hole, which also enables swing movements. This also requires two extra thumb screws and a bit of fiddling when opening the camera.

[Roberto Nania]

The idea behind Intrepid Camera was very good: to offer a low cost camera with the more essential features to start shooting in large format.
I ordered a 4x5 mk4 one and a half year ago. I'm sorry to say that the built quality of the camera is too poor to be used with reliable results.
A first camera arrived after many weeks than the 6 weeks waiting time stated: the lens plate holder was missing, some screw were missing and the bellows was pinched. I was so disappointed. I contacted Intrepid, they send me a second camera for free. Almost all the pieces were in place (actually, there were still a couple of minor screw missing but I could leave without). I ran around 40 sheets of film in some months. It was a joy to use the camera but more than an half of my film were ruined by light leaks entering the camera form the back area when the camera is under the sun. You have to be very careful in cover the back with the dark cloth perfectly. I tested also the other camera, the first one, and the same problem was present.
Intrepid said to send the camera to them at my expense and they will fix it for free (so, other many weeks of waiting and then other tests to made to see if the camera is ok). I sold both cameras at a very low price stating about the possible issue of light leaks in sunny days and went for a Chamonix (flawless with exactly the same holders and regardless of using the dark cloth or not).

I really don't understand the people at Intrepid, it takes so little to have a good product compare to a very disappointing one when you have done so much work so far.

I just want to warn who thinks at the Intrepid as his first LF camera: it is really a fluke to receive a proper working camera, then it is up to you to take the risk.

[Corran]

Roberto, I'm sorry you had a bad experience a year and a half ago, but I don't think that is relevant to this specific thread. Perhaps new and old Intrepid users/owners should report their experiences in the relevant Buyer-Seller Advisories board as I don't know if a hodge-podge of testimonials in disparate threads really helps anyone. My wife could say more about data collection and consolidation here as that is her job...

I will thoroughly test this camera and report my findings, which will unfortunately reflect only my camera and this model.

[Corran]

Shot 4 sheets of film this afternoon in my backyard. Used 90mm and 150mm lenses, and I used the camera without regard to any possible manufacturing issues - in other words, I didn't cover the camera with a darkcloth, I took out the darkslide on a couple of shots and let the film sit out in the open for a little bit to check for light-leaks, and I shot a macro image at almost 1:1 with an exposure of 1 min. 45 sec.

I observed zero issues with my negatives using plain ol' Fidelity plastic holders, well known to be in "good" condition. I double-checked all of the camera parts and screws and noted nothing missing or any problems whatsoever.

I had a couple slight issues with the Intrepid, as compared to other cameras I've used, but these are nitpicky things:

1.
The 3D-printed focus rail and front standard are made of a somewhat "slippery" material. While setting up one of the shots, I noticed that after cocking the shutter the front standard had twisted a couple of degrees. I am wary of cranking down the screw any more than necessary, lest it break. Perhaps a very thin sheet of flocking paper or something of that nature could be glued to the bottom of the front standard to give it a bit more "grip" to prevent this.

2.
I setup one shot with a tree in the frame, and used that tree to check for parallelism of the standards. I first set both standards to 90 degrees, according to the levels. Then I checked focus, and found the top of the tree was slightly out of focus while the lower part was in focus. A very slight incline to the front standard solved that. Therefore, it seems that the levels are not accurate between the two standards. Now this is not exactly uncommon...but it's especially annoying with there not being any "neutral" stops or indents on the camera.

3.
I said this yesterday but to reiterate the focus feels horrible. Super coarse and sometimes binds up. I will probably try a couple dabs of machine oil and see how it works. On the other hand, I don't want it too loosey-goosey, where the focus slips when the camera is aimed straight down (this is actually an issue I've had on the Chamonix).

4.
Finally, I would say the ground glass on the camera is pretty meh. It didn't snap into focus nicely like most of the other cameras I've used. I imagine that's just how it is when using a camera at this price-point, and certainly it is something I could rectify with a 3rd-party ground glass. It was also definitely not the brightest glass out there. This is pretty nitpicky for a ~$350 camera.

Overall I am more than happy with the camera thus far after actually using it. I hope this is indicative of their current camera offerings, be they this 3D-printed model or the normal plywood version.

Here's the macro photo I shot, taken with my 150mm f/9 G-Claron at close to 1:1, on T-Max 100 dev'd in Rodinal, N+1:

http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/backyard-5380ss.jpg

[Max Grew]

Shot 4 sheets of film this afternoon in my backyard. Used 90mm and 150mm lenses, and I used the camera without regard to any possible manufacturing issues - in other words, I didn't cover the camera with a darkcloth, I took out the darkslide on a couple of shots and let the film sit out in the open for a little bit to check for light-leaks, and I shot a macro image at almost 1:1 with an exposure of 1 min. 45 sec.

I observed zero issues with my negatives using plain ol' Fidelity plastic holders, well known to be in "good" condition. I double-checked all of the camera parts and screws and noted nothing missing or any problems whatsoever.

I had a couple slight issues with the Intrepid, as compared to other cameras I've used, but these are nitpicky things:

1.
The 3D-printed focus rail and front standard are made of a somewhat "slippery" material. While setting up one of the shots, I noticed that after cocking the shutter the front standard had twisted a couple of degrees. I am wary of cranking down the screw any more than necessary, lest it break. Perhaps a very thin sheet of flocking paper or something of that nature could be glued to the bottom of the front standard to give it a bit more "grip" to prevent this.

2.
I setup one shot with a tree in the frame, and used that tree to check for parallelism of the standards. I first set both standards to 90 degrees, according to the levels. Then I checked focus, and found the top of the tree was slightly out of focus while the lower part was in focus. A very slight incline to the front standard solved that. Therefore, it seems that the levels are not accurate between the two standards. Now this is not exactly uncommon...but it's especially annoying with there not being any "neutral" stops or indents on the camera.

3.
I said this yesterday but to reiterate the focus feels horrible. Super coarse and sometimes binds up. I will probably try a couple dabs of machine oil and see how it works. On the other hand, I don't want it too loosey-goosey, where the focus slips when the camera is aimed straight down (this is actually an issue I've had on the Chamonix).

4.
Finally, I would say the ground glass on the camera is pretty meh. It didn't snap into focus nicely like most of the other cameras I've used. I imagine that's just how it is when using a camera at this price-point, and certainly it is something I could rectify with a 3rd-party ground glass. It was also definitely not the brightest glass out there. This is pretty nitpicky for a ~$350 camera.

Overall I am more than happy with the camera thus far after actually using it. I hope this is indicative of their current camera offerings, be they this 3D-printed model or the normal plywood version.

Here's the macro photo I shot, taken with my 150mm f/9 G-Claron at close to 1:1, on T-Max 100 dev'd in Rodinal, N+1:

http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/backyard-5380ss.jpg

Sorry your focus feels a little rough, it shouldn't do. Probably just need a few dabs of a light oil, WD40 or similar. put one on the rod itself and one between the retaining ring and the black plastic mount at the back of the base.

Glad you are enjoying the camera!

Cheers, Max

[Corran]

Thanks for the suggestion Max!

[Kiwi7475]

Sorry your focus feels a little rough, it shouldn't do. Probably just need a few dabs of a light oil, WD40 or similar. put one on the rod itself and one between the retaining ring and the black plastic mount at the back of the base.

Glad you are enjoying the camera!

Cheers, Max

WD40 is a poor lubricant (ok, “moderately good” lubricant perhaps it’s more exact). I’d use instead a “real good” lubricant.

[Corran]

I have generic sewing machine oil here which is what I usually use for lubricating mechanical parts. I just put a couple drops on the rod and screwed the focus all the way out and in a couple of times, and one drop on the rear plastic mounting point, and now everything is much smoother and easier to focus.

The back plastic mounting piece though does seem to be ever so slightly out of round or have a burr on it somewhere. Every 360 degrees, there is a point that the focus binds slightly. This is extremely nitpicky though. It may just be the small bolt that holds it on (or adjusts focus tension?).

I don't use WD-40 for anything except fixing squeaks in simple moving parts, like door hinges.

[paulbarden]

I would consider Helimax XP lubricant: its made for focusing helicals and other fine instruments. I use it when restoring Kodak Retinas, and it does a superb job. An oil has the potential to migrate places you don't want it, but a grease like Helimax XP is made to stay where its put. Its $12 on Amazon, for a 1 oz. jar.

[grat]

WD40 is a poor lubricant (ok, “moderately good” lubricant perhaps it’s more exact). I’d use instead a “real good” lubricant.

No, go with your first statement. WD-40 is not a lubricant. It's a water displacement formula (the 40th one, if I recall), and while it may give the illusion of lubrication in the short term, in the long term, it is nigh useless.

Highly suitable for cleaning or for unsticking stuck things, but not a lubricant.

... something my father drilled into my head at a relatively young age. ;)

[Bob Salomon]

No, go with your first statement. WD-40 is not a lubricant. It's a water displacement formula (the 40th one, if I recall), and while it may give the illusion of lubrication in the short term, in the long term, it is nigh useless.

Highly suitable for cleaning or for unsticking stuck things, but not a lubricant.

... something my father drilled into my head at a relatively young age. ;)

According to WD40 it leaves behind a parrifin wax layer.

[seall]

After using WD40 it for many years I have only ever used it as a penetrating fluid, in some places they call it "loose-all" due to it being able to loosen almost anything.

Before using it I would read up on it, there are some caveats.

If you like the smell of petrol you will probably like the smell of wd40.

https://autosneed.com/best-penetrating-oil/

[CatSplat]

No, go with your first statement. WD-40 is not a lubricant. It's a water displacement formula (the 40th one, if I recall), and while it may give the illusion of lubrication in the short term, in the long term, it is nigh useless.

Highly suitable for cleaning or for unsticking stuck things, but not a lubricant.

... something my father drilled into my head at a relatively young age. ;)

WD-40 is a light paraffin-based oil suspended in solvent (among other things). The whole point of WD-40 was for the solvent to displace water and other contaminants, and evaporate leaving the light oil behind. So yes, it does have a lubricating component and is suitable where light oil is called for. In cases where light oil is not the correct lubricant, you use can WD-40 first for cleaning and follow up with the prescribed one.

[Exploring Large Format]

Corran: thanks for your thorough review and video. I have the MK4, but not the black version. It is my first ever LF camera, so for me it was more about getting accustomed to the format than the finer distinctions. Too new. Still, I found it to be a great introduction. No big issues. Max and crew are very communicative.

It did take longer than promised for delivery, but that wasn't a big deal to me. The light weight is amazing. It's new, with customer support. I dig it.

Hearing Max on the Large Format Photography Podcast, it's clear they are both bringing out new products AND substantially upping production. Demand is high. A great thing!

I also bought their 4x5 enlarger kit. About to make my first print. Rumors of an 8x10 enlarger kit coming.

For me, it was a just right introduction, probably because my expectations were aligned with what they are doing.

Once I get my SINAR Norma assembled, will I be dissatisfied with the Intrepid? Don't think so, as they are different animals. We'll see.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Very glad to hear you enjoyed my video. I'll be making some more in the future, probably a "What 4x5 Should I Buy?" kind of video and one detailing my results with the Intrepid after more use.

Good luck with the enlarger kit. While their solution wasn't something I was interested in, owning 3 4x5 Beseler enlargers, a stand-alone 8x10 head would be of great interest to me, so I look forward to seeing such a product come to fruition in the future, hopefully. I have the beat-up carcass of an 8x10 Calumet ready and waiting to build an 8x10 enlarger out of, I just haven't had the time or inclination to do it yet, but I want to. I have a large area in the basement adjacent to my darkroom that I think a horizontal 8x10 enlarger would fit perfectly in...

[Max Grew]

The Reason I suggested WD-40 or a similar light oiling product was because you need something to penetrate the tiny gap between the retaining ring and the plastic mount at the back of the base, lithium grease or similar wouldn't have worked as well. sounds like you had something that was light enough to do this Corran and I am very glad it has made your focusing much smoother which is great.

As a side note, the Intrepid 4x5 Black Edition is now available to purchase again via our website, https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/black-edition-4x5

Best, Max

[Bibendum]

Intrepid announced a new, anodized alumin(i)um camera:

https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/black-edition-4x5



Just ordered mine today as my first large format camera.

[MCDJ]

Corran: I have a couple of questions for you: 1) Does the front of the focusing bed show in the view when using your 90mm lens? 2) What would be a good 90mm lens/lensboard recommendation for this camera? Thank you for the YouTube vid!

[Corran]

No it does not. This seems to be a common question but not sure why, have others had that problem? I can’t see how it’d be possible with any 90mm lens.

Any 90mm lens for 4x5 from Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, or Rodenstock will be fine. A recessed lens board is nice to have but not necessary. IMO, avoid the Linhof recessed boards. My favorite is by Gaorsi.

[MCDJ]

No it does not. This seems to be a common question but not sure why, have others had that problem? I can’t see how it’d be possible with any 90mm lens.
The reason I asked this question is because I ran into this video while doing research about this camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HB7rzgED1M&t=1343s and fast-forward to around 18:56. I'm on the fence about buying this camera and although I have a Cambo SC-2 I have never owned a field camera.


Any 90mm lens for 4x5 from Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, or Rodenstock will be fine. A recessed lens board is nice to have but not necessary. IMO, avoid the Linhof recessed boards. My favorite is by Gaorsi.
Thank you for this information.

[AuditorOne]

I have enjoyed your review and video Corran. Thank you for taking the time to do it.

I have been happy with my Kickstarter Intrepid and I am glad that I have it. It has been a big part of my large format life.

Now...maybe a can of flat black spray paint??? :D

[Corran]

The reason I asked this question is because I ran into this video while doing research about this camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HB7rzgED1M&t=1343s and fast-forward to around 18:56. I'm on the fence about buying this camera and although I have a Cambo SC-2 I have never owned a field camera.

Ah, I see! Yes, many cameras (like the Chamonix, and that camera he shows) have sliding rear standards enabling wider lenses to be used, and which can facilitate not getting the front bed in view. I believe the design of the Intrepid makes this problem practically impossible, though I don't doubt someone with some combination of lens / lens board has been able to do it. There is only so much you can drop the front standard, and when I shot a sheet a couple weeks ago with it as far down as possible, in vertical orientation, I didn't see the front standard.

That said, you also can't use anything really "ultrawide" on the Intrepid as-is, so that is an important consideration. Someone on the forum has made a special "adapter" to get wider lenses on, which may then have issues with the front bed in some situations.

I would recommend the Intrepid highly, with the understanding that it's not a "perfect" camera and nor is it the best tool for everything, but it's certainly a very nice camera, IMO.

Thanks AuditorOne!

[grat]

The reason I asked this question is because I ran into this video while doing research about this camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HB7rzgED1M&t=1343s and fast-forward to around 18:56.

I enjoy David's videos, but my personal opinion is that this is theoretical, rather than empirical. I have a 105, rather than a 90mm, but on my 4x5 (Chamonix-- which does have movable rear standard, but I left it fixed for this), in the normal position, I had to have a light about 12" in front of the camera for it to show up in the ground glass.

With the front standard at maximum fall, the light could be seen an inch or so in front of the camera. However, this is a moderately rare occurrence, and you should be able to angle the camera base down, and tilt both standards backwards, so they remain vertical. Similarly, while tilting the camera backwards and setting the standards vertical can cause issues, but you're probably going to use a fair bit of rise in that case as well.

It can be an issue, but it's such a minor edge case, with workarounds, that I wouldn't let it stop you from buying the camera.

Or, you could check out the Chroma Carbon Adventurer, which does have a movable rear standard.

[lantau]

You made a great choice. The F2 is straight forward and easy to learn on plus you can do anything you want with it. It's also light weight for a monorail so easier to take out into the field. The "F" in F2 stands for field.

For your second camera you may want to look at a Crown Graphic. They are inexpensive and very sturdy. Yes, they are limited in movements but you have the F2 for when you need them.

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks for the welcome, and sorry that I'm a 'bit' late for my reply! :D

Recently I went to the forest with the F2. An eight km circuit. It wasn't a big problem. The backpack is about 16.5kg. The heaviest component is the wooden Berlebach tripod, which I bought for the F2. I also had a Rolleicord around my neck, for those shots in between. But a light 4x5 camera would be nice for more exploratory trips, when I don't know if I'll really use it.

Over in the US, its home market, you can probably find cheap Crown Graphics. Here in Germany they are more exotic and priced accordingly. And I don't really want to sacrifice the movements. I've come to like it. Shifts are straight forward, swings will require some more experimentation.

While expensive wooden cameras look really lovely, IMHO the Intrepid has quite a charming look. With the 5x7 model coming soon that would be yet another option. I could make some nice contact prints. I even have a box of 5x7 Fomalux matte RC contact paper. I initially bought it for 4x5 pinhole negatives.


I chose a Deardorff V5 for my first camera and the Sinar F2 as my second. I own 3 F2 4x5's, the first bought some 20 years ago for architectural work, and the other two bought recently for spares/parts. The two recent ones ran around $350 ea, which was a bargain in comparison to what I paid for the first one. I used the F2 in the field for architectural work and it never let me down. I had an adapter made to allow me to use the classic lenses for the V5 on the F2. Modern lenses from 58mm to 300 mm were mounted on Sinar boards. It's a Great camera, you won't regret it. Instead of the enlarger add-on, you may want to look at a dedicated 4x5 enlarger. They're largely being given away in many areas. Look on Craig's list and for ads in you area! L

Yes, I'm really happy that I invested into the F2. I have a three lens set with a 4.5/75mm Nikkor-SW, a 5.6/150mm Fujinon and a like new single coated 240mm Apo-Ronar in Compur shutter on a Linhof branded lensboard. If they weren't mounted on the small Technika boards I'd run out of space in the backpack. Would also fit nicely on the Intrepid. I also have a full compendium using an extra standard and the roller curtains. Looks mean when fully setup.

What I noticed, though, is that the 150mm lens is quite short for the standard bellows. They only allow minimal movements. I assume that tapered bellows, like the Intrepids, are very much different in their flexibility? Luckily I have the wide angle bellows.

Craigs list is pretty much non existent here, Ebay Classifieds has cornered that market. Both there and on Ebay suitable desktop 4x5 Enlargers (so basicallay LPL and Durst 1200) are in short supply. Usually start at €700 and up into the thousands. Any 4x5 enlargers, in fact.


No it does not. This seems to be a common question but not sure why, have others had that problem? I can’t see how it’d be possible with any 90mm lens.

Any 90mm lens for 4x5 from Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, or Rodenstock will be fine. A recessed lens board is nice to have but not necessary. IMO, avoid the Linhof recessed boards. My favorite is by Gaorsi.

Thats good to hear. I realise that my 75mm is too wide for comfortable use on any field camera. But I was planning to get a 90mm, eventually, anyway.

[Drew Bedo]

Three-D printed from thurmo-plastic or are the parts injection molded?

The TravelWide was CAD designed and prototyped as a 3-D printed project, but the production cameras were injection molded.

[Corran]

I'm fairly sure the plastic parts are 3D-printed. Base-plate is metal.

The design of the Travelwide necessitates a much more complex 3D-printed model though (cone, focusing mechanism) which the Intrepid does not have to deal with. I believe also 3D-printing tech has advanced somewhat since the TW project.

[Luis-F-S]

What I noticed, though, is that the 150mm lens is quite short for the standard bellows. They only allow minimal movements. I assume that tapered bellows, like the Intrepids, are very much different in their flexibility? Luckily I have the wide angle bellows.

Craigs list is pretty much non existent here, Ebay Classifieds has cornered that market. Both there and on Ebay suitable desktop 4x5 Enlargers (so basicallay LPL and Durst 1200) are in short supply. Usually start at €700 and up into the thousands. Any 4x5 enlargers, in fact.


I hardly ever use a 150 lens, my standard is a 210 mm. When I need a shorter lens, it's usually a 120 mm or shorter and then I use a bag bellows. You already have a 75mm for wide shots. For longer, I like a 12" or so lens.

Still try to find a dedicated 4x5 enlarger locally. Either an LPL, Meopta or the like. You'll be happier with it. When something doesn't sell for a high price, make them an offer and see if they take it.

L