Lightweight 8x10 for interior work?

[Robert Knight]

Hi there,

I just came across a new Shen-Hao 8x10, the FLC810-A at Badger (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=925). I'm wondering if anyone here has any experience with that camera versus other 8x10s? I'm particularly interested in comparing it with the Phillips (http://largeformatphotography.info/cameras/phillips/) or Canham (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=97) light metal field cameras. I currently photograph with a metal Toyo 45A doing normal to wide-angle work, primarily in interiors, and am looking to get my first 8x10.

Any thoughts or other suggestions would be much appreciated!

Thanks,
Robert

www.RobertKnight.com (http://robertknight.com)

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/8036/925large6hv.th.jpg (http://img452.imageshack.us/my.php?image=925large6hv.jpg)

[John Kasaian]

Interior as in Interior Architecture?

I don't know anything about the Shen Hao 8x10 other than your photo, but the rear standards and rear swing design seem a bit whimsical, but maybe it works quite well----i don't know. What you might consider is the rear standard's ability to get intimate with the front standard and the bellows' ability to give you a little movement when needed without any of the bed getting into view. I can't tell that from your photo and I don't know anything about the Phillips or Canham either, but a monorail like the Calumet "Green Monster," one of Peter Gowland's monorails, a Linhof or a field camera like the Deardorff v-8 with something like an 165mm f8 Super Angulon or a Grandagon up front would most likely work for you

[Oren Grad]

Robert - a couple of earlier threads that may be of interest:

www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502882.html (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502882.html)

www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504134.html (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504134.html)

[Herb Cunningham]

Unless you are determined to get a folder, I would think the ARCA Swiss 8x10, which are available used for about what one would pay for the Shen Hao and get hugely more versatile
features, including more movements, bag bellows etc, would be worth serious consideration.

If you have to buy ARCA new, it is a different story because the prices are horrendous.

I had a 5x7 shen hao and a 4x5, and while they are indeed bargains, the workmanship was
not equal to the major brands, such as Canham or ARCA, Toyo etc. IMHO

[Frank Petronio]

I found an older style Arca 8x10 very inexpensively - it is a great, full featured camera - but finding a bag bellows for it may take a year of eBay patience. I may just end up having one made if I could find the frames to use.

[John_4185]

If weight is an issue, and you are working on a flat surface, consider a collapsible tripod dolly. Linhof made/makes one. I use it. Great little item.

[Ted Harris]

As already mentioned, if most of your work is interiors why the specific need for a folding field camera? You will find much more capability, generally at a lower price, in a monorail. For example, a Horseman 8x10 just sold on eBay for around 600. Beyond that the answer I posted to your question elsewhere follows:

Of those you mentioned I have only worked extensively with the Phillips Compact II and I believe you will find it excellent for interior work (mine worked well with a Super Symmar 110 XA albeit with virtually no movement at infinity). I might question the ability to operate it with the precision one might require for architectural work. I do work regularly with the Canham wood 5x7 and believe the wood 8x10 is very similar (in fact you can get a step-up kit from Keith). I mention this because the wood 'box' around an otherwise metal camera provides additional stability and I have no rigidity problems with this camera even when fully extended. As for weight both the Canham standard and light wood 8x10 fields are about the same weight as the metal camera. Finally, in terms of saving weight you might consider going with the Canham wood 5x7/4x5 with the 4x5 back (weight ~ 6 pounds) and the 8x10 conversion for that camera (back/bellows/rear standard).

Importantly, since you are already familiar with (and I assume comfortable with) the Toyo A, have you considered the Toyo 810 MII? I believe it will give you as much flexibility, or more than you will get from the Phillips but not as much as the Canham. It is heavier than the Phillips at ~ 15 pounds but it operates basically the same as the camera you are already used too.

[Kirk Gittings]

Just as a matter of curiousity. What kind of interior photography are you doing? If you are doing commercial architectural interiors, 4x5 is the industry standard because of depth of field limitation with larger formats. It takes a ton of strobe to light an interior to get f/16 usually and f/22 is preferable. It takes over twice as much light to get the same depth of field (f/22 and f/32) with an 8x10. Of course with ambient or QH light the issue becomes length of exposure to get decent depth of field with an 8x10.

[Oren Grad]

Actually, that's a great point by Kirk. It's really challenging to do interiors with 8x10 because of exposure and DOF issues. What specifically are you hoping to accomplish with an 8x10 and why? That might help us focus the advice a bit better.

[Kirk Gittings]

Oren,

Which is why I have primarily gone over to shooting 6x9 for commercial work. It takes alot less light or much shorter exposures to get sufficient dof. Plus film and Polaroid costs are significantly lower.

[Frank Petronio]

He's using a field camera for 4x5 anyway, so perhaps he isn't trying to do classic professional architecture and instead more personal expressive - art stuff. But that's just a guess. I did plenty of commercial jobs with folding cameras - it's harder than using a flexible monorail but when that's what you've got you use it.

[Ted Harris]

Kirk is right oin in terms of the lighting. Over the past few years a reasonable bit of my commercial work has been restaurant interiors and I frequently use over 5000 w/s of light or the equivelent in a combination of strobes and hot lights. That to do the job with 4x5 or 6x9. I have never even thought of 8x10. In fact, a lot of the work has ended up getting done with a Noblex F150 6x12.

[Oren Grad]

I don't do commercial work, but in the course of tinkering with my toys and learning about what I can do with them, I have tried some 8x10 interiors around the house under available light, and because of reciprocity issues at the small apertures needed I routinely end up with nutty exposures like 45 minutes. You could easily figure this out in advance just by thinking it through, but there's nothing like doing it a few times to drive home just how impractical it would be for routine work.

The alternative, as the professionals here have pointed out, is a monster lighting kit, which poses its own logistical challenges, and which would make the size and weight of the camera itself almost irrelevant as an issue.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Robert,

I would suggest that neither the Phillips nor the Canham will be suitable for true architectural shooting, and seriously doubt that the Chinese knockoff will do any better. The most obvious problem with theses cameras is the lack of available bag bellows. The lack of 'precision' can be a problem as well, especially when attempting to perfectly align verticals and horizontals with their respective sheet edges.

The Phillips, while ideally suited for wide angle lenses, does not have a removeable bellows (unless you were to own my friend's highly modified version). The normal bellows will hinder movements and interfere with the light path when more than a little rise is applied. This is especially true for verticals. The Phillips has the bellows glued permanently to the front and rear frame, so modifying it, while possible, is not going to be an easy task.

I have not used the 8x10 Canham, but I have used 5x7, 5x12, and 7x17 versions, and I have a 10x12 version of the camera that I use (for architectural subjects, even). The same problem occurs here, but the bellows is more supple which may help, however, it is also longer, which will hurt. Regardless, the bellows is not exactly field-removeable, so it would be difficult to swap in a bag bellows easily. It would be possible to configure the camera with a custom bag bellows; if Keith won't provide the bellows, I'm sure you can get the frames from him and get a bellows fabricated by Camera Bellows in England.

As I see it, for real interiors shooting with an 8x10, you will probably be using a 150 SS XL a good bit, maybe (but doubtfully, as there are other lenses that will propbably work nearly as well with the compromise of a dimmer groundglass) the 210 SS XL. The 110 SS XL or 120 SA and 120 Nikkor are all useable for extreme conditions, but offer no movements at all. The 150 SS XL and longer lenses offer substantial movements, and the bellows on these cameras don't come anywhere near permitting their use fully.

I'd go the route of an older 8x10 monorail if I were choosing exclusively for architectural shooting, I think. As a camera for a blend of uses, the Phillips and Canham cameras will work reasonably well, but they are definately a compromise for strict architectural work.

---Michael

[tim atherton]

is light weight most important or are movements (either amount or precision) more important?

You are going to have to compromise on one or the other most likely., aside from the issues mentioned about 8x10 for interiors in general

"Unless you are determined to get a folder, I would think the ARCA Swiss 8x10, which are available used for about what one would pay for the Shen Hao and get hugely more versatile features, including more movements, bag bellows etc, would be worth serious consideration. "

Unfortunatly it's pretty lacking in front rise as I recall (the newer arcas anyway - don't know about Franks black and chrome model...)

And the Metal Canhams are quite limited in rear movements too I think

The Phillips and maybe the Phillips chinese clone may be okay if you are willing to give up on precision to a degree. The bellows can be workable, but I have managed to cut off the corners with the bellows at 159/165mm focal length unless I'm careful. And that's usually with landscapes and not more closely focussed for interiors.

[Robert Knight]

Hello all,

Thank you for all of your prompt comments! Just to give a little more background, I am primarily a fine art photographer who is currently doing architectural interiors, but would like flexibility going forward. I am also starting to do some commercial interior work. Lightweight seems more important than monorail vs field. I have not used the ARCA but understand that it comes in at about 9lbs and thus would be similarly weighted as the fields. So this suggestions seems to be a good one. The only 8x10 I have used thus far is an old TOYO field 810 which seemed on the heavy side, but was other was exactly the same as my current Toyo 45A. Are the older ARCA's heavier than than the current F-line models?

I appreciate the point about bag bellows, as I have had some problems shooting with my 90 SA on my 4x5 where I do not have a bag bellows.

One thing that I hadn't realized was that depth of field would change by a stop when going from 4x5 to 8x10. This certainly does add to the challenge, although at this point I generally use available light. So perhaps I should just stick with my 4x5 and not get too enamored by negative size... Perhaps a better investment would be upgrade my 90 SA to a 110 SS XL?