Metal vs Wood cameras - advantages/disadvantages

[Treat]

Howdy all,
What are some of the advantages or disadvantages of metal field cameras when compared to wooden field cameras? Thanks.

[Ricardo Maydana]

Maderas y de las antiguas.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

[AA+]

I have a 5x7 Canham Wood that I am fond of (2 each for 30 years). If I leave it in my car during winter, the wood, walnut, changes dimension from moisture, freezing the focusing action. So I keep it in the house and everything works fine.

Best wishes --- Allen

[Oslolens]

My 8x10" Wehman, made from aluminium and epoxy, is out with me in the snow and light rain. The 4"3/4*6"1/2 Toyo-View has lightly rust, and I'm careful to dry it if it get wet, but I have no problem bringing my 4x5" Chamonix out to get wet. I'm more worried about shutters and lenses!

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Bernice Loui]

Wood or metal have the place depending on a LONG list of image making needs. IMO, neither is better or worst.
This also applies to folder or monorail view camera.

That said, what are your print image goals? From that will define lens-optics, film format size, film and print making process.
There have been SO many discussion about not being able to use a lens on their camera of choice over the duration of LFF. For light weight folder cameras, image makers discover the wide angle or longer than normal focal length lens they wanna use becomes a nightmare to try making their lens of choice work... at all.

That said, cameras much like Tripods and all related "gear" is much about trade offs with no ideal "gear" that will do it all.


Bernice

[Vaughn]

Using anything metal with bare hands in very cold weather is a little tougher. The variety of wood field cameras and designs is larger.

While wood does break and/or splinter, it tends to keep its shape, while metal stays intact, it tends to deform with impacts. Depending on one's skills, one might find it easier to repair one over the other...including modifications and adapting parts from other cameras...if one is so inclined.

It's nice to be able to handle a variety and feel what is good in your hands and tripod.

[Treat]

I was just wondering what makes people chose one over the other since most of them do the same, for the most part. For example, someone choosing wood over metal because it's easier on the skin during cold weather seems like a logical reason, or choosing metal because wood can splinter if they tip over onto rocks. I don't think one is better than the other either but there is something classic looking about a wood camera.

[Vaughn]

True...of course they all look the same when the darkcloth is over them (from both sides...:cool: )

There are too many exceptions! Metal field cameras tend to be heavier, but my Calmet-branded Gowland PocketView (a folding metal monorail field camera) weighs 2.5 pounds with the 150mm on it. Weight is all over the place, as are features (with a close relationship between the two) with both wood and metal - and toss in composites, plastics, plys of wood and CF, etc.

But my 110 yr old 5x7 Eastman View No.2 looks pretty cool up on the pod! Only front movement is rise/fall, but that and all the back movements are geared so it is pretty sweet to use.

[RichardRitter]

Most photographers saw it will not happen to their camera. That is it on the tripod and they have the focusing cloth over the camera and a gust of wind come along and over the camera goes.

If is metal and something breaks you are out of luck.

If is it wood and it breaks one goes into a store and buys glue and tape and puts the camera back together.

There is one camera maker who told me that if his camera hits the ground you will end up with a mess. And yes I have seem it happen. It was not pretty plus the camera could not be field repaired. Parts could not be straighten out with out breaking.

[Tin Can]

I think all my metal cameras were designed for only indoor use

Big Linhof and Horseman come to mind, Sinar lovers will argue

All Metal Rittreck 5x7 with it's odd micro focus rear tilt was sold to Japanese as studio portrait device

Calumer C! advertised as studio camera, I have the ads

Richard Ritter is correct, wood is far easier to fix

and most wood cameras are lighter than metal

Canham goes his own way and has many buyers

I am sure I missed some examples

No camera I know of can support a man standing on the rails, except a Ritter, he advertises that

I cannot balance on my 50mm heavy steel Linhof rail but even they changed to aluminum later in the production run

I do want a Ritter camera, some day

[andrewd]

I went through the decision earlier this year. I see the pros and cons as follows:

Wooden folder:
- lighter to carry
- less durable
- slower to set up
- can buy one brand new for a reasonable price
- wider range of movements

Metal folding technical camera (Toyo/Wista/Horseman/Linhof Technika):
- heavier
- More robust
- More precise movements
- Limited choice if you want a brand new camera and these are $$$$$$
- reasonably priced on the used market.
- super fast to set up especially if you can fold a lens into the camera.
- Linhof cameras from past 50 years are still made and can be serviced.

I ended up buying a Linhof Super Technika from 1968 from a Linhof dealer. The camera was fully serviced and has new ground glass and bellows, so essentially the same as buying a new camera.

[Paul Ron]

100% spot on! ∆

i find weight is more important to me since i enjoy taking my camera backpacking.

[Richard Wasserman]

After spending a lifetime in an antiques business I certainly have an appreciation for fine wood. That said, I much prefer metal cameras for their precision and just general feel when I use them. They make me happy... And isn't that why we're all doing this arcane activity?

[Alan Klein]

I just started with 4x5 this year and bought a 4 or 5 pound Chamonix 45H-1. It's made of wood (teak I think), aluminum and carbon fiber. Plus whatever the bellows are made of. I don't take it out in the rain or when it's even wet. Do I have anything to worry about? How do other's handle their Chamonix cameras?
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1

[djdister]

I've had the Canham 5x7 wood and Canham 5x7 metal cameras. The metal camera weighs less than the wood one, by a little bit. I kept the metal one because I liked how it functioned. That's what it comes down to - a personal preference.

[Bill McMannis]

One factor not mentioned above is what sort of crowd you will draw. In my experience I would frequently have people come up and ask about my wooden Zone VI; usually along the lines of how old it was. When shooting my SINAR or Technikardan I may have well been invisible, which I preferred.

[Bernice Loui]

Goes directly to print image goals.

If you're hiking and demand a light weight camera and all that, the better choice is likely a wood folder as that variety of camera can be made light weight, remarkably durable/rugged with endurance to harsh weather conditions. Outdoor images often do not require high precision of camera movements or a large variety of lenses. The defining optics and images made will be images made often at distant focus with close ups (life size) at times and the common image goal of all elements in the image in focus nudges take apertures to f22 and smaller. This combined with smallish optics near normal with modest deviation often results in smaller full aperture optics, tolerance to camera mis-alignment, film that is not complete flat in the holder and ....

Having owned-used wood folders in the past.. not for me. Don't hike, don't do or seek the outdoor nature foto thing.
Of the folder cameras used, the fave remains Toyo 810M (metal folder) converted to a Sinar front frame by a whole lot... for it's precision of camera movements, stability, durability, ease of use and all those things wood folders do not offer. Linhof Technika IMO is WAY over priced for what it is. Having owned and used various 4x5 & 5x7 versions, the design is simply too limiting in too many ways.

The all time fave remains Sinar system after rounds with Arca Swiss, Toyo, Linhof and similar. Given the image goals of no hiking, no traveling miles from the vehicle and all that. Coming from a history of studio table top/product image making, Interior/Architecture, Scientific/Industry, portraits using BIG lenses at larger apertures in barrel, image making and all that from decades ago using the Sinar system, it continues to do what is demanded from a view camera system with zero issues in every image making need-situation. Limits on optics is near zero, camera precision is excellent, camera stability is excellent when properly supported, few if any limits on bellows or total length of the lens to image recorder distance, well supported for parts and add-ons. Sinar Norma is not so heavy with a set of small optics that allows it to be portable enough.

All goes back to what your image making goals are, what optics are required to achieve them.. then decide on camera and a support system (tripod & tripod head or similar) to meet the image making goals.

There is no single ideal camera-lens-film and all related for all LF image making needs and goals.
Bernice

[Daniel Unkefer]

Sinar Norma can do this:

Reinhart Wolf photographing "Castles in Spain" with 8x10 Sinar Norma and 1000mm Apo Ronar.

https://www.google.com/search?q=reinhart+wolf&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=waiLJ2McNDQcpM%252CyhjwCeDM5Dg_5M%252C%252Fm%252F05xw7_t&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTY3fGVulj8YUikI6AC522oBrQ6eA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyvf635uHsAhVHRqwKHZIMDmYQ_B16BAgZEAM#imgrc=5dVr_V6aVCiFmM

Also here his famous book "New York" :

https://www.google.com/search?q=reinhart+wolf&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=waiLJ2McNDQcpM%252CyhjwCeDM5Dg_5M%252C%252Fm%252F05xw7_t&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTY3fGVulj8YUikI6AC522oBrQ6eA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyvf635uHsAhVHRqwKHZIMDmYQ_B16BAgZEAM#imgrc=zjyjwaB8ok5uzM

[Bernice Loui]

Interior image, 5x7_13x18cm Sinar Norma, bag bellows, Schneider 72mm f5.6XL, Sinar Pan/tilt on modified surveyor tripod, Agfa APX100_13x18cm..

209116
Taking aperture was f16 due to exposure times needed. Very small camera movements were use to hold focus at the coffee table to end of dining room. There is minimal geometric distortion if and when camera movements are properly applied to increase areas that can be held in focus at the largest possible taking aperture. Camera with lesser precision and stability would make life a LOT more difficult to apply small and precise camera movements then demanding the camera to remain in correct alignment allowing the use of the largest reasonable taking lens aperture possible.

How might this image be made using a wood or metal folder view camera?

Bernice

[Rod Klukas]

Somewhat agree with what has been said. But you forget us. Arca-Swiss has cameras that collapse quite small and are often lighter than wood. Especially in 8x10. In addition, some metal cameras are much more precise than many wood cameras.

[Doremus Scudder]

I'm the polar opposite of Bernice :)

My main concern is weight and portability. Still, I need enough movements to do architectural work in close quarters in cities as well.

My compromise (all camera choices are compromises) is a lightweight wooden camera with compact lenses. Everything else, including the larger wooden folders, is just too heavy and bulky. I hike, carry my camera on my bicycle and travel internationally for work in European cities. The smallest and lightest kit I can carry that can get the job done is what I need.

That said, over the years I've accumulated a few cameras (six in total now, at last count). However, I use two of them for 95% of my work, so I'll address these:

The workhorse in my kit is a beat-up Wista DX that gets carried outdoors on long day hikes, in slot canyons, scrambling up and down scree slopes and through underbrush, etc. The Wista DX fits my outdoor/landscape needs well is still fully-featured enough to use for the occasional architectural shot (lots of front rise is a problem though... crimped bellows even with the 90mm on a recessed board). I carry it in a lumbar pack along with four compact lenses. Smaller lenses fold up in the camera, which saves space.

So, I can carry the DX, a 90mm Nikkor f/8, a 135mm Plasmat, a 203mm Ektar and a 300mm Nikkor M (this latter on a top-hat board) plus 4-6 filmholders, meter, cloth, tripod and filters easily, have both hands free for scrambling if need be and have the whole kit (plus water bottle) weigh in at just over 20lbs. I've used this combination for years now, everywhere from Death Valley to Arizona's slot canyons, to the Pacific Coast to Alaska and Yukon glaciers and it has performed superbly for me. I can go even lighter if I need to, swapping out the 90mm Nikkor for a 100mm WF Ektar and using Mido holders instead of regular ones. But, I don't do extensive backpack trips anymore, so don't often need to pare the kit down this much.

Still, when working lightweight in the city and carrying my kit in a backpack, the above kit has some drawbacks. Having a camera that accommodates shorter lenses with lots of coverage is really, really nice for architectural work, especially in the closer quarters of European cities. Also, carrying the camera in the field pack ends up being less comfortable for me than having the kit in a more versatile pack. Plus, when photographing my home city of Vienna (where I lived for 30 years), I almost always carried my kit on my bicycle. And, when traveling, say to Italy, Hungary or the Czech Republic, I always ended up on foot in cities, dependent on the public transportation. So a small and lightweight, but versatile kit was needed.

My "city kit," therefore, is a modification of my outdoor field kit. It gets carried in a rolling carry-on/backpack combo (basically, a backpack with wheels and retracting handle). Instead of the Wista DX, I carry a Wista SW, basically a DX with interchangeable bellows. I carry the standard bellows, but use it rarely in cities; most of the time the wide-angle bellows is mounted, which accommodates lenses up to 210mm. My lens kit is different too. The 135mm Plasmat gets swapped out for a 135mm WF Ektar (need that coverage in the city!) and I exchange the 300mm for a 240mm Fujinon A lens. I add the 180mm Fujinon A too a lot instead of the 203mm Ektar, but often take a small 210mm lens as well, so my final lens choice is: 90mm, 135mm, 180mm, (210mm) and 240mm. With the wide-angle bellows I can easily use all the coverage that my Nikkor 90mm f/8 and 135mm WF Ektar have to offer.

In Vienna, I strapped the tripod onto the luggage rack of my bike, shouldered the backpack and just cruised the city in search of subjects. When traveling to other cities, the backpack became my carry-on. Once at my destination I walked and rode the public transport with my pack on my back or rolling alongside me (on smooth surfaces only! I rattled knobs and screws off a camera once by rolling it too far on a rough, cobbled street. Reassembly took me a while...). Again, the kit is light enough to carry all day, small enough to be able to be carried in close quarters on public transit and easy to travel with.

I could do none of the above with a metal folding camera or even one of the larger 6-lb-plus wooden cameras like the big Shen Haos or the late model Zone VI. They are simply too heavy.

FWIW, I own a late model Zone VI and take it with me on road trips in the States. It lives in the car and gets used rarely; only when the subject is close to the car and I need to use the 450mm lens.

My two monorail camera live in the house and get used for still-life and tabletop work. I never take them into the field anymore. It's sure nice to work with them for close-up work though. A folding camera just isn't suited for macro work.

Sorry this got so long, but hope it helps.

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Excellent contrasting comparison...

Again, there is NO ideal camera for all LF image making needs. The choice of camera should be driven by your specific image goals and what is required to achieve these print image goals.


Bernice



I'm the polar opposite of Bernice :)

My main concern is weight and portability. Still, I need enough movements to do architectural work in close quarters in cities as well.

Sorry this got so long, but hope it helps.

Doremus

[neil poulsen]

I've done the wood thing . . .

For example, I had a 4x5/5x7 Deardorff for 4x5 film. It was a fun camera to use, but it just didn't have the wide-angle capability that I wanted. Even for landscape, the bellows would be packed so tightly for even a 120mm Super Angulon, the the interior of the bellows would reflect light (as flare) back onto the film. In fact, any kind of wide-angle photography becomes cumbersome with wood cameras. I sold it.

I had a Burke and James 8x10 with the extension that worked well enough on my (since sold) Linhof huge tripod with a crank driven column that was over 2 inches in diameter. Not entirely the fault of the camera, the whole thing was really unmanageable and incredibly heavy. So, I sold the Burke and James and now use a carbon fiber (Feisol 3372) tripod.

With my most recent wood camera, a Deardorff 8x10 with front swings, I finally gave up on wood for good. Let me say, that camera was a show piece. It was practically new, even though it's manufacture was in the late 1940's. (I converted it to front swing with a genuine Deardorff upgrade kit.) It was very tight. But even at moderate extension, it was too wobbly for my taste, and was prone to vibrations. And if used in the field, it wouldn't take long before that beautiful wood finish could be ruined. So, off it went to the auction block.

Metal rail cameras give me exactly what I need. I tend to photograph architecture, landscape, and fine art and use super wides down to 75mm for 4x5. I like and need the bellows interchangeability that rail cameras offer. I currently use a Sinar F 4x5 with certain customizations that I made.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/sinar-f-4x5-as-a-viable-field-camera.172997/

With these, it becomes very convenient and compact to use in a backpack. Rail metal cameras are also much more precise and versatile than woodies. And, the whole kit didn't cost me much more than $500.

For 8x10, I had a bit of luck. I had an old-style, Oschwald era 4x5 Arca Swiss that was an intermediate model between these older cameras and what's sold new. Then, along came an Oschwald era 8x10 conversion kit for $399 on EBay, and I pounced. I probably spent a total of $800 or so, and I have a fabulous 8x10 camera that weighs less than the Deardorff 8x10 that I had. it works fine on my CF tripod.

I know that metal rail cameras can be heavy, and woodies can be ridiculously light-weight. (Too much so.) But realistically, with a little creativity and patience, my user 4x5's have all weighed less than 8lbs. My Sinar, as a balance between weight, capability,and convenience, sure hits my sweet spot for 4x5. I've found the same scenario to be true for 8x10 as well.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Somewhat agree with what has been said. But you forget us. Arca-Swiss has cameras that collapse quite small and are often lighter than wood. Especially in 8x10. In addition, some metal cameras are much more precise than many wood cameras.


Sinar Normas were manufactured by Arca Swiss. :)

[neil poulsen]

Somewhat agree with what has been said. But you forget us. Arca-Swiss has cameras that collapse quite small and are often lighter than wood. Especially in 8x10. In addition, some metal cameras are much more precise than many wood cameras.

Of course, this is the case. I have a 4x5 conversion for my 6x9 Arca that really makes for a nice camera, and if traveling, I can take both.

I also enjoy using the Sinar F. At home, I find it convenient to have two separate systems and not convert the Arca back and forth.

[Vaughn]

I just started with 4x5 this year and bought a 4 or 5 pound Chamonix 45H-1. It's made of wood (teak I think), aluminum and carbon fiber. Plus whatever the bellows are made of. I don't take it out in the rain or when it's even wet. Do I have anything to worry about? How do other's handle their Chamonix cameras?
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1

Wipe it dry and put it away. I have had a waterfall shift and come straight down on me and wood 8x10. A little time in the sun and it was as right as rain.

[djdister]

One more point about the functionality and why I kept the 5x7 metal Canham camera - I also use the Canham 6x17 rollfilm back which works "best" on the Canham MQC metal camera. Using that rollfilm back on the 5x7 wood body was just not as optimum as on the metal body.

Here's the rollfilm back on the Canham MQC.
209121

[Alan Klein]

Wipe it dry and put it away. I have had a waterfall shift and come straight down on me and wood 8x10. A little time in the sun and it was as right as rain.

I contacted Hugo who reps Chamonix about my 45H-1. It's made of teak wood, carbon fiber, and aluminum.

Here were his responses which actually make me feel more confident about taking it out in inclement weather.

1. What are the bellows made from? A: waterproof fabric.
2. Can I use the camera in rain or mist? A: Yes and wipe the water off after each use.
3. How do you keep in clean? A: Use a dry cloth to wipe your camera clean after use.
4. What about the knobs and wheels. Could they rust? Should some oil or other lubrication ever be used to protect them? A: They should not, but it will not hurt if you put some light oil after long use.

[Drew Wiley]

It's not really a wood vs metal contest. Metal itself has different connotations : diecast components vs CNC anodized aluminum, for example. Then there's mainly polymer cameras, like the former Walker ABS models and first CF entry years ago, the Carbon Infinity. 3D printing will inevitably add to that list. Then there's wood that isn't really wood in a traditional sense, but made more lightweight, moisture-resistant, and dimensionally stable. My Phillips 8x10 was the first (or nearly the first - I own serial no.009) example of a modern laminate camera, specifically a custom ply of fiberglass and epoxy-impregnated cherry veneer layers. Now Chamonix uses an analogous concept, but a wood/carbon fiber composite.
Which is best? I can't even make up my own mind. I have a full Sinar monorail setup, including a classic Norma; love it. Have a composite wood 8x10 Phillips folder, already mentioned; love that too. Also use an Ebony 4x5 folder, beautifully made of genuine mahogany and machined titanium hardware, one of the best wood cameras ever. But I can't own em all. Ain't got no Arca made by Mizz Norma in the back of some Swiss soup kitchen.

[Vaughn]

I contacted Hugo...

Yep -- what I said...just don't do what I do! Practicing Waterfall Zen with one's 8x10 is not recommended.

So far the Chamonix 11x14 has been well treated, more or less. Since I have gotten a pack for it, I have carried it in precarious places, but so far no lightning storms, high winds on sand dunes, or that sort of thing. The Zone VI 8x10 is a different story...even bought used, it was a beauty when I got my hands on it about 25 years ago. Alas...

[Drew Wiley]

Once in the Columbia Gorge I prefocused my 8x10, installed the lenscap, ducked under the waterproof Goretex darkcloth, got darn near under that damn big fall, popped the cap and instantly tripped the shutter, and got a bit of a classic shot, certainly a unique one. It was by definition the last of that particular vacation, which I premeditated and saved for the last day. The camera itself could simply be air dried out. But the lens went right away into a portable airtight dessication box containing freshly baked-out silica gel, and stay in there another two weeks, which I bring along on Northwestern trips for just such occasions.
Winds are a different issue. I've had both my 8x10 and 4x5 folders tossed by sudden Spring wind gusts more than 30 ft, Ries tripod n'all, several time. Lucky for me that in each instance they landed on a lupine bush or soft little juniper bush.
Didn't have the same luck with my Sinar monorail during a severe wind storm in the Wind River Range. One of the front standard columns snapped after the crash. So I simply locked the system down and used rear rise n fall instead. That worked perfectly the balance of the trip. When I finally reached a town and pay phone I called Sinar-Bron in Noi Joisey, and a replacement column rod was already in my mailbox back here when I got home a couple days later - for a price, of course; nothing was cheap Sinar-wise beck in them thar days, but their service was great.