Worthy Linhof Contenders

[AdamD]

I apologise, this is likely to be an over-done question, but, here I go....

Here is is just about 2021 (freeeww) and in this day and age, what are the worthy 4x5 Linhof contenders that can still compeat with the likes of a Chominix F2?

So, now you're thinking, one is metal the other is wood! Right...work with me here....

If I go with a folding wood camera, the Chominix F2 wins. But if I were to change my mind and go with a metal camera (I have a couple reasons), Linhof seems to be a good option in that they are well made, ridged machines. But, as many of you know, the Linhof line goes way, way back and there seems to be a cutoff point where the older ones just won't compeat with the more modern day cameras (movements, extension, rigidity, weight).

So...within the Linhof line, which ones should I look at? If you feel compelled to offer up a different manufacturer, I won't stop you 😉.

I'm just trying to re-verify my thinking and current selection.

I shoot primarily landscape and portraits and would like one camera setup that can go from 75mm to 300+mm.

Thx!!!

[6x6TLL]

I'd say look into an Arca Swiss F-Metric or F-Field. Compact, light, sturdy, reliable, precise. Will do 75-300+mm with the same setup and bellows. It's technically a monorail, but is light and portable like a field camera.

Just a suggestion from left field.



I apologise, this is likely to be an over-done question, but, here I go....

...

So...within the Linhof line, which ones should I look at? If you feel compelled to offer up a different manufacturer, I won't stop you ��.

I'm just trying to re-verify my thinking and current selection.

I shoot primarily landscape and portraits and would like one camera setup that can go from 75mm to 300+mm.

Thx!!!

[Michael R]

You didn’t mention what your budget is. An important consideration.

It can be tricky making the “right” LF camera decision for a variety of reasons, and it is fairly common for people to make changes as they gain experience.

I’m not very familiar with older Linhof cameras, but I do currently have both a Linhof and a Chamonix.

While Linhof cameras are obviously excellent, I’m quite impressed with the Chamonix. It is well designed and well made, especially for the price. Accessories are also inexpensive.

This type of camera generally won’t be as rigid/solid when maxed out for long lenses (also depends on the weight of the lens), but virtually any LF camera choice involves trade offs.

[AdamD]

Ok that's interesting. I didn't mention the budge directly, but only indirectly with the Chominix F2 as a comparison. So figure $1300 for the moment. But, if there's something different to consider even at $1800, that might be worth putting it off to save a bit more.

The Arca-Swiss is a great option (suggestion) but that's a big jump in price!!

[Bob Salomon]

A good, used LInhof Technikardan S.

[Tin Can]

Kinda depends on weight

I have a very light all metal Pre-War Linhof 5X7-1/2 Plate

VGC with amazing OE leather bellows, perhaps the last camera I would sell

However i sold my new 11X14 Chamonix as it was TOO nice to take outside and very heavy

I prefer old used cameras

[Jim Jones]

I shifted to digital before ever using my MPP, but for some photographers it seems like a practical competitor to the Linhof.

[CreationBear]

Another option might be the Horseman "technical" field cameras (FA/HD/HF)--they are well made and some of the most compact 4x5's out there. They do have drawbacks, though: they have relatively short bellows (~240mm) and lack convenient rear movements; in addition, lenses in Copal 3 shutters are out, as are those with wide rear elements. No free lunch, as I'm sure you're finding!:) That said, given that "tophat" lens boards are readily available (or quality 270mm telephotos) you could probably check most of your boxes in a pretty economical fashion.

[Dan Fromm]

Another option might be the Horseman "technical" field cameras (FA/HD/HF)--they are well made and some of the most compact 4x5's out there. They do have drawbacks, though: they have relatively short bellows (~240mm) and lack convenient rear movements; in addition, lenses in Copal 3 shutters are out, as are those with wide rear elements. No free lunch, as I'm sure you're finding!:) That said, given that "tophat" lens boards are readily available (or quality 270mm telephotos) you could probably check most of your boxes in a pretty economical fashion.

Please educate me. I'm not sure why this is so. My tiny 2x3 Graphics seem to be unusable with lenses that won't clear their lens throat, but some -- not all -- lenses with large rear elements can be mounted on them. I unscrew the rear elements, mount shutter + front element on the camera in the usual way, remove the Graflok back's focusing panel and screw the rear cell in from behind. This won't work with all lenses, some have rear cells that won't clear the gate (surely this can't be a problem with a 4x5 camera) or won't fit inside the front end of the bellows (ditto). What am I missing?

[Willie]

Why not just get a Linhof and not worry about it?
There are good reasons so many use Linhof.
So many available on the used market. So many in excellent condition.
Newer or older - they last and do the job.

[CreationBear]

Please educate me.

Ha, little chance of that...:) As I might have mentioned before, I've no doubt your work-around does what you need it to--if I had a fast 75mm or 90mm, I definitely might be tempted as well, even if it meant the possibility of bouncing the rear element down 200 vertical feet of Anakeesta Slate.:eek:

At any rate, the Horseman technicals are great little cameras: here's a list for the OP for lenses that can be used without the operation Dan describes:

http://www.kenko-pi.co.jp/horseman/e/lens_list.html

[Dan O'Farrell]

You lost me in the first two lines; gone to "Ignored".

[Gabe]

A good, used LInhof Technikardan S.

+1

[Chuck Pere]

How about the common Toyo 45A field camera?

[brucetaylor]

Why not just get a Linhof and not worry about it?
There are good reasons so many use Linhof.
So many available on the used market. So many in excellent condition.
Newer or older - they last and do the job.
This!

[AdamD]

Why not just get a Linhof and not worry about it?
There are good reasons so many use Linhof.
So many available on the used market. So many in excellent condition.
Newer or older - they last and do the job.

Here's why....I would say as early as 5 years ago, you might be right. But today, there are more and more worthy options for 4x5. In fact, several "old" designs just keep getting updated. Look at Toyo and Wista for instance. Then there are new options such as Intrpid and Chominix. So the choices are increasing AND the camera's functions are improving.

Again, take the suggestion just above with the Horseman. There are newer options available, yet still, they make you sacrifice aspects due to the design. In the case of Chominix, there's very little sacrifice.

So, in the case of Linhof, I'm trying to better understand the lineup to see which cameras are worthy contenders to the Chominix F2. I'm not sure there are any, hence the reason for this post.

I don't want just any camera. For the $$ spent, I want to check as many boxes that I can. I look at it this way....for $1300USD I can get, x, y, z, P, D, and Q. Why would I spend $1800 or more and then only get x, y and z?

I think the Linhof name is great, but only to a point. But again, I was expecting someone to guide me on the difference models they offer that check a lot of boxes and then I could do my own research on them.

So, long answer....

[Oren Grad]

It's "Chamonix". Like the French ski resort.

Re sorting out the Technikas:

https://cameraquest.com/techs.htm

[Corran]

There are no Linhof cameras that are anything like the majority of Chamonix's lineup. They are fundamentally different designs with fairly different design goals, and therefore different strengths and weaknesses.

Think of a Venn diagram. There are some things that one or the other does really well and the other does poorly, and some things that are comparable.

You say landscapes and portraits. There's still a lot of variability there. If I'm shooting people I usually have my Linhof. If I'm shooting landscape I lately have been using my Intrepid, or previously my Chamonix.

If I were to be forced to keep only one 4x5 camera it would probably be a Chamonix, or my Linhof MT but with several thousand dollars of overpriced accessories to be as good as the Chamonix is with wide angles.

[Michael R]

Here's why....I would say as early as 5 years ago, you might be right. But today, there are more and more worthy options for 4x5. In fact, several "old" designs just keep getting updated. Look at Toyo and Wista for instance. Then there are new options such as Intrpid and Chominix. So the choices are increasing AND the camera's functions are improving.

Again, take the suggestion just above with the Horseman. There are newer options available, yet still, they make you sacrifice aspects due to the design. In the case of Chominix, there's very little sacrifice.

So, in the case of Linhof, I'm trying to better understand the lineup to see which cameras are worthy contenders to the Chominix F2. I'm not sure there are any, hence the reason for this post.

I don't want just any camera. For the $$ spent, I want to check as many boxes that I can. I look at it this way....for $1300USD I can get, x, y, z, P, D, and Q. Why would I spend $1800 or more and then only get x, y and z?

I think the Linhof name is great, but only to a point. But again, I was expecting someone to guide me on the difference models they offer that check a lot of boxes and then I could do my own research on them.

So, long answer....

Just get a nice new Chamonix, and work with it. It will do everything you need it to based on your original post. Over time you will figure out what you like/don't like, and what characteristics/features you need/don't need. This will happen regardless of which camera you get or how much money you spend.

With the Chamonix, you'll be off to a very good start for a pretty reasonable amount of money, and you won't have to waste time scouring the internet trying to find the best of peoples' old, faulty, moldy junk.

[AdamD]

There are no Linhof cameras that are anything like the majority of Chamonix's lineup. They are fundamentally different designs with fairly different design goals, and therefore different strengths and weaknesses.

Think of a Venn diagram. There are some things that one or the other does really well and the other does poorly, and some things that are comparable.

You say landscapes and portraits. There's still a lot of variability there. If I'm shooting people I usually have my Linhof. If I'm shooting landscape I lately have been using my Intrepid, or previously my Chamonix.

If I were to be forced to keep only one 4x5 camera it would probably be a Chamonix, or my Linhof MT but with several thousand dollars of overpriced accessories to be as good as the Chamonix is with wide angles.

Very well said. Thank you.

[AdamD]

Just get a nice new Chamonix, and work with it. It will do everything you need it to based on your original post. Over time you will figure out what you like/don't like, and what characteristics/features you need/don't need. This will happen regardless of which camera you get or how much money you spend.

With the Chamonix, you'll be off to a very good start for a pretty reasonable amount of money, and you won't have to waste time scouring the internet trying to find the best of peoples' old, faulty, moldy junk.

Also very well said. Thank you as well.

This has been helpful.

[otto.f]

I once owned a Technika iv or v and now have the Chamonix F2. The sizes of the two when folded are comparable. Sometimes I think back to that Linhof, because once folded, you can throw it around without risk and that has an advantage that makes its weight a relative burden. However I will resist the seduction to buy one again, because it’s a lot of fidgeting doing the movements, especially at the front, it’s all so small and stiff. In practice there are only one or two old lenses which you can leave on the camera when folding. With the Chamonix I feel that I’m more careful handling it, but in the end it’s faster. I have the leather protection jacket and find this not a luxury for this camera while packing in and out my backpack. The back movements of the F2 are much more versatile too btw.

[AdamD]

Good info.

What do you think about the Technikardan and Technikardan S?

I'm wondering if this design can compete with the Chamonix F2. I've read conflicting accounts of the TK bellows range.

Can anyone confirm the widest and longest lens that camera can support with full movements?

Thx!!

[Bob Salomon]

Good info.

What do you think about the Technikardan and Technikardan S?

I'm wondering if this design can compete with the Chamonix F2. I've read conflicting accounts of the TK bellows range.

Can anyone confirm the widest and longest lens that camera can support with full movements?

Thx!!

There is no confusion about the bellows range. The standard double tapered bellows goes to 500mm and collapses tight enough for a 45mm lens. But shorter then 90mm it won’t allow the movements the cameras are offer. So it is interchangeable with an accessory bag bellows which allows full movements with lenses as short as 35mm and stretches out enough for a 135mm but with no movements.

[AdamD]

Ok thanks. Let me rephrase the conflict. The bellows range WITH full movements.

So based on what you're explaining WITH FULL movements on the standard bellows the range is from 90mm to 500mm??

But even the wide angle numbers you gave differ from other sources say it's from 35mm to 150mm.

Anyway, thanks for the quick response!

[Oren Grad]

http://linhof.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Technikardan_e.pdf

[Gabe]

Ok thanks. Let me rephrase the conflict. The bellows range WITH full movements.

So based on what you're explaining WITH FULL movements on the standard bellows the range is from 90mm to 500mm??

It depends what you mean by "full", and just to be slightly pedantic for a moment, no bellows can utilise the FULL movements of the camera, as the tilts and swings on both standards have unlimited range. The shift range on both standards is also huge (except for not having rear fall). To some degree the allowed movement range also depends on how large the rear cell of the lens is, i.e. a larger one would permit less movement than a smaller one before physically clashing with the bellows.

At ~ infinity focus a moderate degree of movements are allowed with a 90mm f5.6 lens on the standard bellows, but I would say a bag bellows is definitely needed if you want to utilise the full image circle. However this will be true of any "standard" design bellows on any camera, so the TK S45 is not uniquely hampered in that regard. If your widest lens is 90mm and you do not anticipate needing extreme movements with it, then you would probably be fine with just the standard bellows.

[Bob Salomon]

Ok thanks. Let me rephrase the conflict. The bellows range WITH full movements.

So based on what you're explaining WITH FULL movements on the standard bellows the range is from 90mm to 500mm??

But even the wide angle numbers you gave differ from other sources say it's from 35mm to 150mm.

Anyway, thanks for the quick response!
My numbers are from decades of experience with both models starting at the Photokina where the first one was introduced. But the bag bellows has changed over time. Originally it was just a bag. Now it has a spring in the middle to prevent sags.

[Bob Salomon]

Ok thanks. Let me rephrase the conflict. The bellows range WITH full movements.

So based on what you're explaining WITH FULL movements on the standard bellows the range is from 90mm to 500mm??

But even the wide angle numbers you gave differ from other sources say it's from 35mm to 150mm.

Anyway, thanks for the quick response!

One of the first Buyers of the original TK used it folded with a 47mm SA, added a finder to the body AND USD IT Hand held as an extra wide camera. He did that with the standard bellows. Wandered all over Hawaii shooting like that. Of course, he didn’t use movements other then focus this way.

[Michael R]

Using a recessed lens board might give you slightly more movement with the standard bellows and a 90mm.

[Ari]

I think the Technikardan 45 s is one of the best 4x5 cameras ever made. Comparing it to most other cameras is pointless, not so much because of its excellence (there are several equally excellent cameras out there), but because of its different design.
This gives it a versatility that few cameras can rival, the Arca F-line among them.
My only quibble with it was it didn't offer full movements with a 90mm lens, the bellows were too compressed to allow for full rise.
I always wanted to adapt a universal bellows from Chamonix to the TK45s, but never got around to it.

A Chamonix, Toyo 45A, Wista VX and others are high-quality cameras, but quite different creatures.

[Corran]

One of the first Buyers of the original TK used it folded with a 47mm SA, added a finder to the body AND USD IT Hand held as an extra wide camera. He did that with the standard bellows. Wandered all over Hawaii shooting like that. Of course, he didn’t use movements other then focus this way.

This is something I do today with a cheap 3D-printed body and helical weighing about a pound or two.

The point is no camera is perfect and everything will have limitations (including price as well). I think most people are well-served by a Crown Graphic with its front standard reversed as their first 4x5 camera, and can move up from there as needed.

[Bob Salomon]

I think the Technikardan 45 s is one of the best 4x5 cameras ever made. Comparing it to most other cameras is pointless, not so much because of its excellence (there are several equally excellent cameras out there), but because of its different design.
This gives it a versatility that few cameras can rival, the Arca F-line among them.
My only quibble with it was it didn't offer full movements with a 90mm lens, the bellows were too compressed to allow for full rise.
I always wanted to adapt a universal bellows from Chamonix to the TK45s, but never got around to it.

A Chamonix, Toyo 45A, Wista VX and others are high-quality cameras, but quite different creatures.
Add the bag bellows and you wil get all movements the lens is capable of supporting.

[Ari]

Add the bag bellows and you wil get all movements the lens is capable of supporting.

Of course, but the idea was to avoid having to swap bellows.
I found the TK a little finicky in that respect.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

.

I shoot primarily landscape and portraits and would like one camera setup that can go from 75mm to 300+mm.

Thx!!!

HORSEMAN 45FA takes the 5,6/65 Fujinon SWD on a flat lensboard, as well as 210mm lenses on extended lensboard and a Fujinon T 8/300 on a flat board. Weight is in the Chamonix class. Rigidity is much greater.

Have you ever used a Technika? Today I was out in the fog at -2°C. Linhof is when everything works easily and safely, when everything has its safe place and when you can find everything safely and precisely under the dark cloth. And when you can adjust tilt and rise and shift and focus independently of each other and also control the perspective in all four corners of the screen. When you can leave the Apo Ronar 300 in the closed camera and everything moves safely into the backpack. When you screw a carbon tube with a sunshade into the flash shoe and nothing wobbles. When you can use the 360 Apo Ronar without an extended lensboard, but with long exposure times. When there are precise zero positions that you can trust blindly. When you take portraits of people by hand and with a rangefinder. When you ... - just use a Linhof. For $1000 I would rather buy a used Technika V than a new Chamonix.

You can save weight: I tried a Leofoto LN 323 C carbon fiber tripod with a geared G2 head. It works very well.

[Bob Salomon]

That’s absurd, you lift up 2 tabs on the body and the front standard, remove the standard bellows. Place the bag bellows in place and push the tabs back down. Much faster then reading this

[JMO]

That’s absurd, you lift up 2 tabs on the body and the front standard, remove the standard bellows. Place the bag bellows in place and push the tabs back down. Much faster then reading this

+1 for what Bob said. I have a nice 45S with the standard and bag bellows, and changing between the two bellows (once you have the camera unfolded and set-up on the tripod) could not be simpler, easier or quicker.

[AdamD]

Ok...let's bring it in.

So what I'm hearing is the Linhof Technikardan (s and non-s) will allow for a 90mm using the standard bellows and I won't notice a problem with movements unless I get a little nutty with the shot.

Also, if, and when I want to go wider than 90mm I'll have to get the wide angle bellows (about $200) and I should quit my complaining about swapping bellows out because it's just not that big of a deal.

Am I picking up what y'all laying down?

[Bob Salomon]

Ok...let's bring it in.

So what I'm hearing is the Linhof Technikardan (s and non-s) will allow for a 90mm using the standard bellows and I won't notice a problem with movements unless I get a little nutty with the shot.

Also, if, and when I want to go wider than 90mm I'll have to get the wide angle bellows (about $200) and I should quit my complaining about swapping bellows out because it's just not that big of a deal.

Am I picking up what y'all laying down?
Yup. And put that 90 in 0 shutter on the proper recessed board for most convenience.

[Corran]

You could also do all that easily with the Chamonix and universal bellows.

[AdamD]

You could also do all that easily with the Chamonix and universal bellows.

Exactly...but that the purpose of the other thread I started titled, "Chamonix F2 vs Xxxxx". In there I'm trying to find alternatives to the F2 and it's capabilities. Then, when I find interesting alternatives, I start other threads like this one.

It's been really helpful to nail down the cameras that are as versital as the Chamonix F2. There really aren't any that I've found that can check all those boxes....

The Arca-Swiss F-Line and Linhof Technikardan are the two standouts but I. Both cases you STILL need an extra set of bag bellows to cover the same range. So, whether it's an easy swap or not is another story, but the point is, Chamonix is doing something others just aren't doing.

The next question I'm really trying to understand is, do the Arca-Swiss F-Line or Linhof TK offer other benefits that are NOT capabilities of the Chamonix F2? Is there some advantages they have over the F2. Weight and compactness are definitely not.

Movements maybe? Maybe a little bit...
Precision of movements might be the biggest difference, but I'm not even sure if that.
Availability of accessories? Cost of said accessories?

Now you're getting into the details of overall cost of ownership which is a good conversation to have.

Good stuff....

[Robert Opheim]

I bought a used Technikardan years ago because I take a lot of architectural photographs. It has a bag bellows available. I have used the bag bellows with: 58mm, 75mm, 90mm, 92mm 112mm, and 135mm lens - with whatever movements that the lenses will allow. Prior the the Technikardan I had a Graphic View II and a Toyo camera both with fixed bellows. I was always fighting the standard bellows and corrections - I had to make corrections in the enlarger.

Cameras are a tool - you need to figure out what you want to do and pick the best tool for the job. There may not be a perfect camera.

I also take images of: landscapes, close-up details, etc. If I was shooting a different subject matter I might use a different camera.

[Michael R]

Exactly...but that the purpose of the other thread I started titled, "Chamonix F2 vs Xxxxx". In there I'm trying to find alternatives to the F2 and it's capabilities. Then, when I find interesting alternatives, I start other threads like this one.

It's been really helpful to nail down the cameras that are as versital as the Chamonix F2. There really aren't any that I've found that can check all those boxes....

The Arca-Swiss F-Line and Linhof Technikardan are the two standouts but I. Both cases you STILL need an extra set of bag bellows to cover the same range. So, whether it's an easy swap or not is another story, but the point is, Chamonix is doing something others just aren't doing.

The next question I'm really trying to understand is, do the Arca-Swiss F-Line or Linhof TK offer other benefits that are NOT capabilities of the Chamonix F2? Is there some advantages they have over the F2. Weight and compactness are definitely not.

Movements maybe? Maybe a little bit...
Precision of movements might be the biggest difference, but I'm not even sure if that.
Availability of accessories? Cost of said accessories?

Now you're getting into the details of overall cost of ownership which is a good conversation to have.

Good stuff....

It is somewhat of an “unfair” comparison - monorail vs folding wood field type. But anyway.

You will not ever find a field/folder with as much movement flexibility as a good monorail. To some extent, the field type is designed for more convenient portability, at the expense of total movement freedom/flexibility and sometimes rigidity at extremes. That’s why I’ve been telling you from the get go there is no do-it-all view camera design that doesn’t involve compromises. Different cameras manage the balance of attributes in different ways.

One of the strengths of most rail cameras is that not only do you get maximum movement range (more on this in a minute), but more importantly that you have the same movements and ranges on both standards. That is a particularly important feature for some photographers under certain circumstances, notably architecture photography where it is often helpful to have the same vertical and horizontal movement flexibility front and back. It can also come in handy under some studio/tabletop/closeup circumstances.

Regarding the sheer movement ranges, inexperienced users often overestimate the range they will typically need, particularly for most landscape photographs. This is especially true for tilts/swings. Big movements are usually most applicable relatively close range/tabletop studio photography. A good amount of rise/fall and shift range is typically needed for architectural and some urban landscape photography, but often as long as you have a good amount of rise range on the front standard, and/or can tilt both standards, you can do fine.

“Precision” is a tricky one. What do we mean, exactly? For movements specifically, if we mean fine, geared adjustments, printed scales for angles etc. then yes rail cameras typically have more of those things than field cameras, but again, those are really more useful under relatively complicated “studio” conditions. Another type of “precision” I have always looked for is how truly squared up the camera is when zeroed, and how simple it is to zero. That’s important to me, not to most people. And it is difficult to say which type of design is better for this. It has more to do with the particular camera and how well it is constructed.

Availability and cost of accessories - well, what kinds of accessories do you think you will need? Typically, the higher end rail cameras (Linhof, Sinar, Arca...) offer(ed) a much wider selection of accessories. In particular Sinar’s System was modular and you could transform your camera into whatever crazy machine you needed. But how much, if any of this stuff do you realistically need? Besides lens boards, maybe a few recessed boards, and a wide angle bellows what else do you think you might need? Chamonix doesn’t have a huge range of accessories, but they are much cheaper new than Linhof or Arca. Some Linhof accessories (Technika/Technikardan lens boards for example) will work on the Chamonix.

Of course I’m generalizing, and if you don’t have a lot of experience I still say:

1. Think about what kind of photography you want to do
2. As you work with any camera you will adjust to it, and also become better able to decide what features you like and don’t like.

These points are really important in my opinion because this is ultimately a personal thing. There are few rules. Even under similar circumstances two photographers might have drastically different ways of seeing and preferences for the way in which they get the shot. Consider some quick examples: Mark Citret’s personal work spans a relatively wide range, yet he has a preference for rail cameras with the same movements on both standards. George Tice does a lot of urban landscape work, mostly on 8X10 film, and has used the same Deardorff clunker since the late 1960s.

[AdamD]

It is somewhat of an “unfair” comparison - monorail vs folding wood field type. But anyway.

You will not ever find a field/folder with as much movement flexibility as a good monorail. To some extent, the field type is designed for more convenient portability, at the expense of total movement freedom/flexibility and sometimes rigidity at extremes. That’s why I’ve been telling you from the get go there is no do-it-all view camera design that doesn’t involve compromises. Different cameras manage the balance of attributes in different ways.

One of the strengths of most rail cameras is that not only do you get maximum movement range (more on this in a minute), but more importantly that you have the same movements and ranges on both standards. That is a particularly important feature for some photographers under certain circumstances, notably architecture photography where it is often helpful to have the same vertical and horizontal movement flexibility front and back. It can also come in handy under some studio/tabletop/closeup circumstances.



Michael R, et al,

You always have good things to say. Thank you again!

You are right that the field vs monorail is somewhat unfair AND you are right about the advantages of the monorail design.

But you are hitting on the needle I'm looking to thread! I'm looking for the most flexible, lightweight, yet ridged monorail that is "backpackable" to compeat with the good quality field cameras such as the Chamonix F2.

Yes this will be a compromise on weight and size, but the added benefit of the monorail design is a worthy compromise to make.

So you're right on in your assessment and guidance.

The conclusion I have come to is if I want the best "do it all" type of camera to provide the best of both worlds to the greatest extent possible the possibilities come down to the: Arca-Swiss F-Line and the Linhof Technikardan.

Those two cameras really fill three roles: studio, field and cover the widest range of subject possibilities (landscape, architecture, portrait....)

So, do I really need that? IDK!!! For the things I shoot today, and the frequency I shoot Im totally fine keeping my Cambo SC. I figured out a way to pack it in a bag and set it up in the field in under 4 minutes!! I can pack it back into the bag in under 4 minutes!! It takes me about 5 minutes usually to take a shot.

Anyway, can I get away with less flexibility and go with a dedicated field camera like the Chamonix F2? Absolutely. Now let's talk cost....

The Arca-Swiss F-Line and the Linhof Technikardan (used) go for around $1200-$1500. The Chamonix F2 goes for $1400 new after tax and shipping.

So the price is a wash. Granted, the F-Line and TK will need extra bellows (~$200) so they may cost a bit more overall, but still pretty close. So, for the same price, it boils down to capabilities vs weight.

Right now I'm in the camp of capabilities and so my search is on!! I found an F-Line. Just need to verify some aspects of the details......

This thread has been a HUGE help to me. What did we do in the days before this forum existed!!!

Thank you all.

[6x6TLL]

The conclusion I have come to is if I want the best "do it all" type of camera to provide the best of both worlds to the greatest extent possible the possibilities come down to the: Arca-Swiss F-Line and the Linhof Technikardan.

Those two cameras really fill three roles: studio, field and cover the widest range of subject possibilities (landscape, architecture, portrait....)

So, do I really need that? IDK!!! For the things I shoot today, and the frequency I shoot Im totally fine keeping my Cambo SC. I figured out a way to pack it in a bag and set it up in the field in under 4 minutes!! I can pack it back into the bag in under 4 minutes!! It takes me about 5 minutes usually to take a shot.

Anyway, can I get away with less flexibility and go with a dedicated field camera like the Chamonix F2? Absolutely. Now let's talk cost....

The Arca-Swiss F-Line and the Linhof Technikardan (used) go for around $1200-$1500. The Chamonix F2 goes for $1400 new after tax and shipping.

So the price is a wash. Granted, the F-Line and TK will need extra bellows (~$200) so they may cost a bit more overall, but still pretty close. So, for the same price, it boils down to capabilities vs weight.

Right now I'm in the camp of capabilities and so my search is on!! I found an F-Line. Just need to verify some aspects of the details......

This thread has been a HUGE help to me. What did we do in the days before this forum existed!!!

Thank you all.

I have an Arca F-field metric (with the smaller front standard & lens board), I can get it set up and zero'd in in about 1 minute from the bag.

Haven't (yet) needed a bag bellows, but for more extreme movements on the shorter end of the scale, probably will at some point.

Good luck with your search!

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

It is somewhat of an “unfair” comparison - monorail vs folding wood field type. But anyway.

That's right.

Even if it sounds a little heretical now: I do not understand the Chamonix as a folding camera. Folding means to me that you can fold the camera as it is. And that the camera is ready to shoot as soon as you press the zip button. "Zack", as we say in German-speaking countries. Something like a "Taschen-U-Boot" (inflatable pocket submarine).

For me, for example, a Graflex Crown Graphicis a folding camera, a Technika, a Horseman 45FA: with these cameras, you're ready quickly, you protect the lens from dust, as well as the bellows, and you don't burden yourself with assembly and disassembly.

The Chamonix, on the other hand, is in my opinion a camera on an optical bench, that is built as a flat plate, unfortunately without a hole for the mounted lens. A design flaw, because if you're already using a plate, you could have made the Deardorff-style gears on the sides. A Deardorff, an FKD protect the bellows better than the Chamonix, which needs an extra cover that also weighs something.

Don't cut corners: a Horseman 45FA without dark cloth and neoprene wrap doesn't weigh much more than a Chamonix with these things.

A Technikardan is also not the measure of all things. There is also, for example, the absolutely excellent Toyo VX125, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYy3xZSJXgQ ...

[lenicolas]

I'm looking for the most flexible, lightweight, yet ridged monorail that is "backpackable" to compeat with the good quality field cameras such as the Chamonix F2.

Has anyone suggested the TOHO (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm) (not Toyo!!) 4x5 monorails?

[GG12]

That's right.

Even if it sounds a little heretical now: I do not understand the Chamonix as a folding camera. Folding means to me that you can fold the camera as it is. And that the camera is ready to shoot as soon as you press the zip button. "Zack", as we say in German-speaking countries. Something like a "Taschen-U-Boot" (inflatable pocket submarine).

For me, for example, a Graflex Crown Graphicis a folding camera, a Technika, a Horseman 45FA: with these cameras, you're ready quickly, you protect the lens from dust, as well as the bellows, and you don't burden yourself with assembly and disassembly.

The Chamonix, on the other hand, is in my opinion a camera on an optical bench, that is built as a flat plate, unfortunately without a hole for the mounted lens. A design flaw, because if you're already using a plate, you could have made the Deardorff-style gears on the sides. A Deardorff, an FKD protect the bellows better than the Chamonix, which needs an extra cover that also weighs something.

Don't cut corners: a Horseman 45FA without dark cloth and neoprene wrap doesn't weigh much more than a Chamonix with these things.

A Technikardan is also not the measure of all things. There is also, for example, the absolutely excellent Toyo VX125, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYy3xZSJXgQ ...

That is one fine camera...didn't know of it, but really nice and precise.

[Gabe]

A Technikardan is also not the measure of all things. There is also, for example, the absolutely excellent Toyo VX125, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYy3xZSJXgQ ...

I almost mentioned the VX125 before. Indeed it was a camera I had considered getting myself, but ultimately was put off by the fact it had base tilts, a strange proprietary mounting plate which would require a jerry-rigged replacement Arca foot in order to be compatible with my tripod setup, and finally I decided I didn't want to be limited by its rather short maximum extension in the default configuration.

[Joseph Kashi]

Has anyone suggested the TOHO (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm) (not Toyo!!) 4x5 monorails?


The Toho is excellent for field work, if you can find one. I was lucky and found one in nice condition for $625 after looking only a few months., The Toho detaches into two pieces, the collapsible monorail with complete base movements built into the monorail and the detachable lens board-bellows-film back unit. I replaced the original tripod mount block with a Neewer 70mm Arca Swiss-compatible QR plate - it's an easy two-screw direct replacement,

Total weight is about 3.5 pounds. Minimum lens board length is about 6 inches, A 75mm Fujinon SW uiltra-wide-angle lens focuses to infinity with a normal flat lens board. Maximum practical bellows extension is a bit over 15". Stability and rigidity are decent, but be cautious not to deflect the film back when using a focusing magnifier near the top.

This camera takes round lens boards, but can also mount stock Technika lens boards if they are mounted at an angle. That looks odd but works well and is light-tight., I made some spare round boards by generally rounding Technika boards with a jig saw using a metal-cutting blade, This works - the lens board light trap is the same as the Technika by design.

If you look under the DIY section, you'll find the 5x7 conversion that I was able to make using the same Toho collapsible monorail and a new 5x7 lens board-bellows-film unit that clips into the base movements of the Toho monorail unit.

FWIW, I bought my Toho from a retiring East Coast professional photographer who used it for studio and tabletop product work despite its apparent design goal as a highly compact, exceptionally portable monorail camera for backpacking. He was satisfied with it as a studio camera for demanding work.

[Cor]

Another one..

I am quite happy with my lightweigth travel Galvin 4*5 ( relative rare). No competition with my 12kg InKa (Dutch Sinar Clone), but excellent in the field, easy to set up, just screw in the monorail rod..
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/galvin-4x5.398699/

Best,

Cor