Monorail vs. Folding Camera Weight

[Renato Tonelli]

As far as I can tell, Monorail Cameras are heavier than the Folding (TOHO is the only exception that I know of).

What is the reasoning behind this? Is it for the simple reason that Monorail cameras were intended primarily for studio use where weight is of negligible consideration? That a Folding does not require the extensive movements for its intended use (Landscape, etc.)?

Could a Monorail be built out of current state-of-the-art materials to make it lighter and retain its traditional sturdiness?

Just curious (it's a slow day at work).

[rfesk]

Yes - of course (IMHO). Build one out of carbon fiber should get you close.

The Gowland was also a lightweight monorail camera.

[Peter Lewin]

I think the answer has more to do with materials than basic design. Most monorails are made from aluminum and other metals, most of the lightweight folders are made from wood. But there are also design considerations, because my metal Canham DLC^2 folder (Canham has a unique design made from machined alloy) is lighter than almost all monorails. I'm sure that if there were a market for both the camera and the cost, a carbon fiber monorail could be built that is very light. The tubing for the rail and standard bearers already exists in almost any diameter one wants, due to its use in CF tripods and racing bicycles. If you want the geared precision of a Sinar or Arca, I bet the internal gears could be made from modern composites, rather than metal. The heaviest component would probably be the ground glass!

[Michael R]

Such a thing did (briefly) exist. It was called Carbon Infinity. I don't know much about it or whether or not it was any good.

[Havoc]

There is strength and stiffness. And then there is practical use. Maybe you can get everything lighter with those materials but at a point you need bulk. Not because of the strength or stiffness but just to be able to handle it easily. And sometimes you need another property.

I'm always surprised with CF tripods. They should be lighter than that. But then again, they have metal clamps and screws and so on. And then most users just plonk a honking big lump of metal on top of it. Total gain, maybe 500 gram compared to a metal tripod.

So I think it is possible. But maybe you will end up with a very different camera once you've done the design. Just making a copy in another material isn't going to cut it.

[Oren Grad]

Such a thing did (briefly) exist. It was called Carbon Infinity. I don't know much about it or whether or not it was any good.

The Carbon Infinity was more of a flatbed/clamshell camera than a monorail, and it wasn't especially lightweight as 4x5's go.

Anyway, specifically re lightweight monorails, with all the tinkering currently going on with 3D printing, we might expect to see more cameras like this 4x5 Standard:

https://www.standardcameras.com/product/the-standard-4x5/

[sharktooth]

The first 100 years of photography was with wooden cameras, and there was lots of variety. Metal cameras came rather late to the game, and monorails even later. Monorails offered a level of both modularity and precision that wasn't easily achievable with wood. This would have been an advantage to "some" photographers in the studio and in the field. Monorail cameras weren't made to be studio only cameras, since they were all made from lightweight metals for the most part. This allowed them to be portable when they needed to be, both in and out of the studio.

All that being said, there were still plenty of Deardorffs that never left the studio, so it's not like monorails took over there either.

Toyo used to make a carbon fiber field camera, but I think that's ended now.

A compromise is the Graflex, Linhof Technika, or other metal field cameras that offer the smaller package size, but at a higher weight than the wooden versions.

A monorail can work perfectly well in the field, it's just that something else might be better/easier for some people. It's a moot point now anyways, since nobody's going to make new LF monorail cameras of any kind these days.

[jp]

Probably the thing to do would be for a tinkerer to start replacing parts of their metal monorail camera (such as calumet 8x10) one at a time with composite and see what it does for weight and stability.
It would probably be easier and cheaper to just go to the gym and lose 10 pounds than to lighten a camera system by 10 pounds.

[Drew Wiley]

Monorails tend to be modular systems, and can be configured in more ways than flatbed or technical cameras. What you need to keep in mind is cumulative weight. In my case, I backpacked with Sinar monorails for many years because it's easier to balance a monorail on a tripod, saving tripod and head weight itself; and I like to use petite long lenses with longer bellows, which saves quite a bit of weight versus bulkier telephoto design lenses. Ultralight monorails like the Gowland or Toho look just way too vibration prone for my outdoor needs, and are quite limited in terms to system functionality too.

I have supplemented my monorail gear with a lightweight 4x5 Ebony wooden folder for airline usage or longhaul backpacking now that I'm over 70. I also have an excellent Phillips 8x10 folder. But monorails are way more versatile and generally much faster to set up.

And it is more enjoyable to lose 10 lbs hiking up lovely hills with your camera gear itself than running around on a monotonous treadmill like a hamster in some stinky gym!

[Bernice Loui]

In tune with the current fashion of lowest weight LF view cameras. Similar to lens with the largest image circle for the smallest size and largest full aperture, pick two as all three is not gonna happen.

Given a camera film format size and specific camera requirements and capabilities, using current technology and design methods camera weight for a flat bed folder or monorail would be... identical. Historically field folders are designed and built with the specific goal of being lightweight, easy to pack-carry trading off camera capability. A good monorail camera system is modular and will have FAR more capability than any lightweight field folder.

This is why knowing what the image goals are and the lenses needed to achieve this and where-how these images are created should drive the camera choice, not pick a reported "great" LF view camera as THE one... Only to discover the baked in limitations of the ToooT_ed LF view camera greatness.

It is very possible folks new to LF view camera is perpetuating their roll film or digital camera habits and what was learned from all that projected into the world of LF view cameras .. except much of those expectations and experiences gained do not apply in the same way to LF view camera world.. That is when the frustrations and difficulties and more begin.

There are hybrid LF view cameras like Canham DLC (like this one lots), Technikardan and others, These designs persist with the excellence and problems.

As previously discussed lots, there is no ideal, just trade-offs with making a choice of what meets image making needs best.

IMO, lowest weight trades off camera stability, rigidity (aka flimsy and awkward to use) and all those requirements that often aid in effective image making.


Bernice

[Pieter]

It would appear to me that a monorail camera would require beefier components to be rigid and have the extensive movements associated with that design.

[Peter Lewin]

Most of the posts subsequent to my earlier thoughts fall into two camps: either "why bother to make a lightweight monorail, because we already have excellent systems cameras (Sinar, etc.)," or "it would have to be heavier to be rigid." The answer to the first question, is "because that was the question to OP asked," and for the second, if any of you watch F1 motor racing, you can make almost anything both light and rigid using the proper carbon fiber or similar composites, because F1 cars undergo stresses orders of magnitude greater than any camera would have to, and they are made almost entirely from CF and composites. (Of course those cars cost several million dollars each, but that was not part of the question.)

[Bernice Loui]

Lower weight = easier to move = less stable under applied energy ... like wind.
Camera movement during exposure could be an issue.

It's all a trade off.


Bernice

[maltfalc]

i've actually been working on a design for a lightweight wooden monorail and tripod that both fold down flat for easy storage. no budget to actually start building anything right now though.

[Tobias Key]

I am sure that you could make a monorail that was lighter than most, but that is only half the battle. The biggest problem with making a portable monorail system is it's bulk rather than it's weight. I have a monorail and I could easily deal with the weight of the camera if only it would fold up smaller.

[Alan9940]

Monorails are not necessarily heavier than folding 4x5's. For example, my Arca-Swiss F line weighs in at about the same weight as a Zone VI 4x5; it's actually lighter than a Wisner Technical 4x5. And, IMO, the Arca-Swiss is sturdier and more precise than either of the wooden folding cameras. The Ebony SV series were nice, stable folding cameras, but, again, about the same weight (and price!) as the Arca-Swiss. The design of the Arca also allows it to "fold" down to a compact shape easily carried in a backpack. I've used several folding wooden 4x5's over the years and still own the very first one I bought, but I prefer the Arca when working from the car or carrying it over short(ish) distances. If I'm really heading out on a long trek, I'll take the Toho outfit.

[John Kasaian]

If practicality were the only consideration we'd all be debating cell phone cameras :rolleyes:
A LF camera better grab hold of your fancy if you expect to go galivanting around with all that awkward and heavy gear,
or else it will sit in the closet attracting dust.
Maybe a folder, maybe a monorail----if it's what a hobby photographer wants and can afford, that's what a hobby photographer will likely go for.
The rest of the details are logistical challenges.

[Drew Wiley]

I thought about substituting a custom carbon fiber rail on a Sinar, but it would be a lot of work for very little actual weight saving, unproven and hardly worth the effort. Just take along a candy bar for a little more energy instead. I once nearly passed out up around 11,000. I had been up there several days and was acclimated, so I wondered if there was something suddenly drastically wrong with my health. Then, sitting there on a rock that morning, I realized that I had been having such a great intense time photographing with my Sinar, that I had completely forgotten to eat anything over the last 24 hrs! A candy bar cured me, on back on the pack went.

[Bernice Loui]

Putting all the "eggs" into the camera basket again.

After each and every possible technological effort has been put into reducing the weight of the camera to .... 100grams... or less,
The added up or combined weight of lenses, film holders, tripod, tripod head, dark cloth, light meter, filter set and all required to
make images with a view camera has yet to be discussed and all up weight is gonna be a LOT more than 100 grams of
über techno view camera.

Fact remains, making images with any image recorder is a system not camera alone.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Nowadays lots of people find it addictively necessary to haul along certain electronic conveniences which would easily offset the weight if those gadgets were left behind. For example, if you've already got a view camera for taking pictures, why do you need a damn laptop along too, plus a solar panel atop your pack to keep it charged? If somebody is a career writer, and likes to do that out in the woods - fine. I sometimes encounter those kinds of people; but they aren't apt to be carrying view camera gear too. Or somebody might find it necessary to carry the extra weight of a folding camp chair, where there are already all kinds of logs and rocks to sit on - same kind of folks who think they need an anodized forty dollar designer-logo pee bottle in their tent.

[sharktooth]

same kind of folks who think they need an anodized forty dollar designer-logo pee bottle in their tent.

I hear ya, man. The wooden ones might be a bit lighter, but getting the cork out could be a nuisance if you're in a hurry.

[Renato Tonelli]

A friend of mine, and a member here, has an Arca-Swiss Monorail; I don't remember the model and haven't seen him since the pandemic hit. I do remember being very impressed by its modular design. I don't remember the weight or any significant particulars. I seem to remember his being able to put it together and up on the tripod just about as fast as a folding.

As several have pointed out, there are trade-offs to each system.

To be clear, I am not in the market for a camera. I am quite happy with the TOHO for hiking and the Master Technika (and others...) for everyday use.
It's fun to speculate though.

[reddesert]

It's all about tradeoffs and intended purposes. The people using large format cameras now are mostly a different market and using it for different purposes than when large format was the default professional photographers' tool for many applications.

I have a fairly lightweight monorail camera - a Linhof Kardan Standard. Here's some pictures of one (not mine): https://www.oddcameras.com/linhof_kardan_standard.htm It was intended as an entry level monorail in the 1970s, I think, and I guess is sort of like a Super Color with lighter standards that takes Technika lens boards. All aluminum with a nylon focusing track, weighs less than 5 lb, pretty rigid. Sounds great, but saving weight and cost meant lack of certain features, in particular, the bellows are fixed to the standards, the standards don't come off the rail easily, and there's no rail extensions or short rails. That makes it bulky, and about as much of a nuisance to transport as any other monorail. For its intended market, I imagine it was just fine.

It can be done, but whether it will produce the desired result is another question.

[Bob Salomon]

It's all about tradeoffs and intended purposes. The people using large format cameras now are mostly a different market and using it for different purposes than when large format was the default professional photographers' tool for many applications.

I have a fairly lightweight monorail camera - a Linhof Kardan Standard. Here's some pictures of one (not mine): https://www.oddcameras.com/linhof_kardan_standard.htm It was intended as an entry level monorail in the 1970s, I think, and I guess is sort of like a Super Color with lighter standards that takes Technika lens boards. All aluminum with a nylon focusing track, weighs less than 5 lb, pretty rigid. Sounds great, but saving weight and cost meant lack of certain features, in particular, the bellows are fixed to the standards, the standards don't come off the rail easily, and there's no rail extensions or short rails. That makes it bulky, and about as much of a nuisance to transport as any other monorail. For its intended market, I imagine it was just fine.

It can be done, but whether it will produce the desired result is another question.

The Standard handled 65mm and up lenses with full movements with that bellows.
The standards will easily come off by removing either the front or rear stop screw. Just remember to replace that screw and it’s washer!
Longer rails were available as it used the same rail as all of the various JBL model cameras but since the bellows was fixed why would you need a longer rail?

[Jim Noel]

Even wooden folders have gained a lot of weight through the years. My 5x7 Deardorff weighs about 7 pounds more than my 5x7 Seroco from about 1930. My 8x10 "lightweight" 8x10 weighs 8.5 pounds w/o lens. The Kodak Universal had a much longer bellows, far more movements and weighed 7 pounds.
How is that possible - the wood used. Even my new holders for 5x12 weigh 30% more than my original Korona holders.

[neil poulsen]

I've had my stint with 4x5 and smaller folding cameras, and I'm done with them.

I began with a Linhof IV MF Technika. Nice camera, but some definite tradeoffs. I also had a Deardorff 5x7 camera with both 4x5 and 5x7 backs. Not for me. Even a 120mm lens is a challenge with the camera that I had.

Probably the best folder I had was a Wista SP. It's an interesting camera that has bag bellows for super wide lenses. Nice thing about this camera is that one doesn't have to drop-bed the front to use a 75mm lens. Were one to do architecture with a folder, this is the one that I would select. It also has a nice viewing system, with a choice in Fresnel lenses. Still, a fidgety sort of camera; for example, changing the bellows was not very smooth.

The two rail cameras that I would recommend are the following. If expense is important, and one doesn't mind some customization, I would recommend the following Sinar camera.

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

If expense isn't as much of an issue, I really like my Arca Swiss system. For example, the following configuration is a nice combination of rail capability in a compact package.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!/page354&highlight=show+large+format+camera

And, having collected parts for this camera over time, it wasn't really that expensive.

In considering folding versus rail cameras, I think that 8x10 is different. One can get by very nicely with a folding 8x10, in large part because, one can have a very usable set of lenses that don't require a bag bellows.

[Drew Wiley]

Too many stereotypes. Now folders can be made of composite plys of wood/carbon fiber, like Chamonix, or at first, like my original Phillips 8X10 : wood/fiberglass ply, epoxy-impregnated, allowing both light weight and excellent rigidity. My little Ebony 4x5 is beautifully crafted pattern-grade mahogany with titanium hardware, combining light weight with good stability even at full extension. I already expressed my opinion about monorails being more versatile; but when you need something that closes flat like a book, there are numerous excellent choices out there.

[reddesert]

The Standard handled 65mm and up lenses with full movements with that bellows.
The standards will easily come off by removing either the front or rear stop screw. Just remember to replace that screw and it’s washer!
Longer rails were available as it used the same rail as all of the various JBL model cameras but since the bellows was fixed why would you need a longer rail?

All true of course, my points were that the Kardan Standard is light, but it's not the type of system camera that comes apart easily to make a smaller / flatter package for transport. One can take the standards off, but it needs a little care to put them back on and get the focusing track aligned, it's not something you'd like to do every day while setting up the camera. The bellows is super flexible, but mine has pinholes (of course, it's also over 40 years old). It is a neat camera because very smooth/rigid feeling for its weight, in a kind of Linhof-precision-machined way.

[dodphotography]

Best of both worlds... Arca Swiss.

It’s just a smaller user base due to cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteveFoote]

Along this line of questioning, I am currently building a trekpak system to fit into a backpack to carry my Calumet CC400 around. Do I really need a 21" rail or could I make do with a smaller(shorter) rail? I mostly shoot with a CZJ 320mm or a Nikon 90mm, aI am using the Calumet cause I have 2 of them and they are here.

[Ben Calwell]

For years, I used a simple Calumet 22-inch monorail. I could whip that thing out of its case and onto a tripod (with a quick release plate) and be ready to shoot. Less fiddly to use than my wooden folder and not that much heavier. But the bulky monorail wound up taking a back seat to my Wista, which fits into a small backpack.

[MattToTheK]

Yeah, this is what came to my mind as well. I haven't tried it out yet, but it's one of the more appealing options at present; to me anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

By using the top compartment of my external frame pack, I can just pull out my Sinar monorail fully equipped and ready to go, even with any lens on it if I wish, even with an 18 inch rail and compendium shade in place, then just plop on the tripod platform, secure it there, extend the bellows, remove the lens cap, and begin composition and focus. It's way faster than any folding flatbed camera, though I have good reasons for owning a couple of those too.