PDA

View Full Version : K. B. Canham 20x24" cmaera



Johnny Eng
2-Mar-2006, 18:52
K. B. Canham announced that he started the production of 20"x24" camera in metal. Delivery lead time would be the beginning of 2008. Look interesting. But what do you think about a price of US$18,000 to 20,000?

Walt Calahan
2-Mar-2006, 19:19
I'll take two. Everyone needs a back-up. Grin.

Michael Graves
2-Mar-2006, 19:28
I just paid less than that for a 2006 Saturn Ion, Level 3. But I bet the Canham gets better gas mileage. And it sure and heck doesn't pollute the air as much.

Eric Woodbury
2-Mar-2006, 21:12
How much film comes with it? It better be a lifetime supply.

Brian Ellis
2-Mar-2006, 22:52
"But what do you think about a price of US$18,000 to 20,000?"

The current issue of Photo Techniques magazine carries results of a test comparing a Leica R9 body and digital back (probably about $15,000, it's so far out of my price range that I haven't even checked) , a Canon Mark Sometingorother (about $9,000), and an Olympus Somethingorother ($1,000). The conclusion was that the Canon with Leica lenses was the best digital camera/lens combination around (probably $20,000 - $30,000 depending on which and how many Leica lenses were bought). So the Canham price doesn't seem unreasonable considering the fact that 20x24 contact prints would blow anything 20x24 from the Canon/Leica out of the water. Of course the Canon/Leica is a little more mobile.

Jim collum
2-Mar-2006, 23:09
hmmm. a 20x24" scanning back.....

ok .. i'm kidding!!! :^)

Walt Calahan
3-Mar-2006, 06:24
Jim

Why not a 20x24 scanning back? I'm not kidding. Grin!

I know there are 4x5 scanning backs, but are there any 8x10 versions?

I love film, but it'd be fun to see if ULF (8x10 isn't ULF) could be digitized.

I can see a whole new instillation art movement of using a 20x24 digital camera to make house size prints and have them mounted in locations like billboards. Art to the masses!

Am I on to something big? HA!

We need to get this technology to Robert Adams! Can we all chip in to pay for it?

Too fun.

Michael Kadillak
3-Mar-2006, 06:38
Keith is a shrewd businessman and you can conclude that: 1) there is a market for a camera this size, 2) he is confident that he can sell them and 3) his delivery time will be met with impeccable quality control and customer service. As long as Canham has been in business and as free as people are to voice their opinion positive or negative within this and other internet venues, I have never heard of even a single customer service issue with their product line. And that speaks for itself.

I personaly feel that the current favorable market for ULF cameras in general is a residual effect of the improved opportunities to procure modern ULF sheet film and that is a good thing for all LF photographers.

It is my personal opinion that when people see the new Wisner price list and potential customers come to grips with the actual delivery time frame, Canham Cameras will no longer be the higher priced anomoly that has driven people to the previously lower cost alternative and some of the frustrations that have beset this infrastructural condition. You may not like the time it takes Keith to build a ULF camera or back, but you will never be disappointed that these expectations will be met and most of the time exceeded and that the product will perform exactly as designed for many years.

Keep up the good work Keith and continue working that phone!

Cheers!

Oren Grad
3-Mar-2006, 08:13
You may not like the time it takes Keith to build a ULF camera or back

Good news for connoisseurs of wacky formats: a close inspection of Keith's website last night revealed that the delivery time for special formats has at last reverted to the traditional 12 months, and the caveat about delays beyond that has been removed.

sanking
3-Mar-2006, 08:31
Last year I served as intermediary for a friend in Spain in the sell of a 20X24" Wisner and five holders. I advertised the camera in a number of English language sources and initially handled all email inquiriers about the equipment. The number of people who contacted me about the camera, including three or four who would have bought the camera but came to the table late, convinced me that at an y given time there are quite a number of people in the world interested in buying 20X24" cameras. And most of them appear to have one or two specific projects in mind that are desinged to take maximum advantage of a camera of this size.

So I doubt that Canham will have any trouble selling his 20X24" camera. In fact, it would not surprise me to know that he alrady has at least one of them sold.

Sandy

Mark_3632
3-Mar-2006, 09:41
Just out of curiosity, how much does it cost to build these things? Sandy, you built one didn't you?

sanking
3-Mar-2006, 10:15
Mark,

Yes, I built one some years ago, but my camera making skills are not anywhere near those of Canham so it is pretty rough compared to what you would expect from a professional camera maker. But it is very functional.

How long it would take depends a great deal on your wood and metal working skills, but for people who have built smaller cameras in the past scaling up to this size is not a big deal, and just in terms of time I would estimate that for the same design it won't take much longer to build a 20X24" camera than an 8X10".

When I built my 20X24" I simply took the design of my 5X7 Nagaoka and scaled it up. If I were to do it again I would probably start with an 8X10 monorail camera and adapt a back and front standard to it than do what I did. In any event, working with a camera this large is a very difficult proposition for one person. I have a close friend who used to go out with me a lot shooting and he helped me a lot setting it up. But alas, he found a new wife and has other priorities at this time so the 20X24" has not seen much action recently. But I do have a couple of trompe d'0eil type projects that I think it would be perfect for so I plan to hold on to it for a while.

Sandy

Mark_3632
3-Mar-2006, 13:23
I was wondering more about the monetary cost to build one. Ball park figure.

sanking
3-Mar-2006, 14:52
I did not count, but I am sure the total cost was under $300. But I also made the bellows.

In time, maybe 50-75 hours.

Sandy

Terence Spross
4-Mar-2006, 20:12
Whenever I see such a large sum for equipment I wonder if someone has actually thought it out in terms of cost per shot compared to a cost per shot for an alternative method to achieve the same goal.

I think anyone who wanted to shoot in ULF would think long and hard about exactly how often they are going to use such a camera what type of shots are anticipated and what lens and focusing range are going to be needed. Even if swings and tilts are normally used by the photographer, are they needed for the desired ULF shot(s). The lens will still be a major part of the price. If in the studio maybe a shutter could be avoided by using subdued light, a lens cap, and strobe light illumination would suffice. Considering the difference between a lens in shutter and one without, it seems one could endure subdued light for the few shots. So, maybe a custom big box camera is all thats needed, and if a client isn't going to actually see the camera it doesn't need to be pretty. The difference in price divided by the number of shots actually taken amounts to a considerable amount of money to offset any convenience when taking the shot.

--------------

Your joking about a scanning back? ----- If the subject is a still life and a digital file is the goal, maybe a a couple hundred dollar frame for mounting a single digital camera in multiple positions (sequentially) makes sence with the goal of merging the files together to a single large file. Say even an 8MP raw x 6 exposures is about 47MP after discarding about one MP of overlap.

bglick
4-Mar-2006, 22:41
After discussing many projects with Keith, regarding custom cameras, I marveled at the process he painstakenly goes through to design and build these larger cameras. He uses some very costly design people as well as, some very costly machine shops to make his parts. After you come to grips with the cost and risks involved in these cameras, I am more shocked he performs the task, then I am over the price tag. As everyone knows, the volume is low, very low. The waste factor on metal is always large, as all parts are machined down from blocks of metal. Its amazing these guys still exist, and I sure hope they continue....

Terence Spross
6-Mar-2006, 12:01
I hope my comments don't insinuate that camera craftsmen making excellent cameras are charging too much. On the contrary, I understand the effort involved in custum design and construction of machines (as I have done a significant amount of that) and I have also been involved in the fabrication of (3d) artwork. These cameras are a combination of both.

I was commenting from a user standpoint, using a tool to create artwork - photographs - and simply suggesting the cost may not be logical in some circumstances considerering other ways to achive the same result.

Mark Sampson
6-Mar-2006, 13:00
Well, rationality is a small part of the decision-making process here. No one photographs in ULF because they have to do it, they shoot ULF because they want to. I admire people who shoot ULF - their dedication is matched only by their results- but 4x5 is my current limit.

Jorge Gasteazoro
6-Mar-2006, 13:07
cost may not be logical in some circumstances considerering other ways to achive the same result.

What other ways?