Intrepid 5x7 opinions

[iml]

I have used a Chamonix 8x10 for the past 10 years or so, very happily. But even though it's lightweight for the format, I use it less and less. My shooting is all on long walks, and I'm not getting any younger. I want to keep it for the time being, because I love it and could no longer afford to replace it if I felt the need to, but I'm thinking about smaller - and affordable - alternatives.

I contact print 8x10, never felt the need to enlarge it, and I want to spend most of the time I have in the darkroom next year making kallitypes. For new work I'm seriously thinking about 5x7. I've used 4x5 a lot, but it's a bit too small to contact print, and I never felt the enlargements were worthwhile over 6x7 medium format for the relatively small sizes I print at (the biggest enlargement I ever make is 16x20, and even that size is unusual for me, usually it's 16x12 maximum). I already have the lenses I would need, the format is big enough for the kallitypes I want to make, and I can easily cut down some of my 8x10 film to fit 5x7 holders, so this seems like an economic option.

There's a shortage of good condition 5x7 view cameras around in the UK secondhand market at the moment, I've been looking at the usual places and finding nothing. I am a working photographer, and even though I'm happy to fix things my main interest is getting something I can use without having to spend a lot of time restoring it. And importing anything into the UK nowadays is such a minefield I want to avoid it.

So, the new Intrepid 5x7 seems of interest. It's very affordable, for sure. I've read some negative commentary regarding design aspects of earlier versions of all the Intrepid cameras which makes me slightly concerned, but it does seem the latest version takes account of some of those criticisms. But I'd be really interested to hear any real world experience from people here who have used any of the Intrepid 5x7 versions (or even the 5x4s, which are obviously very similar). Do you think this camera was a good choice, did you find any intractable problems, if I can expect to have to work around issues, are any of them major?

Fire away. All experiences welcomed.

[Tin Can]

You are in home country!

Buy from Intrepid, I bought their first 4x5 edition. It worked fine and they get better each iteration.

Now anxiously waiting for their Mark III 8X10. The lightest 8X10 ever made.

I am installing their NEW Devere Enlarger Head today as I have waited 10 years to fit a Head to my DeVere 504 chassis, wonderful design.

[Alan9940]

The only experience I have with Intrepid cameras is the 8x10 Mk1 and now the 8x10 Mk2. IMO, they are fine cameras for what they are. I think if you manage your expectations--none of the Intrepid cameras is a Chamonix--then you'll be fine. These cameras work, but precision? No. But the biggest selling point for me was weight! At 70 years young, I found it difficult to haul my 8x10 Deardorff very far from the car, whereas the 8x10 Intrepid enables me to pack it anywhere I'm likely to wander off to (while I can, anyway.)

For the price, I think you should go for it. If you decide it's not right for you, sell it. You probably wouldn't take much of a loss.

Good luck!

[Peter De Smidt]

The price is such that you can get one and try it out. If it works for you, that's great! If not, you can likely sell it for very little loss. Think of it as a rental fee. Another option: Sell your 8x10 and by a 5x7 Chamonix.

[Greg Y]

I'm with Peter, sell your 8x10 and buy a Chamonix 5x7. The horizontal only model is a real sweet spot.

[paulbarden]

I have the Intrepid 5x7, and I believe its the first iteration of the design. I suggest you take a few minutes to watch Mat Marrash's review of it on Youtube, which I found quite honest and factual.

That said, I like mine a lot and find it plenty precise in actual use. My only real complaint about the design (and Marrash found this to be an issue also) is that the only thing holding the rear standard in place are the two nuts at the bottom hinge. No matter how much you tighten them, it is still possible to nudge the rear standard out of position if you're not careful. Just removing a film holder (and either pushing or pulling on the standard forward or back) can result in moving the rear standard from position. Do I have to be extra careful how I insert/remove film holders to avoid this problem? Yes. Is it a deal breaker? Not at all. I wish they'd built it like they did the 8x10 (with an arm to brace the rear standard), but I would buy this camera again without hesitation, knowing what I know about it now. Heck, its even sturdy enough that I can mount my Voigtlander Petzval on it!

My post-pandemic budget these days (meagre, to say the least) doesn't allow for expensive equipment purchases, so I have to factor that in to the opinions I form. Would I prefer a Chamonix 5x7? Most definitely. But I cannot afford such a thing, so I gladly choose the Intrepid, in spite of its modest shortcomings. Obviously, if you have a bigger budget, you should choose something like the Chamonix. I'm happy to live with my Intrepid.

[iml]

Thanks all, very useful input. No, I am not going to sell my 8x10! I can't imagine ever giving up completely on that format.

I get the impression from people who use Intrepid cameras regularly that the design criticisms may be less significant in practice than appears from online commentary, and this thread is helping confirm that.

[paulbarden]

Thanks all, very useful input. No, I am not going to sell my 8x10! I can't imagine ever giving up completely on that format.

I get the impression from people who use Intrepid cameras regularly that the design criticisms may be less significant in practice than appears from online commentary, and this thread is helping confirm that.

I suspect that the people who are issuing the most conspicuous complaints about the Intrepid cameras are those that have owned (or currently do own) the most expensive cameras money can buy, and are making comparisons to cameras costing 10X what the Intrepid does.
I use my 5x7 Intrepid a lot and find it does everything I need it to do. It does require a bit of extra care in handling it and making adjustments, but these are trifling details IMO. Its an easy camera to use, its very light, sufficiently sturdy, and the build quality is far better than some of the very earliest designs Intrepid sold. They've learned a lot about design and engineering in a short time, and it shows in the results. But if you've owned a Chamonix (or other premium camera), then the Intrepid is almost definitely going to disappoint you in one way or another. As many have said in the past, a camera is just a light-proof box with film on one end and a lens on the other. You can decide how fancy/expensive a box you want, but how you use it is the important thing.

[otto.f]

I suspect that the people who are issuing the most conspicuous complaints about the Intrepid cameras are those that have owned (or currently do own) the most expensive cameras money can buy, and are making comparisons to cameras costing 10X what the Intrepid does.
I use my 5x7 Intrepid a lot and find it does everything I need it to do. It does require a bit of extra care in handling it and making adjustments, but these are trifling details IMO. Its an easy camera to use, its very light, sufficiently sturdy, and the build quality is far better than some of the very earliest designs Intrepid sold. They've learned a lot about design and engineering in a short time, and it shows in the results. But if you've owned a Chamonix (or other premium camera), then the Intrepid is almost definitely going to disappoint you in one way or another. As many have said in the past, a camera is just a light-proof box with film on one end and a lens on the other. You can decide how fancy/expensive a box you want, but how you use it is the important thing.

Agree. There’s one thing to notice however. All formats are under 1000$£€ at Intrepid. It differs a lot whether you’re comparing fancy Chamonix’s 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10’s with the Intrepids of that format. Where in 4x5 it could be a bridgeable gap, at 8x10 it’s such a difference that you’ll think twice if you start with that format for the first time to buy a fancy Chamonix.

[Bernice Loui]

Just moving down size from 8x10 to 5x7 reduces the weight/bulk and all related Significantly.

De-focus from the camera.. Consider:

~Lenses are often and tend to be smaller/lower weight and all for 5x7 compared to lenses for 8x10.

~Lens choice greatly improves as many 4x5 lenses cover 5x7 and any lens usable on 8x10 will work on 5x7.

~5x7 film holders are smaller and lower weight than 8x10 film holders. 5x7 sheet film tends to stay flatter in the film holder than 8x10 sheet film. This is often not considered reality of 8x10 -vs- 5x7 and smaller sheet film formats..

~5x7 is just big enough for contact prints. 8x10 and larger does better for contact prints..

Again, much a matter of what the print goals are and lesser about the camera -en- all..


Personally, flat bed folders (Dorf, Technika, Wisner and ... Meh) do not meet the image making goals for a long list of reasons.. Frankly, there is not a lot to any view camera as it is essentially a light tight box that is flexi in the middle. That said, there are a number of very specific needs that limits what works personalty and what never can do with a field folder. Regardless, keep in mind, the camera should not be the focus of your image goals as there are too many other significant real world factors involved..


Bernice

[Tin Can]

I like that the Intrepid 810 has 4 rear struts

I specifically bought for that characteristic

I wish both big 5X7 producers also did that

[iml]

I pulled the trigger on a new Intrepid 5x7 a few weeks ago. Just had an email confirming I should get it this week. Will report back when I've used in in the wild.

[Tin Can]

Great, they are very good cameras

I do have a nitpick

Lens Board "Board dimensions: 108mm x 108mm"

not Linhof size, which many use

I am very happy with my new 8X10 Intrepid 4 as it uses my other lens board size SINAR


I pulled the trigger on a new Intrepid 5x7 a few weeks ago. Just had an email confirming I should get it this week. Will report back when I've used in in the wild.

[iml]

It's arrived. It's years since I've shot anything smaller than 8x10 in LF, so my first thought was how light it is compared to my Chamonix 810. It will get some in the field use very soon, I'm about to start work on a project that is likely to take a couple of years and the intention is to use this extensively for it, assuming all goes to plan.

235407

[Peter De Smidt]

Ian, I wish you lots of fun and photo success with your new camera!

[paulbarden]

It's arrived. It's years since I've shot anything smaller than 8x10 in LF, so my first thought was how light it is compared to my Chamonix 810. It will get some in the field use very soon, I'm about to start work on a project that is likely to take a couple of years and the intention is to use this extensively for it, assuming all goes to plan.


I've found the 5x7 to be very user friendly. My only real complaint is that the rear standard is too easy to shift out of position when removing a film holder.

[Peter De Smidt]

Paul, maybe some higher friction washers would help?

[Jim Noel]

Thanks all, very useful input. No, I am not going to sell my 8x10! I can't imagine ever giving up completely on that format.

I get the impression from people who use Intrepid cameras regularly that the design criticisms may be less significant in practice than appears from online commentary, and this thread is helping confirm that.

I agree, don't sell your 8x10. I'm taking mine out for a few hours Thursday. At 94 I'm a little older than it is, but we both still work, most of the time.

[Tin Can]

Never met a camera I didn't want to try

Some good enough

Some I fixed

Some I sold too cheap

All were fun

[iml]

Ian, I wish you lots of fun and photo success with your new camera!


Thank you Peter!

I've had some time this morning to set it up, do some focusing, try out the movements and a couple of lenses. My main lenses are going to be the same as I use for 8x10 - a Schneider 240/5.6, and the absurdly big and heavy Schneider 360/6.8 (it has a 120mm filter thread, to give you an idea, and the rear element is too big to go through the front standard on the Intrepid, I have to unscrew it, mount the front element and board, take off the spring back and then screw in the rear element from inside the camera). But it focuses it, and takes the weight without a problem, so I'm happy about that. I need to get something around 180mm because I use moderate wides quite often, but there's no rush for that.

All the controls work fine. Paul Barden is right that it's easy to move the rear standard when removing the film holder, the springs are tight and the locking screws not quite sufficient, but I don't see this being a big problem in use, just a quirk.

Loaded up in the bag, the whole kit is much more portable than my 8x10, and I can see myself using this a lot on hikes in the coming months.

Will post images taken with the camera when I've made some.

235418

[rfesk]

The 180mm lens is, by far, my most used lens on 5x7.

[paulbarden]

Paul Barden is right that it's easy to move the rear standard when removing the film holder, the springs are tight and the locking screws not quite sufficient, but I don't see this being a big problem in use, just a quirk.

It’s not a serious flaw, no. But you do have to exercise care in removing a film holder to avoid shifting the rear standard. If you’re the type that just grabs the film holder and pulls it up and back, you’re going to move the standard out of position. Better to get in the habit of lifting the spring back away with a finger and them lift the holder out.

Ian,I hope you enjoy using it! I’ve had mine for two years and it gets used a lot, and I find it a pleasure to work with.

[Bernice Loui]

Beyond the hassle of removing the rear element of the 360mm f6.8 to install <-> remove from the camera, there is significant risk to the lens cell each time it is removed <-> installed. Likely that 360mm f6.8 weights as much as this camera..

More sensible would be to ditch the modern plasmat lenses, then acquire smaller non modern Plasmat lenses to greatly improve the usability of this outfit.

As for 5x7 focal lengths, 180mm has not been a favored focal length, range of 150mm to 165mm has been favored over the decades as moderate wide.

The current 5x7 Sinar Norma in roller case lens set is:

115mm Grandagon (plus center filter), 165mm Angulon, 300mm APO Boyer, 19" APO ronar.. This changes based on image making needs.

240mm is a good moderate wide for 8x10, 360mm being a slightly longer than normal for 8x10. Keep in mind 5x7 has a different image ratio than 8x10 making focal length translations not quite direct.

Regardless, might discover the image quality difference between 8x10 -vs- 5x7 to be a lot less than believed and there are a lot more advantages to 5x7 in weight/size/bulk of the overall outfit and the choices of lenses is going to be the best overall of all the sheet film format.


Bernice






Thank you Peter!

I've had some time this morning to set it up, do some focusing, try out the movements and a couple of lenses. My main lenses are going to be the same as I use for 8x10 - a Schneider 240/5.6, and the absurdly big and heavy Schneider 360/6.8 (it has a 120mm filter thread, to give you an idea, and the rear element is too big to go through the front standard on the Intrepid, I have to unscrew it, mount the front element and board, take off the spring back and then screw in the rear element from inside the camera). But it focuses it, and takes the weight without a problem, so I'm happy about that. I need to get something around 180mm because I use moderate wides quite often, but there's no rush for that.

All the controls work fine. Paul Barden is right that it's easy to move the rear standard when removing the film holder, the springs are tight and the locking screws not quite sufficient, but I don't see this being a big problem in use, just a quirk.

Loaded up in the bag, the whole kit is much more portable than my 8x10, and I can see myself using this a lot on hikes in the coming months.

Will post images taken with the camera when I've made some.

235418

[Peter De Smidt]

One thing to remember: Exposures in LF photography, especially with filters and slower film, can easily be longer than 1 second. That means that you don't really need a shutter. There are a lot of great 300-500mm lenses that are relatively compact, high quality, and not too expensive. For example, a few of us picked up brand new 360mm Commercial Ektar clones for $100 a few years ago. They are really good lenses.

I'm with Bernice on this one. I wouldn't use that big 360mm on your Intrepid.

[Bernice Loui]

Those days of Commercial Ektar clones at bargain prices are mostly gone today due to the current fashion of LF view camera sheet image making. Seems folks have figured out Kodak Commercial EKtars and f4.5 Ektars are desirable followed by sticker shock... followed by a search on the web to discover the Commercial Ektar and f4.5 Ektar Tessar formula clones (some are excellent, some less so) which drives up their market value..

Seems the days of extreme value LF view camera lenses has passed... for now,
Bernice



For example, a few of us picked up brand new 360mm Commercial Ektar clones for $100 a few years ago. They are really good lenses.

[Peter De Smidt]

I just looked on ebay, and there's a KEH bargain 360 Ronar for $216, an APO Nikkor for $160, a Boyer for $260....One thing to watch: if you want to use standard metric thread filters, make sure whatever you buy has them!

Lenses don't have to have state of the art optical quality to make great large format images.

[iml]

Guys, I've been shooting large format for a very long time, I'm no beginner at this and understand what I'm doing. I appreciate you're trying to help but you're not talking to a beginner. I'm also not in the US, but the UK, where lens choices, prices, and availability are very different.

[Peter De Smidt]

Gotchya, Ian. Sorry about that.

[iml]

No problem Peter, I appreciate you're trying to help, ignore my grouchiness!

[Oslolens]

Schneider 360/6.8 .... the rear element is too big to go through the front standard on the Intrepid,



What is the size of the rear, please?

Sent fra min SM-S901B via Tapatalk

[Tin Can]

too small

which is why I bought 8X10 IV Intrepid

it has SINAR size lens boards and a BIG hole

in fact as big as they could make it

[keechoon]

Anyone tried a 90mm lens on it? According to the website, the minimum bellow draw is 90mm but the recommended widest lens is 120mm.

[John Layton]

The possible issue (barring anything structural with the camera) with a 90mm lens with a "90mm minimum" bellows draw is that the bellows might then be in such a state of compression that very little movement (especially lateral) would even be possible.

If the above is the case...then the recommendation for 120mm as a minimum focal length would equate to what might be considered a "minimum useful draw." Make sense?

[keechoon]

Yep sounds right. Thanks!

[iml]

Yes, I doubt a 90mm would work too well for exactly the reason John gives.

[iml]

Should have some images from this camera soon, just need to make time to head out on a hike with it. Frustrating.

[Corran]

Yes, I doubt a 90mm would work too well for exactly the reason John gives.

A 90mm is generally not going to provide much room for movement, so there isn't much reason to worry about whether you can do 3 inches of front rise. The most useful movement, tilt, can be performed from the rear of the camera.

If you have a Schneider 90mm XL and do want to max out frontal movements on 5x7, yes probably a better choice of camera should be considered.

[iml]

Finally managed to get out in the field with it for a hike. Very happy with it. It's lightweight, but substantial enough, and all the controls and knobs do their jobs just fine; they're a little stiff to use compared to the Chamonix, and don't lock quite so tightly, so things can move a bit, but I'm a slow and deliberate kind of photographer anyway, used to double and triple checking everything, so that's no problem. I shot 4 sheets with it, should develop those this week. Looking forward to seeing the results.

236373

[iml]

The first two sheets look good, no light leaks or problems.

236379

[iml]

Quick contact print. Aiming for high contrast negs for salt and kallitype printing, I think I hit it. Foma 100 @64, Pyrocat HD 1+1+100, 11.5 minutes

236437

[paulbarden]

Quick contact print. Aiming for high contrast negs for salt and kallitype printing, I think I hit it. Foma 100 @64, Pyrocat HD 1+1+100, 11.5 minutes

236437

Ian, if you were able to make a print on silver gelatin paper with that negative, then its not nearly dense enough in the high values to work well as a salt print negative. Have you made salt prints from in-camera negatives before? They have to have more high value density than a negative for Kallitypes/PtPd prints.

[iml]

Paul - yes, I have made salt prints. This was not easy to make work as a silver gelatin print, I think it'll work for salt (my usual desired end result is quite low contrast). But my main interest is kallitypes, so if it doesn't quite work out with salt I won't be too upset.