Metal field cameras - what was the niche?

[ethics_gradient]

I've been using my Rittreck View for 9 months or so; I bought it as a cheap, beater camera for wet plate (generally landscapes) for which it works great. Since I'm already doing wet plate, the weight isn't really an issue. Prior to that I was using a Toyo 4x5 monorail, which wasn't very convenient to pack/carry around but did have all those lovely geared movements. I still have it but haven't touched it since I got the Rittreck, though I did find myself wishing I had it for some architectural stuff I was doing last week.

When people ask about the Rittreck (usually assuming it's valuable, and being surprised I'll leave it unattended for 20+ minutes while I get a new plate ready) I have to explain that it's a really cheap camera because nobody wants them anymore - AFAIK all the current 4x5 cameras being made are lightweight field cameras for people who want to take them out and do landscapes, and those types of cameras do best on the secondhand market as well - Tachihara, Wisner, etc. The Rittrecks, on the other hand, can be picked up on Yahoo! Auctions for a pittance -- it's not hard to get one for under US$100 in good working order with the 4x5 back, and not too much more for the 5x7. If you're outside Japan you need to add on international postage, proxy site fees, etc, but still, it's really cheap. Demand seems non-existant as they don't seem to fill a relevant niche for today's LF photographers, who are largely hobbyists.

I'm curious what the niche was for these heavy metal field cameras originally; I couldn't imagine taking this thing on a long hike, and a monorail seems to be the better camera for macro/studio work. Was it just cheaper than an equivalent sized monorail or wooden field camera? Or was it used by pros who shot outside of the studio frequently and wanted something portable, but also durable? I will say mine has soaked up a decent amount of abuse in the brief time I've owned it, largely without complaint.

My particular camera has markings on the ground glass for a Polaroid back, so my best guess is that it might have been used by a Japanese commercial photographer in the 70s/80s, I'm guessing for modeling (since a product photographer would probably want the more generous and convenient movements of a monorail).

[Vaughan]

I've read that they were popular with Japanese street photographers in the mid-20th Century at the big tourist spots: by "street photographer" I mean people that made a living taking photos of tourists and selling the prints to them, probably with a same- or next-day service. The cameras pop up on eBay occasionally with stickers (or dymo tape labels) on them saying things like "STUDIO 2" so they were probably also used for formal portraiture. Some often come with sliding backs that allow two images to be made in a single 4x5 or half-plate sheet of film. Roll film backs were also made so that marking on your camera may be 6x7 or 6x9.

I accidentally ended up with four Rittreck View cameras: I say "accidentally" because a scruffy looking camera with a 4x5 back is often about the same cost as a 4x5 back by itself. New replacement bellows are being made in China and sold on eBay and Aliexpress and are reasonably priced and easy to change. (Of my four cameras, one has bad original bellows and isn't working, one has good original bellows, and two have new bellows.) Most or all have scrunched-up bellows caused by closing the camera carelessly, a problem shared with other metal field cameras (like the Toyo Field 45A).

In their defence, they are a compact 5x7 metal field camera; as a 4x5 camera they are heavier than a comparable metal field Toyo, Wista or Linhof but are not a lot bigger. Their metal box is quite shallow so they easily infinity focus 65mm lenses on recessed boards, 75mm and longer on flat boards, and the 390mm of maximum extension can take a 300mm plasmat or a Nikkor T ED 500mm telephoto lens.

I have the 4x5 and 5x7 backs, and 6½x8½ whole plate extension backs (one old wooden bookform glass plate back, and one modern spring back). An 8x10 extension back is also available but it is selling for 3x to 4x the cost of a body. The 5x7 backs are now more expensive than a whole camera with a 4x5 back. If you can pick one up for $100 then do so and resell it on eBay.

[Tin Can]

Yes, Precision Japanese construction

The Rittreck was very popular in Japan

It has Micro Focusing capacity with a secondary knob

[xkaes]

Lots of people prefer folding metal field cameras over the lighter wooden models. Apparently they think they are more rugged -- but they don't have more features, and cost more. That's a generalization, but not an over-generalization.

One reason a particular brand costs less is because of poor name recognition -- and availability. For example, Toko wooden field cameras usually sell for a lot less than Tachihara or Wista field cameras even though the Toko have more features and are harder to find.

[Oren Grad]

"Metal field cameras" is a broad generalization from the Rittreck. Most field camera users work in 4x5 rather than 5x7, and most metal 4x5 field cameras are substantially smaller and lighter than the Rittreck. Conversely, if one does want a 5x7 metal field camera, the only one I can think of that is smaller and lighter than the Rittreck is the Canham MQC, and that camera is vastly more expensive.

Good question, though, about what market the Rittreck was aimed at. I can't answer that definitively, but note this advertisement that also offers a studio stand.

[Sal Santamaura]

...note this advertisement that also offers a studio stand.

Does that Kanji text relate the camera and stand to each other in any way, or are they two separate items that happen to share an ad?

[Tin Can]

Read down in the manual

Micro Focus for eye focus

I have one
https://www.butkus.org/chinon/wista/wista_45.htm

Not everybody hikes

[RichardRitter]

Metal cameras in the winter time is a bad choice. Here in New England the temps get down below Zero. The best ice is found at a temp around o degrees. Problem with metal camera you can not work the controls with gloves on. Being aluminum they loss heat fast and become very cold. Prime condition for frost bit.

[Oren Grad]

Does that Kanji text relate the camera and stand to each other in any way, or are they two separate items that happen to share an ad?

Good question! So far as my very rusty Japanese allows me to tell, the ad text does not explicitly tie them together. OTOH, the camera shown mounted on the stand is a Rittreck View.

[neil poulsen]

I began with a Deardorff 5x7/4x5. I think that I was driven towards a rail, metal camera (Arca Swiss) because of its precision, its ability to accept a bag bellows, and the ease with which a rail camera can be extended.

Also, wood flatbeds that have this kind of versatility tend to be expensive.

[xkaes]

Metal cameras in the winter time is a bad choice. Here in New England the temps get down below Zero. The best ice is found at a temp around o degrees. Problem with metal camera you can not work the controls with gloves on. Being aluminum they loss heat fast and become very cold. Prime condition for frost bit.

Winter gloves and wooden field cameras are not compatible either, and as to the metal body in the Winter, just don't stick your tongue on the camera. No problem!

[xkaes]

..the camera shown mounted on the stand is a Rittreck View.

And the top of the ad says "RITTRECK STAND".

[rfesk]

The Toyo 4 3/4 x 6 1/2 Field with the 5x7 back is much lighter and smaller
but does not have quite as many movements.

Added: My Toyo Field with an adapted 5x7 back from a B&J view camera weighs slightly less than 6 lbs.

[Oren Grad]

And the top of the ad says "RITTRECK STAND".

I think that was just the general branding at that point. There were other "Rittreck"-labeled products, for example a series of 6x9 cameras.

[Joseph Kashi]

It's all a matter of finding the right balance for the situation. Thanks to a preference for 5x7 and used low prices over the past few years, I'm in something of a position to make a few subjective comparisons.

My refurbished Rittreck 5x7 is a very nice camera, especially for the cost. They're built like a battleship, weigh nearly as much at 9 pounds 6 ounces without lens or tripod, and are nearly as indestructible as that proverbial battleship - it's a fine go-to 5x7 when near the car. I believe that it's underrated. I've seen ads for 5x7 Rittrecks in View Camera magazine as recently as late 1990.

There's also a new Canham MQC 57, weighing about 5 pounds 7 ounces bare, IIRC, along with an older 3 pound Tachi-style wooden 5x7 and a Toyo 57G monorail that's a beast, even in controlled indoor situations.

The Canham is the slickest and nicest camera without question, but the Rittreck is nearly as useful in the field when near the car. The Canham's in a backpack for situations where the complete Rittreck kit realistically would be awkward in its rolling tool box in the back of my Suburban.

The older wooden Tachi-like 5x7 is super-light, feels fragile even though fully refurbished and carefully handled, and thus carefully packed away in the office to avoid possible damage.

The Toyo 57G monorail is precise and solid, but heavy enough that it doesn't travel more than 30 feet from the front door of my office, if that.

Yes, I do use the metal cameras here in our Alaska winters.

[reddesert]

I can't "know" the answers to the original question, but suspect that part of it is that monorail cameras took longer to become the dominant studio / commercial tool than it seems in retrospect.

What are the first widely used monorail cameras? I think the Graphic View (1940?), Sinar (1948), Kodak Master view / Calumet (1950s?), Cambo (1950s), Linhof Kardan (1960)? The Rittreck and the somewhat similar original Toyo Field were introduced around 1963-65, while I can't think of a Japanese monorail camera that dates back to the mid-60s - I assume the Omega/Toyo View began later, although I certainly don't know first hand. Information on the chronology of view camera models is a little uneven.

[RichardRitter]

Winter gloves and wooden field cameras are not compatible either, and as to the metal body in the Winter, just don't stick your tongue on the camera. No problem!

I work all winter using a Zone VI camera and wear gloves all the time.
When the final design was being done on the Zone VI camera it was winter time and Fred had me get a set of bigger knobs that are now standard on the camera. Reason was we could work the camera with gloves on in the winter time.

A follow photographer had a metal camera that he insisted was the greatest thing since slice bread. Kept telling me I was nuts for using a wood camera. Well one winter day he came very close to getting frost bit.

In my collection of dead unrepairable camera are 3 metal camera that hit the ground. The only wood one was ran over farmer.

[Tin Can]

A positive is all metal cameras are cheap

But not a Calumet C1,

KODAK Master View

I owned both, but sold for their VALUE

please chime in

[ethics_gradient]

I can't "know" the answers to the original question, but suspect that part of it is that monorail cameras took longer to become the dominant studio / commercial tool than it seems in retrospect.

What are the first widely used monorail cameras? I think the Graphic View (1940?), Sinar (1948), Kodak Master view / Calumet (1950s?), Cambo (1950s), Linhof Kardan (1960)? The Rittreck and the somewhat similar original Toyo Field were introduced around 1963-65, while I can't think of a Japanese monorail camera that dates back to the mid-60s - I assume the Omega/Toyo View began later, although I certainly don't know first hand. Information on the chronology of view camera models is a little uneven.

That's a good point - when you mention it, monorails don't seem to have been all that widespread until later!

[Mark Sampson]

Certainly the market for large-format has changed considerably over the years. When the designs we are wondering about today were designed and introduced, there was a significant professional market for LF cameras. Of many designs and formats...
That market slowly evaporated as professionals moved first to smaller film formats and then digital, a process that likely began in the early 1960s. Yet the cameras remain, to be used (and pondered) by artists and amateurs. And by people like me, who have lived through many of those changes.
For example; for decades, Graflex ruled the professional market (at least in the USA). But by the time I was becoming involved with photography in high school, fifty years ago, Graflex had just given up camera production. When I began shooting LF, around forty years ago, there were many photo manufacturers;now how many are left? Change is a constant.

[Jim Jones]

The Graphic View (1941-1948) was one of the most graceful all-metal monorail view cameras with its base-board front and back tilts. The Graphic View II (1949-1967) was less pretty with front and back center tilts, but it had 3" more bellows and rail. They were my most used view cameras. although Burke & James monorails were fine when when working at home or when a long bellows was needed.