The Wehman is on the way, man!!

[chris jordan]

Woohoooo-- the new axe is coming soon!! I'll report back after the first trial run...

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Oren Grad]

Weh cool... enjoy!

[Andre Noble]

What happen to your Toyo 8x10?

[chris jordan]

The Toyo got its butt kicked by the dust and grit in New Orleans, so it's off to the Toyo factory for repairs. I discovered that the Toyo has an achilles heel that makes it unsuitable for working in gritty conditions: grit can get into the focussing mechanism and lock up the gears, rendering the camera all but useless. Unfortunately the focussing gears are inside a metal casing that isn't accessible, so once the grit gets in there the camera needs to be sent to the factory for repairs. So, I'm trying a Wehman for shooting under gnarly conditions.

[Steve Hamley]

Chris,

Keep us posted.

Steve

[Paul Moshay]

I had that problem with my first Toyo 8x10 and 4x5, bought used and perhaps used in dusty condtions. The problem with Toyo's are the fine focus slides, as they are aluminum against aluminum, and if a bit of sand gets in between them they gall up and need to be taken apart and smoothed by a competent tech person. Being also a machinist, I relined the slides with .005" teflon sheets and the problem was gone, but I later sold the two and bought new ones to use only in the studio. Paul

[CXC]

Chris, welcome to the Wehman club.

Mine is currently, temporarily, on the shelf, as I just received my new 8x10 Gowland monorail. Gotta love working with a monorail, gotta hate lugging it about. I need a giganto backpack, probably a Timbuk2 Pro.

The Wehman remains my main 8x10, the plan is for the Gowland to be the wide-angle specialist, the only area in which the Wehman is short of superb. Remember that with lenses up to 300mm or so, you can just take off the front plate and leave it in the car, making it even lighter, less bulky, and easier to handle.

[Ralph Barker]

Christopher - sounds like you need a training routine for that Gowland 8x10. Try packing a Toyo 810G around for a couple of weeks, and the Gowland will seem like a feather. ;)

[CXC]

Ralph, of course, weight is not a problem, since as you know it is a featherweight. I was just hoping it would fit in my f.64 Large backpack, as does the Wehman. Well, technically you can squeeze it in, if you take it off the rail, and it would fit more or less okay if you also took off the tilt/rise knobs, but I don't want to do either of those two things. I'm sure I'll work something out with a just slightly bigger pack. The main compartment of the f.64 Extra Large backpack is smaller than in the Large, of course...

[Frank Petronio]

I would love to see some set-up digitals of how people are packing and handling their Wehmans. It does look like such a practical camera, I am taking a better look at one myself.

[Dan Schmidt]

Most of the time I strap my Wehman to the outside of a backpack, all the other stuff goes in the pack. The Wehman's integral aluminum shell-case and very tough so I don't worry about it going through brush etc. If it rains I have a cover that goes over the pack and camera. I'll take some pics and am planning an in depth review after living with it a bit more.

I got my 2006 Wehman a couple months ago and it just great. A couple aspects are a little clunky at first, but you figure it out quickly.

I would love to see Bruce make an 11x14 or 7x17 version of this design. Maybye one ULF design could be used to accomodate a couple different backs. Could probably be a very sturdy 11-12 pound 11x14 or 7x17.

-dan

[CXC]

I ripped out all the internal dividers from my f.64 Large backpack (designed and purchased for a 4x5) and put the Wehman in there. This leaves room for 2-3 lenses in the remaining space at the top, and a dark cloth. Everything else goes on the outside, in the 3 external side boxes, intended for 4x5 filmholders, in the big flat pocket on the back, or strapped on (tripod). Only real shortcoming is that you can't carry more than maybe 6 filmholders at the very most.

Dan's idea above is rather brilliant; since the camera is just about the least fragile part of the system, why not just strap it on the back. However, as the camera enclosure is open at 2 ends, this could become unbrilliant in dusty environs.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

I would love to see some set-up digitals of how people are packing and handling their Wehmans. It does look like such a practical camera, I am taking a better look at one myself.

Here`s how I pack mine: The bag is the f.64 8x10 bag. On top of the camera I place the dark cloth and four film holders on top of it. Then three holders in the outside pocket. I carry the tripod(Gitzo 1325 with Manfrotto 400) in my hands.

[Dan Schmidt]

However, as the camera enclosure is open at 2 ends, this could become unbrilliant in dusty environs.


I have a large stuff sack that the camera can fit in, if I want to protect it while strapped to the outside. Usually it seems fine on it's own. A plastic bag you replace from time to time could work too. A snug fitting case made from stuff sack material with be better.

[Capocheny]

Here`s how I pack mine: The bag is the f.64 8x10 bag. On top of the camera I place the dark cloth and four film holders on top of it. Then three holders in the outside pocket. I carry the tripod(Gitzo 1325 with Manfrotto 400) in my hands.

Amund,

Man, that 400 head is a heavy beast, isn't it? But, it sure IS nice to use! :)

I have one mounted on a studio stand but haven't ever thought of lugging it out into the field with me. Have you ever looked at the 405 geared head from the same manufacturer? This is what I use with the 8x10 Dorff and it seems to manage fine. But, YMMV! :)

Cheers

[Frank Petronio]

Well I've said pretty loudly that I really want a Phillips but I really can't afford one. But I could enjoy a Wehman and save pennies for a Phillips.

I wish these custom camera builders were in their 20s or 30s.... at the rate I'm going Dick will be 100 years old by the time I'm ready.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

Amund,

Man, that 400 head is a heavy beast, isn't it? But, it sure IS nice to use! :)

I have one mounted on a studio stand but haven't ever thought of lugging it out into the field with me. Have you ever looked at the 405 geared head from the same manufacturer? This is what I use with the 8x10 Dorff and it seems to manage fine. But, YMMV! :)

Cheers

It sure is heavy, but there`s no way I`m going back to using a ballhead for LF :)

I have been looking at the 405, and will probably buy one eventually...
But I have to say, I`m pretty pleased with what I paid for the 400. $75... :D
Brand new.

[Diane Maher]

I looked at the Wehman 8x10 at the View Camera Conference and it looks to be a nice camera, but I don't recall what the bellows length was off the top of my head. I thought that perhaps it was a bit shorter than my Ansco is.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

I looked at the Wehman 8x10 at the View Camera Conference and it looks to be a nice camera, but I don't recall what the bellows length was off the top of my head. I thought that perhaps it was a bit shorter than my Ansco is.

The bellows lenght is 30"

[Capocheny]

It sure is heavy, but there`s no way I`m going back to using a ballhead for LF :)

I have been looking at the 405, and will probably buy one eventually...
But I have to say, I`m pretty pleased with what I paid for the 400. $75... :D
Brand new.

$75!!!!!! Now, I'm really going to go for a drink!!!!

I'm NOT going to divulge what I HAD to pay for mine! :)

Anyway, I agree with you... I wouldn't go back to a ballhead either! What a pita it was!

Anyway, congratulations on buying that head for what you paid for it! It sure was a steal of a price! :)

Cheers

[Diane Maher]

The bellows lenght is 30"

Thanks Amund. Turns out it's only about an inch longer than my Ansco. It was considerably lighter than my Ansco though. I'll have to revisit my consideration of this camera. I've been thinking about going for a lighter 8x10.

Diane

[paul stimac]

You can get a 3-4 few more inches out of it by tilting the front standard forward at the base and then rotating front lensboard plate up. I get enough to use a nikkor 1200mm tele.

[Steve Hamley]

As light as the Wehman is, why not a bogen 410?

Steve

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

As light as the Wehman is, why not a bogen 410?

Steve

The 410 is rated at 5kg and the Wehman is a little over 4kg, add a lens and you`re at the weight limit of the head. I wouldn`t trust it...

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I think the 5kg rating on the 410 is quite conservative. I've used mine (in typical camera positions) with both a Tachihara 8x10 and a Toyo 810G, and it didn't complain. Radical camera positions might be another matter, however.

[CXC]

Yeah, those weight limits are pretty meaningless. What matters is the torque it will withstand, which will vary wildly from photographer to photographer, as well as from shot to shot. I routinely use my tripods way over their weight limits, but generally with nice straight shots at inifinity. Then again I damaged the head of my favorite secret tall light tripod (Bell & Howell telescope tripod) by putting a Sinar P2 on it and racking it out...

[Turner Reich]

What is the focus mechanics on the Wehman is it rack and pinion of brass, steel, or other? It sounds like a rigid and durable field camera.

tr

[CXC]

It is rack and pinion in the rear, with sliding knob in the front for rough initial focus. By the way, rear swing is also rack and pinion, asymmetrical. Extremely durable when closed up, more normally durable in use. I find the rigidity more than adequate, less than outstanding, but I have never used any other 8x10 flatbed to compare it to. Certainly not as rigid as my 8x10 field monorail.

[Capocheny]

FWIW, I think the 5kg rating on the 410 is quite conservative. I've used mine (in typical camera positions) with both a Tachihara 8x10 and a Toyo 810G, and it didn't complain. Radical camera positions might be another matter, however.

I agree with you, Ralph. The ratings are very conservative. I've had a Dorff 8x10 on it (with 240 Nikkor) and it hasn't rebelled! :)

Amund,

If the 410 isn't sufficient... there's always the 405, which will support a few kg more weight. Similar head to the 410 but supports a bit more weight. Nice head! :)

[And, far, far lighter than the 400 head!!! :)]

Cheers

[Dan Schmidt]

I find the rigidity more than adequate, less than outstanding, but I have never used any other 8x10 flatbed to compare it to. Certainly not as rigid as my 8x10 field monorail.

I don't know which vintage Wehman CXC is using, but the 2006 Wehman uses thicker aluminum sheet stock and is supposed to be more rigid than earlier versions. He dropped the weight of the back panel and this allowed him to go to thicker stock without upping the total weight.



here is what bruce said allowed him to beef up the aluminum


In the past, the back panel was made from a solid piece of ¼" phenolic
resin. This is an excellent material from the standpoint of wear and
strength, (the lens boards and front standard are still made from this
material) but a 12x12" piece adds too much weight to the camera. So in
doing some research into materials, I discovered what is referred to as
"Aviation Grade Plywood." In a ¼" thickness, it is 5 ply, strong and
dimensionally stable. But the down side (and the reason it is not used more
often in camera making) is that it doesn't have the cosmetic properties of
phenolic or other hardwoods. So for this reason, the back is painted
black. The result is a much lighter assembly, with no sacrifice in
functionality.

The rear slides were cut down to a narrower profile and some lightening
holes were drilled in the side - all providing lighter weight without any
sacrifice in performance.

And a change that will not be evident in the photos is that the rear base
panel is made from a thicker gage material, meaning a little more weight but
a lot more rigidity.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

I emailed Bruce about the new 2006 model, fearing my 2005 model now was obsolete and hardly usable ;)

Here`s what he said:

"You might notice it if you mounted it to a tripod head with a really small
mounting plate - which some people do - but otherwise you would not notice
any difference. The camera that I use is an old one and I can't tell them
apart.
With 150 year old technology it's kind of hard to do the planned
obsolescence thing. You'd have to start out with a real dog to begin with.

The added weight of the base is made up for by the lighter wooden back ....
a trade-off from the phenolic resin that you have... some might call that a
step down....It's just a series of compromises...trying to keep everyone
happy."

[CXC]

Dan,

Mine is from 2003, with less thick aluminum plates. I'm surprised that they have been thickened, as they already seemed great to me.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

Woohoooo-- the new axe is coming soon!! I'll report back after the first trial run...

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

So, what do you think?