Which Canham 8x10 to buy? + a question on lenses.

[J List]

Dear fellow photograpers,

I have decided to move up the ladder to 8x10. I have previously shot mainly medium-format (Hasselblad) for landscape and portrait (travelling) work. I have done big landscapes with medium format by digitally stitching together several shots. I believe I have reached the end of that road, however. It's time to step up in format.

So far I have narrowed the choice of the 8x10 camera to one producer, K.B.Canham. This choice is due to peer reviews and the fact that since I am from Europe, I have a reseller a bit closer here. I want the camera in pristine unused condition - I don't want to worry about breaks and failures as I start to learn to use the cam.

R.H.Phillips (Compact II 8x10) is the other maker I considered, but I am a bit hesitant when and from where I could get the camera. Some sources state that the 8x10 models have been discontinued, and that only 4x5 models are in production. I also need long bellows extension.

For lenses I have previously used medium format standard prime 80mm and 150 mm lenses. For 8x10 standard prime I have narrowed the choice down to Nikon Nikkor 300 mm 5.6 -lense.

As for the equivalent for the 150mm lense (my primary choice with the Hasselblad) I am a bit hesitant. The 600mm Nikon (I hope it is the comparable lense - please don't laugh me out of the forum if it isn't :D) seems to have quite narrow coverage. The largeformatphotography.info comparison chart lists excess at -0,81%, whereas the Fuji of similar length lists 49.60% of excess coverage - but it is a 11.5f lense. I would of course like to have the fastest possible quality lense with good coverage.

The questions after the lengthy introduction:

Cameras:
What is the main (practical) difference between the Canham wood and metal cameras? To me the weight difference of 0.5 kg is no big deal. Any user experiences? I'm going to do the work rough and dirty, on the road. I don't really care that much about beautiful finishing. I need a rigid workhorse that does the job.

Lenses:
What would you recommend as an equivalent of the 150mm medium format lense? Is 600mm the best choice? Am I worrying too much about the coverage?

I'd be grateful for your input,

JL

[Nick_3536]

Any 600mm non-telephoto lens will cover 8x10 with absolutely no problem at all. You may be looking at a Nikon telephoto. Also understand Nikon doesn't make new lenses anymore. Also if you're hiking with this setup sooner or later you might decide the weight saving from slower lenses is more important then the brighter image from a faster lens.

[Walter Calahan]

JL

I own the Canham 8x10 light weight wood field camera. Works beautifully. The standard wood 8x10 has a larger front standard with larger lens boards. I've not notice any lose in my ability to make photographs with the light weight version.

As far as metal verses wood, I prefer the wood, but that's a matter of personal preference.

If you can get a Cooke XVa, you'll get three lenses in one: 311 , 476 and 645 mm. To see that configuration go to this page: http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Cheers/Bio.html

I get nice movement with the Cooke in all configurations. http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/52614d4325c1735a85256ee7005e8edb/7fe9d6d60bdcf96a85256e8600546ed2?OpenDocument

I also have the Nikkor 600/800/1200 convertable. This is a telephoto lens so there is no movement. Yes, Nikon has stopped making LF lenses, but you can still find this lens in the used market. I got this lens so I can go beyond the 645 mm of the Cooke.

If I'm shooting in the 600 mm range, I prefer the Cooke over the Nikon any day.

That said, there are plenty of other lenses out there in the 600 mm range that will give you more movement than the Nikkor. Shop around.

I own a number of Fujinon lenses (mostly for 4x5) and love them. Yes they aren't as bright, but you'll be stopping down anyway with these long lenses, so it doesn't matter.

Good luck on your jump to 8x10.

Here's a page that features what I'm doing in 8x10: http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Cheers/Carroll%20County.html

[Brian Ellis]

"I would of course like to have the fastest possible quality lense with good coverage."

At the focal lengths you're talking about speed of the lens is not very important IMHO. When you get into 600mm and above the angle of view is so narrow that almost all the light striking the ground glass is direct light and that will make even an f12 or so maximum aperture very usable. I'd be much more concerned with weight and size (both in terms of carrying the lens around and the ability of the camera to hold it) than I would the maximum aperture and a slower lens generally will be smaller and lighter than a fast lens of the same design.

Just a thought, I know nothing about the Canham 8x10s, I think they're overpriced compared to a good used Deardorff or a Wehman, so when I bought my 3 8x10s I didn't consider them. But you have some considerations (proximity of dealer) that weren't relevant to me.

[Walter Calahan]

Before I forget, with my light weight version of the camera and long lenses, I use a second tripod or a Bogen arm with two super clamps to stabilize the front of the camera. A wind catching the lens will make the camera move.

[Sheldon N]

Brian is right about not really needing fast lenses. You'll find that in large format (4x5 and especially 8x10) that the depth of field is so much shallower than medium format. The differece from MF to 8x10 works out to roughly 3.5 stops - ie. an 80mm lens at f/2.8 on MF is roughly the same as a 300mm lens at f/9.5 on 8x10 for depth of field. You'll find yourself stopping WAY down (f/32 and f/45) for almost all your shots on 8x10 to get enough depth of field, even after movements. Shutter speeds will typically be in the multiple second range. Even if you enjoy selective focus shots with shallow depth of field, a lot of that defocused look can be created by using reverse tilts/swings instead of shooting wide open.

So, the main reason that people choose a faster lens in large format is for the brightness of the ground glass image. With a longer lens this is much less important than with ultrawides. An f9 - f12 aperture is very useable in lenses longer than 200mm. So here, you'll find that most people will try to steer you towards one of the smaller lenses. If you plan on carrying the camera any distance at all, you will soon find out why the weight does matter. Besides, there are many top quality choices for 8x10 in compact lenses.

If you are looking to go with a two lens kit that approximates your 80mm and 150mm lenses, a 300mm and 600mm combo is ok. I find that I prefer a slightly wider lens when shooting large format vs MF or 35mm. You'll have a greater ability to crop and sometimes the looser framing works well when you are working with landscapes or shots with lots of fine detail.

My recommendation for a two lens kit would be a Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 (not the f/6.3 version which has less coverage) and a Fujinon C 450mm f/12.5. Both of these lenses are highly regarded, have ample coverage for 8x10 and come in Copal 1 shutters, which are much smaller and lighter than the Copal 3 size. In comparison to your 300mm Nikkor W and 600mm Fuji C combo, this would be almost 2.5lbs or 1100g lighter for the two lenses.

If you are looking for a lighter 300mm lens, check out the Fujinon C, Fujinon A, or Nikkor M lenses, all of which are in Copal 1 shutters. In 450mm the Fuji C or Nikkor M lenses are good (though the Nikkor is a Copal 3), and at 600mm the Fuji C is really the only choice unless you want a telephoto. If you don't mind older lenses, a lot of people here like Dagors and Artars, which can also be fairly compact.

Good luck with your search!

[archivue]

the wood version is more rigid !
you should consider the Fuji C lens !

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been using the light weight version for years now. I went with the light weight version over the standard version not just for weight, but also for the smaller lens boards...which also translates into less weight...For a 600 I have a Fujinon C. Great lens. The bellows sags a bit but with the velcro tap, you can pull it up nice and tight. With the addition of a stabilizer bar connecting both standards, the camera is quite stable. I've shot in very strong winds with success.
I've never used their metal cameras. The wood versions have more movements.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hi JL,

I have the Canham standard 8X10. Even though it's about a pound heavier than the lightweight version, it's still light as a feather at under 10 pounds. The main reason I went for the standard is that it accepts larger lensboards which are more stable, especially for large lenses in Copal 3 shutters. In addition, it has more extensive movements, such as a full 10 inches of rear shift. With that, you could easily make 8X20s just by taking one exposure, shifting all the way over to the right, and then making another exposure (as long as the lens covers 8X20), and then scanning and stitching them together.

I've actually only used the camera a few times (I'm more of a 4X5 guy), and am trying to sell it. If you're interested in a like new Canham standard 8X10, contact me offline.

[Michael Kadillak]

Go with the wooden Canham camera. The wooden camera has back movements, it also has independent rise and front tilt locks (two sets of tightening bars) allowing you to put on front tilt with finger pressure and lock it down with much ease without affecting the front rise - a very nice feature. You also have the ability to add other formats to the camera if you so chose at a later point in time. I added an 8x20 back to my 8x10 camera and I can change out between formats in less than 2 minutes.

I personally like the fact that the wooden camera has the machined gearing on either side of the camera base as placing the gears near the center of the camera base on the metal camera because I feel it provides easier and more stable gearing from an engineering perspective.

Keith uses non endangered species wood for his wooden cameras and also utilizes through bolts as opposed to high pitch wooden screws. The camera has some rather unique locking features that are easy to get used to. I have fashioned a velcro anti bellows sag system that utilizes the threaded bolt hole at the top of the camera similar to what I have on my Canham 5x7 metal camera and do not use the side loops for this purpose. I am also not find of the camera "lock" but that is a minor thing. It is a very light weight precision instrument that is very versatile. I personally feel that it is head and shoulders above a Wehman and several other alternatives but I respect the fact that the Wehman is at a price point that affords many more photographers the ability to realize 8x10. And that is a very good thing because it translates to more film sales.

Good Shooting!

[Herb Cunningham]

Go for the Wood version, I have both the standard 8x10 and the 5x7. I like the big lensboards, mine are Toyo size, and they hold huge lenses without any difficulty.

I have the cooke triple and love it. I have a Nikon 600mm f9 in barrel, never use it, it weighs more than the camera, or at least it seems so.

You will be happy with smaller lenses, especially since the canham has the bright screen thingy. I do howver, love to use the 300mm f5.6 Nikon it is one of the best, although the Cooke is equal to it, IMHO.

good luck

[Scott Davis]

I have the Canham wood field in the 5x7, and although some of the control quirks drove me batty when using it in the field, the lighter weight of the design makes it worth it. Even the "standard weight" 8x10 is not very heavy for an 8x10, and I don't think the extra half-pound of savings makes enough of a difference. I do have a Zone VI Ultralight for my 8x10 though, as I was able to get it like-new in box for about half what a Canham 8x10 woody goes for. It is in the same weight category- a bit under 10 lbs.

As to lenses, I would strongly recommend starting with your "normal" lens (something 300-360ish) before committing to other focal lengths. You may find, as many have, that they tend to shoot wider in 8x10 than they do in smaller formats.

Don't be afraid of classic glass, like the 14" Commercial Ektars, the 19" Artars, or the 12" Dagors (if you can find one for less than you are paying for your Canham, thanks to Chinese collectors run amok).

As Walt Calahan has mentioned, if you want a one-stop shopping experience for your 8x10 lens, look at the Cooke triple convertible. Amazing lens, astonishing pricetag, but just about the best set of optics available new for 8x10 today.

[J List]

Hi,

The choice of the camera became much easier. I still have to weigh the two wooden ones in my hand and race a couple of rounds around them before making the final choice. :D

As for the lenses I notice I still have prepping up to do - on shutters, different lens builds etc. I have to do my homework. In fact, the whole tomorrow I'm going to be spending in the rather nice library of the local art university. They seem to have all the guidebooks I need not to make foolish questions here.

I was writing about fast lenses because I want to continue to do portait stuff with 8x10. I would love to just continue the way I have grown used to doing it - natural light with minimal bouncing/fills. Again, I have to do a bit of research and rethinking. In a perfect world I could just go and try this with borrowed equipment - but there's none at hand, and I would also need an instructor to get one exposure during the first day.

The Cooke-option certainly looks appealing. I have seen - but not used - some of their lenses in the cinematography world. I am certainly going to research that and all the other choices mentioned here in the replies.

Thank you for all the thought you put on this. They replies are certainly very valuable for me at this point.

JL

[phkowalchuk]

I owned the Canham 810 standard wood for years. Used for both 810 and 410. Just traded it off becasue I was constantly frustrated by the amount of back deflection I got. If you want something that's a 'rigid workhorse,' I suggest you check one out in the field. If rigidity is critical, check out how much the back deflects in under the weight of your dark cloth. Also, if you wrap your camera in your darkcloth to soften wind effects, you'll see, or at least I did, significant (unacceptable) movement...the top of my camera back would actually move in and out about half an inch or more! I think the steep angle of the back braces and the narrowness of the sliding dovetail design of the back (for shift) are the reasons. Just wanted you to have another point of view on this camera. I used short lens (210) on mine, so I can't help with your lens question.

[Michael Kadillak]

I owned the Canham 810 standard wood for years. Used for both 810 and 410. Just traded it off becasue I was constantly frustrated by the amount of back deflection I got. If you want something that's a 'rigid workhorse,' I suggest you check one out in the field. If rigidity is critical, check out how much the back deflects in under the weight of your dark cloth. Also, if you wrap your camera in your darkcloth to soften wind effects, you'll see, or at least I did, significant (unacceptable) movement...the top of my camera back would actually move in and out about half an inch or more! I think the steep angle of the back braces and the narrowness of the sliding dovetail design of the back (for shift) are the reasons. Just wanted you to have another point of view on this camera. I used short lens (210) on mine, so I can't help with your lens question.

How big and heavy a dark cloth do you normally hang off of your 8x10 camera? The BTZS cloth I use weights a few ounces and works perfectly well. The only thing that I figure is that the dove tail groove on your camera needed a good tightening down with a hex wrench. I have the standard 8x10 Canham and the 8x20 conversion and never have I had a problem with deflection of the top of the camera even with over 20" of width at the top of the camera. The camera simply makes razor sharp cameras in all shooting conditions.

I continue to ask this question every time this subject comes up with Canham cameras and I have yet to find anyone that can qualify a situation for which "camera deflection" resulted in a failure of the camera to make quality images commensurate with what was composed on the ground glass. Was that the case with your situation?

My Toyo 810M field camera is as solid as set concrete in the rear standard but it tips the scale at nearly #14. As a result, the 5# lighter Canham gets the nod for most of my field work when it is not directly out of the back of my truck.

Cheers!

[Robert Skeoch]

A lot of great advice here.
If I can add my two cents worth.... I would buy a 450mm and use it for a while before getting a 600mm. I have the Fujinon 450C and love it but the Nikon's great too. The Fuji is just lighter and in the smaller shutter. In 600mm I like the Fujinon 600C.
The Canham's are great... but I'm biased because I'm the dealer for Canada. Either the lightweight version or the regular would work great for what you trying to do.
-Rob
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

[kjsphotography]

For your lenses witht ecoverage you want I would look at the Nikkor 450 or the Fujinon 600C. Both excellent lenses and both will cover without a problem at all. As far as the camera is concerned I cant offer any opinions as I dont own one of the ones you are interested in.

[scott_6029]

I would consider a wehman as well, if you are considering mostly field work and want lightweight, rigidity and durability.

The phillips are fantastic to work with but hard to find. I have handled Canhams, but have not owned one.