PDA

View Full Version : Chamonix Update



alec4444
25-Feb-2007, 07:56
Haha, no, I don't have one. Was hoping our Chinese liaison's (Kerry?) might give us an update on pricing and availability of these cameras. The chinese site shows some lovely pics but as near as I can tell they're still not for sale. At least I haven't seen them for sale anywhere yet.

Steve, did you get one to review in VC? I vaguely remember you saying that you would.

On my part, I'm interested in the 7x17 model.

Thanks!
--A

Ted Harris
25-Feb-2007, 08:10
Alec,

Both the Chamonix 7x17 and Richard Ritterr's 7x17 are reviewed in the March-April issue of View Camera. In the May-June issue there will be an article on ULF film holders, including those from S&S, AWB and Lotus, and the new holders from Chamonix and from Tachihara (Tachihara in 11x14 only). Both articles by Michael Mutmansky.

Michael Kadillak
25-Feb-2007, 09:16
Alec,

Both the Chamonix 7x17 and Richard Ritterr's 7x17 are reviewed in the March-April issue of View Camera. In the May-June issue there will be an article on ULF film holders, including those from S&S, AWB and Lotus, and the new holders from Chamonix and from Tachihara (Tachihara in 11x14 only). Both articles by Michael Mutmansky.

Hopefully with an emphasis on T lock dimensions and compatibility between ULF sheet film holder manufacturers and ULF cameras as this continues to create unintentional havoc among the consuming public.

Cheers!

Songyun
25-Feb-2007, 09:24
Their website doesn't have much information there.
They had 7 X17 model for a while, they are making 4X5 now.

Haha, no, I don't have one. Was hoping our Chinese liaison's (Kerry?) might give us an update on pricing and availability of these cameras. The chinese site shows some lovely pics but as near as I can tell they're still not for sale. At least I haven't seen them for sale anywhere yet.

Steve, did you get one to review in VC? I vaguely remember you saying that you would.

On my part, I'm interested in the 7x17 model.

Thanks!
--A

alec4444
25-Feb-2007, 09:36
Their website doesn't have much information there.
They had 7 X17 model for a while, they are making 4X5 now.

Were they selling the 7x17 model? I saw pics but no place to purchase. Any idea what the price was on it?

I look forward to the upcoming VC reviews of both the cameras and the filmholders. Would be a shame, however, to read the review only to discover that the Chamonix 7x17s were a one shot deal three months ago.

Also interested in Richard's 7x17...it looks like a LOT of thought went into the function of it. It doesn't look like many other cameras, which makes me think it will perform like a dream. He really did think outside "the box"! :p

--A

Rick Moore
25-Feb-2007, 09:41
Would someone please post the URL of the Chamonix web site? I can't find where I saved it. Thanks.

Collin Orthner
25-Feb-2007, 10:03
Try this (http://www.bjshanshui.com/sha/)

John Bowen
25-Feb-2007, 10:43
Hopefully with an emphasis on T lock dimensions and compatibility between ULF sheet film holder manufacturers and ULF cameras as this continues to create unintentional havoc among the consuming public.

Cheers!

Michael,

Sandy stated on the Azo forum last February that S&S, and AWB 7x17 and 8x20 holders were all manufactured to the specifications listed by Canham http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoforum/one.asp?ID=8671&PgNo=&GID=8671&CID=4

I hope this is no longer an issue. I know Richard Ritter told me that his cameras are manufactured to S&S holders. In fact when I was at Richard's place, I'm pretty sure he had holders from both S&S, AWB and Lotus on hand to try out with his camera.

Rick Moore
25-Feb-2007, 10:45
Thanks, Collin. That worked fine.

sanking
25-Feb-2007, 12:28
Michael,

I hope this is no longer an issue. I know Richard Ritter told me that his cameras are manufactured to S&S holders. In fact when I was at Richard's place, I'm pretty sure he had holders from both S&S, AWB and Lotus on hand to try out with his camera.

There are some slight differnces in specifications of S&S holders and the Canham specifications. Lotus is even more different. I don't know about Chamonix, maybe it is same as Lotus. Perhaps Kerry will comment.

Since the issue was raised I am going to attach a word file that shows current specifications for S&S holders. They apply to all holders made after 9/2006, and to all holders except 7X17 and 12X20 made prior to that date. We are working on a website for S&S and will include these specs in the site when it is up. Richard Ritter has a copy of the S&S specifications and has built several of his camera for our holders. I also sent a copy to Keith Canham, but unless instructed otherwise by a customer I believe he builds to his own specificaitons, which I believe were adopted from AWB.

I think that if you buy a Chamonix camera it would make sense to also buy their holders because you would be assured of the best possible fit.

Sandy King

John Bowen
25-Feb-2007, 13:49
Thanks Sandy,

So, with respect to 7x17 holders and the "T" dimension. I see your holders list the spec as .350" and that your spec "should equal the ground glass displacement MINUS the width of the film. The equivalent spec for AWB holders is .357". However, the AWB spec is listed WITHOUT FILM. So, if the film is 7mil (such as Kodak ULF films) are your specifications the same? I think they are, but I'm just trying to verify this.

Either way, I don't think I'm able to focus the camera within a .007"......

sanking
25-Feb-2007, 14:32
Thanks Sandy,

So, with respect to 7x17 holders and the "T" dimension. I see your holders list the spec as .350" and that your spec "should equal the ground glass displacement MINUS the width of the film. The equivalent spec for AWB holders is .357". However, the AWB spec is listed WITHOUT FILM. So, if the film is 7mil (such as Kodak ULF films) are your specifications the same? I think they are, but I'm just trying to verify this.

Either way, I don't think I'm able to focus the camera within a .007"......

No, the specifications are in fact different by 0.007", if indeed the AWB measurement is as you describe. There is no assumption in the T-dimension. It is simply the distance measured from the septum to the edge of the holder.

However, for more discussion on what a difference of 0.007” might mean in practice with ULF I refer you to a chapter on Sharpness and Depth of Field in Lambrech's and Woodhouse's Way Beyond Monochrome, and to a thread on APUG several months ago on building film holders. The relevant information is near the end of the thread.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum147/9686-building-film-holder-4.html



Sandy

John Bowen
25-Feb-2007, 15:19
Thanks Sandy

steve simmons
25-Feb-2007, 17:41
The Chamonix holders look very promising. If you have not already ordered holders from someone I would suggest waiting for the review in View Camera. One of the problems has been the fact that above 11x14 there has been no standard for a fit between a camera and the holders and that some of the newer holder have also had light leak problems. We will be reviewing the AWB, the S&S and the Chamonix holders for tightenss of fit, cooperative attitudes and working relationships between the camera makers and the holder makers, the frequency of light leaks between the hold mfger's and pricing and delivery availability between the holder companies.
Michael Mutmansky is always very thorough when he tests and this holder article will be done to his very exacting standards.

steve simmons

sanking
25-Feb-2007, 18:57
The Chamonix holders look very promising. If you have not already ordered holders from someone I would suggest waiting for the review in View Camera. One of the problems has been the fact that above 11x14 there has been no standard for a fit between a camera and the holders and that some of the newer holder have also had light leak problems. We will be reviewing the AWB, the S&S and the Chamonix holders for tightenss of fit, cooperative attitudes and working relationships between the camera makers and the holder makers, the frequency of light leaks between the hold mfger's and pricing and delivery availability between the holder companies.
Michael Mutmansky is always very thorough when he tests and this holder article will be done to his very exacting standards.

steve simmons


I am really puzzled. You write, “We will be reviewing the AWB, the S&S and the Chamonix holders for tightenss of fit, cooperative attitudes and working relationships between the camera makers and the holder makers, the frequency of light leaks between the hold mfger's and pricing and delivery availability between the holder companies.”

Since the Chamonix holders are not yet on the market (and the article is supposed to appear in the May/June issue, it is hard to understand how anyone, however thorough they test, could be expected to provide a fair evaluation of AWB, Lotus and S&S holders, all of which have been on the market for many years and have undergone many revisions, with Chamonix holders that are not yet avaialbe, as that testing relates to "cooperative attitudes and working relationships between the camera makers and the holder makers, the frequency of light leaks between the hold mfger's and pricing and delivery availability between the holder companies." And As for "tightness of fit" there are no standards for ULF banquet and panorama cameras so I am also hard pressed to understand how this will be fairly evaluated.

I trust that Michael Mutmansky will devise a fair and objective methodology for this study. I don't think it could rightfully include any of of what you suggest, and it should take into consideration the latest revisions that people are making to improve the quality of their holders. I clearly recall a thread from a couple of years back where Michael Mutemansky made some very disparaging remarks about light leaks in AWB holders, yet few reasonable persons would question the latest generation of these holders.


Sandy King

Michael Mutmansky
26-Feb-2007, 09:07
Sandy,

Well, I'm a pretty fair person. If I purchase something that is intended to keep light off film except during exposure, I generally am going to expect the product to do that. It's basically an issue of whether the holders perform their basic function without major steps to baby them. That's what I consider the minimum level of performance for a filmholder.

I don't recall the post you mention, nor am I going to bother to search for it, but I can assure you the the holders I had were completely unacceptable, and should never have been delivered in that condition. I'm sure that even you would have agreed with my assessment. In the end, I had to completely rebuild the light traps to get a light-tight holder.

There are other issues that may have factored into that post I made as well, but they had nothing to do with the build quality of his holders, so I won't discuss them here.

I have about 6 AWB holders here for my 10x12 camera, and have not had significant problems with them, but if I did, I would not hesitate to discuss the problems and the solutions in the article, which is precisely what I intend to focus some of the article on.

To my experience, no ULF holders (with the possible exception of the custom-made Phillips 12x20 holders), have the reliability of Fidelity 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 holders. There are things to know about these holders, ways to avoid pitfalls along the way, and that is what I will be spending time on in the article. If there is room, I hope to show a few light leak samples, so people can learn how to read a negative to hunt down the source of problems, etc.

Ultimately, I think it is important that people have the knowledge and skillset to take handmade holders and use them effectively, and that is what I hope to do with the article. The holder comparison portion is going to be informational primarily, and not be a review per se, because there isn't really much to review. It's more an issue of discussing standards (or lack thereof), fit issues, performance issues, and availability of formats, and possibly pricing and delivery lead times, etc.

That is what I envision the article looking like, but as things develop, I may find topics to discuss that I have not anticipated, so it could change.


---Michael

John Bowen
26-Feb-2007, 10:17
There are things to know about these holders, ways to avoid pitfalls along the way, and that is what I will be spending time on in the article. If there is room, I hope to show a few light leak samples, so people can learn how to read a negative to hunt down the source of problems, etc.

Ultimately, I think it is important that people have the knowledge and skillset to take handmade holders and use them effectively, and that is what I hope to do with the article.

---Michael

Michael,

If this is all I learn from your article, then I will be a VERY happy camper. I own one of Richard Ritter's 7x17 cameras and both AWB and S&S film holders. I can attest that trying to track down and diagnose the intermitent light leak is a major pain in the rear. I look forward to your articles.

John