PDA

View Full Version : 8x10 decision, final. Lotus or Canham?



Michael Nagl
7-May-2007, 15:15
Well now,
I still haven´t decided which 8x10 I will get... Anyway, all but two cameras I have eliminated from my list, as there are just two cameras that have the rear standard shift possibilities I want (for making 10x16s via stitching): The Lotus and the (wood) Canham.
Now of course the Canham looks better.
On the other hand, Frau Ströbele of Lotus was charming to the extreme when we had a phone conversation today.
On the other hand, the Lotus is more expensive.
On the other hand, that´s not the basis on which I want to decide - sub auspicie aeternitatis, what`s 1700 Euros -
On the other hand, it would be an act of narrowminded chauvinism if I, as an Austrian, bought an Austrian camera.
On the other hand, if it needs a quick CLA, I wouldn`t want to have to send it round the globe for that.
On the other hand, The Big Mutmansky says the 7X17 Canham is better than the Lotus
On the other hand, TBM might be a chauvinist
On the other hand, I don`t think so
On the other hand, everybody keeps posting that things fall off their Canhams
On the other hand, it looks a lot better
to be continued ad infinitum ad nauseam --- so PLEASE all You who have the experience I lack, give me advice!
Thanks,
Michael

Terence McDonagh
7-May-2007, 15:19
Go with your gut. You'll always question yourself if you don't.

Kerry L. Thalmann
7-May-2007, 15:26
Michael,

You are very fortunate. There is no wrong answer to your dilemma. Both cameras are wonderful and both companies a pleasure to deal with. You can't go wrong with either. Both are thoughtfully designed and very well made. Pick one and go take some pictures. You will soon be so busy and happy you won't have time for regrets or second thoughts.

Kerry

P.S. I actually LIKE the appearance of the Lotus cameras, but then I've always been partial to natural cherry furniture.

Walter Calahan
7-May-2007, 15:33
You live in Austria - get the Lotus.

If you lived is the US, I'd say get the Canham.

I haven't read things falling off Canhams. Haven't had anything fall off my Canham 8x10 light weight camera. I've had to tighten a set screw from time to time from use, but who hasn't.

One thing Keith Canham is great for is his customer service, even to people who buy used Canhams. He has a stellar record for helping anyone who owns his cameras. Charm is one thing. Action speaks louder than words.

In the end it's your money getting a tool to explore your vision as a photographer. Get the machine that will make life easiest.

Craig Roberts
7-May-2007, 20:49
have you given any thought to a 12x20? No stiching needed. Both amnufacturers can supply a 12x20.
CRaig

Michael Kadillak
7-May-2007, 21:00
With the strength of the Euro, I would take advantage of the lower costs and get the Canham. All things considered, the camera only holds things static and as Kerry said they are both far more than adequate as upper tier cameras. I love my wooden Canham. Spend the difference on lenses, holders and sheet film.

Get the camera and start making images!

Cheers

Michael Nagl
8-May-2007, 04:16
Feels good to be able to get advice from the grandseigneurs of the grand format, thanks! Craig: No color film that size, so --- gladly!- I don´t have to cope with that temptation.
By the way, I´ve laid hands on a Manfrotto (Bogen) 410 geared head today, looked cool, light and precise. Anyone used it? Is it enough for 5 kilos of camera?

Michael Mutmansky
8-May-2007, 06:21
The Big Mutmansky thinks the Phillips is better than both of those.
On the other hand, TBM likes and uses Lotus filmholders very much.
On the other hand, TBM especially likes talking about himself in the third person.

Some people prefer one thing over another. I found the Lotus cameras a little more floppy than the Canham when I tried it about 7 years ago. The Canham is not the most rigid camera in the world, either, but as I've said in the past, I think Keith made a good compromise of weight, functionality and rigidity within the constraints of the camera design that he has.

In other words, he makes the camera 'rigid enough' for practical use. In this case, building more rigidity into the camera wouldn't necessarily make it a more functional camera.

If you are thinking of stitching digitally, I would not get either camera. I'd stick with a much smaller camera.

I've had knobs unscrew on my Canham on several occasions. I have yet to lose anything, thanks to the little bag that I keep the camera in. After the first time, I got a small set of spare bushings, washers and knobs from Keith so that I wouldn't be totally stuck if on a trip with a missing part. No big deal.

I like the look of the Lotus very much, but I strongly recommend that you remove looks from the consideration. They are irrelevant to the purpose of a camera (it's a tool, not a piece of decorative furniture). In the Miesian prioritization hierarchy, aesthetics, while not disregarded, are secondary to functionality. Who are you to go against the great standardbearer of modernism?

In the scheme of things, both will make fine cameras and great images in the hands of a skilled operator.

I think I would probably give preference to the locally-made camera for the generally idealistic notion that purchasing locally is more responsible consumerism for a variety of reason.


---Michael

Jack Flesher
8-May-2007, 06:46
Two more irrelevant cents of advice, for what it's worth...

I've owned a Lotus and Phillips and messed around with a few Canham 8x10's. In the end, they are all great cameras. The Lotus is probably the finest wooden camera I have owned; everything about it was done right. I found it to be quite rigid, easy to fold and set up, and easy to use. By contrast, I felt the Canham (wooden version) was more wobbly and less intuitive to fold and unfold, though I'm sure one would get the hang of it in time. I also preferred the larger 4-wing knobs on the Lotus over the smaller T-nuts on the Canham, but that is a minor nit.

Regarding the Phillips -- it is a great camera, but not for everybody. It is more limited in its movements -- you still get there, but with more effort than either the Canham or Lotus. This is mainly because the Phillips has no rear movements save base tilt and a very limited, somewhat indirect swing, so everything else is done up front. But in fairness, it is exceptionally rigid yet lightweight, and it does everything most of us need in a field camera.

So, if money isn't an issue, the Lotus is tough to beat. When comparing costs, the Canham becomes significantly more attractive. Both are lookers in my view. Finally, when considering what you really need the camera to do, weight and cost, the Phillips (or even the new Shen Hao copy at sub $2000) become pretty attractive, though certianly not as sexy looking as the Lotus or Canham.

Cheers,

Brian Ellis
8-May-2007, 07:39
Well there's just no accounting for some people's taste. : - ) I thought the one Lotus camera I've had the pleasure of playing around with was the most beautiful camera I've ever seen. And I disagree with Michael about the importance of aesthetics in the tools you use. I certainly wouldn't buy a camera solely because it looks nice but if I'm debating between two cameras that about balance out in terms of functionality and cost but one looks nicer than the other, I'll go with the better looking one every time.

Michael Mutmansky
8-May-2007, 07:50
But Brian, you are perfectly agreeing with me and just don't realize it; that is, if you truly will do what you just said.

ALL THINGS CREATED EQUAL, aesthetics are a meaningful way to make a final decision, but in this case, the cameras aren't equal. Each has strengths and weaknesses that should be more important than the aesthetics of the camera.

Do you buy your cars based solely on which model is available in the color you like? I hope not. More likely, you figure out the features you want, and determine which auto meets that feature set, and then you pick a color from those available in the model you've decided upon.

Unfortunately, I suspect people purchase camera gear based on some notion of aesthetics rather than function far too often. When people finally get past that notion is the point where the amateur ends and the profession mindset begins.


---Michael

Jack Flesher
8-May-2007, 08:07
Let's make one thing perfectly clear: People generally base their buying decisions first by financial boundaries, but within that boundary primarily on their perception of the object's status... And usually, preference given to the later will often drive the initial boundary of the former higher.

Cheers,

Don Hutton
8-May-2007, 10:40
I found the Lotus cameras a little more floppy than the Canham when I tried it about 7 years ago.
---Michael

The Lotus rapid field 8x10 I owned was the most stable wooden field camera I have ever used - and that includes a $9000 Ebony SV810UE. Simply awesome. I now have a Phillips Compat II 8x10 - it has a lot less extension and is certainly no more rigid than my Lotus was. If the Lotus is in your budget, it is , in my opinion, a superior product to the Canham (and a whole lot more expensive too); obviously, it won't improve anyone's "vision" though...

Michael Nagl
8-May-2007, 10:49
Big M,
I´ll stitch contact prints, very un-digitally
- now, as to the looks: They are hardly worth mentioning of course, but among the very few things one can judge from pictures. As to issues such as which one´s more rigid etc., I can choose who of You I want to believe - and as I find the Canham better looking, (less nostalgic, less like aristocratic garden furniture) I think I want to believe that it`s more rigid, too. Also, I am used to metal cameras (Linhof) and the Canham might be called a metal camera in disguise, no?
My head is spinning/ It´s like a whirlpool, it never ends
And as to buying locally: There´s a difference between 4 kilos of, say, grapes imported from California and 4 kilos of camera from Arizona that should last for ever+3 days. Besides, Salzburg is the richest place on earth, I don´t worry about them very much.

Ted Harris
8-May-2007, 11:28
I'm weighng in late here but I will offer a bit more. First, I have never shot with a Lotus just folled with it and they do seem rigid. As for the Canham, I shoot all the time with a Canham 57 and it is rigid. To me, the Canham wood cameras are simply metal cameras in a wooden box since most of the works are metal.

Now, to further complicate your life, why not a Gandolfi? Now, they are the absolutely most rigid cameras I have seen or used in any size. Built like a rock. Solid. Solid.

Michael Nagl
8-May-2007, 11:36
Traditional, I guess?

Michael Nagl
8-May-2007, 12:15
- which costs 3 900 british pounds ---
but I think the Variant looks better - like a Canham, ha ha! But no rear shift!
And hey I am not absolutely insisting on a tank-like camera - just want one that does not annoy me by bouncing around.
Besides, what i want is not, to have a camera; but to make photographs.

evan clarke
8-May-2007, 12:26
Don't count out an Arca. The new 5x7 is amazing..Evan Clarke (shameless Arca Swiss fan)

merlo.luca1961@libero.it
8-May-2007, 12:34
Michael, I had the chance to meet two years ago the owners of Lotus. They are a wonderful couple of people an the products they manufacture are outstanding. In my opinion, since you are few hours away from their shop (a few miles from Salzburg), it would be good to pay them a visit. I never shoot with a Lotus or a Caham (my 4x5 cameras are Wisner and SH) and the 8z10 I own is a Weham) but the gereral impression I had playing in the shops with both camera was that the Lotus :eek: is much a superior product. Consider also that, if you have any trouble with the camera, it can be restored/checked by the original manufacturer just 300 km away. Get the Lotus and let us know.

Ciao from Italy

archivue
8-May-2007, 13:02
i've just tried a canham, i won't buy one... too much wind in my area !

Ole Tjugen
8-May-2007, 13:30
- which costs 3 900 british pounds ---
but I think the Variant looks better - like a Canham, ha ha! But no rear shift!

I'v extremely happy with my two (!) Traditionals - one 5x7", one 8x10". The 5x7" one replaced a Linhof Technika 5x7". There is absolutely no difference in rigidity or flexibility, but the Gandolfi is a lot lighter. :)

Kerik Kouklis
8-May-2007, 13:57
I've used and owned MANY brands of view cameras over the past 20 years. Without question, the finest camera I've ever had my hands on was my Lotus 12x20. While it is seductively beautiful, it is also VERY solid and very easy to use. I've not owned a Canham, but have been out shooting several times with Canham owners and always chuckle a bit watching them fiddle endlessly trying to set the camera up and take it down, especially the first few times during the day. Sure, you can get used to anything, but I've found the Canham mechanisms are needlessly complicated and I'm not fond of the T-nuts either. The workmanship of Canhams is first rate and from what I've heard so is the service. I'm just not fond of the design. About a year ago I sold the Lotus but only because I no longer shoot 12x20 and it was too expensive to keep around for occasional use.

Alan Davenport
8-May-2007, 14:15
Here's a solution that'll make us both smile: buy BOTH cameras, try them out, then send me the one you decide against.

Hey, I had a birthday recently.......

Marco
9-May-2007, 05:32
I had the privilege to try a Lotus 8x10", all I can say is that it's a superb camera...I have no tried a Canham, no doubt that it is excellent too, as other said you can't go wrong with either of them...anyway, I wrote a review, sorry it's in italian (I'm in the process of translating it in english for the LF website), but maybe with a translator you can understand something and it can help in your decision:


http://www.fotoavventure.it/freecontent/MF_Lotus_8x10/index.php


Ciao
Marco

John Kasaian
9-May-2007, 07:36
Have you had a chance to play with either camera? FWIW I'd go with the camera that felt the best in use.

Michael Nagl
9-May-2007, 15:20
Marco,
thanks, that´s quite a thorough review! And everything sounds quite like the camera is perfect. When I see the levels on the Lotus and then think that on the Canham they´re mounted on top of the camera! - atavistic, chauvinist prejudices against American craftsmanship are awaking in the dark abysses of my psyche.
Then again tiny little details like the Lotus logo on the ground glass (to let me know I´m still tuned to the right station when I´m under the darkcloth or what?) or those ridiculous little feet on the bottom, to prevent the camera from getting in contact with this dirty world, or the expensive leather of the handle make me suspicious that here one pays for having an exclusive, finely crafted, yes aristocratic photo-Porsche. What one might call the Wehman attitude - which I like! - is totally absent here.
Lotus wide angle bellows: five hundred and forty $ - - - Porsches may be fine cars, but on the other hand, I think my old Volkswagen looks better. (Alas, Wehman w/a bellows - none.)
All in all, I think I have more prejudices against Salzburg than any other place... but that doesn´t belong here.

Gudmundur Ingolfsson
9-May-2007, 15:53
The best camera for your analog stiching ideas would be a SINAR P 8x10" with the special heavy duty format bearer (glenkeblock).
If you combine the front and the rear shift you will be able to shift a very long way.
Those can be had for a very decent price.

P.S. The Manfrotto 410 gear head, although very nice is good only for a 4x5" and a light 5x7"

Michael Nagl
10-May-2007, 01:58
Hallo Gudmundur,
as far as I know it`s best to move only the back when stitching, and the lotus has 30cm of rear shift; the Canham has 10 inches. And then, the Sinar weighs about as much as I do.

archivue
10-May-2007, 02:04
Arca Swiss Fline ?

Michael Nagl
12-May-2007, 15:35
Hey Archivue,
that rigidity problem You see with the Canham - could You please try to describe Your impressions more precisely? Does it occur at long extensions, or all the time? I´m asking because the longest lens I am going to use will be the 305mm.
Then, the Arca Problem. Yes, the Arca looks like one great camera. Makes me wonder if maybe it would be smarter to just listen to old Mies van der Rohe and buy that ugly, functional camera. (Once bought a Mamiya RZ. Ugly and functional. Never use it, unless I have to. BUT: It was cheap, very much unlike the Arca. Don´t know - Atget, Shore, O´Sullivan, Sugimoto - none of them was using a monorail.)

Rick Moore
12-May-2007, 16:45
I have a Canhan wooden 8x10 Standard. It is a 2000 vintage, and Keith is always making incremental improvements. I use lighter long lenses, the Fuji C 300, 450 and 600. With these lenses, I have never experienced any rigidity problems.

As with all large format cameras I've used, it took a little while to get used to the controls, but I now find it second nature.

John Kasaian
12-May-2007, 17:10
Don't stress over it. Buy a used camera and play with it awhile, then you'll know what features you want and you can upgrade from there, if you even have to. The important thing is to get out there and make big beautiful 8x10 photographs!

Michael A. Smith
12-May-2007, 18:54
It is nice to hear the comments about how easy the Lotus camera is to set up and use. When the Lotus was first developed, my wife, Paula Chamlee and I were the ones who helped them with the design. We placed a high priority on ease of set-up and use. I don't know if "improvements" have been made in the last 10 years, but the original one seemed pretty good to us.

archivue
12-May-2007, 21:46
the canham i've tried was the wood version with toyo lensboard.
with a 305 and without wind it's ok, but with a big 360 apo sironar N it was just impossible to use !
thz last two trannies i have done with it was with a 24O apo sironar S, there was a little bit of wind... F22 t1/30... two blurry images !
I had the same type of problem with a technikardan S45... i swosp to arca swiss Fline !

considering sugimito, shore... they are using an ebony... not the same league as the canham, but not the same weight !

i used to have a RZ as well, didn't like it... much prefer Hasselblad 500 CM and Rolleiflex... but don't consider ARCA swiss like it, they are beautifully made !

Jack Flesher
13-May-2007, 09:27
I think the point is, if one is going to spend for the Lotus, they should look at the Arca as well... Both are works of art in themselves. Very different cameras to use, but both excellent. In general, the Arca will be more precise and very rigid, but take a bit longer to set up, while the Lotus being a bit more traditional. Ebony is clearly in the same league quality-wise, but the big ones definitely weigh more.

Frank Petronio
13-May-2007, 20:08
Once you cross to 8x10, I don't know why you wouldn't use a monorail like a Sinar or Arca or Toyo... they are more rigid and versatile than any of the wooden cameras -- and you can get a used Sinar 8x10 for $1000 USD.

Does the weight really matter that much? It's not as if you are backpacking with it.

Michael Nagl
15-May-2007, 12:44
So, Archivue, I think You have suceeded in talking me out of the Canham... (You use the very lenses I want to have!)
Frank: It sadly i s as if I´m backpacking with it - weight does matter. Still, looks like I´ll have to lug a 5 kilo Lotus, because I n e e d rear shift - and there`s only +/-5cm on the Arca, or so I read in their catalog. (I hereby solemnly declare that I deeply regret having compared Arca and Mamiya.)

archivue
15-May-2007, 12:55
nd there`s only +/-5cm on the Arca... with the 8X10 Arca Fline or the 8x10 Misura ?
it sounds strange !

Ole Tjugen
15-May-2007, 13:16
Does the weight really matter that much? It's not as if you are backpacking with it.

What? "Not backpacking with it"? That's why I've got an 8x10" instead of lugging the 12x16"!

Ther are no roads to the mountaintops around here... :D

Michael Nagl
15-May-2007, 13:32
nd there`s only +/-5cm on the Arca... with the 8X10 Arca Fline or the 8x10 Misura ?
it sounds strange !

F Classic. Yes, that what I´ve read in the catalog. I understand You have an Arca - could You check that and tell me it isn`t true, please? The 8x10 Misura does not exist yet, does it?

archivue
15-May-2007, 15:39
The 8x10 Misura does not exist yet, does it?
i'm not shure... you should contact ARCA
Arca Swiss International
29, Rue Châtillon, 25480 Ecole Valentin, France
00 33 (0)3 81 85 40 60

I understand You have an Arca - could You check that and tell me it isn`t true, please?
sorry, i can't help, i use only Arca camera in 6x9 and 4x5, nice piece of equipment !

archivue
15-May-2007, 17:50
you are right... only 5cm with the arca, same as the 4x5... very strange !

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/pdf/Arcasyst.pdf