PDA

View Full Version : Ebony Whole-plate Deal Possible



Richard K.
28-Aug-2007, 08:49
This is a branch off the "Depressing Statement re Film" thread. On suggestion, I contacted Ebony to see about a discount with a bulk order. I received a reply from Ian Wilson which I quoted in the "Depressing Statement re Film" thread. I've since got another e-mail from Ian Wilson indicating, correctly, that he was just speculating about a possible discount even though Hiromi indicated one was possible and that it was OK to mention this in the forum but to paraphrase him and not bind him to a definite discount. The paraphrase follows:

Hiromi did say that a price reduction would be possible, however the camera would still cost more than an SV810. The main problem is the expense of having high-quality titanium parts custom-made - even 5 sets of each won't bring the price down very much.

Also, there's no need to order through one dealer, each individual could order through their dealer, but Hiromi would need to get 5 confirmed orders from his dealers at the same time (or within a week, say).

Originally, it was suggested that a price possibly half-way between the whole-plate and the SV8x10 might be possible. If that were the case, that's a savings of about$1250, more than enough for a few good lunches out and even enough for film and holders. So, if there's interest, we should coordinate the orders so that they are placed within a week's duration (but not necessarily within this week!). Can we sum up intentions here in this thread and if we ARE ordering, perhaps do so the week of September 3rd or 10th and let our dealers know about the possible discount from Hiromi.
I hope the interest is there!

Richard K.
28-Aug-2007, 09:19
Here's what we're talking about folks!

https://secure.netsolhost.com/badgergraphic.com/store/images/products/2376_large.jpg

Ain't she beautiful!! :o

Sal Santamaura
28-Aug-2007, 09:36
Here's what we're talking about folks!...Ain't she beautiful!! :oYes, but I much prefer the digisnap I took of my camera to that one Ebony shot (when it had a different bellows temporarily installed). I think Ebony captured its image under fluorescent light; mine was illuminated by an overcast sky, and shows a Lotus holder inserted in the back.

Caracalla
28-Aug-2007, 09:40
!!! Beautiful !!!

What is the total price and can you shoot 8x10 on it?

wfwhitaker
28-Aug-2007, 09:47
...can you shoot 8x10 on it?

Huh??? I think you missed the point...

Joanna Carter
28-Aug-2007, 10:04
!!! Beautiful !!!

What is the total price and can you shoot 8x10 on it?

Sure, just nail an extension box on the back ;) :D :confused:

Hint, it's a whole plate camera (8.5"x6.5")

Richard K.
28-Aug-2007, 10:07
Yes, but I much prefer the digisnap I took of my camera to that one Ebony shot (when it had a different bellows temporarily installed). I think Ebony captured its image under fluorescent light; mine was illuminated by an overcast sky, and shows a Lotus holder inserted in the back.

WOW Even more beautifuller!!

John Ossi
28-Aug-2007, 14:08
I am interested and will order one if this quantity discount happens. We will need to know exactly which week to place the order, and also whether the minimum number have committed to this.

Stephen Willard
28-Aug-2007, 14:15
I just tuned in, and I do not know what a Whole-Plate camera is. Can anybody tell me?

Sal Santamaura
28-Aug-2007, 14:23
I just tuned in, and I do not know what a Whole-Plate camera is. Can anybody tell me?It's a view camera like any other, but makes images nominally 6.5 x 8.5 inches. The camera and holders are lighter and less voluminous than comparable 8x10 versions, but they make negatives that are still big enough for contact prints that don't require squinting to see, not to mention being a bit more rectangular than 8x10's squarish aspect ratio.

Robert Skeoch
28-Aug-2007, 14:50
I have the price on my website at Canadian $8400. If we knock the US$1250 off we get to about Canadian$7100 give or take a few bucks for shipping etc. Of course this only works if the discount is as good as the $1250 mentioned.

It would be nice if we can change the whole plate camera from a "Special Order" to a regular item.... since Ebony has been taking a 50% downpayment on special orders but not on regular items.
Just something to think about although I haven't talked with Ian about the pricing yet.

Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

Richard K.
28-Aug-2007, 15:24
I am interested and will order one if this quantity discount happens. We will need to know exactly which week to place the order, and also whether the minimum number have committed to this.

Thanks John, just THREE more to go :) ...Come on folks, we won't get a chance to save $1000+ again! Shall I remind you that life is short and that someone's after our carbon* and that we absolutely deserve this indulgence, not to mention that we are buying a stunning work of craftsmanship! Can you put a dollar figure on the sense of communion that you'll experience with the people and history before us? We'll know when we hit the minimum just by monitoring this thread. I suggest that we all place our orders with our respective dealers the Monday after we get the 3 more commitments - I'm hoping Sept. 10!

* sorry, I'm actually starting to like some of my younger son's music (this one by Modest Mouse is called "Parting of the Sensory" and contains the cheerful repeated lines "Some day you will die somehow and Something's going to steal your carbon")

Steve Hamley
28-Aug-2007, 15:24
Folks,

How about a camera that can shoot 8x10, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2, 5x7, and 4x5? That's a SV810, reducing backs, and a Sharpie marker (for 6-1/2 x 8-1/2").

Carry an 8x10 for the price difference? You bet! And that's the price difference of the camera, holders and special order film.

The 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 concept is a great one, and as noted by other in previous posts, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 is a "natural" format into an 11 x 14 mat. But it's better (IMO) to shoot 8x10 and crop in the printing - or if you really want the format, a pair of scissors.

Steve

Ash
28-Aug-2007, 15:34
Steve your thoughts are similar to mine.

I'm more tempted to find an older 8x10 and then purchase or make a WP back, as that would end up more economical than a dedicated WP in my case.

Richard K.
28-Aug-2007, 15:37
Folks,

How about a camera that can shoot 8x10, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2, 5x7, and 4x5? That's a SV810, reducing backs, and a Sharpie marker (for 6-1/2 x 8-1/2").

Carry an 8x10 for the price difference? You bet! And that's the price difference of the camera, holders and special order film.

The 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 concept is a great one, and as noted by other in previous posts, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 is a "natural" format into an 11 x 14 mat. But it's better (IMO) to shoot 8x10 and crop in the printing - or if you really want the format, a pair of scissors.

Steve

Steve, that undoubtedly occurred to some of us but it flies against our sensibility and desire for a purer communion.... :)
Crop with scissors? :eek: :rolleyes:

David Karp
28-Aug-2007, 15:40
I contacted Ebony regarding their SV WP camera. Just over one week ago, they told me that it was no longer a special order item, and it must be ordered via one of their regular dealers.

For what it is worth, I also asked if they would consider building something like a WP version of an RW45. The response was that it would take a minimum order of five cameras to get the price to a "reasonable level." Understandably, an order for a single WP RW-type camera would cost as much as the SV WP camera, because of the many one-of-a-kind custom parts required.

I am somewhat interested in a modern WP camera, but at just over $7,000.00, I just cannot justify the cost.

Rob_5419
28-Aug-2007, 15:47
Wow Richard.

Can't believe this is happening so fast!

Btw - have you posted this message on the Gadget Acquisition Syndrome Photography Forums? It might deserve a wider audience.

Personally I think September (first/second week) is cutting it too soon. My son's university bills come next month, and given the toss up between paying for his university qualifications or getting a whole plate camera, I'd go for a whole plate camera any day, what with the kind of grades he's getting. Plus I'm still on holiday like most people.

Okay - you guys go for the Ebony, and leave me with that vintage junk of a Gandolfi on UK Ebay that's due to finish in 12 hours, okay? :)

David - the Chamonix option might be appealing - I've put myself down on the list since its movements look superb and it's a practical user camera. Hugo tells us that production would be within 6 months. I don't know if you know, but Argentum, the European manufacturer is also in the throes of making a whole plate camera on custom order, however that will take a 1 year waiting list.

Good luck Richard & John - hope it works out!

David Karp
28-Aug-2007, 15:49
How about a camera that can shoot 8x10, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2, 5x7, and 4x5? That's a SV810, reducing backs, and a Sharpie marker (for 6-1/2 x 8-1/2").

Carry an 8x10 for the price difference? You bet! And that's the price difference of the camera, holders and special order film.

The 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 concept is a great one, and as noted by other in previous posts, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 is a "natural" format into an 11 x 14 mat. But it's better (IMO) to shoot 8x10 and crop in the printing - or if you really want the format, a pair of scissors.

I think that for at least a few of us, the size of the camera + the size of the contact printed negative is what makes the WP size so attractive. I have carried both an 8x10 and an Improved Seneca WP camera in my backpack. Forgetting about the weight differences (I carried a heavy 8x10) the logistics of carrying the 8x10 and the holders made it a deal killer for me. I did not enjoy it very much. Not so the WP.

Than, take all that and add the fact that many lenses that already work with our 4x5 cameras will cover WP with movement, but will not cover 8x10. I have four: 180mm Fujinon W, 210mm Caltar II-N, 300mm Nikkor M, 450mm Fujinon C. A couple of those happen to cover 8x10 with movement, one might just barely cover with no movements, and the other will not cover for sure. Especially for those who don't go very long for 4x5, a whole new set of lenses may be required for 8x10.

Steve Hamley
28-Aug-2007, 17:02
Dave,

Not necessarily so! Covering my 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 marks on my 8x10 GG takes no more lens than for the WP camera. And what's the weight difference between a Kodak 2D and the Ebony WP? Not much I think, and the 2D may be even lighter. Not the build quality of course, and for the record, I own 3 Ebonys and recommend them over any other flat-bed field camera.

And 8x10 holders are relatively cheap and abundant, 8x10 film is also readily available in many emulsions, so the "logistical" factor weighs to 8x10.

If it's worth ten thousand dollars for a special camera, special (or old) holders, and special order film - or cutting down 8x0 film pre-exposure rather than post exposure, then go for it. I know I would if I thought it was worth it. After looking at the WP marks on my 8x10 GG I decided it wasn't. I'd advise everyone to do the same before shelling out for ANY brand new WP camera.

And there are tons of excellent lenses that will cover 8x10 at dirt-cheap prices, as Jim Galli and many others have shown.

Steve

Rob_5419
28-Aug-2007, 18:30
How about a camera that can shoot 8x10, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2, 5x7, and 4x5? That's a SV810, reducing backs, and a Sharpie marker (for 6-1/2 x 8-1/2").

I can understand multiple format users and being flexible, but this is a bit OTT! At what point is the core issue related to the photographer's indecisiveness or confusion about which format to settle on?

The rationale for choosing an ancient Kodak 2D versus a modern whole plate camera capable of full technical movements is a non-comparison; I think you might be missing the point: the Ebony whole plate camera is the first technical camera with an extensive and full range of movements in any whole plate camera. Gandolfis; Sandersons; Houghtons; Camelots etc all were whole plate - however it took over 20 years just for Sanderson to pioneer the front tilt system which has now become standard in most field/technical cameras. I don't think a Kodak 2D compares at all; no rear rise; limited rear swing; no rear shift; similar limitations in front movements and it weighed in at 9lbs without the front extension panel, which added another 3 pounds onto the camera.

Following the logic above - I fail to see why you settle on 8x10. Why not 11x14 then? There is ample film in that format. And why settle for 11x14 if not 8x10? Why not 17x14, or 24x20? The argument through size alone doesn't make sense to me, partly because I'm croaking under the weight of what I carry as a 4x5 LF kit already...




The 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 concept is a great one, and as noted by other in previous posts, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 is a "natural" format into an 11 x 14 mat. But it's better (IMO) to shoot 8x10 and crop in the printing - or if you really want the format, a pair of scissors.

Errrr...okay! Take care with those scissors. The thought of 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 being a 'natural' format into an 11x 14 mounting mat isnt the first thought that comes to my mind. The book sized image, which is handholdable and personal does. You might not see the point of whole plate format, because your background makes you think of exhibition or mounted prints.

Anyone following the whole plate format threads in this forum will recognise the historical derivation of photography and its relationship to the whole plate format; the antithesis of the modern digital snapshot era by retracing the whole plate format roots. And the fact that whole plate film is only available in black and white: it's a minimalist philosophy - less is more. Not more is more. More is backaching! It's an exciting revolution in photography, one which can seem so banal because 8x10" format can indeed be cropped down to 2" x 2 1/4 inch squares if you so wish, or whole plate.

I'm fed up of using scissors. They're a safety hazard anyway.

By the way - my whole plate Charten weighs less than 4lbs. A Sanderson whole plate camera weighs less than 6 lbs. Forget the Kodak 2D - it's too heavy for a field camera and its movements too limited. At the least, I think we have to compare like with like, and the whole plate Ebony is only going to appeal to the upper echelons of the whole plate market....

David Karp
28-Aug-2007, 21:53
Covering my 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 marks on my 8x10 GG takes no more lens than for the WP camera. And what's the weight difference between a Kodak 2D and the Ebony WP?

Absolutely, a lens that covers 6.5 x 8.5 on a WP camera will cover 6.5 x 8.5 of a sheet of 8x10 film held on the back of an 8x10 camera. That is a great option if you like carrying the 8x10 and the bigger 8x10 holders around on your back.

For me, the added size of the 8x10 camera and all of the holders is the deal killer. With a WP camera I can carry the camera, 4 lenses, and my two WP holders in my backpack. There looks to be room for another holder (go Fotoman), perhaps even two more.

After evaluating the possibilities, I decided to go with the WP size. An 8x10 is not an acceptable solution for me. I don't expect everyone to agree. I just wanted to state one person's reasons for not adopting your solution.

Yes, the price for the Ebony WP is too much for me. I have no intention of buying one. But, there are other choices for far less money. And for the time being, I have an Improved Seneca that I purchased from Mr. Galli for $275 that I "further improved" with a new bellows.

robert
29-Aug-2007, 03:32
Is this camera for shooting 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 film? Or does it have an actual wet-plate back for loading wet-plate collodion glass plates? If it is meant for use with a film holder then it is not actually a wet-plate back. If that is the case it is just adapting to the WP format size and it is not actually a WP camera. If the goal is to shoot 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 film then a more cost friendly fix would be to have a reducing back made for your 8x10. Maybe I'm missing something here.

clay harmon
29-Aug-2007, 03:52
Whole plate is a size, not a method. WP is referring to the Whole Plate format. It does not mean that you have to use wet plates. That is a whole different thing.


Is this camera for shooting 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 film? Or does it have an actual wet-plate back for loading wet-plate collodion glass plates? If it is meant for use with a film holder then it is not actually a wet-plate back. If that is the case it is just adapting to the WP format size and it is not actually a WP camera. If the goal is to shoot 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 film then a more cost friendly fix would be to have a reducing back made for your 8x10. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Nick_3536
29-Aug-2007, 04:06
I can understand multiple format users and being flexible, but this is a bit OTT! At what point is the core issue related to the photographer's indecisiveness or confusion about which format to settle on?


By the way - my whole plate Charten weighs less than 4lbs. A Sanderson whole plate camera weighs less than 6 lbs. Forget the Kodak 2D - it's too heavy for a field camera and its movements too limited. At the least, I think we have to compare like with like, and the whole plate Ebony is only going to appeal to the upper echelons of the whole plate market....

Reducing backs are much cheaper then whole new cameras. For my camera a reducing back was less then 10% extra. That made the entry into 4x10 a no brainer. They also let you reuse all the other bits. Bag bellows,lensboards etc. You can shoot two formats without carrying two cameras. They aren't without issues of course. You're left with a bigger and likely heavier camera. You need to carry that extra back if you intend to use it. OTOH for those of us who can't justify a whole new camera for a seldom used format reducing backs are great.

The Ebony whole plate isn't much smaller or lighter then the 8x10 Ebony. Or is it? I think for some of us that's the confusion. Even with the discount the price jump between the 8x10 and the WP is something people notice.

robert
29-Aug-2007, 04:15
I guess I could have asked this much simplier. I shoot wet plates and film. I take it this is for film in the whole plate size of 6 1/2x 8 1/2. It doesn't actually have a wet-plate back. If that is the case then a much more cost friendly fix would be to have a reducing back made for your 8x10 to accept 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 film holders as opposed to paying out the big bucks for an Ebony. or if you really want an Ebony why not buy their 8x10 and have them make a reducing back for it. Then you would have the best of both worlds 8x10 and 6 1/2 x 8 1/2. It would probably be much easier and cheaper for Ebony to do this application than to have a special order camera built.

robert
29-Aug-2007, 04:33
As far as film holders go. I'm pretty sure AWB will build this format. If you give Alan a call he would probably build a reducing back to fit any 8x10 to accept the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 format too.

D. Bryant
29-Aug-2007, 04:53
Crop with scissors? :eek: :rolleyes:
Deckle edged scissors for an artful effect!

Don Bryant

robert
29-Aug-2007, 05:03
For instance I have an 8x10 that weighs only 9 lb. With a reducing back I doubt it would be much heavier. (I think Richard Ritters new cameras weigh even less than that.) Then you wouldn't be carrying 8x10 holders but the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 holders which would probably be somewhat lighter than the 8x10's but not by much. If you are going to be shooting 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 that day then you just leave the 8x10 back at home. What is the weight of the new Ebony 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 proposed to be? Of course if money is no object then by all means go with the special order Ebony.

Sal Santamaura
29-Aug-2007, 07:07
...What is the weight of the new Ebony 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 proposed to be?...The Internet's a wonderful tool. Just about everything one might wish to know is available at the click of a mouse. For example...

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html

Reviewing the Ebony site shows that its 6.5 x 8.5 camera weighs a full kg less than its SV810. All other parameter comparisons can be readily made starting from that page too.

Please note that the phrase ought be "the weight is," not "proposed to be." Two of these cameras have already been built and delivered. I fail to understand why some -- in this thread and others -- make such strong cases against the Ebony. There's room for all approaches to 6.5 x 8.5: a new Ebony camera, vintage cameras of various types and new cameras from other manufacturers. Why not encourage all potential users to get out and shoot 6.5 x 8.5 film with whatever camera suits their tastes and budgets?

Richard K.
29-Aug-2007, 07:32
I fail to understand why some -- in this thread and others -- make such strong cases against the Ebony. There's room for all approaches to 6.5 x 8.5: a new Ebony camera, vintage cameras of various types and new cameras from other manufacturers. Why not encourage all potential users to get out and shoot 6.5 x 8.5 film with whatever camera suits their tastes and budgets?

Hear, hear! For some (hopefully many) of us, photography and choice of format is related to process, sensibility and a way of life. Using a reducing back on an over-weight, over-sized camera intended for a larger format contradicts that. The more direct connection to history and communion with those photographers that used the format before us is achieved by using the same type of dedicated tool (albeit a rather beautiful one!). This, one either appreciates or not. I'm still hoping for 3 more appreciators! :)

Steve Hamley
29-Aug-2007, 08:43
Words of wisdom Sal. I love the format, but after looking at the price, film, and filmholder issues versus the crop marks on the 8x10 GG, the question for me was "why bother?". I admire those that are committed enough to reject 8x10 and commit to the new Ebony, but I wonder how many of these will be for sale once the "new" wears off.

BTW, the best way to make up that 2 kg difference is to push yourself away from the table once a day.

Steve

Dave Wooten
29-Aug-2007, 09:14
It is encouraging that a company like Ebony will respond to those interested in reviving the whole plate format....or any format! Of course this will come at a cost. In the case of Ebony what one receives for the price is a camera that is of the highest quality....that to some in itself is worth something, if one can afford it. There is an appreciation factor here that is embraced by some and not others, I certainly understand why one would want to have a camera that has the unique distinction of being not only a rare issue but maybe the best ever made available in the whole plate format. What a delightful addition to the large format family. This camera will quite possibly become a classic from day one.. and I am betting that it will hold its value. If it were just a case of shooting the format, as stated, there are many inexpensive ways of obtaining that objective, but it is so more than that...My hat is off to those individuals taking the plunge and making the investment. Beauty is joy forever...

Sal Santamaura
29-Aug-2007, 09:16
...the question for me was "why bother?". I admire those that are committed enough to reject 8x10 and commit to the new Ebony, but I wonder how many of these will be for sale once the "new" wears off...I can't speak for Clay or any other possible owners, but you'll need to contact the executor of my eventual estate to purchase mine.


...BTW, the best way to make up that 2 kg difference is to push yourself away from the table once a day...Steve, I'm 6' 0" tall and weigh 130 lb. (yes, one hundred thirty, not a typo). I take in a minimum of calories, work out regularly and am in fine health for a nearly-54-year-old. The weight and volume of my pack are critical, since they represent a much greater percentage of the total than they would on someone who more closely conforms to "normal" for North Americans. :) Also note that my 6.5 x 8.5 Lotus holders, at 13.5 oz. each, are substantially lighter than 8x10 holders.

Oren Grad wrote about my Ebony on Mike Johnston's blog. I responded to one commenter there, saying that, although my first choice would have been a 6.5 x 8.5 version of Dick Phillips' Compact II (which I estimated might have been at least 1kg lighter than the Ebony), Dick was winding down his business and therefore not a possibility. I concluded with "no regrets."

Now there's a good chance that Chamonix, which bases its cameras on Dick Phillips' designs and seems to further refine them, will produce a 6.5 x 8.5 version which is closer to the weight I originally sought. Even if that comes to fruition and I end up with one of those too, the Ebony is not for sale. It's too wonderful to ever part with.

Jorge Gasteazoro
29-Aug-2007, 09:34
I only have one question, why not, those of you which already own an Ebony 8x10, ask for a reducing back to WP? Seems to me it would be a cheaper option than having to buy a new camera. Heck, if Ebony does not want to do it, ask some of the people out there who do camera repairs like Richard Ritter if they would be willing to make one.

If weight is a big consideration, have a technical backpack converted to a camera back pack by these guys http://www.photobackpacker.com/home.asp You will see the difference in carrying your gear, I bet the extra weight would be offset by the better pack.

Sal Santamaura
29-Aug-2007, 09:58
...why not...ask for a reducing back to WP? Seems to me it would be a cheaper option than having to buy a new camera. Heck, if Ebony does not want to do it, ask some of the people out there who do camera repairs like Richard Ritter if they would be willing to make one...Jorge, the reducing back approach was suggested to me by many from the start, including Lotus and Ebony. It fails to address the volume question and results in a camera that's even heavier than the 8x10 one started with. I was able to so had the new camera made, but it wasn't an easy or quick decision.


...If weight is a big consideration, have a technical backpack converted to a camera back pack by these guys... You will see the difference in carrying your gear, I bet the extra weight would be offset by the better pack.I've tried all kinds of packs and found the best for me is an external-frame Kelty Super Tioga. Nothing beats transferring the weight to my hips (such as they are :) ).

Kerry L. Thalmann
29-Aug-2007, 10:40
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but it seems to have already digressed into a discussion of the merits of various approaches to shooting the whole plate format. So, I'd like to offer an additional option for those who may be interested in shooting whole plate, but have budget constraints that fall somewhere between the cost of a new Ebony and a century old antique whole plate camera.

Some of you probably already know I've cobbled together a couple "homemade" conversion kits to shoot 4x10 and 7x17 with my ARCA-SWISS F-Line system. I affectionately call these my Swiss Lotus and Franken-ARCA. Details can be found here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23134) and here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17878) (photos start on page 4 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=164190&postcount=37)).

Since I've enjoyed using these cameras so much, I decided to work with a CAD designer to refine the concept. I showed a prototype of our 4x10 ARCA-SWISS format kit at the large format conference in Louisville back in late June. A photo of the prototype can be seen at www.reallybigcameras.com (http://www.reallybigcameras.com/). I am currently testing the 4x10 conversion kit and after a few minor refinements hope to go into production this fall.

We are also working on adapting the design to other base platforms (ARCA-SWISS 171mm, ARCA-SWISS 141mm, Sinar F and perhaps Sinar P and maybe eventually Calumet/Cambo) and other formats. The next format on our list is whole plate. We are currently designing our whole plate conversion kit based on the dimensions of the Fotoman whole plate holders. If demand is sufficient, we will eventually consider supporting other "non-standard" formats like 7x11 and 5x12 - especially if we can get Fotoman to make holders in those sizes. We are also planning a 7x17 conversion kit - a more refined all-metal version of my Franken-ARCA.

Once we are closer to production, I'll post a formal announcement in a separate thread, but since whole plate alternatives are being discussed here, I thought I'd toss this out as an additional option for anyone who might be interested.

Kerry

Rob_5419
29-Aug-2007, 10:41
There's room for all approaches to 6.5 x 8.5: a new Ebony camera, vintage cameras of various types and new cameras from other manufacturers. Why not encourage all potential users to get out and shoot 6.5 x 8.5 film with whatever camera suits their tastes and budgets?

Definitely! I wish. Sigh.

I'm a bit long in the tooth although I think I still remember some of my Freudian psychology lessons. Freud described how humans instinctively reacted in certain formats. For instance, deficient beings were supposed to be possessed by an 'Ebony Complex' which led to insecurity, and the experience of vices, often translated into destructive forces directed and driven by 'whole plate envy'.

There were two ways Freud thought an insecure being could deal with this complex. One was to identify with the substance causing insecurity, which leads to the purchase of an Ebony. Without resolving 'Whole Plate Envy', Freud hypothesised that the insecure beings would remain infantile in pounding at the breast of a nascent whole plate resurgence. Being Austrian, he knew nothing of the Chamonix Complex, a less mountainous and elegant way of resolving 'Whole Plate Envy'. However being European, Freud also recognised that 'Whole Plate Envy' could be solved once the oral phase was bypassed when one was able to bypass talking through one's anum and go in search of an Argentum.

naturephoto1
29-Aug-2007, 11:46
This may be totally out in left field, but has anyone considered contacting Keith Canham? Maybe Keith could make a WP back (not reducing back) for one of his cameras instead of as an example for his camera 8 X 10. His cameras are somewhat modular. This might be a consideration.

Rich

Steve Hamley
29-Aug-2007, 12:40
Jorge,

I asked Ian Wilson and Ebony will make a reducing back if you like for about the usual price which isn't cheap; about $800 or so IIRC. I considered this option but after looking at the marks on the 8x10 GG, I again concluded, "Why bother?" If I did go to the bother of the film size and holders, I'd do what Sal did and bite the bullet for the whole camera.

Sal, another pack option might be a McHale pack with a CM belt. It's an internal frame pack and the "CM" designation means the belt goes completely around your hips like a frame pack rather than the belt being sewn to the pack at each side. I have a large panel-loading "frame dome" which you could actually see on his site until a short time ago. Dan McHale makes custom packs fit to you and has no peer IMO, although like Ebony, he is pricey especially when you're talking a Dyneema pack. I'm also in the process of having a smaller - non-CM belt - pack made for 4x5 use, although I could fit a lightly wrapped 8x10 and a couple of lenses and holders in it. It would be an absolute perfect pack for an Ebony WP camera.

http://www.mchalepacks.com/

Steve

Robert Skeoch
29-Aug-2007, 12:41
Short up-date.

As a Canham dealer I've been emailing back and forth with Keith about converting a wood 5x7 camera.... that's why I asked for film holder dimensions on another thread a few days back.

I'm waiting to hear from Keith.

I've also contacted Ebony this morning to try and nail down a final price if we can get together an order of 5. Right now four people have contacted me about the cameras. Two of these were interested at the old price... and are more interested at the new price.

As an Ilford dealer I've ordered all the film Ilford has in stock at this size... it's all been spoken for.

Is a WP a smarter option than an 8x10. I don't think it matters.. if people enjoy shooting a format with a great history and don't mind living with some of the problems... I say go for it. However I couldn't imagine hauling around an 8x10 and using a reducing back... if you're going to carry the beast you might as well get the largest negative. But the new camera seems more the size of a jumbo 5x7 which is much easier to haul than an 8x10.

I think it's a great kit and certainly the Ebony cameras have a great reputation and many people consider them their final destination as far as LF goes.

I hope this goes through and photographers enjoy the resurgance of an older format.

-Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

naturephoto1
29-Aug-2007, 12:45
Steve,

You are correct about the McHale packs. I too have one of his large Panel Loading Packs with the CM and Bypass systems. Mine has a main 5000 cu in main compartment (with an additional outer pocket) and is made out of a combination of Full Spectra (about 1/3 of the pack) and 420 Hi tenacity nylon. Mine was made when the Full Spectra was not as readily available otherwise I would have gone with the Full Spectra/Dyneema fabric.

My pack looks much like this one (all in gray, but in the materials that I have described):

http://www.mchalepacks.com/packs/detail/CMSARC.htm

Rich

Steve Hamley
29-Aug-2007, 14:16
Richard,

That IS my pack! I thought it had been taken down, but apparently still there. The pack body is Cordura since it was built for carrying a bunch of 8x10 gear and neither Dan nor I thought Dyneema/Spectra was worth it in this case. I suspect I can also get a lightly wrapped Korona 8x20 and a couple of holders in there also. It has 2 side pockets on it now.

The new pack is full Dyneema, and is a bayonet design so it can convert to a daypack. Additionally, the back pocket is large and can be removed and used as a pack for short scouting trips where you just need the emergency gear, some water and snacks.

Nice to meet another McHale owner.

Cheers,

Steve

naturephoto1
29-Aug-2007, 14:38
Richard,

That IS my pack! I thought it had been taken down, but apparently still there. The pack body is Cordura since it was built for carrying a bunch of 8x10 gear and neither Dan nor I thought Dyneema/Spectra was worth it in this case. I suspect I can also get a lightly wrapped Korona 8x20 and a couple of holders in there also. It has 2 side pockets on it now.

The new pack is full Dyneema, and is a bayonet design so it can convert to a daypack. Additionally, the back pocket is large and can be removed and used as a pack for short scouting trips where you just need the emergency gear, some water and snacks.

Nice to meet another McHale owner.

Cheers,

Steve

Hi Steve,

Also nice to meet another McHale owner. My pack is basically the one in gray and red. I had Dan add an extra outer pocket on one side for carrying a Nalgene Canteen (48 oz). My pack was made before the bayonet design and the ability for conversion to the daypack was made available. I use the pack for my 4 X 5 Linhof Technikardan or my Toho Shimo FC-45X, lenses, filters, Readyload Holder, meter, tripod (inside or out), etc. The camera equipment is loaded into camera bags and then I carry the rest of my backpacking equipment, food, water, etc, in the pack. It carries remarkably well with 35 to 50 or more pounds.

Richard K.
29-Aug-2007, 15:06
There is an appreciation factor here that is embraced by some and not others, I certainly understand why one would want to have a camera that has the unique distinction of being not only a rare issue but maybe the best ever made available in the whole plate format. What a delightful addition to the large format family. This camera will quite possibly become a classic from day one.. and I am betting that it will hold its value. If it were just a case of shooting the format, as stated, there are many inexpensive ways of obtaining that objective, but it is so more than that...My hat is off to those individuals taking the plunge and making the investment. Beauty is joy forever...

Thanks Dave, I truly appreciate your words! I think that the combination of an exceptional manufacturer and a wonderful historic format are irresistible to some of us! In Canada we say A Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever, eh! :)

Steve Hamley
29-Aug-2007, 17:34
Following the logic above - I fail to see why you settle on 8x10. Why not 11x14 then?

Rob,

Cut a 8x10 piece of cardboard or paper, and an 11x14 piece. Then mark out 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 on each. You will then understand why 8x10 and not 11x14 or larger. I did.

Cheers,

Steve

audioexcels
29-Aug-2007, 18:00
Yes, but I much prefer the digisnap I took of my camera to that one Ebony shot (when it had a different bellows temporarily installed). I think Ebony captured its image under fluorescent light; mine was illuminated by an overcast sky, and shows a Lotus holder inserted in the back.

I don't like you;)

What a delicious cam...uhhh...uhhh...when I'm rich...when I'm rich...

audioexcels
29-Aug-2007, 18:02
Rob,

Cut a 8x10 piece of cardboard or paper, and an 11x14 piece. Then mark out 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 on each. You will then understand why 8x10 and not 11x14 or larger. I did.

Cheers,

Steve

I will be doing 8X10 and WP;)...with the Nikkor 120/8 lens...MUCH cheaper than shooting 5X7/4X5 with the expensive 72mm XL lens. Gives me $600 or so in holders/film/etc. for the larger formats;)!

audioexcels
29-Aug-2007, 18:04
I can't speak for Clay or any other possible owners, but you'll need to contact the executor of my eventual estate to purchase mine.

Steve, I'm 6' 0" tall and weigh 130 lb. (yes, one hundred thirty, not a typo). I take in a minimum of calories, work out regularly and am in fine health for a nearly-54-year-old. The weight and volume of my pack are critical, since they represent a much greater percentage of the total than they would on someone who more closely conforms to "normal" for North Americans. :) Also note that my 6.5 x 8.5 Lotus holders, at 13.5 oz. each, are substantially lighter than 8x10 holders.

Oren Grad wrote about my Ebony on Mike Johnston's blog. I responded to one commenter there, saying that, although my first choice would have been a 6.5 x 8.5 version of Dick Phillips' Compact II (which I estimated might have been at least 1kg lighter than the Ebony), Dick was winding down his business and therefore not a possibility. I concluded with "no regrets."



Now there's a good chance that Chamonix, which bases its cameras on Dick Phillips' designs and seems to further refine them, will produce a 6.5 x 8.5 version which is closer to the weight I originally sought. Even if that comes to fruition and I end up with one of those too, the Ebony is not for sale. It's too wonderful to ever part with.

How much are those Lotus holders?:):)

I like under a lb...that's nothing for this beautiful image size.

audioexcels
29-Aug-2007, 18:11
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but it seems to have already digressed into a discussion of the merits of various approaches to shooting the whole plate format. So, I'd like to offer an additional option for those who may be interested in shooting whole plate, but have budget constraints that fall somewhere between the cost of a new Ebony and a century old antique whole plate camera.

Some of you probably already know I've cobbled together a couple "homemade" conversion kits to shoot 4x10 and 7x17 with my ARCA-SWISS F-Line system. I affectionately call these my Swiss Lotus and Franken-ARCA. Details can be found here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23134) and here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17878) (photos start on page 4 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=164190&postcount=37)).

Since I've enjoyed using these cameras so much, I decided to work with a CAD designer to refine the concept. I showed a prototype of our 4x10 ARCA-SWISS format kit at the large format conference in Louisville back in late June. A photo of the prototype can be seen at www.reallybigcameras.com (http://www.reallybigcameras.com/). I am currently testing the 4x10 conversion kit and after a few minor refinements hope to go into production this fall.

We are also working on adapting the design to other base platforms (ARCA-SWISS 171mm, ARCA-SWISS 141mm, Sinar F and perhaps Sinar P and maybe eventually Calumet/Cambo) and other formats. The next format on our list is whole plate. We are currently designing our whole plate conversion kit based on the dimensions of the Fotoman whole plate holders. If demand is sufficient, we will eventually consider supporting other "non-standard" formats like 7x11 and 5x12 - especially if we can get Fotoman to make holders in those sizes. We are also planning a 7x17 conversion kit - a more refined all-metal version of my Franken-ARCA.

Once we are closer to production, I'll post a formal announcement in a separate thread, but since whole plate alternatives are being discussed here, I thought I'd toss this out as an additional option for anyone who might be interested.

Kerry

Fantastic 4X10 conversion. Love it!!! Now it's time to steal my wooden whole plate back and make me a nice WP camera with a 4X10 back;):)

Good to see some excellent design concepts going around. This is a sure winner, especially with the weight factor being so non-relative for a nice 4X10 image that can have lots of movement;)))!!!

Sal Santamaura
29-Aug-2007, 18:21
How much are those Lotus holders...When I purchased them 18 months ago, they were the same price as Lotus' 8x10 holders if I ordered a dozen, more expensive each if a half-dozen were ordered:

http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/pdf/CamAcc_e.pdf

I don't know whether that still holds; contact Günter for current information.

John Ossi
29-Aug-2007, 20:59
Another case to consider for the Ebony is the Fine Arts Photo Supply case for their
5X7 camera. It looks like the old white Zone VI cases. Their 5X7 measures 12X12X5 inches; the Ebony is 270X300X110 mm, including knobs, so it should fit. I believe that the partitions on either side of the camera, which are set up for 5X7 film holders, can be detached on one end to swing aside, which would allow whole plate size holders to be put in the bag parallel to the camera.

Kerry L. Thalmann
29-Aug-2007, 20:59
Fantastic 4X10 conversion. Love it!!! Now it's time to steal my wooden whole plate back and make me a nice WP camera with a 4X10 back;):)

Good to see some excellent design concepts going around. This is a sure winner, especially with the weight factor being so non-relative for a nice 4X10 image that can have lots of movement;)))!!!

Thanks for the positive comments.

Regarding the weight, the camera as shown weighs 6 lb. 12 oz. Of course the weight will depend on the specific ARCA-SWISS configuration used as a base platform (my camera has an older style side-clamping 30cm extension bracket with two low-profile 15cm rail sections and a newer 110mm F-Metric front format frame with the Micrometric Orbix option). For reference, the 4x10 configuration shown actually weighs 2 oz. less than the same base configuration with the 171mm ARCA-SWISS and 50cm 171/110 bellows. It is also 5½ oz. lighter than the actual weight of the 4x10 Canham I used to own. The design goal was a lightweight, portable camera with generous movements, fast set-up and easily accessible controls. Using the ARCA-SWISS as the base platform, of course, made most of this possible.

Other platforms (like the Sinar F1 or A1/Aplina) will result in a slightly heavier, slightly less compact, but still portable system. The advantage is that used Sinar systems are plentiful and outrageously cheap on the used market these days. Never before has some much Swiss quality/precision been available for so few dollars.

The 4x10 prototype shown uses a flexible ultralight bellows that is capable of handling lenses as short as 90mm (the widest lens that will cover the format) with a maximum bellows extension of 24". With the rail configuration shown it can focus a 450mm Fujinon C at infinity (closer if you have a longer rail configuration).

Kerry

John Ossi
29-Aug-2007, 21:52
This may be totally out in left field, but has anyone considered contacting Keith Canham? Maybe Keith could make a WP back (not reducing back) for one of his cameras instead of as an example for his camera 8 X 10. His cameras are somewhat modular. This might be a consideration.

Rich
I asked Keith about this and he is open to the idea of building a whole plate camera. Note that although his lightweight 8X10 is larger in dimensions than the Ebony whole plate, the weight is 3.81 kg, which is already lighter than the Ebony. He said that a whole plate Canham might be designed around the 8X10 bed, or around that of the
5X7, if the 26 inch maximum bellows draw of that format camera would suffice. This would put the weight somewhere around 6 pounds.

audioexcels
29-Aug-2007, 22:04
Thanks for the positive comments.

Regarding the weight, the camera as shown weighs 6 lb. 12 oz. Of course the weight will depend on the specific ARCA-SWISS configuration used as a base platform (my camera has an older style side-clamping 30cm extension bracket with two low-profile 15cm rail sections and a newer 110mm F-Metric front format frame with the Micrometric Orbix option). For reference, the 4x10 configuration shown actually weighs 2 oz. less than the same base configuration with the 171mm ARCA-SWISS and 50cm 171/110 bellows. It is also 5½ oz. lighter than the actual weight of the 4x10 Canham I used to own. The design goal was a lightweight, portable camera with generous movements, fast set-up and easily accessible controls. Using the ARCA-SWISS as the base platform, of course, made most of this possible.

Other platforms (like the Sinar F1 or A1/Aplina) will result in a slightly heavier, slightly less compact, but still portable system. The advantage is that used Sinar systems are plentiful and outrageously cheap on the used market these days. Never before has some much Swiss quality/precision been available for so few dollars.

The 4x10 prototype shown uses a flexible ultralight bellows that is capable of handling lenses as short as 90mm (the widest lens that will cover the format) with a maximum bellows extension of 24". With the rail configuration shown it can focus a 450mm Fujinon C at infinity (closer if you have a longer rail configuration).

Kerry

Geeze...24" bellows extension...absolutely wicked. My "ideal" camera is an 8X10, 7lbs maximum, field based with the versatility of the higher end cams BUT with a low profile style back similar to what it looks like you have with that 4X10 cam. In other words, it would be similar to a Nagaoka in that the Nagaoka is extremely slim lined, but with larger/better artillery for the gearing section...I suppose a suped up Nagaoka with the same compactness would be my ideal camera. Of course, it would have a WP reducing back along with a 4X5 reducing back. I would even consider having a 4X10 cam of this nature that can have the same WP/4X5 reducing backs since my goal with 8X10 isn't so much to fill the sheet, but to have the panoramic potential. I do like the idea of having a wide wide lens such as the Nikkor 120 to fill the 8X10 sheet, but it isn't really necessary especially if I had a dedicated 4X10 back instead...maybe reduce the overall weight of things in the process.

Then again, if I couldn't have the wood field type, I'd certainly not be complaining about the Toho sorta type that you have made into the 4X10 cam...Afterall, it is nice to have the neat wood camera, but in the end, everything is on a tripod which pretty much negates the wood camera point with some compromises going for each type of camera of course.

Rob_5419
30-Aug-2007, 02:53
Rob,

Cut a 8x10 piece of cardboard or paper, and an 11x14 piece. Then mark out 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 on each. You will then understand why 8x10 and not 11x14 or larger. I did.

Cheers,

Steve

Yes.....I get the same experience out of an 8x10" masked from 11x14 that you get when you cut mask 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 from 8x10 i.e. what's the point? :rolleyes:

Diane Maher
30-Aug-2007, 05:25
I asked Keith about this and he is open to the idea of building a whole plate camera. Note that although his lightweight 8X10 is larger in dimensions than the Ebony whole plate, the weight is 3.81 kg, which is already lighter than the Ebony. He said that a whole plate Canham might be designed around the 8X10 bed, or around that of the
5X7, if the 26 inch maximum bellows draw of that format camera would suffice. This would put the weight somewhere around 6 pounds.

I spoke to Keith about this in June at the View Camera Conference. All he needs is a holder to build it around. Unfortunately, the only holders I have at the moment are either bookform or really old Kodak holders. I decided to hold off on anything further with Keith until the Fotoman wp holders came out later this year.

Kerry L. Thalmann
30-Aug-2007, 09:14
I asked Keith about this and he is open to the idea of building a whole plate camera. Note that although his lightweight 8X10 is larger in dimensions than the Ebony whole plate, the weight is 3.81 kg, which is already lighter than the Ebony. He said that a whole plate Canham might be designed around the 8X10 bed, or around that of the
5X7, if the 26 inch maximum bellows draw of that format camera would suffice. This would put the weight somewhere around 6 pounds.

That may be a bit optimistic. The 5x7 Canham advertised weight is 6 lbs. The actual weight of the one I used to own was 6 lb. 7 oz. A whole plate camera based on the same chassis would obviously weight more than the smaller 5x7 model. The rear box, back, ground glass, etc. would all be 1.5" bigger in both the x and y dimensions. o,k probably between 7 and 7.5 lbs. Still lighter (and likely less expensive) than the Ebony.

Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
30-Aug-2007, 09:36
Geeze...24" bellows extension...absolutely wicked.

When I ordered the bellows for the prototype, I specified a maximum extension of 21". With them stretched out fully, the actual extension comes out at 24". With the prototype, I can focus a 600mm Fujinon C at infinity with about an inch and a half to spare. I'm not sure if we'll keep the max. extension on the production kits that long, or cut it back to 20 - 21". My goal was to make it usable with a 450mm/480mm lens (meaning focusing closer than infinity and still have enough play in the bellows for movements). Of course, this bellows material is so light and flexible, we may just leave it unchanged. Even with the max. extension of 24", the bellows collapses small enough that the front and rear standards touch and it's flexible enough to use full front rise with a 110mm Super Symmar XL - the shortest lens that covers 4x10 with enough left over for movements.


My "ideal" camera is an 8X10, 7lbs maximum, field based with the versatility of the higher end cams BUT with a low profile style back similar to what it looks like you have with that 4X10 cam. In other words, it would be similar to a Nagaoka in that the Nagaoka is extremely slim lined, but with larger/better artillery for the gearing section...I suppose a suped up Nagaoka with the same compactness would be my ideal camera. Of course, it would have a WP reducing back along with a 4X5 reducing back. I would even consider having a 4X10 cam of this nature that can have the same WP/4X5 reducing backs since my goal with 8X10 isn't so much to fill the sheet, but to have the panoramic potential. I do like the idea of having a wide wide lens such as the Nikkor 120 to fill the 8X10 sheet, but it isn't really necessary especially if I had a dedicated 4X10 back instead...maybe reduce the overall weight of things in the process.

In addition to keeping the weight down (always a priority for me), I've also tried to keep the bulk to a minimum on all my camera projects. This gets more important as you move up in format and things like lenses and film holders (especially) start to take up more room in your pack. For example, my 7x17 Franken-ARCA collapses smaller than any other 7x17 I've ever seen. Both front a rear standards fit easily on a 15cm rail section and the total thickness of the collapsed standards with a compact lens (like a 240mm Computar, 450mm Nikkor M or 600mm Fujinon C) is less than 5". That lets me carry it in a pack and still have room for three or four holders.[/quote]


Then again, if I couldn't have the wood field type, I'd certainly not be complaining about the Toho sorta type that you have made into the 4X10 cam...Afterall, it is nice to have the neat wood camera, but in the end, everything is on a tripod which pretty much negates the wood camera point with some compromises going for each type of camera of course.

Wood cameras are definitely beautiful to look at, and some users prefer the way a wooden camera feels in their hands. For years I used nothing but wooden cameras. I eventually switched to metal cameras (starting with a Canham DLC and the Toho, then a Linhof TK45S and now that ARCA-SWISS). There are excellent camera made of both materials (and my 4x10 Swiss Lotus and 7x17 Franken-ARCA are wood/metal hybrids). In the end, I'm a practical guy and I select my cameras based more on usability (specific to my personal needs) than appearance (and I do find the ARCA-SWISS cameras to have an elegant, high tech beauty all their own). As far as how they feel in my hands, the easily accessible rubber padded knobs of the ARCA are much easier on my hands and fingers than the knurled knobs found on most field cameras - this is especially true when working in cold weather (I can easily operate all the ARCA-SWISS knobs and leavers while wearing gloves - and added bonus).

Kerry

sanking
30-Aug-2007, 12:11
I think the interest in new Chamonix, Canham and Ebony full plate cameras is great. Full plate has historically been one of the most important of all formats and it makes a lovely size for contact printing.

However, if there is anyone interested in getting into this format at a bargain price I have a whole plate back and six vintage holders that I will sell for $550 plus shipping. No idea who made either the back or the holders, but they match perfectly and I bought them together so believe they were made to go together. This equipment is very old, probably from the very early 20th century. The holders are plate holders but all have septums for film and are in remarkable condition for their age. They appear to be of cherry wood, but won't swear to it. The back appears to be mahogany, but again can not say for sure.

The back could easily be adapted with a frame to fit virtually any 8X10 camera. Most persons with even moderate woodworking skills could do this, or if not Richard Ritter would do a great job for you.

I had not planned this for a project myself but am in something of a need to thin out some of my camera equipment.

In any event, I will sell the holders and back to the first person who makes a firm commitment to buy. If interested please contact me by private email.

Sandy King

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
30-Aug-2007, 14:22
Although I would dearly love that Ebony I am not likely to buy one. Rather I went the cheaper route Sandy offers above. I built a full plate reducing back for my 8x10 Deardorff out of a GG back from a Century Field and a 4x5 reducing back. The camera came with six plateholders with septums. It works wonderfully although I haven't used it very much since I don't have any film in that size and can't be bothered to cut it down. I will probably buy a few of the Fotoman holders when they appear and order some Ilford next time.

On the other hand, if Keith Canham offers a back/bellows adapter for my 5x7...

Sal Santamaura
30-Aug-2007, 18:22
Another case to consider for the Ebony is the Fine Arts Photo Supply case for their 5X7 camera...It's been shown as "Temp out of stock" for at least a year now:

http://www.fineartphotosupply.com/Camerabagpage.htm

I asked them to contact me when it became available again and they agreed. That was around six months ago.

Robert Skeoch
31-Aug-2007, 12:36
Just a short up-date on the Ebony whole plate cameras.
I'm still working on this and trying to put together some options regarding the cameras. I'll post as soon as I hear... I'm sure we can put this all together but I'm not sure what the final price will be until I have all the info in.
-Rob Skeoch

Richard K.
31-Aug-2007, 19:03
Thank you Rob! We are waiting with bated breath (and wallets!)...

-Richard

Robert Skeoch
2-Sep-2007, 12:22
I'm working with Ebony Cameras to put together a special order of five of their new Whole Plate field cameras. Instead of one option we now have four. As long as we can get five ordered all-together.

We're able to get a discount from Ebony because of the size of the order and I've lowered my mark-up as well to try and make this happen.

If you're interested in one of these custom made cameras from one of the top camera builders in the world, let me know.

All prices are in Canadian Dollars.

SV Whole Plate Mahogany Special price $7490
SV Whole Plate Mahogany & U bellows Special $7590
SV Whole Plate Ebony Special price $8235
SV Whole Plate Ebony & U bellows Special $8335

Richard K.
2-Sep-2007, 18:37
I'm working with Ebony Cameras to put together a special order of five of their new Whole Plate field cameras. Instead of one option we now have four. As long as we can get five ordered all-together.

We're able to get a discount from Ebony because of the size of the order and I've lowered my mark-up as well to try and make this happen.

If you're interested in one of these custom made cameras from one of the top camera builders in the world, let me know.

All prices are in Canadian Dollars.

SV Whole Plate Mahogany Special price $7490
SV Whole Plate Mahogany & U bellows Special $7590
SV Whole Plate Ebony Special price $8235
SV Whole Plate Ebony & U bellows Special $8335

Rob, thank you very much for your efforts on our behalf. I particularly appreciate your brave new business paradigm in which you sacrifce some of your own profit for the good of the community. Hopefully the calculus of the enterprise will give both you and us something we would not have gotten without your initiative! Anyway, thanks again and put me down for 5, er, I mean ONE. Do we add on $5 to the price to convert to US$? :rolleyes:

-Richard

Michael Alpert
3-Sep-2007, 11:13
I'm working with Ebony Cameras to put together a special order of five of their new Whole Plate field cameras. . . . We're able to get a discount from Ebony because of the size of the order and I've lowered my mark-up as well to try and make this happen. . . .


I am just a member of this forum, so I have no say in what happens. And I wish the potential WP camera-buyers good luck. Still, this is the first instance that I can remember in which a camera dealer has actively intervened in a group effort. This intervention, even if well-intentioned, opens a door that perhaps many of us will regret in the future. Usually people like Bob S. give appropriate advice and leave it at that. (As I understand the situation, Ebony does not care which camera-dealer individual customers go to, as long as a total of five camera are ordered.) In short, I thought this was a noncommercial forum.

Jorge Gasteazoro
3-Sep-2007, 12:13
I am just a member of this forum, so I have no say in what happens. And I wish the potential WP camera-buyers good luck. Still, this is the first instance that I can remember in which a camera dealer has actively intervened in a group effort. This intervention, even if well-intentioned, opens a door that perhaps many of us will regret in the future. Usually people like Bob S. give appropriate advice and leave it at that. (As I understand the situation, Ebony does not care which camera-dealer individual customers go to, as long as a total of five camera are ordered.) In short, I thought this was a noncommercial forum.

Sometimes "dealers" help the community to try and get items/film/cameras that are hard to get and get the manufacturer to make them to our needs. Good examples are the ULF film purchase that Michael Kadillac put so much effort into and which was then sold by a film dealer, gorup purchases of palladium and platinum, etc. I don't begrudge dealers a little profit if it means that I will be able to get what I need at a price I can afford. I cannot buy a master roll of TMY400 in 12x20, or 2 kg of pt, the fact that a dealer was willing to take the risk (which in this case as it turned out the buyers got scammed, but that is another topic) to prepay an order, organize it and then take responsibility to send the items (with the concurrent risks) to the buyers seems to me it is fair if they make some profit for their efforts.

Robert is a good guy, and I am sure he is giving those who want to participate in this purchase a fair price.

Robert Skeoch
3-Sep-2007, 12:14
You're right Michael. My error. In the excitment of posting the information to a couple different forums I forgot.
I'll contact QTL and let him know.
-Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

Richard K.
3-Sep-2007, 12:28
Rob, I like Jorge's justification and I bet the consensus would be that you don't need to worry about this particular post. Its virtue of service overides the possible posting indiscretion....:)