Improving/updating the Tecnika

[Bill_1856]

Although there have been many small changes in the 50+ years since the Technika IV was introduced, it seems to me that it could use some more serious updating. I know that B.S. will complain that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I'd like to make the following suggestions.
1) Using some new materials and trim off at least a pound. Start by replacing non-structural parts such as the front door and RF housing with carbon fiber. Many internal parts (such as the rails and uprights) could be lightened a bit by using titanium alloys.
2) Fitting an easily user-changable bellows. This is almost the only part of the whole camera which is vulnerable to disaster in the field, requiring the camera be out of service while it goes to the camera hospital. (An extended trip to the Golbi Desert would feel a lot better with a spare bellows tucked away). Also, a bag bellows option would be nice for WA users.
3) Make the opening between the front rails larger than the present 52mm, so more lenses can be fitted and still close the camera door.
4 Get rid of the leather viewing hood and replace it with something like the old Pacemaker Graphic hood (using very light materials).
5) Coupled moveable internal tracks (like the Pacemaker Graphics), so WA lenses can be focused with the regular knobs, without the necesity of special adapters (or a whole different camera).
I've got more radical ideas, but it seems to me that the changes already listed could/should be done just as normal product development.
Any other suggestions? (Not that Linhof might pay any attention.)

[Frank Petronio]

I had Martin put a metal Graphic hood onto my Technika and it works great, not as elegant as the OEM but more practical.

You can swap the bellows in about 30 minutes ;-)

[Bob Salomon]

Maybe you should look at the Master Technika 3000 which was introduced last year at Photokina and has been selling in the US since Dec. And it does have a sliding back option for digital if needed.

[naturephoto1]

Bob,

As beautiful and wonderful the Master Technika 3000 is, the B&H Photo price for the camera is $6,199.95. That is more than many of us can afford at this time. I know that you do not like to hear these things, but Linhof Technikas can last almost a lifetime if well cared for. If Bill has a 50 year old Super Technika IV or was to purchase a used Super Technika IV, V, Master Technika, or Master Technika 2000 it would probably be a much less expensive alternative if it were modified.

Rich

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

As beautiful and wonderful the Master Technika 3000 is, the B&H Photo price for the camera is $6,199.95. That is more than many of us can afford at this time. I know that you do not like to hear these things, but Linhof Technikas can last almost a lifetime if well cared for. If Bill has a 50 year old Super Technika IV or was to purchase a used Super Technika IV, V, Master Technika, or Master Technika 2000 it would probably be a much less expensive alternative if it were modified.

Rich

Richard,

Have you checked the value of the Euro vs the $ lately?
Have you checked the cost of tooling and R&D lately?
Have you checked the size of the large format market for new precision cameras from Europe, That includes Rollei and Hasselblad as well as Leica?

The 3000 is expensive, the 2000 is discontinued and a newly designed and re-engineered and re-tooled MT would be more then the 3000.

Linhof realized that thanks to the changing market which incorporates digital as well as film that the camera had to be updated beyond the 2000. But they were able to do that by starting with the 2000 and making beneficial changes. These do add an extreme wide angle focus knob on the outside of the body, the bed dropping farther so it is not in the picture with 75 and wider lenses when taking pictures with the back in the vertical position, a new internal cam system to pre-set the infinity stop positions on the internal track for 47 to 65mm lenses, the return of sliding latches to remove the GG back to replace it with the new sliding back. The new re-design of the 001015 recessed lensboard so aperture scales and controls and the press focus are now on the front surface of the board rather then in the recess of the board, re-designing the cable release QR system on all boards that use them so there are no more of the bent wires and replacing them with a new screw-in short cable similar to the Gepe WA cable release adapter.

And all of these were managed to be done without a material increase of the discontinued 2000's price.

But yes it is expensive. But so is a new Leica, Sinar, Hasselblad, Alpa, Rollei, etc.

[naturephoto1]

Bob,

I certainly understand what you are saying about tooling, R&D, the improvements in the Master 3000 and the value of the dollar versus the Euro.

I feel fortunate that I do not need a Master Technika 3000; after my Linhof Super Technika IV was stolen I followed your suggestion to purchase my Linhof Technikardan 45S in 1994. This camera meets my needs (I do not need hand holding capabilities) and was my largest camera purchase to date at about $3500 (one Leica lens cost this same amount). I prefer the operation of the Technikardan over the Technikas for many purposes though it may not be quite as rigid nor handholdable. It uses a longer bellows, is a more flexible system offering the usage of a wider assortment of lenses and the option of my wide angle bellows.

My latest Leica R8 was purchased as I believe in 1997 for about $1900?.

Since then my most expensive camera purchase was my Toho Shimo FC-45X for longer hikes and backpacking for about $1400 in December.

There is no comparison between my Technikardan 45S which weighs about 7.5lbs with the Fresnel Screen and my stripped modified Toho at 2 lbs 12 oz. The Linhof is just made to higher standards, smoothness of operation, finish, flexibility, interchangeable bellows, longer bellows, etc. My Linhof is my camera of choice for location work when closer to the vehicle or at home. But for long distances and backpacking the Toho wins for weight.

Rich

[Rob Vinnedge]

Maybe this is not completely to the point, but since we're talking about improving and updating, is there a chance that Linhof might revive the 5X7 Technika?

[Bob Salomon]

Maybe this is not completely to the point, but since we're talking about improving and updating, is there a chance that Linhof might revive the 5X7 Technika?

No. The market for new 5x7 cameras is so slow that Linhof now no longer makes them. Only 4x5, 8x10 and 6x9cm.

[Vick Ko]

Umm, would you buy a Linhof if it was designed in Germany but made in China? Then it might cost a lot less.

Vick

[Bill_1856]

There was nothing wrong with Henry Ford's Model T -- he could have gone on making and selling them for years. But technology changes, and it's up to the leaders in the field to advance with the times (not in SPITE of the times), to give the users all the advantages of later tecnology (as well as to give an incentive to buy newer ones).
With the exception of the little catches holding the back in place, I can't think of a single reason to change from my Model T, er, Teck IV, to a newer model. I have five RF coupled lenses, my second replacement bellows, and don't need the WA advantage of the 2000/3000 models. It will certainly outlast me (unless I hit the lottery).
Maybe it's too late for Linhof to consider updating their product, but I hope not. My intention was just to suggest some relatively simple changes to upgrade the product at reasonable costs. There's got to be a saturation point for selling new ones.

[Frank Petronio]

It wasn't made in China, but rather a generation earlier the Japanese did a pretty nice interpretation -- the Wista SP is lighter, has the interchangable bellows and rail tracks, simplified back movements, a better hood, etc.

It's undeniable inspired by a Technika, I think they made some nice improvements... I still prefer the more robust Technika over the Wista but both are fine cameras.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Owning a wooden folding camera with a somewhat flimsy bed, I wouldn't call the bed on a Technika a "non-structural" part, and I don't know that there would be much in the way of weight savings if it were made of more modern materials, but to the same standard of rigidity. After all, the Carbon Infinity, which is comparable in quality to a Technika weighs about the same as a Technika, and the Toyo 45CF, which is lighter than a Technika, seems to draw complaints about lack of rigidity.

Yeah, the Graphic viewing hood, though, is much better than the leather hood, and it would be nice if the Tech 2000/3000 wideangle focusing track could be combined with the MT's rangefinder, but it wouldn't make the camera any lighter.

[Ling Z]

I own a MT Classic and a MT2000, both were purchased new for about $4000 couple years ago. When MT3000 just came out, I had thought to buy one since it's said it could be used for digital and is more friendly for wide angle lenses. However, I finally gave it up. I found no matter how many improvements had been made on MT3000, there's still virtually no room for lens to make any movements (especially for shift and tilt) once it's sit on the inner track. IMHO, those improvements on MT3000 are far inadequate to today's change, both in film and digital.

[Kirk Keyes]

Umm, would you buy a Linhof if it was designed in Germany but made in China?

Would they use lead-based paint on it?

[Frank Petronio]

It's like that Leica article I posted, for every dollar made from a new Linhof being sold there are probably ten dollars spent on used transactions... so the product is a victim of it's own success.

It almost might be more reasonable to take junker Technika IV bodies and have a machinist modify them to your specs, rather than paying full price for new or wishing they would revamp the design.

[Bob Salomon]

As expensive as this camera is, why can a Horseman have a hinged flap at the top of the camera for times you need rise for wideangles, but Linhof continues to use the leather as a subsitute for a hinge. Seems to me you use it a few times, and you put a crease in the nice new leather. Seems awfully cheap to me!

Since 1980 when I became the Linhof Product Manager we have not once had anyone complain that this flap is a problem. Probably because it works!

[Per Madsen]

A Toyo 45AII weights in at nearly 3 kilos, but does not have the Toyo 45CF's stability problems.

If you does not need to use it hand-held or need the distance meter it
is a very good field camera.

[seawolf66]

Mr. Salomon: Do you think if Linhof put its brain power to work that they could not create a manufacturable and user friendly and Cost wise For about $3,500.00 to $4,000.00 with todays resources ? Do not wish to cause a debate here just a simple question thats all!

[Bob Salomon]

Mr. Salomon: Do you think if Linhof put its brain power to work that they could not create a manufacturable and user friendly and Cost wise For about $3,500.00 to $4,000.00 with todays resources ? Do not wish to cause a debate here just a simple question thats all!

Lauren,

Today the exchange rate is $1.411 Dollars for one Euro. No that would not be possible due to the weakness of the $, the strength of the EU, the cost of R&D in Germany, the size and potential size of the large format market, the cost of manufacturing by hand in Germany today, etc.

[Ted Harris]

It's all about constant changes in the World economy. With the dollar's value so low there is not much we can expect right now. If (dare I say when) the dollar turns around things will be different. I remember when one GBP was qual to around $5 and also when the dollar was on par with the GBP in the late 1980's. Right now it is just totally unrealistic to think in terms of $$ costs for anything manufactured outside of the US.

[Brian K]

Ted's right, Bob's right. While it would be nice to have cameras like the Technika undergo even more development it's just highly unlikely given the currency exchange rate, the costs involved and the small market. As someone who recently bought a new Technika 3000 I would have appreciated if the price were lower, but I do appreciate that they in fact still make new cameras.

[Bob Salomon]

I did not buy the Techn, and went with the Horseman 45FA because I concluded the workmanship from Linhof was not that great for this particular model. Why? I have seen the bed shimmed due to looseness from wear on several used cameras, used cameras with the leather peeling off, and this flap thing bothered me for a camera so high priced! I was ready to buy because it was linhof, yet I saw none of these problems with used Horseman field cameras.

Come on now. There is no way to compare the precision, the performance, the reliability, the versatility of a new Technika vs a new Horseman. And there is no way you can compare the lifetime performance of a new or used Technika vs the rather short lifetime performance of a Horseman.

You really were not making the decision based on the construction of a Linhof being less then that of a Horseman when both cameras were in front of you were you?

Do you really think the casual shooters like John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, Ray McSavvey, The Menschs, Mary Ellen Mark, etc. would not have found that same point of despair as you did? And there are literally 1000s of more highly satisfied users of MT and MT2000 and now MT3000 cameras who have never even thought to mention the function of the flap to us over the past 30 years.

[Bob Salomon]

Van,

We don't build a camera for you specifically. If ours does not suit you for some reason then you are perfectly welcome to buy something else. But the flap that seems top attract so much of your attention is and never has been a problem.

As for leather peeling, it happens, it is also easily put back down. Since the III was introduced in 1946 the Technika has undergone few changes and lots of use and history. The condition of a used camera is not indicative of all cameras. It simply indicates use. How hard is hard to tell on most Technikas.

Don't justify your choice of cameras based on condition of used models seen in a store or how the flap is made. All things considered there is no large format camera made with the history, precision, consistency and following of the Linhof Technika. And that is thanks to its fit, feel, finish, reliability, etc.

None of the Asian models have even approached Linhof's capability. Perhaps there is one that is lighter, or one that folds smaller, or one that has more movement or one that takes a wider lens then a MT but no Asian, European or US made camera puts it all in one package with one camera that can take the abuse and punishment and retauin its' value like a Technika can.

[Bob Salomon]

And Van,

For decades Linhof offered a 23 to 45 conversion back for the 45 Technika. They still offer 6x7, 6x9 and 6x12 roll backs for the MT or any other International Back camera. On any Technika 45 these backs fully revolve.

[Frank Petronio]

My friend has a Horseman, I have a Technika. The Horseman is a fine camera and the Technika is a great camera. I think someone here is being a wise apple and trying to get a rise out of Bob.

[chilihead]

I made a simple little gizmo that gives you asymetrical tilts on a Tech IV ! ---------- the thing about getting a Linhof Technica is this - you just ran out of excuses!

[gregstidham]

I think a set of spirit levels would be nice on a Technika. One on top and one on the side.

[bartf]

Well, I'd like to see an integrated viewfinder/rangefinder, but the only cameras that seems to be capable of that are converted polaroids.

I'd love to see a modern Polaroid 110B or 900 that could fold with a 135mm f3.5 Xenotar or Planar.

I have no idea what the market size of something like that would be, though, since there seem to be far more landscape folks around here.

[Richard Kelham]

"We don't build a camera for you specifically. If ours does not suit you for some reason then you are perfectly welcome to buy something else. "

Bob, I never asked for custom, but here is someone that does. Obviously they are more concerned with satisfying customer needs. They are not using retooling as an excuse either.

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




Oh come on – there's a world of difference between a wooden field camera and a metal technical camera. Perhaps you should ask Toyo to customise one of their metal technical cameras for you and see what sort of response you get (what's the Japanese for "eff off"?).



Richard

[dpetersen]

Personally, I like my Tech IV. For me, the camera has sufficent movements-this may not be true for everyone else however. But think about it-How many times could you use a 50-60 year old camera and really be happy with its performance? Not many I would guess. I have only had one problem (a broken hinge point on the front) which was repaired fairly easily and for not too much money.
Would I like some improvements? Certainly. But in the current state of economies, the cost/benefit ratio is pretty steep. Now if we're just daydreaming, a better handling of short focal lengths would be first on my list. I only use a 90mm, but that is not perfect. A little lighter would be nice along with a little more bellows draw. After that I have run out of suggestions.
As the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy" count yourself lucky that we have cameras and lenses of the quality that we do.

Dick P

[Bob Salomon]

Would I like some improvements? Certainly. But in the current state of economies, the cost/benefit ratio is pretty steep. Now if we're just daydreaming, a better handling of short focal lengths would be first on my list. I only use a 90mm, but that is not perfect. A little lighter would be nice along with a little more bellows draw. After that I have run out of suggestions.
As the song goes, "Don't worry, be happy" count yourself lucky that we have cameras and lenses of the quality that we do.

Dick P

Then try the Technikardan 45S

[otzi]

Bob, Looking at the TECHNIKARDAN site I can't make out the standard bellows minimum lens length. It states wide angle bellows minimum at at 70mm what is the standard bellows minimum?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, Looking at the TECHNIKARDAN site I can't make out the standard bellows minimum lens length. It states wide angle bellows minimum at at 70mm what is the standard bellows minimum?

Bill,

The front and rear standards on a TK can virtually touch each other. 65mm and longer lenses mount on flat boards (do so also on all current and recent Kardans also) and the TK can use a 35mm on a recessed board with a standard bellows.

To use a wide angle lens with movement you would need the bag bellows for all lenses 90mm and shorter.

[otzi]

Bill,

The front and rear standards on a TK can virtually touch each other. 65mm and longer lenses mount on flat boards (do so also on all current and recent Kardans also) and the TK can use a 35mm on a recessed board with a standard bellows.

To use a wide angle lens with movement you would need the bag bellows for all lenses 90mm and shorter.

Thanks. To try and avoid having to carry a wide bellows, what would be a practical minimum lens. ie. how much movement with a 75mm fitted on a recessed board?

[Rob Champagne]

Most mfrs like to listen to what customers have to say about their products, not linhof.

got say that if you think that by talking to the messenger you have an official Linhof response, then you are not being too clever. And infact, by entering into a dialogue with the messenger and assuming that gives you the right to make the conclusions that you are coming to, is even less clever. Always best to get the answers direct from the horses mouth.
So I'll give you the direct telephone number of the Linhof Export Sales manager in Germany. Phone him and put your concerns to him directly. Then let us know how you get on. My bet is that you won't do it because you're far more interested in complaining than actually doing the right thing to get your demands addressed.

phone
Herr Engel +49 8972492223

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks. To try and avoid having to carry a wide bellows, what would be a practical minimum lens. ie. how much movement with a 75mm fitted on a recessed board?

90 and shorter require the WA bellows if you are doing movements. No WA bellows is needed for 35 to 90mm if movements are not used.

[Bob Salomon]

got say that if you think that by talking to the messenger you have an official Linhof response, then you are not being too clever. And infact, by entering into a dialogue with the messenger and assuming that gives you the right to make the conclusions that you are coming to, is even less clever. Always best to get the answers direct from the horses mouth.
So I'll give you the direct telephone number of the Linhof Export Sales manager in Germany. Phone him and put your concerns to him directly. Then let us know how you get on. My bet is that you won't do it because you're far more interested in complaining than actually doing the right thing to get your demands addressed.

phone
Herr Engel +49 8972492223

Rob,

Unfortunately, Herr Engel has not worked for Linhof for at least a decade as far as we can remember. Could be even longer. He worked for Linhof before it was sold to the current owners.

[claudiocambon]

Well, I'd like to see an integrated viewfinder/rangefinder, but the only cameras that seems to be capable of that are converted polaroids.


Amen to that. It is why I shoot with a V, because it still has a focus finder.

Is there a way to improve the cams' accuracy at close distance?

How about lighter metals to lighten the camera a little without depriving it of its solidity?

[Michael Kadillak]

No. The market for new 5x7 cameras is so slow that Linhof now no longer makes them. Only 4x5, 8x10 and 6x9cm.

That is an assumption based upon one dimensional Linhof sales data that they have simply not bothered to take the time to investigate what is going on in the rest of the world. 5x7 sales have been surprisingly positive as evidenced by the dramatic increase in new cameras offered for sale in this format over the last few years.

The demand for 5x7 sheet film holders is a fact and Fotoman is proceeding with tooling for new 5x7 sheet film holders that could hit the market in early 2008.

Life is very good for analog photographers, including but not limited to 5x7 shooters.

Onward!

[Rob Champagne]

Rob,

Unfortunately, Herr Engel has not worked for Linhof for at least a decade as far as we can remember. Could be even longer. He worked for Linhof before it was sold to the current owners.

I was in in Munich in 2000 and met him at the factory where he showed me the model line up at the time. Of course he may have since left or possibly moved to another post. The phone number should still be good for Linhof.

[Bob Salomon]

That is an assumption based upon one dimensional Linhof sales data that they have simply not bothered to take the time to investigate what is going on in the rest of the world.
Onward!

Michael,

Linhof markets worldwide. They do know that 5x7, for the type of camera that they made 57 in, Kardan GT, Kardan GTL and the Technika 57, is dead for new cameras.

Yes there are people shooting ULF, yes there are people buying 810, yes there are people buying 5x7. But there are very few sales and very few requests for 5x7 and 8x10 studio monorail cameras. There are also inadequate sales to resurrect the 5x7 Technika, the 45 Technar, the 4x5 Aero Technika or the 2x3" Technica and Aerotronica.

Yes manufacturers like Canham have a thriving business making 57 view cameras. But that is with different manufacturing techniques, different types of factories, different types of corporate structures and goals and ownerships.

And are you willing to pay the price a new 57 Linhof would sell for? They could be well into 5 figures today. The last list price (2005) for a Kardan GTL 57 AMS camera was $12,912.00 and the 57 Kardan GT was $5,760.00. The GT 5x7 weighed 11.2 lbs less lensboard and lens and the Master GTL AMS 57 camera weighed 19.8 lbs. less lensboard and lens. Linhof was not into lightweight 57 cameras. They did try to make one in the late 70s called the Kardan Standard 57 but it was not at all popular and was discontinued after 3 years. And the last 57 Technika, the Super Technika V weighed 12 lbs. Not quite the weight that many of you are looking for in a camera today.

[Bob Salomon]

I was in in Munich in 2000 and met him at the factory where he showed me the model line up at the time. Of course he may have since left or possibly moved to another post. The phone number should still be good for Linhof.

The phone number for Linhof is 49 89 72 49 2 0

This will get you the operator. The number that you used was to an internal extension which may or may not be a current extension.

[Steve Hamley]

I admire Bob S. for even participating in these threads. Most of us are non-professionals in the meaning that photography is not our main occupation, and as a result we get caught up in details that are not as important to people who make their living with cameras.

Of all the commercial and professional film photographers I know, Sinar and Linhof are the mainstays. People who bring home the bacon with cameras are more interested in dependability rather than a "perfect" feature set, and they recognize that any precision instrument that's used in a commercial setting will need periodic service. So dependability and a fast turn around time for service is more important, and Linhof/HP Marketing does that for them.

The price between a $4k camera and a $6k camera is less relevant if you're making your living with it. If photography is a non-producing hobby it is quite a bit more important. If you're a pro and buying a cheaper camera costs you two weeks a year in service turnaround or failures you can't afford it. Buying a gray camera and sending it to Germany for service would not be an option.

BTW, one commercial photographer I know has 2 Technika IVs and still uses them. He's never complained about the feature set, he knows how to use the camera and gets results that pay the bills.

Cheers,

Steve

[Rob Vinnedge]

Bob,

I had a 5X7 Super Technika V in excellent condition, which I reluctantly sold in order to purchase ULF film. Yes, it weighed 12 lbs. and cost plenty, but it was a fantastic camera. I want another one badly and would pay the price that you are suggesting. The new 3000 Technika sells for over $6000 and photographers are buying it, even though there are lighter, less expensive models out there.

I agree with Michael that 5X7 is undergoing a resurgence. Would Linhof be able to do small runs, perhaps in the way that Schneider is manufacturing their XXL lenses, in order to test the market?

[Bob Salomon]

I want another one badly and would pay the price that you are suggesting.

No, Linhof does not make small production runs of old cameras on speculation.

But have you contacted the following dealers for a used 57 Technika?

Photo Gizzmo, Photo Habitat, Lens & Repro, View Camera Store, Ken Mar, E.P. Levine, Central Camera, MidWest, Quality Camera, PhotoMark, Tempe Camera Supply, Glazers, Keeble & Shuchat, Bear Images, Samy's, F11, Optechs, S&S Optika.

These, and several others, could have one.

[Michael Kadillak]

No, Linhof does not make small production runs of old cameras on speculation.

But have you contacted the following dealers for a used 57 Technika?

Photo Gizzmo, Photo Habitat, Lens & Repro, View Camera Store, Ken Mar, E.P. Levine, Central Camera, MidWest, Quality Camera, PhotoMark, Tempe Camera Supply, Glazers, Keeble & Shuchat, Bear Images, Samy's, F11, Optechs, S&S Optika.

These, and several others, could have one.

The dynamics of the LF/ULF game has changed from being dominanted by professionals just four or five years ago to the pros actually being the minority these days. As a result a line of excessively expensive Linhof cameras are like dinosaurs without a studio income to throw an equipment depreciation schedule at. You were correct in the assessment that Linhof chose not to participate in the 5x7 format with their old product line because that was an expectation that was not going to happen.

However, other camera makers that understood this fundamentall shift in the marketplace opted to innovate and actually aided the 5x7 format in its growth.

Fortunately there is plenty of new players in the camera business coming into the game. I sincerely hope that Linhof can maintain enough of this market to stay in the game.

Onward!

[Bob Salomon]

Van,, Sorry I can't speak for the condition of cameras outside the USA, we don't sell cameras to Canadian dealers or service cameras for Canadian dealers. That is done by Blazes. You might want to ask Mike at Blazes about what you have observed in your market. And give him your suggestions for the Technika.

[Rob Vinnedge]

Van Camper has hit the nail on the head. I was a pro for over thirty years and had to be very careful about spending, particularly in the early years. I did buy what I thought was the right tool for the job, but only after much planning and saving. Photography has always been a passion for me, though, and I always tended to put my money toward it, rather than to other areas of my life. This holds true today as I lead a more "amateur" photographic lifestyle. When I asked Bob Salomon about the possibility of a new 5X7 Technika, I was serious about paying the inevitable price. I will also pay Badger Graphics the $6000 price for the 550XXL when the time comes. I am a baby boomer, though not extremely wealthy or endowed with an inheritance, and I put my money into a few choice pieces of equipment, which serve my photographic purposes. I might also add that I am not a collector. I do not own a lot of equipment - only what I need.

To return to the Technika subject, however, I had hoped to get a warmer response to my inquiry about the 5X7 possibility. I am actually surprised that Linhof wouldn't consider a small run. Is it any less risky to issue an expensive new version of the 4X5 Technika in the face of so many options for lighter, less expensive models from dozens of other competitors?





"The price between a $4k camera and a $6k camera is less relevant if you're making your living with it. If photography is a non-producing hobby it is quite a bit more important."

Steve, I see your point, but don't discount the hobbyist. If money is all that mattered, they wouldn't be taking up photography if practicality was all that was important. I don't do this for a living, neither do many in here...yet we have spent enough to buy a new BMW, or cottage. The pro has to budget himself. Starting a business is expensive. The $2000 might be all he has left to put in a new front door to his business, and a lock. High end gear I think is for an established business, not for a recent graduate. I see many Ryerson graduates still holding unto their Sinar F1 and getting along, they have other bills. The $2000 could be the cushion they need in reserve to cover rent when things are tight, or they are out of business. It is the amateur with a good income that can indulge and spend loosely, and the demographics has changed. Today the many baby boomers are extremely wealthy (inheritance doesn't hurt either).

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, are you telling me that they are built differently in Canada? LOL. This forum touches everyone worldwide, or have you forgot? Bob, I buy lots of items US (including a SUV right now). If I wanted a Technica, I would buy it in the US, and the border is 8 miles from my house. The dealer is 20 miles away, and the warranty means nothing (I cross the border to US for service). Mike would be of no use to me, you're not either.

No Van,

I am telling you that we neither sell nor service dealers in Canada. For Linhof that is the responsibility of Blazes.

He might find your suggestions useful as he is the Linhof distributor for Canada.

I said nothing that implied that Linhof is built differently for Canada. Although a special version of the TK was made just for Japan when the TK was first introduced. It did not fold like all the others.

[Steve Hamley]

Perhaps the only criticism of Linhof is that they made a product that lasted so long as to be criticized over time. If they had "died" they'd have Dagor status.

So Bob, maybe Linhof needs to go out of business on paper and continue to offer "mint-in-box" 2007/2008 cameras on E-Bay. That ought to double profits.

Cheers,

Steve

[Teodor Oprean]

Although there have been many small changes in the 50+ years since the Technika IV was introduced, it seems to me that it could use some more serious updating. I know that B.S. will complain that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I'd like to make the following suggestions.
1) Using some new materials and trim off at least a pound. Start by replacing non-structural parts such as the front door and RF housing with carbon fiber. Many internal parts (such as the rails and uprights) could be lightened a bit by using titanium alloys.
2) Fitting an easily user-changable bellows. This is almost the only part of the whole camera which is vulnerable to disaster in the field, requiring the camera be out of service while it goes to the camera hospital. (An extended trip to the Golbi Desert would feel a lot better with a spare bellows tucked away). Also, a bag bellows option would be nice for WA users.
3) Make the opening between the front rails larger than the present 52mm, so more lenses can be fitted and still close the camera door.
4 Get rid of the leather viewing hood and replace it with something like the old Pacemaker Graphic hood (using very light materials).
5) Coupled moveable internal tracks (like the Pacemaker Graphics), so WA lenses can be focused with the regular knobs, without the necesity of special adapters (or a whole different camera).
I've got more radical ideas, but it seems to me that the changes already listed could/should be done just as normal product development.
Any other suggestions? (Not that Linhof might pay any attention.)

I fully agree with points 1 through 4 -- especially point 4.

1) It would be wonderful if the camera could lose some of its weight without compromising the rigidity. I cannot see anyone complaining about such an improvement.
2) It would be fantastic if the user could easily and quickly exchange the bellows without any screwdrivers or tools. The Wista 45SP has this feature, so we know it can be done.
3) Resizing the depth of the drop bed to create more space for especially voluminous lenses would be welcomed by many users.
4) The one improvement that I support most enthusiastically is switching to an all-metal folding focusing hood just like the ones used in the Crown Graphic. In the Crown Graphic the folding hood does not obstruct the view when you look at the ground glass and does not make physical contact with the ground glass when folded. Although the leather focusing hood of the Linhof design looks pretty when it's new, it becomes very annoying in actual use. The leather presses hard against the fresnel when the hood is folded, which renders the fresnel unusable very quickly. I don't like the idea of a folding hood that chews up fresnels. The hood should protect the fresnel. It should not damage the fresnel. The leather material also loses its folding pattern over time due to folding and unfolding, so you have to baby-sit the folding procedure with all your fingertips to coax the leather so it will fold along the intended lines into a reasonably flat package. I have seen used folding hoods in which the leather was heavily crumpled up beyond all recognition by a previous owner who had absolutely no patience for doing that careful procedure. The Crown Graphic metal hood is a no-nonsense, rigid, durable and classic design. I think that component has the best design imaginable.

[Richard Johnson]

I fully agree with points 1 through 4 -- especially point 4.

1) It would be wonderful if the camera could lose some of its weight without compromising the rigidity. I cannot see anyone complaining about such an improvement.
2) It would be fantastic if the user could easily and quickly exchange the bellows without any screwdrivers or tools. The Wista 45SP has this feature, so we know it can be done.
3) Resizing the depth of the drop bed to create more space for especially voluminous lenses would be welcomed by many users.
4) The one improvement that I support most enthusiastically is switching to an all-metal folding focusing hood just like the ones used in the Crown Graphic. In the Crown Graphic the folding hood does not obstruct the view when you look at the ground glass and does not make physical contact with the ground glass when folded. Although the leather focusing hood of the Linhof design looks pretty when it's new, it becomes very annoying in actual use. The leather presses hard against the fresnel when the hood is folded, which renders the fresnel unusable very quickly. I don't like the idea of a folding hood that chews up fresnels. The hood should protect the fresnel. It should not damage the fresnel. The leather material also loses its folding pattern over time due to folding and unfolding, so you have to baby-sit the folding procedure with all your fingertips to coax the leather so it will fold along the intended lines into a reasonably flat package. I have seen used folding hoods in which the leather was heavily crumpled up beyond all recognition by a previous owner who had absolutely no patience for doing that careful procedure. The Crown Graphic metal hood is a no-nonsense, rigid, durable and classic design. I think that component has the best design imaginable.

You can easily mount a metal Graphic hood to a Technika although you lose about 3/8" of viewing area ~ the original hood provides a larger, more accurate representation of what will be on your film.

To me, the hidden 3/8" is a worthy safety margin so I used a the Graphic hood. You use the swinging frame with the old Linhof hood pushed out, then wedge the Graphic hood in place (to test out how you like it, fine tuning) then silicone caulk it in place. Put black tape, dowel, scrap into the small sliver of a gap for a neater appearance.

[Teodor Oprean]

You can easily mount a metal Graphic hood to a Technika although you lose about 3/8" of viewing area ~ the original hood provides a larger, more accurate representation of what will be on your film.

To me, the hidden 3/8" is a worthy safety margin so I used a the Graphic hood. You use the swinging frame with the old Linhof hood pushed out, then wedge the Graphic hood in place (to test out how you like it, fine tuning) then silicone caulk it in place. Put black tape, dowel, scrap into the small sliver of a gap for a neater appearance.

I am thinking of doing exactly that. I have both components waiting for such a custom join. I am just unsure what type of glue to use to keep the Graphic metal hood securely connected to the Linhof swing-out frame. It is indeed an amazing coincidence that the two parts are very nearly a perfect match.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The leather presses hard against the fresnel when the hood is folded, which renders the fresnel unusable very quickly. I don't like the idea of a folding hood that chews up fresnels.

Your fresnel is on the wrong side of the glass, is it not?
.

[Bob Salomon]

Your fresnel is on the wrong side of the glass, is it not?
.

The proper position for a Fresnel on a modern Linhof (last 40 or so years) is on top of the ground glass, not underneath it. In the 34 years that I have been Linhof Product Manager in the USA I have never received a complaint of the Linhof Folding Focusing Hood scratching the Fresnel.. So that leads one to wonder why it does so on this one?

[Teodor Oprean]

The proper position for a Fresnel on a modern Linhof (last 40 or so years) is on top of the ground glass, not underneath it. In the 34 years that I have been Linhof Product Manager in the USA I have never received a complaint of the Linhof Folding Focusing Hood scratching the Fresnel.. So that leads one to wonder why it does so on this one?

I have bought a couple of Linhof backs with used fresnels in which the fresnel rings were flattened, presumably by the leather folding hood. Every used fresnel I have received as a freebie part of something else needed to be replaced with a new one.

[Bob Salomon]

I have bought a couple of Linhof backs with used fresnels in which the fresnel rings were flattened, presumably by the leather folding hood. Every used fresnel I have received as a freebie part of something else needed to be replaced with a new one.

If the Fresnel is properly positioned on the camera the grooved side is towards the lens. Not the eye. And the Fresnel Hold Down Clips ensure that it is propely positioned on the gg frame.

So the rings could not have been flattened by rubbing against the hood material if the instructions for proper mounting and use were followed.
Additionally, if the Fresnel was improperly positioned with the grooved side towards the eye then by just placing and moving a loupe over the grooved surface would create problems to the Fresnel.