Chamonix vs Ritter ULF

[Richard K.]

Geeze, I hate starting threads like this BUT...

For those of you who have seen one or even read enough to have even a tentative opinion, what are the pros and cons for these two brands in the 16x20/12x20/20x24 formats. I have a friend (me) who is interested in one of those formats from one of those 2 companies. I am talking about things like cost, weight, built quality...or if you want to be blunt about it, which 20x24 would you buy and why?
Thanks to all and have a great big-camera year! :D

Richard K.

[Mike Castles]

Thanks for the post Richard, I was thinking it would be nice if someone that had used one of the Ritter cameras would post their thoughts on operatiing the camera. I did read Michael M's review when it came out in VC.

[Jay Wolfe]

If you buy Richard's video instruction manual (about $15), you will get a very good feel for his design, its flexibility, and good and bad features.

[Nick_3536]

On the topic of the Chamonix anybody know if a longer bellows [even with trading off the wide end] would be possible?

For example the 8x20 bellows range is 100mm to 690mm. My understanding is the 11x14 will be similar. What's the point? Even if you stick an 8x10 reducing back on the thing 100mm is WIDE.

BTW are things like reducing backs available?

[Songyun]

On the topic of the Chamonix anybody know if a longer bellows [even with trading off the wide end] would be possible?

For example the 8x20 bellows range is 100mm to 690mm. My understanding is the 11x14 will be similar. What's the point? Even if you stick an 8x10 reducing back on the thing 100mm is WIDE.

BTW are things like reducing backs available?
1. 690mm is the max extension of the camera. if you need longer bellow, looking for an extension accessory, like the one in the FS section a few month ago.
2. reducing back is available, last time I checked they have 810 to 410 reduce back in stock.

[Nick_3536]

But is it possible to order the cameras with longer bellows?

How willing is the factory to come up with reducing backs and holders to match? Would something like a 7x11 or 5.5x14 be possible for the 11x14 camera?

[Songyun]

But is it possible to order the cameras with longer bellows?

How willing is the factory to come up with reducing backs and holders to match? Would something like a 7x11 or 5.5x14 be possible for the 11x14 camera?
that you got to ask hugo.

[Hugo Zhang]

Nick,

Chamonix can tailor make any camera you want. We have even made a 5x14" for our Jim Galli with a big Kodak 2D front. We are currently making a reversable 20x24 camera with a 60" bellows and an extention rack.

Yes, reducing backs and holders too. We are actually making some 5.5x14 holders for a customer here as we speak.

I am heading out for a lunch and I can discuss theses in details with you in PMs later today.

Thanks.
Hugo

[Nick_3536]

Thanks. sounds interesting.

[RichardRitter]

But is it possible to order the cameras with longer bellows?

How willing is the factory to come up with reducing backs and holders to match? Would something like a 7x11 or 5.5x14 be possible for the 11x14 camera?

No problem on longer or shorter bellows. This would add up to 5 weeks on the delivery of a camera,50 inches is about the limit.

Want to change to a different size no problem. You can buy a second back and even chance over in the field in less then 5 minutes. A camera and a second back weigh around 22 pounds that is the average weight of most ULF cameras.

A 11 x 14 camera with a 7 x 11 or a 5 .5 x 14 back, just supply the holders and a back can be made. Allow up to 8 weeks.

Richard T Ritter
www.lg4mat.net

[sanking]

I have a friend (me) who is interested in one of those formats from one of those 2 companies. I am talking about things like cost, weight, built quality...or if you want to be blunt about it, which 20x24 would you buy and why?
Thanks to all and have a great big-camera year! :D

Richard K.

I own a 7X17 Chamonix and a 20X24" camera by Richard Ritter so my comments may be interesting.


Chamonix cameras are light and very well built. Aesthetically they are among the most beautiful cameras I have seen. Richard Ritter cameras are very light and well-constructed, and also allow setting up the camera for shooting in both vertical and horizontal orientation. They are perhaps not quite as "pretty" as Chamonix cameras, but they are very "functional." The ability to set the camera up in vertical orientation is in fact a big plus for the RR cameras.

Regarding the 20X24 format, I looked carefully at the features of Chamonix and RR cameras and decided to go with the camera by RR because of its very light weight, greater bellows draw and reversible back. The Chamonix camera that I considered did not allow for reversing the back, a serious negative to me for 20X24 format. I understand that Chamonix is now offering a 20X24 with a reversible back, and more bellows draw, so the scenario is not quite the same as when I made by choice.

The RR 20X24 is both very light and rigid, and I can also use it with a 12X20 reducing back. Focusing is not ideal because the rear worm mechanism does not cover much space with a turn, the result being that the image does not "snap" into focus as I would like. I would definitely like to have a faster moving focusing worm for this camera.

Sandy King

[scott_6029]

I own Chamonix holders, 7x17, and they are among the finest I own. A real work of art and very functional. As to the camera itself i cannot attest as I do not own one, but would imagine fine quality based on holders.

[John Bowen]

Focusing is not ideal because the rear worm mechanism does not cover much space with a turn, the result being that the image does not "snap" into focus as I would like. I would definitely like to have a faster moving focusing worm for this camera.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I had the opportunity to work with Richard's inital 7x17 prototype. One of my comments to Richard was that I thought the focusing wasn't fine enough. In other words, I felt you got too much movement for each turn of the "worm". I have also learned how to get pretty good estimating the "rough" focus using the rails. It helps speed the focusing...

I haven't used a Chaminoix, but I'm more than happy with my Ritter 7x17. Just remember, if your Chaminoix needs repair/modification... who ya gonna call???

[Bruce Barlow]

Sandy,

Just remember, if your Chaminoix needs repair/modification... who ya gonna call???

Richard, most likely. At least, I would. Prob'ly expensive, since he'd have to custom-make Chamonix repair parts, whereas he'd likely have parts for his own on the shelf.

[John Bowen]

Richard, most likely. At least, I would. Prob'ly expensive, since he'd have to custom-make Chamonix repair parts, whereas he'd likely have parts for his own on the shelf.

My point exactly!

[sanking]

Sandy,

I had the opportunity to work with Richard's inital 7x17 prototype. One of my comments to Richard was that I thought the focusing wasn't fine enough. In other words, I felt you got too much movement for each turn of the "worm". I have also learned how to get pretty good estimating the "rough" focus using the rails. It helps speed the focusing...

I haven't used a Chaminoix, but I'm more than happy with my Ritter 7x17. Just remember, if your Chaminoix needs repair/modification... who ya gonna call???


John,

It is entirely possible that you were right about the worm focusing with the 7X17 where you would have been using a shorter focal length lens than I am using with the 20X24. However, depth of focus is very great when back focusing with a 600mm - 750mm lens and the worm focus on my 20X24 does not snap in and out of focus as I believe it should. I have already mentioned this to Richard so I am not saying anything here that he does not already know.

This is a relatively minor complaint considering the many very positive qualities of this camera.

Sandy King

[John Bowen]

John,

It is entirely possible that you were right about the worm focusing with the 7X17 where you would have been using a shorter focal length lens than I am using with the 20X24. However, depth of focus is very great when back focusing with a 600mm - 750mm lens and the worm focus on my 20X24 does not snap in and out of focus as I believe it should. I have already mentioned this to Richard so I am not saying anything here that he does not already know.

This is a relatively minor complaint considering the many very positive qualities of this camera.

Sandy King

Memory is a little sketchy here, but I'd bet I was using a 355 lens. Thanks for pointing this out Sandy. I was trying to accept blame for your dilemna... :o

[robert]

In looking at both cameras it looks as though you may have greater movements with a Ritter camera. But that is just my first impression so I could be wrong. But this all depends on how much and how many movements you normally use. I owned a Wisner 8x10 pocket expedition that had every bell and whistle you could put on a field camera. I very seldom used half of them. I did like his rear geared and front geared axis tilts. But aside from that I could have lived without half of those features. But both the Chamonix and the Ritter are both very innovative in design. To see Sandy strap a 20x24 to a pack frame and take off hiking with it is pretty amazing. I know he's not getting any younger.( No offense intended Sandy) Robert

[Bruce Barlow]

Memory is a little sketchy here, but I'd bet I was using a 355 lens. Thanks for pointing this out Sandy. I was trying to accept blame for your dilemna... :o

Sandy! Blame him! It's good for his head to feel shame and suffer!

I'd suggest asking Richard if he could replace the worm with something coarser, but that means you'd probably have to ship the base back to him, and that's an ugly thought.

[RichardRitter]

Sandy! Blame him! It's good for his head to feel shame and suffer!

I'd suggest asking Richard if he could replace the worm with something coarser, but that means you'd probably have to ship the base back to him, and that's an ugly thought.

I am looking. You have to remember there is only one of me.

And yes I do repair Chamonix.

[sanking]

In looking at both cameras it looks as though you may have greater movements with a Ritter camera. But that is just my first impression so I could be wrong. But this all depends on how much and how many movements you normally use. I owned a Wisner 8x10 pocket expedition that had every bell and whistle you could put on a field camera. I very seldom used half of them. I did like his rear geared and front geared axis tilts. But aside from that I could have lived without half of those features. But both the Chamonix and the Ritter are both very innovative in design. To see Sandy strap a 20x24 to a pack frame and take off hiking with it is pretty amazing. I know he's not getting any younger.( No offense intended Sandy) Robert


Robert,

You are correct, at least in comparing my 7X17 Chamonix camera to the Richard Ritter 20X24. Movements on the Chamonix are more than adequate for most practical situations, but movement on the RR are pretty much unlimited. There might be a few extreme situations where one would need more movement with the Chamonix, but I think this would never happen with the RR 20X24.

But for all practical purposes, both the Chamonix and Richard Ritter cameras have a great abundance of movements.

As I noted before, the 7X17 Chamonix is one of the most aesthetically beautifully cameras I have ever owned. The RR camera of the same size is also functionally very attractive, and offers the very considerable advantage of setting up in both vertical and horizontal orientation. See Michael Mutmansky's comments on this in View Camera.

Now we just need to clone Richard Ritter.

Sandy

[robert]

Here! Here! on cloning Ritter. (As I mentioned before in a less jovial thread.) Richard.. you should consider taking on an apprentice. Robert

[robert]

or is it Hear! Hear!?....oh well you know what I mean

[Mike Castles]

Have followed this thread, as well as Sandy's on his 20x24 and the other thread on both of these cameras. The most exciting thing about this is that there are new camera makers out there - wold be remiss not to mention Kerry's new venture. That is 3 new ULF camera makers - WOW!!

The reason for the post though, as I was wondering about the Chamonix and Ritter ULF cameras, I decided to order the DVD instructional manual from Bruce to see what the Ritter cameras were really like. I would Highly recommend this to anyone that is even remotely considering a Ritter ULF camera (wish there was something like it for the Chamonix, but at this time I am not aware of one).

First off, the video is just plain fun..Bruce and Richard are to be commended for doing a good job. Richard takes you through the process of how he designed the rails - how to set the camera up the first time, how to change it to vertical, and how to change formats. There is a section on changing the lens-board frame so you can use a wide angle lens that I thought was really interesting.

Now I just have to figure out which format I want - or get with Richard to find out what the cost of a back+bellows is vs the complete camera.

One this for sure, the video is one the best $15 buys out there. Thanks Guys!!