PDA

View Full Version : Ebony 617S: Is it worth buying?



darr
21-Mar-2008, 16:07
I would like to acquire a panoramic view camera and the Ebony 617S (http://www.ebonycamera.com/index.html) looks interesting although expensive. The advantages would be the 6x17 GG view, roll film and being able to use some of the lenses - lensboards configurations I already have for landscape photography. I prefer using roll film for panoramics and I currently use an in-house ATL 1000 processor.

I am thinking of selling my 45SU to help cover some of the funding since this camera gets used for landscape work only and my two Arcas are used weekly as most of my work is done in the studio environment. I would use this camera like I have done with the 45SU for occasional landscape photography. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Kind regards,
Darr

Ling Z
21-Mar-2008, 20:03
IMHO, a dedicated 617 view camera has too many limitations. I would get a 5x7 camera with a 617 roll film holder such as Canham 617 RFH. This setup not only costs less than Ebony 617S, but also can be used to shoot 5x7 and 4x5 with a reduction back.

Brian Vuillemenot
21-Mar-2008, 21:19
Why don't you just get a roll film 6X17 camera like a Fotoman or used Fuji G617 or GX617? You don't really need any movements with the 6X17 format. If I remember correctly, the Ebony 617 is something like 7 or 8 grand, which really seems like several arms and legs to pay for a 6X17 camera. While the Fuji or Fotoman doesn't offer movements, they cost a fraction of the cost and will be much easier to work with in the field. I just don't understand why anyone would want a 6X17 view camera- it's the worst of all possible worlds!

If you're gonna fork out the big bucks to get an Ebony, go for the 4X10, which ironically is less expensive than the Ebony 6X17. 4X10 blows away 6X17 any day...

Cesar Barreto
22-Mar-2008, 06:23
Hi, Darr.
For that kind of money I would also consider the Gilde camera. I've been using 6x17 format for some years with Linhof and Tomiyama cameras and I miss movements a lot, mainly rise and fall. But I also think that the Gilde camera may be somewhat more versatile and fast on the field.

Michael Alpert
22-Mar-2008, 08:16
Since you prefer roll film for 6x17, this camera would work well, with full movements for perspecitive control. I recommend a wide-angle fresnel if you will be using very wide lenses. Part of the cost is the Horseman back, which is quite expensive. The camera itself looks beautifully engineered.

Kuzano
22-Mar-2008, 09:33
I pondered 617 and considered the 617 back for my large format, looked at the fuji and fotomans, could not come to a decision...
Yes limitations on the dedicated cameras and very expensive.
Then, it occurred to me. I have a very clean and usable...(and I use it a lot)... G690bl which shoots excellent 6X9 images, naturally.

So, I started using it on a panning tripod and am now doing panos at any dimension, by taking the 6X9's with overlapping images, scanning them, then stitching them together in CS3. I frankly do not think that a $3000 camera will give me better images than I am getting with my $500 Fuji. The stitch function is incredibly accurate. Some care must be taken on exposure, but I find the blend function on the stitch to be quite efficient. I use the 100mm standard lens, since I can create any wide angle view I want with increasing numbers of images. The 65mm lens distorts after a couple of images. I use a 6CM attachment on my tripod socket to move the rotation point of the tripod forward to be centered under the nodal point of the lens-simply a bracket that screws into the tripod socket and has a tripod socket hole threaded in the forward end.

I am finally coming to the conclusion that all the money I spend on equipment will buy tons of ink, papers for printing, etc. No more gear..... well, there is that.....?

Capocheny
22-Mar-2008, 11:16
IMHO, a dedicated 617 view camera has too many limitations. I would get a 5x7 camera with a 617 roll film holder such as Canham 617 RFH. This setup not only costs less than Ebony 617S, but also can be used to shoot 5x7 and 4x5 with a reduction back.

Hi Darr,

I'd also suggest considering Ling's recommendation... IMHO, it'll give you more options than going with a dedicated 617 camera.

Plus, 5x7 is a pretty sweet format to shoot with.

Happy Easter

Cheers

Colin Graham
22-Mar-2008, 11:54
That Gilde (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jljr6AYETZ8) Cesar mentions could be quite cool indeed. It has front tilt as well and shift and rise. Plus you can remove the magazine and compose on the ground glass any time, midroll, whenever.

But I'd definitely wait until the dollar gains on the euro a little.

Ling Z
22-Mar-2008, 15:49
That Gilde (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jljr6AYETZ8) Cesar mentions could be quite cool indeed. It has front tilt as well and shift and rise. Plus you can remove the magazine and compose on the ground glass any time, midroll, whenever.

But I'd definitely wait until the dollar gains on the euro a little.

I agree Gilde is the most versatile 617 system, however, it's heavy, bulky and expensive as well. I bought a Gilde system with a 72XL lens several years ago with a tremendous discount, as the system was used by Dr. Gilde for one tradeshow. The Gilde system's design is very cool, it is built like a tank, and has rise/fall and tilt movements. However, unless I really need all of these movements, I still use my Linhof 617 IIIS camera more often.

vann webb
22-Mar-2008, 17:40
I have the fuji GX617 and have been happy with it. However, if I had my druthers and more money at the time that I bought it, I would go with a 6 x 17 camera that has shift capability. Shift can be very important in panoramic photography. The camera needs to be absolutely dead level more often than not. Shift really opens up the possibilities for composing a better panoramic photograph, IMO. It is not unusual at all to wind up wanting to take the photograph from a spot that places the horizon inappropriately unless you tilt the camera, or have shift. Tilting the camera is usually a disaster of converging lines unless you are shooting clouds, etc. You can do without tilt capability more easily than shift on a dedicated panoramic camera. The Horseman SW would be my first choice for pure panoramic photography, but it's an expensive rascal too. JMHO.

Lachlan 717
10-Apr-2008, 22:03
I just don't understand why anyone would want a 6X17 view camera- it's the worst of all possible worlds!


Okay, here is why I would/do want a 6x17 view camera:

1) Lighter than my Gaoersi Shift 617;
2) Tilt/Swing/rear/front is very, very important when shooting anything less than infinity;
3) One camera/many, many lenses. There is currently a Fujinon GX617 180mm lens on eBay for US$2100 and another for around $3000. There is a "standard" Fujinon 180mm W f5.6 that you could fit to view camera for US$348. So you're paying at least over US$1700 for the nose cone!!! Currently, for that $1700, I could buy a Schneider APO Symmar 210mm, a Super Angulon 90mm and a 305mm G Claron;
4) Speaking of nose cones, as the 6x17 view camera uses bellows, there is a MASSIVE saving in space/volume. Not to mention ease of changing lenses, nor the ease of adding new lenses to your system;
5) If you have any other LF equipment (eg 4x5), you might already have lenses that are usable on this camera. You might also be able to use any lenses bought for your 6x17 with your existing cLF camera;
6) No need to "calibrate" lenses to nose cones. Just check your focus with a loupe (oh, that's right, you can't do this with a G617 mid roll...)
7) Try getting a nose cone for anything longer than 300mm on a non-view 6x17. Forget it if you own a Technorama/GX617.
8) Gaoersi's don't accept Copal #3s. I'm not sure about Fotoman/DaYi/Glide etc
9) With a decent bellow draw, a 6x17 view camera should be able to focus on subjects under 3 feet away. I think that the closest focus on a Fuji G617 is about 12 feet...

As for a 6x17 being "...the worst of all possible worlds...", I would pit a Holga with a 1:2 panoramic reducing insert against a 6x17 view camera any day!!

Lachlan.

Nick_3536
10-Apr-2008, 22:11
[FONT="Century Gothic"]


Okay, here is why I would/do want a 6x17 view camera:



All those points are also in favour of a 5x7 with a 6x17 back.

Lachlan 717
10-Apr-2008, 22:47
All those points are also in favour of a 5x7 with a 6x17 back.

Not many things that I would like less than a Walker 5x7 with a Canham back on it, but the Ebony/6x17 view camera would, in theory, be somewhere around half the size and, thus, weight!

Clyde Rogers
11-Apr-2008, 07:33
Not many things that I would like less than a Walker 5x7 with a Canham back on it, but the Ebony/6x17 view camera would, in theory, be somewhere around half the size and, thus, weight!

I thought that too, but the the website says the Ebony weighs 3 kilos, same as the Walker. I think they should've done more the reduce the weight. Beautiful camera, though, with an excellent design---likely even worth the money to some folks considering an equally expensive Horseman or Linhof 6x17.

--clyde

David Millard
11-Apr-2008, 18:27
I pondered 617 and considered the 617 back for my large format, looked at the fuji and fotomans, could not come to a decision...
Yes limitations on the dedicated cameras and very expensive.
Then, it occurred to me. I have a very clean and usable...(and I use it a lot)... G690bl which shoots excellent 6X9 images, naturally.

So, I started using it on a panning tripod and am now doing panos at any dimension, by taking the 6X9's with overlapping images, scanning them, then stitching them together in CS3. I frankly do not think that a $3000 camera will give me better images than I am getting with my $500 Fuji. The stitch function is incredibly accurate. Some care must be taken on exposure, but I find the blend function on the stitch to be quite efficient. No more gear..... well, there is that.....?

I agree with Kuzano. My scanner only takes up to 6X9 images, so I needed to take 3 scans from my Fotoman 617 transparencies, and then stitch them in CS3. It was a surprisingly quick and painless process, so I tried stitching separate images from my 6X9 Linhof Technikardan, with the camera fixed and the back shifted. Although I don't get quite as much width on the film, I get the benefit of useful movements and can readily change lenses. Both systems complement each other well, and I paid considerably less for both cameras together (the Linhof was used) than the Ebony would cost.

Steve Barber
15-Apr-2008, 11:03
Why not look for a Da Yi 6x17 back for your 4x5? It is a low tech solution, but you keep a much more useful camera and get a very usable addition to it allowing 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 with 120 roll film for not much money. Granted, you cannot change formats in the middle of a roll, but that is really not a problem. The only real limitation is that you cannot use longer lenses with 150mm, or thereabouts, being the limit before you begin to get vignetting of the image.

darr
15-Apr-2008, 12:15
Why not look for a Da Yi 6x17 back for your 4x5? It is a low tech solution, but you keep a much more useful camera and get a very usable addition to it allowing 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 with 120 roll film for not much money. Granted, you cannot change formats in the middle of a roll, but that is really not a problem. The only real limitation is that you cannot use longer lenses with 150mm, or thereabouts, being the limit before you begin to get vignetting of the image.

Good idea ...

Has anyone tried the Shen-Hao 6X17(120)for 4X5 Roll Film Back (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=123)?

Darr

Steve Barber
15-Apr-2008, 13:06
I have seen where someone claimed they were the same thing, just using two or three different names. However, looking at the one shown on Badger, it has a different window for indexing the frames. The Da Yi has several windows and comes with spacers that can be used to change the format to 6x9 or 6x12 in addition to the 6x17 format without the spacers. The different windows are used to index the film, the window used being dependent on the format desired. The Badger illustration does not mention any format other than 6x17.

The body is cast aluminum, machined as necessary and very sturdy. It looks indestructible and mine still shows no signs of use. They are easy to use, but fiddly with having to use a separate viewer to compose and focus and then dismount it and mount the film holder to take the picture. The biggest problem I have with it is remembering to advance the film.

darr
17-Apr-2008, 12:11
Why not look for a Da Yi 6x17 back for your 4x5? It is a low tech solution, but you keep a much more useful camera and get a very usable addition to it allowing 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 with 120 roll film for not much money. Granted, you cannot change formats in the middle of a roll, but that is really not a problem. The only real limitation is that you cannot use longer lenses with 150mm, or thereabouts, being the limit before you begin to get vignetting of the image.


Steve,

Are you actually getting a 6x17 image with a 4x5" camera?

Darr

Lachlan 717
17-Apr-2008, 14:43
Good idea ...

Has anyone tried the Shen-Hao 6X17(120)for 4X5 Roll Film Back (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=123)?

Darr

[FONT="Century Gothic"]Darr,

Have you got any technical skills? If so, consider a 5x7 camera (Cheap B&J ones are often listed on the "electronic bay" site) with a modified Shen Hao back.

It is reasonably simply to replace/modify the 4x5 plate to a 5x7 plate, thus allowing you to use longer focal lengths on the bigger format without vignetting...

You can also buy and modify the Gaeorsi/Da Yi roll film back separately from several places. Again, it is a relatively easy process to add a 5x7 plate to this unit if you have some skills. Happy to discuss further if you want to email me!

Lachlan.