PDA

View Full Version : Light weight 8x10



Thomasbroening
22-May-2008, 15:35
I am looking for a light weight 8x10 camera. I have an Ebony which works great if I can work close to the car but gets heavy and hard to fly with. I mostly shoot with an 165mm super angulon and all I need in terms of movements is a front rise. Would be great if I can use the same lensboard and needs to be pretty cheap because I nearly bankrupted myself on the ebony.

thanks thomas

RichardRitter
22-May-2008, 15:41
Get a copy of the May/June issue of View Camera Magazine and read the article by Bruce Barlow on a 8 x 10 camera he has been working with.

Kirk Gittings
22-May-2008, 15:58
Made by that anonymous master craftsman..........

Walter Calahan
22-May-2008, 16:36
Instead of buying a new camera, get a 3-wheel baby jogging stroller. They have full suspension, and can be pushed pretty much anywhere.

I see them all the time on eBay for about 1/3 the price of new. That's how I get my Canham light-weight 8x10 around with all my lenses, holders and tripod.

Isn't the 165 mm terrific. For me though, since the light-weight 8x10 front standard is so small, I have to unscrew the rear element to attach the lens to the camera. No biggy.

HeinrichVoelkel
22-May-2008, 16:58
Hello Thomas, the pics on your blog about you wearing this belt, what kind of bag is those, the yellow one?. Is it for 4x5 holders?

Regards from Berlin
Heinrich

Thomasbroening
22-May-2008, 17:24
The belt it a Kinesis. It holds polaroid back, 10 4x5 holders, polaroid garbage and and extra lense. meter and a small flashlight. It works great and allows me to just carry the tripod and 4X5 camera and no bag. I wish it worked for 8X10.

Mike Castles
22-May-2008, 17:39
Based on your description of what you would like, a Rochester Optical Company (ROC) Empire model might fit. These are from around 1900, but examples can be found in good condition that have newer bellows. Am sure that there are other makes and models that would fit as well. But comparing the 8x10 ROC Empire to the 8x10 Korona that I have the ROC is much lighter - it just needs work.

The Ritter 8x10 would fit your needs for a lightweight camera - 6.4 lbs with lots of movements.

Henry Suryo
22-May-2008, 17:44
Can you define cheap, because everything is cheap compared to your Ebony ?

Jon Shiu
22-May-2008, 17:52
A Bender 8x10 kit camera (build it yourself) weighs about 6 lbs. Good for those that like to tinker with things. Around $400, I think.

Jon

HeinrichVoelkel
22-May-2008, 17:52
The belt it a Kinesis. It holds polaroid back, 10 4x5 holders, polaroid garbage and and extra lense. meter and a small flashlight. It works great and allows me to just carry the tripod and 4X5 camera and no bag. I wish it worked for 8X10.

Thanks a lot, I'm looking for exactly this kind of solution.

Renato Tonelli
22-May-2008, 18:21
Get a copy of the May/June issue of View Camera Magazine and read the article by Bruce Barlow on a 8 x 10 camera he has been working with.

What is the price, if I may ask?
I saw the article but haven't read it yet and left the magazine in my office.

Jon Shiu
22-May-2008, 18:30
Price:
http://www.lg4mat.net/order.html



Jon

HeinrichVoelkel
22-May-2008, 18:36
Thomas,

have a look at this:

http://www.wehmancamera.com/light_weight_model.htm

HeinrichVoelkel
22-May-2008, 18:38
and usable with a 165

http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera%20gallery%2006/pages/7%20side%20wide.htm

Bruce Barlow
23-May-2008, 05:25
Alice (that's my Richard Ritter 8x10 camera's name) weighs 6 pounds 4 ounces without a lens. On a tripod (which can also be downsized) it weighs less than Norma (my Sinar) off a tripod.

It is revolutionizing the way I work, because it's so easy just to pick up the camera and walk around with it. Focusing and movements are fast and smooth. In short, it's a joy. I've never really had FUN with 8x10 (it has always seemed a battle, even though I love Norma) until now. John Bowen: be patient, and ye shall be rewarded manyfold.

$3000, by the time you add lens boards (Zone VI 8x10 or Sinar), and worth every penny.

The View Camera article has specs and a longer description than I can put here.

Thomasbroening
23-May-2008, 06:57
Thanks for all the responses. I use a gardeners cart (http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/34784/377%20710/0/carts/Primary%20Search/mode%20matchallpartial/0/0?N=377%20710&Ne=0&Ntt=carts&Ntk=Primary%20Search&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial&Nao=0&Ns=0&keyword=carts&isLTokenURL=true&storeNum=98&subdeptNum=838&classNum=838) that works pretty well. But it is one more item to check when I fly.

The Ritter camera looks interesting but too expensive. ( I had to buy short bellows for the ebony and that alone was $1k) Maybe an 8x10 version of Shenhao (if there was one) or a Wista? Maybe a used camera I am not sure.

Scott Davis
23-May-2008, 07:13
There are two Shen-Hao 8x10s. One is no longer made, so it may be hard to find used, but it is a triple-extension model which won't save you much if any weight over your Ebony. They also have a double-extension model that is a clone of the Phillips design. Look around for a used Zone VI Ultralight - I got mine in mint, like new in box condition for $1800. It's 9.8 lbs no lens. Still not a Ritter, but it beats the heck out of my old Calumet C-1 green monster :D.

Nick_3536
23-May-2008, 08:59
The Shen FCL-810 is about 4kg. I find it light but light is something you need to define for yourself. But I don't think the price is much if any less then the Ritter. OTOH the bag bellows are very cheap. On the third hand you'll never need the bag bellows for 8x10. Hey but if you like really wide 5x7 then you might want them -)

prado333
23-May-2008, 08:59
if money is a trouble i will go for a tachihara 8x10 . the fresnel and ground glass could beat the most expensive models. i have a double extension and i think is a fantastic camera. in other hand , please more pictures of your pick up street project and congratulations for your work

David A. Goldfarb
23-May-2008, 11:00
I can get my Gowland 8x10" kit down to about 18 lbs including tripod, Busch Vademecum set, three holders, Black Jacket, gel filters, and small odds and ends, when I'm going really minimalist, and add a few more pounds if I want luxuries like a tripod head or other lenses. The camera itself is about 5-6.5 lbs., depending on how I set it up.

http://www.petergowland.com/camera/

neil poulsen
23-May-2008, 12:59
The Shen FCL-810 is about 4kg. I find it light but light is something you need to define for yourself. But I don't think the price is much if any less then the Ritter. OTOH the bag bellows are very cheap. On the third hand you'll never need the bag bellows for 8x10. Hey but if you like really wide 5x7 then you might want them -)

Just to check, there's a bag bellows for the Shen-Hao? I noticed that on'es not listed at Badger Graphic site.

Nick_3536
23-May-2008, 13:04
Yup got them from the factory when I ordered my stuff. Having got it I've no real idea why. The camera does focus a 90mm on a flat board. Does anybody really need to focus a 65mm on a flat board ? On an 8x10 camera? Even with the 5x7 back on it's not really needed.

Brian Ellis
23-May-2008, 17:59
The lightest I know of is Richard Ritter's at 6 lb something, next lightest is the Wehman at 8 lbs something. I think Keith Canham's light weight 8x10 is in the 8 lb range also. None of these are cheap, by my standards at least. Cheap and light weight in 8x10 don't go together very well. The cheap ones tend to be the very old ones that usually are quite heavy or metal monorails that are also heavy.

Dave_B
23-May-2008, 18:46
The Phillips Explorer is also a light weight, first rate camera. Not cheap or easy to find but a fine camera.

Specs for the Camera are:
Extension: 515mm max, 80mm min
Rise: 2.75"
Fall: 2.5"
Shift: +/- 1.1"
Optic Axis Tilt on front standard, swing
Back Standard has base tilt of 30 degrees, swing of roughly 10 degrees
Weight 6.0 lbs, 13.5"x11.5"x3.5"

Hugo Zhang
23-May-2008, 20:47
Shameless promotion for not cheap Chamonix 8x10...

The technical information for 8x10 is as follows:

Weight: 3,820g white Canadian maple, 3,920g for black walnut,
Bellows draw: 680mm max, 95mm min
Rear standard tilt: 10 degrees
Front standard rise and fall: 105mm
shift: 100mm

Jan Pedersen
23-May-2008, 21:06
Hugo, Thank you for promoting this wonderful camera.
Living happily with the Canadian Maple model called Blondie II all i can say is that i would never look for anything else if i should need another one god forbid.

Honestly, i do like my cameras to work well but do also appreciate real craftmanship and beauty. The lighter ones seems to miss that.


jan

mohan
27-May-2008, 03:54
Can someone place post some photos of the Ritter 8x10?

Warm regards

Bruce Barlow
27-May-2008, 04:23
The current View Camera magazine has pictures and specs. I have yet to check to see if it has made my local bookstore.

You can see the general idea at Richard's web site, although you'll be looking at a 7x17. Check out http://www.lg4mat.net/. He used a similar carbon fiber tubing system for rails, a wooden box and front lensboard frame.

Mike Castles
27-May-2008, 05:07
Can someone place post some photos of the Ritter 8x10?

Warm regards

Would try to find Bruce's article in VC, as I think it is a good first look at the camera. However, Richard did post some photos (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=312872&postcount=11) in another thread a while back, which should give you an idea of what the camera looks like.

Even better way to see the 7x17 in action is to order (only $15 - I think) the instructional video that Burce did for Richard. That's what sold me on the cameras.

Michael Roberts
27-May-2008, 05:48
Thomas,
Why not sell the Ebony 4x5 and use the proceeds to trade up to the Ritter or one of the other 6lb 8x10s. You could add a 4x5 reducing back and still have a relatively light 4x5 capability in addition to the 8x10. My .02.

tim810
27-May-2008, 06:08
Richards cameras are great I have a 12x20 back and it is rather light and easy to maneuver. Another design to look at would be the Toho there is a 8x10 and it is really light and fairly affordable (its a better word than cheep).

John O'Connell
27-May-2008, 08:04
Lightweight 8x10 user here:

The weight of the camera won't make much difference. The cheap lightweight cameras are the Empire, the Kodak 2D, the Gowland, and perhaps some double-extension Eastern cameras (maybe there is an 8x10 version of the Anba or the Rajah).

Unfortunately, we're talking about shaving 2-4 pounds (1-2 kg) off the weight of a kit at the cost of $500-1000 US. A cheaper strategy might be to try out lighter weight lenses (there are some lightweight wide angles in the 165mm range that offer 380mm image circles) or, problematic and rare as they no doubt are, Mido 8x10 filmholders.

My 8x10 camera is about 8 pounds. My tripod and head are 6.5 pounds. My kit weighs about 40# unless I leave stuff at home, and it's usually not worth the sacrifice.

Michael Nagl
27-May-2008, 12:36
Thomas,

I was pondering to sell my Wehman (2007 lightweight model, 7,5 lbs, 52 exposures made with it) but was still unsure about the price - around 1200 Euros? Front shift to no end, worked fine with the 150 SSXL.
regards

Michael

toyosnapper
1-Jun-2008, 03:34
Can anyone post some higher resolution pics, inc close-ups of mechanisms, of the Richard Ritter 8 x 10 camera. Any info of it in use too would be helpful. Thanks. Dennis.

steve simmons
1-Jun-2008, 05:44
Posts: 12 Re: Light weight 8x10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can anyone post some higher resolution pics, inc close-ups of mechanisms, of the Richard Ritter 8 x 10 camera. Any info of it in use too would be helpful. Thanks. Dennis.

There are photos and specs in the May issue of View Camera.

steve simmons

Thomasbroening
1-Jun-2008, 15:18
I am little concerned about the Ritter Camera. The focus mechanism seems to be adapted for ULF but maybe not well suited for 8x10 and the design seems cumbersome compared to standard field camera. I am leaning towards a Canham or Chamoix. I can not find the View Camera review on line. Does anyone have this? thanks thomas

Frank Petronio
1-Jun-2008, 15:52
You gotta pay to be a VC subscriber to see the contents of the magazine. You know, like a porn site.

Ralph Barker
1-Jun-2008, 16:05
I am little concerned about the Ritter Camera. The focus mechanism seems to be adapted for ULF but maybe not well suited for 8x10 and the design seems cumbersome compared to standard field camera. I am leaning towards a Canham or Chamoix. I can not find the View Camera review on line. Does anyone have this? thanks thomas

Most focusing mechanisms assume that one has more arm than bellows extension, so they are relatively simple. While that's usually true with 4x5, it's not always the case with 8x10 when long lenses are being used - particularly at close distances.

John Kasaian
1-Jun-2008, 16:38
I am looking for a light weight 8x10 camera. I have an Ebony which works great if I can work close to the car but gets heavy and hard to fly with. I mostly shoot with an 165mm super angulon and all I need in terms of movements is a front rise. Would be great if I can use the same lensboard and needs to be pretty cheap because I nearly bankrupted myself on the ebony.

thanks thomas

thomas,
You already have the Ebony. Start humping (not that kind of humping!)that thing all over creation and you'll build up your muscles so that it will soon seem like a lightwieght camera--problem solved!:)

vinny
1-Jun-2008, 16:50
What about the Wehman? Made in the good old U.S.A.
It's light, bulletproof and handles the 165mm super angulon just fine. I even use it with a 90mm and reducing back.

vinny

Thomasbroening
1-Jun-2008, 17:10
I have been schlepping that Ebony all over the place hence my need for a lighter camera when I travel. ([URL="http://thomasbroening.blogspot.com/2008/05/florida-chronicles-part-1.html"]h

That Phillips seems like the perfect answer but seems like he has stopped making them.


The Wehman may be the ugliest camera I have seen this side of a Gowlandflex. I know it doesn't matter how the camera looks but please.

I bought a subscription to VC magazine but have not received login info for past articles.



thomas

Daniel_Buck
1-Jun-2008, 19:50
wow, I thought I set up MY camera in sticky situations! Wow! Do you have a scan of the photo you got from that position? I've love to see it!

Thomasbroening
1-Jun-2008, 20:27
Here is a rough scan from the Tree Mounted Camera. And you can go to my blog (broening.com) to see more from last weekend in Florida.

Bruce Barlow
2-Jun-2008, 04:54
I am little concerned about the Ritter Camera. The focus mechanism seems to be adapted for ULF but maybe not well suited for 8x10 and the design seems cumbersome compared to standard field camera. I am leaning towards a Canham or Chamoix. I can not find the View Camera review on line. Does anyone have this? thanks thomas

"Cumbersome"? Au contraire! It's incredibly simple and quick: rack the extension out to rough focus and lock it with two easily-findable knobs, or don't...while smooth, the racking is snug enough to stay put unless you're focusing on your own feet. Use the wormy-screw at the back for fine focus. It is sooo much easier, and much faster, than Norma (my Sinar). Maybe it does come out of Richard's ULF design, but I like it a lot.

This camera is revolutionizing the way I work - 8x10 is finally fun, rather than a heavy chore. Now, if we could only get Koadak to restore 50-sheet Tri-X boxes.... And yeah, it's probably up to me to post more detailed pictures of Alice (the camera's name), which I'll try to do at some point in the near future. But she's shy.

RichardRitter
2-Jun-2008, 07:15
I am little concerned about the Ritter Camera. The focus mechanism seems to be adapted for ULF but maybe not well suited for 8x10 and the design seems cumbersome compared to standard field camera.

Focusing is the same as a Phillips camera. Folds up and works like field cameras do.

There are photos at http://www.lg4mat.net/LFcamera.html

Cumbersome in my book is a 15 pound 8 x 10 field camera that I would be afraid of dropping. One thing I found in the years of working on camera is the heaver the camera the more damage it receives when it hit the ground.

Clyde Rogers
2-Jun-2008, 07:33
Could either Richard or Bruce answer a couple questions about the Ritter 8x10?

1. What is the shortest flange focal distance possible without reversing the front standard?
2. The fact that the standard can reverse is good, but after looking at the Ritter ULF DVD, it looks a bit cumbersome. In actual use is it painless, a moderate pain, or painful?
3. Can the camera be folded with the front standard reversed?

Thanks,

Clyde

Fred L
2-Jun-2008, 07:40
Crikey that's a light camera ! Haven't weighed my Z VI but it has to be similar to the 'Dorff weight. I really shouldn't have clicked on Richard's link ;)

RichardRitter
2-Jun-2008, 11:51
Could either Richard or Bruce answer a couple questions about the Ritter 8x10?

1. What is the shortest flange focal distance possible without reversing the front standard?
2. The fact that the standard can reverse is good, but after looking at the Ritter ULF DVD, it looks a bit cumbersome. In actual use is it painless, a moderate pain, or painful?
3. Can the camera be folded with the front standard reversed?

Thanks,

Clyde

#1 A 90 mm lens you have to drop the bed of the camera or you will be photographing the rails. This is standard on most camera. Bellows on the standard camera are not removal. Removable bellows are a custom option.

#2 Painless, very useful and fast.

#3 No and I use the 7 x 17 most of the time in the revers position I just remove the bellows and rotate the standard to the forward position and claps the camera without putting the bellows on the frame. If I am out photographing the camera stays set up. I sometimes set the camera up before I leave the drive way and put it on the back seat. Setting up and folding down a camera is what wears out the belows. Think of the paper clip if you bend a paper clip enough time in the same spot it will break. The same goes for the fabric bellows are made out of. Corners go first.

I went out one time with a photographer he would set the camera up take the photograph take the camera down and put it way in the camera bag walk 10 to 20 feet and go through the whole set up again and again and a again on and on all day. His 4 x 5 camera is about the same age as mine and he is on this 3rd bellows I still have the one that came on the camera.


Zone VI 8 x 10 cameras weight on average 13 pounds it varies based on the density of the wood. This was why I designed the new 8 x 10 camera, as time went on the back pack seem to get heavier and heavier. I went from on average 50 pound pack down to a 20 pound pack. Going for a walk with the new 8 x 10 is now a real joy.

Blacky Dalton
2-Jun-2008, 14:44
I personally am really disappointed that Mr. Ritter is not attending Foto3 this year. I was hoping to handle one of his cameras before deciding to purchase.

B. Dalton

Clyde Rogers
2-Jun-2008, 14:51
Thank you much for the responses, Richard.

Clyde

Bruce Barlow
2-Jun-2008, 15:25
I personally am really disappointed that Mr. Ritter is not attending Foto3 this year. I was hoping to handle one of his cameras before deciding to purchase.

B. Dalton

Buy one, take delivery, and if you don't like it send it back. Richard's awfully good about that kind of thing, especially if you talk to him in advance.

Fact is, he can stay at home, build 8x10 cameras, and make money, or take an expensive trip to Foto3 and MAYBE sell a camera or two. As a business decision, he's better off staying at home, even though I know he wanted to be there.

By the way, it's highly unlikely that you'll send it back, IMHO.

Yeah, yeah, I know, everybody, pictures... I'm working on it.