Question for Chamonix and Phillips Cameras

[jesskramer]

I have a question for owners of Chamonix and Phillips stye cameras

All my large format cameras have been types that had rear standard movement control that was rigid... as opposed to the independant L/R back style controls

Do you have any issues with keeping the back parallel? or any other issues with the independance of the side to side movements?

Thanks,

Jesse
Sacramento, California

[Daniel_Buck]

there really is no rear shift per say, if that's what you mean by 'side to side movements'. And no rear rise/fall (on the Chamonix anyway) The rear swing might actually introduce some shift when you move the rear at an extreme angle, by the nature of how it moves. But I would hardly call this 'shift', if it's actually shifting some.

I've not had any problems with the different design of the rear standard, though admittedly I haven't done to much architecture shooting (where keeping lines straight is more critical?). It's a different than the traditional design for sure, but I got used to it quickly.

[John Powers]

On the RH Phillips 7x17,Dick wrote specs that read like this:
Base tilt: 30 degrees backward, limit of bellows forward
Swing: 5 to 12 degrees depending on back extension.
Back fore/aft motion: Forward -=1", Backward = 7.9"
Back motion is manual, gliding on teflon pads. Locking knobs are large spoke eight sided type.

John

[Darryl Baird]

Jesse,

I shoot a lot of architecture with the 8x10 Chamonix and think you'll adjust after a bit of use. I own a Wista technical camera and it's a dream for the same style of shooting, so I learned several things about the Chamonix that require a bit of caution/attention. 1) The bubble levels aren't adequate for rapid setup and shooting, they're tiny and slow... for me, a bit hard to see too. So carry a larger bubble level to verify by hand/eye. I got one from Calumet. (If I wasn't lazy, I'd replace the levels.) ;) 2) The back has two 'settings' accomplished by a sliding lock on both sides that allow for an upright, 90 degree locked position, OR unlocked and full tilt forward and backward. I use mine locked upright. 3) tightening everything a little extra, and 4) not using the back extension at all, but keeping it flush with the bed removes any accidental rear swinging. There's plenty of focus adjustments I can usually perform with the rack focus or the first two bellows positions on the camera bed. To date I've managed without wishing I had a bag bellows, but that may change after I begin to use it for 4x5 and the lens to film distance gets tight. :confused:

My shortest lens is 210mm (fuji). I also upgraded my tripod head to a Bogen 410 and it's great with my 8x10.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, I have a little bit of an issue, mainly because the markings or so darned light. But it's not too bad.

[Drew Wiley]

I still have one of the first 8x10 cameras Dick Phillips ever made. I've made a few repairs and minor modifications over the years, but otherwise it's in constant use. The only thing I don't like about it is that I need to use an extension board for a 600mm lens; but that's a minor issue. Unlike the Phillips II or the Chamonix, the rear standard is on a fixed hinge, without any swing. I actually prefer this for its simplified fast set-up and superior rigidity. If I need to do something fancy in architectural photography, I still keep a Sinar around. Otherwise, the Phillips is the thing to travel with. I even use a Goretex darkcloth because this camera is so reliable outdoors. It would be interesting, however, to play around someday with alternative models with the rear focus knob and swing. When Dick was first redoing his cameras it seems that he made the switch simply as a new design/creative challenge. When it comes to landscape
photography at least, I consider rigidity to be of more importance than extra features. For the same reason I chose a simplified version of an Ebony (the RW45) for my current field 4X5.