PDA

View Full Version : Chamonix 057N-1 5x7



Don Hutton
7-Oct-2008, 20:31
My new Chamonix 5x7 arrived today... I ordered the walnut convertible back model. It's definitely a scaled up clone of the 4x5. With EMS shipping to my door, the cost was $2000. It left the factory on 3 October and arrived here today, the 7th... Extremely impressive packaging job too.

It's amazingly light at just over 4.5 pounds. There are a few features of the 8x10 I would have liked to see on the 5x7 like the clever bellows support (which I am sure would have added to the price) and horizontal levels on the back (shall add some myself - that seems like a genuine oversight), but overall, it's a very impressive camera. At full extension, rigidity seems excellent. Despite the lack of rear "arm supports" (the camera relies on the the rear lock mechanism at the base, justlike the 4x5), the back seems very adequately rigid. It focuses a 90mm lens with ease at infinity and should be able to focus a 450mm down to 6 feet or so, so it's very versatile. Fit and finish are in line with the other Chamonix cameras I have purchased (a 4x5 and an 8x10) - very good. While the 5x7 may not appear to be the bargain that the 4x5 obviously is, it would seem to have virtually no competition at this price point except the Shen Hao FCL 5x7, which is just a little cheaper, but substantially bulkier, heavier and certainly not at the same level of finish. The camera does not ship with a fresnel - I will probably get a Maxwell screen installed. Knowing how friendly this design set-up is in the field I am really looking forward to using this. I'll post some photos tomorrow.

When I was considering this purchase I was encouraged to find some pretty good news out there for 5x7 shooters (or people considering the format):

1. New Fidelity filmholders are available for reasonable money ($55 each at Badgergraphic; a bit more in NY)
2. There are some other options for new filmholders - Shen Hao and Chamonix both offer 5x7 holders.
3. There is plenty of 5x7 B&W film around - Ilford FP4, HP5, Kodak Tmax100 and Tri-X seem to be freely available. At present Glazers has some stock of 5x7 Tmax 400-2. There is also a fair bit of Efke and some other B&W film around.
4. There is some 5x7 chrome available - Badger has some and I found a few other suppliers with stocks.
5. There is currently Portra 160 NC 5x7 available at B&H.

All in all, that's a pretty good scenario for 5x7 - much better than when I last visited it 2 years ago!

Songyun
7-Oct-2008, 20:58
hoho, congratulations! Don you seems addicted to Chamonix now, 4X5 5X7, 8X10. wow, a full line. I had 4X5 and 8X10, I was thinking about 5X7, could be my next camera.

Capocheny
7-Oct-2008, 21:01
Hi Don,

Good to see another shooter using 5x7... it's such a great format!

Have fun with the new camera.

Cheers

Chris Dunham
7-Oct-2008, 21:32
Good on ya Don, thanks for the interesting post. I've got the Chamonix 4x5 and am building towards the purchase of a 5x7, can't wait.

Chris.

eric t
8-Oct-2008, 00:20
hi don,

i know that there are some pictures of the camera on the chamonix website but could you please post some other views of the camera

thanks a lot

Eric

Jiri Vasina
8-Oct-2008, 01:36
Don, I'd be also interested in the pictures of your 5x7 camera, so I could compare it to my (now more than 7months old) Chamonix 5x8"...

Thanks a lot

Jiri

Eric Biggerstaff
8-Oct-2008, 05:49
Thanks Don for this post, I am saving my pennies for this same camera.

Andrew ren
8-Oct-2008, 06:26
Good for you Don!

It was my first choice too, but I can't wait that long, so I went for another 5x7 camera this May.

The only thing bothers me or say, confuses me is the stability of the locking down the rear stand, the locking knobs are on the lower part of the back... seems a bit weak for me. .. I might be wrong on this.

anyhow, enjoy the camera and show us some shots.

Thanks

Andrew

isaacc7
8-Oct-2008, 07:32
If you have both the 5x7 and the 4x5 maybe you could offer your opinion on this... Do you think you could use the 5x7 with a reducing back in lieu of the 4x5 camera? Or is the 4x5 small enough to make it worthwhile to have the second camera? Thanks!

Isaac

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 08:56
Some pics.

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 08:58
Some more...

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 09:04
If you have both the 5x7 and the 4x5 maybe you could offer your opinion on this... Do you think you could use the 5x7 with a reducing back in lieu of the 4x5 camera? Or is the 4x5 small enough to make it worthwhile to have the second camera? Thanks!

IsaacI'm of this opinion: if you can travel with a 5x7 camera to where you want to go, shoot 5x7. If 4x5 is preferable, shoot 4x5. If you've bothered to get a 5x7 to where you are shooting, why shoot 4x5? Given that the 4x5 Chamonix is so inexpensive, really light and compact, why not just have both? It's about $300 more than a Canham 5x7-4x5 reducing back... This is a pretty personal opinion and given the success of Keith Canham's "one size" 4x5 and 5x7 woodfield, I may well be in the minority.

Dave Aharonian
8-Oct-2008, 09:08
Damn, that is one sweet camera! I'm curious, how are the detents for zeroing the camera? My Canham MQC57 is a bit sloppy in that regard, and I'm now gettign very interested in the Chamonix....

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 09:08
Good for you Don!

It was my first choice too, but I can't wait that long, so I went for another 5x7 camera this May.

The only thing bothers me or say, confuses me is the stability of the locking down the rear stand, the locking knobs are on the lower part of the back... seems a bit weak for me. .. I might be wrong on this.

anyhow, enjoy the camera and show us some shots.

Thanks

AndrewAndrew

The locking knobs seem perfectly adequate in keeping the back locked and everything rigid. However, only time will tell - my initial thoughts were that it was a weak spot in the design, but it seems to work fine on the actual camera. The 5x8 Chamonix is definitely a "scaled down" 8x10 rather than a scaled up 4x5 - this camera is the opposite. The 5x8 has the supporting struts of most folding cameras, just like the 8x10.

For me, it's very intuitive to use, fast and easy to set up and the incredibly low weight may make me choose it on a regular basis in perference to 4x5 - that's why I bought it, but time will tell....

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 09:12
Damn, that is one sweet camera! I'm curious, how are the detents for zeroing the camera? My Canham MQC57 is a bit sloppy in that regard, and I'm now gettign very interested in the Chamonix....Dave

I've owned both the MQC57 and the Wood 5x7 - I found both frustrating to zero out and set-up - by comparison, the Chamonix is really easy and fast. The back has stoppers to lock it to vertical. The front standard screws into the bed and has swing locator dots which are very clear and easy to see. The front standard has stoppers which lock it to vertical too and the front standard rise/fall has easy to see dots which you line up. Rear swing is only loosened when you need it - otherwise, you simply leave it in a locked zero position (a personal bugbear on the Canham....).

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 09:43
Quick correction - this camera weighs 4lb 14 oz. It can focus a Fujinon 450mm C down to 8 feet.

R Mann
8-Oct-2008, 09:57
Just looking at your photos - is the thin spring on the film back going to be up to the task of holding the film holders tight? It looks rather light weight compared to other makes that I am familiar with.

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 10:26
Just looking at your photos - is the thin spring on the film back going to be up to the task of holding the film holders tight? It looks rather light weight compared to other makes that I am familiar with.It's the same as the 8x10 - and that seems to work fine. It certainly holds a film holder plenty tight - I suppose one could question it's longevity - I can't see why it shouldn't last for a long time. That said, I've had to replace leaf springs on a Phillips before, so I don't believe that this is a "last forever" component.

Jiri Vasina
8-Oct-2008, 11:06
Thanks Don for the pictures. As you have said, the 5x7 is different in design from my 5x8 - the 5x8 having more in common with the larger ones. I'm very curious about the tightness (and ease/difficulty of work) of the rear standard (and any movements you employ with it). Does it have a zero point for straight-up position? Because the 5x8 does.

From the pictures, your camera uses Linhof style lensboards, the 5x8 uses larger Sinar ones. Each solution has it's pros and cons.

One last point - how about some locking mechanism for the focusing "wormnut" - is there something? I'm asking because in recent weeks I've discovered one serious drawback here. When I'm using a heavy lens (like the ApoRonar 480mm) and if the camera is pointing slightly down, the weight of the lens and the smoothness of the "worm" would induce focus creep (depending on the tilt of the whole camera). I'm still thinking about the possible solution...

Jiri

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 14:19
Thanks Don for the pictures. As you have said, the 5x7 is different in design from my 5x8 - the 5x8 having more in common with the larger ones. I'm very curious about the tightness (and ease/difficulty of work) of the rear standard (and any movements you employ with it). Does it have a zero point for straight-up position? Because the 5x8 does.
Yes - there is an adjustable "zero" position which works with two clever little sliding locks - exactly the same as the 4x5. Obviously on a bigger camera, there would be too much torque when there is pressure on the rear standard for this arrangement to work, but it does seem fine on this 5x7. Rear tilt is very easy to set - smooth and precise.
From the pictures, your camera uses Linhof style lensboards, the 5x8 uses larger Sinar ones. Each solution has it's pros and cons.For a very lightweight field camera, I think the "pros" far outweigh the "cons" here - obviously if you mostly were shooting portraits with vintage lenses, the tiny front standard would probably be more of an issue.

One last point - how about some locking mechanism for the focusing "wormnut" - is there something? I'm asking because in recent weeks I've discovered one serious drawback here. When I'm using a heavy lens (like the ApoRonar 480mm) and if the camera is pointing slightly down, the weight of the lens and the smoothness of the "worm" would induce focus creep (depending on the tilt of the whole camera). I'm still thinking about the possible solution...

JiriI believe that the worm drive "stiffness" is adjustable with a small allan key. I have not needed to do this as it is stiff enough on all three of my cameras to not allow any drift. Dick Phillips who was the orginator of this concept, had a locking mechanism on his cameras to prevent this - first a clip into which an articulated portion of the worm drive went; and later a small lock which essentially was a small allan wrench inserted into the adjustment socket of the bushing. Have a look at the bushing just in front of the focusing knob and you will see a small grub screw into which you can insert an appropriate allan key - that will adjust the focus tensions for you. If you wanted, you could permanently affix an allan key into this as a lever in the same fashion as Dick Phillip's did - but beware to never overtighten!

isaacc7
8-Oct-2008, 15:08
I'm of this opinion: if you can travel with a 5x7 camera to where you want to go, shoot 5x7. If 4x5 is preferable, shoot 4x5. If you've bothered to get a 5x7 to where you are shooting, why shoot 4x5? Given that the 4x5 Chamonix is so inexpensive, really light and compact, why not just have both? It's about $300 more than a Canham 5x7-4x5 reducing back... This is a pretty personal opinion and given the success of Keith Canham's "one size" 4x5 and 5x7 woodfield, I may well be in the minority.

Well, there are a few reasons I would carry a 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back, most of them revolve around color emulsions... I agree that if you're shooting B&W, there's little reason to put the 4x5 reducing back on there. If I was only going to shoot B&W, I wouldn't bother with a 4x5 back, or maybe even 4x5 at all IF the 5x7 wasn't noticeably heavier/bulkier. I think that's the real appeal of the Canham, it isn't all that much bigger than a 4x5, so I was wondering if the same could be said for this one as well.

Isaac

Don Hutton
8-Oct-2008, 15:51
Well, there are a few reasons I would carry a 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back, most of them revolve around color emulsions... I agree that if you're shooting B&W, there's little reason to put the 4x5 reducing back on there. If I was only going to shoot B&W, I wouldn't bother with a 4x5 back, or maybe even 4x5 at all IF the 5x7 wasn't noticeably heavier/bulkier. I think that's the real appeal of the Canham, it isn't all that much bigger than a 4x5, so I was wondering if the same could be said for this one as well.

Isaac
This is smaller, lighter and faster to set-up than the Canham. It has slightly less maximum bellows extension. Personally I found both the metal and wooden Canhams a bit fiddly and not very rigid. This is better on both of those counts. At under 5 pounds, it's lighter than most 4x5 field cameras let alone 5x7s. However, both the Canhams I had were fitted with Maxwell screens and they were fantastic in that respect - much nicer than the plain screen on this camera. These are all very personal choices - many folks love their Canhams. This camera won't suit everyone, but it does add another interesting choice for folks considering a lightweight 5x7 for the field.

isaacc7
8-Oct-2008, 22:24
Excellent, I have heard similar things abut the Canhams. It's nice to hear from someone who has experience with both of these cameras... Thanks!


Isaac