leave Wista 45SP for Chamonix 45N-1?

[gregvds]

Hi,

I'm on the brinks of selling my Wista 45SP to buy a Chamonix 45N-1.

Mainly, the second one is half the weight of the first one; secondly, movements seems to be bigger. Then I'm interested by a wooden field camera.

Now, I would like to have your advices about that switch. Is it worth it?

Hugo told me if I order now, the 45N-1 will have a specially center-cut (16mm hollow circle) fresnel lens, so It's possible to focus (only in that central zone) accurately wide angle lenses wide open. As far as I understand the problem, this does not seem to be the real solution. I'd rather prefer the fresnel mounted on top of the GG, with crests against the GG.

So, I'm very tempted by the camera, but somehow cooled down by the fresnel-GG issue and the way it is delt by Chamonix.

So, all your advices most welcome!

Greg

[Michael Gordon]

I don't have any comment on the fresnel/WA thing, but there is one significant difference between these cameras: Do you need geared movements like your SP? On the Chamonix, gears and markings are almost wholly absent, so one tends to work by feel and 'look' (what the ground glass tells you). If you need gears, scales, and precision, the Chamonix may not be your cuppa joe.

This being said, the Chamonix suits my style so well (I now have two) that I'm selling my Ebony SV45Ti (http://michaelegordon.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/for-sale-ebony-sv45ti-4x5-large-format-view-camera/) :eek:

[gregvds]

No, not specifically. I'm currently guessing from under the cloth, moving one thing at a time, trying to figure out if it was the correct thing to do.

At the moment, I only have the last Schneider 120mm Apo-Symmar L, but I would like to switch it for a 110XL first, then a 80XL, and then see what could be interesting on the side of the tele lens, maybe Fujinon, maybe 210XL or I don't know what else. And for that, the wista seems to be quite limited with the rather sort bellow extent.

Thanks already,

Greg

[Clement Apffel]

Since I noticed the fresnel issue, I removed it and I am not looking back.
Yes the ground glass has central spot and it can be quite tricky to focus my 65mm in corners, but it was equally tricky with the fresnel (actually impossible with the fresnel and doable in average light condition without it. at least for me)

Besides, the chamonix fresnel isn't such a good one. If you REALLY are a uniform&super-bright-image-on-the-ground-glass addict you'll find yourself buying a Maxwell sooner or later anyway.
The chamonix fresnel does some artefact image in corners with wide angles and I find the lines to be quite coarse. I do not miss it at all.
(Note that I never used any other fresnel, another user might compare the chamonix fresnel to other brands)
I agree with you on the fact that the center-cut Fresnel isn’t such a viable solution.
If I were buying a 45N-1 today from Hugo, I would probably order one without the Fresnel with a discount.

About the "gears and markings": I understand that the chamonix 45N-1 system can be quite simple in comparison to other field cameras such as ebonys.
But I do not feel the lack of precision Michael Gordon is mentioning.
It is of course very personal. But I find the "dot alignment" system to be a quite accurate system for a very low cost.
And at the end, I find the standards positioning accurate enough.
However, I find myself double checking the levelling of both standards with a horsmann spirit level on tricky architecture shots.

It is as you say a very light field camera for a quite unbeatable price.
Plus : it is very versatile in terms of lens adaptation. From 47 to 400mm ! and IIRC it can also focus a 450mm to something like few feets with some kind of extension barrel mounted on the lensboard. If you search the forum, you’ll find posts mentioning this.
For the lenses you mention, the universal bellows or the bag bellows would be needed to use the full range of movements provided by the XL Schneider lenses.

What I’m telling you is I don’t know the wista 45SP but I love my 45N-1.

Hope it helps,
Regards,
CA

[Bob Salomon]

Why not see how users report what the problems may be between the camera systems? Lens board locks, film plane accuracy, focus locks, local service, local source of accessories, expandability, etc.?

[gregvds]

Mr Salomon,
do you mean these actually exist for Chamonix,
and not with the Wista SP I have now?

so your advice is avoid it?

Greg

[Michael Jones]

Mr Salomon,
do you mean these actually exist for Chamonix,
and not with the Wista SP I have now?

so your advice is avoid it?

Greg

I doubt that is what Bob meant. If you search this site, you will find a host of posts on the Chamonix, both positive and negative. Do the same for the Wista. Good luck.

Mike

[SW Rick]

I sold my Wista SP a few months ago and replaced it with the Chamonix. It was primarily a weight thing (no issues other than that)- after schlepping the SP around on a five day trip, the other SP owner in our group and I looked at each other and said: this weight is killing us! Of course, that is partly a sign of middle age :).
Agree the gears were nice, and the SP was built like a tank, but I've done fine without them, and wouldn't turn back- I'm quite happy with the Chamonix (and my back loves me).
Bob offers some good points to consider; haven't been problems for me.
Good luck with whatever you decide!

[shadowleaves]

Go Chamonix if you backpack a lot, and/or use long lense a lot (the ability to use Fuji 450/12.5 lens with the extension rack is a BIG plus for Chamonix). Stay with Wista if you prefer faster operation and precise zero-detents etc. Operating the 045n1 is somewhat slow compared to Wista.

The issue with the fresnel of 045n1 was a problem before, since many people either weren't aware of it or didn't believe it, and got de-focused pictures. Now that everyone knows it, and there are many ways to fix it (either by removing the fresnel or shimming it or drilling a hole in the center), I don't see it as a big problem now.

[rugenius]

Wow!
Lots of positive comments on the Chamonix 045.
And it's great to know that at least some of us are not so wrapped up in the shortcomings of the Fresnel provided on that camera.
I knew it would be a potential problem for wide/super wide angle short focal length lenses before I purchased the camera,... it's just the physics/optics issues of Fresnel lenses of any thickness. There are many "fixes" and frankly I have not had a problem with it yet from 150mm Wide and longer focal lengths.
That said,... The camera is so slow compared to medium format (last 30 years) that slow and fast for LF are not tangible to me.

The Chamonix 045-N appears to be a great way to start LF photography for me.
I'll assume other people ditto that comment even at the "seasoned/ veteran" LF status.:)

[gregvds]

Thanks for all the positive comments indeed. It gives me good spin to go further. I'll see with the camera in hand if the Fresnel problem is such a problem for me, see if I can work without, see if I need to work it out the other side of the GG, see also if I can source another one that can simply fit in place.

Now, there is my wife question...

I sent an email to Huggo through the Chamonix website. How long takes the guy to answer? I got a first answer, and replied with more questions, now I'm waiting.

I would like to know if you use the leather protection? I read it's glued on the baseplate. Is it mandatory to glue it? Is it glued at the factory or can I choose? I'm interested but would like to know more about it.

Many thanks again,

Greg

[SW Rick]

Check with Kerry Thalmann at Really Big Cameras. I dealt with him after I too never back from Hugo. Kerry stocks (!) Chamonix cameras and accessories, is very responsive and great to deal with. Do a search for him- worth the effort.

[gregvds]

Hi,

I'm currently discussing through e-mail with Hugo Zhang from Chamonix.

He confirmed me that it is possible to have the fresnel placed on top of the GG for my next order 45N-1.

So maybe this is the good way to go, and solve completely the issue.

I'll keep you informed.

All the best,

[GPS]

Hi,

I'm on the brinks of selling my Wista 45SP to buy a Chamonix 45N-1.

Mainly, the second one is half the weight of the first one; secondly, movements seems to be bigger. Then I'm interested by a wooden field camera.

Now, I would like to have your advices about that switch. Is it worth it?

Hugo told me if I order now, the 45N-1 will have a specially center-cut (16mm hollow circle) fresnel lens, so It's possible to focus (only in that central zone) accurately wide angle lenses wide open. As far as I understand the problem, this does not seem to be the real solution. I'd rather prefer the fresnel mounted on top of the GG, with crests against the GG.

So, I'm very tempted by the camera, but somehow cooled down by the fresnel-GG issue and the way it is delt by Chamonix.

So, all your advices most welcome!

Greg


Hi,

I'm currently discussing through e-mail with Hugo Zhang from Chamonix.

He confirmed me that it is possible to have the fresnel placed on top of the GG for my next order 45N-1.

So maybe this is the good way to go, and solve completely the issue.

I'll keep you informed.

All the best,

None of the Chamonix problem solutions "solves completely the issue" for you.
The first solution (a gg center hole) is not acceptable for tilts and swings focusing control and the second one brings the additional problem of more difficult focusing with a loupe due to the fresnell lens curves visibility.

You want to exchange (driven by cost reasons?) a technically correctly constructed camera (Wista) with specifications not up to your technical requirements for a technically incorrectly constructed camera (this Chamonix camera type) with specifications corresponding to you photographic needs.
In your shoes I would not exchange one problem for the other but I would try to eliminate them both - with a different camera altogether.

[Bob Salomon]

"the second one brings the additional problem of more difficult focusing with a loupe due to the fresnell lens curves visibility."

Since we are the distributor for Linhof as well as Wista it should be pointed out that the Fresnel lines on an external Fresnel are no problem at all with a properly focused loupe. While the loupe is positioned directly on top of the Fresnel, when it is on the outside of the gg, it should be focused on the grain side of the gg. That means the side that is closest to the lens. Since the loupe would then be positioned the thickness of the Fresnel + the thickness of the gg away from the grain side of the gg the Fresnel lines should not be a problem. Both Linhof and other companies like Sinar place the Fresnel on the eye side of the gg as should the lines be a problem for someone the Fresnel can be easily removed when if it becomes a problem. In Linhof's case, it is simply a matter of swinging a small clip up or down to remove the Fresnel. With Sinar you simply pull off the Fresnel frame.

When the Fresnel is placed under the gg the chance to have the lines in focus are greater then with the above since the lines would be closer to the focus plane with a properly focused loupe.

[GPS]

I see your point Bob but the truth is somewhere in the middle... While it is true that the focusing loupe should be focused (in the case of the external fresnel screen) on the gg glass course side it is also true that this viewed image goes then through the fresnel lines - as opposed to the case of an internal fresnel screen (where - on the other hand - its lines are closer to the gg surface and can disturb the view too).
That this external fresnel configuration can sometimes be felt as disturbing is then proved by the very fact you state - some cameras have the possibility to remove the external fresnel screen for focusing without it - for a good reason...

[Bob Salomon]

some cameras have the possibility to remove the external fresnel screen for focusing without it - for a good reason...

And many shooters don't focus their loupe on the ground side of the gg. So the facility to remove the Fresnel. But the main reason to do so if you use a properly focused loupe is that a Fresnel is a lens and has a focal length and it may not be compatible with all of the focal length lenses that a photographer uses. When it is not compatible it should be removed. If you check the catalog you will find that Wista offers Fresnel screens for normal as well as one for long lenses. Many Fresnel screens can black out with camera movements if your eye and loupe are not on axis with the lens. So some camera system allow the Fresnel to be easily removed when necessary. An important feature for a view camera.

To compensate for the on axis problem Linhof's newest view cameras, the M679 system and the soon to be released Techno system use a fresnel on the eye side of the camera that is cut off center and which can slide up and down on the back as tilts are used in order to keep the center of the Fresnel centered in the optical axis as you do movements with these asymmetrical axis cameras.

[gregvds]

That's a fine feature, that sliding fresnel!

Now, The subject is flawed, for I'm keeping the Wista, but will go in the future for a Chamonix, just to have something lighter when I want it.

Many thanks for all your comments and answers, they were really helpful.

All the best,

[GPS]

...
To compensate for the on axis problem Linhof's newest view cameras, the M679 system and the soon to be released Techno system use a fresnel on the eye side of the camera that is cut off center and which can slide up and down on the back as tilts are used in order to keep the center of the Fresnel centered in the optical axis as you do movements with these asymmetrical axis cameras.

I just hope the fresnel in this case doesn't slide directly on the gg - and gather all the dust from it..?
Anyway, it is interesting to see the scale of the technical problems specific to these digital photography view cameras.

[gregvds]

By the way, GPS, I'm interested if you have any suggestion for that third camera that would fit the bill. Of course an ebony is fine, but not on the same league cost-wise, and quite heavy, no? Canham was tempting also, but again, quite big tagprice for me and quite heavy too.

Other brand I didn't look too closely at the mo, but stay open.

Thanks,

Greg

[GPS]

Many swear by their Shen-hao, without the irritating limitations of Chamonix cameras.
Was my first thought for you...

[Bob Salomon]

I just hope the fresnel in this case doesn't slide directly on the gg - and gather all the dust from it..?
Anyway, it is interesting to see the scale of the technical problems specific to these digital photography view cameras.
The gg back assembly has 3 grooves. The first for the gg of choice, the second for the Fresnel and the third for viewing/focus devices like a reflex finder or a bellows hood or for a loupe.

[Bob Salomon]

By the way, GPS, I'm interested if you have any suggestion for that third camera that would fit the bill. Of course an ebony is fine, but not on the same league cost-wise, and quite heavy, no? Canham was tempting also, but again, quite big tagprice for me and quite heavy too.

Other brand I didn't look too closely at the mo, but stay open.

Thanks,

Greg

Why not look at a Wista cherry wood, rosewood, quince wood or ebony wood field camera? All your lensboards and most viewing accessories from the SP fit these wooden field cameras.

[lilmsmaggie]

gregvds,

Did you happen to ask Hugo when the replacement for the 45n-1 would be available and if the new design addresses this problem, or did the discussion come up?

[GPS]

The gg back assembly has 3 grooves. The first for the gg of choice, the second for the Fresnel and the third for viewing/focus devices like a reflex finder or a bellows hood or for a loupe.

I see - so the Fresnel doesn't touch the gg and the loupe etc. doesn't touch the Fresnel (too soft to support it without being supported itself by the gg) but slides over it..? How does such a supported (?) loupe get then to the corners etc?

[Bob Salomon]

I see - so the Fresnel doesn't touch the gg and the loupe etc. doesn't touch the Fresnel (too soft to support it without being supported itself by the gg) but slides over it..? How does such a supported (?) loupe get then to the corners etc?

All of the corners if it is the loupe made for the M679/Techno system. Note, these are digital view cameras and are not large format. The largest format these cameras can use is 6x9cm.

If you use any other loupe then it rests on the Fresnel screen or on the gg if a Fresnel is not used. It would cover exactly the same part of the image as it would on any other camera.

[GPS]

All of the corners if it is the loupe made for the M679/Techno system. Note, these are digital view cameras and are not large format. The largest format these cameras can use is 6x9cm.

If you use any other loupe then it rests on the Fresnel screen or on the gg if a Fresnel is not used. It would cover exactly the same part of the image as it would on any other camera.

I know they are digital photography view cameras (see my post n.19). So the loupe is on a kind of pantograph? And the Fresnel screen is made of a rigid material capable of supporting a different loupe? Just technical curiosity...
Or is the loupe covering the whole 6x9 area?

[Bob Salomon]

I know they are digital photography view cameras (see my post n.19). So the loupe is on a kind of pantograph? And the Fresnel screen is made of a rigid material capable of supporting a different loupe? Just technical curiosity...
Or is the loupe covering the whole 6x9 area?

No, the Linhof loupe slides in the slot that attaches it to the camera.

Wista has a sliding loupe arrangement for their 4x5 cameras that slides up and down and left to right on rails. That would be closer to what you are thinking of.

The Fresnel on the M679/Techno is made of the same material as all other view camera fresnels but has a metal hand grip at one end to make sliding it easier. Yes it covers the entire image area. It slides to allow centering it when doing tilts. Most users of these cameras are not shooting film so they don't need the Fresnel to cover the entire 6x9cm area anyway. And most film shooters on these cameras are not shooting 6x9cm. They use 6x7 or 6x6cm.

The "scale of the problems" is that the cameras have to be more precise in their focusing and movements. It has nothing to do with the Fresnel. The Fresnel slides to keep the optical center of the Fresnel in the optical axis of the lens to prevent dimming or blacking out when tilting since asymetrical xis tilts are a modified base tilt rather then an optical axis tilt.

[GPS]

Ok, so if the Fresnel is not rigid how can it support a loupe (non Linhof - post n. 26) and not to touch the gg?

[Bob Salomon]

Ok, so if the Fresnel is not rigid how can it support a loupe (non Linhof - post n. 26) and not to touch the gg?

Why would you apply so much pressure with your loupe that you would affect the Fresnel flatness? You rest the loupe on the gg or Fresnel. You don't apply body weight to it. And you don't press the loupe. You do exactly the same thing you would do when using a loupe on a slide, a negative, a print or a stamp. You look. You don't press. And better loupes have large eye relief so you don't have to be right against the loupe at any time.

[GPS]

...
The "scale of the problems" is that the cameras have to be more precise in their focusing and movements. It has nothing to do with the Fresnel. The Fresnel slides to keep the optical center of the Fresnel in the optical axis of the lens to prevent dimming or blacking out when tilting since asymetrical xis tilts are a modified base tilt rather then an optical axis tilt.

You keep editing the post while I'm answering it...:)
Anyway, the "scale of the problems" has to do - in this case certainly - with the Fresnel too. On these cameras even the Fresnel adds to their mechanical complexity. Nowhere else do you use a moving Fresnel, that's what I meant with the "scale of problems"...
There is hidden an interesting fact - while in the watchmaking industry the arrival of digital decreased the mechanical complexity of watches to a ridicule level, in the camera making industry it was exactly the opposite. Even view cameras got suddenly increased mechanical requirements to a degree of fine mechanics rarely used in them before.

[GPS]

Why would you apply so much pressure with your loupe that you would affect the Fresnel flatness? You rest the loupe on the gg or Fresnel. You don't apply body weight to it. And you don't press the loupe. You do exactly the same thing you would do when using a loupe on a slide, a negative, a print or a stamp. You look. You don't press. And better loupes have large eye relief so you don't have to be right against the loupe at any time.

Why? For the obvious reason that you press on the loupe your eye and hence the whole head. If you want or not the Fresnel holds that pressure... Plus (in the case of a camera placed outdoor) the head is moved by wind also and the moving fresnel then makes correct focusing difficult.

[Bob Salomon]

Why? For the obvious reason that you press on the loupe your eye and hence the whole head. If you want or not the Fresnel holds that pressure... Plus (in the case of a camera placed outdoor) the head is moved by wind also and the moving fresnel then makes correct focusing difficult.

Just to be clear, this is not a common problem In fact in the past 29 years as the Linhof Product Manager we have never had a report of a Linhof Fresnel defecting from the pressure of the loupe. In the years before that while I sold Sinar I also never had anyone complain about this.
But to be sure you fully understand. The Fresnel on the M679/Techno system fits in a metal groove on both sides of the Fresnel screen on the gg back adapters and the end of the fresnel is a metal handle that goes all the way across the top of the fresnel. You would have a very difficult time to make the Fresnel deflect, even if you were to intentionally try to do so. Perhaps the Fresnel screens you are familiar with are not as rigid as Linhof's. Fresnels are available in a variety of materials and in a range of thicknesses and in a range of resistance to temperature ranges. If you would like to see some characteristics of Fresnel screens and their specifications you can check with Fresnel Optics. They supply OEM Fresnels to several camera manufacturers and are the owner of the Beattie Screen.

[GPS]

Bob, just to be clear, I don't know any camera that would have a free floating (frame only supported) Fresnel screen on the outside of a gg back - that's why you didn't get any report of deflecting the Fresnel in your past 29 years as a Linhof product manager... ;-) Difficult to deflect a Fresnel sitting on gg.
If you say that the small (6x9) Fresnel on the Techno/M system is difficult to deflect it is because its constructors took care to make it rigid, as you say (easier to do in this format than on a 8x10 beast).
That the danger would be real on not fully supported external Fresnel screens is proved by the fact that many view cameras have even whole back standards sensitive to pressure (lack of rigidity) when focusing loupe is pressed on them while focusing. A well known fact of life.

[Clement Apffel]

Just to be clear, this (very interesting and informative) conversation is totally flooding this thread.

Though, if you guys allow me to come back to the original thread subject, I would very much like to know the answer to the question raised by lilmsmaggie :


Did you happen to ask Hugo when the replacement for the 45n-1 would be available and if the new design addresses this problem, or did the discussion come up?

Other point:
the shen hao won’t solve the weight issue. It isn’t any lighter than the ebony it copy. At least to my knowledge.
Same thing for an ebony field.
In other words : nothing can beat the 45N-1 on the weight. Or maybe the shen-hao copy of the same Philips view-camera.
But GPS, you wouldn’t flame that badly a Chinese copy of the Philips to recommend another. Would you ? :D

please forgive my irreverent tune ;)

[GPS]

While the Shen-Hao is not (?) lighter (the wood itself should be) than Ebony it is still lighter than OP's Wista SP. Flaming copies (?) is one thing, seeing constructional flaws is another. You don't mind that as I can see from your question... ;-)

[GPS]

Just to be clear, this (very interesting and informative) conversation is totally flooding this thread.

Though, if you guys allow me to come back to the original thread subject, I would very much like to know the answer to the question raised by lilmsmaggie :



Other point:
the shen hao won’t solve the weight issue. It isn’t any lighter than the ebony it copy. At least to my knowledge.
Same thing for an ebony field.
...

Just to be clear - a quick check on Shen-Hao cameras reveals that the Shen-Hao PTB 4x5 camera is lighter than all Ebony 4x5 cameras...

[Clement Apffel]

thanks for the info.
can you give us their respective weights ?

regards,
CA

[Clement Apffel]

:eek:

of course the PTB is lighter lol !
it is the philips copy !

I said : "It (the shen-hao) isn’t any lighter than the ebony it copy."
I had in mind cameras like the HZX 45 IIA or the TZ45 IIA

[GPS]

Clement,
just to be clear - the Shen-Hao PTB is a copy of the Chamonix 45n-1...

[Clement Apffel]

no kidding ?

I don't get what in my previous posts makes you think I don't know that...

I said that the ebony copies by shen hao are not lighter than ebonys. because you were obviously (at least to me) recommanding shen-haos like the TZ45 IIA.
I said that the philips copies (chamonix or shen hao) could be the OP's solution because they are significantly lighter.

I mentionned chamonix 45N-1 and not the PTB. that is true. just because the former is "older" and might have improved their copy in comparison to the newer shen hao copy.

[GPS]

...
Other point:
the shen hao won’t solve the weight issue. It isn’t any lighter than the ebony it copy. At least to my knowledge.
...


...
I said that the philips copies (chamonix or shen hao) could be the OP's solution because they are significantly lighter.

...

Just choose what you want to say... (just to be clear...:) ) Will help the OP.

[GPS]

...
I said that the ebony copies by shen hao are not lighter than ebonys. because you were obviously (at least to me) recommanding shen-haos like the TZ45 IIA.
...

No kidding?
I dont' get what in my previous posts makes you think I did so...:)

[Clement Apffel]

lol...


It isn’t any lighter than the ebony it copy
meaning the shen hao copy of the ebony models, not the copy of the philips models. omg.
so yes, those things you quote makes perfect sens.



We obviously aren't on the same wavelength on this one GPS.
I think you will agree with me if I say we should stop flooding that thread. :)
at least I will.

poor OP.

[GPS]

No worries about the OP, Clement - he enjoys the little bit of fun we added... ;-)
(and by the way, I like your pictures, did you know it? ;-)) I mean - those of churches. Very French!

[gregvds]

Hi over here!

It's hot in here. So, no, basically, Hugo didn't tell me anything about a new 2010 model that would correct this.

What Hugo told be in the other hand is that he discussed with the factory, and it is possible to have the fresnel placed on top of the GG, and covered by a third protective surface.

What it seems also is that they stopped to produce the 45N-1 in Dark Walnut, and propose it in Canadian Maple and Teak now. They still have some model in Dark walnut... but black tainted, with black aluminium, if someone is interested to know.

I'm interested to see the Teak one. I know about just one picture of a 8x10 camera, not very good, not showing a lot of wood, at least not enough to have a good idea of the aspect of the wood. Anybody outhere has a teak one and a digicam in hand?

I'll let you know when I got one :-)

Greg

[Clement Apffel]

You have a whole thread about the new 45N-1 in teak wood just here :

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52522

posts #41 and #42 displays some decent pictures of it.



What Hugo told be in the other hand is that he discussed with the factory, and it is possible to have the fresnel placed on top of the GG, and covered by a third protective surface.

sounds like a good news. because the 16mm center drilled fresnel sounded like an akward / cheap / unusable solution.

[gregvds]

because the 16mm center drilled fresnel sounded like an akward / cheap / unusable solution.

That's exactly what I answered to Hugo when he proposed me that solution. And what about the focus in the corner, or anywhere in the image. We are not speaking about 135mm reflex camera, where the stigmometer would be annoying here.

So I hope the special announcement (that changed recently if that matters) on the front page of the Chamonix website, would change again in the future if they decide the back fresnel solution is in fact better at avoiding the original focussing problem, and still acheiving some light enhancement, without having the fresnel circles too proeminent under the loupe.

Greg

[gregvds]

That's it, I ordered the 45N-1 in Teak, grey parts, with the universal bellows, and the fresnel placed on top. I let you know when I got it.

Thanks to everyone to have helped here.

Greg

[GPS]

The problem Chamonix cameras manufacturer faces is not a technical one but one of business like nature. To put the gg+Fresnel sandwich to the proper focusing distance (something Chamonix just omitted to do in the first place thus creating their problem) is technically neither impossible nor difficult. Chamonix could do so as other camera manufacturers do. But what to do with all the Chamonix cameras sold with the focusing error being now in owners hands? Tell them - "sorry, you should have waited for our new model" is not acceptable. Chamonix faced the problem to recall their products (the only honest solution) and send them back corrected - something that is not acceptable for them as it would ruin their finances (who would pay the S&H charges?) and in many cases the owner is already not the original one...
Therefore Chamonix decided to correct the error only on their new cameras and to propose the semi-solution of a drilled Fresnel screen (easier to ship) to the disgruntled owners of their older version of cameras.
There are other pitiful signs of the Chamonix business mentality in their announcement of the "solution" on their site. At the same time as they apologize for the constructional mistake on their camera they accuse "many manufacturers" (of course they do not dare to name them specifically!) of the very same mistake they did! Have you ever heard of the same problem on other cameras except that of Chamonix?
Therefore the whole apology sounds insincere, as if Chamonix went to greater length than other camera manufactures to deal with the problem simply by taking care not to repeat it anymore.
One cannot say else than - it's still Chamonix all through...

[Clement Apffel]

That's it, I ordered the 45N-1 in Teak, grey parts, with the universal bellows, and the fresnel placed on top. I let you know when I got it.

Thanks to everyone to have helped here.

Greg

Yes, please. I'm waiting your review of this new GG+fresnel sandwich. :)

Enjoy your new camera!
(and the wait for it ! :D )

Concerning the Chamonix announcement, I agree with GPS on the weakness of the solution concerning the users of the old version.
The center drilled fresnel is not an option any view camera owner would consider.

And on the other hand, it is true that shipping a new back with the new GG+fresnel sandwich to all users would probably bankrupt Chamonix.

But actually, I think many users wouldn't want that.
Because whatever people say Chamonix still offers large format cameras that are unique in their way (light, flexible, inexpensive, custom-made formats, ULF...), and that people would want to buy in the coming years.

So it is not a simple problem of "business". Because of the fact that this little firm seduced a lot of large format users.

Other point: the new GG+Fresnel sandwich is probably more expansive than the original setting. Therefore, the price of the new version could increase a bit.
And maybe Chamonix will offer the two options: 45N-2 with Fresnel and 45N-2 without Fresnel.
Thus the users that want their old camera to be fixed could be charged of that price difference between the 45n-1 and the 45n-2. that way, it would reduce the “fixing” cost for Chamonix.

Just a random thought
At least, if I had the use of a Fresnel lens, I would agree with that extra expense to “upgrade” my 45n-1 into a 45n-2.




Yes that new annoucement is akward, but I'm waiting the acting, I don't care of the marketing.

Clément "not that badly disgruntled" Apffel

[GPS]

Well, Clément, I agree with you too that - tossing the awkward Fresnel away from it -the camera certainly is an option for many amateurs to consider, despite all other shortcomings it has. It's just that merchandise should be declared correctly for what it is, to avoid mystifying customers...

[Clement Apffel]

True.

But, if I may ask, what are the "all other shortcomings" the 45n-1 has ?
Because in my experience, the fresnel one was the only one. Or maybe are you talking about more subjective drawbacks such as the lightweight / precision compromise ?

[GPS]

True.

But, if I may ask, what are the "all other shortcomings" the 45n-1 has ?
Because in my experience, the fresnel one was the only one. Or maybe are you talking about more subjective drawbacks such as the lightweight / precision compromise ?

The irritating lack of zero detents and markings, just to name an example.

[gregvds]

I agree that at least the communication put up by Chamonix should be clear, honest and straightforward. They should also choose the best solution to solve the problem (I mean, invert the fresnel GG order, or replace the trimmed down fresnel by a 4x5 one that fits perfectly on top, without any paperclips fiddling solution) and at least offer this for free, but maybe not shipping to and from.

From my point of view, the zero detent on the tilt of the back of my Wista SP is annoying, for you are not able to put a very small amount of tilt, either you fall into the zero detent, or you put more than the detent, which is instantly too much sometimes. So, markings, ok, but are there no markings for the zero positions? They are surely mandatory to put things straight, but zero detent, I find it sometimes really disturbing. If detent, then with a way to mechanically disable it.

Greg

[Clement Apffel]

GPS, with your fastidious and fierce investigator tendencies, I thought you were better informed than you are about the brand you are hammering at.

Yes of course 45N-1 has zero markings everywhere you could possibly want them. And pretty convenient ones, for the record.
The only downside is that they are sometimes hard to see in low light conditions. Just be sure to bring a flashlight if shooting in such conditions.

Maybe they forgot the markings on yours GPS ! but wait a sec, what model of Chamonix do you own already? Can’t remember.

Like I said, the “all other shortcomings” are just compromise like on any other field camera.
Chamonix choosed the extreme lightweight and compactness with its much known downside: no geared movements or micrometric stuff.

That’s exactly for that reason I went with the 45N-1 besides its reasonable price.

cheers

[gregvds]

I could add something more,

I choose the 45N-1 for its aesthetic aspect also. Sorry, I'm sensitive to that aspect of all the objects I own and use, they need to fit some kind of idea of beauty I have about them (fountain pen, knife, watch, lenses, you name it, I need them also to be pleasing to the eye, I couldn't do with an ugly one). For example, the Chamonix copy made by Shen-Hao has awful black rubbery plastic knobs which render that camera a no go for me. In comparison, the back of the Chamonix is also far more straightforward and simple in design than Shen-Hao's, or Ebony ones, which are also really nice, but somehow cumbersome to my eyes.

But I'm ready to concede that this is a really no point stance, and very personal, not helping anyone, but it explains maybe why this one for me, that's all.

And from that point of view, no obvious useless (for me) markings or sticked label or cheap printed aluminium rules all over the wood frames is a blessing.

And yes I make picture with my cameras.

Greg

[GPS]

...
Yes of course 45N-1 has zero markings everywhere you could possibly want them. And pretty convenient ones, for the record.
The only downside is that they are sometimes hard to see in low light conditions. Just be sure to bring a flashlight if shooting in such conditions.

...cheers

Sounds like very pretty convenient, indeed...:)

Make yourself a favor (I know you don't like when I'm investigative) and research the thread "Chamonix vs other <$1000 4x5 field cameras" - if you want to read about other shortcomings on Chamonix cameras... And don't forget to recall the shortcoming you yourself wrote about in yet another thread (the problem with bag bellows and a 65mm lens).
And if you want to be even more fastidious to yourself you can look for the thread where Hugo writes about the bubble level that, perhaps, will be changed...

[Clement Apffel]

Thanks for the thread reference, I'll take a look. Cause I am indeed very interested to see what other <1000$ solution exists.
But I think I know that thread… because guess what: that is one of the thread that decided me into going with the 45N-1. So I guess that thread is not flaming the 45N-1 so badly is it?
[EDIT : I just red it quite fast to find “the other shortcomings” and I find some that are not happening on my 45N-1 that was batched 6 months after this thread.]

Concerning the markings, let’s let the appreciation to the users shall we?
I use a 45N-1, I say they are very convenient. Period. Other users, other opinions. People can make their own mind from that, not from belief from people who never touched the concerned camera.

Bag bellows: only a problem with ultra-wide lenses.
And most ultra-wide lenses barely covers 4x5”. So no big deal.
Only real shortcoming of this: if you plan to shoot rollfilm with wide angles like 47 or 65.
In that case, yes, you should consider a specifically wide-angle designed camera.
I use the bag bellows on 90mm and can use the full range of movements the image circle provides i.e. 230+ mm. sounds good enough to me.

And just to be clear: the bag bellows problem is caused by the bed of the camera. i.e. it sounds to me that any field camera with a bed would have hard time to accommodate ultra-wide with bag bellows.
And in the thread you mention (the <1000$ one) some users say that 47 is usable with no movements, 58 with more movements than some other cameras.
So again, another no-problem problem

Bubble levels: true. The 2 levels on the rear standard are inconsistent on my camera. But I use a hand level to level all the large format camera I use. So yes, you do need a 20 grams gear added to the backpack. It makes no difference to me.

Oh, and you are maybe mentioning the falling level on rear standard? Only has to do with my usage and approximate care of the camera I use. But I guess it wouldn’t have happen with another camera. Who knows?

Anyway, one more time: yes that is true, the 45N-1 is not the perfect camera an Ebony SV45Ti probably is.
But it is good enough for my needs and there is no way I’ll pay 3000€ for a “probably perfection” (that’s only my opinion)

And also : don’t think I am the all-forgiving-because-I-bought-it kind of guy: I am actually probably as fastidious as you are when it comes to cameras and gears, I had experiences with other cameras that were not satisfying me at all : I never talk about them, and I would never take their defence nor recommend them to another user.

If I say all this and take the time to write all this about the 45N-1 it is just because:
1) I think some users might find their perfect camera in this one, because it is a good and very special one despite some imperfections.
2) I find that this camera deserves some positive feedback to counterbalance all the exaggerated flames we red, read and will read about it.

from now on, I think the potential buyers looking for infos had all they need to have.

kind regards,
CA

[Doug Dolde]

So what is so great about a Chamonix? I've seen people even dump their Arca Swiss for one. I find it hard to believe that it is that wonderful.

[GPS]

Thanks for the kind regards, Clément, appreciated.
To make the list more complete (?) one could also mention the bad tolerances on the front standard lens board attachment (some users recommended use of a file to get it right after the fall of a lens board with a lens).

[Clement Apffel]

never experienced that with any of the three kind of board I have : chamonix, linhof and shen-hao : they fit smothly and securely.
Couldn't talk about it.

[Bob Salomon]

"it sounds to me that any field camera with a bed would have hard time to accommodate ultra-wide with bag bellows."

The Technika 2000 and 3000 take a 35mm focal length with no problems and without a wide angle bellows. The Master Technika, the V and the IV all take a 58 with no problem and no wide angle bellows. It is a matter of design.

[Clement Apffel]

yep, just like the 45N-1 :
it takes down to 47mm without bag bellows.

[pocketfulladoubles]

So what is so great about a Chamonix? I've seen people even dump their Arca Swiss for one. I find it hard to believe that it is that wonderful.

It's lightweight, easy to use, good looking, relatively inexpensive, and does maybe 90% of what you want it to do. My only real wish would be separate locking for the front rise and tilt, but then you add more weight again.

[lilmsmaggie]

Hi everyone!

On the topic of the Chamonix's decision to introduce a new model. I'm a newbie by the way, and have been following the threads here and wherever I've been able to find them about the camera for at least a year.

My understanding is that after the introduction of the 45n-1, many owners discovered design issues with the camera and communicated those to Hugo, who in turn communicated those to the factory. Over time, Chamonix's owner must have decided that rather try to fix or retrofit or whatever, the existing 45n-1, a new model would address most if not all the design issues of the first generation camera.

I don't own a Chamonix, but in their defence I offer this:

They are a small fish, in a big pond competing with some big league manufactures, importers and exporters. They are small in comparison and most likely experiencing in their infancy, growing pains. That said, they need to work on their business and marketing plans. And most specifically, their communication with existing and potential customers.

Hugo, based on information I've culled from these threads as well as my own experience with him has done an admirable job handling inquries, taking orders, and communicating with the factory in China, etc. considering he is based here (Southern California I believe) in the U.S. But I think he is being stretched very thin.

People on this forum have mentioned Terry Thalmann as a Chamonix contact - but I for one have had difficulty communicating with the man. In addition, Hugo has informed me thay Terry is not an authorized dealer for Chamonix.

At least Hugo responds to me and very quickly I might add.

[gregvds]

And I double this,

Hugo so far has answered me quickly and helpfully, being open to discuss all matters related to accessories, solutions to the 'problem' and so on.

[Darin Boville]

>>People on this forum have mentioned Terry Thalmann as a Chamonix contact - but I for one have had difficulty communicating with the man. In addition, Hugo has informed me thay Terry is not an authorized dealer for Chamonix.<<

I bought mine from Terry. Fine communication, got the better bellows with the camera. No problems.

--Darin

[SW Rick]

So what is so great about a Chamonix? I've seen people even dump their Arca Swiss for one. I find it hard to believe that it is that wonderful.

Doug,

every Chamonix comes with gps (no, not THAT GPS) markings for tripod leg placement for 100 famous LF shots. Of course, as THAT GPS would be quick to note, it can't tell you WHICH legs go in which of the THREE coordinates.

It's a tool- I happen to like mine.


Rick

[lilmsmaggie]

I bought mine from Terry. Fine communication, got the better bellows with the camera. No problems.

--Darin

I don't doubt you. But the fact remains, I have tried several times. I don't know what it is but we just can't seem to be able to make a connection. Even attempts at personal e-mails have failed. :confused: IMHO, No one is that busy -- no one!

But it doesn't matter. I've established a rapport with Hugo and that's all that matters.

[Hans Berkhout]

and how how do Chamonix owners check for vignetting?

[Gem Singer]

His name is KERRY, not TERRY Thalmann.

Perhaps that's the reason you had difficulty reaching him.

[lilmsmaggie]

His name is KERRY, not TERRY Thalmann.

Perhaps that's the reason you had difficulty reaching him.

Thanks for correcting my error but - No, that is not the reason. To clarify a little, Kerry did send me another email address for which to contact him as well as asking me to send him a PM. And I tried to no avail.

As I've said: I know I can reach Hugo and that he is very responsive. At this point I'm quite comfortable communicating with Hugo. :D

[burnesingman]

Hi,

I'm on the brinks of selling my Wista 45SP to buy a Chamonix 45N-1.

Mainly, the second one is half the weight of the first one; secondly, movements seems to be bigger. Then I'm interested by a wooden field camera.

Now, I would like to have your advices about that switch. Is it worth it?

Hugo told me if I order now, the 45N-1 will have a specially center-cut (16mm hollow circle) fresnel lens, so It's possible to focus (only in that central zone) accurately wide angle lenses wide open. As far as I understand the problem, this does not seem to be the real solution. I'd rather prefer the fresnel mounted on top of the GG, with crests against the GG.

So, I'm very tempted by the camera, but somehow cooled down by the fresnel-GG issue and the way it is delt by Chamonix.

So, all your advices most welcome!

Greg

[burnesingman]

I have a Chaminoux 45 N2 and just got a Wista 45 SP. Yes, the Wista is twice the weight. I am not a major climber or major hiker and so 3 extra pounds is no biggie for me. Plus it adds stability. You could say it feels much more rigid and precise. I love the lightweight nature and beauty of the Cham, but having gears is great. The other big thing I love is lock down focus. I have had my Cham drift out of focus at times unless I tighten things all over or accidentally bump something. As far as movements, the Wista SP can do most things the Cham does.(I don't know what it can't do. I can't see movements making a difference between the two. If you want to twist the bellows like a pretzel, you'd better get a studio camera. So I will let one of the cameras go once I have used the Wista a bit more. The only 2 reasons I can see doing a Cham is weight and aesthetic beauty. I have heard that when doing shots publically, people stop and ask about the "old fashioned camera" more with the Cham than the black Wista. When I take it out for a portrait the sitter almost always says "wow, what a beautiful thing!"