Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review

[stevebrot]

Introduction:
The second generation Chamonix 4x5 cameras started shipping about two weeks ago. Being a new owner, I thought it would appropriate for me to share my initial impressions.

First of all, not only am I a new owner, I admit it...I am a large format newbie. Despite several decades using 35mm film cameras, I successfully resisted the larger formats until just a few weeks ago. Through a series of small events, the seed was planted, the market research was initiated, and the purchase was made. My initial criteria were:

4x5
Compact and portable
Well-made
Reasonable array of movements
Ease of use
Support for short focal length lenses
Graflok back
Support for 120 roll film holders
Pretty

Yes, pretty! If I am going to spend good money, the camera should at least LOOK good! The Chamonix 045N-2 satisfies all of my requirements and is good looking, in a technical way, as well. Before continuing to the rest of the review, I must state that much has been published on the Web regarding version 1 of the 045N. I will not attempt to duplicate those reviews or material readily available at the Chamonix Web site. If you are interested in technical specifications, the published specs and camera description may be found here:

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/45.html


In the Box:

Camera with "Universal" bellows
Padded cloth wrap with velcro fasteners
Ground glass focus screen with fresnel
Carbon fiber ground glass protector


Description:
The 045N-2 is a lightweight 4x5 field camera based on the Phillips design. Basic features may be summarized as follows:

Extensive use of carbon fiber composite material in the base plate and elsewhere for rigidity and weight savings
Nicely crafted hardwood (teak initially and maple in the future) and machined aluminum used in the remainder of the camera
Large knobs for ease of adjustment
Fairly complete set of movements

Front rise/fall, shift, axial tilt, and swing
Rear base tilt and swing

Graflok-type back
Linhof-type lensboard
Multiple built-in bubble levels to aid in leveling the camera

Changes/upgrades from the 045N-1 include:

Ball bearings for focus track
Focus rod changed to smaller diameter stainless steel
Tracks added to constrain the rear standard forward/back movement
Improved rear swing
Improved lens board mount
Improved bellows locking tabs
Modified focus screen to address fresnel lens focus shift issue
"Universal" bellows included as default bellows
Somewhat less minimum bellows draw (52mm vs. 45mm)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/4498622848_8e8fe88ee1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/4498622848/)
Chamonix 045N-2 in Teak with Black Metal


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2718/4497985985_8f976aa805_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/4497985985/)
Chamonix 045N-2 fully folded with ground glass protector in place


Starting at the carbon fiber base plate, the camera provides two 3/8" holes for tripod mounting and two large cutouts that are useful as "grab points" or for attaching a strap of some kind (not included). As with all Phillips-design cameras, focus is at the back using a thumb wheel and worm drive to move the focus rail. The focus rail itself has several mount points for the front standard. Fine adjustment to help set infinity focus is made by moving the back standard. The focus rail features an improvement over the 045N-1 by using a ball-bearing cartridge instead of a simple sliding rail for the focus movement. Another improvement over the 045N-1 is addition of tracks to constrain the front/back movement of the rear standard. Those tracks, along with an improved rear swing mechanism make aligning the rear standard a fairly simple task.

The front standard features generous rise/fall as well as lateral shift and axial swing. Tilt is axial and may be adjusted independent of rise/fall. All movements are secured using friction knobs as opposed to geared adjustments. While mechanical stops are provided for zero'ing front tilt, all other front movements are managed through alignment "dots" on the camera body. Two sets of "dots" are provided for front rise, presumably to support both offset and centered lens boards. No index scales are provided. Linhoff-type lens boards are supported and are mounted using a simple set of thumbwheels. The lens board back plate is made of carbon fiber and is flocked on its outer surface to prevent light leaks. A standard accessory shoe is provided at the top of the front standard. The camera ships with a removable bubble level mounted in the accessory shoe.

The camera features easily removable bellows and ships with the "Universal" model bellows. The "Universal" bellows is made without stiffening treatment on the extreme end. The intent is to allow free movement with short focal length lenses. A bag bellows is also available. It should be noted that minimum bellows draw for the 045N-2 is somewhat longer than for the initial version (52mm vs 45mm).

The rear standard features base tilt and swing. Swing is implemented using two clamps in conjunction with the rear standard forward/back adjustment. I won't attempt a detailed explanation, so you will have to accept that it works well and is easy to return the back to neutral state. As with the front standard, all rear movements are managed using friction knobs. Mechanical stops are provided to zero the rear tilt. Zero'ing rear swing is done by moving the adjusters flush in their mounts. Index marks are scribed on the base plate to assist in rear standard alignment, but these are virtually invisible (at least on my copy) under most lighting.

The "standard" Graflok-type back may be mounted in either horizontal or vertical orientation and is easily switched between the two using two thumb levers. The included ground glass finder has a fresnel screen mounted between the ground glass and the user. The fresnel, in turn, has a shiny glass protective cover. While reflections from the glass can be pretty distracting, those disappear when a dark cloth is used.


Build:
Quality materials (carbon fiber, hardwood, stainless steel, and machined aluminum) are used thoughout. Assembly is first class and shows a high level of craftsmanship in both machining and joinery. This is a quality piece of hardware. My only concern is in regards to the black finish option for metal parts. The finish seems somewhat fragile and is easily scratched. While this is a common problem, it should be considered when choosing ordering finish options.


In Use:
Set-up is pretty straightforward and involves raising the rear standard, securing the front standard in an appropriate position, and mounting a lens. While it is probably obvious to an experienced user, all noobs should note that the camera is best mounted on the tripod BEFORE raising the back standard! Front standard alignment is done by aligning the "dots" for rise/fall and centering the bracket bottom edge between its "dots". In regards to the rise/fall dots...There are two sets. I assume that the upper (white) set is for use with an offset lens board and the lower (reddish) set for lens boards with a centered hole. A quick compliment to the folk at Chamonix in regards to the lens board mount. Very nicely done! The thumb wheels are easy to use and provide a positive mount. A lock of some sort would be nice, but maybe it is not needed.

Leveling the camera is easy due to the five bubble levels mounted on various locations. The one on the front standard accessory shoe does not agree with those on the back standard, but I guess that should be expected. At least it is easily corrected. Movements are easy to do, though I have found that the front standard alignment is easily changed by a bump. I am a noob and I guess that is pretty common?

My experience is extremely limited (remember, I am a complete noob), but my interactions with the camera over the last week or so have been extremely positive. All adjustments and movements are smooth and easy to use. Focus at the rear is a joy. The light weight and compact size also make life easier. Did I mention that it is very sturdy and rigid? Well, it is. 'Nuff said. The standard ground glass features etched grid lines as well as corner marks showing the boundary for common 120 roll film formats. I found that I could easily mount a composition mask for 6x7 120 roll film on the underside of the ground glass using supplied hold-down tabs. I guess that means that I have no complaints...ALMOST. The 045N-2 features a modification to the ground glass as mentioned above. The result is a VERY shiny reflective surface at the rear of the camera. This is no issue when using a dark cloth, but is a real pain when doing initial composition without one. From what I can tell, the only option is to go without the fresnel.

Part 2, continued below...

[stevebrot]

Continued from above...


Roll Film Holder Compatibility:
One of the more frequent questions that comes up regarding the Chamonix 045N-2 is compatibility with roll film holders. The general answer to this question is yes, the 045N-2 is compatible with all roll film holders (RFH) designed for use with a Graflok back. Models designed to slip under the ground glass in the manner of a sheet film holder (e.g. Calumet C2(n) and Sinar Vario Zoom) should work just fine. All others require that the ground glass be removed before mounting the RFH. This is of special concern in regards to the Toyo brand RFH. These models have a relatively low profile and are designed to fit UNDER the ground glass, but clamped into the Graflok back of Toyo and many other cameras. What a great idea! Unfortunately, the Chamonix 045N-2 lacks adequate clearance to allow the Toyo RFH to fit between the GG and the back. Just something to consider when paying a premium price used for the Toyo over the generally less expensive used Horseman or Graflex products.


Optional Folding Viewer:
This is a nicely made and potentially handy device (Link (http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/_images/viewa.jpg)). I say potentially because when I try to use it in bright light with the 045N-2 and its highly reflective ground glass screen, I mostly see my brightly-framed eye sockets staring back at me. I am not saying that it doen't work. I am saying that it is not as handy as I thought it would be.


How to Purchase:
This is where things get sort of sketchy. The cameras are manufactured in batches on what was previously a six month production schedule. I believe that the schedule is closer to three months at present. Production runs usually sell out. Chamonix cameras are periodically available through an eBay merchant (LINK (http://stores.ebay.com/viewcamera-china)). The other more commonly used option is through Hugo Zhang. He is the owner of chamonixviewcamera.com (http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/index.html) and sells the cameras dropped shipped (via EMS) directly from the factory in China. The purchase process is pretty loose and consisted in my case of a series of e-mails, a personal check through the mail, and an e-mail with the EMS tracking number some weeks later. No invoice, no receipt, no printed warranty. In fact, no printed anything! No set-up instructions. No manual either. Not wanting to cast a bad light on Mr. Zhang, I want to say that the camera was delivered on schedule as promised, was well-packed, and received in excellent condition. He has been responsive to a few issues I have had with my camera and has provided excellent customer service. Quoting from my e-mail correspondence, the post-sale warranty through Mr. Zhang and chamonixviewcamera.com is:

"...we offer 90 days no question asked free return or replacement policy and life time free parts and free repair services"
Hopefully Hugo will be the available to provide this coverage over the long run.

Summary:
As mentioned above, I am a total noob with very little large format experience. Despite my inexperience, I have been very impressed with the Chamonix camera and believe that it represents good value for the new user as well as for a more experienced user wanting a compact and light weight camera that easily fits into a day pack.



Pros

Size/Weight
Build quality
Phillips-based design
Usability
Versatility
Standard bellows fairly usable with short focal length lenses
Generous movements
Price

Cons

Limited movements compared to a monorail or technical field camera
Reflective rear surface on standard ground glass
Sales channels are not up to current e-commerce standards



Suggestions for Chamonix:

Provide Instructions for unpacking/initial setup
Provide camera manual
Better index marks for rear standard
Mechanical stops for front standard swing
Mechanical stops for rear standard swing



Steve

[lilmsmaggie]

Very nice Steve!

Well written. Hopefully, as you and I and other LF newbies and more seasoned LF veterans become more familiar with the 45n-2, we can offer more suggestions on improving this well received camera from Chamonix. As well, it is hoped that Hugo and the factory in China will be attentive and receptive to feedback from Chamonix owners and continue to incorporate design changes in the future that will enhance and improve the LF experience.

[GPS]

Introduction:
The second generation Chamonix 4x5 cameras started shipping about two weeks ago. Being a new owner, I thought it would appropriate for me to share my initial impressions.
....

Changes/upgrades from the 045N-1 include:

Ball bearings for focus track
Focus rod changed to smaller diameter stainless steel
Tracks added to constrain the rear standard forward/back movement
Improved rear swing
Improved lens board mount
Improved bellows locking tabs
Modified focus screen to address fresnel lens focus shift issue
"Universal" bellows included as default bellows
Somewhat less minimum bellows draw (52mm vs. 45mm)


...

Are you sure they didn't replace on this model the less than satisfactory bubble levels from the N-1 version?
Also the fact that the rear standard zero position marks are still "virtually invisible" after complains made about it on the older version is simply incomprehensible... The Chamonix trade mark still as usual??:confused:

[Bob McCarthy]

What size is the lens board? It looks like a Sinar board from the picture. Is that correct?

bob

[GPS]

What size is the lens board? It looks like a Sinar board from the picture. Is that correct?

bob

See the description.

[Bob McCarthy]

The Chamy normally uses a Linhof type board, from your picture it looks bigger. Does anyone know, he's a noob by his own description so may be unaware of the distinction?

bob

[stevebrot]

Are you sure they didn't replace on this model the less than satisfactory bubble levels from the N-1 version?
Also the fact that the rear standard zero position marks are still "virtually invisible" after complains made about it on the older version is simply incomprehensible... The Chamonix trade mark still as usual??:confused:

I have never seen the N-1 and can't comment regarding the bubble levels. If improvements were made, they are not on the official list. The levels on my camera seem to work pretty well. As for the rear standard marks...they are basically invisible as is the Chamonix maker's mark. (I just spied the maker's mark yesterday :))

Steve

[stevebrot]

What size is the lens board? It looks like a Sinar board from the picture. Is that correct?

bob

The lens board in the photo is a Linhof-type Bromwell board (http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/). The dimensions are about 3 3/4" x 3 7/8".


Steve

[stevebrot]

The Chamy normally uses a Linhof type board, from your picture it looks bigger. Does anyone know, he's a noob by his own description so may be unaware of the distinction?

bob

It looks bigger because both the camera and lens (Caltar II-N 150/5.6) are fairly compact. It truly is a Linhof-type board cut for Copal-0 shutter.

Steve

(Should probably have used a picture with my Caltar II-N 90/6.8...that hunk of glass makes both the camera and the lens board look teeny...)

[Brian Ellis]

Nice review, thanks. I owned the first version and thought it was a great camera. The minimal little problems with it seem to have all been addressed in this latest version. IMHO this is a "best buy" in under $1000 field cameras and probably a best buy among all wooden 4x5 field cameras including some that cost much more such as Canham and Ebony.

The bubble levels are one of its best features - of the 14 or so LF cameras I've owned, I can offhand only think of one other that had as complete a set of bubble levels as the Chamonix and it was a $3,000 Linhof Technikardan. But they aren't good enough for some people. Amazing.

[David Aimone]

Steve,

Thanks for the review. Being a Noob myself and having the 045n-2 for a couple of weeks now, I even learned a few things from the review--finer points that I missed in using it.

I also am VERY impressed with the form, functionality, size and quality of this camera. Even a very experienced colleague of mine (who runs a photo center and museum with hundreds of large format cameras on display) was drooling over it when he took a look at it. I was lucky to get it back! He said it didn't get better than this, especially for this price (or 2 or 3 times the price).

I agree on the folding viewer. I'd like to like it, but I'm still not sure. I had to go out and purchase 2.75+ reading glasses to focus on the glass at that distance, but I guess that's my problem!

It's good to have other 045n-x users here, both old timers and noob's, to use as resources. I'm actually taking a 10 hour individual tutorial class on the view camera and film processing. It's quite enjoyable.

Looking forward to seeing everyone's results (and mine).

[David Aimone]

Brian,
The on-board bubble levels work well for me as well. Responsive and fairly accurate.

[lilmsmaggie]

The minimal little problems with it seem to have all been addressed in this latest version. IMHO this is a "best buy" in under $1000 field cameras and probably a best buy among all wooden 4x5 field cameras including some that cost much more such as Canham and Ebony.

Brian,

Thanks for pointing this out. People seem to want to overlook this fact. At this price point, Chamonix should be commended for making it possible to offer such a nice camera at the price. Not everyone is going to be happy with it. But they have other more expensive options to choose from. As a green-newb, I can't complain. I can't see any other novice user justifiably complaining either.

We're witnessing a small company experiencing growing pains. We should be thankful that they're not asking twice as much for the 45n-2.

If the Cham is not to your liking, there's always the Shen-Hao or the Tachihara.

You can satisfy some of the people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all of the people, all of the time :D

[GPS]

...
The bubble levels are one of its best features - of the 14 or so LF cameras I've owned, I can offhand only think of one other that had as complete a set of bubble levels as the Chamonix and it was a $3,000 Linhof Technikardan. But they aren't good enough for some people. Amazing.

There were many reports on this forum from the Chamonix 45N-1 users speaking about serious problems with the bubble levels - everything from inconsistency in readings of the individual levels, the wrong viscosity in them (too slow to react), mechanical malfunctions (falling from the camera), the wrong construction altogether or even being dried out completely, etc. The problem with these bubble levels were well known to the manufacturer to that point that even Hugo wrote about it suggesting that perhaps they will be replaced. What's so amazing then that some people don't find them enough?
What I find much more amazing is your amazement about it - as you yourself once wrote in a thread (about Chamonix bubble levels!) that you never used these little levels on your camera(s)... :) Go wonder!

[GPS]

I have never seen the N-1 and can't comment regarding the bubble levels. If improvements were made, they are not on the official list. The levels on my camera seem to work pretty well. As for the rear standard marks...they are basically invisible as is the Chamonix maker's mark. (I just spied the maker's mark yesterday :))

Steve

Thanks for your answer, Steve. Would be interesting to know if they are the "old" bubble levels from the N-1 model or a new type. Hugo wrote once that Chamonix will perhaps change the current bubble levels type. :confused:

[Eric James]

Thanks for your answer, Steve. Would be interesting to know if they are the "old" bubble levels from the N-1 model or a new type. Hugo wrote once that Chamonix will perhaps change the current bubble levels type. :confused:

You don't remember this from one of your previous Chamonix-bashing episodes?:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=466634&postcount

[GPS]

You don't remember this from one of your previous Chamonix-bashing episodes?:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=466634&postcount

Do you mean they are new types bubble levels with the old problems (inconsistency in readings)? In such a case the culprit must be manufacturing imprecision in the construction of the camera itself. Any idea..?
By the way - in the linked thread, where is the bashing? Did Hugo bashed himself publicly? :confused:

[Brian Ellis]

There were many reports on this forum from the Chamonix 45N-1 users speaking about serious problems with the bubble levels - everything from inconsistency in readings of the individual levels, the wrong viscosity in them (too slow to react), mechanical malfunctions (falling from the camera), the wrong construction altogether or even being dried out completely, etc. The problem with these bubble levels were well known to the manufacturer to that point that even Hugo wrote about it suggesting that perhaps they will be replaced. What's so amazing then that some people don't find them enough?
What I find much more amazing is your amazement about it - as you yourself once wrote in a thread (about Chamonix bubble levels!) that you never used these little levels on your camera(s)... :) Go wonder!

Yawn

I didn't use the bubble levels because I didn't need them for the landscape photography I mostly do. You find that amazing? Why am I not surprised?

[stevebrot]

Do you mean they are new types bubble levels with the old problems (inconsistency in readings)? In such a case the culprit must be manufacturing imprecision in the construction of the camera itself. Any idea..?
By the way - in the linked thread, where is the bashing? Did Hugo bashed himself publicly? :confused:

My experience is that the levels are consistent (precise), quick to register, and easy to read. As for accuracy...I checked all the bubble levels against my small "bullet" level and found all to be somewhat off (say half a degree one way or the other). This does not particularly surprise me given the degree of manufacturing precision that would be needed to mount the small bubble levels with greater accuracy. I would say that they work as well or better than the type commonly sold to mount on a camera's accessory shoe.

I would characterize the built-in bubble levels as being very useful and handy. If absolute accuracy for leveling is desired, a bullet level as part of your kit is probably a better solution.

Steve

[Jack Dahlgren]

My experience is that the levels are consistent (precise), quick to register, and easy to read. As for accuracy...I checked all the bubble levels against my small "bullet" level and found all to be somewhat off (say half a degree one way or the other). This does not particularly surprise me given the degree of manufacturing precision that would be needed to mount the small bubble levels with greater accuracy. I would say that they work as well or better than the type commonly sold to mount on a camera's accessory shoe.

I would characterize the built-in bubble levels as being very useful and handy. If absolute accuracy for leveling is desired, a bullet level as part of your kit is probably a better solution.

Steve

If all the levels are off slightly compared to your "bullet" level, that would raise the question of whether your bullet level is accurate or not.

Have you checked that your level is accurate? Now, I'm not complaining here. I never use a level with a camera anyway, but I have worked for years in industries where things being level is very important and having 6 different readings means that none of them can be trusted.

Testing your level is a very simple procedure. On a solid level surface just swap it end for end. It should read level both ways. If not then throw it away or adjust it.

[GPS]

...

As for accuracy...I checked all the bubble levels against my small "bullet" level and found all to be somewhat off (say half a degree one way or the other). This does not particularly surprise me given the degree of manufacturing precision that would be needed to mount the small bubble levels with greater accuracy.
...Steve

I agree. Precise bubble levels are not to much good in a not so precisely manufactured camera. I can understand why an Arca Swiss has so many bubble levels but a camera of this kind doesn't need them as the manufacturing precision defeats their purpose.

[Eric James]

Steve, Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing Chamonix's latest offering in a 4X5 rig. I wonder if you would offer some comments on the security of the lens board locking mechanism. Some found fault in the first model's ability to lock down some Linhof-type boards.

[stevebrot]

If all the levels are off slightly compared to your "bullet" level, that would raise the question of whether your bullet level is accurate or not.

Have you checked that your level is accurate? Now, I'm not complaining here. I never use a level with a camera anyway, but I have worked for years in industries where things being level is very important and having 6 different readings means that none of them can be trusted.

Testing your level is a very simple procedure. On a solid level surface just swap it end for end. It should read level both ways. If not then throw it away or adjust it.

My level is accurate. Thanks for the tip though.

Given the degree of controversy surrounding the bubble levels (must be very important to somebody), I decided to repeat my test, but using a little more vigor.

Mounted camera on sturdy tripod (won't say which brand/model...would start another war I am sure...)
Leveled the camera on all three axes using my bullet level
Checked the status of all five bubble levels

And the results? Drum roll...All five bubble levels were within bounds.

I guess my copy is both true and has all five of its levels installed correctly. Is it that way on every camera that comes out of the shop? Probably not. Is it of critical importance? Maybe. As I suggested in the earlier comment, if it is a big deal to you, level the camera using a instrument that you trust. Better yet, pay the big bucks for a technical camera with laser calibrated alignment and geared movements and hire a Sherpa to carry it for you.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Steve, Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing Chamonix's latest offering in a 4X5 rig. I wonder if you would offer some comments on the security of the lens board locking mechanism. Some found fault in the first model's ability to lock down some Linhof-type boards.

I remember reading about some user's concerns regarding both the lock mechanism and the dimensions (depth, I believe) of the mount itself. The issues with mount dimensions are supposed to have been corrected. I have only mounted the Bromwell board on my camera and they fit extremely well with no binding and no slop. As for the thumb wheel latches; the board is held securely enough, but there is no interlock device as such. The wheels present a fair amount of resistance when moved to release the board, but I supposed there is always the chance that someone could absent-mindedly turn first one wheel to the left and then the other to the right to release the board. A spring-loaded detent here might prove helpful.


Steve

[JamesFromSydney]

I'd love to see how they fixed the focus shift problem -- is it the 16mm drilled hole solution?

Does this only fix the focus where the hole is?

[stevebrot]

I agree. Precise bubble levels are not to much good in a not so precisely manufactured camera. I can understand why an Arca Swiss has so many bubble levels but a camera of this kind doesn't need them as the manufacturing precision defeats their purpose.

The levels are handy and greatly simply setup. They are essentially accurate. I like them. They make my life easier.

As for precision manufacturing? I wish everything in my life were this well made...


Steve

[stevebrot]

I'd love to see how they fixed the focus shift problem -- is it the 19mm drilled hole solution?

Does this only fix the focus where the hole is?

No, they did not drill a hole as in the Shen Hao clone. I don't know how that solution is supposed to work. Sorry.

I do know how the current ground glass addresses the problem. Chamonix redesigned the ground glass holder so that the fresnel screen is between the ground glass and the user rather than between the ground glass and the lens. To protect the fresnel screen from abrasion, a second glass cover goes over the fresnel.

While this solves the focus shift problem, it creates an issue regarding the highly reflective cover glass. It makes the ground glass difficult to use without a dark cloth. It also complicates usage of the optional folding viewer. This is my only real usability issue with the camera.

Steve

[Eric James]

Thanks Steve - Knowing this I'll likely buy one from the next batch; I was hesitant because I'm already deeply invested in Linhof-type boards from Ebony. 9 X $70 for the Chamonix boards is not = a pretty number. Cheers, Eric

[JamesFromSydney]

While this solves the focus shift problem, it creates an issue regarding the highly reflective cover glass. It makes the ground glass difficult to use without a dark cloth. It also complicates usage of the optional folding viewer. This is my only real usability issue with the camera.

Steve

I suspect there's no good way to fix this without blowing the cost of the camera out, given the prices for after-market glass. I have the 45N-1 and it's also the only real issue with the camera.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I suspect there's no good way to fix this without blowing the cost of the camera out, given the prices for after-market glass. I have the 45N-1 and it's also the only real issue with the camera.

There are only two practical ways to fix the problem I know of:

1. Remove the fresnel. Some say that it is impossible to use a loupe together with a fresnel anyway.

2. Correct for the focus shift by shimming the groundglass by 0.5mm. I have done this by cutting 5 frames made of acetate sheet in the size of the groundglass with margins in the size of the rebate the goundglass is sitting in. These sheets of 0.1mm thickness are made for use with overhead-projectors.

I have checked the accuracy with a collimator on the cheap following a suggestion made in the German LF-forum here (http://http://www.grossformatfotografie.de/viewtopic.php?p=19481#p19481).

It works as follows:

You need a spyglass focused on infinity (a star will work) and a torch.

First look with the spyglass through the lens of the camera onto the groundglass and focus the camera. You will clearly see the markings on the groundglass. There is a cross in the middle or instance. These marks are on the mat side of the glass. So you have a correct reference.

Then load a holder with an old negative. on which you draw some marks with a pencil. Put this under the groundglass and look with the spyglass and the torch through the lens. The distance between the spyglass and the lens doesn't matter so there is space to place the torch appropriately.

You will see the pencil lines you have drawn clearly in focus. I fact you can see the grain of the negative in focus if it's HP5 ore something like that. Otherwise you will have to work on your shimming.
The focus shift of about 5/10 mm was mentioned somewhere in the bashing-thread. It seems to be correct.

Ulrich

[GPS]

Steve, in one post you say the bubble levels do not agree with each other, then you say, then that they are off by half a degree due to the manufacturing imprecision and then you wish everything was this well made...
Good that in your last post about it you finally find them to be - precise...:)

[GPS]

...
I guess my copy is both true and has all five of its levels installed correctly. Is it that way on every camera that comes out of the shop? Probably not. Is it of critical importance? Maybe. As I suggested in the earlier comment, if it is a big deal to you, level the camera using a instrument that you trust. Better yet, pay the big bucks for a technical camera with laser calibrated alignment and geared movements and hire a Sherpa to carry it for you.


Steve

As you wrote in your first post, the rear and the front standard bubble levels did not agree. In your last post about it you say all the levels are within bounds. Did the disagreement between them disappear too?
If not, and the difference is stil there, what part of the camera do you suggest should be leveled "using an instrument that you trust"? Just curious...:)

[Jack Dahlgren]

GPS, let it rest. Besides, he isn't recommending leveling with an instrument you trust (one of rdenney's tubas perhaps?) but instead recommends a sherpa and geared movements. Surely that is a better horse to beat.

For what it is worth, I found the certainty present in a number of the pronouncements in the review disconcerting when coming from someone who has not used a LF camera before. But overall, it is a good recitation of the facts as they are known.

[stevebrot]

What an incredibly testy bunch we have here.

A little reading of the content is in order, I think:

My initial look at the bubble level accuracy showed minimal variance
My repeat was done more carefully and showed them to be accurate
My suggestion was that a separate level might be appropriate if the user had doubts about the built-in devices.

My take on many of the comments on the this thread:

There appears to be an ongoing war regarding Chamonix cameras
On one side we have people who are really jazzed to see a quality product with a few weak points at a moderate price point
On the other side are others who find it offensive that anyone would consider a cheap camera made by eight guys in China worth using.

I obviously fall into the first group. After all, I bought the camera and was pleasantly surprised at what came in the box. It meets my needs 2+. To address and validate some of the comments of the second group, I can offer this:

No, the Chamonix 045N-2 is not a technical studio camera. It is not even a technical field camera. A person would be a fool to try and use it for such.
No, it does not bear one of the hallowed names, nor is it backed by a support network.
Yes, the built-in bubble levels could be viewed as being sort of silly (see the first bullet point). After all, field cameras are generally not used for that kind of work. It is sort of like putting spoilers on a Jeep.
On any moderately priced photography product, one of the main concerns is build quality. It is appropriate to be skeptical about whether the camera is true when assembled, parallel when zero'ed, well-designed, and made of quality materials.

As for my inexperience with LF...I freely admit that and framed my review within that context. I guess that the main strength that I bring to the review is that I actually OWN the second generation camera and have actually used it too. I also looked at and handled several other cameras in my price range and above before ordering the Chamonix and felt that the Chamonix represented the best value for my needs (light, portable, rigid, etc.). I still feel that way. Will I change my opinion in the future as I gain experience? Perhaps. I intend to post a follow-up review at six months or maybe a year.

While I have very limited experience, I am not totally ignorant. My move to LF came as a result of long-term frustration with the lack of movements on my small format film and digital cameras. No, I did not even consider Ebony, Arca-Swiss, or Technikardan. All of those wonderful cameras are well beyond my budget. I knew that from the time a store clerk showed me a Technikardan back in the late 1980s. Drool hit the counter and I wanted one on the spot, but the price tag emphatically said no. Am I ignorant of what these cameras have to offer? No. Is the Chamonix a compromise in features/quality? Maybe. I guess I will find out.


Steve

[David Karp]

Steve,

This would be a great candidate to turn into a review article for the home page. Try contacting QT if you are interested.

[stevebrot]

Steve,

This would be a great candidate to turn into a review article for the home page. Try contacting QT if you are interested.

I had considered that and may do so in a revised version once I have a few more "miles under my belt" with the camera. If there are issues with durability or usage, I want to be sure they are addressed. Ditto for customer service and support.


Steve

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Steve,

Congrats on the new camera! It will bring you many years of pleasure and will be great to use. Like most on this forum, I have used several camera over the years with my current favorite being a 100 year old 5X7 that works just great and has never had a thing done to it as far as I can tell.

You started off with a very nice piece of equipment, take care of it and it will be as fun to use 10 years from now as it is today. Just beware however, that view cameras (and LF lenses) are sort of addictive, once you have your first one many more are sure to follow.

Have fun and be patient, it takes time to really learn LF but the lessons are worth learning.

[Brian Ellis]

What an incredibly testy bunch we have here.

A little reading of the content is in order, I think:

My initial look at the bubble level accuracy showed minimal variance
My repeat was done more carefully and showed them to be accurate
My suggestion was that a separate level might be appropriate if the user had doubts about the built-in devices.

My take on many of the comments on the this thread:

There appears to be an ongoing war regarding Chamonix cameras
On one side we have people who are really jazzed to see a quality product with a few weak points at a moderate price point
On the other side are others who find it offensive that anyone would consider a cheap camera made by eight guys in China worth using.

I obviously fall into the first group. After all, I bought the camera and was pleasantly surprised at what came in the box. It meets my needs 2+. To address and validate some of the comments of the second group, I can offer this:

No, the Chamonix 045N-2 is not a technical studio camera. It is not even a technical field camera. A person would be a fool to try and use it for such.
No, it does not bear one of the hallowed names, nor is it backed by a support network.
Yes, the built-in bubble levels could be viewed as being sort of silly (see the first bullet point). After all, field cameras are generally not used for that kind of work. It is sort of like putting spoilers on a Jeep.
On any moderately priced photography product, one of the main concerns is build quality. It is appropriate to be skeptical about whether the camera is true when assembled, parallel when zero'ed, well-designed, and made of quality materials.

As for my inexperience with LF...I freely admit that and framed my review within that context. I guess that the main strength that I bring to the review is that I actually OWN the second generation camera and have actually used it too. I also looked at and handled several other cameras in my price range and above before ordering the Chamonix and felt that the Chamonix represented the best value for my needs (light, portable, rigid, etc.). I still feel that way. Will I change my opinion in the future as I gain experience? Perhaps. I intend to post a follow-up review at six months or maybe a year.

While I have very limited experience, I am not totally ignorant. My move to LF came as a result of long-term frustration with the lack of movements on my small format film and digital cameras. No, I did not even consider Ebony, Arca-Swiss, or Technikardan. All of those wonderful cameras are well beyond my budget. I knew that from the time a store clerk showed me a Technikardan back in the late 1980s. Drool hit the counter and I wanted one on the spot, but the price tag emphatically said no. Am I ignorant of what these cameras have to offer? No. Is the Chamonix a compromise in features/quality? Maybe. I guess I will find out.


Steve

You wrote an excellent review of an excellent camera and are better qualified to write a review of it than most, certainly better than people who don't even own the camera but have nothing better to do than carp about its bubble levels.

Hell, the Linhof Technikas I owned had one little target level and it was placed on top of the rear housing where it couldn't even be seen when the camera was on a tripod. I don't remember one single person ever criticizing Linhof for putting a level on their $4,000 cameras in a position where it was basically useless. Yet Chamonix puts bubble levels all over their $800 camera and there's supposed to be a major problem with the camera because the levels might be half a degree off or whatever the problem with them is supposed to be. Amazing.

[Peter K]

You need a spyglass focused on infinity (a star will work) and a torch.
You don't need a torch if the bellows is removable. In this case place the camera in bright light.

Peter

[D. Bryant]

You don't need a torch if the bellows is removable. In this case place the camera in bright light.

Peter

Perhaps I mis-understand Ulrich but it seems that one would risk setting the camera afire by using a torch. I'm just saying ...

Don Bryant

[Peter K]

Perhaps I mis-understand Ulrich but it seems that one would risk setting the camera afire by using a torch. I'm just saying ...
Why not :D

Sorry, a flashlight in the USA. :cool:

Peter

[Jack Dahlgren]

There are already enough flames in this thread.

[lilmsmaggie]

The Boy Scout's oath: "Be prepared," comes to mind with regard to bubble levels as in this tutorial on Scheimpflug by Thomas Christopher Moore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4m70xr9mE

Built-in levels more than likely have a reputation of not being accurate.

And the moral of the story: "Get thyself a bullet level, or something comparable."

[D. Bryant]

The Boy Scout's oath: "Be prepared," comes to mind with regard to bubble levels as in this tutorial on Scheimpflug by Thomas Christopher Moore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4m70xr9mE

Built-in levels more than likely have a reputation of not being accurate.

And the moral of the story: "Get thyself a bullet level, or something comparable."

Try this:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2903

[lilmsmaggie]

Try this:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2903

A bit expensive - but Cool!:D

[GPS]

...
I don't remember one single person ever criticizing Linhof for putting a level on their $4,000 cameras in a position where it was basically useless. Yet Chamonix puts bubble levels all over their $800 camera and there's supposed to be a major problem with the camera because the levels might be half a degree off or whatever the problem with them is supposed to be. Amazing.

Unlike you, I don't think that there's supposed to be a major problem with the Chamonix camera because of the levels. After all, if the levels are not satisfying you can always level the camera with an external bubble level. However amazing that can seem to you.

[kev curry]

Like Brian said the level on the linhof is useless because of its position on the camera, regardless of whether its accurate or not. In fact Ive never even checked mine for accuracy there's no point, its only useful if you carry a small pair of stepladders in your camera bag;-)

Ive never check the accuracy of the Chamonix levels either, again theres no point. In my sample the viscosity of the fluid is too thick. I enjoy the slow process of LF photography but I dont have the time or patience to wait for geriatric bubbles;-)
Its all meaningless to me anyway.
I prefer to use my eyes with the maxim, 'if it looks right it is right'!

I personally think that GPS has made some valuable contibutions regarding the Chamonix issues but I cant help wondering if theres a hidden agenda powering the enthusiasm.

The more I use the Chamonix the more I like it. In point of fact I prefer it to the vastly more expensive Lihof. But like a lot of things in life, this is subject to change without prior notice;-)

[GPS]

...
I personally think that GPS has made some valuable contibutions regarding the Chamonix issues but I cant help wondering if theres a hidden agenda powering the enthusiasm.

The more I use the Chamonix the more I like it.

Thanks Kevin. The hidden agenda, if any, behind my enthusiasm is my interest in view cameras construction. Regardless of their name...:)

[GPS]

To put the question of levels to sleep... (?) Precise bubble levels have their full sens on precise cameras only, i.e. so called technical cameras (Linhof, Wista SP etc.) or metal monorails. These are so precisely built that once the camera is put to the level position, using their levels, all other corresponding parts are leveled - simply because of the precise manufacturing of the whole camera.
That is not the case with wooden field cameras though. There the bubble levels have at best just general informative purpose, if not just a gimmick value. To have more than this you would need precise manufacturing of all their parts - as already mentioned, there is no meaning to put a precise bubble level on a camera with loose manufacturing tolerances and hope that the level will save the construction. But that kind of precise manufacturing is the realm of technical cameras, for obvious reasons. As with everything, you cannot have a cake and eat it...

[Paul Kierstead]

Try this:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2903

Oh WOW, I've been totally wanting one of these but had no idea someone had made one. I got the idea from a electronic woodworking level with the a beeping feature, and since I am perpetually cockeyed (I cannot shoot handheld level to save my soul), I thought it would be wonderful to have in a cam level. Even better would be level in two planes, for when I handle hold the crown graphic and am looking to not get converging verticals; it is surprisingly hard to judge this by feel, and the viewfinder is too distorted to be reliable. More practice helps, of course, and I have been working on that.

As an aside, my Wisner Flight also has levels which are too slow. It is an odd flaw; I presume it is a supply problem (fast ones not available often?) or something, because it is fairly obvious and, in theory, easy to fix.

Added: Of course, this one is probably too loud, or too hard on batteries, or something. But I think I'll try it out anyway.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Oh WOW, I've been totally wanting one of these but had no idea someone had made one. I got the idea from a electronic woodworking level with the a beeping feature, and since I am perpetually cockeyed (I cannot shoot handheld level to save my soul), I thought it would be wonderful to have in a cam level. Even better would be level in two planes, for when I handle hold the crown graphic and am looking to not get converging verticals; it is surprisingly hard to judge this by feel, and the viewfinder is too distorted to be reliable. More practice helps, of course, and I have been working on that.You are looking for one of these (http://photoscala.de/Artikel/Ausricht-Hilfe-Action-Level-Cross-von-Kaiser-Fototechnik).


Ulrich

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Perhaps I mis-understand Ulrich but it seems that one would risk setting the camera afire by using a torch. I'm just saying ...

Don Bryant

"Torch" or "electric torch" seems to be the British term for "flashlight". Does that make sense to you? Otherwise you simply can take off the bellows, as Peter said. Thank you Peter, I didn't think of it.

Ulrich

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

To put the question of levels to sleep... (?) Precise bubble levels have their full sens on precise cameras only, i.e. so called technical cameras (Linhof, Wista SP etc.) or metal monorails. These are so precisely built that once the camera is put to the level position, using their levels, all other corresponding parts are leveled - simply because of the precise manufacturing of the whole camera.
That is not the case with wooden field cameras though. There the bubble levels have at best just general informative purpose, if not just a gimmick value. To have more than this you would need precise manufacturing of all their parts - as already mentioned, there is no meaning to put a precise bubble level on a camera with loose manufacturing tolerances and hope that the level will save the construction. But that kind of precise manufacturing is the realm of technical cameras, for obvious reasons. As with everything, you cannot have a cake and eat it...

It is my hope, you are at least not on the ignore list of Hugo Zhang already.

Ulrich

[Paul Kierstead]

You are looking for one of these (http://photoscala.de/Artikel/Ausricht-Hilfe-Action-Level-Cross-von-Kaiser-Fototechnik).


Yes, yes I am. I'll be need to figure out how to import one of those. The second display unit is clever; I might be able to keep an eye on it in lieu of beeping (which is complicated in two directions, but would still be doable)

[Sal Santamaura]

Originally Posted by GPS
Precise bubble levels have their full sens on precise cameras only, i.e. so called technical cameras (Linhof, Wista SP etc.) or metal monorails. These are so precisely built that once the camera is put to the level position, using their levels, all other corresponding parts are leveled - simply because of the precise manufacturing of the whole camera.
That is not the case with wooden field cameras though...

It is my hope, you are at least not on the ignore list of Hugo Zhang already.

UlrichThere's that quoting of someone on the Ignore List again. :) Even if he is on Hugo's, you've now ensured that Hugo will see him. :( It seems even I'm guilty of it in this quote of your quote.

Both my Ebony wooden field cameras exhibit absolute agreement between their built-in levels and precise external levels placed in contact with locations on the front, rear and base. More nonsense debunked.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

wooden[/I] field cameras exhibit absolute agreement between their built-in levels and precise external levels placed in contact with locations on the front, rear and base. More nonsense debunked.
To me, with the focusing problem resolved, the Chamonix is a fine camera. But the levels (on my N-1) are completely useless. Levels this tiny can not be of the precision they need to be to setup the camera straight, even if they would work as they should, what they do not do. I think nobody would miss them if they would be omitted. They are just not worth to compromise the reputation of this otherwise fine camera. There are other things in the handling of issues with this camera I do not understand either. But that's another story I do not want to discuss here.

Ulrich

[Sal Santamaura]

...the Chamonix is a fine camera. But the levels (on my N-1) are completely useless. Levels this tiny can not be of the precision they need to be to setup the camera straight...I don't think size of the levels is a problem; they're not much smaller than those on my Ebony cameras.

Having examined a Chamonix camera's levels, I think the issue is how they're mounted. It seems the tubes are press-fit into very imprecise holders, which allows lots of freedom for ending up in different orientations. Exactly the opposite of Ebony's approach.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I think it is great that Chamonix has improved their cameras to the point that the only thing left to fix is the levels.

If I didn't just get an ebony, this camera would be on top of the list.

[GPS]

...
Both my Ebony wooden field cameras exhibit absolute agreement between their built-in levels and precise external levels placed in contact with locations on the front, rear and base. More nonsense debunked.

If there is something debunked it's only your own technical ignorance, unfortunately.
In the case of wooden field cameras (and all cameras for that matter), even if the bubble levels agree with a precise external level, for a control, it doesn't mean the standard, the camera, the film holder is really level. What it means is the bubble level is in the correct position. How big is the difference between its position and the position of the film holder depends, of course, on the manufacturing precision of all these parts on the camera. And that precision is always less than on more precise technical cameras. If the standard or the gg back is not square for example (other possibilities can also come in consideration) the position of the bubble doesn't necessarily indicate your film holder is correctly placed...
I hoped I was on your ignore list, so please, make sure if functions correctly and you don't comment all the time on my posts. Pleasure will be on my side. Thanks. :)

[GPS]

I think it is great that Chamonix has improved their cameras to the point that the only thing left to fix is the levels.

...

Com'on Jack, if that were the case, it would be a perfect camera with nothing to make better, no? You don't believe in that, do you? Not even an Arca Swiss is perfect...

Some other posters elsewhere commented on the poor wooden (even the metal) surface quality of the camera. That has its manufacturing logic too (don't want to go into that right now) and will be the cause of poor visual quality of used Chamonix cameras later... What looks great out of the shipping box can with use change quickly to a beaten dog. There will be a weak point of this camera. Not that it would make your pictures worse, of course. But again, you cannot have a cake and eat it. After all, a cheaper camera usually needs to show somewhere why it is cheaper, nothing unusual with that.

[Brian Ellis]

Unlike you, I don't think that there's supposed to be a major problem with the Chamonix camera because of the levels. After all, if the levels are not satisfying you can always level the camera with an external bubble level. However amazing that can seem to you.

From your previous posts:

"Are you sure they didn't replace on this model the less than satisfactory bubble levels from the N-1 version?"

"There were many reports on this forum from the Chamonix 45N-1 users speaking about serious problems with the bubble levels - everything from inconsistency in readings of the individual levels, the wrong viscosity in them (too slow to react), mechanical malfunctions (falling from the camera), the wrong construction altogether or even being dried out completely, etc. The problem with these bubble levels were well known to the manufacturer to that point that even Hugo wrote about it suggesting that perhaps they will be replaced."

From my only expression of opinion about the levels:

"The bubble levels are one of its best features . . . "

It's not surprising that you don't remember my posts but you should be able to remember your own.

[GPS]

...
From my only expression of opinion about the levels:

"The bubble levels are one of its best features . . . "

It's not surprising that you don't remember my posts but you should be able to remember your own.

Brian,
you obviously don't remember your own posts. The above expression of your opinion about the levels was not the only one...
Remember the following one, at which I reacted?


...Yet Chamonix puts bubble levels all over their $800 camera and there's supposed to be a major problem with the camera because the levels might be half a degree off or whatever the problem with them is supposed to be. Amazing.
Surprising you don't remember your own posts even when others cite it...:rolleyes:
Yawn, can we put the levels to sleep now...

[SW Rick]

Gotta say this is out of control. So far, 91 total posts on this thread; 16 by the OP (incl. parts of the "same post"); 25 of the 91 by the illustrious GPS, contributing little other than tossing grenades.
I had not thought Chamonix users should form a group at google groups, but it is obviously not possible to have a educational, collegial discussion on anything Chamonix-related on the site. I'm going to the google site, and not going to read anything Chamonix-related here, since one jihadist can so dominate and take over threads which otherwise would have value.
This is sad, because this site could offer a lot, but it's just not worth the hassle any more.

[GPS]

Look Rick, if I say something which is against rules of the forum, say what it is. If not, and you don't like what I say, go wherever you like to take a break. Like it or not, everyone has the same right to say what he wants and discuss it as long as he wants. Who are you to count my posts and say they are too many, Mr. Calculator?

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,
you obviously don't remember your own posts. The above expression of your opinion about the levels was not the only one...
Remember the following one, at which I reacted?


Surprising you don't remember your own posts even when others cite it...:rolleyes:
Yawn, can we put the levels to sleep now...

I remember my posts just fine. You see an opinion in the statement that Chamonix puts levels all over their $800 camera? I don't. I see a statement of fact.

I'm not only going to put the levels to sleep, I'm going to pay attention to Rick's excellent post and ignore you in the future. I'm frankly ashamed that I let myself get dragged down to your level.

[stevebrot]

Gotta say this is out of control. So far, 91 total posts on this thread; 16 by the OP (incl. parts of the "same post"); 25 of the 91 by the illustrious GPS, contributing little other than tossing grenades.
I had not thought Chamonix users should form a group at google groups, but it is obviously not possible to have a educational, collegial discussion on anything Chamonix-related on the site. I'm going to the google site, and not going to read anything Chamonix-related here, since one jihadist can so dominate and take over threads which otherwise would have value.
This is sad, because this site could offer a lot, but it's just not worth the hassle any more.

Rick,
I am disappointed that the thread took the direction it did. I posted references to the review on several other places on the Web and if you Google "Chamonix camera review", this thread comes up at the top of the list. I appreciate all of the users' comments including those regarding past issues with the first generation camera. I would have better appreciated, however, that any protracted criticism be based on actual experience with the current generation camera. That is, after all, the version that was reviewed.

As it is, I feel that the thread may reflect badly on this forum. Sort of a shame really...


Steve

[Sal Santamaura]

...I feel that the thread may reflect badly on this forum. Sort of a shame really...Steve, it doesn't reflect badly on this forum or you. You wrote a great review. I'm glad it's here. Please stick with us.

SW Rick -- it is possible to have an educated, rational discussion on Chamonix-related items here. Just make use of the tools vBulletin provides and that which troubles you will disappear. There's no better place for LF photography discussion.

Brian Ellis -- please don't quote (and I suggest you ignore) trolls. Thanks!

[lilmsmaggie]

Maybe the best course is to not respond to posts that you know or feel are just going to lead to a heated exchange between two or more individuals. But more importantly, I think we just need to stay on topic.

I believe the saying is: "Don't feed the trolls."

Unfortunately, it is in the nature of forums to allow anonymity. But there are those who will abuse this and probably enjoy inciting argument.

Sooner or later, because of events that have occured on the internet and on social networking sites in particular, e.g. cyber-bullying, anonymity may become a thing of the past. If you are required to use your real identity, you're less likely to put yourself in a position of being traced and held responsible for what you have said in a post.

Maybe the moderators need to be more vigilant. I don't know.

But I have to agree with Sal, this should be a place where educated, rational discussion should occur. After all, that's the reason we joined this forum in the first place: to learn, share and discuss; exchange ideas and knowledge. I don't believe any of us joined this or any other forum to incite irrational argument, or pick a verbal battle with someone we can't see and probably don't even know.

[stevebrot]

Steve, it doesn't reflect badly on this forum or you. You wrote a great review. I'm glad it's here. Please stick with us...

No problem. I ain't goin' nowhere. I've got too much to learn :)

Steve

[rupal]

Is there any kind of MM scale on the focus rails to assist in focusing ?
If not, how easy would it be to attach one to it ?

Thanks

[stevebrot]

Is there any kind of MM scale on the focus rails to assist in focusing ?
If not, how easy would it be to attach one to it ?

Thanks

There are no scales on the focus rail, though it would not be difficult to add something like that.

Steve

[mmmdoughnuts]

There are no scales on the focus rail, though it would not be difficult to add something like that.

Steve
Not to expensive at all for anAdhesive tape rule (http://www.mcmaster.com/#self-adhesive-rules/=6qziun)

Hope this helps!

Doughnuts!

[J.Medlock]

Excellent review!

You say that the focus mechanism uses a thumb wheel & worm drive and that it is "a joy to use". Can you elaborate a bit more? Is there some type of resistance/tension-knob you have to loosen "just so" in order to focus? Also, I've found that attaching some type of mm-ruler is really helpful when focusing, so it seems this is do-able.

By the way, I have a Toho FC45 field camera (3 pounds, so around the same weight), and it has a very simple focus track with a single gear -- I have a mm-ruler attached to the rear knob (ala Leonard Evans) and I frequently get slippage along the focus track, making the ruler ineffective, or I have to start over. Also, if not careful, the Toho has a small amount of rear tilt that can reveal itself while using the focus knob (i.e. you have to loosen the resistance-knob while focusing, and this can introduce unintended rear tilt). In other words, it can be a pain to use the "fine focus". :(

Also, would you say it would be an easy camera to backpack with? My Toho FC45 and it is pretty compact overall since there are multiple pieces to it. It fits nicely in my backpack (a real backpack - not a photo backpack).

Thanks

[David Aimone]

Has anyone done this that has a photo of the installation? This would be along the moving focus bar to measure bellows extension?

New to this--thank you for your patience in advance. :eek:


Not to expensive at all for anAdhesive tape rule (http://www.mcmaster.com/#self-adhesive-rules/=6qziun)

Hope this helps!

Doughnuts!

[Oren Grad]

You say that the focus mechanism uses a thumb wheel & worm drive and that it is "a joy to use". Can you elaborate a bit more?

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/_images/045N2005.jpg

[stevebrot]

Excellent review!

You say that the focus mechanism uses a thumb wheel & worm drive and that it is "a joy to use". Can you elaborate a bit more? Is there some type of resistance/tension-knob you have to loosen "just so" in order to focus?...



The thumb wheel is at the rear of the camera and easily accessible when under the dark cloth. The access is much easier than reaching forward from under the cloth. There is no tension adjustment or release knob. The screw drive feeds through a nylon guide that provides both tension and lubrication. The focus is smooth and precise to my hand without lash or stickiness. With any luck, this won't change as the camera breaks in.

Edit: I mis-wrote my description of the focus drive in the original review post. The forum set up does not allow for late editing, so I guess I will have to put it here! The focus mechanism is not done with a worm drive. There are no gears. There is a long stainless steel screw that moves the focus plate directly though at least one nylon guide.End edit



...Also, would you say it would be an easy camera to backpack with? My Toho FC45 and it is pretty compact overall since there are multiple pieces to it. It fits nicely in my backpack (a real backpack - not a photo backpack)...

That is my hope. The camera is pretty compact when collapsed (18cm x 17.5cm x 8cm...my measurements). It fits nicely in my daypack with 120 roll film holder and lenses. I am currently looking for some sort of semi-rigid case. The wrap that ships with the camera is nice, but it is fuzzy. As a result, it attracts dirt and catches on things. A padded nylon lunch box may be just the thing.

In addition to some sort of case, I would also suggest that a piece of chamois or flannel be placed between the front standard face and the focus rail when collapsed. This helps to avoid abrasion and to limit movement due to jostling and vibration.


Steve

[mmmdoughnuts]

Has anyone done this that has a photo of the installation? This would be along the moving focus bar to measure bellows extension?

New to this--thank you for your patience in advance. :eek:

Now that I fully understand your request, I think it unlikely that you will be satisfied with this technique. The front standard is not permanently fixed to the focus rails. There are 5 or 6 screw holes that the front standard can fit into at any one time - allowing for full extension at one end. So the ruler would need to be adjusted for each front standard position.

In the same way, the rear standard is free to move (and shift) if needed. Additionally, the location of the rear standard is different for long lenses and short ones. There is not really a reference position (on the bed or standards) to permanently attach a ruler, adhesive or rigid.

D

[lilmsmaggie]

The camera is pretty compact when collapsed (18cm x 17.5cm x 8cm...my measurements). It fits nicely in my daypack with 120 roll film holder and lenses. I am currently looking for some sort of semi-rigid case. The wrap that ships with the camera is nice, but it is fuzzy. As a result, it attracts dirt and catches on things. A padded nylon lunch box may be just the thing.

In addition to some sort of case, I would also suggest that a piece of chamois or flannel be placed between the front standard face and the focus rail when collapsed. This helps to avoid abrasion and to limit movement due to jostling and vibration.


Steve

This is a Photobackpacker case for the 045n-1:

http://www.photobackpacker.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RPT&Product_Code=C00784&Category_Code=RPT01

Not sure if the dimensions are the same for the 045n-2, or how rigid the case, but I'm sure you can find out from them.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I believe the wingnut needs to be replaced by a dial wheel like the rest of the camera has.
Maybe a little larger for better tension and the front standard should have positive stop at least to zero in with. I find myself bearing down on this nut to keep standard from moving. (takes two hands to screw in)

At least one accurate level is a must for even good landscape photography. I find the "dark" wide angles hard to compose with using lots of foreground and horizon tends to fall somewhat using the level. (my sinar's never matched!)
A measureing tape would have to be in several areas and could only be 3/8" wide to run down the skinny rails.
I think If the camera had more positive stops in several places ,, this could be done by nurling the carbon base where it meets the front standard and nurled where the two sliding bars meet the bed and the underside of the bars. (use the same nurl as used for the knobs?) Or maybe a ballbearing under the bars and small holes for the bearings to roll over.?
As it is right now I feel the rear standard can only be rested in three positions w/ confedence , all the way back to to the furthest position or to line up with the bed or all the way forward to end of bars.
I wanna feel some positive clicks when I move that back and forth. I don't wanna have to read some dots , I wanna think less about the camera.
I would deffinatly pay more money if the camera had this feature but I don't see it as a big deal or major change in terms of labor. I know the design has to be considered.
(fine details)
All in all I feel lucky to own one! It's a wonderful camera and has a lot of potential.

It's a joy to use a 58mm without a recessed board !:)
steve

[lilmsmaggie]

I hope Hugo, has had a chance to read your review and is taking notes.

It's feedback like yours, and those productive comments that will ultimately follow, that will determine what the next design revisions will be incorporated into the next generation of the 045n-x, and their larger formats as well.

Hugo are you out there?

[John T]

My Toho FC45 and it is pretty compact overall since there are multiple pieces to it. It fits nicely in my backpack (a real backpack - not a photo backpack).

I have both a Toho FC 45 and a Chamonix 045N (original). The Toho is definitely much easier to get into my Osprey Atmos 50 because it can fit into the little nooks and crannies in the pack, whereas the Chamonix needs a dedicated area that isn't always available in my pack. I use the Toho for the ultralight backpacking trips (since I'm a wimp) and the Chamonix when I go shorter distances, and as my normal 4x5 camera.

[Michael Graves]

I believe the wingnut needs to be replaced by a dial wheel like the rest of the camera has.
Maybe a little larger for better tension and the front standard should have positive stop at least to zero in with. I find myself bearing down on this nut to keep standard from moving. (takes two hands to screw in)

steve

From one unfamiliar with the technology...how would a dial wheel be any more secure than a wingnut? Also, what does a monkey grinder do with the monkeys after he finishes grinding them?

[Steve M Hostetter]

From one unfamiliar with the technology...how would a dial wheel be any more secure than a wingnut? Also, what does a monkey grinder do with the monkeys after he finishes grinding them?

Hello, I guess I'm just used to using a dial wheel on the sinar (which is in the same position for shift).
you'd only have to "monkey" around with this wingnut for a few seconds to see that a dial wheel would make life much easier.
I think the bigger diameter of the dial ( just feel the tension the bigger dials on the bars exude)would cover more surface which would apply more tension and could be manipulated with one hand while you held the standard up-right with the other.
But there again, you wouldn't need to have more tension if the standard rested in a groove ..

steve

PS. you've never had monkey soup? :D

[stevebrot]

I believe the wingnut needs to be replaced by a dial wheel like the rest of the camera has.
Maybe a little larger for better tension and the front standard should have positive stop at least to zero in with. I find myself bearing down on this nut to keep standard from moving. (takes two hands to screw in)

I have noticed the same thing regarding the wingnut and plan on including a note in a follow-up review at about six months time. I agree STRONGLY regarding a positive stop for front standard swing/shift and/or more secure clamping. I am constantly bumping the thing and knocking it off-kilter.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I hope Hugo, has had a chance to read your review and is taking notes.

It's feedback like yours, and those productive comments that will ultimately follow, that will determine what the next design revisions will be incorporated into the next generation of the 045n-x, and their larger formats as well.

Hugo are you out there?

Hugo sent me a note privately regarding some aspects of the discussion here...He is definitely following this thread.


Steve

[stevebrot]

From one unfamiliar with the technology...how would a dial wheel be any more secure than a wingnut?...

The wingnut is difficult to access when at minimum front rise. If my fingers were any fatter, I would not be able to manage it. I am not sure that a wheel would be move secure, though it would be easier to access.


Steve

[Logic108]

I've just received the new Chamonix 045n-2 and must say that it is very well made. Feels very well crafted. Does anyone use the Chamonix film holders? What are the preferred film holders?
So far I really like the light weight and the quality of the craftsmanship. Very nice.

[lilmsmaggie]

Does anyone use the Chamonix film holders? What are the preferred film holders?


This is not a direct response to your question, although I would suspect you will receive varying responses based on personal preferences, or what works best, price vs. performance, or they just happen to have an existing supply.

Some will prefer the Fidelity film holders, some Toyo. Some may have older Grafmatic holders, or Linecos, some like Fuji Quikloads.

Bottom-line: It Depends :D

[Michael Graves]

The wingnut is difficult to access when at minimum front rise. If my fingers were any fatter, I would not be able to manage it. I am not sure that a wheel would be move secure, though it would be easier to access.


Steve

Ah. That makes more sense. Thank you. I've been considering dumping my Crown and buying one of these, but it's a pile of money to just toss out there. I appreciate the information in this thread.

[J.Medlock]

I have both a Toho FC 45 and a Chamonix 045N (original). The Toho is definitely much easier to get into my Osprey Atmos 50 because it can fit into the little nooks and crannies in the pack, whereas the Chamonix needs a dedicated area that isn't always available in my pack. I use the Toho for the ultralight backpacking trips (since I'm a wimp) and the Chamonix when I go shorter distances, and as my normal 4x5 camera.

Hey fellow Toho person... :)

It seems that the Chamonix is about the same size as the Toho bellows, and is also more compact since there isn't a separate mounting frame?

Toho: 7.25" x 6.5" x 2.5" (doesn't include the mounting frame)
Chamonix: 7" x 6.8" x 3"


My 10-year old backpack was 4000 cu-in and was starting to fall apart. I recently upgraded to the Osprey Argon 85 (7100 cu-in), and it is a really nice backpack, great support, and also has compression straps in case you're carrying a smaller load. I also tried the Arc'Teryx Altra 75 and didn't care for it, even though it weighed less than the Argon.

[John T]

It seems that the Chamonix is about the same size as the Toho bellows, and is also more compact since there isn't a separate mounting frame?

But the Chamonix is more boxy. The Toho bellows, because it is tapered fits into my pack a little easier. I actually keep the monorail assembly attached to the tripod head so it isn't in my pack.

[pocketfulladoubles]

Look Rick, if I say something which is against rules of the forum, say what it is. If not, and you don't like what I say, go wherever you like to take a break. Like it or not, everyone has the same right to say what he wants and discuss it as long as he wants. Who are you to count my posts and say they are too many, Mr. Calculator?

There's a fine line between 'discussion' and 'annoying'.

[Jack Dahlgren]

There's a fine line between 'discussion' and 'annoying'.

The line is not so fine, but there are definitely people who have trouble separating the two.

[luis a de santos]

I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera

[GPS]

Luis, what do you mean, they are at a loss about it? They cannot understand why your[I] camera cannot focus to infinity or why [I]the camera itself doesn't focus there??

[stevebrot]

I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera

I have been in conversation with Hugo Zhang about the minimum bellows draw on the 045N-2. The advertised draw at the time I ordered the camera was 45mm. My camera only manages 52mm due to interference between the front standard frame and the new rear tilt mechanism. At 52mm the interference makes front swing impossible. I traded messages with another 045N-2 owner and his camera has very adequate clearance and is able to attain the 45mm figure. Go figure. Hugo has edited the published spec on chamonixviewcamera.com to read 52mm for the 045N-2.

Even with 52mm minimum draw, you should still be able to attain infinity focus without a recessed board with a 65mm Nikkor with the front standard in the rearmost position and the rear standard slid forward. What is your measured minimum draw (film plane to lens board flange) with the stock "universal" bellows?

I don't know if this represents an assembly issue or mixed components in the parts bin, but it certainly does seem strange.

Steve

[Songyun]

I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera

Did you push the rear standard all the way?

[Sal Santamaura]

There's a fine line between 'discussion' and 'annoying'.Again I'll point out that the Ignore User function works very well for me. Except when others quote those I've set vBulletin software to ignore. :)

Try it, you'll like it.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I have had one of these for a month now.
It is a nice light little camera but although is advertised to be capable of using lenses from 47 mm to 350 in reality the widest usable lens is a 72mm Schneider. I have tried a 65mm Nikkor but it does not focus to infinity.
I have written to Mr Zang about this but they are at a lost about it.Still for the money it is an Ok camera

hello luis, you can not use the last hole nearest to the back for the widest angles.

You must mount your front standard in the second or third to the last hole and move your back forward. This works to keep the front of the bed from being in the photograph

steve

[lilmsmaggie]

In setting up the camera and/or adjusting for minimum/maximum lens entension, et el, methinks this is where a user manual would prove quite useful.

[stevebrot]

hello luis, you can not use the last hole nearest to the back for the widest angles.

You must mount your front standard in the second or third to the last hole and move your back forward. This works to keep the front of the bed from being in the photograph

steve

Steve...Thanks for pointing this out. I don't have a 65mm lens to test with, but with a FOV of about 81-84 degrees on 4x5, the front standard needs to be positioned fairly far forward. It looks like the rearmost mount point is probably not that useful for 4x5. The question that comes to my mind is whether extreme shorter focal lengths (say 45mm) may be used at all with 4x5 on this camera given the maximum forward movement of the rear standard. (Recessed lens boards don't help here.)


Steve (the other)

[Jack Dahlgren]

Steve...Thanks for pointing this out. I don't have a 65mm lens to test with, but with a FOV of about 81-84 degrees on 4x5, the front standard needs to be positioned fairly far forward. It looks like the rearmost mount point is probably not that useful for 4x5. The question that comes to my mind is whether extreme shorter focal lengths (say 45mm) may be used at all with 4x5 on this camera given the maximum forward movement of the rear standard. (Recessed lens boards don't help here.)


Steve (the other)

There are two things you can do to help: Rear tilt, front tilt and rise will help put the camera base out of view. Or front and rear rise alone will help. For short lenses on my ebony, a combination of base tilt and axial tilt on both lenses allow the lens to get closer to the ground glass.

[D. Bryant]

In setting up the camera and/or adjusting for minimum/maximum lens entension, et el, methinks this is where a user manual would prove quite useful.

:rolleyes:

[Terence Falk]

This is not exactly connected to the Chamoix, but I have owned a Linhof Karden Color 45S for the past thirty years and have gotten extremely sharp results- until about a few years ago that is, when I noticed the negs looked soft. When I look at older negs they simply look like there is more resolution. Same lens, same developer, same everthing. I am currently doing tests, shooting one scene with every holder and then printing them. I think either the camera, after all of these years, is out of whack or the holders or both. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[lilmsmaggie]

:rolleyes:

I was being serious about the user manual :) I'm not so sure everyone getting into LF will agree that using a LF camera for the first time is an intuitive experience.

[D. Bryant]

I was being serious about the user manual :) I'm not so sure everyone getting into LF will agree that using a LF camera for the first time is an intuitive experience.

Using a LF camera isn't an intuitive experience. And unfortunately I know that you are serious about the user manual.

A very dear professor of mine in college told us the most important thing to get out of engineering school is to, "Learn to Teach Yourself."

Buy a lens, stick it on the camera, load camera with film and learn to make photographs with the contraption. Manual or no manual, forum or no forum, teacher or no teacher, mentor or no mentor you are going to make every mistake in the book before it's over with. That's how you learn to operate a VC ... from your mistakes. Get used to the idea.

If you need a manual get a used copy of View Camera Technique by Stroebel and forget everything you have heard or read about the Scheimpflug rule.

[BradS]

^^^ Excellent Advice!

[stevebrot]

Using a LF camera isn't an intuitive experience. And unfortunately I know that you are serious about the user manual...

I don't believe that she was requesting a camera manual for the purpose of learning view camera technique. There are elements of the Chamonix design that are fairly unique. It would be nice to have a reference as to how to properly set the camera up, how the movements are properly used and how to break the camera down. This would be useful both for convenience and to avoid damage to the camera and/or bellows.

As an example, I showed the camera to Mike Knight and another guy at Knight Camera here in Vancouver, USA. Both of these guys are very familiar with lots of different cameras and both have fairly extensive LF experience. When I unwrapped the Chamonix, Mike asked me how in the world it set up. As I went through the steps, he had a "aha" moment where the design of the camera came clear to him. Now if it is not clear to someone that basically lives with cameras, how is a total noob supposed to know how to work the thing.

Steve

BTW...both guys were totally wowed by the Chamonix...

[mccormickstudio]

I think the original discussion here about Chamonix levels came out of a conversation between Brian Ulrich and myself regarding the imprecision of levels on our 8x10 Chamonix cameras. When initially set up, there were differences between the front and back standard levels, creating additional work to level the camera by using an external level. Brian and I both shoot more sub/urban archaeology and need that level calibration, especially on the 8x10, which is not an inexpensive camera (in that price range, the levels should work).

So (as a designer myself) I have been thinking about a solution. While I am completely unaware of the manufacturing sequence, I am wondering if the levels on my camera were not installed in the making of each standard, prior to building the camera. If so, then a better solution would be to route the level channels with a little bit of variability, and install the levels after the build of the camera by setting up the finished camera, calibrating and then installing to ensure a cohesive read among all the levels.

I'd like to add that after using my Chamonix 8x10 for 2 years, there is nothing made that I would trade it for. For my purposes, it is the best 8x10 available. And frankly, I am ecstatic that a company like Chamonix is pushing large format forward unlike any other company (listening to our comments and improving on their product). Let's not forget all of the amazing films and papers that are now gone, and the struggle (especially for manufacturers) to keep our passion alive in LF.

[stevebrot]

I think the original discussion here about Chamonix levels came out of a conversation between Brian Ulrich and myself regarding the imprecision of levels on our 8x10 Chamonix cameras. When initially set up, there were differences between the front and back standard levels, creating additional work to level the camera by using an external level. Brian and I both shoot more sub/urban archaeology and need that level calibration, especially on the 8x10, which is not an inexpensive camera (in that price range, the levels should work).

So (as a designer myself) I have been thinking about a solution. While I am completely unaware of the manufacturing sequence, I am wondering if the levels on my camera were not installed in the making of each standard, prior to building the camera. If so, then a better solution would be to route the level channels with a little bit of variability, and install the levels after the build of the camera by setting up the finished camera, calibrating and then installing to ensure a cohesive read among all the levels.

I'd like to add that after using my Chamonix 8x10 for 2 years, there is nothing made that I would trade it for. For my purposes, it is the best 8x10 available. And frankly, I am ecstatic that a company like Chamonix is pushing large format forward unlike any other company (listening to our comments and improving on their product). Let's not forget all of the amazing films and papers that are now gone, and the struggle (especially for manufacturers) to keep our passion alive in LF.

Thanks for the background information. In addition to the accuracy issue, I also ran across a few threads with complaints about overly viscous fluid and leaking levels. The quality of the levels on the new camera seems to be excellent, though I would have to characterize them as being "generally" accurate. They are useful for quick setup in the field, but probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics.

Steve

[GPS]

Thanks for the background information. In addition to the accuracy issue, I also ran across a few threads with complaints about overly viscous fluid and leaking levels. The quality of the levels on the new camera seems to be excellent, though I would have to characterize them as being "generally" accurate. They are useful for quick setup in the field, but probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics.

Steve

You start to be quite an expert on these bubble levels - in just about 10 days you have changed your opinion about them several times already. Don't worry - once you have really used the camera a lot, you'll be able to make some review of a better value. So far you just adjust your opinion according to the experience of the other, more experienced users.

[stevebrot]

@GPS,

For the sake of those who have "turned you off" I have abstained from quoting your latest jab.

I take it that condescension is your specialty. I did not say anything new in that comment than what I said before. As for the accuracy of the levels, I suggest that you buy a Chamonix and test them for yourself. For myself, I find them to be generally accurate and acceptable for field use. In reviewing my last set of negatives the horizons are level and the trees are straight.

My suggestion to you is that you seriously consider your role here and elsewhere, whether you are making a positive or negative contribution, and whether the people in your life still take you seriously as a result. You are intelligent and good with words. Use your talents for better things than making enemies.

Steve

[Sal Santamaura]

...For the sake of those who have "turned you off" I have abstained from quoting your latest jab...Thank you Steve!!!

[kev curry]

... The quality of the levels on the new camera seems to be excellent, though I would have to characterize them as being "generally" accurate. They are useful for quick setup in the field, but probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics.

Steve

How can the levels be simultaneously described as ''excellent'', then ''generally accurate'', and then ''probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics'' in the same paragraph?
Maybe you should have a read through the words that you penned and ask yourself if anyone could legitimately attach any value to them.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kev, I think what he was trying to say was that the manufacturing of the level itself was excellent but precisely installed in relation to the back itself.

[GPS]

Kev, I think what he was trying to say was that the manufacturing of the level itself was excellent but precisely installed in relation to the back itself.

Kev, I think that what Kirk was trying to say was that the manufacturing of the level itself was excellent but NOT precisely installed in relation to the back itself...;) :)

[Kirk Gittings]

I think what GPS was trying to say about what I was trying to say was essentially correct.

[kev curry]

Thanks girls. I would hate to be the little guy at the end of the assembly line responsible for positioning those wee levels on the back of the cameras;-)

[Mike Anderson]

Thanks girls. I would hate to be the little guy at the end of the assembly line responsible for positioning those wee levels on the back of the cameras;-)

or the Chamonix User Manual tech writer - oh wait there is none.:)

Seriously now, a user guide seems like a worthwhile addition. I don't have Chamonix, but it's obviously not idiot proof (no offense anyone) and just seems incomplete without a user guide. It doesn't even have to be printed, just put online in web pages or as a PDF.

That's one Chamonix non-owner's opinion.

...Mike

[stevebrot]

How can the levels be simultaneously described as ''excellent'', then ''generally accurate'', and then ''probably not adequate for highly technical work such as archeology or forensics'' in the same paragraph?
Maybe you should have a read through the words that you penned and ask yourself if anyone could legitimately attach any value to them.

Easy:

The units themselves appear to be well made and have appropriate viscosity and bubble size
Generally accurate means just that. It would be a little like saying that kev curry generally knows what he is talking about. For most purposes I think that both would be acceptably true.
Not adequate for archeology or forensics means just that as well. In archeology, for example, photographs are often used to determine subsequent metrics for items shown in situ and the standard for such work is very strict.

This whole bubble level thing is getting tiresome. For record:

I actually own the camera and have actually seen and used the levels
I have compared them to a 6" bullet (torpedo) level that I own
While agreement is not exact (sometimes one way, sometimes the other, never more than about smidgen out-of-bounds either way), the difference is not critical for general photography. Remember too that any variance is the product of both the devices.
As a convenience, I feel that the levels are valuable
If they were grossly inaccurate (like those on my tripod legs and tripod release clamp, for example), I would say so.

To further muddy the waters, I have two fairly expensive 4' carpenter's levels. Put against the same wall, they never agree. I guess that means they are both junk. Or maybe it means that the house is poorly built.


Steve

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek on that last analogy...)

[stevebrot]

I think what GPS was trying to say about what I was trying to say was essentially correct.

Ummm...yeah...I think ;)

There is room for error in the installation of the levels (duh!). This would be the case regardless of the materials used in construction, country of origin, or brand of camera. Much depends on the accuracy of the manufacturing jigs/dies, the process precision, the calibration procedures, and QA processes. For all I know, they might just slap the things on, say "Good enough for government work (or export)" and send them out the door. If that is the case, I count myself lucky since mine are accurate enough for my noob purposes. Perhaps (as GPS suggests) I will become more anal (that's scary :eek:) as I gain experience and soundly condemn the levels when I do a follow-up review. Time will tell.


Steve

[kev curry]

There is room for error in the installation of the levels (duh!)...

Steve

It would be quite a technical challenge to precisely position each of the tiny bubble levels on the back of a small camera. Even the makers of 'quality' spirit levels aimed at the building industry routinely churn out inaccurate ones.
I find it easier to just ignore those pesky wee levels anyway and instead rely on my peepers for finding true, but then again, I'm not Indiana Jones's LF photographer, and even If I was I'd search to the ends of the earth to find the Holy Grail of accurate torpedo levels for my brown leather camera satchel;)

[Jack Dahlgren]

To further muddy the waters, I have two fairly expensive 4' carpenter's levels. Put against the same wall, they never agree. I guess that means they are both junk. Or maybe it means that the house is poorly built.

Steve


Steve,

I think it is your absolute certainty about things new to you (which also seems to change as wind blows or you read another thing or two on the internet) which stirs up nitpicking comments.

I've been in the design and construction industry and when you have two levels that don't agree you have a very simple problem to solve. Find the best one. Get rid of the other. It takes less than a minute to determine if a level is accurate.

Your summary of specifications and other people's opinions is sort of similar. Some times you say one thing, the next time you say another, never really knowing which is correct. Full of self-certainty, but to the observer, empty of accuracy or constancy - an unreliable standard.

Of course, the most delicious part is that the levels are almost meaningless except as being the easiest nit to pick.

I would suggest that perhaps a bit of humility in your pronouncement, or even some original work - who better to write the missing user manual? - would lessen the animosity and do better credit to you than the current review and comments.

[stevebrot]

Steve,

I think it is your absolute certainty about things new to you (which also seems to change as wind blows or you read another thing or two on the internet) which stirs up nitpicking comments...



Thank you Jack for your thoughtful comments. I could spend hours of my time and dozens of paragraphs describing what I did or did not do, but it would be of little value at this point. I guess I could sum it up by saying that I should probably have ignored the posts regarding the levels and build quality, done some measurements, and saved the results for a follow-up future review. That would have spared me much grief and kept me out of the line of fire until I had some time to establish some credibility here.

As it is, I will plug away at mastering the camera and ask questions when I have a problem regarding LF technique. If I have an issue with the camera or see an area for improvement, I will communicate those directly to the people at Chamonix. At some point, I will likely write a follow-up review detailing what I have learned about the camera over time. In that review, I plan to address its strengths and weaknesses as well as issues uncovered and Chamonix's response to those issues.

Steve

[Vidarhag]

Thanks for the review, have the 045N-1 my self and likes it!
Well written review and interesting to hear your thoughts on largeformat photography, started a few years ago and still learning (a lot)
Should use the chamonix more instead of running around with the Aero- Ektar/Anniversary graphic . . . But soon (hopefully) its more springlike in Norway and that should mean some more time to walk around with a 4x5.

Vidar.

[lilmsmaggie]

but it's obviously not idiot proof (no offense anyone) and just seems incomplete without a user guide. It doesn't even have to be printed, just put online in web pages or as a PDF.

That's one Chamonix non-owner's opinion.

...Mike

Doesn't have to be extremely detailed. Most camera user guides aren't. They're just in multiple languages. Even a simple diagram showing controls/knob/levers, etc. and what they're used for goes a long, long way.

Steve has a gift for descriptive writing. Maybe if there's enough interest, maybe he could be convinced to writ a brief user guide :D

[Mike Anderson]

Doesn't have to be extremely detailed. Most camera user guides aren't. They're just in multiple languages. Even a simple diagram showing controls/knob/levers, etc. and what they're used for goes a long, long way.
...

Or, the universal language of the new millennium:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j7axnQhQWg

This wasn't made by Chamonix, but a company like Chamonix (small company, I'm assuming) could easily produce a set of these videos as basic guides to their product line. It would make good advertising as well as provide instruction.

Much easier to produce than old fashioned text/illustration based documentation. You don't need a writer (or translators), all you need is a video camera and someone who knows the (Chamonix) camera. Work out some short "skits" that don't need narration to illustrate the basic operations of the camera, video it, put it on youtube and put links to the videos on your website.

In some ways it's better than traditional "static" documentation.

...Mike

[Paul Kierstead]

I could spend hours of my time and dozens of paragraphs describing what I did or did not do, but it would be of little value at this point.

I quite enjoyed your review and comments. Having been through some of the same process myself (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8579) w.r.t. to starting with a new camera, I feel very confident that your confidence in your conclusions is a bit misplaced, but I think when you declared yourself a newbie that is covered quite nicely and no one has space to complain; you stated up front that it is a newbie's observations. And, although your opinions will change, a newcomers observations are very useful and interesting. This is particularly true since I think a lot of purchasers of Chamonix products are relatively inexperienced, so they should know what they are in for, good and bad.

I thank you for the effort and think you remained remarkably civil, all things considered, though ignoring the level tempest would indeed be a good idea :)

6 years on my requirements for a camera have changed quite a bit. Recently I sold all my Canon [D]SLR gear to focus on MF & LF photography in large part because LF changed what and how I wanted to shoot. In another 6 years, I expect my requirements be different again, though not as much as the first 6 years (unless affordable digital LF backs magically appear). Your requirements in a few years could be totally different; you might abandon LF, or become LF only, or decide nothing less than a Linhof is worth owning. But either way keep posting your impressions for those who find them useful and take the opinions of the detractors as possibly useful but not necessarily as a fight :)

[stevebrot]

Doesn't have to be extremely detailed. Most camera user guides aren't. They're just in multiple languages. Even a simple diagram showing controls/knob/levers, etc. and what they're used for goes a long, long way.

Steve has a gift for descriptive writing. Maybe if there's enough interest, maybe he could be convinced to writ a brief user guide :D

I might. Hugo Zhang and I have been having some conversation along those lines.


Or, the universal language of the new millennium:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j7axnQhQWg



What a great idea! It would be nice to have both a written guide and a video since there are some things that are easier to describe than to show and vice versa.

Steve

[stevebrot]

I quite enjoyed your review and comments. Having been through some of the same process myself (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8579) ...

I thoroughly enjoyed your Newbie review of the Wisner. I particularly liked the running commentary regarding the frustration with existing gear, the reading of the books, the devouring of the Web sites, and the fumbling with the camera once it arrived. My experience parallels yours with the exception that I have had some exposure to view cameras over the years and had actually been shown how to operate a few models.

Since you were kind enough to share your first image (link was dead), I guess I can do the same:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/4542053313/

This was the second image actually...the first resulted in the subject, my daughter's doll, missing the top of its head. I often use the doll as a subject for lens and film tests. It is patient and does not mind staying stationary for long periods of time. I managed to miss some of the foreground focus, but know better now how to correct that.


Steve

P.S. I want to echo your comments regarding the weight of film holders. Ditto for roll film holders...

[archer]

Dear Steve;
Thank you for your very well written and insightful review. You've made a significant contribution to this forum and I'm sure most others find it as useful as I did. Thank you again.
Denise Libby

[stevebrot]

Dear Steve;
Thank you for your very well written and insightful review. You've made a significant contribution to this forum and I'm sure most others find it as useful as I did. Thank you again.
Denise Libby

Thank you Denise.

Steve

[David Aimone]

I have purchased a C2N 120/220 roll film holder/back. It didn't come with masks, but can shoot 6x7cm and 6x9cm. Is there an easy way to make a mask? I was hoping it might be as simple as finding some clear, acetate type material (something like the clear plastic you peel off the screen of a new phone or PDA) that could be printed on. That could be pressed onto the ground glass as a guide. That would be better than having to install a guide between the ground glass and the fresnel (or not?).

Any suggestions?

[stevebrot]

I have purchased a C2N 120/220 roll film holder/back. It didn't come with masks, but can shoot 6x7cm and 6x9cm. Is there an easy way to make a mask? I was hoping it might be as simple as finding some clear, acetate type material (something like the clear plastic you peel off the screen of a new phone or PDA) that could be printed on. That could be pressed onto the ground glass as a guide. That would be better than having to install a guide between the ground glass and the fresnel (or not?).

Any suggestions?

6x7 and 6x9? Woo! Hoo! Luxury!

As I mentioned via previous PM, I have been using a mask cut from card stock and placed between the GG and the lens. The GG holder has tabs on that side to accept something like this. (I think the tabs are a hold-over from the previous model where the fresnel was on that side.) A piece of matboard would probably work better. If you make something of this sort, remember to trim the corners to allow the bellows to vent.

The static sticker approach (applied directly to the rear cover glass) would probably work pretty well if you can find a source for the material. Maybe something like this: Printable Static Decal Film (http://www.hyaz.com/inkjet%20static%20cling%20film%20media.html).


Steve

[Jack Dahlgren]

Frisket is a low tack removable film which sticks and leaves no residue. Some of it comes tinted.

http://www.dickblick.com/products/iwata-art-mask-frisk-film/

It has many other uses too.

I'd cut out a square frame (maybe a half centimeter wide?) and stick it on, that way you can see what is in the frame, but the rest of the gg is still available if you want to use 4x5.

[GPS]

I have purchased a C2N 120/220 roll film holder/back. It didn't come with masks, but can shoot 6x7cm and 6x9cm. Is there an easy way to make a mask? I was hoping it might be as simple as finding some clear, acetate type material (something like the clear plastic you peel off the screen of a new phone or PDA) that could be printed on. That could be pressed onto the ground glass as a guide. That would be better than having to install a guide between the ground glass and the fresnel (or not?).

Any suggestions?

If you mean Calumet RF holders they don't have any masks. They are made just for one film format - either 6x7 or 6x9 or 6x12. If you mask it to a smaller format you will not be able to use the winding mechanism correctly for your new format.

[Kirk Gittings]

GPS, He is talking about masking the 4x5 ground glass. Calumet used to supply a clear mask, but I never found it super accurate. For mine I made one out of black paper and slipped it under the glass clips. To make the mask I shot a 4x5 then shot a 6x9, processed the film and then overlayed the film matching the subjects and marked the 6x9 format on the 4x5. Then made a black paper mask from the marked 4x5.

[stevebrot]

@iogdka...

You are asking about a GG mask to aid in composition as opposed to an image mask for the C2N?


Steve

[GPS]

GPS He is talking about masking the 4x5 ground glass. Calumet used to supply a clear mask, but i never found it super accurate. For mine I made one out of black paper and slipped it under the glass clips. To make the mask I shot a 4x5 then shot a 6x9 processed the film and then overlayed the film matching the subjects and marked the 6x9 format on the 4x5. Then made a black paper mask from the marked 4x5.

I just checked it and got it, Kirk. Thanks.:)

[stevebrot]

Speaking of the Calumet C2/C2N...this is a little off topic, but I know that both Kirk and GPS have experience with this roll film holder. Tell me, does it make any difference whether you advance the film immediately after taking a shot as opposed to immediately before? I have both a C2 and C2N.


Steve

[Jack Dahlgren]

Rolling after taking a shot protects the shot from light leaks if your darkslide pops out after the shot, but not if it popped out before and you didn't detect it. It might offer the chance for the film to relax and flatten out, or it might give the film a chance to curl if the humidity is high. So the answer is that it doesn't matter all that much. I'd vote for advancing film right after the shot so you are always ready.

[stevebrot]

Thanks Jack. I figured the answer would be something like that!

Steve

[Kirk Gittings]

Rolling after taking a shot protects the shot from light leaks if your darkslide pops out after the shot, but not if it popped out before and you didn't detect it. It might offer the chance for the film to relax and flatten out, or it might give the film a chance to curl if the humidity is high. So the answer is that it doesn't matter all that much. I'd vote for advancing film right after the shot so you are always ready.

Ditto

[BradS]

well, I do not have a calumet c2 but, I do have two cameras that do not have double exposure protection. With these, I have settled on the "wind it immediately after exposure" convention. Here's why: Although you do allow film sag, the problem is that if you choose the wind before convention...and you set up to make an exposure and then decide not to for some reason (I do this about 30% of the time it seems) then the next shot...and every shot after that, you forget "did I or didn't I???" And so, you either get lucky or you end up with a double exposure or you have a blank frame....

and so, you see if you always wind immediately after exposure (always!) then you don't make these mistakes.....works for me...ymmv.

[GPS]

Speaking of the Calumet C2/C2N...this is a little off topic, but I know that both Kirk and GPS have experience with this roll film holder. Tell me, does it make any difference whether you advance the film immediately after taking a shot as opposed to immediately before? I have both a C2 and C2N.


Steve

In practice the question is never given - you simply cannot advance the film before the exposure as the advancing mechanism is quite heavy and with the holder inserted in the gg back advancing the film would mean to put strain on the whole back standard. You would need to recheck focusing etc. Let alone the strange position you would have in case the camera is aimed in an awkward way etc.
Advancing the film before the exposure while the film holder is still not inserted in the back is possible but anal - what if you decide not to take the picture (not even insert the holder) - will you make a note that the film has been advanced?

[stevebrot]

Thanks Kirk, Brad, and GPS. I will continue to "wind after".


Steve

[Kirk Gittings]

you simply cannot advance the film before the exposure as the advancing mechanism is quite heavy and with the holder inserted in the gg back advancing the film would mean to put strain on the whole back standard.

I have owned maybe 12 of the 6x9 CN2. I used them in my business until worn out and replaced them. I always had 3 in my case for different films and currently have 3. I never found the above to be true. The advancing mechanism was very smooth and easy and I had no problem advancing film with the back in the camera. Since I was usually shooting chromes and bracketing exposures, I would do a sequence of 4 brackets with the back in place-no problems doing this thousands of times over the 12 backs all bought new.

One note. I did find the plastic dark slide would wear out much sooner than the rest of the back (from kind of bending it as it was withdrawn-it would break). So we took to making our own out of thin sheets of brass from the hobby store. The last versions I bought of the C2N had a stainless steel dark slide which lasted forever.

[ImSoNegative]

very good review, that camera is almost identical to my shen-hao pbt45 I just got it the other day, i have been in LF for a few years now but my current camera is a toyo view 45GII, starts getting kind of heavy after a bit of toting, so i starting looking for a light weight field camera, i found the pbt it weighs just a bit under 3 pounds, 46.8 ounces i think, it will take me some getting used to after using the precise 45gII but the weight difference will be well worth it. good luck with your new camera.

[GPS]

I have owned maybe 12 of the 6x9 CN2. I used them in my business until worn out and replaced them. I always had 3 in my case for different films and currently have 3. I never found the above to be true. The advancing mechanism was very smooth and easy and I had no problem advancing film with the back in the camera. Since I was usually shooting chromes and bracketing exposures, I would do a sequence of 4 brackets with the back in place-no problems doing this thousands of times over the 12 backs all bought new.

One note. I did find the plastic dark slide would wear out much sooner than the rest of the back (from kind of bending it as it was withdrawn-it would break). So we took to making our own out of thin sheets of brass from the hobby store. The last versions I bought of the C2N had a stainless steel dark slide which lasted forever.

There were threads about the well known difficulties with the winding mechanism. I even needed (and was not the first one to do so) write to Calumet to get their parts from their repair person to replace the worn out parts...
On the other hand, the dark slide in my holder lives happily for ever. Mileage varies as we all know...

[GPS]

I have owned maybe 12 of the 6x9 CN2. I used them in my business until worn out and replaced them. I always had 3 in my case for different films and currently have 3. I never found the above to be true. The advancing mechanism was very smooth and easy and I had no problem advancing film with the back in the camera. Since I was usually shooting chromes and bracketing exposures, I would do a sequence of 4 brackets with the back in place-no problems doing this thousands of times over the 12 backs all bought new.

...

Just curious - what exactly did wear out on those 12 CN2 film holders??

[leetmode]

Hi Steve,

Sorry for bringing up such an old thread but I just wanted to say thanks for such a great review! I plan on purchasing one soon but was a little hesitant due to the fact that this would be my first LF camera as well, however your review may have convinced me in going for it! I have a few questions though, how has the camera held up so far? Have you had any issues? Also, what tripod head are you using for it?

thanks in advance.

[lbenac]

Hi Steve,

Sorry for bringing up such an old thread but I just wanted to say thanks for such a great review! I plan on purchasing one soon but was a little hesitant due to the fact that this would be my first LF camera as well, however your review may have convinced me in going for it! I have a few questions though, how has the camera held up so far? Have you had any issues? Also, what tripod head are you using for it?

thanks in advance.

Steve is a great guy :)
As a newbie I also purchased a 45-N2 and so far it has been great.
I use it with a Berlebach Report 2032 tripod with their integrated head and it works perfectly. Easy to adjust, no extra weight or cost - I like it a lot better than an extra head. The only thing different that I which I would have done, is buy the 3032 instead of the 2032. I am 6 feet and the 2032 is way too short for me (it is perfect with a 500 CM).
I enjoy the wood tripod for its simplicity. Now if you think that you do not need a very stable, vibration absorbing tripod, think again. I was up in the Rockies by a mountain pass and the wind has been peaking up. I lost only one shot where the vibration were just too much.

Cheers,

Luc

[H Gloriant]

DIY adaptation of Linhof viewfinder for Chamonix 045N-2

http://35mm-compact.com/album/albums/userpics/10687/viseur_linhof_2.jpg

http://35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32539&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Robert Oliver]

I learned something new in this thread....

I can ignore somebody!

Great feature

[kaizentr]

Thank you for information. I have one of them in Turkey

[GPS]

DIY adaptation of Linhof viewfinder for Chamonix 045N-2

...

In English, what you have adapted in this case is not a viewfinder but a viewing hood. ;)

[H Gloriant]

error !

[H Gloriant]

Ok, thanks, I'm very bad in English :o
I'm better in DIY :)

[leetmode]

Steve is a great guy :)
As a newbie I also purchased a 45-N2 and so far it has been great.
I use it with a Berlebach Report 2032 tripod with their integrated head and it works perfectly. Easy to adjust, no extra weight or cost - I like it a lot better than an extra head. The only thing different that I which I would have done, is buy the 3032 instead of the 2032. I am 6 feet and the 2032 is way too short for me (it is perfect with a 500 CM).
I enjoy the wood tripod for its simplicity. Now if you think that you do not need a very stable, vibration absorbing tripod, think again. I was up in the Rockies by a mountain pass and the wind has been peaking up. I lost only one shot where the vibration were just too much.

Cheers,

Luc

Luc thanks so much for your response!! I'll be contacting Hugo shortly :D. My grandfather actually bought me a 2042 when I first started getting into photography, i had no idea how good it was at the time and never used it because it was so heavy! I'll have to get it out of storage now lol. I'm 6ft as well but plan to buy the reflex viewer so I don't think the tripod height will be an issue. By any chance do you have any experience with reflex viewer? Lastly, which wood did you end up choosing? If you picked maple is there any chance you could post a picture of it? I can't seem to find any example online, seems like everyone has been choosing teak.

Sorry for all the questions btw, but the help would be greatly appreciated!

[lbenac]

Luc thanks so much for your response!! I'll be contacting Hugo shortly :D. My grandfather actually bought me a 2042 when I first started getting into photography, i had no idea how good it was at the time and never used it because it was so heavy! I'll have to get it out of storage now lol. I'm 6ft as well but plan to buy the reflex viewer so I don't think the tripod height will be an issue. By any chance do you have any experience with reflex viewer? Lastly, which wood did you end up choosing? If you picked maple is there any chance you could post a picture of it? I can't seem to find any example online, seems like everyone has been choosing teak.

Sorry for all the questions btw, but the help would be greatly appreciated!

Maple is not available anymore - that is why everybody me included has chosen Teak ;)

[Dave Hally]

Leetmode,
In my post about CHamonix Lens Shade, Page 2, post #16, there are 2 pictures of my maple and black 45n-2. It is in bright sun, so it is not actually quite that light in color.
Dave

[leetmode]

Maple is not available anymore - that is why everybody me included has chosen Teak ;)

damn, oh well, thanks again.


Leetmode,
In my post about CHamonix Lens Shade, Page 2, post #16, there are 2 pictures of my maple and black 45n-2. It is in bright sun, so it is not actually quite that light in color.
Dave

thanks for the heads up Dave! will take a look now.

[Bob McCarthy]

Ok, thanks, I'm very bad in English :o
I'm better in DIY :)


Actually I see the mirror. I had this unit on my Technika. It is a reflex viewfinder. Your english is fine.

Beautifully executed,

bob