PDA

View Full Version : Wait for new Shen-Hao XPO?



Lars Daniel
1-Jul-2010, 04:37
This is my first post here (Hi!), and though I am spending a LOT of time researching LF, I still have many many questions. Please bear with me.

I feel very tempted by the 4x5 offerings by Shen-Hao. (HZX or the TZ). However there is also now the XPO. The big *thing* about the XPO seems to be that it takes Sinar shutters, and some speak very warmly about those. Can somebody shed a little light on why the Sinar stuff is desirable? As I will likely be getting s/h lenses, I would like to go down a route with ok availability on that market.

Apart from that I tend to like the non-folding concept of the XPO and the slightly higher weight is not a problem. I will be walking with it, but probably not more than a couple of kilometers.

I am sure I would be happy with a HZX or TZ, but if the Sinar-friendly XPO has some profound advantages I will wait for that. FWIW I plan to take a trip to Robert White and do the the shopping. LF is small here in Denmark.

Off course there are many other options, but price/performance for Shen-Hao seems sweet to me.


EDIT: Yes, I have no LF experience. Currently I am a happy RZ67 user, and in particular I love to use the tilt/shift adaptor. But I lust for more movement and 6x12.

evan clarke
1-Jul-2010, 05:07
The Sinar shutter is behind the lens and will allow you to use barrel lenses, pretty cool if you have barrel lenses. If not it's still a very nice camera. Also check the Ebony 45s if you go to RW, a very classy non folding camera...Evan Clarke

Lachlan 717
1-Jul-2010, 05:23
Lars,

First, welcome to the Forum! Awesome source of information.

I've put a heap of information up on this camera in a previous thread.

As Evan said, the Sinars are great for any lens without a shutter. Importantly, this covers the antique brass lenses. Without this shutter, I would have to use a Packard system. I found the lack of shutter speeds with these too limiting. Some of the old Petzval lenses require either quick shutter speeds and/or slow film. The Sinar allows higher shutter speeds!

Also, this camera has a quad extension, giving it over 400mm bellows draw. This will allow both longer lenses or greater close-ups.

All in all, I think it's a great camera!

By the way, you can probably buy one direct from Mr Zhang at Shen Hao. His email address is on their website.

rdenney
1-Jul-2010, 05:36
This particular camera is quite flexible compared to most field cameras, if for no other reason because it does not fold, and it has a quadruple-extension bed.

The reason it can take Sinar shutters is because it is compatible with most Sinar accessories, including bellows and lens boards. The back is not the typical deep box of a folding field camera, and is shallow enough to allow the Sinar bag bellows. Thus, it will accept very short lenses and still provide movements.

If someone wanted a field camera to go with their Sinar monorail view camera, this would be a natural choice, even if they did not intend to use the Sinar shutter.

The Sinar Auto-Aperture shutter is a true leaf shutter of very large size that is mounted to the backside of the lens standard. This allows you to mount lenses without shutters to the front of the lens board. There are very few other alternatives for using barrel lenses, if you need shutter speeds faster than you can managed with a felt hat. Those choices include a Packard shutter, one of various home-made guillotine shutters, or one of very few large-format cameras with a focal-plane shutter, including the Speed Graphic. All of these choices are quite limited. The Speed Graphic shutter, for example, only provides shutter speeds as long as 1/30, which leaves a big gap in the range between a mechanically timed shutter and a manually timed felt hat. Packard shutters only provide a few speeds. As a real leaf shutter, the Sinar shutter provides a range of timed speeds, plus it can be synchronized with flash.

The Sinar shutter can also be used with lenses mounted into Sinar DB boards, which replaces the normal leaf shutter with an aperture mechanism that can be automatically controlled. Most don't take it that far, however. But it does allow one to manipulate the controls entirely from behind the camera.

Rick "who wants one of these cameras" Denney

erie patsellis
1-Jul-2010, 07:32
Rick's pretty thorough answer is spot on, a field camera that is made for Sinar users first and foremost. Ideally, it keeps one from having to have either two sets of lenses, or use a lensboard adapter.


....The Sinar shutter can also be used with lenses mounted into Sinar DB boards, which replaces the normal leaf shutter with an aperture mechanism that can be automatically controlled. Most don't take it that far, however. But it does allow one to manipulate the controls entirely from behind the camera.
Of course there are some of us who are more afflicted than others and actually use DB lenses (as well as keep searching some out.)

evan clarke
1-Jul-2010, 11:15
I had a P2 setup and had an extra shutter with it. I sold the whole setup and still wish I had the extra shutter, with this camera it would be great...EC

ki6mf
2-Jul-2010, 05:42
I' a Shen Hao user, HZX 4X5-IIA. Can't beat the Shen Hao Brand as they have world wide distribution so parts and accessories are available without waiting for special orders to be shipped on a semi annual basis. The build quality is excellent. I prefer leaf shutters in lens. If the one shutter many glass options is what you feel is needed they go for it.

Lars Daniel
7-Jul-2010, 02:24
Thanks for all replys.
Now after a lot of exhausting research, I have finally decided to go a slightly different route: Chamonix 45N-2.

Lachlan 717
7-Jul-2010, 03:14
All the best with it.

What changed your mind?

Have you ordered it yet?

Lars Daniel
7-Jul-2010, 05:56
@Lachlan: I figured that I did not have any real reason to go the Sinar route, since I donīt have any LF lenses yet, and field cameras (folding or not) is definitely my *thing* compared to monorail cams, so I donīt expect to also own one of those.
I could then have chosen one of the *normal* Shen Haoīs, but after some more research I chose the Chamonix. (Mostly gut feeling).
No, I have not laid down the money yet.

Lachlan 717
7-Jul-2010, 08:28
@Lachlan: I figured that I did not have any real reason to go the Sinar route, since I donīt have any LF lenses yet, and field cameras (folding or not) is definitely my *thing* compared to monorail cams, so I donīt expect to also own one of those.
I could then have chosen one of the *normal* Shen Haoīs, but after some more research I chose the Chamonix. (Mostly gut feeling).
No, I have not laid down the money yet.

Lars,

Not sure from your answer that you know that you can use "normal" lenses on the Shen. In other words, it is just a field camera (as the normal Shen-Hao cameras are) that has the option of using some Sinar parts. It is not a monorail camera.

Again, in other words, you have the best of both lens worlds: use those in a shutter and those in a barrel.

And over 400mm of bellow draw.

Lars Daniel
7-Jul-2010, 11:34
I do get that it is no monorail. As I see it the big thing about it is that those who already have a Sinar system can have a field cam and use the same lenses. I get that you can use both kind of lenses, but at my level I donīt really know what I am gaining there.
To be perfectly honest I found the whole sinar lens/shutter/lensboard gamut to be very confusing.
But anyway, what ultimately matters to me is that I would rather buy a second generation product than a first generation product (that in this case is so new it has practicly no presence on the net).

Lachlan 717
7-Jul-2010, 14:04
When I look at the range of cameras that Shen makes (and have made for a long time), I have no issue with new products from them. This is my second prototype, and I've had no issues. They used many existing designs and parts for this camera, and, Chinese laws being Chinese laws, just "borrowed" ideas where required. Very, very little Bleeding Edge stuff here! After all, it's a timber camera, not an iPhone 4 with new OS and arial!!

Have you read "Archer's" thread on this camera?

Have you had a read if the threads here on Petzval lenses?

As for the Sinar stuff, I only have one of their shutters. The bag bellow I have is from Horseman. So, for what it's worth, I'm not a Sinarphile. It's a means to an end that I couldn't find elsewhere.

Anyway, as I said, good luck with this whichever way you go.

archer
8-Jul-2010, 02:28
Dear Lars;
I, too, was ready to buy the Chamonix, when I read Lachlan's post regarding the new XPO. It is the versatility and the solidity of the Shen Hoa that is the most impressive and swayed my decision. Since I received the camera, I have had an opportunity to handle both cameras and I know I made the right decision. The XPO is definitely more rigid and versatile than the Chamonix, at the expense of slightly more weight but weight was never a consideration in my decision. Both cameras are wonderful and I think which ever way you go, you will not be disappointed.
Denise Libby

Lars Daniel
8-Jul-2010, 11:27
I appreciate your responses, and it forced me into another round of pondering and research. The outcome of that round is that I am still for the Chamonix 45N-2 though.

There are two questions, that I would love to hear your opinions on:
I plan to start out shooting 4x5 polaroids, or to be exact Fuji FP-100c45 packfilm in a Fuji PA-45 holder. Will the XPO and the 45N-2 accomodate such a holder equally well?

I will also be using a 6x12 roll film holder which most likely will be of the simpler type that is mounted in lieu of the ground glass. Will I experience differences in how easy this process will be (for those two cams). (I read that on some cams it can be a bit more cumbersome to remove the gg.)

rdenney
8-Jul-2010, 11:40
There are two questions, that I would love to hear your opinions on:
I plan to start out shooting 4x5 polaroids, or to be exact Fuji FP-100c45 packfilm in a Fuji PA-45 holder. Will the XPO and the 45N-2 accomodate such a holder equally well?

I will also be using a 6x12 roll film holder which most likely will be of the simpler type that is mounted in lieu of the ground glass. Will I experience differences in how easy this process will be (for those two cams). (I read that on some cams it can be a bit more cumbersome to remove the gg.)

I'm curious about this as well. The XPO has a very obvious Graflok back that will hold both of the above holders equally well. (Given that those simpler 6x12 holders are also made by Shen-Hao, then there is an obvious conclusion.) The Chamonix has a Graflok, but its configuration is a bit harder to discern from the photos on the web site. I'm sure it will hold both of those holders properly, but I can't tell from the photos on the site how fiddly it will be.

Rick "whose personal cameras do have differences in fiddliness" Denney

shadowleaves
8-Jul-2010, 11:53
I used 045n1 for quite a while. I see no problem with the rigidity, and I don't really believe XPO will have much better rigidity than 045n1, given its structure. However, XPO does give you zero detents for both front and rear swing which could be a huge advantage if you can't live with a camera without swing zeros like 045n1 or n2.

I don't think you will have problem with PA-45 holder on 045n1/n2, as I had no problem using their Quickload holder and polaroid 545i holder on mine.

However, I do think you might have some problem with using 612 roll-film holders on 45n1/n2. The rather unique graflok mechanism (four rotating clips) on 045n1 could lock neither of my Da-Yi and Shen-Hao 612 holder firmly, both of which fit nicely on my Arca-Swiss F-Field camera; and although Horseman 6x12 holder can be locked firmly, the graflok interface on 045n1 didn't fit the position-limiting rim on the horseman holder well, and a small gap was left between the holder and the camera even when the holder was locked, causing unwanted swings.

Me personally, with all due respect to Hugo, think this graflok compatibility issue is one of the biggest design problems with Chamonix 045n1 and unfortunately it is on 045n2 as well.



I appreciate your responses, and it forced me into another round of pondering and research. The outcome of that round is that I am still for the Chamonix 45N-2 though.

There are two questions, that I would love to hear your opinions on:
I plan to start out shooting 4x5 polaroids, or to be exact Fuji FP-100c45 packfilm in a Fuji PA-45 holder. Will the XPO and the 45N-2 accomodate such a holder equally well?

I will also be using a 6x12 roll film holder which most likely will be of the simpler type that is mounted in lieu of the ground glass. Will I experience differences in how easy this process will be (for those two cams). (I read that on some cams it can be a bit more cumbersome to remove the gg.)

Lars Daniel
8-Jul-2010, 14:05
However, I do think you might have some problem with using 612 roll-film holders on 45n1/n2. The rather unique graflok mechanism (four rotating clips) on 045n1 could lock neither of my Da-Yi and Shen-Hao 612 holder firmly, both of which fit nicely on my Arca-Swiss F-Field camera; and although Horseman 6x12 holder can be locked firmly, the graflok interface on 045n1 didn't fit the position-limiting rim on the horseman holder well, and a small gap was left between the holder and the camera even when the holder was locked, causing unwanted swings.

Me personally, with all due respect to Hugo, think this graflok compatibility issue is one of the biggest design problems with Chamonix 045n1 and unfortunately it is on 045n2 as well.

This is a bit worrying to hear. I suppose a work-around could be to use a slide-under-the-gg roll film holder, am I right? This will presumably give me a nicer work flow, but the problem is to find a slide-in 6x12 that does not cost the same as the camera (or more). I am completely puzzled by the prices I have seen on these holders. (Calumet in UK has the Cambo 6x12 holder for 1133 GBP = 1718 USD :-O Solid gold or what?)

shadowleaves
8-Jul-2010, 14:31
This is a bit worrying to hear. I suppose a work-around could be to use a slide-under-the-gg roll film holder, am I right? This will presumably give me a nicer work flow, but the problem is to find a slide-in 6x12 that does not cost the same as the camera (or more). I am completely puzzled by the prices I have seen on these holders. (Calumet in UK has the Cambo 6x12 holder for 1133 GBP = 1718 USD :-O Solid gold or what?)

There are several workarounds. My way was to slightly widen (using an xacto knife) the groove in back of the 045n1 which corresponds to the rim of the horseman holder; and then use some electric tape on the edges of the horseman holder to improve the contact with the rotating clips on 045n1.

It was a satisfactory fix for me. For DaYi or Shen-Hao holders, just use more tape on the edge of the holder until the clips will firmly lock it.

You can certainly find a under-the-gg roll film holder which will solve the problem as well.

Anyway, later I realized that it was actually easier just to use a 5x12 mask (made from a standard 4x5 darkslide) and shoot two 5x12s on a 4x5 film...

rdenney
8-Jul-2010, 14:32
This is a bit worrying to hear. I suppose a work-around could be to use a slide-under-the-gg roll film holder, am I right? This will presumably give me a nicer work flow, but the problem is to find a slide-in 6x12 that does not cost the same as the camera (or more). I am completely puzzled by the prices I have seen on these holders. (Calumet in UK has the Cambo 6x12 holder for 1133 GBP = 1718 USD :-O Solid gold or what?)

There are only two slide-in 6x12 holder makers on the market: Cambo (marketed as Calumet) and Sinar.

The Calumet works, but some versions of it have been accompanied by reports of film not be as flat as one would like. Even these are not that cheap. I think I would have to win a lottery before considering a new roll-film holder, considering what people are nearly throwing in the bin on the used market.

Sinar made three holders in that format. The most difficult to find is the Panoramic holder, which is 6x12 only. I've never even seen one for sale in the last year. Then, there is the Vario, which is a variable-format holder that will provide 6x4.5 up to 6x12. The Vario allowed you to choose the format only when changing film, and used a rolling blind system to close it up and protect the film from light. I have one of these and they work fine, but they are a bit fiddly. The most recent model is the Vario Zoom, followed by the Zoom2. The latest models have an independent dark slide, and they also allow one to change formats mid roll, which is nice. One of the fiddly aspects is that the Vario and Zoom report remaining film in centimeters rather than frames. All the Sinar models are very well made and were originally quite expensive--two or three times the new Cambo. On the used market, they run around $500 and up. They will also take 220 film, which is a rarity.

Both of these put quite a lot of bulk and weight off the end of the ground glass, and may also interfere with some setups.

For Graflok-mount 6x12 holders, the choices are more wide-ranging. At the cheap end, there is the Shen-Hao (or the identical DaYi). These use the red window for checking the film advance, so they are pretty fool proof, but they will also only accept 120 film at six images per roll. They can be masked down to smaller formats, but I've never used that feature on mine. At the other end of the range is the Linhof Rollex and its variations, which are beautifully made and about the same price as the Sinar. In the middle is the Horseman, which is very nice and not as pricey as the Linhof.

I have a Shen-Hao and a Sinar Vario, and both do the job. For a simple and light setup, the Shen-Hao is preferred despite its limitations.

If the Chamonix is weird about Graflok devices, you should consider carefully your choice. Many don't use these devices so it doesn't matter. But you have listed two devices that use the Graflok as being important to you, so their easy and straightforward use becomes a requirement to be set aside only after careful consideration.

Rick "knowledge is power" Denney

Lachlan 717
8-Jul-2010, 14:53
Lars,

I guess I'm sorta qualified to answer some if this, as I have seen both in action.

The Graflock on the Shen is a very, very easy one to remove. Much easier than my Horseman one. Also, it is much, much quicker and easier than the Chem a friend of mine has. I sat with him over coffee one day as he showed me how to do it*. Seemed quit a fiddly exercise!

And I agree with Shadowleave's thoughts on the zero detents. To me, a couple of white dots just doesn't cut it. The Shen's got nice solid clicks. Not so strong as to make small movements difficult, but quick and easy to zero. My mate with the Chem disliked this, too.

I didn't notice any difference in solidity at "normal" extention; however, being a quad extention design, I felt that the Shen was significantly more solid at the same extention as the max extention on the Chem, and it still had at least another 100mm/4" of draw still to go.

Please don't get me wrong about the Chem; it is a very, very good camera. If I was traveling (as my mate is), it would be a great choice; perhaps too slow to set up and zero for my liking, but light and compact.

But, for everything else, the range of lenses, the range of accessories available for the Shen and the ease of use make it my suggestion to you.

*The Chem in question is a 45n1 with the well documented focusing issues. We were testing it with his Shen 6x12 roll film back. Thus, I feel qualified to comment on this!!

shadowleaves
8-Jul-2010, 20:50
Talking about Chamonix, the underlying essence of Chamonix's design (and many other lightweight large format designs) is a compromise between ease of use and lightweight. You just can't have the cake and eat it too. You see such dilemma on all sub-1.5kg class 4x5 cameras: Toyo 45CF, Chamonix 045n1/2, Toho 45X. Chamonix lacks swing zeros. Toyo has zeros but bellow extension is severely limited. Toho has zeros and good bellow extension, but the focusing and other operations are somewhat awkward and setup time is long.

Chamonix was originally created as a mountaineer's camera, thus lightweight and yet rigidity become the most important factors which they will not compromise on. The ease of use is not. If you wouldn't mind carrying a Chamonix 8x10 with you to a peak beyond 5000m high, why would you mind spending some extra time, a min or two to precisely adjust the movement? I think that was among the deep thoughts behind Chamonix's design.

Me being not a huge fan of Chamy's design doesn't mean that I think the design is bad. Just not my cup of tea....but still many people's tea... :)


Lars,

I guess I'm sorta qualified to answer some if this, as I have seen both in action.

The Graflock on the Shen is a very, very easy one to remove. Much easier than my Horseman one. Also, it is much, much quicker and easier than the Chem a friend of mine has. I sat with him over coffee one day as he showed me how to do it*. Seemed quit a fiddly exercise!

And I agree with Shadowleave's thoughts on the zero detents. To me, a couple of white dots just doesn't cut it. The Shen's got nice solid clicks. Not so strong as to make small movements difficult, but quick and easy to zero. My mate with the Chem disliked this, too.

I didn't notice any difference in solidity at "normal" extention; however, being a quad extention design, I felt that the Shen was significantly more solid at the same extention as the max extention on the Chem, and it still had at least another 100mm/4" of draw still to go.

Please don't get me wrong about the Chem; it is a very, very good camera. If I was traveling (as my mate is), it would be a great choice; perhaps too slow to set up and zero for my liking, but light and compact.

But, for everything else, the range of lenses, the range of accessories available for the Shen and the ease of use make it my suggestion to you.

*The Chem in question is a 45n1 with the well documented focusing issues. We were testing it with his Shen 6x12 roll film back. Thus, I feel qualified to comment on this!!

Lars Daniel
9-Jul-2010, 00:36
Shadowleaves, that is very relevant input.

The last week I have been doing landscapes with my Mamiya RZ67 kit and with prism finder and tilt/shift adapter it is near 4 kg plus a 4 kg tripod plus a backpack with 4 lenses, filters īn stuff. For what I was doing (and expect to do more of with LF) weight was not a problem, but surprisingly often I found myself in a great hurry to get the shots I wanted. And the ease of use of the RZ67 really shines.
I will have to conclude that ease of use is very important to me, while I have clearly overrated my need for the lightest equipment.

So I have put my decision on hold now, while I take a deep breath and study the scene some more.

BTW: Lachlan (or others), could you please describe for me in detail (remember I have never even held such a camera) how the proces is to remove the gg and mount roll film back?

Lachlan 717
9-Jul-2010, 00:43
BTW: Lachlan (or others), could you please describe for me in detail (remember I have never even held such a camera) how the proces is to remove the gg and mount roll film back?

Lars,

Depending on the roll film back that you're using, it is one of 2 ways:

First, there are 2 small swing tabs on the top of the GG surround. Lift these up, and out pops the GG (this is the same system as you use to spin the back from Portrait to Landscape).

Second, you press in 2 spring-loaded clips and slide the Graflock out.

Either way, very easy!!

One other thing that I forgot to add is that the Shen Hao 6x12 back did not sit flush on the Chem. There is a ridge on the back that serves to locate the back (into a corresponding groove on the camera). You will either need to trim the ridge, shave the Chem's back or increase the groove on the Chem for this (or, that is what my mate and I concluded after much discussion on the options).

Lachlan 717
9-Jul-2010, 00:46
I'd like to reiterate that I have nothing against the Chem; I think that it is a great camera and wouldn't hesitate to buy one if I was after a no-frills, lightweight and well build camera.

I just wanted a lighter option to my L-Series Horseman for use in the field. Mr Zhang was kind enough (and able enough) to facilitate this for me.

rdenney
9-Jul-2010, 13:27
The standard means of installing a Graflok film holder is to:

1.) focus and compose normally.

2.) Push in the upper and lower tabs on the spring links of the ground-glass frame. Slide the frame to one side, whereupon it will come off into your hands.

3.) Install the Graflok film holder.

4.) Slide the Graflok tabs over to lock into the upper and lower edge of the holder.

5.) Close the shutter, pull the dark slide, make the picture, push the dark slide back in.

6.) Slide the Graflok tabs the other way to release the holder.

7.) Place the ground-glass frame into the back in the right place, and slide over to lock the spring clips.

This process works as stated with the Shen-Hao, just as it does on my Speed Graphic and on my Cambo and Sinar view cameras. The sliding tabs are apparently replaced by other devices on the Chamonix.

The only disadvantage to this process is that you must care for the ground glass in its frame while it is away from the camera to prevent damage. With a slide-in holder, the ground glass stays in place, and you just slide the holder underneath it as you would with a sheet-film holder.

Rick "who uses Graflok devices routinely" Denney