PDA

View Full Version : Detailed Comparison of Chamonix with Phillips Compact II



Oren Grad
25-Jul-2010, 19:02
It would be interesting to hear a cold, hard comparison of the more subtle refinements and quality differences....

Be careful what you wish for, Frank. ;)

I have a whole-plate Chamonix as well as a very late-production 8x10 Phillips Compact II. I've just set up both of them and made the following notes. Apply whatever caveats you want, to take into account the fact that the camera formats are slightly different, that these are subjective impressions, etc. Remember too that both cameras have been subject to design tweaks in different production runs.

Anyway, I hope this is helpful.

________________

Front standard

Both have a “floating” front standard that needs to be screwed into any of several sockets on the focusing base. The same screw that secures the front standard to the focusing base also controls front swing and shift.

Both have axis rise/fall and tilt secured by the same knobs. The Phillips has a little plastic turnbutton to lock out tilts, while the Chamonix has a pair of little metal tabs on the bottom of the front standard that extend into the groove in the upright. Both approaches work; the sliding tabs on my Chamonix are a bit balky.

Both have alignment marks to indicate the neutral point for front rise/fall; the marks on the Phillips are much easier to see. Both have pairs of alignment dots on the focusing base for setting front swing on neutral; the ones on the Phillips are slightly larger and slightly easier to see. The Phillips also has alignment marks for zeroing front shift; the Chamonix doesn’t.

Both accept Sinar/Horseman lensboards. The Phillips holds in the boards with a simple swinging bar on top of the front standard, which in turn is locked in place with a little plastic turnbutton. The Chamonix uses a pair of little retainers that are swung into place from the bottom of the front standard. The edge where these are manipulated is sharply toothed and uncomfortable to use, and when the retainers are in place they barely protrude into the lensboard area. The Phillips approach is easier to use and much more confidence-inspiring, especially with a heavy lens mounted.

With the securing knobs tightened down, the front standards of both cameras have excellent rigidity, even with the standard mounted in the front-most socket and the camera at full extension.

Rear standard

On both, the rear standard rides on a set of grooved “feet” that extend forward, allowing for rear extension and for somewhat awkward swing. Both also have tilt.

With the securing knobs tightened, the Chamonix has just a bit of “play” in the rear standard, the Phillips essentially none. One difference which appears to contribute to this is the mounting of the diagonal strut on the “feet”, which is simpler on the Phillips. Nevertheless, even the Chamonix should be adequately rigid under almost all circumstances. Both pick up a little bit of flex under pressure when the rear standard is at full extension; again, the Phillips has the edge but again, both should be adequate under most circumstances.

The Phillips has a wide leather strap on the top of rear standard. The Chamonix has no strap, which makes it a bit tricky to handle. When I’m on the go in the field, especially on a hot and humid day when my hands start to get sweaty, I need to handle the Chamonix very carefully and deliberately when it’s off the tripod; I’m always worried about dropping it.

The camera back on the Phillips is retained by simple flat springs with plastic nubbins at the end. The back on the Chamonix is retained by swinging blades that engage with thin sockets within the back. The Chamonix approach is a bit fiddly for me – the Philips is quicker and requires less attention.

Back

The Chamonix back is thinner and feels fragile compared to the Phillips back. The Phillips has a bail lift, which makes inserting and removing film holders easy. The Chamonix back doesn’t have a bail, though its springs achieve a good balance of tight grip without being so stiff as to make inserting holders difficult. The springs on the Phillips back are hefty flat springs; the ones on the Chamonix are thin wire. The Chamonix springs look much less durable; time will tell how they wear.

My Phillips came with a GG protector, which is simply a sheet of Lexan or similar plastic with patches of Velcro in the corners that mate with matching Velcro patches on the camera back.

Camera body construction

Both camera have four main structural elements: front standard, rear standard + feet, main camera base, and front focusing base. On the Chamonix, the main camera base has parts cut away compared to the Phillips, to save weight. This difference appears to have little if any effect on overall rigidity.

Focusing

Both cameras use a lead-screw mechanism, with a knob at the bottom rear of the camera, to move the front focusing bed. On my cameras the Phillips screw was a bit smoother, but the Chamonix was also smooth enough not to be bothersome in use.

Once the front standard is screwed into a socket appropriate for the lens focal length in use, coarse focus can be achieved by moving the rear standard on its “feet”. The grooves in the Phillips feet have a few notched stopping points; engaging these forces a few millimeters of rear shift. The Chamonix feet have no notches.

One side of the front focusing bed on the Phillips has a centimeter/millimeter scale covering the travel of the fine focus via lead screw. It’s implemented using a piece cut from a tape measure – inexpensive and functional, but a bit inelegant compared to the rest of the camera.

Knobs

The various knobs differ between the two cameras, but all are reasonably easy to grip and use, and in a nice touch, all have safety stops to prevent spinning a knob entirely off the camera in the heat of battle.

Bellows

The bellows on both cameras is adequate to cover the full extension allowed by the camera base. With the cameras at maximum extension, the Phillips bellows has room to spare and places no restriction on front movements, but the Chamonix bellows feels stretched, and front tilts are a bit difficult.

Minimum flange-to-film distance on the Phillips with a flat board and the bellows compressed all the way is about 100mm. With a recessed board you could probably focus a short Hypergon to infinity. Minimum extension on the Chamonix is about 80mm; taking into account the smaller format, this is similar to the Phillips. On both cameras, it’s a challenge to use the very shortest lenses in vertical format without getting the front focusing bed and/or the feet in the picture.

The Phillips has a couple of strategically placed Velcro patches on the bellows, which can be grabbed with a small Velcro strap on the front standard to prevent bellows sag at intermediate extensions. The Chamonix has the Velcro strap but no matching patches on the bellows. I imagine these could be added by the user.

Bubble levels

The Phillips has a left-right level on the top right of the rear standard, and a fore-aft level on the right vertical of the rear standard. The Chamonix has both left-right and fore-aft levels in a single unit on the top right of the rear standard, as well as another level on the back that serves as a left-right level when the back is horizontal but has no use when the back is vertical.

I value my life, so I won’t say anything about accuracy. ;)

Odds ‘n’ ends

Both cameras are held closed by tightening the knobs on the diagonal struts that hold the rear standard. The Chamonix also has a short Velcro strap that mates with a Velcro patch on the focusing base of the camera. As with the tape measure slice on the Phillips, it works but seems a bit inelegant.

Overall fit and finish

The front standard, rear standard, back, and “feet” on the Chamonix are in a natural wood finish, with a soft-gloss varnish that’s so heavy the wood almost looks like plastic at some points. The corresponding parts of the Phillips are finished in a satin black paint or stain.

Fit of parts is excellent for the most part on both cameras, with the Phillips having a very slight edge in a few spots.

Overall impressions

The overall look and feel of the Chamonix is a bit on the precious, dainty and fragile side, while the Phillips looks and feels more like a robust industrial-grade tool.

The designers of the Chamonix have been very clever in paring down the body to the absolute minimum to save weight, but I think in some places, especially the rear standard and the back, they have arguably pushed a bit too far. A strap on the rear standard, for secure handling on the go, is sorely missed. Some of the detailed features seem to have been changed for the sake of looking inventive, but aren’t actually improvements. Time will tell how well the Chamonix will hold up to steady use.

To my taste the Phillips is a bit more robust, a bit more secure and confidence-inspiring in use and a bit more functionally refined all around. But the Chamonix is also a very usable and versatile camera which comes very close to matching the Phillips on its most important functional virtue – a more favorable balance of rigidity and light weight than can be found in traditional folding wood-field designs.

Steve Sherman
25-Jul-2010, 20:04
Thanks for the honest and thorough review.

Throughout your review you sighted ever so slight advantages in favor of the Phillips. To my way of thinking, many little advantages ultimately add up to one significant advantage over the competitor.

Cheers

Ron Marshall
25-Jul-2010, 20:20
Thanks Oren, comprehensive and succinct!

ic-racer
25-Jul-2010, 20:29
Bellows: The Phillips bellows is not easily exchanged with a Bag bellows. Is that correct?

How about a comparison of the actual weights?

Ground glass comparison? Any difference? Grid or not?
Neither has a fresnel, is that right?

Oren Grad
25-Jul-2010, 21:03
Bellows: The Phillips bellows is not easily exchanged with a Bag bellows. Is that correct?

The Phillips bellows is fixed.


How about a comparison of the actual weights?

Remember that one of these is WP and the other is 8x10. I don't have a scale which would allow me to obtain precise weights for either of these cameras. I understand that the last runs of the 8x10 Compact II came in a bit over 8 pounds, which is also the spec for the Chamonix 8x10.


Ground glass comparison? Any difference? Grid or not?
Neither has a fresnel, is that right?

I've not made a comparison test of the two in this respect. Based on using them separately, the glasses on both of these cameras are fine so far as I'm concerned. The one on my Phillips has an etched grid; this was one of the few options that Dick used to offer. The Chamonix one is plain.

Neither has a fresnel. That suits me fine, since I strongly dislike fresnels.

FWIW, the GG on the Chamonix has its corners cut.

Just as an aside, in making a choice between two expensive cameras, I wouldn't give any weight to the GG characteristics. Unlike more fundamental parts of the design, it's something that can be changed if you find you really don't like the one that comes with the camera. If you're buying an inexpensive camera and need to save every penny I can understand wanting to get it right with the standard equipment, but for either of these cameras the cost of a replacement GG is a small fraction of the cost of the camera.

Oren Grad
26-Jul-2010, 08:11
A PS on the ground glass question: I bought the Chamonix second-hand; the seller saw this thread and got in touch to let me know that the GG on my camera may not be factory-original.

zbvision
30-Jan-2024, 20:06
Oren, can you tell me if the Phillips Compact II has a locking mechanism coupled with the lead screw fine focusing knob? Reason I ask this question is, what prevents the front standard from continuing to edge forward when angling the Compact II at a subject on the ground? Additionally, the front rise/fall and tilt are controlled by the same knobs on the front standard, correct?

How do you think the Phillips Compact II compares to either Chamonix 810 model in 2024: 810V or Alpinist X?

If I didn’t value your opinion, I wouldn’t reach out and ask. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Oren Grad
4-Feb-2024, 21:35
Sorry for my delay in responding!


Oren, can you tell me if the Phillips Compact II has a locking mechanism coupled with the lead screw fine focusing knob? Reason I ask this question is, what prevents the front standard from continuing to edge forward when angling the Compact II at a subject on the ground?

Yes, it does, though I can't recall ever needing to use it. But sure, if you have a heavy lens on the front standard and you need to point the camera way down, the lock is there.


Additionally, the front rise/fall and tilt are controlled by the same knobs on the front standard, correct?

That's correct. However, there's a little turnbutton that can be engaged to avoid inadvertently introducing tilt if you don't need any.


How do you think the Phillips Compact II compares to either Chamonix 810 model in 2024: 810V or Alpinist X?

I haven't handled any of the current Chamonix 8x10 models, so I'm afraid I'm not in a position to comment on any subtle points of construction and handling as I did above re the older WP Chamonix that I own.

Drew Wiley
5-Feb-2024, 13:41
I still prefer my original Phillips Compact 8x10 over the "improved" II Version. There's no rear swing; but I like the overall simplicity. I did replace some of the secondary hardware with what I feel improved it. I think of the current Chamonix models as being of the same design lineage. You can't go wrong with either. But the Chamonix Alpinist sacrifices the VH back, and is convenient or realistic for horizontal compositions only. You could use a strongly tilting head with it to obtain vertical; but that would add more extra weight than the VH back option itself, and make movements and focussing clumsy. (I don't use tripod heads at all for 8x10 work).

The main problem with Phillips cameras is that they're now hard to find and expensive to acquire. I certainly don't plan to sell mine! It has what I regard as an ideal ground glass - Satin Snow, cut corners, and no silly added fresnel.

Sal Santamaura
5-Feb-2024, 14:18
...the Chamonix Alpinist sacrifices the VH back, and is convenient or realistic for horizontal compositions only. You could use a strongly tilting head with it to obtain vertical; but that would add more extra weight than the VH back option itself, and make movements and focussing clumsy...

Chamonix's Alpinist X has a reversible back:


https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/8x10alpinist

Scroll down a bit to see it. That's the version Ben Horne is using now.


...I certainly don't plan to sell mine! It has what I regard as an ideal ground glass - Satin Snow, cut corners, and no silly added fresnel.

I replaced the original ground glass in my Compact II with a Satin Snow version having no cut corners, then added a Maxwell fresnel over it. Bill only sold his one-piece molded screens with integral fresnel up through 5x7, stating anything larger than that would not be sufficiently flat/rigid, even with a clear cover glass over it. The 8x10 fresnel he provided is of the correct focal length to match a normal lens, which for me is 300mm. After saying he couldn't offer one without cut corners, Bill later emailed to indicate his fabricator made a mistake and he had one. I jumped at it, and regard the Satin Snow / Maxwell combination as an ideal viewing screen for 8x10. For the way I work.

Drew Wiley
5-Feb-2024, 15:11
Right on that link, Sal, it says that to get a vertical composition with the Alpinist, you have to tilt the tripod head 90 degrees. But as you said, there is an interesting video of the newer Alpinist X, which does have an innovative VH switch feature. It looks like a wonderful camera, but understandably has a high price point. I have never actually seen any Chamonix Alpine model, but have gone out and shot with someone who used the regular Chamonix 8x10, and it is a fine camera.

The only negative aspect I detect in that X camera is that some of the controls are rather intricate, and possibly difficult to use in severe weather with gloved hands. I prefer simplicity in bad weather.

I'm amazed at how well my old Phillips has held up, and like its Spartan features. If I need all kinds of movements and features, I use the Sinar system instead. I seldom shoot any lens shorter than 360 on my Phillips - a 240 maybe only 5% of the time; so I personally have no realistic need for a fresnel or screen brightener.

gypsydog
5-Feb-2024, 18:23
Drew, what is the maximum bellows extension on your original Compact?
Thanks.

zbvision
5-Feb-2024, 19:12
Hey Sal,

I posited these questions to Oren via pm. He is busy at the moment and from perusing the forum I believe you have a Phillips Compact II and are more than capable of answering them, so I will post them on this thread as well.

I know there were slight variations between Compact II production runs. What’s the total weight of your Compact as well as the max bellows extension? I’ve heard of people having a Compact II as light as 7.9lbs from the mid 90’s and as heavy as 8.8lbs from the early 2000’s. I’ve also heard of people having 26” max bellows extension as well as 26.25”.

Is this camera really rigid enough at 18”+ bellows extension that one could use a Fujinon C 450mm f12.5 with it?

Is s the Compact II still your go to camera for field work? Do you enjoy the ergonomics in comparison to other 8x10’s you’ve owned? Is the weight savings of 4 pounds in comparison to the Deardorff v8 I’m currently using, really worth the astronomical price point in today’s market?

I’m glad you brought up the Alpinist X because other than the Compact II, that is the only other view camera I would sell off my Deardorff v8 in order to acquire. I wish someone had both the Alpinist X and Compact II so that a detailed comparison could be made.

Drew Wiley
6-Feb-2024, 09:00
The original Phillips compact has less bellows extension. For example, it can easily handle my 450C Fuji lens, but the 600C requires a tophat board. This doesn't personally bother me much because I don't use the 600 very often, and in fact do most of my long lens work with a 4x5 Norma instead. The camera is VERY rigid. That's never been an issue. And I've worked in some terrible wind, which of course has to be strategized. Half the battle is having a secure tripod attachment. I simply bolt it to the platforn top of my big Ries maple tripod, or else an especially firm big CF tripod. No need for a tripod head - that is always the weakest link; and by dispensing with it, you also save weight.

Sal Santamaura
6-Feb-2024, 09:09
...What’s the total weight of your Compact...I’ve heard of people having a Compact II as light as 7.9lbs from the mid 90’s and as heavy as 8.8lbs from the early 2000’s...

I checked years ago; it was 7.8 lb. "naked" with the original ground glass and without the ground glass protector. I've a Kirk quick release plate attached that has a ribbed rubber pad, which I don't want to remove since it's so conformed to the camera's base, and there's also that Maxwell fresnel, both of which add a little weight.


...I’ve also heard of people having 26” max bellows extension as well as 26.25”...

Mine goes to around 26-1/4 inches, but that's splitting hairs. Does one measure from the front surface of the lensboard to the ground side of the viewing screen? How does one do that with such precision? And do you really work in ways where that quarter of an inch would make any difference?


...Is this camera really rigid enough at 18”+ bellows extension that one could use a Fujinon C 450mm f12.5 with it?...

Absolutely. In fact, I have that lens, but, finding it inadequately sharp at the extremes of its image circle, also bought a much heavier 450mm f/8 CM Fujinon W, which is in a Copal 3 shutter. The Compact II laughs that one off too. :)


...Is...the Compact II still your go to camera for field work?...

As decades fly by, gravity makes even a Compact II heavier than it used to be. If one defines "field work" as photographing close to the car, I take the Phillips. Should more than a short walk be involved, I follow Adams' protocol, namely, use the heaviest camera I can carry. Degree of format downsizing from 8x10 is proportional to distance that must be covered.


...Do you enjoy the ergonomics in comparison to other 8x10’s you’ve owned?...

That's the easiest question you asked. I've never used any other 8x10. :)


...Is the weight savings of 4 pounds in comparison to the Deardorff v8 I’m currently using, really worth the astronomical price point in today’s market?...

Only your ability to carry heavy loads and your financial situation can make that determination for you. However, note that Dick Phillips gave up dentistry and started selling cameras as a result of designing his first 8x10 Compact for himself. He came up with the camera upon concluding that his 8x10 Deardorff, which he'd purchased after attending an Ansel Adams workshop, was too heavy.

Drew Wiley
6-Feb-2024, 11:00
My own experience with the Fuji 450 C is that it is superbly sharp center to edges on 8x10; and I tend to print big. But I also typically stop down to f/45 when shooting 8x10 (I also use it for 4X5). Of course, when you can make use of some rear tilt instead of all front tilt, that also keeps you better centered in the image circle. The published image circle for the 450 even at f/22 is a whopping 486mm, and further stopped down, it would really be huge.

One of Dick's Phillips' selling points when he started out is that his design was more rigid than other 8x10 wooden folders. I've handled other cameras and believe that to be true. Only massive geared monorails like the Sinar P were better in that respect. One reason was his innovation of custom dimensionally stable laminates. My camera is composed of epoxy-impregnated cherrywood laminated to layers of fiberglass. It's before the black paint finish; so the old epoxy finish has yellowed quite a bit. Chamonix substitutes a more modern wood/carbon fiber ply.

My early version has basic rack and pinion focus gearing along both sides of the bed, and not the central lead screw screw focus like the later Phillips models. I actually prefer it that way - the simpler the better when you're out in bad weather. It's only a single extension bed, so you don't need arms a long as an orangutan to operate it.