PDA

View Full Version : Deardorf --vs-- Kodak 2D



BradS
29-Aug-2010, 15:54
In another thread, I was asked why I prefer the (8x10) Kodak 2d to the Deardorff...


Brad,

Just wondering, on your flickr you say "much nicer than a Deardorf". Why is that? I kinda thought Deardorf trumped all. I don't know anything though.

There are a few reasons:

1) the Kodak is lighter by a few pounds (my Deardorff weighed in at just over 15 pounds and the Kodak 2d weigh a little over ten).

2) the Kodak seems stronger, more sturdy than the Deardorff. The Deardorff always felt a little flimsy to me - especially the front standard and front extension. That and I was always worried about it getting "hurt".

3) damned lensboards for Deardorff cost a small fortune....and everybody selling Deardorff board seems to really have 2-D boards with the corners rounded...which don't really fit Deardorffs to well. Of course, original Kodak lensboards are basically unobtainable these days but they are easier to make. Ok...these are minor nits.

However, the Deardorff did have more movements capability...and of course, the Deardorff is much better looking than the ugly old, un-refined Kodak 2D.


uhm, so....anybody else have any reasons they prefer one or the other?

Michael Roberts
29-Aug-2010, 16:00
Oh boy, you've done it now!

btw, I have to add that, yes, my 2D is about 10lbs--w/o the base rail. With the base rail, it's 12lbs. From what I read, most V8 'dorffs are about 13lbs.

But I'm sure the loyal Deardorff users will be weighing in (so to speak).....

BradS
29-Aug-2010, 16:07
is this kinda like the large format version Nikon-Canon SLR wars?:)

Len Middleton
29-Aug-2010, 16:36
I thought even in the Lounge area, religious discussions are not allowed and eventually deleted by the moderators... :eek:

As any true believer would tell you there is no comparison really, and how you could even raise such a heritical comparison is beyond my comprehension... :mad:

Oh, did I mention I have a Deardorff V8? But having never really compared it side to side with the Kodak, I really cannot provide a realistic analysis.

I do however expect this to be an interesting thread, if this doesn't get moderated off for being too controversal like Littleguy cameras, religion, gun control, etc. :D

Let the flame wars commence...

Mark Woods
29-Aug-2010, 16:38
I sold my complete 2D for a V8 and never looked back. I really like it.

Jay DeFehr
29-Aug-2010, 16:43
My Deardorff is the only 8x10 camera I've ever really used, with a few limited exceptions, so I can' comment on any comparisons. I had a bunch of lens boards made for my 'dorff, by a local woodsmith, and they are beautiful, and fit perfectly. He didn't want to charge me anything, because he said they were too easy to make, and he just used scrap wood he had lying around. The one made of mahogany is a dead ringer for the original, but the others are obviously not mahogany, or original, but beautiful in their own ways. So, now I have more lens boards than lenses, which is nice. He also made beautiful 5x7, 4x5, and 3x4 reducing backs.

I don't really pack my V8 very far, so the weight isn't really an issue, especially considering the weight of my Verito. The extensions do seem a little flimsy at full extension with the monster Verito hanging off the standard, but this perceived flimsiness has never caused any problems for me, other than the slight uneasiness I feel when I rack the extension out.

Most of the movements on my camera go unused.

For some of the reasons noted above, I've toyed with the idea of building a compact, lightweight, 8x10 portrait camera to take into the field, but along with a million other ideas I've toyed with, nothing of substance has come of it. Maybe all of this recent Petzval madness will inspire someone to build a good location portrait camera.

Andrew Plume
30-Aug-2010, 10:46
I've never owned a 'Dorff (although I've had a play with one) but I have spent plenty of time with a 2D

for me the 2D as beautiful as mine is, just doesn't have anywhere enough movements for my liking and for that reason I'd have to plump for a Dorff, whether it has a soft front standard or not

andrew

neil poulsen
30-Aug-2010, 11:09
I miss the front tilt on a 2D. There are way around that though. But, the lack of a front tilt limits the amount of front rise.

I have a 2D. Perhaps it has an improper bellows, but the bellows on mine cuts off a top portion of the negative with any significant rise. It can be as much as 3/4". I don't know if others have this same problem, though.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
30-Aug-2010, 11:15
Lack of front tilt/swing is a deal breaker for me. While I don't mind the extra weight of a Deardorff, I am just too lazy to work out front movements using rear ones. Lensboard issues are real, but can be resolved with an adapter board, so with all but my largest lenses I use Canham/Toyo boards. All that said, I do wish my Deardorff had shift...

John Kasaian
30-Aug-2010, 11:17
1)A clam-shell like a 'dorff is much easier to pack than a flat bed camera like the 2D.
2)The woodgrain on 'dorffs are generally prettier to look at---an important consideration when the lights not right or the wind kicks up and you're sitting on a stump or rock in the middle of nowhere.
3)A V-8 will appreciate in value quicker than a D-2

Of course if your main interest is in making photographs, your film isn't going to care which camera it was exposed in and I dare say, niether should you be over concerned about it either ;)

Brian Ellis
30-Aug-2010, 13:58
I've owned two Deardorffs and two 2Ds. While the 2D is a very nice camera, Deardorffs are in a different league entirely IMHO. The 2D has no front tilt or swing and requires a rear extension rail for lenses longer than about 400mm. Deardorffs have both front movements (some of the oldest ones had no front swing but almost all Deardroffs you see today have front swing) and don't require a rear extennion rail.

The weight I've always seen quoted for Deardorffs is 12 pounds. If you add in the weight of the extension rail for the 2D (and the sliding tripod block) I doubt that there's any weight difference between the two cameras. And even if there is a difference of a couple pounds, when you consider the weight of all the other 8x10 gear that you have to carry around, a difference of a couple pounds is barely noticeable IMHO.

Obviously camera preference is a personal thing and if you prefer the 2D that's certainly fine and a good thing for you considering the price difference between 2Ds and Deardorffs. But I thought my Deardorffs were much more camera than my 2Ds and well worth the price difference to me.

Don Dudenbostel
30-Aug-2010, 14:08
I purchased my Deardorff in 1972 well used from a friend that is a pro also and he purchased it twenty years earlier from another pro who used it almost every day. My friend who I bought it from used it almost every day and I used regularly for catalog work for about twenty five years. At times I shot a case of 8x10 chrome a week through it. The camera I have was a very unusual one in that it was made in the 30's and had no front swings but in checking with Jack Deardorff back in the mid 70's I found out it was one of five in a transition series and had the same dimensions for the front standard components as the later V8. My camera also uses square cornered boards. It's around seventy five or so years old and still going strong. It's certainly ugly with the laquer worn off the brass and pitted and the wood shows it age but its tight and strong. I have no reservations about stability and have used a 600 apo ronar at near full extension many times. Also the Deardorff is superior when it comes to movements and the ability to use short wide lenses. I now only use my 8x10 for enjoyment and purchased a new 8x10 Canham this year. I don't intend to sell the Deardorff due to sentimental attachment and will let friends use it.

I also had a 2D 5x7 and while it was a nice camera it really was much more limited than a Deardorff and wound up giving it to a friend.

I really find the Deardorff to be a workhorse camera. I've owned four over my career including a 30's 5x7 with red leather bellows, a 4x5 Baby that I found new about fifteen years ago (sweet little camera), my 8x10 and a recently acquired 4x5 special that my friend that sold me the 8x10 decided to sell now that he is retiring at age 86. My friend that I bought the 8x10 and special from has made most of his commercial LF images with Deardorff's over the past 60+ years and I have used them for almost forty.

John Kasaian
30-Aug-2010, 15:27
1)A clam-shell like a 'dorff is much easier to pack than a flat bed camera like the 2D.
2)The woodgrain on 'dorffs are generally prettier to look at---an important consideration when the lights not right or the wind kicks up and you're sitting on a stump or rock in the middle of nowhere.
3)A V-8 will appreciate in value quicker than a D-2

Of course if your main interest is in making photographs, your film isn't going to care which camera it was exposed in and I dare say, niether should you be over concerned about it either ;)

Add to that:
4) 'dorffs are chick magnets!:D Giselle Bundschen could have had a D2 if she wanted one, but...the rest as they say,is history!

Seriously though, I have a few 5x7 Agfas which are similar to D2s being flat beds, and I've also had a B&J and while they are veru good cameras, there is something I find sympatico about working with my Deardorff.

Mark Sawyer
30-Aug-2010, 16:09
Feature-wise, the Deardorff has the edge over the 2D, I suppose, but a good 2D costs about a third of what a Deardorff costs, and is a bit simpler to operate. Personally, I never found my 2D lacking, and I still use it more than any other camera I own.

For a more apples-to-apples comparison, I'd say compare the Kodak Master to the Deardorff...

Dan Dozer
30-Aug-2010, 17:25
I used my 2D for years and was very happy with it. However, whenever I put the rear rail on it, I had problems with things wiggling and not adjustments not being tight enough. About a year ago, I got a Deardorff and wondered why I didn't change sooner. The Dorff is much more solid and the adjustments are tighter - the whole camera is just sturdier than the old Kodak.

Not to worry though. My 2D has now been converted into my 8 x 10 enlarger and it's working great for that. So I'm getting dual use from both.

Jim Galli
30-Aug-2010, 20:17
Ever put a 16" f3.8 petzval on a Deardorff? It'll need some viagra. Then there's the whole shutter thing too, if big old heavy giant lenses are your thing, and they're definitely mine. Packard's inside the 2D just waiting. I'll probably get arrested for 2D abuse, but the poor old thing has sure made a bunch of nice pics for me. When it dies, I'll just go find another one.

Mark Woods
30-Aug-2010, 20:27
I still like my V8 over the 2D I had for 30 years (but didn't use much). I shoot with the V8 all the time, and the Chamoinx 11x14. I have an ongoing project with my Sinar 4x5, but it feels like a toy next to the bigger cameras. ;-) I have shot some amazing images with the 2D, but I do use the front tilt, rise, the back adjustments, etc. But that's me.

Jim Graves
30-Aug-2010, 22:50
Ever put a 16" f3.8 petzval on a Deardorff? It'll need some viagra.

Yeah, and then if your shoot goes over 4 hours you've got to take it to the emergency room and that's a little embarrassing!

dsphotog
31-Aug-2010, 14:03
Just get one of each...... Oh, and a couple of Ansco's too! (one with front tilt-, & one with 7 1/2 inch lensboard)
That oughta cover most shooting situations.

Kerik Kouklis
31-Aug-2010, 15:11
Kodak Masterview. I've owned a 2D and a 5x7 dorf and I'll take a KMV over either of them any day. Just my opinion...

Jan Pietrzak
31-Aug-2010, 15:31
Kerik,

Yes, you said the right words Kodak Masterview. Much better than a Deardorff.

Ok, that's done, how are you doing.

Jan Pietrzak

Craig Roberts
1-Sep-2010, 16:47
I use them both. Different features but each worthwhile in there own way.

Curt
1-Sep-2010, 18:31
What would have happened if this thread was:

Deardorf --vs-- Kodak 2D --vs-- Ebony

Craig Roberts
2-Sep-2010, 17:45
Don't know, don't care

Jim Rhoades
5-Sep-2010, 09:09
Brad I have been reading your posts for years, mostly reguarding Speed/Crown Graphic's. We agree on so much I thought you were pretty smart. Until now.

As Tillman Crane once told me "You can never have too many Deardorff's."
(then he went and bought a Canham)

BTW, my V-8 scales out at 13 Lbs. is instinctive to use and is better looking than your 2D.

Kerik Kouklis
5-Sep-2010, 10:42
Kerik,

Yes, you said the right words Kodak Masterview. Much better than a Deardorff.

Ok, that's done, how are you doing.

Jan Pietrzak

Doing pretty good. It's a long, slow road back to where I came from.

Thanks for asking.

Kerik

Frank Petronio
5-Sep-2010, 10:48
In the end they are all just toys made of matchsticks. Real cameras are made from metal ;-)