Ritter 8 x 10?

[mandonbossi]

Hi, I currently own a Chamonix 45N-1 and really like it, although the one part of it that does drive me slowly crazy is that when using front "shift" I have to go the front of the camera and make sure that the front is parallel to the back. My previous camera was a Linhof Technika, so maybe I was somewhat spoilt by that. Also, the fact that the back knobs also have to be basically lined up to be parallel by eye is also somewhat annoying but i guess that part of the design contributes to the low weight. Apart from that, I think it is a really great camera. I am looking at trying 8 x 10 and am very interested in hearing from anyone who owns a Ritter 8 x 10. Specifically, if the front shift has to be examined by eye to make it parallel or if there is some type of locking on it (like Ebony, Linhof etc etc) Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Bets Regards Mandon

[Bruce Barlow]

I have serial number 1 Ritter 8x10. And I am biased because Richard is a good friend (truth in advertising).

I do most alignment by feel with fingers. It's easy, especially if you just play with the camera on your lap for a half hour or so (we call it "camera cuddle"). The front slins with the rail bed by feel for swing and shift. I do have to look at front tilt (base and axis) because Richard can't put detents in round carbon fiber. But since I rarely, if ever, use front tilt, I can do that when I initially set up the camera on the tripod. Rear tilt has a level, rear shift aligns the level with the fine focusing knob at the rear, rear swing by feel.

Takes a lot less time to do than to write about...

And Alice (my camera's name) weighs a little over 6 pounds.

[John Bowen]

I have serial number 2, and agree with Bruce's comments. The OP doesn't say where he lives, but many of us who own Ritter cameras are more than willing to "demo" their cameras. Bruce and Richard also host "camera fests" if you can make it to VT. Check the www.finefocusworkshops.com for more info.

I would suggest giving Richard a call to discuss your needs and to determine if there is a camera owner in your area.

[Bob McCarthy]

Hi, I currently own a Chamonix 45N-1 and really like it, although the one part of it that does drive me slowly crazy is that when using front "shift" I have to go the front of the camera and make sure that the front is parallel to the back. My previous camera was a Linhof Technika, so maybe I was somewhat spoilt by that. Also, the fact that the back knobs also have to be basically lined up to be parallel by eye is also somewhat annoying but i guess that part of the design contributes to the low weight. Apart from that, I think it is a really great camera. I am looking at trying 8 x 10 and am very interested in hearing from anyone who owns a Ritter 8 x 10. Specifically, if the front shift has to be examined by eye to make it parallel or if there is some type of locking on it (like Ebony, Linhof etc etc) Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Bets Regards Mandon

I don't understand why you need to do that, ie go to front of camera. To me the only issue is the rear standard being aligned or at least, being leveled the way I want it. The rest is by feel and what is on the ground glass.

I'm guessing You believe detents are required to get zeroed or squared up.

Why does the front end need to be "perfectly" parallel? Having the swing/tilt the way you want it (in focus) and then shifting at likely worse case will require some focus touch up.

I'm assuming you believe detents are perfectly aligned. Maybe close. But they are just not necessary, by feel is good enough.

The ground glass is the final arbritor.

Bob

[Don Dudenbostel]

Deardorff's have no detents and have been the standard of the commercial industry for many decades.

[mortensen]

I don't understand why you need to do that, ie go to front of camera. To me the only issue is the rear standard being aligned or at least, being leveled the way I want it. The rest is by feel and what is on the ground glass.

I'm guessing You believe detents are required to get zeroed or squared up.

Why does the front end need to be "perfectly" parallel? Having the swing/tilt the way you want it (in focus) and then shifting at likely worse case will require some focus touch up.

I'm assuming you believe detents are perfectly aligned. Maybe close. But they are just not necessary, by feel is good enough.

The ground glass is the final arbritor.

Bob

Well, I think the OP is right Bob. The screw-in front on the Chamonix is where you control both front swing and front shift. So when you frame and figure out that you need some front shift in order to get the picture you want (and there is no back shifts btw.) you have to untighten the front screw. And it's a mess, really! When you do so parallelism of the standards are lost and the weight of the lens (if heavy) can make the whole movement even more wobbly. All you have to assist the alignment is two white dots, which are not the most precise in the world plus you can't use them as intended when applying full front shift. All this might be a minor issue with a 210, but with a 90 precision in this field is crucial. So yes, you certainly need to go to the front of the camera to check! And yes, it eventually drives you a little crazy :)

I know nothing about the Ritter, btw... so sorry for the long speach. I am currently planning on going the opposite way, so to speak, from a Cham to a Technikardan :)

[Vaughn]

I just checked out the system on the Ritter 7x17, and the front swing and front shift are controlled/tightened by the same knob (with no indents). So potentially, you might get a little frustrated with its system.

But it is quite a jump from 4x5 to 8x10, and the view on the GG is quite different -- actually much easier to deal with than 4x5 because it is so big. And just the way one works with the much bigger camera will be different that your 4x5. One works slower, generally less film, and all. One depends on the GG more when making any adjustments because any movements of the planes of focus has a greater effect with larger formats (a one degree swing will move the edges of the film farther as one goes up in format -- if how I wrote that makes sense).

It will depend on the type of photography you do and the lenses you will use. For landscape, for example, I use front shift perhaps once out of 500 images.

[Bruce Barlow]

I have serial number 2, and agree with Bruce's comments. The OP doesn't say where he lives, but many of us who own Ritter cameras are more than willing to "demo" their cameras. Bruce and Richard also host "camera fests" if you can make it to VT. Check the www.finefocusworkshops.com for more info.

I would suggest giving Richard a call to discuss your needs and to determine if there is a camera owner in your area.

Duh! Wake up, Bruce! Check out our Tire Kicker Workshop (next May) where you can play with one for a few days for pretty cheap.

Alternately, stop by and we'll take mine out to play. Maybe call first.

[ic-racer]

Although detents are usually needed on 4x5 cameras and smaller, with 8x10 one can usually zero it by looking at the ground glass. Have you used much 8x10? If not, I think you will find the format easy to use when it comes to movements and focusing. For example one can use two hands to control base tilt and focus at the same time, without needing to hold a loupe to see the effects.

[Vaughn]

Although detents are usually needed on 4x5 cameras and smaller, with 8x10 one can usually zero it by looking at the ground glass...For example one can use two hands to control base tilt and focus at the same time, without needing to hold a loupe to see the effects.

I did find this difficult with a 24" lens -- even with my long arms! :D

[mandonbossi]

Hi, Thanks so much for all the replies, it is a big help. Thanks for the suggestions of attending a workshop or for dropping past to have a play, unfortunately (in that sense) I live on the east coast of Australia which pretty makes me close to as far away as possible from you guys. So I mainly use my Chamonix for portraits and landscapes where people are often in the scene, both of which I rarely use movements (except for shift :) Shift with zeroed points in both situations is fairly valuable as time is somewhat of the essence (as much as any type of large format can be) and I have found that going to the front of the camera and aligning the front so that it is somewhat parallel to the back, a missed opportunity may present itself. As mentioned before, I don't use excess movements and rely on stopping down and the negative size itself to give me satisfactory image quality.. For portraits, it would be a matter of framing and then refocusing to take the shot.. All of which was very easy with the Linhof.

Still, I am still interested in the Ritter 810, mainly due to its light weight.. Almost hard to believe really. Would it be fair to say it is the lightest 810 going around?

Can anyone tell me how the back works on this? It is is similar to the Chamonix in that you use back swing by moving the whole metal part of the back and then tightening it down? Sorry, bad description.

The other camera that someone else suggested was the Wehnham 8 x 10. Does anyone know if this has zero points on the front standard or is it also controlled by one know that functions for shift and swing (like the Chamonix)?

Ok, thanks so much for all the help and suggestions. Best Regards Mandon

[Oren Grad]

In case you haven't already seen these:

Wehman 8x10 (http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html)

Ritter 8x10 (http://www.lg4mat.net/LFcamera.html)

[mandonbossi]

Hi, Thanks, have checked both sites out but could not find any information relating to whether the camera has "zero" points. The Ritter doesnt, any one know if the Wehman does? Ok, thanks so much again. Cheers Mandon

[Sanjay Sen]

The Wehman does not have "zero" points. The rise/fall (front) is at the zero position when the top of the front standard is flush with the top of the front standard supports. On the link that Oren provided, if you go to the "Instructions" section, it mentions the zero positions on page 4 (http://www.wehmancamera.com/instructinos%20gallery/pages/04.htm) and page 7 (http://www.wehmancamera.com/instructinos%20gallery/pages/07.htm).

[Bob McCarthy]

I will agree that separate control of each movement is easier for many. Certainly not necessary, one can adjust given some practice. Combined movements on one control are a little more cumbersome.

Your camera should be a Canham the weight is between a lightweight and a traditional. It's got everything you'll ever need, detents, strength, lightness.

Walking to front is optional!

He'll of a camera.

Bob

[Bruce Barlow]

Hi, Thanks, have checked both sites out but could not find any information relating to whether the camera has "zero" points. The Ritter doesnt, any one know if the Wehman does? Ok, thanks so much again. Cheers Mandon

You've lost me on Zero Points re: Richard's 8x10. If you mean detents - no, but otherwise everything can pretty much be done by feel. The back has asymmetric swings controlled by two knobs, which also lock down rear shift, which is squared up by aligning the rear level with the fine focusing knob.

Don't know if that helps, and if not, I graciously offer to come to Australia - at your expense - and bring the camera along for you to try. Cool! Tell me when I should depart!!!

[mandonbossi]

Ha Ha!! Thanks for the offer, not the best time to be coming here at the moment I am afraid.. Thanks to all who responded, will take note of shooting some more 5 x 4 and see how much this issue really bugs me.. In the end, maybe it will be a matter of adding more weight or just dealing with this aspect for a light camera. Thanks again for all the responses, much appreciated! Cheers Mandon

[Bruce Barlow]

Waddya mean, not the best time? The Ritter's so light it floats!