Tachihara 4x5 or Shen Hao

[FredWilson]

Ok, since I got my lens question answered in my previous thread, I'm kinda rethinking the used Tachihara that I've seen.
Now I'm leaning much more towards a Shen-Hao, specifically:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2766


Any thoughts, one way or the other, to help guide a total newbee at LF photography.
I've done many years of 35mm film (slides most the original Velvia) and over a year now with digital so I'm not new to photography, but I want to give the 4x5 a shot now.
I do, mostly, landscapes (I live in the great SW, southern Arizona), nature and macro.

The Tachihara that I'm was/am considering is used, with no lensboard. The Shen-Hao would be new, comes with a lensboard (either way I'd need a lens/lenses, so that's a wash) and it's a little over $100.00 more than the used Tachihara.


Thanks,
Fred

[Lachlan 717]

Also consider the Shen Hao XPO. Longer bellow draw and the option to use Sinar bellows, lens boards and/or shutter.

I've used as short as a 72mm, and easily used a 360mm on it at 10-odd feet.

Bit heavier than the Tachi and the PTB, but not limiting. I'm very happy to add a little weight for the functionality I gain.

[Heespharm]

Either one... I can tell you my Shen hao is awesome.... But you can buy a used tachi or Toyo on these forums for cheaper... Take it from me... Be patient one will show up... The pounce on it

[rdenney]

Before making this decision, you might want to consider a more basic decision of what type of camera to consider. But first, you should a bit more carefully define what you will do.

How short will your shortest lens be? Will you ever use roll-film holders? What is the longest lens you intend to use? What do you mean by "macro"? Will you be carrying your camera in a backpack? How far from the car do you intend to go?

Most people use the term "macro" to describe close-up photography, while true macro really starts at 1:1 and gets larger from there. With a large-format camera, macro is very challenging. Large-format lenses, with the exception of a few telephoto designs (and perhaps a few very short modern digital designs intended for smaller digital backs) are approximately centered on their rear nodal points. That means that a 150mm lens will need about 150mm of spacing between the film and the lens board. That 150mm lens will require 300mm of spacing at 1:1. Many prefer to use lenses longer than the film diagonal for macro work, but that just extends the bellows draw out that much more. A 210mm lens (which some still consider "normal" in 4x5) will require more bellows that nearly any field camera when focused at 1:1.

The XPO mentioned above has some nice features along these lines. One is that it accepts Sinar bellows and lens boards, so you can clip in bag bellows to use very short lenses. It is also a quadruple-extension bed, so it provides quite a lot of bellows draw for a field camera that can also go short. With most, it's either one or the other. In return for this flexibility and Sinar interchangeability, you give up a design that folds into itself.

If you work close to the car and don't need a back-packable camera, then consider something like a Sinar F. They are cheap and plentiful on the ground, but they are also solid and well-made workhorse cameras intended for professional use. You can add the XPO later (if you feel the need) and enjoy the interchangeability. But with an F1, you can also buy a cheapie intermediate standard, connect two sets of bellows together, screw an extension onto the monorail, and focus a 300mm lens at 1:1. So, a $350 camera, with perhaps a couple of hundred in extra goodies, can provide the necessary 600mm of bellows draw. With the wide-angle bellows 2, it will easily focus a 47mm lens on a flat board and still provide movements. No field camera is as flexible and modular, and certainly not as cheap.

But monorail cameras are bulkier (not necessarily heavier), and they don't fit in backpacks easily. They also don't look like furniture. That's the trade-off, and the choice you make depends on what you will do with the camera.

Rick "who wouldn't mind adding an XPO to his Sinar F kit, because both is always an option" Denney

[evan clarke]

A friend of mine got one of these for Christmas and until now I always would have recommended the Tachihara. This Shen Hao PBT is an incredibly light, rigid camera and it's made very well..Evan Clarke

[alharding]

I just got the Shen Hao PTB a week ago and its great. It has a ton of movements and the hardware is excellent. The pictures on Badger don't do it justice. Its a small but rock-solid camera. I'd go for it.

Al Harding

[rguinter]

The Tachihara is extremely light weight and easy to carry in a backpack with all needed accessories. But as a result it is a bit more fragile than rock-solid heavy designs.

But for me I'd rather have a lighter camera so I can pack useful extras... like more lenses and a roll-film back... and maybe my ice-climbing crampons and ropes, snowshoes and poles... or maybe even my 45 Casull Mag and some ammo just in case....

Bob G.

[Roger Cole]

I'm wondering pretty much the same thing, except that I'm also looking at the Shen-Hao HZX 4X5 IIA and TFC45-IIB. Neither the (very slow from here, and in Chinese) Shen-Hao site nor Badger's make really comparing those cameras all that easy. I believe the PTB is pretty much a copy of the Chamonix? Most people who have that camera seem to love it, but I know I've read of some complaints depending on needs - slow to set up or fold or something, but a quick search didn't turn up what I was looking for.

I currently have an old Tech III I'd like to replace soon. The main thing going for the Tachihara seems to be the light weight. But I don't mind the Tech III and I'm sure wouldn't mind a couple pounds more. I'm in the camp that thinks the total kit weight with lenses, holders, meter, tripod etc is going to be enough that a small (emphasis on that, I'm not talking about a 15 lb. monorail here) difference in the camera weight isn't that important, especially if I get a tougher and more rigid camera in exchange.

The Tachihara lacks a few movements I don't need - front shift and rear rise/fall if I recall correctly. I don't recall ever using front shift on my Tech III and if I did need it, as someone said, the Tachihara is light enough to rotate 90 degrees on the tripod and use the rise/fall. You can also get into the same lens/film position by aiming the bed diagonally and swinging the front and back if you prefer. Either way, a pretty unimportant lack for me. For rise and fall just use the front (or again, aim the bed up/down and tilt front and back to compensate.) 90% of the movements I have used (doing mainly landscapes) have been front rise (trees, occasionally buildings) and rear tilt for foreground focus, preferring the perspective change. The other 10% is probably mostly front tilt for times I didn't want the perspective change from the back tilt. So the movements are fine.

But for slightly more than the price of a used Tachihara I can get a new Shen-Hao with longer bellows draw, the ability to use a bag bellows, which I consider pretty important in my next camera since I like wide angles and want to use a roll film back more often, and sturdier construction. You give up the bright screen but can add a fresnel for not that much more - or a Maxwell for admittedly a LOT more.

I may create a separate thread "help me spend my tax refund!" ;) Also in my personal consideration would be a used metal Wista. I love the look of wood cameras but I'm a bit spoiled by the solidity of a metal one.

Choices, choices!

[FredWilson]

Before making this decision, you might want to consider a more basic decision of what type of camera to consider. But first, you should a bit more carefully define what you will do.

How short will your shortest lens be? Will you ever use roll-film holders? What is the longest lens you intend to use? What do you mean by "macro"? Will you be carrying your camera in a backpack? How far from the car do you intend to go?

Most people use the term "macro" to describe close-up photography, while true macro really starts at 1:1 and gets larger from there. With a large-format camera, macro is very challenging. Large-format lenses, with the exception of a few telephoto designs (and perhaps a few very short modern digital designs intended for smaller digital backs) are approximately centered on their rear nodal points. That means that a 150mm lens will need about 150mm of spacing between the film and the lens board. That 150mm lens will require 300mm of spacing at 1:1. Many prefer to use lenses longer than the film diagonal for macro work, but that just extends the bellows draw out that much more. A 210mm lens (which some still consider "normal" in 4x5) will require more bellows that nearly any field camera when focused at 1:1.

The XPO mentioned above has some nice features along these lines. One is that it accepts Sinar bellows and lens boards, so you can clip in bag bellows to use very short lenses. It is also a quadruple-extension bed, so it provides quite a lot of bellows draw for a field camera that can also go short. With most, it's either one or the other. In return for this flexibility and Sinar interchangeability, you give up a design that folds into itself.

If you work close to the car and don't need a back-packable camera, then consider something like a Sinar F. They are cheap and plentiful on the ground, but they are also solid and well-made workhorse cameras intended for professional use. You can add the XPO later (if you feel the need) and enjoy the interchangeability. But with an F1, you can also buy a cheapie intermediate standard, connect two sets of bellows together, screw an extension onto the monorail, and focus a 300mm lens at 1:1. So, a $350 camera, with perhaps a couple of hundred in extra goodies, can provide the necessary 600mm of bellows draw. With the wide-angle bellows 2, it will easily focus a 47mm lens on a flat board and still provide movements. No field camera is as flexible and modular, and certainly not as cheap.

But monorail cameras are bulkier (not necessarily heavier), and they don't fit in backpacks easily. They also don't look like furniture. That's the trade-off, and the choice you make depends on what you will do with the camera.

Rick "who wouldn't mind adding an XPO to his Sinar F kit, because both is always an option" Denney

Rick,
Good points and I have now had a couple more microseconds to think about things ;)
- I'm not sure about what the shortest lens that I would use is, at least not now. Remember that I'm a newbee at the large format stuff. If I were to guess, I would venture to say 90mm, maybe even 75mm, at least in the near future, defined as maybe the next year or so. That gives me time to get my feet wet and see if I really want to continue down this road.
- Longest lens, same thing. Maybe 300 +- a little.
- Macro I would define, current, as no smaller than 1:1, which I've been doing a lot of lately, and a little larger.
- Backpacking, again, in the next year or so, not far from the 4x4, based on a few years previous experience. That can be measure in a few hundred yards.

I've kinda thought through things a little more now and have seen several Calumet CC400's for sale, cheap, one with a 16" and one with a 22" bellows extension.
Locally, there is someone who is selling a Sinar A1 as:



Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar-S 150mm f/5.6 Copal-No. 0 lens,
5 film holders, cable release, magnifying glass, dark cloth,
hard body foam-lined carrying case.
for $550.00.

I believe (though haven't talked to yet to confirm) that it has a 19" bellows extension.

So, any thoughts on the CC400 and/or the A1 (you've mentioned the F series and I see that there are a handful of those {used} available also).

Thanks again all,
Fred

[Jon Shiu]

I started out with the Calumet CC400, and then switched to the Tachihara. I photographed a lot more due to the portable nature of the Tachihara. The CC400 is fine, but it is not the best for wide angle. Would need a recessed lens board. Also, the screen is very bright on the Tachihara. You can get a fresnel screen to put on top of the ground glass on the CC400 to help see better.

Jon

[Gem Singer]

Fred,

Your original question was about light weight 4x5 wooden flatbed folding field cameras.

You have now begun to realize that all cameras have their limitations, and a wooden folder might not be the camera you need.

Although the Sinar is not light-weight, nor does it fold, it is still very useable outdoors if you do not plan on hiking great distances from your vehicle.

The Sinar deal sounds like a winner.

The Calumet 400's, although cheaper, probably won't fulfill your needs. I purchased a brand new one from Calumet in 1980 for $150 and found out quickly that it didn't lend itself to the type of photography I wanted to do.

[FredWilson]

Fred,

Your original question was about light weight 4x5 wooden flatbed folding field cameras.

You have now begun to realize that all cameras have their limitations, and a wooden folder might not be the camera you need.

Although the Sinar is not light-weight, nor does it fold, it is still very useable outdoors if you do not plan on hiking great distances from your vehicle.

The Sinar deal sounds like a winner.

The Calumet 400's, although cheaper, probably won't fulfill your needs. I purchased a brand new one from Calumet in 1980 for $150 and found out quickly that it didn't lend itself to the type of photography I wanted to do.

The A1 that's available here locally, would be "as good" of a choice as, say, an F1 ?
From the bit of information that I've been able to find so far is that the A1 is a lighter camera, I guess mostly because of the rail ?

Thanks again everyone,
Fred

[Heespharm]

There's at least two pretty nice tachihara's on eBay for 550... Just search tachihara... Also some metal fields out there for around 6-7 hundred

[rdenney]

The A1 that's available here locally, would be "as good" of a choice as, say, an F1 ?
From the bit of information that I've been able to find so far is that the A1 is a lighter camera, I guess mostly because of the rail ?

Yes, the rail makes it a bit lighter. But it does so at the expense of the key flexibility of the Sinar system, which is the ability to extend the rail as needed an only in the increments needed. That gives the F a short, 12" rail that is not limiting if you also have a couple of 6" extensions in your bag.

I have a CC-400 and also a much newer Calumet 45NX (made by Cambo and similar to an SC). Both of them suffer the same fault: That blasted stock rail is too long. They have to make it long, of course, to accommodate longer lenses, but you end up having to move the standards to one end of the rail so that it doesn't become a subject of your photo, which means you then will impale yourself on it when trying to look at the ground glass through a loupe. That is one of the things that makes field cameras (and the Sinar F and cameras like it) so nice--the bed or rail is extendable rather than fixed in length, and you can move your face right up to the screen without worrying about stabbing yourself in the chest.

The CC400 is rejected out of hand for your requirements: It is difficult on that camera to use even a 90mm lens. The boards are small and the recessed board a 90 requires will make reaching the shutter settings unpleasant. Calumet addressed that problem by offering the CC-40somethingElse (401 or 402--I can't remember), which had a soft bellows and a short rail, among other changes. It would accommodate a 90 pretty easily, and a 75 reasonably. But now you have to carry two cameras if you also might want to use a 12 or 14" lens.

Your plan of spending a couple of years getting your feet wet is a good one. That plan suggests a strategy of buying something inexpensive, used, and of undeniably good quality, so that if in two years you decide to go a different way, you can sell it for what you paid for it.

The A1 (Alpina) Sinar is reasonably priced, but you could get a similarly equipped F for only a very little more.

Rick "thinking it would be hard to outgrow an F, even if one added a field camera at a later date" Denney

[Professional]

've just got my first NEW LF Shen Hao HZX IIA not longer than 2 weeks, and i still didn't shoot with it something yet, but i can tell you that it is so lightweight, it is lighter than my Mamiya RZ67II or 1D3+300f2.8Lis, so this LF will see a lot of lights maybe, i even like it more than my used Speed/Crown Graphic cameras i have[and again didn't use them yet].
I hope to have good time and subjects to start shooting LF for first time, and it seems that with this Shen Hao i can upgrade[buy another] up to 8x10 next year.

[FredWilson]

The A1 (Alpina) Sinar is reasonably priced, but you could get a similarly equipped F for only a very little more.

Rick "thinking it would be hard to outgrow an F, even if one added a field camera at a later date" Denney


Denny (or others),
Any of the "F" series would be fine ?
I'm not seeing many F1's for sale, however I've found a fair amount of F's and F+ for sale.


Thanks again,
Fred

[Bob McCarthy]

A good, nice shape Sinar F can be bought for $200-250. Add a bag bellows ($30-50) and you've bought into an amazing modular system.

Want a reflex viewer, there all over eBay.

Want to go 5x7, a module is frequently on eBay, cheap, cheap. Want to shoot longish lenses, extension rail, $30-40.

It's a tough, nicely built, strong camera. And you can hang it upside in a 3 pocket Lowe shoulder bag with room for lenses, holders and assessments. It travels nicely.

If I'm not using the shoulder bag then,I use a retractable handle, roller wheel equiped, insulated cooler that is light and holds camera, 4 lenses, 10 film holders, etc. Doesn't weigh much, pulls easy and is fully enclosed and padded.

I've owned many of the greats including Linhof monorails, late model Technikas, etc. When I got into an employment crunch, I sold the high dollar cameras. Bought a Sinar F to hold me over until I recovered, planning to go back.

I recovered, but never went back. These are very good cameras.

Bob

[rdenney]

Denny (or others),
Any of the "F" series would be fine ?
I'm not seeing many F1's for sale, however I've found a fair amount of F's and F+ for sale.

There is little meaningful difference between an F, F+, or F1. And increasing percentage of the parts are black instead of chrome, and the style of the knobs changed over time, but really that's about it.

The F2 is different, however. It has geared focus on the front standard (the others have it only on the rear, with gross adjustments of the front standard on the rail), and a metering back. Much more useful than either of those features, however, is the separate shift and swing locks on the standards. Also the detent for center-swing is more robust on the F2. But F2s are usually newer and cost more.

There are no interchangeability issues with any of these, until you start disassembling things with tools. I have a relatively much more recent F2 standard on an early F camera. And for when I need to stich two sets of bellows together, I have an old Norma-era multi-purpose standard.

Rick "who only wanted the geared front focus for use with a 47mm lens" Denney