PDA

View Full Version : Linhof MT vs. Technikardan 45s for urban landscapes and architecture



Henry Carter
20-Mar-2011, 22:07
For 4x5 urban landscapes and architecture, is there really any advantage in using a Technikardan 45s over a MT Classic or MT 3000?

The MT is a very portable and rigid camera, probably more so than the Technikardan 45s, but the Technikardan has more movements.

If you were starting from scratch it looks to be almost a tie, but if you already had a Linhof MT and oodles of Linhof accessories, would you ever consider adding a Technikardan 45s to your MT based kit?

Maybe I am just suffering from GAS, a seemingly incurable photographer's affliction.

Frank Petronio
20-Mar-2011, 22:23
You're already an experienced photographer so why would anything we say matter? We all know both are great cameras.... So why not just pick up the next one that comes along for a good price because you can always flip it if you don't care for it? As long as you buy it right you'll never lose money.

Wasn't there one on here for $1000 last month?

Henry Carter
20-Mar-2011, 22:58
I care what people think because of their unique experiences.

I am familiar with the MT, but not the Tachnikardan - and I have no opportunity to see one in the flesh.

So if you already had a MT, would it be crazy to also buy a Technikardan 45s?

JimL
21-Mar-2011, 00:59
The Technikardan with the bag bellows is great for short focal length lenses - no special focusing devices and free use of all movements.

Bob Salomon
21-Mar-2011, 01:03
They are equally portable, they all fold. The 3000 and the TK are easier to use with extreme wide lenses themn the Classic. The TK is even easier compares to the 3000. The TK has more front and back movements then any Technika. The TK handles longer lenses then a Technika. The Classis is the most expensive, 3000 next and TKs the least. TK requires a WA bellows with some lenses Technikas do not.

Take your pick.

hiroki
21-Mar-2011, 01:41
This topic seems so familiar... I had to make the same decision last year. After many years with my Master Technika, I simply wasn't satisfied with it when it came to short focal lengths and movements for architecture / cityscapes.

Last year I bought a Technikardan 45s. I originally intended on keeping both cameras. I have to admit that I am somewhat sentimental and very grateful for all the MT has done for me. Being my companion for many years. But I soon realized that after buying the TK 45S I hardly ever used the MT. To be honest, I never used it since. So I ended up selling the MT. I now only use the TK 45S.... and never looked back.

fotografueland
21-Mar-2011, 05:05
Henry
I had the same problem seven years ago.
Had a Technika V, tried a Technikardan 45 S, after a year of thinking I ended up buying a TK 45 S and selling the Technika.
The TK is better on movements and wideangle, its nearly unlimeted.
The Technika is handier to put up and pack down, its also more stable with longer lenses, I know there is a macro tele thing for the TK but I don't care about having or drag one around. The Technika is better packed when trekking, the bellows of the TK is more exposed to all other things in the backpack.
The Technika will do at 95-98% of the pictures you make, the TK probably 100%, the lenses become the limits.
They are both as good as Large Format cameraes comes. I have a 8x10" Plaubel, that's much worse.
It's a luxury problem. I don't know why I spent so much thinking about it, must have been the wide angle bit on the TK and the good protecting way the Technika was packed.
I am very happy with the Technikardan, its a joy to use and I have not had any problems with it, but it took some time getting used to the packing and unpacking of it.

Best regards
Trond

Bob Salomon
21-Mar-2011, 06:16
As I have pointed out several times previously, for those who want the bellows protected on the TK simply place the folded TK in a large wrap like the Novoflex ones which are Neoprene. The Domke Camera Wrap was originally made at our request specifically for the TK at Ken Hansen's suggestion. when the original TK was introduced.

Brian K
21-Mar-2011, 06:52
Henry, from your post I am assuming that you already own an MT. Are you finding that the MT is not giving you enough movements and that is why you are considering an TK?

The difference that I find between the MT and a monorail is mostly in not having rear rises and shifts. The MT handles wide lens quite well, although setting exposure can be a little tricky when the lens is recessing into the camera body. If that has not been an issue for you then why bother buying more gear?

If you didn't own a camera already and told me that you were going to do a lot of architectural work, most notably interiors, I would advise you to get a monorail. But if you're doing mostly urban landscape, then the compactness and robustness of the MT might suit you better.

Noah A
21-Mar-2011, 07:19
I've never used a Master Technika, but I did recently switch from a Wista metal field camera to a Technikardan 45S.

I know the Master Technika has some advantages (and perhaps some disadvantages) compared to my Wista 45VX, but they are somewhat similar in capabilities with the exception of super-long or super-short lenses, which don't figure into my comparisons since I only use 90, 115, 150 and 210mm lenses.

The main advantages of the Technika-type folding cameras in my opinion are that they are very tough and durable and they fold into an extremely sturdy, self-contained package.

The TK45S also folds fairly quickly, and to say it was well-made would be an understatement. However I wouldn't quite put it in the category of 'cameras I could run over with a large automobile and they would probably keep working'. But very few 4x5 cameras would fit into that category. The TK seems to be more than up to the task of heavy professional use and travel.

There were a few reasons I switched from the Wista, and some are relevant to the Master Technika as well. It was annoying not to have front fall (or rear rise). While the same could be accomplished by dropping the bed, that's a pain and not as fast or intuitive as simple front drop/rear rise. Urban work often requires a good amount of front rise. But if you're shooting from other buildings or a bridge, front fall is also helpful. The TK45S offers both front fall and rear rise.

The main problem was that the bellows just weren't big enough or flexible enough. Especially when shooting vertical format, I couldn't come anywhere close to maxing out the movements my lenses are capable of. My 115 Grandagon, for example, has coverage for a ton of movements but when I tried the bellows would get in the way.

The reason the TK is so good for urban landscape/architecture in particular is that it offers pretty much unlimited movements with many lenses. My 90/4.5 grandagon, 115 Grandagon and 210 Apo-Sironar S can all be used to their full potential. I can get pretty much whatever movements I could ever need.

Both the standard bellows and the bag bellows are excellent (and you'll need both). The standard is nice and roomy for good movements with medium-long lenses and no problems with bellows flare, which I also had a problem with on the Wista. The standard bellows will focus short lenses but the movement may be limited. I use it with my 115 sometimes and occasionally even with the 90, but to really take advantage of the capabilities of the camera and lenses, you'll need the bag bellows. The bag bellows is expensive, but very good. It will work up to around 150mm as long as you're not focusing super-close.

I thought I would miss the geared rise of my Wista, but in practice I find the movements of the TK to be very easy to use and very precise. The lens does not drop uncontrollably when you loosen the rise lock lever, and it's very easy to make adjustments with one hand.

I have had no problems learning to set up the camera quickly and easily. Same goes for packing it up. Still it's not quite as fast as my Wista, where I could just open the case, pull out the lens and it was ready to shoot. The main thing I've learned is that while the TK might take slightly longer to set up, the movements and controls as so much more simple and direct that I can set up a shot faster.

I would just ask yourself if your current setup is working for you or not. When was the last time you lost a shot due to not having enough movement capability? Or bellows flare? Or do you find yourself wrestling with the camera to get the movements and compositions you want? Do your lenses require recessed boards and if so, would you rather use as system that didn't require the recessed boards?

The Technikardan will give you more movements, but only you can say if you need them.

Bob Salomon
21-Mar-2011, 07:42
"its also more stable with longer lenses, I know there is a macro tele thing for the TK"

This statement is a bit confusing. The cameras do not have the same amount of extension.
A Master Tecknika Classic/2000/3000 has a maximum extension of 400mm (16").
A TK45/45S has 485mm of maximum extension (19").

At 400mm they are both equally rigid. The Macro Rail for the TK is basically for use at the full extension of the TK which is more then a Technika 45 is capable of

Henry Carter
21-Mar-2011, 08:45
Many thanks for all the excellent replies!

I have been using a MT for 10+ years, and my projects have changed over time. I am now shooting more architecture and urban ladscapes, including long exposures (2 to 5 min) at night.

I have never used a monorail and I wonder if it would be a little more versatile for some uses than the MT. Maybe I have learned to work within the limitations of the MT and don't know what I am missing?

My one concern is that perhaps the Technikardan 45s is not as rigid for long exposures as a MT?

In any case, given that I have lots of lenses (58 - 300mm) and accessories for the MT, I was thinking that if a good Technikardan or even a Kardan GT came along, that it would be worth exploring.

It does sound like a Technikardan 45s may be a nice addition to the family...

John Powers
21-Mar-2011, 09:02
- and I have no opportunity to see one in the flesh.


This may be true or not. If you mention where you live or put it in your profile, you might find there was a TK owner in your neighborhood who was willing to show it to you or even sell it. Sell it in my case because I have moved to larger formats (8x10 and 7x17).

John

johnj88
9-Dec-2020, 18:27
They are equally portable, they all fold. The 3000 and the TK are easier to use with extreme wide lenses themn the Classic. The TK is even easier compares to the 3000. The TK has more front and back movements then any Technika. The TK handles longer lenses then a Technika. The Classis is the most expensive, 3000 next and TKs the least. TK requires a WA bellows with some lenses Technikas do not.

Take your pick.

Resurrecting an old thread instead of starting a new one.
But given the above information by Bob who I trust, why would anyone buy the classic? I'm not familiar with all of these versions, but the 3000, technikardian, and 45s all seem like better, and less expensive cameras?

Is the classic the only one you can use as a handheld rangefinder though?

Bob Salomon
9-Dec-2020, 18:34
Resurrecting an old thread instead of starting a new one.
But given the above information by Bob who I trust, why would anyone buy the classic? I'm not familiar with all of these versions, but the 3000, technikardian, and 45s all seem like better, and less expensive cameras?

Is the classic the only one you can use as a handheld rangefinder though?

The MT Classic is the only current LInhof with a built in RF.

johnj88
9-Dec-2020, 19:02
The MT Classic is the only current LInhof with a built in RF.

Thank you for your help so far Bob.
Can you clarify how it has a built in RF? I thought the RF was just the viewfinder attachment you put on top. I have a leica m6ttl so I'm familiar with RFs, just confused on how that translates to LF, as in how the MT classic is the only one with the RF, whereas the rest dont.

Peter Lewin
9-Dec-2020, 19:32
Thank you for your help so far Bob.
Can you clarify how it has a built in RF? I thought the RF was just the viewfinder attachment you put on top. I have a leica m6ttl so I'm familiar with RFs, just confused on how that translates to LF, as in how the MT classic is the only one with the RF, whereas the rest dont.
Bob will give a more complete response, but the built-in rangefinder on the classic is similar to your Leica (I.e. two windows and a split image) and the camera has a cam to bring the images together as you focus the lens, again similar to your Leica. The cams are matched to each lens.

johnj88
9-Dec-2020, 20:16
Bob will give a more complete response, but the built-in rangefinder on the classic is similar to your Leica (I.e. two windows and a split image) and the camera has a cam to bring the images together as you focus the lens, again similar to your Leica. The cams are matched to each lens.

Thank you for the info. But I can use the MT just as a regular LF camera, right? As in non-RF?

Oren Grad
9-Dec-2020, 21:26
But I can use the MT just as a regular LF camera, right? As in non-RF?

Yes, you can focus on the ground glass as with other view cameras.

Here's a link to the instruction manual, which covers Technika versions both with and without the rangefinder:

http://linhof.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MasterTechnika_classic_2000_e.pdf

GG12
10-Dec-2020, 08:07
Just to clarify, the RF is attached to the side, built in the casting. Not removable, but you are able to use the camera without referencing it.

Bob Salomon
10-Dec-2020, 08:57
Just to clarify, the RF is attached to the side, built in the casting. Not removable, but you are able to use the camera without referencing it.

It’s attached to the body but it is not part of the casting. It could be removed, and several users have done so.

Daniel Casper Lohenstein
11-Dec-2020, 09:14
For 4x5 urban landscapes and architecture, is there really any advantage in using a Technikardan 45s over a MT Classic or MT 3000?

The MT is a very portable and rigid camera, probably more so than the Technikardan 45s, but the Technikardan has more movements.

If you were starting from scratch it looks to be almost a tie, but if you already had a Linhof MT and oodles of Linhof accessories, would you ever consider adding a Technikardan 45s to your MT based kit?

Maybe I am just suffering from GAS, a seemingly incurable photographer's affliction.

Especially in urban areas, the following should apply: if at the end the mob wants to steal your camera, you can strike more effectively and sustainably with a closed Technika than with a Technikardan, which will probably disintegrate within 30 seconds and also does not have edges closed on all sides, which locks you into a predetermined direction of strike to get the right edges into the right places in the faces of your antagonists. The extended movements of the Technikardan do not help you there either - the Technika also has an ergonomically shaped handle, which facilitates the use in battle enormously.

lenicolas
11-Dec-2020, 09:32
Bob will give a more complete response, but the built-in rangefinder on the classic is similar to your Leica (I.e. two windows and a split image) and the camera has a cam to bring the images together as you focus the lens, again similar to your Leica. The cams are matched to each lens.

There is a major difference : the Linhof doesn’t have frame lines.
While you can use the viewfinder on a M6 for both focusing and framing, on a MT it would take an extra viewfinder with adequate frame lines to your lens.
Think of it like using a 21mm with a M6 : the camera viewfinder will let you focus the lens but you need an accessory viewfinder to frame.
Here is a MT with both its rangefinder on the side, and a viewfinder matched to the lens on top :
210472

Also, I would be careful in comparing other rangefinders to a Leica.
Leica makes great viewfinders that are extra bright, clear, very well colour balanced and very sharp.
Essentially every other rangefinder I’ve tried has been at best “not quite as good as my Leica” and at worst “rubbish in comparison”.

I feel like these precisions should be made, lest one buys a MT expecting it to be the same as a M6...

GG12
11-Dec-2020, 09:53
It’s attached to the body but it is not part of the casting. It could be removed, and several users have done so.

Whoops. Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction.

Bob Salomon
11-Dec-2020, 10:08
There is a major difference : the Linhof doesn’t have frame lines.
While you can use the viewfinder on a M6 for both focusing and framing, on a MT it would take an extra viewfinder with adequate frame lines to your lens.
Think of it like using a 21mm with a M6 : the camera viewfinder will let you focus the lens but you need an accessory viewfinder to frame.
Here is a MT with both its rangefinder on the side, and a viewfinder matched to the lens on top :
210472

Also, I would be careful in comparing other rangefinders to a Leica.
Leica makes great viewfinders that are extra bright, clear, very well colour balanced and very sharp.
Essentially every other rangefinder I’ve tried has been at best “not quite as good as my Leica” and at worst “rubbish in comparison”.

I feel like these precisions should be made, lest one buys a MT expecting it to be the same as a M6...
The Leica RF does not have view lines, it’s viewfinder has some.
That Linhof finder that you pictured has framing for lenses from 72 to 360mm with automatic parallax correction and frame correction for distance. Something no Leica finder has and neither do their auxiliary finders when the camera doesn’t have the proper frame lines built in.

David Lindquist
11-Dec-2020, 10:42
Especially in urban areas, the following should apply: if at the end the mob wants to steal your camera, you can strike more effectively and sustainably with a closed Technika than with a Technikardan, which will probably disintegrate within 30 seconds and also does not have edges closed on all sides, which locks you into a predetermined direction of strike to get the right edges into the right places in the faces of your antagonists. The extended movements of the Technikardan do not help you there either - the Technika also has an ergonomically shaped handle, which facilitates the use in battle enormously.

But if you have the Tele/Macro Bracket 002741 for the Technikardan you could wield it like a short broad sword...

David

Drew Wiley
11-Dec-2020, 12:22
Just take a file and sharpen the fold-out TK base rail into a bayonet, basically an oversized switchblade. Then grease your hair back into a ducktail and wear a black leather jacket.

Corran
12-Dec-2020, 08:42
The Leica RF does not have view lines, it’s viewfinder has some.
That Linhof finder that you pictured has framing for lenses from 72 to 360mm with automatic parallax correction and frame correction for distance. Something no Leica finder has and neither do their auxiliary finders when the camera doesn’t have the proper frame lines built in.

A combined VF/RF is vastly easier to use. Regardless of the bells and whistles of the Linhof finder, it's a PITA to use and since it's not "automatic" along with focusing on the rails, you have to remember to actually dial in the proper distance. In practice, I've found the framelines to also not be very accurate usually. Depends on lens/focus distance. Still, the Linhof is one of only a few options in handheld RF-focused 4x5 photography so that's certainly nice to have, if needed.

neil poulsen
12-Dec-2020, 12:14
For a number of reasons, large format RF just does not make sense to me. Medium format RF can make sense, but not large format.

rfesk
12-Dec-2020, 16:16
I have used my Busch Pressman 4x5 several times for groups at family get togethers. The rangefinder speeds up the process considerably. Trying to get 10 to 50 people including children to pose for more than a minute or so is impossible with my family.