New version of Canham DLC

[Oren Grad]

Just spotted on the Canham website:

http://www.canhamcameras.com/DLC2.html

[Gem Singer]

Now called the DLC 2, and, of course, a price increase.

The major changes are beefed up tightening mechanisms on the front and rear standards and metal pins to prevent over-tightening of the locking levers. Keith also added extra spirit levels.

I expect similar improvements to the Canham MQC57 and the JMC810 in the near future.

[Marko]

I'm usually not the one to comment on price, but the price difference between this and a Chamonix 45n2 or a Shen-Hao is sufficient for a top of the line 27" iMac! And For a PC users among us, there could be enough left for an Epson V700 bunched in.

[Gem Singer]

Marco,

Are you comparing the price of a Canham DLC45 to that of a 4x5 Shen Hao or Chamonix?

If so, try comparing the price of a BMW to a similar sized Chevy or a Ford.

Why the heck are BMW's priced so high? After all, they are all automobiles.

Think about it.

[Ken Lee]

What Gem said.

Someone wise recently pointed out on this forum, that when he goes on shooting trips, he spends money on air tickets, fuel, accommodations, food - as well as backup equipment and secure storage. It all adds up, so we have to consider each expense within the overall plan. (Once I grasped that, I stopped fretting over the cost of film).

Offerings exist at a variety of price points. A new Canham camera may not be appropriate for a young person or student on a budget, or someone exploring the medium for the first time.

For the rest of us, it remains rather... tempting :)

[GPS]

A well done camera in a class of its own.

[jp]

That's the price of a new semi-pro or pro DSLR. A new Nikon dslr lens has a median price of about a thousand $.

I've got cheap LF cameras right now which work well ; like a ford/dodge works well. But I've used a Canham and it's real nice, just like a high end automobile is real nice. Now that I'm hooked on LF and have tested a Canham, I'd buy one if I were in the market for a new camera. I would consider it a worthwhile long term ownership decision.

When my freezer gets full of film, and I have a couple more lenses.

[grahamcase]

And hey, it's cheaper than an Ebony!

[Brian K]

It's less than half the price of a new technika......

[Preston]

I must say that the new Canham is a gorgeous piece of equipment, and beautifully engineered! My only nit would be the rectangular knobs--I like round knurled ones. That doesn't really matter, since I just spent my dimes on a new PC--maybe next year for a new camera--most likely a Chamonix.

--P

[Gem Singer]

Canham uses "T" bars instead of round knobs, as did Deardorf.

"T" bars are smaller and lighter in weight than round knobs and afford increased leverage while using less physical strength.

They especially appeal to folks like me who have arthritic fingers.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I have used many Canhams, mostly wood, but I have used the 5x7 metal camera. After using the metal camera I can see why he implemented the upgrades that he did.

Currently shooting the wood 8x10 and am LOVING it. Yeah, lots of other cameras are cheaper, but this was investment in the next 30 years of my shooting.

[Gem Singer]

Michael,

Keith Canham describes his Traditional (wooden) cameras as metal cameras that fold into a wooden box.

They utilize metal focusing rails and support arms machined out of black anodized aircraft aluminum. Lighter and stronger than brass or steel.

Canham lens boards are also machined out of a solid block of this material.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Well having a LOT of experience with both types of his cameras, both the folding wood and the metal cameras I can tell you that the only similarities between the two is the exceptional build quality and the lens boards. The metal camera doesn't have much in common with the wood style other than that. They fold up in different ways, have bed extensions that are different and the wood cameras have a different locking mechanism for the front and rear tilts.

Keith might say that about his wood cameras, but in practice the two are MUCH different.

[Songyun]

Well having a LOT of experience with both types of his cameras, both the folding wood and the metal cameras I can tell you that the only similarities between the two is the exceptional build quality and the lens boards. The metal camera doesn't have much in common with the wood style other than that. They fold up in different ways, have bed extensions that are different and the wood cameras have a different locking mechanism for the front and rear tilts.

Keith might say that about his wood cameras, but in practice the two are MUCH different.

totally agree. I like the wood camera better. However, the metal one is in the league of its own, I dont think it is fair to compare it with wood or Linhof, it is just different.

[Gem Singer]

Michael,

I also have quite a bit of experience with Canham cameras. While living in Phoenix, AZ in the early 1990's, I was fortunate enough to have had hands-on experience with the first camera that Keith designed. It was the 4x5/5x7 Traditional that was being field tested at the Photomark store.

Eventually, I ended up owning the DLC, JMC. and MQC all metal cameras, as well as the 4x5/5x7, 4x10, and 8x10 Traditional cameras (I still have the JMC).

I wasn't drawing a comparison between the two types of camera designs.

I was merely referring to Canham Traditional cameras the way that Keith Canham described them.

[Oren Grad]

Keith might say that about his wood cameras, but in practice the two are MUCH different.

Keith did not say that his wooden cameras are the DLC, MQC and JMC models wrapped in wooden boxes, only that they are more or less metal designs wrapped in wooden boxes.

[jeroldharter]

Made in the USA or made in China...

I used to have a Canham DLC and liked it for its strengths - beautiful, great bellows, long extension, lightweight. But I did not like it for my weakness - absent mindedness. I found it too fiddly. But the camera I bought to replace it cost nearly 3 times as much so I would say that the new Canham is still a great deal if you are a good fit for the ergonomics.

[Drew Bedo]

one is dancing around the fact that anything made in china will cost less than an American made product or something made in Europe.

On another notE: With the new model and higher price, will thee be any "old" model Canhams on the market of they now valued vintage cameras?

Will the improvements be available as retro-fits for the "old" gear?

[brianjnelson]

Well made equipment pays for itself by allowing me to concentrate on the subject, the light and the composition. Not worrying about finicky adjustments or other limitations etc...really is priceless

[Kimberly Anderson]

Gem and Oren,

Not to pick a fight, but what I was trying to do was clear up any misconceptions someone who might not be familiar with Canham's designs could possibly get from reading the thread. There were at times some statements that seemed to muddy the waters of the differences that are significant between his metal and wood cameras.

[Oren Grad]

Michael -

No sweat. Keith's cameras have distinctive personalities for sure, both comparing the metal vs the wooden and comparing either vs other brands. I've handled the metal 5x7 and owned the wooden 5x12 for a while. It took actually laying my hands on them to really understand what they were about.

[Gem Singer]

Michael,

I don't understand what statements you are referring to when you say they "muddy the waters".

It's quite obvious that the K.B.Canham Traditional cameras (you refer to them as wooden) are a completely different design than the K.B.Canham all metal cameras.

However, the Traditional cameras are also a uniquely different design than other wooden field cameras, and the all metal cameras are uniquely different than other metal cameras, both field and monorail.

Most wooden flatbed folding field cameras are designed with wooden focusing rails. K.B. Canham Traditional cameras have black anodized aircraft aluminum focusing rails. Canham uses a metal infrastructure that folds inside of a hand rubbed American Walnut outer structure. That's why he does not refer to them as "wooden" cameras.

[Marko]

Marco,

Are you comparing the price of a Canham DLC45 to that of a 4x5 Shen Hao or Chamonix?

Gene,

Evidently. ;)

Are you saying I shouldn't?


If so, try comparing the price of a BMW to a similar sized Chevy or a Ford.

I did, more then once. Every time I go car-shopping, I do just that - compare prices of comparable models from different manufacturers and then also compare what I could get for the comparable price from each of the brands.

That's how I ended up with a 4Runner the last two times - I figured I'd rather pay a bit more than for a comparable Jeep and not have to deal with Chrysler "quality", but decided that luxury I neither needed nor wanted simply was not worth paying extra for a Lexus.

Had I not compared the prices, I would not have been able to make the right choice. Right for me, that is.


Why the heck are BMW's priced so high? After all, they are all automobiles.

Think about it.

There are several reasons for that, representing an important status symbol being a rather prominent one.

That being said, and speaking of thinking, please think about what are you replying to - I simply stated some obvious numerical facts, nothing more, nothing less. Unlike what usually happens when people start talking computers (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=74764). Or digital (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=72076), for that matter - just search the forum for examples.

Marko

[Gem Singer]

Marko,

My post was not meant to be critical of your statement. I was merely attempting to defend Keith Canham's pricing structure, and you took it personally when I said "think about it".

What I was pointing out was that there's a valid reason for K.B.Canham cameras to be more expensive than the Shen Hoa and Chamonix cameras, as well as there's a valid reason for BMW's to be more expensive than Chevys and Fords.

A few other folks agreed with what I stated, so I know I wasn't that far out of line.

[engl]

What advantages would a DLC2 have over a Chamonix 045N2 + extension board (500mm bellows)?

[Ken Lee]

What advantages would a DLC2 have over a Chamonix 045N2 + extension board (500mm bellows)?

For one thing, you don't have to do this:

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/Chamonix.png

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJ0GMWJk-Y at 3 min 40 seconds into the video: they show how to attach the extension rail.

These are all fine cameras, and we're fortunate that people are making them in this era. Every camera has strengths and weaknesses. No one design can accommodate every situation and every user.

And then there's the adage about quality/affordability/usability: you only get to pick two.

[jp]

Both cameras have tremendous visual appeal and both would be nice cameras to have.

I think there is a strong market for cameras of traditional beauty and function and Chamonix is doing well here. I've read a whole bunch of people on here making decisions about first new cameras they want someone wooden and traditional. Chamonix is also cheap enough to buy new every new model and sell the old one.

The Canham is really set less on tradition and is selling new cameras to people who've already owned old traditional cameras. The wood ones look traditional to a non-photography crowd.

My take on this is that it's sort of like the differing taste in guns. Do I want a used classic (like the cameras we get on ebay), do I want a new high quality Uberti replica (metaphorically the chamonix), or do I want something military and innovative and strange looking like an AR-10 or ps90 (the canham).

The dlc2, well as long as it's lightweight as they say, the amount of metal in the dlc2 holds some appeal for me. It looks like a field camera that's as rugged as a monorail built for WW3.

Here's the front of the 045n2; look at the small metal front standard.

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/_images/045N2002.jpg

I couldn't fine a closeup for the dlc/dlc2 front standard. The metal appears 2-3x as thick. The rear back construction for the dlc2 looks like it could survive an extreme beating, and the chamonix is beautiful wood.

http://www.canhamcameras.com/DLC2%20Behind.jpg

[engl]

I agree that they are both beautiful and both seem like very capable cameras. I sold my 4x5 yesterday and I'm in the market for a lightweight field camera. To me there seems to be a long list of advantages to the Chamonix, and based on comments from many users about rigidity of the two cameras, the 400-500mm range seems more usable on the Chamonix (+extension board). If there are advantages to the DLC I'd like to know, since I could get the earlier version used cheaper than a Chamonix.

[Gem Singer]

The original version of the Canham DLC has a maximum bellows extension of slightly over 500mm.

The longest lens I used on mine was a Fuji 450C.

There are telephoto lenses available if you need to go longer.

[Ed Kelsey]

And why is it better than a Walker Titan for $1800 ?

[Gem Singer]

If you're an all-metal camera guy, the Canham DLC is for you.

If you're a wood (metal, and plastic) camera guy, the Chamonix is an outstanding value.

If you like ABS plastic cameras with stainless steel hardware, purchase a Walker Titan.

You can't go wrong with any of these choices.

(How did Walker cameras get into a discussion about the new version of the Canham DLC?:) )

[Marko]

Marko,

My post was not meant to be critical of your statement. I was merely attempting to defend Keith Canham's pricing structure, and you took it personally when I said "think about it".

What I was pointing out was that there's a valid reason for K.B.Canham cameras to be more expensive than the Shen Hoa and Chamonix cameras, as well as there's a valid reason for BMW's to be more expensive than Chevys and Fords.

A few other folks agreed with what I stated, so I know I wasn't that far out of line.

Gem,

Nobody said you were out of line either. :) I think you are being just a little bit too sensitive and I can't really blame you in these funky times when everybody is angry at something or somebody, with or without reason.

I just thought this was a great opportunity to actually discuss cameras and comparing prices of various models and the qualities they provide is one of the best ways to do it, IMO. I do think that your car analogy is excellent, I have used it many times myself - including in that most recent thread about computers.

And finally, I completely agree that there is a very good reason (or reasons) why Canham cameras are more expensive than Chamonix or Shen-Hao, just like there are reasons for the price differential between Canham and Phillips and Walker and Gandolfi...

But I also think that there are many valid reasons why somebody would still pick a Shen or a Cham instead, not the least of those reasons being the ability to get an entire darkroom replacement for the difference. Most people's budgets are not unlimited and many discussions on this board show that some people's budgets are very limited, in fact. There are other reasons too.

Speaking for myself, computers are my tools and photography is my hobby. I make my money with my computers and I spend it on my cameras (among other things). I definitely cannot afford a cheap computer and I try not to spend too much on my cameras. So I happily own and use a new Shen and an old Tachi and find them quite sufficient for my needs and more than a match for my limited talent. I realize that there are those who would much rather own a cheap PC (or no computer at all) and a Canham or two.

We both have our reasons and it is good to compare them on fora like this for the benefit of those who are deciding what to do.

Marko

[Gem Singer]

There is one other outstanding feature on the Canham all-metal cameras that might influence the decision as to which camera to choose.

The Canham DLC45, JMC57, and MQC810 cameras come equipped with a built-in Fresnel and a gridded cover glass. These are add-on accessories to the Canham Traditional cameras.

According to Keith Canham, his Fresnels are obtained from the same manufacturer that makes Maxwell's Fresnels.

The focusing screens on the metal Canham cameras are extremely bright.

[Frank Petronio]

While I think it is silly to spend that much on a new 4x5 when there are so many great used options, like Technikas, out there, I am glad the market is robust enough to support an original American-made camera maker and designer. It certainly is better than buying a Chinese copy of a Japanese Ebony that itself was a copy of the original and brilliant Phillips (Michigan) design.

[Sal Santamaura]

...a Chinese copy of a Japanese Ebony that itself was a copy of the original and brilliant Phillips (Michigan) design.What Ebony product are you referring to as a copy of one of Dick Phillips' designs? I'm unaware of any such Ebony camera.

[jeroldharter]

...
According to Keith Canham, his Fresnels are obtained from the same manufacturer that makes Maxwell's Fresnels.

The focusing screens on the metal Canham cameras are extremely bright.

I had a Canham DLC and was happy with the focusing screen, but I still struggled in low light or with very wide angle lenses. So I bought a Maxwell screen which is a different animal and significantly brighter.

[Gem Singer]

Maxwell sells a Fresnel that is specifically designed to be used with wide angle lenses.

I am assuming that is the one to which you are referring.

The Fresnels that come with the Canham all-metal cameras are not the the wide angle version. They can be used with wide angle lenses, but are maximized for average focal length lenses.

[john biskupski]

The elephant in the room is still the cheapness of the Chinese brands versus Western (eg Canham, Walker) or Japanese (Ebony). Regrettably, Robert White, the respected UK photographic retailer has reportedly dropped the Canham brand and promotes the low cost Shen models. The ebay pricing of Chamonix latest models is alluring. Especially for beginners, as one poster says above. Longer term, this pricing advantage may change, as the Yuan inevitably revalues up, and Chinese labour costs rise, and the dollar softens, as they will. Let's hope that our fine manufacturers mentioned above can survive that long. The fact that Canham is still investing in technical advances for its great camera range is very welcome news.

[ivm]

Gentlemen, this is my first posting, and but I have been reading many threads and articles on LF. This thread is exactly what I was hoping to find. It's very interesting to read the differing opinions and to sit back and evaluate the evidence.

My background is 35mm in my previous life (yout) and the last few years have been spent with three Pentax 67's. Two older models for astrophotography - yes - there are many that still shoot wide field film, and a 67ii for my landscape work. The 67 and 67ii are two different animals with the same lineage.

Now the LF bug has infested my heart and mind. My desire to go forth with LF is overwhelming, to get to a higher level of of understanding and presentation. I've watched the Cham video on Youtub - and it is very compelling. It appears to have much going for it - or does it? Price - definitely. Quality appears good. Performance - ie: how everything adjusts when you are behind the camera may be another matter. What caught my ear was - shared components. This raised a flag to me.

We are all familiar with a bracket holding any number of components. Why else would we need engineers? But to me at least, the more components, the more hands and fingers you need to make fine adjustments. Can one really expect to make a small swing, or tilt adjustment without one affecting the other? I'm asking?

It saves cost, but does it make for a more frustrating or slightly annoying experience? Can one really expect to easily dial in the front standard quickly to capture the coming break in the clouds which is about to light up the valley, or does one need to back and forth a few times? BTW - I loved working on the old British sports cars - but did not enjoy newer vehicles with a shared components.

So when I look at the efforts and products from someone like Canham, I have to think to myself that this man's passion and effort brought forth a number of very nice cameras. The adjustments all seem to be separately controlled and thought out. Does it make that much a difference?

My sojourns to photograph some of the landscape will take me on many long drives, and hikes. I expect the equipment I have chosen to perform very well, from backpack to camera to boots. When I set up the camera to photograph something that activates my creative juices, I expect the camera to be a part of me, and simply get out of the way. Adjustments are made quickly, precisely, contributing to the work flow without real interruption of the process. The creative part of the mind is allowed function unconsciously without having the conscious mind constantly interrupting with uncomplimentary phrases due to another adjustment fumble.

Now I ax you. Which camera between the two should I choose? Which one do you think I will choose? Yes, money is a consideration. Thanks for reading all this.

[Kimberly Anderson]

If you still drive and work on British cars, quit now. You can't be involved in LF photography and deal with Lucas at the same time.

;)

[engl]

Welcome to the forum!

I think your post might get overlooked here, since this thread is primarily about the new DLC.

The thing to keep in mind is that all large format cameras are compromises, more so than smaller formats. There is no small folding, quick setup, 3 pound, rock solid 4x5 camera with 40-600mm bellows draw and all controls separated, geared and easily manipulated. The Chamonix and DLC are both in the field camera category, lots of compromises to reduce weight, but the choices made to get there are different and their weaknesses and strengths differ.

Working with separate controls is always easier, but they come at a cost. Either bulk and weight, or loss of rigidity. On the DLC they also come at the cost of usability, since the movement was placed at the base instead of on the lens axis like the Chamonix. In practice, this means that changing front tilt also changes your composition, as well as throwing the entire image out of focus. With axis tilt, the composition is not changed, and a line in the middle remains in focus.

Either way, if you are shopping for your first camera, you are likely not going to keep it anyway. Buy a 200$ monorail and a 200$ rugged field (Crown Graphic, Technika, MPP etc.) and learn the basics, as well your own shooting method and preferences. It will make it much, much easier to decide which compromises in a lightweight field camera are acceptable for you (and they don't loose their value).

PS. For what it is worth, my impression of the DLC is that it is a beautiful, fiddly, rickety, impractical camera. I don't think it is by chance that so many "had one", and the image posting forum is nearly devoid of pictures actually taken with the DLC. However, you might do well to ignore my opinion, since I have not actually touched the camera :)

[Gem Singer]

engl,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the Canham DLC.

However, as my father used to tell me:

"Don't knock it until you've tried it".

[ivm]

If you still drive and work on British cars, quit now. You can't be involved in LF photography and deal with Lucas at the same time.

;)
Lucas Electrics - the Prince of Darkness. I've migrated to a mint 1988 Toyota Landcruiser. Load it and go. So now the LF replaces the MGB.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Since you have produced evidence of both refinement and excellent problem-solving skills, you have demonstrated that you ought to be shooting a Canham. An easy choice would to have been to stay within the Leyland family and purchase a Land Rover, but you have learned your Lucas Lessons well. Moving to Toyota could have possibly been the move that will save any foray into Large Format. Congratulations on proving your mettle.