Calumet Cameras??

[armentor1@mac.com]

I am looking to purchase an inexpensive 4x5 setup; I'd prefer to get a field camera but Calumet cameras seem to be well made and are incredibly inexpensive.
Anyone know why?

I should note I've only seen them on the web.

I'm looking at a used Cadet or this 4x5 View Camera Single Rail with rotating back system...

[Wayne Aho]

I have the monorail calumet like the grey one in your post, its the second one I've owned. Not very portable due to being heavy and a long rail, but I keep it set up around the house. Its rugged, and versitle for my needs. Can't understand why they are so cheap either. For field use I have a tachihara, speed graphic, graflex slr, and some other oddballs laying around. The Calumets sometimes show up in local camera stores, and my recent purchase was less than $100 with a pretty good lens and some film holders.

Wayne

[BrianShaw]

Two of the possible reasons:

Quantity.

Perceived as being a "beginners" LF camera.

Large and heavy (except for the Cadet).

[Jon Shiu]

The gray camera is good. Sturdy. It has a handle. It has a bail back for easy insert of film holder. I would try to get one with a fresnel screen already installed. Makes it easier to see and focus.

Jon

[cyrus]

The old battleship gray ones are just fine and do everything a 4x5 camera is supposed to do, and are workhorses that have been used professionally for generations. They're inexpensive because, well, they're not fancy and there were lots made and in general the price of 4x5 cameras are low. I haven't used the newer Cadet ones but would look askance at the single standard. Probably lighter, which is not necessarily a good thing for a camera, as it allows for more shake, and that think looks like a spring.

[Alan Gales]

I have heard that the Cadets are pretty flimsy (they look it) and the lens boards are not the standard Cambo/Calumet size. You can pick up later Cambo/Calumet cameras for $150 to $200. These can be lighter than the early gray one that you are looking at.

There is an abundance of monorail cameras out there due to the pros going digital and most amateurs wanting a field camera. Another reason the Cambo/Calumet cameras are so cheap is the competition from used Sinars. Older Sinars are not a lot more on the used market than the Cambo/Calumets.

A monorail is a great way to start 4x5. It's easier to understand and has more movements than a field camera. If you buy a field camera later you can always sell the monorail for near what you paid. I would recommend keeping it for portraits and still life's. Most field cameras do not have a lot of bellows draw.

[Jehu]

I spent over two years with my Calumet C1 monorail 4x5. I carried it in a backpack and hiked anywhere I would've with a field camera. I would still be shooting that one if it wasn't for the theft that deprived me of it. In LF photography, a camera is nothing more than a light-tight chamber used to introduce a lens to film. The only disadvantages I can think of for the cheap, used, monorails is size and weight. I wasn't bothered too much by either. If I would've replaced the monorail with a field camera then my pack would've weighed 53 pounds instead of 56. I bought my first Calumet monorail camera for $20. Then I learned about lens upgrades and it was worse than dope.

[BetterSense]

I have two of the grey metal ones; one with the normal rail and one with the long rail. They make great cameras for the studio but they are heavy to carry around. If you don't mind the size/weight then they are very good even for the field; they have a lot of movements and a nice rotating back and ground glass.

[rdenney]

The only limitation on the CC-400 at left is that it will not accommodate short lenses. Even a 90 will require a recessed board. The bellows are not interchangeable, so it is what it is.

There was a short-rail model with flexible bellows and a revised front standard to address this issue--a CC-402 I think. A 90 is fine on that camera, but nothing really shorter.

These cameras also don't have a Graflok/International back, so they cannot be used with holders requiring that attachment method. The bail back is, however, pretty deep, so it will accommodate even the thicker slide-in accessory holders. That's why the Calumet roll-film holders were always designed as slide-in models.

The Cadet really is a lightweight, in terms of stiffness, and no more flexible than the CC-400. If you want a newer Calumet, get a Cambo SC which was also branded as a Calumet 45, 45n, or 45nx. These are fully modular, lighter than the CC-400 (though bulkier), and are still dirt cheap on the used market. You can also find a zillion accessories for them at any given time. They also do not handle really short lenses, though in this case "really short" is shorter than 65. With bag bellows and a recessed board, a 65 is no problem, as long as you don't mind being stabbed in the chest by the long monorail (solution: Find another rail and cut it to the desired length with a hacksaw).

Rick "who still owns a CC-400 and a 45n, but now uses a Sinar" Denney

[windpointphoto]

I used one alot and always found the rail poking me the throat a pain in the butt (neak?). But that's just me, bitch bitch bitch about everything.

[Ben Calwell]

My first view camera was a long-rail Calumet (currently baking in my attic). I used it from my car and actually didn't think it was all that heavy.
It was a breeze to whip it out of its case and up onto my Bogen tripod (quick release plate).

[Peter De Smidt]

The Cadet is very poorly made. I bought one when they first came out and returned it.

I have one of the gray ones. They can be nice. Note, though, the the cork washers can wear out and keep the movements from properly locking. You can probably replace them.

[Don Sparks]

Contrary to popular belief, the CC-402 will take a 65mm lense on a flat board. I've used one on mine many times even with some movements.

[armentor1@mac.com]

Thanks for all of the comments, I do believe I found my next camera.

dave-

[BrianShaw]

Which one?

[Brian Ellis]

The monorails are inexpensive because of supply and demand - there are lots of them available (supply) because they sold well in the old days and most of the people who bought them (professional studio photographers) have switched to digital. And they weigh more than most people want to carry around (demand).

As for the Cadet, I've used a friend's. I wouldn't have one at any price. No back movements, very flimsy feeling.

[Kuzano]

The cadet.. red bellows on all of them... sold new for about $400 for the camera and were primarily used in photography schools. Not as flimsy as many attest. I've had three cadets and four of the CC400 and CC402. They both fall in the same price range of $100 to $200 (camera alone), and both show up on eBay regularly. If you get a cadet, make sure it comes with at least ONE lensboard, or prepare to have others made... flat aluminum.

The CC402 had the front standard reduced, had a very floppy bellows (no stiffeners inside) to compensate as a bag bellows, and a short rail. It also had a recessed front standard. The camera was the "wide angle" version of the CC-4xx. The bellows was very funky looking but durable and light-tight on the two I had.

Either one will get the job done.

As far as the Calumet wood field camera, I believe it was made by the same people who made the Tachihara and Woodfield. Identical cameras. Good history and about $400 to $500 in the current market... at least as a Tachihara. I have a friend who has an award winning portfolio of landscapes and scenics shot with the same Tachihara 4X5 over the years. Three lenses and all his work on Fuji Velvia 50.

[Kirk Gittings]

Contrary to popular belief, the CC-402 will take a 65mm lense on a flat board. I've used one on mine many times even with some movements.

The 402 will take a 47 on a flat board! I used it that way for years.

[armentor1@mac.com]

Brian the Calumet CC 402 is the one that I'm going to go with. I've got an older Schneider Angulon 90 that I'll pair with it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I almost, almost offered you my 402, but I don't think I can let it go. I have modified it a fair amount like using black standards from a later 400, tilt locks on both sides of standards, top hat boards for longer lenses etc. I may still use it so I guess I'll hang on to it.

[Mike Anderson]

Brian the Calumet CC 402 is the one that I'm going to go with. I've got an older Schneider Angulon 90 that I'll pair with it.

A wise choice (I have a CC-402 :)).

I've heard there's a newer (well, less old) black version that has a stiffer bellows and is not so good with extreme wide lenses. (But I'm sure a 90mm would work with it.)

Can anyone confirm or deny that?

...Mike

[Mike Anderson]

I almost, almost offered you my 402, but I don't think I can let it go. I have modified it a fair amount like using black standards from a later 400, tilt locks on both sides of standards, top hat boards for longer lenses etc. I may still use it so I guess I'll hang on to it.

Can you post a picture of it? I might want to try and copy some of your modifications (unless it's a trade secret).

...Mike

[Mike Anderson]

Brian the Calumet CC 402 is the one that I'm going to go with. I've got an older Schneider Angulon 90 that I'll pair with it.

Have you found one? There's one for sale right now:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=77882

...Mike

[armentor1@mac.com]

Kirk what is the longest lens that you are able to get on your CC-402 with the top hat?

[Kirk Gittings]

The longest I made was for a 210. If I remember right it extends about 1.5 inches.

[Kirk Gittings]

Can you post a picture of it? I might want to try and copy some of your modifications (unless it's a trade secret).

...Mike

I'm off on my vacation today. I'll do it when I get back.

[paulr]

My college photo dept. had an arsenal of calument monorails we could check out (they looked like the one to the left in your post). Some professor insisted on these instead of field cameras, even though most students worked in the proverbial field. Most of us found the cameras to be a minor nightmare. Not working with them, but transporting them. They were big and heavy, and came in monsterous, indestructible hard cases with sharp corners and protruding hardware. Carrying the things any farther than trunk to curb would result in scrapes and bruises. I was one of the few people who was interested enough to suffer through this, and I never looked forward to it.

If you do go with one of these for field use, I'd look into a more friendly case.

I mention all this because you said you'd prefer a field camera. If you're planning to walk around much at all, I'd suggest a used field camera over the calumet any day.

[Jim Noel]

I would advise you to stay far away from a Cadet. I had both models soon after they came out and was so unhappy with both I all but gave them away to get rid of them quickly. Definitely the worst sheet film cameras I ever owned. Perhaps that is why they were manufactured for so short a time.