-
Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Introduction:
The second generation Chamonix 4x5 cameras started shipping about two weeks ago. Being a new owner, I thought it would appropriate for me to share my initial impressions.
First of all, not only am I a new owner, I admit it...I am a large format newbie. Despite several decades using 35mm film cameras, I successfully resisted the larger formats until just a few weeks ago. Through a series of small events, the seed was planted, the market research was initiated, and the purchase was made. My initial criteria were:
- 4x5
- Compact and portable
- Well-made
- Reasonable array of movements
- Ease of use
- Support for short focal length lenses
- Graflok back
- Support for 120 roll film holders
- Pretty
Yes, pretty! If I am going to spend good money, the camera should at least LOOK good! The Chamonix 045N-2 satisfies all of my requirements and is good looking, in a technical way, as well. Before continuing to the rest of the review, I must state that much has been published on the Web regarding version 1 of the 045N. I will not attempt to duplicate those reviews or material readily available at the Chamonix Web site. If you are interested in technical specifications, the published specs and camera description may be found here:
In the Box:
- Camera with "Universal" bellows
- Padded cloth wrap with velcro fasteners
- Ground glass focus screen with fresnel
- Carbon fiber ground glass protector
Description:
The 045N-2 is a lightweight 4x5 field camera based on the Phillips design. Basic features may be summarized as follows:
- Extensive use of carbon fiber composite material in the base plate and elsewhere for rigidity and weight savings
- Nicely crafted hardwood (teak initially and maple in the future) and machined aluminum used in the remainder of the camera
- Large knobs for ease of adjustment
- Fairly complete set of movements
- Front rise/fall, shift, axial tilt, and swing
- Rear base tilt and swing
- Graflok-type back
- Linhof-type lensboard
- Multiple built-in bubble levels to aid in leveling the camera
Changes/upgrades from the 045N-1 include:
- Ball bearings for focus track
- Focus rod changed to smaller diameter stainless steel
- Tracks added to constrain the rear standard forward/back movement
- Improved rear swing
- Improved lens board mount
- Improved bellows locking tabs
- Modified focus screen to address fresnel lens focus shift issue
- "Universal" bellows included as default bellows
- Somewhat less minimum bellows draw (52mm vs. 45mm)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/...8fe88ee1_o.jpg
Chamonix 045N-2 in Teak with Black Metal
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2718/...976aa805_o.jpg
Chamonix 045N-2 fully folded with ground glass protector in place
Starting at the carbon fiber base plate, the camera provides two 3/8" holes for tripod mounting and two large cutouts that are useful as "grab points" or for attaching a strap of some kind (not included). As with all Phillips-design cameras, focus is at the back using a thumb wheel and worm drive to move the focus rail. The focus rail itself has several mount points for the front standard. Fine adjustment to help set infinity focus is made by moving the back standard. The focus rail features an improvement over the 045N-1 by using a ball-bearing cartridge instead of a simple sliding rail for the focus movement. Another improvement over the 045N-1 is addition of tracks to constrain the front/back movement of the rear standard. Those tracks, along with an improved rear swing mechanism make aligning the rear standard a fairly simple task.
The front standard features generous rise/fall as well as lateral shift and axial swing. Tilt is axial and may be adjusted independent of rise/fall. All movements are secured using friction knobs as opposed to geared adjustments. While mechanical stops are provided for zero'ing front tilt, all other front movements are managed through alignment "dots" on the camera body. Two sets of "dots" are provided for front rise, presumably to support both offset and centered lens boards. No index scales are provided. Linhoff-type lens boards are supported and are mounted using a simple set of thumbwheels. The lens board back plate is made of carbon fiber and is flocked on its outer surface to prevent light leaks. A standard accessory shoe is provided at the top of the front standard. The camera ships with a removable bubble level mounted in the accessory shoe.
The camera features easily removable bellows and ships with the "Universal" model bellows. The "Universal" bellows is made without stiffening treatment on the extreme end. The intent is to allow free movement with short focal length lenses. A bag bellows is also available. It should be noted that minimum bellows draw for the 045N-2 is somewhat longer than for the initial version (52mm vs 45mm).
The rear standard features base tilt and swing. Swing is implemented using two clamps in conjunction with the rear standard forward/back adjustment. I won't attempt a detailed explanation, so you will have to accept that it works well and is easy to return the back to neutral state. As with the front standard, all rear movements are managed using friction knobs. Mechanical stops are provided to zero the rear tilt. Zero'ing rear swing is done by moving the adjusters flush in their mounts. Index marks are scribed on the base plate to assist in rear standard alignment, but these are virtually invisible (at least on my copy) under most lighting.
The "standard" Graflok-type back may be mounted in either horizontal or vertical orientation and is easily switched between the two using two thumb levers. The included ground glass finder has a fresnel screen mounted between the ground glass and the user. The fresnel, in turn, has a shiny glass protective cover. While reflections from the glass can be pretty distracting, those disappear when a dark cloth is used.
Build:
Quality materials (carbon fiber, hardwood, stainless steel, and machined aluminum) are used thoughout. Assembly is first class and shows a high level of craftsmanship in both machining and joinery. This is a quality piece of hardware. My only concern is in regards to the black finish option for metal parts. The finish seems somewhat fragile and is easily scratched. While this is a common problem, it should be considered when choosing ordering finish options.
In Use:
Set-up is pretty straightforward and involves raising the rear standard, securing the front standard in an appropriate position, and mounting a lens. While it is probably obvious to an experienced user, all noobs should note that the camera is best mounted on the tripod BEFORE raising the back standard! Front standard alignment is done by aligning the "dots" for rise/fall and centering the bracket bottom edge between its "dots". In regards to the rise/fall dots...There are two sets. I assume that the upper (white) set is for use with an offset lens board and the lower (reddish) set for lens boards with a centered hole. A quick compliment to the folk at Chamonix in regards to the lens board mount. Very nicely done! The thumb wheels are easy to use and provide a positive mount. A lock of some sort would be nice, but maybe it is not needed.
Leveling the camera is easy due to the five bubble levels mounted on various locations. The one on the front standard accessory shoe does not agree with those on the back standard, but I guess that should be expected. At least it is easily corrected. Movements are easy to do, though I have found that the front standard alignment is easily changed by a bump. I am a noob and I guess that is pretty common?
My experience is extremely limited (remember, I am a complete noob), but my interactions with the camera over the last week or so have been extremely positive. All adjustments and movements are smooth and easy to use. Focus at the rear is a joy. The light weight and compact size also make life easier. Did I mention that it is very sturdy and rigid? Well, it is. 'Nuff said. The standard ground glass features etched grid lines as well as corner marks showing the boundary for common 120 roll film formats. I found that I could easily mount a composition mask for 6x7 120 roll film on the underside of the ground glass using supplied hold-down tabs. I guess that means that I have no complaints...ALMOST. The 045N-2 features a modification to the ground glass as mentioned above. The result is a VERY shiny reflective surface at the rear of the camera. This is no issue when using a dark cloth, but is a real pain when doing initial composition without one. From what I can tell, the only option is to go without the fresnel.
Part 2, continued below...
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review Part II
Continued from above...
Roll Film Holder Compatibility:
One of the more frequent questions that comes up regarding the Chamonix 045N-2 is compatibility with roll film holders. The general answer to this question is yes, the 045N-2 is compatible with all roll film holders (RFH) designed for use with a Graflok back. Models designed to slip under the ground glass in the manner of a sheet film holder (e.g. Calumet C2(n) and Sinar Vario Zoom) should work just fine. All others require that the ground glass be removed before mounting the RFH. This is of special concern in regards to the Toyo brand RFH. These models have a relatively low profile and are designed to fit UNDER the ground glass, but clamped into the Graflok back of Toyo and many other cameras. What a great idea! Unfortunately, the Chamonix 045N-2 lacks adequate clearance to allow the Toyo RFH to fit between the GG and the back. Just something to consider when paying a premium price used for the Toyo over the generally less expensive used Horseman or Graflex products.
Optional Folding Viewer:
This is a nicely made and potentially handy device (Link). I say potentially because when I try to use it in bright light with the 045N-2 and its highly reflective ground glass screen, I mostly see my brightly-framed eye sockets staring back at me. I am not saying that it doen't work. I am saying that it is not as handy as I thought it would be.
How to Purchase:
This is where things get sort of sketchy. The cameras are manufactured in batches on what was previously a six month production schedule. I believe that the schedule is closer to three months at present. Production runs usually sell out. Chamonix cameras are periodically available through an eBay merchant (LINK). The other more commonly used option is through Hugo Zhang. He is the owner of chamonixviewcamera.com and sells the cameras dropped shipped (via EMS) directly from the factory in China. The purchase process is pretty loose and consisted in my case of a series of e-mails, a personal check through the mail, and an e-mail with the EMS tracking number some weeks later. No invoice, no receipt, no printed warranty. In fact, no printed anything! No set-up instructions. No manual either. Not wanting to cast a bad light on Mr. Zhang, I want to say that the camera was delivered on schedule as promised, was well-packed, and received in excellent condition. He has been responsive to a few issues I have had with my camera and has provided excellent customer service. Quoting from my e-mail correspondence, the post-sale warranty through Mr. Zhang and chamonixviewcamera.com is:
"...we offer 90 days no question asked free return or replacement policy and life time free parts and free repair services"
Hopefully Hugo will be the available to provide this coverage over the long run.
Summary:
As mentioned above, I am a total noob with very little large format experience. Despite my inexperience, I have been very impressed with the Chamonix camera and believe that it represents good value for the new user as well as for a more experienced user wanting a compact and light weight camera that easily fits into a day pack.
Pros
- Size/Weight
- Build quality
- Phillips-based design
- Usability
- Versatility
- Standard bellows fairly usable with short focal length lenses
- Generous movements
- Price
Cons
- Limited movements compared to a monorail or technical field camera
- Reflective rear surface on standard ground glass
- Sales channels are not up to current e-commerce standards
Suggestions for Chamonix:
- Provide Instructions for unpacking/initial setup
- Provide camera manual
- Better index marks for rear standard
- Mechanical stops for front standard swing
- Mechanical stops for rear standard swing
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Very nice Steve!
Well written. Hopefully, as you and I and other LF newbies and more seasoned LF veterans become more familiar with the 45n-2, we can offer more suggestions on improving this well received camera from Chamonix. As well, it is hoped that Hugo and the factory in China will be attentive and receptive to feedback from Chamonix owners and continue to incorporate design changes in the future that will enhance and improve the LF experience.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
Introduction:
The second generation Chamonix 4x5 cameras started shipping about two weeks ago. Being a new owner, I thought it would appropriate for me to share my initial impressions.
....
Changes/upgrades from the 045N-1 include:
- Ball bearings for focus track
- Focus rod changed to smaller diameter stainless steel
- Tracks added to constrain the rear standard forward/back movement
- Improved rear swing
- Improved lens board mount
- Improved bellows locking tabs
- Modified focus screen to address fresnel lens focus shift issue
- "Universal" bellows included as default bellows
- Somewhat less minimum bellows draw (52mm vs. 45mm)
...
Are you sure they didn't replace on this model the less than satisfactory bubble levels from the N-1 version?
Also the fact that the rear standard zero position marks are still "virtually invisible" after complains made about it on the older version is simply incomprehensible... The Chamonix trade mark still as usual??:confused:
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
What size is the lens board? It looks like a Sinar board from the picture. Is that correct?
bob
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob McCarthy
What size is the lens board? It looks like a Sinar board from the picture. Is that correct?
bob
See the description.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
The Chamy normally uses a Linhof type board, from your picture it looks bigger. Does anyone know, he's a noob by his own description so may be unaware of the distinction?
bob
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GPS
Are you sure they didn't replace on this model the less than satisfactory bubble levels from the N-1 version?
Also the fact that the rear standard zero position marks are still "virtually invisible" after complains made about it on the older version is simply incomprehensible... The Chamonix trade mark still as usual??:confused:
I have never seen the N-1 and can't comment regarding the bubble levels. If improvements were made, they are not on the official list. The levels on my camera seem to work pretty well. As for the rear standard marks...they are basically invisible as is the Chamonix maker's mark. (I just spied the maker's mark yesterday :))
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob McCarthy
What size is the lens board? It looks like a Sinar board from the picture. Is that correct?
bob
The lens board in the photo is a Linhof-type Bromwell board (http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/). The dimensions are about 3 3/4" x 3 7/8".
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob McCarthy
The Chamy normally uses a Linhof type board, from your picture it looks bigger. Does anyone know, he's a noob by his own description so may be unaware of the distinction?
bob
It looks bigger because both the camera and lens (Caltar II-N 150/5.6) are fairly compact. It truly is a Linhof-type board cut for Copal-0 shutter.
Steve
(Should probably have used a picture with my Caltar II-N 90/6.8...that hunk of glass makes both the camera and the lens board look teeny...)
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Nice review, thanks. I owned the first version and thought it was a great camera. The minimal little problems with it seem to have all been addressed in this latest version. IMHO this is a "best buy" in under $1000 field cameras and probably a best buy among all wooden 4x5 field cameras including some that cost much more such as Canham and Ebony.
The bubble levels are one of its best features - of the 14 or so LF cameras I've owned, I can offhand only think of one other that had as complete a set of bubble levels as the Chamonix and it was a $3,000 Linhof Technikardan. But they aren't good enough for some people. Amazing.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Steve,
Thanks for the review. Being a Noob myself and having the 045n-2 for a couple of weeks now, I even learned a few things from the review--finer points that I missed in using it.
I also am VERY impressed with the form, functionality, size and quality of this camera. Even a very experienced colleague of mine (who runs a photo center and museum with hundreds of large format cameras on display) was drooling over it when he took a look at it. I was lucky to get it back! He said it didn't get better than this, especially for this price (or 2 or 3 times the price).
I agree on the folding viewer. I'd like to like it, but I'm still not sure. I had to go out and purchase 2.75+ reading glasses to focus on the glass at that distance, but I guess that's my problem!
It's good to have other 045n-x users here, both old timers and noob's, to use as resources. I'm actually taking a 10 hour individual tutorial class on the view camera and film processing. It's quite enjoyable.
Looking forward to seeing everyone's results (and mine).
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Brian,
The on-board bubble levels work well for me as well. Responsive and fairly accurate.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
The minimal little problems with it seem to have all been addressed in this latest version. IMHO this is a "best buy" in under $1000 field cameras and probably a best buy among all wooden 4x5 field cameras including some that cost much more such as Canham and Ebony.
Brian,
Thanks for pointing this out. People seem to want to overlook this fact. At this price point, Chamonix should be commended for making it possible to offer such a nice camera at the price. Not everyone is going to be happy with it. But they have other more expensive options to choose from. As a green-newb, I can't complain. I can't see any other novice user justifiably complaining either.
We're witnessing a small company experiencing growing pains. We should be thankful that they're not asking twice as much for the 45n-2.
If the Cham is not to your liking, there's always the Shen-Hao or the Tachihara.
You can satisfy some of the people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all of the people, all of the time :D
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
...
The bubble levels are one of its best features - of the 14 or so LF cameras I've owned, I can offhand only think of one other that had as complete a set of bubble levels as the Chamonix and it was a $3,000 Linhof Technikardan. But they aren't good enough for some people. Amazing.
There were many reports on this forum from the Chamonix 45N-1 users speaking about serious problems with the bubble levels - everything from inconsistency in readings of the individual levels, the wrong viscosity in them (too slow to react), mechanical malfunctions (falling from the camera), the wrong construction altogether or even being dried out completely, etc. The problem with these bubble levels were well known to the manufacturer to that point that even Hugo wrote about it suggesting that perhaps they will be replaced. What's so amazing then that some people don't find them enough?
What I find much more amazing is your amazement about it - as you yourself once wrote in a thread (about Chamonix bubble levels!) that you never used these little levels on your camera(s)... :) Go wonder!
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
I have never seen the N-1 and can't comment regarding the bubble levels. If improvements were made, they are not on the official list. The levels on my camera seem to work pretty well. As for the rear standard marks...they are basically invisible as is the Chamonix maker's mark. (I just spied the maker's mark yesterday :))
Steve
Thanks for your answer, Steve. Would be interesting to know if they are the "old" bubble levels from the N-1 model or a new type. Hugo wrote once that Chamonix will perhaps change the current bubble levels type. :confused:
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GPS
Thanks for your answer, Steve. Would be interesting to know if they are the "old" bubble levels from the N-1 model or a new type. Hugo wrote once that Chamonix will perhaps change the current bubble levels type. :confused:
You don't remember this from one of your previous Chamonix-bashing episodes?:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...6634&postcount
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric James
Do you mean they are new types bubble levels with the old problems (inconsistency in readings)? In such a case the culprit must be manufacturing imprecision in the construction of the camera itself. Any idea..?
By the way - in the linked thread, where is the bashing? Did Hugo bashed himself publicly? :confused:
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GPS
There were many reports on this forum from the Chamonix 45N-1 users speaking about serious problems with the bubble levels - everything from inconsistency in readings of the individual levels, the wrong viscosity in them (too slow to react), mechanical malfunctions (falling from the camera), the wrong construction altogether or even being dried out completely, etc. The problem with these bubble levels were well known to the manufacturer to that point that even Hugo wrote about it suggesting that perhaps they will be replaced. What's so amazing then that some people don't find them enough?
What I find much more amazing is your amazement about it - as you yourself once wrote in a thread (about Chamonix bubble levels!) that you never used these little levels on your camera(s)... :) Go wonder!
Yawn
I didn't use the bubble levels because I didn't need them for the landscape photography I mostly do. You find that amazing? Why am I not surprised?
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GPS
Do you mean they are new types bubble levels with the old problems (inconsistency in readings)? In such a case the culprit must be manufacturing imprecision in the construction of the camera itself. Any idea..?
By the way - in the linked thread, where is the bashing? Did Hugo bashed himself publicly? :confused:
My experience is that the levels are consistent (precise), quick to register, and easy to read. As for accuracy...I checked all the bubble levels against my small "bullet" level and found all to be somewhat off (say half a degree one way or the other). This does not particularly surprise me given the degree of manufacturing precision that would be needed to mount the small bubble levels with greater accuracy. I would say that they work as well or better than the type commonly sold to mount on a camera's accessory shoe.
I would characterize the built-in bubble levels as being very useful and handy. If absolute accuracy for leveling is desired, a bullet level as part of your kit is probably a better solution.
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
My experience is that the levels are consistent (precise), quick to register, and easy to read. As for accuracy...I checked all the bubble levels against my small "bullet" level and found all to be somewhat off (say half a degree one way or the other). This does not particularly surprise me given the degree of manufacturing precision that would be needed to mount the small bubble levels with greater accuracy. I would say that they work as well or better than the type commonly sold to mount on a camera's accessory shoe.
I would characterize the built-in bubble levels as being very useful and handy. If absolute accuracy for leveling is desired, a bullet level as part of your kit is probably a better solution.
Steve
If all the levels are off slightly compared to your "bullet" level, that would raise the question of whether your bullet level is accurate or not.
Have you checked that your level is accurate? Now, I'm not complaining here. I never use a level with a camera anyway, but I have worked for years in industries where things being level is very important and having 6 different readings means that none of them can be trusted.
Testing your level is a very simple procedure. On a solid level surface just swap it end for end. It should read level both ways. If not then throw it away or adjust it.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
...
As for accuracy...I checked all the bubble levels against my small "bullet" level and found all to be somewhat off (say half a degree one way or the other). This does not particularly surprise me given the degree of manufacturing precision that would be needed to mount the small bubble levels with greater accuracy.
...Steve
I agree. Precise bubble levels are not to much good in a not so precisely manufactured camera. I can understand why an Arca Swiss has so many bubble levels but a camera of this kind doesn't need them as the manufacturing precision defeats their purpose.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Steve, Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing Chamonix's latest offering in a 4X5 rig. I wonder if you would offer some comments on the security of the lens board locking mechanism. Some found fault in the first model's ability to lock down some Linhof-type boards.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jack Dahlgren
If all the levels are off slightly compared to your "bullet" level, that would raise the question of whether your bullet level is accurate or not.
Have you checked that your level is accurate? Now, I'm not complaining here. I never use a level with a camera anyway, but I have worked for years in industries where things being level is very important and having 6 different readings means that none of them can be trusted.
Testing your level is a very simple procedure. On a solid level surface just swap it end for end. It should read level both ways. If not then throw it away or adjust it.
My level is accurate. Thanks for the tip though.
Given the degree of controversy surrounding the bubble levels (must be very important to somebody), I decided to repeat my test, but using a little more vigor.
- Mounted camera on sturdy tripod (won't say which brand/model...would start another war I am sure...)
- Leveled the camera on all three axes using my bullet level
- Checked the status of all five bubble levels
And the results? Drum roll...All five bubble levels were within bounds.
I guess my copy is both true and has all five of its levels installed correctly. Is it that way on every camera that comes out of the shop? Probably not. Is it of critical importance? Maybe. As I suggested in the earlier comment, if it is a big deal to you, level the camera using a instrument that you trust. Better yet, pay the big bucks for a technical camera with laser calibrated alignment and geared movements and hire a Sherpa to carry it for you.
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric James
Steve, Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing Chamonix's latest offering in a 4X5 rig. I wonder if you would offer some comments on the security of the lens board locking mechanism. Some found fault in the first model's ability to lock down some Linhof-type boards.
I remember reading about some user's concerns regarding both the lock mechanism and the dimensions (depth, I believe) of the mount itself. The issues with mount dimensions are supposed to have been corrected. I have only mounted the Bromwell board on my camera and they fit extremely well with no binding and no slop. As for the thumb wheel latches; the board is held securely enough, but there is no interlock device as such. The wheels present a fair amount of resistance when moved to release the board, but I supposed there is always the chance that someone could absent-mindedly turn first one wheel to the left and then the other to the right to release the board. A spring-loaded detent here might prove helpful.
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
I'd love to see how they fixed the focus shift problem -- is it the 16mm drilled hole solution?
Does this only fix the focus where the hole is?
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GPS
I agree. Precise bubble levels are not to much good in a not so precisely manufactured camera. I can understand why an Arca Swiss has so many bubble levels but a camera of this kind doesn't need them as the manufacturing precision defeats their purpose.
The levels are handy and greatly simply setup. They are essentially accurate. I like them. They make my life easier.
As for precision manufacturing? I wish everything in my life were this well made...
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesFromSydney
I'd love to see how they fixed the focus shift problem -- is it the 19mm drilled hole solution?
Does this only fix the focus where the hole is?
No, they did not drill a hole as in the Shen Hao clone. I don't know how that solution is supposed to work. Sorry.
I do know how the current ground glass addresses the problem. Chamonix redesigned the ground glass holder so that the fresnel screen is between the ground glass and the user rather than between the ground glass and the lens. To protect the fresnel screen from abrasion, a second glass cover goes over the fresnel.
While this solves the focus shift problem, it creates an issue regarding the highly reflective cover glass. It makes the ground glass difficult to use without a dark cloth. It also complicates usage of the optional folding viewer. This is my only real usability issue with the camera.
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Thanks Steve - Knowing this I'll likely buy one from the next batch; I was hesitant because I'm already deeply invested in Linhof-type boards from Ebony. 9 X $70 for the Chamonix boards is not = a pretty number. Cheers, Eric
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
While this solves the focus shift problem, it creates an issue regarding the highly reflective cover glass. It makes the ground glass difficult to use without a dark cloth. It also complicates usage of the optional folding viewer. This is my only real usability issue with the camera.
Steve
I suspect there's no good way to fix this without blowing the cost of the camera out, given the prices for after-market glass. I have the 45N-1 and it's also the only real issue with the camera.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesFromSydney
I suspect there's no good way to fix this without blowing the cost of the camera out, given the prices for after-market glass. I have the 45N-1 and it's also the only real issue with the camera.
There are only two practical ways to fix the problem I know of:
1. Remove the fresnel. Some say that it is impossible to use a loupe together with a fresnel anyway.
2. Correct for the focus shift by shimming the groundglass by 0.5mm. I have done this by cutting 5 frames made of acetate sheet in the size of the groundglass with margins in the size of the rebate the goundglass is sitting in. These sheets of 0.1mm thickness are made for use with overhead-projectors.
I have checked the accuracy with a collimator on the cheap following a suggestion made in the German LF-forum here.
It works as follows:
You need a spyglass focused on infinity (a star will work) and a torch.
First look with the spyglass through the lens of the camera onto the groundglass and focus the camera. You will clearly see the markings on the groundglass. There is a cross in the middle or instance. These marks are on the mat side of the glass. So you have a correct reference.
Then load a holder with an old negative. on which you draw some marks with a pencil. Put this under the groundglass and look with the spyglass and the torch through the lens. The distance between the spyglass and the lens doesn't matter so there is space to place the torch appropriately.
You will see the pencil lines you have drawn clearly in focus. I fact you can see the grain of the negative in focus if it's HP5 ore something like that. Otherwise you will have to work on your shimming.
The focus shift of about 5/10 mm was mentioned somewhere in the bashing-thread. It seems to be correct.
Ulrich
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Steve, in one post you say the bubble levels do not agree with each other, then you say, then that they are off by half a degree due to the manufacturing imprecision and then you wish everything was this well made...
Good that in your last post about it you finally find them to be - precise...:)
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
...
I guess my copy is both true and has all five of its levels installed correctly. Is it that way on every camera that comes out of the shop? Probably not. Is it of critical importance? Maybe. As I suggested in the earlier comment, if it is a big deal to you, level the camera using a instrument that you trust. Better yet, pay the big bucks for a technical camera with laser calibrated alignment and geared movements and hire a Sherpa to carry it for you.
Steve
As you wrote in your first post, the rear and the front standard bubble levels did not agree. In your last post about it you say all the levels are within bounds. Did the disagreement between them disappear too?
If not, and the difference is stil there, what part of the camera do you suggest should be leveled "using an instrument that you trust"? Just curious...:)
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
GPS, let it rest. Besides, he isn't recommending leveling with an instrument you trust (one of rdenney's tubas perhaps?) but instead recommends a sherpa and geared movements. Surely that is a better horse to beat.
For what it is worth, I found the certainty present in a number of the pronouncements in the review disconcerting when coming from someone who has not used a LF camera before. But overall, it is a good recitation of the facts as they are known.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
What an incredibly testy bunch we have here.
A little reading of the content is in order, I think:
- My initial look at the bubble level accuracy showed minimal variance
- My repeat was done more carefully and showed them to be accurate
- My suggestion was that a separate level might be appropriate if the user had doubts about the built-in devices.
My take on many of the comments on the this thread:
- There appears to be an ongoing war regarding Chamonix cameras
- On one side we have people who are really jazzed to see a quality product with a few weak points at a moderate price point
- On the other side are others who find it offensive that anyone would consider a cheap camera made by eight guys in China worth using.
I obviously fall into the first group. After all, I bought the camera and was pleasantly surprised at what came in the box. It meets my needs 2+. To address and validate some of the comments of the second group, I can offer this:
- No, the Chamonix 045N-2 is not a technical studio camera. It is not even a technical field camera. A person would be a fool to try and use it for such.
- No, it does not bear one of the hallowed names, nor is it backed by a support network.
- Yes, the built-in bubble levels could be viewed as being sort of silly (see the first bullet point). After all, field cameras are generally not used for that kind of work. It is sort of like putting spoilers on a Jeep.
- On any moderately priced photography product, one of the main concerns is build quality. It is appropriate to be skeptical about whether the camera is true when assembled, parallel when zero'ed, well-designed, and made of quality materials.
As for my inexperience with LF...I freely admit that and framed my review within that context. I guess that the main strength that I bring to the review is that I actually OWN the second generation camera and have actually used it too. I also looked at and handled several other cameras in my price range and above before ordering the Chamonix and felt that the Chamonix represented the best value for my needs (light, portable, rigid, etc.). I still feel that way. Will I change my opinion in the future as I gain experience? Perhaps. I intend to post a follow-up review at six months or maybe a year.
While I have very limited experience, I am not totally ignorant. My move to LF came as a result of long-term frustration with the lack of movements on my small format film and digital cameras. No, I did not even consider Ebony, Arca-Swiss, or Technikardan. All of those wonderful cameras are well beyond my budget. I knew that from the time a store clerk showed me a Technikardan back in the late 1980s. Drool hit the counter and I wanted one on the spot, but the price tag emphatically said no. Am I ignorant of what these cameras have to offer? No. Is the Chamonix a compromise in features/quality? Maybe. I guess I will find out.
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Steve,
This would be a great candidate to turn into a review article for the home page. Try contacting QT if you are interested.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David Karp
Steve,
This would be a great candidate to turn into a review article for the home page. Try contacting QT if you are interested.
I had considered that and may do so in a revised version once I have a few more "miles under my belt" with the camera. If there are issues with durability or usage, I want to be sure they are addressed. Ditto for customer service and support.
Steve
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Steve,
Congrats on the new camera! It will bring you many years of pleasure and will be great to use. Like most on this forum, I have used several camera over the years with my current favorite being a 100 year old 5X7 that works just great and has never had a thing done to it as far as I can tell.
You started off with a very nice piece of equipment, take care of it and it will be as fun to use 10 years from now as it is today. Just beware however, that view cameras (and LF lenses) are sort of addictive, once you have your first one many more are sure to follow.
Have fun and be patient, it takes time to really learn LF but the lessons are worth learning.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stevebrot
What an incredibly testy bunch we have here.
A little reading of the content is in order, I think:
- My initial look at the bubble level accuracy showed minimal variance
- My repeat was done more carefully and showed them to be accurate
- My suggestion was that a separate level might be appropriate if the user had doubts about the built-in devices.
My take on many of the comments on the this thread:
- There appears to be an ongoing war regarding Chamonix cameras
- On one side we have people who are really jazzed to see a quality product with a few weak points at a moderate price point
- On the other side are others who find it offensive that anyone would consider a cheap camera made by eight guys in China worth using.
I obviously fall into the first group. After all, I bought the camera and was pleasantly surprised at what came in the box. It meets my needs 2+. To address and validate some of the comments of the second group, I can offer this:
- No, the Chamonix 045N-2 is not a technical studio camera. It is not even a technical field camera. A person would be a fool to try and use it for such.
- No, it does not bear one of the hallowed names, nor is it backed by a support network.
- Yes, the built-in bubble levels could be viewed as being sort of silly (see the first bullet point). After all, field cameras are generally not used for that kind of work. It is sort of like putting spoilers on a Jeep.
- On any moderately priced photography product, one of the main concerns is build quality. It is appropriate to be skeptical about whether the camera is true when assembled, parallel when zero'ed, well-designed, and made of quality materials.
As for my inexperience with LF...I freely admit that and framed my review within that context. I guess that the main strength that I bring to the review is that I actually
OWN the second generation camera and have actually used it too. I also looked at and handled several other cameras in my price range and above before ordering the Chamonix and felt that the Chamonix represented the best value for my needs (light, portable, rigid, etc.). I still feel that way. Will I change my opinion in the future as I gain experience? Perhaps. I intend to post a follow-up review at six months or maybe a year.
While I have very limited experience, I am not totally ignorant. My move to LF came as a result of long-term frustration with the lack of movements on my small format film and digital cameras. No, I did not even consider Ebony, Arca-Swiss, or Technikardan. All of those wonderful cameras are well beyond my budget. I knew that from the time a store clerk showed me a Technikardan back in the late 1980s. Drool hit the counter and I wanted one on the spot, but the price tag emphatically said no. Am I ignorant of what these cameras have to offer? No. Is the Chamonix a compromise in features/quality? Maybe. I guess I will find out.
Steve
You wrote an excellent review of an excellent camera and are better qualified to write a review of it than most, certainly better than people who don't even own the camera but have nothing better to do than carp about its bubble levels.
Hell, the Linhof Technikas I owned had one little target level and it was placed on top of the rear housing where it couldn't even be seen when the camera was on a tripod. I don't remember one single person ever criticizing Linhof for putting a level on their $4,000 cameras in a position where it was basically useless. Yet Chamonix puts bubble levels all over their $800 camera and there's supposed to be a major problem with the camera because the levels might be half a degree off or whatever the problem with them is supposed to be. Amazing.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ulrich Drolshagen
You need a spyglass focused on infinity (a star will work) and a torch.
You don't need a torch if the bellows is removable. In this case place the camera in bright light.
Peter
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter K
You don't need a torch if the bellows is removable. In this case place the camera in bright light.
Peter
Perhaps I mis-understand Ulrich but it seems that one would risk setting the camera afire by using a torch. I'm just saying ...
Don Bryant
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
D. Bryant
Perhaps I mis-understand Ulrich but it seems that one would risk setting the camera afire by using a torch. I'm just saying ...
Why not :D
Sorry, a flashlight in the USA. :cool:
Peter
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
There are already enough flames in this thread.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
The Boy Scout's oath: "Be prepared," comes to mind with regard to bubble levels as in this tutorial on Scheimpflug by Thomas Christopher Moore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4m70xr9mE
Built-in levels more than likely have a reputation of not being accurate.
And the moral of the story: "Get thyself a bullet level, or something comparable."
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lilmsmaggie
The Boy Scout's oath: "Be prepared," comes to mind with regard to bubble levels as in this tutorial on Scheimpflug by Thomas Christopher Moore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4m70xr9mE
Built-in levels more than likely have a reputation of not being accurate.
And the moral of the story: "Get thyself a bullet level, or something comparable."
Try this:
https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/..._detail&p=2903
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
D. Bryant
A bit expensive - but Cool!:D
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
...
I don't remember one single person ever criticizing Linhof for putting a level on their $4,000 cameras in a position where it was basically useless. Yet Chamonix puts bubble levels all over their $800 camera and there's supposed to be a major problem with the camera because the levels might be half a degree off or whatever the problem with them is supposed to be. Amazing.
Unlike you, I don't think that there's supposed to be a major problem with the Chamonix camera because of the levels. After all, if the levels are not satisfying you can always level the camera with an external bubble level. However amazing that can seem to you.
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Like Brian said the level on the linhof is useless because of its position on the camera, regardless of whether its accurate or not. In fact Ive never even checked mine for accuracy there's no point, its only useful if you carry a small pair of stepladders in your camera bag;-)
Ive never check the accuracy of the Chamonix levels either, again theres no point. In my sample the viscosity of the fluid is too thick. I enjoy the slow process of LF photography but I dont have the time or patience to wait for geriatric bubbles;-)
Its all meaningless to me anyway.
I prefer to use my eyes with the maxim, 'if it looks right it is right'!
I personally think that GPS has made some valuable contibutions regarding the Chamonix issues but I cant help wondering if theres a hidden agenda powering the enthusiasm.
The more I use the Chamonix the more I like it. In point of fact I prefer it to the vastly more expensive Lihof. But like a lot of things in life, this is subject to change without prior notice;-)
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kev curry
...
I personally think that GPS has made some valuable contibutions regarding the Chamonix issues but I cant help wondering if theres a hidden agenda powering the enthusiasm.
The more I use the Chamonix the more I like it.
Thanks Kevin. The hidden agenda, if any, behind my enthusiasm is my interest in view cameras construction. Regardless of their name...:)
-
Re: Chamonix 045N-2: A Newbie's Review
To put the question of levels to sleep... (?) Precise bubble levels have their full sens on precise cameras only, i.e. so called technical cameras (Linhof, Wista SP etc.) or metal monorails. These are so precisely built that once the camera is put to the level position, using their levels, all other corresponding parts are leveled - simply because of the precise manufacturing of the whole camera.
That is not the case with wooden field cameras though. There the bubble levels have at best just general informative purpose, if not just a gimmick value. To have more than this you would need precise manufacturing of all their parts - as already mentioned, there is no meaning to put a precise bubble level on a camera with loose manufacturing tolerances and hope that the level will save the construction. But that kind of precise manufacturing is the realm of technical cameras, for obvious reasons. As with everything, you cannot have a cake and eat it...