What, if any, are the drawbacks to owning a Kodak Master View 8x10?

Hi,

I am having a hard time making a decision about buying my first 8x10 camera. I am not a wealthy person. I got lucky and found a really good Calumet C-1 for free but it turned out to be way too heavy for the trip I would like to make. I think I am committed to buying a Kodak View Master because it looks the sturdiest to travel with despite its weight. Before I spend any money could people let me know what drawbacks there are to owning it. I want to own something I would be happy with for years to come so I would like to know its disadvantages. What, if any, lens size issues might I have with it? I have read the some cameras don't work with some wide angle lenses and sometimes cameras have issues with bellows extension and/or weight. Feel free to badmouth the camera that way I will know what I am getting into.

Also, what lens would people suggest I buy first?

-Andrew

I think you want a camera not a steroscopic viewer :p

You saw this review of the Master View?

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...asterview.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ic-racer

I think you want a camera not a steroscopic viewer :p

You saw this review of the Master View?

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...asterview.html

---

If that article is correct, then a Kodak Master View weighs about the same as the Calumet C-1 (at least the magnesium-framed green ones). These days, aside from those Intrepid cameras, there's precious little NEW being made that's light weight and budget-friendly. The compromise there is in overall fit-and-finish and robustness, as well as limited function (the mechanical limits of the camera may not be an issue if you are doing primarily landscape with only mild wide-angles/short telephotos). If weight AND budget are a concern, I'd look at something like a Kodak 2-D. You MIGHT get lucky and find an early Deardorff without front swings that clocks in under $2K, but that's iffy. Better IMHO to save up until you can afford a better camera like a Chamonix or a Canham, which will be much more enjoyable to use, and that's an important criteria when traveling with a view camera - if you're not enjoying the process because your tool is frustrating you, you won't make as many or as good images as you would with a tool that does NOT frustrate you.

No downsides for me. But others may dislike the fast focusing, the robust build, the clamshell design, and the 12 lb. weight. I use everything from 180mm to 420mm no problems. Moved from a Deardorff to the KMV and never looked back.

I have a few 8x10s, including a Master View which is my hiking 8x10. It weighs about 12 pounds, about the same as a Deardorff or 2D. Considering the weight of the rest of the equipment needed (tripod, filmholders, lenses, etc.), trying to lose another pound or two isn't much of a difference.

The Master View is a great camera. Its only disadvantage is that its lensboard is peculiar to that camera and may be hard to find. Aftermarket boards have been made though, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were plans for 3D printed ones available. (I converted mine to a standard 6-inch board which fits a myriad of other cameras too.)

The proper first lens for a Master view would be a 12-inch f/6.3 Commercial Ektar or a 12-inch f/4.5 Ektar. Later you could add a 14-inch Commercial Ektar, 190mm or 250mm Wide Field Ektars, an 18-inch to 21-inch Kodak Process lens, and maybe a 12-inch or 16-inch Kodak Portrait Lens (if you're so inclined).

My Calumet C-1 is 19 lbs. I decided to take a walk with it. If it is a short walk it is ok but going a long way with 19 lbs is really hard. The Intrepid Black is really light but all I can find is negative reviews of early 3rd generation intrepid. I thought maybe I should just buy it at $700 and enjoy a really light subpar camera for hiking and a great old heavy camera for short distances. A Stenopeika 8x10 is really light and the same price as the KMV but I have not seen any reviews on it.

Mark,

Thanks for the help with the lens. I will research them tonight.

-Andrew

Andy, as you now realize, the Kodak 8x10 is maybe a few pounds lighter than your Calumet. Most of the older, traditional 8x10 cameras are heavy things - that's pretty much unavoidable. If weight and price are the two most important considerations, then you really ought to consider the current iteration of the Intrepid. I owned the first gen 8x10 Intrepid and it worked well for me for a couple years, but I upgraded to the current version 18 months ago and am very happy with it. At 6.2 pounds, it's approximately half the weight of a Kodak Master View. It has all of the features you really need in a large view camera and there's no reason to think you wouldn't be happy to use it for years to come. Is it a "precious" tool that you can expect to hand down to future photographers for generations to come? Not really. Is it a sleek, precision tool that rivals a $5000 Chamonix? Obviously not. Will it work well and be enjoyable to use? Absolutely.

I find that for many photographers wanting to buy into the "big negatives" paradigm, one of the things they want out of it is a spectacular kit. There's no arguing that a very expensive, handsome, beautifully engineered camera is going to be a pleasure to use. But at the end of the day, what matters more is what you produced with the camera. Ultimately it's just a tool to enable you to make something. If it does its job, then it's a successful tool. If you have unlimited funds to purchase that tool, that's great. But myself, I don't have unlimited resources, so I have to choose carefully what tools I buy.

As it happens, my first 8x10 camera was a Deardorff, with a 12" Kodak Ektar f4.5 lens. (bought in 2015, when I could still afford such a thing) It's a very nice camera and it has
big history" seeping from its very bones. But it's a heavy beast and I've found it difficult to cart around. So which of my two 8x10s gets used more? The Intrepid - it's easier to pack up and carry, easy to set up, and it actually offers some features that the Deardorff does not (Mine's an early Deardorff and lacks front swing). I'm sure I'd enjoy using a Chamonix more than either of the two I have, but I don't have $5000 to spend on one. Film is very expensive these days (I buy FP4 more than anything else, and it's $200 for a box of 25 sheets now) and if I want to keep working, then I have to buy film to feed the camera.

Anyway, I'd consider an Intrepid if I were you. You're going to get a brand new device that doesn't have any problems that an 80 year old camera potentially does. It does the job well, and it will be easier to carry around, and I think you'll find that's a very important consideration.

I echo Mark's recommendation: a 12" Kodak Ektar (either the f6.3 Commercial Ektar or the f4.5 regular Ektar - both are superb lenses). These days, however, neither is likely to be inexpensive: expect to pay at least $500 for one in a working shutter. The Wide Field Ektars are also great for landscape work that requires a wider view, but these tend to be even more expensive: I bought a 190mm Wide Field (sample image) about 5 years ago, and it cost me $750.
To start out, a "normal" 12"/300mm focal length lens is a good choice. Learn how to use that well before acquiring special purpose lenses, like wide angles.

If you need to go less expensive still, I'm sure someone can recommend a Fuji or a Schneider lens that is more in the $250 range. If you don't think you need a shutter, you can likely find an 300mm Industar-37 for about $100, and those are satisfactory for a variety of applications. (I own one and use it occasionally, in situations where the exposure time is measured in multiple seconds. Sample photo here and here)

C1 is studio camera

I tried 3 and sold them all

BUT I really like the simple 2 screw GG with Bail

So I kept all 3 size for DIY cameras

Really like them on my very very heavy Copy Camera


Many ways to make pictures

Many here told me Bin them all

Hi Paul,

First, I would like to say your images are F###ING AMAZING! Second, I am so glad you wrote me back. I could not find anything but complaints about the intrepid. I tried to do some research on the Intrepid. I was looking at the new 8x10 black. I was thinking I have he calumet C-1 for traveling from home to home or to keep in the back of a my car and I could use the intrepid for longer trips. I wrote intrepid and asked them to point me to an independent review but I was just told that I would be "able to find reviews online". Not the best customer service. So you are the first person I know of to say that they like the Intrepid. Mat Marrash from Large Format Fridays was quite down on it. He had issues with it having a soft focus caused by the back of the camera being off. That is why I was looking at the Kodak Masterview.

So let me ask you, do you ever have any issues with the Intrepid? Does it shake in the breeze because it is too light or in any way cause your images to come out with problems? Do you feel like warping might become an issue? How do you travel with it? Are you ever afraid it will break in your backpack? What is the glass like? Do you need to use a fresnel screen? How are you locking it down on a tripod. I just ordered a INNOREL RT90C in prediction of needing something for a heavy camera. It is 6lb. Do you think I could get away with something lighter? Also, you seem happy with all of the bellows movements are you satisfied with the focusing system?

-Andrew

Hi Tin Can,

I would love to see your DIY cameras.

-Andrew

I parted with my 8x10 KMV because lens boards were near impossible to find. That's the only issue I had with it, also IIRC, the lens board didn't lend itself to being stowed in reverse so that the camera didn't lend itself to be carried with a larger lens in situ This was a long time ago and other KMV shooters would be better able to authoritatively comment. Other than that, it's a great design. If it comes with an assortment of lens boards drilled for the shutters I'm planning to use on her or if somebody is making new lens boards available, I'd jump on a good example if I were in the market.

I have a KMV and had SK Grimes make a KMV board-to-Canham/Toyo adapter. Works great, worth every penny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy F

Hi Paul,

First, I would like to say your images are F###ING AMAZING! Second, I am so glad you wrote me back. I could not find anything but complaints about the intrepid. I tried to do some research on the Intrepid. I was looking at the new 8x10 black. I was thinking I have he calumet C-1 for traveling from home to home or to keep in the back of a my car and I could use the intrepid for longer trips. I wrote intrepid and asked them to point me to an independent review but I was just told that I would be "able to find reviews online". Not the best customer service. So you are the first person I know of to say that they like the Intrepid. Mat Marrash from Large Format Fridays was quite down on it. He had issues with it having a soft focus caused by the back of the camera being off. That is why I was looking at the Kodak Masterview.

So let me ask you, do you ever have any issues with the Intrepid? Does it shake in the breeze because it is too light or in any way cause your images to come out with problems? Do you feel like warping might become an issue? How do you travel with it? Are you ever afraid it will break in your backpack? What is the glass like? Do you need to use a fresnel screen? How are you locking it down on a tripod. I just ordered a INNOREL RT90C in prediction of needing something for a heavy camera. It is 6lb. Do you think I could get away with something lighter? Also, you seem happy with all of the bellows movements are you satisfied with the focusing system?

-Andrew

---

Apologies for chiming in on this unannounced, but I bought (and then sent back) the latest Intrepid 10x8 last autumn, so this info may be useful to you.

Firstly the good stuff; the weight is good if not unbeatable, the rigidity of the rear and the focus track seemed good. I never shot any film with it but getting film holders in and out seemed OK. Bellows seemed fine.

The 'OK' stuff - the general fit and finish was OK, about what you'd expect for the money, and the smoothness of the focus was OK - not as good or as nice as a Chamonix of similar design, but OK. The 3D printed plastic of the knobs was also ok if not that confidence inspiring. Ground glass seemed OK. Customer service was fine (I'm in the UK so that helped in terms of ordering and return). There were marks on the metalwork that you'd not expect of a brand new camera though.

Now for the bad stuff: the fresnel was terrible/unusable, wrong focal length entirely, and having read a thread on here after getting rid of the camera it turns out they had a faulty batch. The front standard horizontal bubble level was miles off compared to the rear standard level. Also the model has had zero detents on the front tilt added as a new feature. However they were unusable. For a start the middle of the zero position on the front tilt was out of square with the rest of the camera. Also the "zero' had too much slop in it generally, so depending which direction you were approaching it from it was clicking in at a different point. So not only was it not zero, but it also had a lot of slack in it too. So arguably worse than just having no detent.

The front standard in general was a bit of a disaster really. Now I'm a rock climber of 25+ years so I have pretty strong fingers and hands, but I couldn't do up the front tilt knobs tight enough to actually lock it down. It felt like the knobs would snap before it locked down. The front swing single knob was the same deal, it couldn't be tightened down enough to actually lock the swing down properly. Also, the entire front standard actually flexed and bent when pushed, even without a lens on, the like of which I've never seen before.

Also at the time the website claimed the camera folded down to only 75mm deep, which made it sound very compact - however it didn't, and was closer to 100mm depth when folded.

So yeah, I sent it back. I know 10x8 isn't a cheap do, and there's a real dearth of cheaper options to get into it on the camera side of things. But still, personally I'd only inflict that intrepid upon myself if I was concerned with weight, and weight only, or use it only occasionally. I've used enough 5x4 cameras to know the sorts of thing that would piss me off about a camera, and the stuff you can forget about once you've gotten used to it, and the intrepid had to much of the former and not enough of the latter. Interestingly when I raised these issues with the manufacturer I was just offered a straight refund, there was no suggestion that I'd somehow got a bad camera, so I expect they are basically all like this and they are just banking on a lot of users being first timers to large format and now knowing that a front standard isn't supposed to flail around like a car radio aerial. Maybe I was expecting too much, I don't know, but overall it was just really disappointing and felt like the marketing output and the branding and website was perhaps over promising and underdelivering. Each to their own, and good on 'em for bringing the entry bar down if you're not that picky.

The other thing with these Intrepids is updated models come out with regularity to put most digital cameras to shame (almost like you're paying to beta test their products! Perish the thought...). So they don't hold a ton of value, and as time passes and newer models come out the value drops and drops. Which is fine assuming you are 100% happy with the camera and never need to sell it, and you factor this in to your cheapness equation. Meanwhile, stuff like used Deardorffs, Wistas, Tachiharas and Chamonix 8x10s seem to be going up in value.... You pays your money you takes your choice.

I sure wouldn't buy a Kodak Master View for sake of a field camera. I'd save up my shekels for an 8x10 Chamonix or Canham wooden folder. I personally use an 8x10 Phillips, the patriarch of stable lightweight folders. I've sure taken it some steep places.

re: lens boards for the KMV - S.K. Grimes made me a Technika adapter board based on an original KMV board that lives on the camera and all my lenses are mounted on readily available Technika boards. Did the same with the Korona 7x17 so some of my lenses are used on both cameras.

I consider the Metal Kodak Master View 8X10 a very exotic camera

The GG is beyond Rare and irreplaceable by anyone

If dropped it will be very difficult to fix the thin metal

I loved it for many reasons, but only in studio with a good tripod

I traded it on this forum 'Even Steven'

I made a lens board adapter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

I sure wouldn't buy a Kodak Master View for sake of a field camera. I'd save up my shekels for an 8x10 Chamonix or Canham wooden folder. I personally use an 8x10 Phillips, the patriarch of stable lightweight folders. I've sure taken it some steep places.

---

There is also the Ritter 8x10 - a very light camera...around 6lbs if I recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy F

Hi Paul,

First, I would like to say your images are F###ING AMAZING! Second, I am so glad you wrote me back. I could not find anything but complaints about the intrepid. I tried to do some research on the Intrepid. I was looking at the new 8x10 black. I was thinking I have he calumet C-1 for traveling from home to home or to keep in the back of a my car and I could use the intrepid for longer trips. I wrote intrepid and asked them to point me to an independent review but I was just told that I would be "able to find reviews online". Not the best customer service. So you are the first person I know of to say that they like the Intrepid. Mat Marrash from Large Format Fridays was quite down on it. He had issues with it having a soft focus caused by the back of the camera being off. That is why I was looking at the Kodak Masterview.

So let me ask you, do you ever have any issues with the Intrepid? Does it shake in the breeze because it is too light or in any way cause your images to come out with problems? Do you feel like warping might become an issue? How do you travel with it? Are you ever afraid it will break in your backpack? What is the glass like? Do you need to use a fresnel screen? How are you locking it down on a tripod. I just ordered a INNOREL RT90C in prediction of needing something for a heavy camera. It is 6lb. Do you think I could get away with something lighter? Also, you seem happy with all of the bellows movements are you satisfied with the focusing system?

-Andrew

---

Hi Andy.
You have to keep in mind that the people who are most motivated to post reviews on the web about things they've bought are the ones that are unhappy about their purchase. Most of the ones who actually like what they've got don't bother posting reviews (unless that's their job). So if it seems that the majority of comments about the Intrepid are displeased with the camera, it's - in part - because the unhappy customers are going to be the loudest as well.

That's not to say that Intrepid produces a spectacular camera 100% of the time, and flawed examples never reach customers, because that's not true. My first Intrepid 8x10 (the very first version) had a serious problem with the focusing gear system, and Intrepid had to send me a new base bed to replace it. Dave's remarks yesterday clearly illustrate the manufacturing faults that sometimes manifest in the cameras Intrepid ships, as well as the design/build quality issues. The bottom line (for me) is that it's a worthwhile camera to own and use as long as you're not comparing it to a camera that literally costs ten times as much. (how is that a useful comparison??) No, it's not a Chamonix or a Tachihara or a Deardorff. I don't expect it to be. Anyway, let me answer some of your questions.

Does it shake in the breeze? No. Never had that issue. However, I don't take my cameras out in unreasonably windy conditions because those conditions are likely to induce camera shake no matter what camera/tripod you are using. I like to work in still conditions because I am often working in "reciprocity territory".

I've owned four Intrepid cameras over the years (I sold my original 8x10, but still have the first gen 4x5 and the first gen 5x7) and none of them has had warping issues. The film holders fit properly and everything works as it should. I've not had any issues with focus being incorrect because of manufacturing faults.

I carry my 8x0 Intrepid in a canvas backpack, with 3 or 4 film holders, a shutter/lens wrapped in my darkcloth, plus meter and loupe. It all fits in a standard backpack. I use a plexiglas insert to protect the ground glass when doing this. I have yet to break anything when carrying the Intrepid in this manner.

About the ground glass: It's fine. It does the job well. It's not especially thick or strong glass (I broke one once by unintentionally pressing on one corner of it when folding up the camera: entirely my fault) but it does what it's supposed to and is easy to see focus on. I did have my newest 8x10 fitted with the Fresnel lens, and I have to agree with Dave: it's pretty bad. I had a conversation with Intrepid to determine whether mine was one of the defective ones (It has a serious bias to the inner 50%) but they assured me it was not. So, I wouldn't have bothered to have the Fresnel installed if I'd realized how bad it was. Waste of $$, that - it doesn't really help.

How do I "lock it down" on the tripod? I use an old school Manfrotto with a single screw post to attach the camera. I tighten it down finger tight and then get on with business. It's a medium weight tripod of no special design - just a standard threaded post and a 2X3 inch platform to rest the camera base on. I'm not familiar with the tripod you've chosen, but it appears to review well. Note that it weighs 6.5 pounds, and some reviewers have referred to it as "Neither a hiking nor a travel tripod", because of its weight. I guess it depends what you think an appropriate tripod weight is, for carrying around - I'm sure my Manfrotto weighs at least 6 pounds, so...

I have no complaints with the bellows, movements, or focusing system. The auger style focusing mechanism can be tedious if you're used to something else (The rack and pinion on my Deardorff seems easier to use, but not all would agree) I won't say that people haven't received cameras with manufacturing defects or mechanical faults, but I wouldn't let that deter me from getting one. Mine is serving me well and in spite of its obvious "budget friendly" design and materials, it's a fine camera. I know you said "I want to own something I would be happy with for years to come" but it might be in your best interest to adjust that thinking a bit, and see the Intrepid as an "entry level" first camera - to learn on and use freely without worrying about potentially damaging it through use (I take the Intrepid to places I wouldn't dare take the Deardorff). You stated at the outset that cost, and weight were important considerations. Many people get into 8x10 photography, buy a heavy camera, and quickly discover that carrying forty-plus pounds of equipment is ruining the experience for them, so they regret their choices.

I disagree with Dave about the resale value of the Intrepid. I sold mine for half of what I paid for it, and mine was well used (worn) but worked properly. Getting half of that investment back was perfectly reasonable to me. No, an Intrepid isn't going to hold its value, but I wouldn't expect that. It was inexpensive to start with!

Anyway, it's worth keeping in mind that some photographers buy the Intrepid and expect it to compare favorably to cameras that cost ten times as much, and that's not the way to look at it, IMO. If you have owned a Chamonix or a Wista or (fill in the blank) and you want the Intrepid to match one of those, you're going to be disappointed.

My 8x10 Kodak D2 kit, assembled many decades ago, is self-contained in an original 8.25x19.5x27 inch case. This includes the camera, 3 lenses, 6 film holders, and a Kodak Crown #3 tripod. It weighs 42 pounds. Of course the tripod is broken down into 4 pieces for storage, and must be unfolded and assembled for use. Little Edward Weston managed well with a heavier kit. My 100-year-old Kodak RB Cycle Graphic 5x7 camera came in a 5.75x10.5x16 inch case and weighs 19 pounds without its four pound Kodak Crown #2 tripod. The name RB means reversible back, and compact enough to be carried on bicycles. In comparison, the digital kit this 91-year-old man now exclusively uses weighs 6.5 pounds without it's equally heavy Tiltall tripod.

Hi Everyone,

I would like to thank everyone on the site for their help. In particular I would like to thank both Dave and Paul for their help and insights. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I am not going to lie, it took me a little bit to process everyones opinion. I really had to mull everything over.

One thing that stood out for me was whatPaul said concerning a camera being a "tool" that exists ultimately to enable you to make something and how it needs to be the right tool for the job I think is really important. Over the years I have mostly gotten by with banged up equipment because I have never been the type of person who saw his equipment as a fashion statement. Ideally I would love to buy a $4,000 Chamonix camera but that is a hard investment to make for a piece of equipment I have only read about and never actually seen let alone used. Also, I can easily see myself getting robbed and being out a few months worth of wages in a moment.

Additionally, the resale value of the intrepid should not be a huge concern. Daves points are correct but if I have to sell it for $400 or $350 then it means I have to eat some of the cost but that is not too bad if I get a good year of shooting with it.

Still, Dave does make one great point that is hard to get around. If the equipment is subpar then you risk putting yourself into a position where you are tossing good money after bad or worse your experience with photography sours because your images fail to come out.

So I guess the real issue for me is will the camera work and will I enjoy using it. That is why I was thinking about getting a Kodak Master View . I intend to travel with this camera and carry it with me throughout Ecuador's countryside. I figured it checked most of the boxes. It looked like it hit a nice compromise of being both light enough, sturdy and not too expensive. I don’t know why this decision is so hard to make.

One direction I should investigate would be looking at the Stenocpia. I have read a little bit about it and it looks like an interesting camera and does not weigh too much. Also it costs about the same price as the KMV. The question is how sturdy it is. I probably should research that next. I could not find any reviews on the 8x10 on youtube. Does anyone have any insight on it?

Also, if I do decide to get the Kodak Master View, how do people protect the screen? Additionally the suggestion of the 12 inch Ektar is helpful but how does someone know if they are buying a lens that functions correctly? I mean it is a really old shutter. How does someone know it will keep working after you buy it?

Sorry for all the questions and once again I would like to thank everyone for the help.

-Andrew

Wood cameras are repairable anywhere

Lean NOW how to make a GG any where

Pack a 35mm film can with Grit for field repair


I am very glad I did NOT retire to Ecuador as planned

Keep in mind that whatever used camera you buy, if you get it at a fair price, you can resell it at a fair price if it doesn't work out. New cameras will lose some value when they become used, which is immediately.

If you do get a KMV, I'd get an extra ground glass, install that, and put the original away for safe keeping. As mentioned, it's a rarity you likely can never replace, and I always found the pattern on the original a bit distracting anyways.

Not many of us see cameras as "fashion statements", but we often develop a bit of an emotional attachment to them. Older cameras have their own history, and if properly cared for, will keep having a history long after we're gone. And while they may not be fashion statements, some are really quite beautiful.

If you're really utilitarian, you might also keep your eye out for a Wehman 8x10. Just mentioning it because no one else had (I think).

Good appraisal Mark!
Something of value & appreciation in using vintage gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer

Keep in mind that whatever used camera you buy, if you get it at a fair price, you can resell it at a fair price if it doesn't work out. New cameras will lose some value when they become used, which is immediately.

If you do get a KMV, I'd get an extra ground glass, install that, and put the original away for safe keeping. As mentioned, it's a rarity you likely can never replace, and I always found the pattern on the original a bit distracting anyways.

Not many of us see cameras as "fashion statements", but we often develop a bit of an emotional attachment to them. Older cameras have their own history, and if properly cared for, will keep having a history long after we're gone. And while they may not be fashion statements, some are really quite beautiful.

If you're really utilitarian, you might also keep your eye out for a Wehman 8x10. Just mentioning it because no one else had (I think).

---

I had a friend that picked up an 8x10 Kodak Master View in very worn condition. Took him probably two more years to find and acquire replacement parts, but in the end for under probably $200.00 had a very good sample of the camera. Still was serving him quite well the last time I talked with him.

Hi Mark,

I can not find the Wehman 8x10 at all on the web. It looks really interesting though. I will keep an eye out for it.

I did get lucky and recently found two old film holders in an acquaintance basement. One was an 8x10 fidelity but it is missing the two dark slides and it was dusty as all hell. The other was wooden. It was wrapped in plastic and it was really clean. The wooden one was called a sterling cut film holder and it was made by Kodak. They both need to be fixed however. They Sterling needs some sort of dark tape at the hinge because the tape that is there is all dried out.

Are all dark slides the same? Are fidelity elite, fidelity deluxe and graphflex the same size? If I buy them off the web will they fit?

--Andrew

I think mark is definitely correct about swapping out the ground glass.

in the 1980s, I occasionally used a KMV 8x10 on the job, and later had one of my own. They are fine cameras, and I wish that I'd been able to keep mine. My only issue (and it's a minor one) was that the tripod mount is too near the back for perfect balance. But If I was going to look for an 8x10 today, a KMV would be at the top of the list.

For protecting the ground glass, I cushion it with a folded focusing cloth. You could also make a ground glass protector out of plexiglass cut to size and folded over in a "U" ---a supplier like Precision Plastics can probably do that for you---and inserted like a film holder (does this make any sense?)

For a 12" Ektar you're probably going to looking at a 12" Commercial Ektar in a #4 Acme Synchro or possibly a 14" Commercial Ektar in a #5 Universal Synchro.
Commercial Ektars were single coated, while the earlier, regular Ektars likely were uncoated. Look for an "L" in a circle on the bezel for a clue. Since you're investing a lot of $$ in your trip to Ecuador, I'd recommend scheduling a C-L-A clean lube & adjust for any lens before wheels up.
One issue with these Ektars is with attaching a filter. Press on threaded adapters have become hard to find in larger sizes, so for quite a while I used Lee Polyesters with my Commercial Ektar, that were held on with a Lee gizmo and rubber bands from grocery store asparagus.
Hey, it worked for me!

I have a Canham Ground Glass Protector that helps keep the gg protected. https://viewcamerastore.com/products...nt=24817750471. Having a spare gg is also a good idea.

When I got my KMV it needed new bellows (Custom Bellows; UK) so, while waiting for that, I took the camera completely apart and cleaned everything. The great part about putting it back together was that all the screws, nuts, bolts, etc. are readily available at any local hardware store so I was able to easily replace anything that looked suspect. (The parts list can be found online at Butkus.org)

Regarding lenses and, more importantly, shutters, perhaps a modern lens in a Copal shutter that's been recently serviced would be a more reliable option. Any used shutter should be serviced before such an extensive trip. I'm partial to Fuji lenses and I think their 300mm C is, essentially, a modern version of the older Kodak Tessars. The 305mm G-Claron is a great normal lens as well and Kerry Thalmann lists the 300mm Nikon M as one of his Future Classics. The modern lenses are all threaded for standard filters (52mm in the above examples) whereas the older Kodak lenses are Series based threads.

Finally, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee used these cameras and they traveled extensively throughout the US and Europe. The KMV is durable and functional and I think you will be happy with your decision. Keep us posted!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy F

Hi Mark,

I can not find the Wehman 8x10 at all on the web. It looks really interesting though. I will keep an eye out for it.

I did get lucky and recently found two old film holders in an acquaintance basement. One was an 8x10 fidelity but it is missing the two dark slides and it was dusty as all hell. The other was wooden. It was wrapped in plastic and it was really clean. The wooden one was called a sterling cut film holder and it was made by Kodak. They both need to be fixed however. They Sterling needs some sort of dark tape at the hinge because the tape that is there is all dried out.

Are all dark slides the same? Are fidelity elite, fidelity deluxe and graphflex the same size? If I buy them off the web will they fit?

--Andrew

---

8x10 dark slides aren't all the same---some are aluminum, but they should all be interchangeable.
At least the ones I've come across are interchangeable.
The ideal tape to use for a replacement on your Sterling film holder is bookbinders tape.
I have used gaffer's tape---'cause that's what I had. Gaffer's tape is useable but it's a bit too stiff when it comes to loading film, but it will work. Bookbinder's tape is preferred though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thom Bennett

I'm partial to Fuji lenses and I think their 300mm C is, essentially, a modern version of the older Kodak Tessars. The 305mm G-Claron is a great normal lens as well and Kerry Thalmann lists the 300mm Nikon M as one of his Future Classics.

---

It should be noted that all these lenses are f/9 maximum aperture, (well, f/8.5 for the Fuji).

I would love a Kodak Master View - I think they are so very well designed - I love the notion of the clamshell body.

However, what I do have is a Mark I Intrepid 8x10". I would concur with everything people have said about design and build quality (my most used camera is a Wista 4x5, so that's what I'm very used to). The front standard is frustratingly flimsy and the knobs just fly off when you look at them wrong. But I didn't buy it for that - I bought it because I was fascinated by the idea of a light 8x10" I could actually go hiking with (I'm not a big fellow), and reasoned I could put up with or modify anything I hated about the camera (which I have mostly done) without crying too much because it's only plywood and aluminium. To that end, I have made and continue to make self-satisfying pictures with it and from time to time entertain the idea of upgrading to a newer one (one day).

If I did have a Kodak Master View, I'm not convinced I'd take it as many places as I do the Intrepid. With two lenses and three film holders + tiny Reveni Spot Meter it is sooooo portable.

Marc!

Agree

I sold a few $$$ rare camera

No regrets


I like my very affordable and latest 8x10 Intrepid some barter

I do the same. I tried finding those adapter bought one online and did not fit! Prob will eventually go the SK Grimes route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kasaian

One issue with these Ektars is with attaching a filter. Press on threaded adapters have become hard to find in larger sizes, so for quite a while I used Lee Polyesters with my Commercial Ektar, that were held on with a Lee gizmo and rubber bands from grocery store asparagus.
Hey, it worked for me!

---

I also own and use a KMV. When I was learning photography in the 60s, it was the workhorse camera for the professional who employed me (in the darkroom). When time and inclination allowed, he taught me how to use it. About ten years ago, I finally located one in good shape at a decent price and snapped it up - and no buyer's regrets, ever.
As others note, the sole problem is the lens board availability. When you can find one, it will be $70-100. I only have three and am considering getting the S K Grimes conversion, which would pay for itself rather quickly vs buying more boards.
I have had two Intrepid 4x5s, an earlier and a later. Sorry but they're junque. You get what you pay for in a camera.
Even when I was in shape to make three fourteeners in a Colorado summer day, I could not have backpacked, even in the flatlands, with an 8x10 camera. A 5x7, however, was often carried, a Korona. With an 8x10, the problem is not just the camera's weight but the weight of each film holder and the beefier tripod to hold it (as compared to 5x7). If you intend to pack a camera, I'd take the 8x10 out of consideration.
As to lenses, weight matters - again, not just the lens but the weight and volume of the accessories needed (hood, filters). When I cross-country skied with the Korona 5x7, a Nikkor 300M was mounted on it (yes, when camera folded up, it fit). The lens weighed next to nothing, was incredibly sharp and important for snow scenes, no flare, and 52mm filters (cheap). They are not inexpensive lenses but consider that you will be burning $4/sheet for 5x7, or $7.50/sheet for 8x10, its film and chemicals and sleeves that mount up in the long run...
To a great extent, your decision tree will be determined by whether you're in this for the long run or just the short run. YMMV
Russ
who now backpacks a Horseman VH-R in his dottage