Camera confusion: Beginner Puzzles over Chamonix et al

So like a recent thread, I've been shooting and developing for sometime... 35mm but mostly MF of late. Lured into 4X5 LF, I picked up an Arca Swiss Model B and a couple of lenses a while back. Haven't had the chance to use the kit because we've moved and I'm still getting all set up in the space for developing, storage, printing, etc. and everything else again. (Whoever said moving was easy?) Want to say that I'm encouraged to see that many recommend a monorail for beginners... as that plays to my song sheet here. While I'm in no rush to go elsewhere... I am kind of wondering whether I might have jumped too soon, and (like so many on entering LF), picked up the wrong first LF camera. But as they say, "You have to start LF to know what's right and wrong for you" and that's in truth, still to come.

So please don't misunderstand why I ask the following in terms of looking at lighter weight field type cameras. No more buckaroos exiting Ft. Knox local deposit box here for quite a while. LF is confusing from the outside, but I've got a few of the standard books and I'm game to learn.

But I look at the lighter weight options and wonder whether - down the road if LF works for me, whether I might find myself looking for a field camera or not. I'm a guy who likes to walk with a camera. Some interesting reviews here. But not listed on the start page is Chamonix, Intrepid and Chroma... which are more contemporary options. Of these three, the Chamonix is the pricey end, but has a rep for high quality. Then again, they've also got a confusing number of models from F2 to H1, HS1, N1 and N2. Wow. I'm confused enough about LF, let alone wading through that mine field without a guide. By contrast, Intrepid and Chroma have only choices by size.

Does anyone else think Chamonix's site seems to assume you already know what or why you like one versus another? or is that just me?

I'm thinking a total beginner starting on their own won't buy a mid priced camera like Chamonix as their first camera. I started with a Cambo monorail, then Shen Hao, and am now happy with the Chamonix 045n.


Kent in SD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two23

I'm thinking a total beginner starting on their own won't buy a mid priced camera like Chamonix as their first camera. I started with a Cambo monorail, then Shen Hao, and am now happy with the Chamonix 045n.


Kent in SD

---

Back in 1973 when I started in 4x5 photography I got a 1955 Linhof Technika III with one lens the 135 Symmar. I spoiled myself and got a mirror attachent for the back so I wouldn't struggle with a dark cloth. I found a sturdy tripod and a bunch of way outdated Polaroid 4x5 film to practice with. Then I concentrated on B/W before using color both negative and positive. I put the camera and other bits in a compact steel 8x10 filing box and would carry it on the plane with my tripod. This was my 4x5 outfit until 1984.

As others have suggested, why don’t you spend some time with the camera you have, and learn what it can do, before worrying about your next camera? At the start it’s good to be close to home, or your car, to work out your shooting procedures. Do some still life or portraits and develop some negatives, or drive somewhere and shoot a landscape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Schaller

As others have suggested, why don’t you spend some time with the camera you have, and learn what it can do, before worrying about your next camera?

---

This makes the most sense as most photographers go through several cameras before they settle on the one to keep. I went through several Zone VI/Wistas before settling on Deardorff and Sinar. L

Yet another vote for getting some experience with the camera you already have. Arca-Swiss are especially well-made cameras, which makes them a pleasure to work with. My first view camera was a 4x5 Sinar F monorail, which I carried around in a day pack for a lot of hiking. Monorails aren't the best cameras for "packability" but they make up for that in flexibility, i.e. they can do anything. You may well find, after you have used it for a while, that you really want to keep it and add a field camera to your options, but you can only learn that after you have lived with the Arca for a while.

Among the view cameras I've owned and used most were Burke & James flatbed and monorail, Graphic View, and Ikeda Anba. The Ikeda was by far the prettiest and lightest, but shaved only about 3 lbs. from the complete kit that weighed 15 to 25 lbs. It also cost three times as much as the next most expensive camera. I used the B&J flatbed for more photos than perhaps all of the others because it was the only one for years. With very few exceptions any photo taken with any of them could have been taken almost as easily with any of the others. Cameras may come and go, but fine tripods might last a lifetime. It's the lens that forms the image. Remember, fine photographs were taken with cameras and lenses that seem primitive to us today. Of course lenses made in the past few decades are better, but my most often used LF lens is still a Kodak lens from the 1940s. The differences between photos taken with it and the best lenses made today are much less than the differences between my photos and those of a master.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis-F-S

This makes the most sense as most photographers go through several cameras before they settle on the one to keep L

---

Thanks for reading and responding, but I must have garbled my question. I am firmly NOT after another camera, and actually thought I made that definitively clear.

What I thought I was asking was a simple question regarding the multiplicity of models from one builder and puzzling as to why that would be when I can't even figure the differences. FWIW, I am an advocate of one camera, one lens, one developer, one film, etc. and have pretty much stuck to that as I go about. And yes. I'm one of those weirdos who takes a TLR to France for 10 days and shoots nothing else.... and all on one film... roughly 30+ plus rolls, and loves it 'cause I've always believed in zooming with my feet. No regrets. So if I may say so in my own defense here... I respect the case you've endeavored to make... but you are preaching to a one-man choir even if I don't sing so well. Which means I'm probably STILL not making sense, huh?

Okay. So let me try this again: I'm just puzzled why when my Arca Swiss has two bellows - one balloon and one norm - why Chamonix would seem to build different models to do what? The same thing? Is this a field camera kind of thing?

And this doesn't have to be taken as an inquiry translating into wanting to buy another camera? I don't, it doesn't and it shouldn't. Yes, I can see the virtue of lightweight, and I like lightweight generally, but if all you do is repeat the TLR's limitation in a LF field camera sort of way, where a TLR is stuck with normal and you have to get entirely different TLR's to have a Telephoto and/or Wideangle TLR (think Rolleiflex here).... in order to approach certain situations... I'm just confused as to what the benefit is other than it lets a builder look like there's a lot of consumer choice. Why doesn't a builder just offer customization to whaterver you want? ANd no, I don't have three different TLR models... though I know folks who do. FWIW, I have only one and it's a 3.5F to save a few bucks and have a slightly smaller and lighter camera... and the slower F stop has almost never been a factor whether shooting at night or in a dark cathedral (Notre Dame du Paris before the fire). Maybe this rhettorical and I just answered my own question?

Okay... I'm behind a rock now and ready for incoming. Thanks!

A bag bellows allows extensive movements, i.e. rise, shift, tilt..., with wide angle lenses. A regular bellows works great for lenses in the middle of the range from slightly wide to longish.

Peter: Thanks. Yes... that's what i read and have dry run played with prior to our move and putting all this stuff in storage for several months. What I'm wondering is whether in field cameras they don't allow bellows changes... and therefore folks have to choose a different camera for this... or whether there's another reason?

Field cameras usually don't allow bag bellows. My Toyo 45AX doesn't. It works fine with a 90mm, which is similar to a 28mm lens in 35mm. You can gain some movement with a compressed bellows by using a recessed lens board, but this can make changing settings on a lens challenging. I don't use anything wider with that camera. So it really comes down to the lens you want to use, and the type of photography that you want to do. Super wide angle architectural photography, for example, is best done with a wide angle friendly camera.

There are some cameras, for example an Ebony RW, that offered a hybrid bellows, a standard bellows with a bag like section on the front. That allow more movements with wide angles than a standard bellows, but it still had long enough extension for most uses.

For regular landscape photography, extensive movements aren't usually required.

The product descriptions for the various 4x5 models on the Chamonix View Camera website that is run by the US distributor, Hugo Zhang (www.chamonixviewcamera.com) identify the features that differentiate them. (Yes, I've read them all.) Best to start by reading those carefully, and follow up here with more specific questions if there's anything that remains unclear about what particular features mean or why they are important.

I'd suggest buying and reading a book like Steve Simmons's "Using the View Camera." This will go over some of the differences between camera types, the various movements and their effects, and the situations in which one would want to use particular movements, bellows, cameras, etc. While it won't cover newer camera models like the Chamonix, the information is all generically applicable. Most of this information is available on the web if you already know it and know where to look. But a beginner (or even an experienced person) is well served by the organization of a book.

Thanks! I think I've got it. Yes, I have several books... and Simmons's book is one of them. I think one of the books (I'm at work and can't check) even has a series of exercises to complete as a sort of introduction to movements. Most of what I have in mind is fairly simple. But the opportunity to do something complex is intriguing, too. Loved the description from Alys Tomlinson (on the Large Format Photography podcast) of "three men staring at an apple in a bowl for three hours" as her intro to LFP.

Or why most field cameras have limited camera movements. Reality is, typical landscape image making does not need significant camera movements.
In the case of bag bellows, typical landscape image is not usually made with extreme wide angle lenses which is one of the reasons why bag bellows for a field camera is not common. Other problems with extreme wide angle lenses on field cameras, the flat bed can enter the image in unexpected ways and pushing the front standard with extreme wide angle lens produces a focusing problem.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

Field cameras usually don't allow bag bellows.
For regular landscape photography, extensive movements aren't usually required.

---

My Shen Hao and Chamonix both have bag bellows available.


Kent in SD

Simple answer: In order to keep field cameras light and costs down, they can't have all the features at once (those that do, and there are a few, are bulky and heavy). So manufacturers trim down "unnecessary" features to keep the cameras small and light. Normally, bellows length suffers (many field cameras only extend to 300mm or so), making the use of longer lenses impractical. Similarly, bellows are usually fixed and standard pleated types, making the use of movements with shorter lenses difficult. Many models don't have shift, some don't have swings or tilts on the front standard. Most field camera adjustments are not as precise as top-of-the-line monorail cameras either.

A first decision to be made is whether the field camera will be wood or metal. Wood is lighter, weaker and usually the adjustments are not as precise. Metal is strong, easily machined to be precise, but heavy and more expensive. Both types have their advantages and market niche, so both are out there.

So now, along comes someone who says, "lets make a more full-featured or specialized field camera for xxx photographers." Do we want to appeal to users of short lenses that need a lot of movement, say architectural photographers? Well then, we need to incorporate a bag bellows and have lots of movements available, but we don't really need a long bellows or even a camera that folds closed. Result: a specialized "wide-angle" field camera with a short bag bellows, shift on at least one standard and swings and tilt on both standards (maybe even one with asymmetrical swings and front axis tilts to help the photographer work faster). But, to keep things affordable and light, we'll sacrifice the longer bellows (making the use of even moderately long lenses impossible) and maybe another feature or two.

Or, lets go the other way: We need a field camera that has lots of bellows extension and is solid as a rock and strong enough to use heavy long lenses. This may result in a camera that doesn't play well with shorter lenses and doesn't have a lot of movements available, but will accommodate 450mm lenses ore even longer.

Say we want a field camera that can do it all. Well, it will be bigger, stronger, heavier, have interchangeable bellows, lots of movements, and be basically a monorail-type camera with a bed instead of a rail. It will be more expensive and heavier.

Do we want extreme lightweight? then cut most of the movements, limit bellows length, use lightweight (usually weaker) materials, and design the thing so it will do well with lenses in the middle range (135mm-240mm).

Do we want a sturdy rangefinder camera for handheld photography? Look no further than the Graflex and other press cameras. They're metal, bullet-proof, but have limited movements.

Do we want more precision? Then machine a metal masterpiece like the Linhof Techikas. Downside: more expensive and heavy.

There are endless variations on the above depending on what a manufacturer thinks they can profitably offer for whatever segment of the market.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder

Simple answer: In order to keep field cameras light and costs down, they can't have all the features at once (those that do, and there are a few, are bulky and heavy). So manufacturers trim down "unnecessary" features to keep the cameras small and light. Normally, bellows length suffers (many field cameras only extend to 300mm or so), making the use of longer lenses impractical. Similarly, bellows are usually fixed and standard pleated types, making the use of movements with shorter lenses difficult. Many models don't have shift, some don't have swings or tilts on the front standard. Most field camera adjustments are not as precise as top-of-the-line monorail cameras either.

A first decision to be made is whether the field camera will be wood or metal. Wood is lighter, weaker and usually the adjustments are not as precise. Metal is strong, easily machined to be precise, but heavy and more expensive. Both types have their advantages and market niche, so both are out there.

So now, along comes someone who says, "lets make a more full-featured or specialized field camera for xxx photographers." Do we want to appeal to users of short lenses that need a lot of movement, say architectural photographers? Well then, we need to incorporate a bag bellows and have lots of movements available, but we don't really need a long bellows or even a camera that folds closed. Result: a specialized "wide-angle" field camera with a short bag bellows, shift on at least one standard and swings and tilt on both standards (maybe even one with asymmetrical swings and front axis tilts to help the photographer work faster). But, to keep things affordable and light, we'll sacrifice the longer bellows (making the use of even moderately long lenses impossible) and maybe another feature or two.

Or, lets go the other way: We need a field camera that has lots of bellows extension and is solid as a rock and strong enough to use heavy long lenses. This may result in a camera that doesn't play well with shorter lenses and doesn't have a lot of movements available, but will accommodate 450mm lenses ore even longer.

Say we want a field camera that can do it all. Well, it will be bigger, stronger, heavier, have interchangeable bellows, lots of movements, and be basically a monorail-type camera with a bed instead of a rail. It will be more expensive and heavier.

Do we want extreme lightweight? then cut most of the movements, limit bellows length, use lightweight (usually weaker) materials, and design the thing so it will do well with lenses in the middle range (135mm-240mm).

Do we want a sturdy rangefinder camera for handheld photography? Look no further than the Graflex and other press cameras. They're metal, bullet-proof, but have limited movements.

Do we want more precision? Then machine a metal masterpiece like the Linhof Techikas. Downside: more expensive and heavy.

There are endless variations on the above depending on what a manufacturer thinks they can profitably offer for whatever segment of the market.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

---

Then there was in the early 80s the Linhof 45 Standard monorail with a fixed bellows that allowed full movements with any lens from 47mm to whatever would focus to infinity with an 18” rail. Had full tilts and swings and rise and fall front and back. Weighed about 5 pounds, used Technika 45 boards, rotating International back and was the lowest priced Linhof back then.

Only problem? Didn’t sell as users preferred interchangeable bellows, and the larger Kardan board and the ability to use longer rails.

Could a 8x10 Shen Hao or Chamonix be used with a 38mm Super Angulon XL with a bag bellows?

This is easy with a Sinar monorail.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two23

My Shen Hao and Chamonix both have bag bellows available.


Kent in SD

---

Or why one should consider the kind of images and prints to be made, then lens choices with the camera as the last item to consider.

There is no idea one camera type that fits all LF image needs, they are ALL a different set of trade offs.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder

Simple answer: In order to keep field cameras light and costs down, they can't have all the features at once (those that do, and there are a few, are bulky and heavy). So manufacturers trim down "unnecessary" features to keep the cameras small and light. Normally, bellows length suffers (many field cameras only extend to 300mm or so), making the use of longer lenses impractical. Similarly, bellows are usually fixed and standard pleated types, making the use of movements with shorter lenses difficult. Many models don't have shift, some don't have swings or tilts on the front standard. Most field camera adjustments are not as precise as top-of-the-line monorail cameras either.

A first decision to be made is whether the field camera will be wood or metal. Wood is lighter, weaker and usually the adjustments are not as precise. Metal is strong, easily machined to be precise, but heavy and more expensive. Both types have their advantages and market niche, so both are out there.

So now, along comes someone who says, "lets make a more full-featured or specialized field camera for xxx photographers." Do we want to appeal to users of short lenses that need a lot of movement, say architectural photographers? Well then, we need to incorporate a bag bellows and have lots of movements available, but we don't really need a long bellows or even a camera that folds closed. Result: a specialized "wide-angle" field camera with a short bag bellows, shift on at least one standard and swings and tilt on both standards (maybe even one with asymmetrical swings and front axis tilts to help the photographer work faster). But, to keep things affordable and light, we'll sacrifice the longer bellows (making the use of even moderately long lenses impossible) and maybe another feature or two.

Or, lets go the other way: We need a field camera that has lots of bellows extension and is solid as a rock and strong enough to use heavy long lenses. This may result in a camera that doesn't play well with shorter lenses and doesn't have a lot of movements available, but will accommodate 450mm lenses ore even longer.

Say we want a field camera that can do it all. Well, it will be bigger, stronger, heavier, have interchangeable bellows, lots of movements, and be basically a monorail-type camera with a bed instead of a rail. It will be more expensive and heavier.

Do we want extreme lightweight? then cut most of the movements, limit bellows length, use lightweight (usually weaker) materials, and design the thing so it will do well with lenses in the middle range (135mm-240mm).

Do we want a sturdy rangefinder camera for handheld photography? Look no further than the Graflex and other press cameras. They're metal, bullet-proof, but have limited movements.

Do we want more precision? Then machine a metal masterpiece like the Linhof Techikas. Downside: more expensive and heavy.

There are endless variations on the above depending on what a manufacturer thinks they can profitably offer for whatever segment of the market.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

---

Not familiar with either 8x10 or 38mm, but I have doubts the lens would cover it.



Kent in SD

Not a chance or remote possibility the 38mm Super Angulon XL would come close to covering 8x10, but it will produce a circular image on 8x10. Point being, the 38mm SAXL can be used on a 8x10 Sinar monorail and how capable the Sinar mono rail camera system is.... Set up might not be portable or easily transported during a extended hiking trip which a light weight field camera would.

~Could a 38mm SAXL be used on a 8x10 field camera or similar box camera, bag bellows or not?
Having a bag bellows available for a field camera does not imply the field camera's ability to fully exploit an extreme wide angle's lens capability.
The other direction would be using a 1200mm f9 or similar process lens on a field camera. Could a field camera support a lens this size properly, would it have enough bellows, what about a shutter?

*All view cameras are a trade off, this is why deciding on prints to be made first, lenses to be used second with camera last is logical-rational.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two23

Not familiar with either 8x10 or 38mm, but I have doubts the lens would cover it.



Kent in SD

---

Monorails are a great way to start out because they are so straight forward and easy to learn on. They also have all the movements.

Field cameras are nice because they can be lighter in weight and easier to pack for hiking.

As recommended above, shoot what you have. After you have shot large format for a while you can better decide what camera you really want. You may even want to keep your monorail and add another camera. Some add an inexpensive press camera with limited movements and just take the monorail along when they need more movements.

I've never shot a Chamonix but they are highly recommended. Usually, you sacrifice rigidity for lighter weight but Chamonix's are said to be very rigid. I've heard of them being favorably compared to metal field cameras even though they are made of wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Gales

I've never shot a Chamonix but they are highly recommended. Usually, you sacrifice rigidity for lighter weight but Chamonix's are said to be very rigid. I've heard of them being favorably compared to metal field cameras even though they are made of wood.

---

They are made of wood, aluminum, and carbon fiber.:)



Kent in SD

I've owned a Chamonix, and I've seen some recently. They are very nice cameras, much more rigid than the old woodies. But they are not as rigid/stable as the heavier metal cameras, such as a Toyo metal field or a Technika. As Bernice says, there's always trade-offs.

This is all helpful. Thanks for continuing. Sounds like I did all right to have picked a monorail as a first camera. I've got to see what I can do to get it where it needs to go without breaking the remains of my back, hips, feet, etc. But I think this just means a Sherpa or two.... if only. Nah... what it means is splitting the load. I'm gonna weigh it, and take it from there. I'd corresponded with the Arca Swiss guy for the USA back in the spring before our move 'cause the camera has no scaling on the monorail... but listening to Graham on the Sunny 16 podcast talking with the guys on the LF Photo podcast, it sounds like there's a work-a-round for that, too.

There are some interesting new woodies like the Intrepid and synthetic ideas like the Chroma Camera in acrylic and the Mercury in plastic... but seems to me that starting with a known item was simpler at this stage as you're basically cutting price with age and wear and tear rather than switching to new materials to hold the $'s down. Nothing wrong with the new stuff... just seems to me those options could disappoint if you don't already know what you're doing. That said, I like the modular ideas and the commitment Steve LLoyd seems to have to his customers.

Anyway, give me another month, and I think I'll be back in business. Thanks for the help and ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau

Okay. So let me try this again: I'm just puzzled why when my Arca Swiss has two bellows - one balloon and one norm - why Chamonix would seem to build different models to do what? The same thing? Is this a field camera kind of thing?

---

Just in case you missed Kent's post earlier - Chamonix offers optional bag bellows for all of its 4x5 models. You do not need a "special" Chamonix camera to use bag bellows.

FWIW, I started with a Cambo monorail and while I assume it was great for studio work and very versatile, it was a heavy, bulky pig to transport which led me to shoot it far less often than I wanted. After upgrading to a field camera (a Chamonix in my case but it holds true for most) I actually look forward to taking it places since it's so portable.

I started lf with an old Crown Graphic, you can still find them for a few hundred dollars with lens and they are easy to lug around. Once you get tired of dragging the monorail around and have some mad money this is not a bad choice for a little money.

IMO, one good way to think of a view camera is a six sided box with the lens at the front of the box, image recording device (film or digital or etc) that is flexi in the middle. All the do-dads_widgets on the outside of the box at the ends are there to support the front and rear of the box and allow adjustment that can be locked in place. This pretty much applies to a monorail or field camera or most photographic image cameras in general.

A view camera is not a complex device, do not allow the do-dads_widgets and fancy_dancy adjusters and all that fool you, it is and always be a light tight box with add ons.

That said, this is why learning on a monorail camera has an advantage as one can "see" the box and parts involved and watch the mechanical bits work with good access.

It is difficult enough in the beginning of learning how to used a view camera due to operating the lens-shutter-adjusting the aperture as needed. Loading film, unloading film, dealing with possible light leaks in film holders, the mechanics and act of setting up the view camera, film exposure, storage of exposed and not exposed film and a LOT more. Then comes film processing and print making and ...... This is no simple process, with the last thing anyone beginning LF needs is added complexity or equipment that mis-behaves in any way.

Once the basics and proficiency of using a view camera has been developed to some degree, that is when alterations to the current view camera system that has been used to learn on can be altered to gain better fit to the goals of a given image maker.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau

Thanks for reading and responding, but I must have garbled my question. I am firmly NOT after another camera, and actually thought I made that definitively clear.

What I thought I was asking was a simple question regarding the multiplicity of models from one builder and puzzling as to why that would be when I can't even figure the differences. ...

---

Form follows function. Check the specs out for each model for the differences. There are non-folding and folding models, differences in bellows length, weight, etc. Use your camera for awhile to get an idea of the use of the movements, how one operates the camera, and all that. If you get the chance to handle a different type of camera, check out how they differ in operation. Your question really needs experience to understand the differences.