Early Eastman 2 View Cameras - Why did the 2D get worse?

[Brassai]

Any way you look at it, the 1910s were probably the high point in American craftsmanship. For many products.

Can't the same be said of British cameras as well--Thornton Pickard, Sanderson, Watson etc.? On websites, several hardcore British collectors seem to go on & on about the finely crafted wooden T&P models such as the Royal Ruby, but show disdain for the metal cameras the company began making in the 1920s. The British cameras seemed to begin losing out when they made that switch, and the rise of the German cameras was well on its way by the late 1920s.

[Brassai]

Has anybody seen a Chamonix?.

Now you have. Mine was completely inspected.

[BarryS]

Garrett--I'm almost sure you have a 7x11 camera with an 8x10 back. Eastman made both backs for the 7x11 View No 2. The 7x11 is a different animal and feels overbuilt compared to the other sizes. There are some hardware differences between the 2 and the 2D, but they seem minor for the most part. Some 2D's have the key lock for the rails and some have the screw. The 2D is just enough to do the job and nothing more. The dark stain was probably equal parts style and allowing Eastman to use more mismatched wood.

[BarryS]

Randy, yeah I was going to say that you should think long and hard about selling your Eastman 2 7x11 as it is a very nice kit. If I do end up buying a 7x11 I'm inclined to get a 2D since I already have the 5x7, 6.5x8.5, & 8x10 2D's. Despite the 2D's short comings it would be kind of cool to have a complete set.

Roger

If you want a complete set, you'll also need the 11x14 2D--you don't see them too often.

[Mark Sawyer]

The 2D was made for a long stretch, from the 1920's through the '50's, and had a few minor tweaks during its run. I still use mine occasionally, and regard it as one of the great 8x10 cameras.

I also really like the old British cameras mentioned by Brassai; an elegant and efficient design beautifully produced. In my mind, the Deardorff was an inferior version of those cameras. (That should start a fight!)

[Roger Thoms]

If you want a complete set, you'll also need the 11x14 2D--you don't see them too often.

Well, I've wondered about an 11x14 2D, but haven't seen one in any of the old catalogs I've browsed online. I'll be doing well to get a 7x11. May have to start selling a few things. 11x14 would definitely be pushing it for me.

Roger

[Tin Can]

I didn't know what I had, as mine came to me with only a 8x10 back. Later i noticed it was stamped inside the rear frame '7X11' and that got me thinking. I later found my 7X11 back and holders on the forums. The 7X11 rear box is definitely bigger than a 2D 8X10. I would have to get it out of deep storage to get dimensions.

Garrett--I'm almost sure you have a 7x11 camera with an 8x10 back. Eastman made both backs for the 7x11 View No 2. The 7x11 is a different animal and feels overbuilt compared to the other sizes. There are some hardware differences between the 2 and the 2D, but they seem minor for the most part. Some 2D's have the key lock for the rails and some have the screw. The 2D is just enough to do the job and nothing more. The dark stain was probably equal parts style and allowing Eastman to use more mismatched wood.

[ruilourosa]

What about the quality of the british made 5x7 (half plate) kodak specialist 2... really well built... in the 50´s...

[goamules]

Barry, perhaps you are right, and I have a 7x11 with an 8x10 back. It is built a little heavier than the other Centuries and Eastmans I've had in the era. I thought it was just a transitional type I hadn't seen before. But that may answer why it's so different, especially the sliding front lensboard.

[Jac@stafford.net]

An old friend of mine is a professional wood worker. I showed him a couple 8x10 wood cameras, one Kodak studio and a Century 1 field camera, asking him for comments regarding craftsmanship and he said, "Remember that most manufacturers of utility products considered wood just a common construction material. They did not spend much time matching for color and grain. I would not like to have to repair one of those cameras if aesthetics were important. The customer probably couldn't afford my effort."

My expectations of mass produced wooden cameras has not been the same since.

As for design and fit, the Century 1 field is good enough for me. It is the lightest 8x10 I have. The extension rail positions very well on pins, and has matching numbers with the main rail, and the wood looks to be from the same stock.

The Deardorff V8 is a monster, however the craftsmanship is excellent. In design it reminds me of my 1956 Harley FLH. I'd get rid of it if it were not close to museum quality.... just waiting for the days of divestment to find a new owner.