Big Pano Camera Advice?

[Oren Grad]

So, I think it's probably between the Chamonix and the Canham.

That's the nub of the matter. FWIW, I had a 5x12 Canham for a while; also, I've had extensive experience with Phillips cameras in various formats and with one Chamonix.

The Canham was beautifully made, and Keith Canham has a fine track record of customer support. But I was never comfortable with it. For my taste the controls were too complex and fiddly, and I had to re-learn everything whenever I set the camera aside for a while. I'm more comfortable with the Phillips-type controls, and also with the more rigid front and especially rear standards of Phillips-type cameras.

But if you read through the archives here, you'll find that there are very satisfied owners of Canham cameras, too. So it's not so much a question of which is better in any absolute sense as of figuring out which suits you better. Unfortunately, that's hard to do just from reading about them. The ideal would be if you could find people within hailing distance who own one or the other type and would be willing to let you come and have a look.

[Bruce Watson]

I remember wanting a Canham 4x10 since before I'd ever even heard of Phase One. Something about that format, any panoramic format, that has always pulled at my guts... in a good way.

I'm going to suggest something you may not want to consider. If that's the case, feel free to discard what I'm going to say out of hand, no hard feelings.

You might want to consider the Chamonix 8x5.

Why? It's in the middle. You can mask off the top and bottom to get your 1:2.5 (10x4) ratio when you need it. And you can mask off the sides to get shorter ratios when you need them. And the "full size" ratio is very nearly the golden ratio, which is beautiful in its own right. All of these let you keep a healthy film area, unlike when I was masking off 5x4 to get a 1:2.5 ratio. All that, plus it saves weight (camera, lenses, tripod, etc.) over 10x8, and is nearly the same weight as 10x4 (the camera is bigger, but the lenses can be smaller, etc.). All that, and it makes a nice contact print size too should you ever decide to go that route (which it doesn't sound like you would, but still).

The only reason I bring this up is because I found that I can't really control what aspect ratios I see images in. So I interchangeably use 1:1.25, 1:1.618 (golden ratio), and 1:2.25 (sqrt(5)) which I like that just a little more than the full 1:2.5. Anyway, just a thought. Do with it what you will.

[Christopher Barrett]

Ha! Bruce I was totally looking at that 5x8 just this morning. You have some good points there. Actually, a 5x8 (even with a 4.5x7.5 crop) cropped to 2:1 and scanned at 4000dpi will yield a 50" x 100" print. I think that's big enough!

Also, my Horseman 6x12 back only feels as heavy as maybe 3-4x5 holders. I have had some issues in the past with areas going out of focus... which I'm pretty sure is the result of the film popping as it acclimates to humidity once the slide is drawn (only on long night exposures).

So many choices in LF!!!

[Oren Grad]

Ha! Bruce I was totally looking at that 5x8 just this morning.

One quirk to watch out for with the convertible version of the Chamonix 5x8 is that the minimum bellows draw is relatively long at 110mm. Whether that matters, of course, depends on what lenses you have in mind.

Also, my Horseman 6x12 back only feels as heavy as maybe 3-4x5 holders. I have had some issues in the past with areas going out of focus... which I'm pretty sure is the result of the film popping as it acclimates to humidity once the slide is drawn (only on long night exposures).

In rollholders with a reverse-curl film path, like the Horseman holders, the film base can take on a curl just from sitting for any substantial length of time bent around the rollers. The pressure plate isn't strong enough to flatten that out once the film is advanced into the exposure gate. This is a topic that has had some discussion here.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you want to shoot color, scan, and print inkjet, 6x17cm is a more practical format, since color rollfilm is readily available, and you won't need to deal with hard-to-find filmholders or cutting down 8x10" film. In the space of 2 4x10" filmholders, enough for 4 exposures, you could carry at least 10 rolls of 120, enough for 40 exposures. It's still pretty large and you can go reallly big with a scan from a 6x17 neg or transparency.

I've used both formats, 6x17 with an extension back on a 4x5" camera and 4x10" with a half darkslide mask on an 8x10" camera, and they felt virtually interchangeable in terms of what I could do with the neg or transparency. In my case, I decided to stay with 4x10", because the half-darkslide mask is less of a hassle to deal with on an 8x10" camera than the extension back (which also requires an extension viewer, separate from the back and just as bulky) on a 4x5" camera, and I shoot more B&W than color, but in your case, where you're looking for a dedicated panoramic camera to shoot color, I think it makes sense to go 617 rather than 4x10".

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for all that. I guess I would like the ability to shoot color. I suppose I could cut down 8x10 color neg, but I hate handling film more than I need to. I have to admit, too, I think I'm a little obsessed with the 4x10 as a rare beast (for better or worse).

I must have misspoken ... I never actually CUT the 8x10, I just leave the sheet as is and scan the two images separately, or print them separately I guess you might have to cut them, but for scanning and storing, I just leave them together. It keeps them clean and storage is good with the standard Printfile 8x10 sleeves.

Make sense?

[cgrab]

I have a Canham 4x10, which I use with a 6x17 back exclusively. I bought it as an addition to a Fuji GX617, for the possibility to use shorter and longer lenses, to e able to focus closer and to shift. It takes lenses from 75mm to 800mm (personal experience, I do not have lenses beyond that, so it might be possible that this is not all). Coming from fixed-body cameras, I found the set-up a bit fiddly, probably also a trade-off with the lightweight construction, setting it up and taking it down takes a long time compared to the Fuji,so I use it less than I had originally thought. But as you already use a lf-camera, this consideration will probably not bother you. Buid quality is first class, I got a very good deal on it, and for my purposes I consider it future-proof, inasmuch as it should be enough camera for all my purposes, once i get to grips with it.

It is nice to read from other people, who also like the panoramic format.
Best regards
Christoph

[cdavis324]

Having owned both, I'd take the chamonix over the canham if you want to do long exposures. The canham is a very versatile camera, but it flexes a lot and is not nearly as rigid as a chamonix. A lot of the stuff I shoot is long exposure - 30 min to 2 hrs.+, and I'm incredibly happy with my 8x10 chamonix - Other than a real Phillips, I can't imagine a better camera. Remember to consider all the other pieces for long exposures with a big camera. I use a majestic head on a gitzo 5 series aluminum tripod(ries tripod and head may be better), and have made adhesive holders to prevent film pop. With the heavy tripod and adhesive holders I can get sharp negs in anything other than a stiff wind - all without using sandbags.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I shoot 4x10 almost exclusively. A little 4x5 and 5x7 thrown in occasionally, and 8x10 for portraits.

This site is almost all shot with 4x10 film. My main camera is an 8x10 Canham with a 4x10 reducing back. I've got 14 4x10 film holders and I process in a JOBO with PMK.

http://www.utahbigfoot.blogspot.com/

[Christopher Barrett]

Ok, I'm leaning towards the Chamonix 4x10 (which they have in stock). Hugo answered my email quickly and was very informative, even though he's traveling. I want to start with some really wide glass, so I was thinking of the Rodie 115 or maybe the Nikkor 120. I believe both should cover. Any other advice as I progress?

Thanks for all the input!

CB