Final info request: Horseman FA vs Ebony 45S

[Tom Davis]

Hi all,

Well, I've been to the well three times now seeking information, but now have the money available to buy, so it's time for the "final info request" from all you experienced laborers in the vineyards of large format photography.

A reminder of my shooting priorities: I specialize in "small scale" landscape work as in Japanese gardens and then also small scale architecture as in both the interior and exterior of tea rooms in those gardens. I use digital for any honest telephoto work and for macro work, so I don't need more bellows extension than for a 210mm. I also shoot environmental portraiture, so I think a 210mm will also be sufficient (if I need a tight head shoot, I'll again use digital). I'm thinking that 80mm (Super-Symmar 80mm/f4.5) to 210mm is my main work range; if I really need a super-wide for interior work, I suspect I'd either rent (since it won't be often) or just use digital again.

OK, with those priorities, and after a very helpful email exchange with Jim at MidWest, my budget has narrowed it down to the Horseman FA or the Ebony 45S. I'll list pluses and minuses and I hope that you all can fill in more either way for either one.

FA pluses: Slightly more rigid especially for use of rollfilm backs (which is a priority), more secure "fold-up-into-compact metal box" portability, more precise feel, cheaper when bought used (and, yes, it is available in excellent shape).

FA minuses: More restrictions on wide-angle use due to narrow front-end opening, back movements less flexible and a pain to use, smaller controls less easy to use with gloves.

45S pluses: More flexible wide-angle use and more flexible rear movements that are comparitvely easy to use, faster set-up with lens already mounted (an SS-80 or any 210 will not fold into the FA), I get to fondle the wood and imagine that it has "soul" because it's so beautiful (and then of course there's the smell of the leather to reinforce the illusion).

45S minuses: Not quite as rigid for mounting rollfilm backs, not quite as rigid and precise overall due to wood construction (however reinforced by that nice titanium), if I'm an idiot and knock it over the damage will likely be worse than an all metal camera, it's noticeably more expensive when bought new (and is rarely available used), letting myself succumb to romanticist illusions is sheer self-indulgence.

Have I missed anything? Any other words of wisdom before I lay down my money? (And, yes, I do remember all the sage advice about "your first LF camera won't be your last," but I would like to start off well.)

Thanks much in advance. And I do want to say how much I appreciate the good spirit of this forum having spent a little too much time on Nikon digital forums.

[Ted Harris]

Tom,

I don't think you have missed a thing in your comparison. IMO you are downplaying some of the positive and negative points of each of the cameras but that is all subjective. One thing I will add, this is a tool not a work of art so all the stuff about soul has little meaning to me and, even if it did, having used a Horseman FA for many years I'd argue that it has soul too <smile>.

Actually, your decision is absolutely simple from where I sit. Call Jim and tell him to send you the Horseman. Try it for a few weeks and see if you like it. If not send it back and get the Ebony. At half the price of the Ebony you can buy a new Super Symmar for the $$ saved.

I don't think you will mind the rear movements for the type of work yo9u are going to do; they are a pin but once you are used to them you forget about it. I also don't think you will have any probelms with lens choices. You may have trouble with the controls if you want to work them with gloves. I stopped using the FA a bit less than a year ago (after 16 years as my main 4x5 field) because of the tiny knobs .... with a compressed c5/c6 vertrabae problem and a bit of numbness in my left index finger as a result they just became too annoying to use. Before that I found them no problem and used the camera in very cold weather all the time wearing gloves with open finger tips. BTW, the compactness of the FA is a huge plus if you do a lot of air travel. It folds up nicely to fit in a very small corner of a carryon bag or even in a briefcase.

[George Hart]

Hi Tom, I haven't used the Horseman but I do have the 45S, and I can vouch for how good it is with roll-film backs. I use the Horseman 6x9 RFH and it's a joy to attach, as if the camera were made for it! I have never experienced any alteration in position of the standard once I have locked it using the knob on the left. Forgetting the "soul" stuff, I find this camera a joy to use, and it will handle your 2 lenses admirably. BTW, I have no connection with this company.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Tom,

I believe you have missed a few important facts about those two cameras. First, and foremost, the Ebony 45S is a wooden, non-folding flatbed camera that is designed to be used with short focal length wide angle lenses. It sets up faster, but does not travel easily. However, it would seem to be the better choice for the small scale landscape and architectural work that you described.

The Horseman is a metal folding flatbed field camera that travels easily, but it was not designed to be used with short focal length wide angle lenses. Not the best choice for architectural work.

The Ebony 45S requires a slightly higher initial investment, but it will retain it's value when you are ready to sell or trade and move up to a different camera.

You did the wise thing when you contacted Jim, at Midwest, and asked for his advice.

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

Tom,

You mentioned interior architecture - if this is important then it might be the deciding factor. With my 45S I have used a 47XL on a recessed board with movements, an 80XL should work really well even with full rise or shift. I also use a 240 from time to time - 210 should be great on the 45S even for closer focusing. Rear tilt is a blessing, on my smaller SW23 I often miss rear tilt.

The Ebony 45S travels well, except for the slightly protruding base it is very compact. I took mine backpacking around Chile for three months.

[Tom Davis]

Thanks Ted, George, Eugene, and Lars for the input.

I talked with Jim at MidWest on the phone today and, as Lars suspected, it appears the important question now is just how much interior architecture work I intend to do. Even though it's not my main use, the more I'm thinking about it, the more I realize that I do want wide-angle flexibility for interiors.

So, Lars, you mentioned that you've used a 47XL on a recessed board with the 45S and that you've also taken it backpacking. Did you still have any movements with the 47 (which does seem VERY wide, I'm suspecting a 58 or 65 would be about right)? And when you were backpacking with it, did you need to be extra careful (here is where the FA's metal "clamshell" would appear superior)?

And Eugene, I do realize the basic differences between the Ebony and FA, the real question becomes: can an FA use a 65 with any flexibility or is the widest it goes 75/80 with decent movements?

Jim thinks the Ebony is going to be the more flexible design, especially for interior architecture. But he also kindly sent me photos of the FA and 45S right next to each other, and the FA is surprisingly more compact, which is very tempting.

I know, I know: there's no perfect first LF camera. Right now it looks like it will come down to the FA's very compact precision and completely adequate design for 90--210 work which will be the vast majority of my intended work versus the 45S's superior flexibility for wide-angle work in interiors.

Thanks yet again for the feedback, you guys are a great help.

[Gem Singer]

Tom,

I never intimated that you didn't realize the basic differences between those two cameras. I was merely attempting to answer the question you asked in the second from the last paragraph of your post. Re-reading your last paragraph gave me some insight as to why you took offense when I attempted to point out a few of the differences between those two cameras, based upon my own experience with similar cameras. This forum is certainly different from the Nikon Digital Forum. Most of the contributors to this forum make a sincere effort to help one another to actually solve their problems.

By the way, don't expect to be able to use a wide angle lens lens shorter than a 90, with the Horseman FA , without experiencing some degree of difficulty when attempting to use the degree of movements on the front standard that you will need for your architectural work.

[Ted Harris]

Tom,

Not sure I agree with Eugene regarding the 90 and shorter on a Horseman FA. Armin, any comments to add here? Of course, it all depends on the type of architectural work you will be doing. I can tell you from years of experience that you can easily use a 75mm lens and not run out of movemeents or the ability to use them in MOST situations. If anything, the biggest frustration I found was running out of rise every once in a very long while. OTOH, I always found a 65 a bit tight for comfort in terms of bellows comprression, why I moved to the 75 as my widest lens.

As for indoor work, again depends on what you are doing. I have been faced with indoor situations where even a 47 couldn;t get the job done and I switched to my Noblex.

[Dennis Mairet]

The Ebony uses the much more popular Linhof style lens boards. It may be easier for the Ebony to share lenses with your second view camera. When you look at used lenses for sale, more will come already mounted in a Linhof style board than in a Horseman one.

[Gem Singer]

Ted,

This is a quote from the product description for the Horseman FA on the B&H website: "Due to it's tiny 80X80 lensboard, you cannot use lenses with a rear barrel diameter larger than 63mm".