Thanks to AJ Edmondson for lending me an original board, I compared it to a couple different Chinese copies from eBay. The price make them attractive, but only if they work.
Thanks to AJ Edmondson for lending me an original board, I compared it to a couple different Chinese copies from eBay. The price make them attractive, but only if they work.
Especially for the Copal 3 size, which we often mount very heavy lens, I would like to see how they crack in 1/2.
I did have a copycat 'Linhof' type board fail by crack.
Tin Can
Very interesting, but as I have frequently mentioned, Linhof has tightented the specifications of their boards and their cameras several years ago and, unfortunately, the Linhof board you chose to measure is 30 odd years old and not the current board.
All Linhof boards made since reunification in 1989 are marked Germany. All boards made from the end of the war to 1989 are marked West Germany.
Not all boards marked Germany are made to the tighter specifications. To be sure use one made in the past few years to compare to copies.
The tightening of the specs mean that the newer boards may not fit into older Master and earlier models without scraping off the paint finish on the long edges of the board with a butter knife.
The main falacy with this is that the effort does not include analyzing the metal content.
As a machinist and a moderator on the largest machinist forum on the web, I see many
comments about how raw materials from the large country across the Pacific have very
bad inclusions (i.e. like rocks and similar unmachinable content) as well as non-uniform
strength profiles.
it takes extensive analysis using expensive equipment to find irregular alloys. It seems
to be common practice to throw whatever scrap metal is handy into the melting vat,
then use whatever comes out to form ingots identified by whatever metal constitutes
the highest percentage of the content.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
You'll be waiting a long time.
I don't buy anything made over there in the first place.
You fail to understand one key factor...
They do not exercise anything resembling quality control. So the results of analyzing one example of a product cannot be expected to represent the characteristics or quality of that product in general.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Japan almost universally embraced the statistical quality control approach "preached" by W. Edwards Deming, who'd been rejected by U.S. industry. As a result, products from that island country went from being derisively referred to as "Japanese junk" to displacing western industrialized nations for the reputation of highest quality in the world.
I see no such trend in Chinese products. There may be exceptions, but most continue to represent the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality, safety and durability. So much wasted potential. Sad.
Last edited by Sal Santamaura; 3-Mar-2019 at 16:56.
I think some of us are getting too wrapped up too much in this.
The bottom line is that it appears to be a product of decent quality, I myself have 3 of them as well as original Linhoff’s and they’re perfectly usable and do the job they’re supposed to do just fine.
I appreciate the quality is not the same, the material purity is not the same, the control isn’t there per se, but as usual the cost difference makes it such that one could absorb one or two with issues for the price of an “original” one.
I appreciate the video and the message. For those that want higher quality and a brand name, we all know where to go.
There is an old Chinese joke. A Chinese manufacturer established a new plant by a mountain and several years later out of curiosity voyaged across the mountain only to find a perfect copy of his factory.
Bookmarks