Chamonix 4x5 advice, please

[Two23]

Mine is made of black walnut. I chose that because I like it. I don't think wood choice has any effect on the images, it's more of a personal preference.


Kent in SD

[Alan Klein]

David, do you hike far or do you shoot short distances from your car like I do? I found the 45H-1 acceptable for the latter. It saves assembly time including having to mount the lens.

[Greg Y]

David Wolf, Cherry is a hardwood. You won't have any problems with it. I had a 57n (horizontal) in black walnut. I now have a 45F2 in teak. On the hardness scale cherry is marginally less hard than walnut. I shoot mountain landscapes and the odd portrait. Typical field camera stuff. The Chamonix has all the stuff, but then again so did my ancient Deardorffs.

Typical Janka hardness values
Species Force: pounds-force (newtons)
Black Walnut, North American Walnut 1,010 lbf (4,500 N)
Cherry 995 lbf (4,430 N)

[grat]

Teak is somewhat more durable, but also heavier. Since the structural components are mostly carbon fiber and aluminum, the wood isn't going to be that much of an issue unless you shoot while wearing metal gauntlets, or make a habit of rolling your camera down a rocky ravine. The weakest link is going to be the bellows, not the wood frames.

[David Wolf]

Thanks Everyone for the new info about wood types. From your comments, this seems to be more of a choice based on the camera's appearance rather than functionality.

So, if anyone has pictures of their own camera to share, that'd be useful to make comparisons. Chamonix have pictures on their site of both teak and cherrywood models, but the lighting makes direct comparison difficult. It's hard to tell if one wood is consistently lighter in color, etc. Sure would be nice to visit a shop with these on display, but that seems to be something in the past, and not likely in the near future ~

Thanks again!
David

PS Kentband Greg, Black Walnut must be stunning!

[Greg Y]

David, I always liked black walnut & would have gotten the 45F2 in BW if it had been available. I had the Chamonix 57 as well as a black walnut Canham 8x10 traditional. There's a solution for you...if you're set on black walnut. Canham's are all made of black walnut. Here's a shaky iPhone snap of my 45F2. The chair is fir, the camera, teak.

IMG_9567 by Greg Yavorsky, on Flickr

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

David Wolf asked about my modification. The problem : removing the GG to use a rollfilm back requires 3 hands. By adding two tabs, and using the removable spirit level,which lives atop the front standard, removal is simple. Pull a bail out, using the tab, and slip the edge of the level into the slot to hold the bail out. Pull the other tab, and the GG removes cleanly. I admit, it's fugly, and I apologise for the dust.. Mark II will be better looking.

[grat]

David Wolf asked about my modification. The problem : removing the GG to use a rollfilm back requires 3 hands.

It is slightly awkward. Fortunately, my hand has enough span that with a little practice, I'm able to lift the end of both brackets with a fingertip and a thumb, and slide the back out.

[Equivet96]

I have the 45-N2 and it works great with 65mm to 315 with no extension board needed. Easy to clean/replace ground glass layers and reflex viewer clamps on easily. Its a well thought out camera. I doubt I would ever use the asymmetrical tilts of the F series. The horseman 6x9 MF back works with the standard graflock back and ground glass removed (No extra back required).
I also ordered a 5x12 from Chamonix due this fall, so I like the brand and their design features.

Hello, I just got a 45 N2, I am happy with build and operation of the camera. But with wide angle, it is not possible to focus my 65mm Rodenstock to infinity, my next wideangle with 80mm can be focussed only of you push the back forward to the macimum front position, but no minimal movement is possible.
Using the standard universal bellows, no wide angle bellows.
The original data sheet tells that minimum bellows is 52 mm.
That was one aspect, why I changed from my Wista 45, but now this Chamonix has less usability from my point of view....
Am I wrong? Wide angle bellows necessary?
Thanks and best regards, Ulrich

[Greg]

"it is not possible to Focus my 65mm Rodenstock to infinity"

I am missing something obvious here. I also have and use a Chamonix 45N-2. My 65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW has no problem focusing at infinity with its OEM "regular" bellows. Are you screwing the front standard into the female threads nearest to the GG?