Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 107

Thread: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

  1. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    380

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    ---
    Last edited by Oslolens; 6-Jan-2021 at 06:16. Reason: Wrong answer.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    202

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Klein View Post
    The MicroOrbix sounds like asymmetrical tilting which I have on the rear standard of my Chamonix 45H-1. Unfortunately, there are no gears. So the tilt adjustment is a little rougher.
    And and off the top of my head so do the Chamonix F cameras, Ebony U cameras, and the Sinar P...
    "I am a reflection photographing other reflections within a reflection. To photograph reality is to photograph nothing." Duane Michals

  3. #73
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    All kinds of studio monorail cameras had it once certain Sinar patents expired. Having shot a variety of Sinar cameras for decades, I don't pay any attention to that feature.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Pretty much..

    The geared Sinar P "asymmetrical" tilt / swing feature is quick and handy in studio for reducing setting up camera movements. For the majority of view camera situations that do not demand rapid camera movement set ups.. that feature is not really needed at all. Nice very convenience feature, yes. makes a difference in the finished image, no.. if the photographer fully understands how camera movements affect the image and skilled at applying them as needed.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    All kinds of studio monorail cameras had it once certain Sinar patents expired. Having shot a variety of Sinar cameras for decades, I don't pay any attention to that feature.

  5. #75
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    It hardly makes sense spending serious extra money to get a modern lightweight view camera and then put a big heavy lens on it, unless one just happens to already own that lens and overall weight is not actually a priority.
    A Chamonix in 4x5 is $1300 or so, much less than other new cameras.

  6. #76
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Of course, I have your Nikor 90mm which is a beast.

  7. #77
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Asymmetrical controls are wonderful in production tabletop studio applications, including cuisine photography. I once did a bit of tabletop, and learned how these things work, but promptly forgot it all afterwards, even with respect to architectural photography, because it was something I never used since. In fact, my favorite Sinar is the Norma, which predates this feature. Out in the field, truly flat planes are close to nonexistent, at least anywhere west of Denver!

  8. #78
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Alan, that big 90 sits close in, unlike a heavy long lens at full bellows extension, so is relatively easy to stabilize despite the weight. If it were something like a big 300/f 5.6 plastmat in big no.3 shutter, way out there, there would be much greater risk of vibration. Of course, some of the added weight is due to the center filter. Since I didn't have any vibration problem with it on my little Ebony folder, which is just as light as a Chamonix, I figured you wouldn't have any issue either. But whether you like that particular angle of view or not is more a personal subjective decision. You have implied you might gravitate toward something even shorter like a 75. I simply can't accommodate anything shorter unless I use my Sinar system and bag bellows. But my days of photographing architectural interiors are over. Now its all personal work.

  9. #79
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    Drew, My Chamonix has a modified bag bellows. The 90mm is a tight fit inside especially when I close up the bellows. . I haven't shot enough to know if there are vignetting problems. The problem I also have is I need to buy new filters as the center filter takes a 105mm. I haven't bitten the bullet on that yet. The funny thing is I've been pulling out the 75mm mainly for the wide angle views I wanted.

  10. #80
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Chamonix vs. Xxxxx?

    You don't need 105 mm filters. Circular 82mm contrast filters between the CF and the lens work just fine.

Similar Threads

  1. CHAMONIX old generation vs. CHAMONIX V8x10
    By Jbuck in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-Sep-2018, 14:52

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •