Linhof Technika III vs later models

[robertraymer]

I have lately been looking around for a 4x5 camera with a rangefinder that will allow for portable (potentially handheld) portraits and thought I had settled on trying to save up for a Master Technika, but looking at new prices there is no way I can justify it, and looking at used prices I have noticed that the Technika III's are significantly cheaper. I am aware that there are a number of differences between the III and later models, including different lens boards, more limited movements, the need to match cams/lenses/and cameras, etc, but I am unsure if any of that will have a significant enough impact on my planned shooting to justify the additional price of a later model like the Master.

As it is, a III would be a significant upgrade over the Speed Graphic I sold given its ability to use multiple/longer lenses as long as the cams are matched, especially with the ability to add a L hand grip to make handholding easier (I know the camera is heavier). Given that I intend to use it mostly for portraits, and am not likely to need a ton of excessive movements, I was wondering if any of the improvements of the later models would make much of a difference. I have found a few different options for the III currently available at different places, all with lenses (and matched cams) that would suit my needs, and am tempted to pull the trigger, but dont want to buy it only to regret not spending a bit more on a "better" newer model that would be better for me. Apart from the availability of parts and the potential difficulty finding additional lenses (if needed) and having them be matched to the body, is there any other real reason to go newer?

[Bob Salomon]

Look for a IV or V.

[robertraymer]

Why specifically?

Assuming I find a III with whatever matched cam/lenses I feel like I will likely use, is there any other reason to go with a IV or V? I know front tilt doesn't exist on the III, and that the IV and newer have slightly more movements, which would be nice to have, but really is not super important to me as I almost never use movements with portraits and shoot almost no landscape or architecture (and have an 8x10 with plenty of movements if I REALLY wanted an architecture shot badly enough). Of a bit more concern is the lack of ability to use a newer lens and maintain RF focusing, but to my understanding I would need a V or newer, and if I have the lenses (with cams) I use most already I do not know that the extra expense would be worth it for something I might not need to begin with. Are there any other significant upgrades or reasons that I am missing?

[Bob Salomon]

Why specifically?

Assuming I find a III with whatever matched cam/lenses I feel like I will likely use, is there any other reason to go with a IV or V? I know front tilt doesn't exist on the III, and that the IV and newer have slightly more movements, which would be nice to have, but really is not super important to me as I almost never use movements with portraits and shoot almost no landscape or architecture (and have an 8x10 with plenty of movements if I REALLY wanted an architecture shot badly enough). Of a bit more concern is the lack of ability to use a newer lens and maintain RF focusing, but to my understanding I would need a V or newer, and if I have the lenses (with cams) I use most already I do not know that the extra expense would be worth it for something I might not need to begin with. Are there any other significant upgrades or reasons that I am missing?

A IV, a V and the Master can be cammed.
But they all take the same, commonly available lens boards, gg and fresnel screen. All of those are different for the III.

[sharktooth]

The IV, V, and Master all work basically the same way, and all share the same lens boards, backs, and most accessories. If cost is the primary concern, then a used model that is in good working condition, and that has a good bellows (preferably recently replaced by quality supplier), is probably more important than the specific model.

The whole issue with cams is a different concern. Realistically, a single cam at some standard focal length is probably all that really makes practical sense. I wouldn't bother with cams for longer focal lengths, since everything becomes more critical, and the average person can't afford to keep the whole rangefinder system properly maintained to achieve that precision. With that in mind, the old Speed Graphics and their like are all that really makes sense anyway. With that being said, I see no reason to prefer a III over a Speed Graphic, unless one or the other was in better physical operating condition. Expecting to use multiple cammed lenses of different focal lengths to achieve accurate rangefinder focus on an old unmaintained camera, is a pipedream.


If you want to use your camera with a single cammed standard focal length lens for some handheld shooting, and don't need movements, and don't plan to switch out lenses too often, then a III in good condition with a good bellows could work nicely. If you want more versatility, then you'd be better off with a IV or V as Bob suggested.

[Chauncey Walden]

If you use, or plan to, Grafmatic holders, there is a slight modification that has to be made on a III. I have 2 IIIs with no rangefinders and love them.

[Embdude]

The Technika III is a fine camera, but has been replaced by the IV, V, & MT with increasingly better features and usability. The Technika III is about half the price of a similarly outfitted IV.

Parts for a III are harder to find but on the other hand if needed a III "Parts Camera" is cheaper. I would highly recommend you buy a Technika in perfect working shape as they are very robust cameras and you will be unlikely to need a part unless the camera takes a direct hit. Bellows are the exception, an easy enough procedure you can preform yourself. You should expect any model Technika to need this if the bellows have not been replaced in the last 10 years or so.

Service from Linhof of Munich or a Linhof repair center is EXPENSIVE. You can easily and quickly spend more money on service than you paid for the camera! Sending a III in for service is a losing proposition. Luckily a fully functional III is an easy camera to self service, it has few complex assemblies (the later models have a complex front standard). So if you are unwilling to maintain the III yourself then you will get more value from a serviced IV,V,MT.

[Embdude]

The 4x5 Technika III was Linhof's first Post-War camera and was made from 1946 until it was superseded by the IV in 1957. Over these 10 years the Technika 3 had continuous technical and cosmetic improvements and the last model III was more advanced than the original 1940's cameras.

3 major variations exist, Early - Mid - Late.

The rangefinder on the early cameras was more basic and used a different style cam than the Mid & Late models. The early model III Technika's are not a good fit for what you are looking to do.

The Mid & Late models - 1950's had an improved rangefinder incorporating a prism and are far easier to see through and use. These models used a cam similar looking cam as the later IV, V, MT cameras but it is slightly narrower and they are not interchangeable with the later model cams.

The rangefinders have continued to improve up to today and a newer camera of any model will have a brighter and more accurate RF than an older one.

Cams - The Technika III and IV cameras do not use a zeroed position ground glass but can incorporate shims and thus each camera is likely to be slightly different. Due to this possible variation in film plane between cameras the cam was made precisely for each camera and lens and was not interchangeable. On a III or IV cam the SN# of both the lens and camera were engraved into the cam. On the V and MT the shims were done away with and backs were made with enough precision that the GG was zeroed on all cameras. This is great because now once a lens cam is made it is interchangeable with any other V & MT camera.

This is a big advantage because if you have a V or MT you can buy a lens that already has a cam with it. On the III & IV if you buy a lens with a cam it is not very likely to work for critical focusing, and possibly not at all. For the III and IV you will need to have a new cam made for each new lens you acquire. This is a big deal since lens caming service is $400-$500 per lens. I highly recommend if you buy a Technika III or IV that you get one with the lenses you need already with cams (engraved with both camera and lens SN#). Buying a III with no lenses and then having 3 cams made for say 90, 150, 270mm will end up costing you far more than buying a MT (Master Technika) in the end.

[John Layton]

A new, high quality bellows, when used with reasonable care...should last much longer than the ten year service interval mentioned (or at least implied) above.

True, there have been a few issues relating to Linhof Technikardan bellows giving up the ghost a bit early...but this is almost always due to user error in not folding them correctly.

My own conversion of one of my L-45A 4x5 cameras to 5x7 involved incorporating the bellows and rotating back from a pre-WWII Linhof 5x7 technical camera...and to this day that old bellows keeps the light at bay, no matter its intensity.

Having said the above...its obviously very important to carefully examine a bellows for light leaks on a regular basis - no matter its age, and certainly at the point of purchase of an LF camera...no matter its age.

[Sean Mac]

I fitted a new bellows to my Technika iii this year.

Hopefully it will still be good in another seventy years or so...

If I wanted one with a rangefinder I would go for a Master Technika.

There often seems to be one or two priced to sell in the obvious place.