Intrepid 5x7 opinions

[iml]

I have used a Chamonix 8x10 for the past 10 years or so, very happily. But even though it's lightweight for the format, I use it less and less. My shooting is all on long walks, and I'm not getting any younger. I want to keep it for the time being, because I love it and could no longer afford to replace it if I felt the need to, but I'm thinking about smaller - and affordable - alternatives.

I contact print 8x10, never felt the need to enlarge it, and I want to spend most of the time I have in the darkroom next year making kallitypes. For new work I'm seriously thinking about 5x7. I've used 4x5 a lot, but it's a bit too small to contact print, and I never felt the enlargements were worthwhile over 6x7 medium format for the relatively small sizes I print at (the biggest enlargement I ever make is 16x20, and even that size is unusual for me, usually it's 16x12 maximum). I already have the lenses I would need, the format is big enough for the kallitypes I want to make, and I can easily cut down some of my 8x10 film to fit 5x7 holders, so this seems like an economic option.

There's a shortage of good condition 5x7 view cameras around in the UK secondhand market at the moment, I've been looking at the usual places and finding nothing. I am a working photographer, and even though I'm happy to fix things my main interest is getting something I can use without having to spend a lot of time restoring it. And importing anything into the UK nowadays is such a minefield I want to avoid it.

So, the new Intrepid 5x7 seems of interest. It's very affordable, for sure. I've read some negative commentary regarding design aspects of earlier versions of all the Intrepid cameras which makes me slightly concerned, but it does seem the latest version takes account of some of those criticisms. But I'd be really interested to hear any real world experience from people here who have used any of the Intrepid 5x7 versions (or even the 5x4s, which are obviously very similar). Do you think this camera was a good choice, did you find any intractable problems, if I can expect to have to work around issues, are any of them major?

Fire away. All experiences welcomed.

[Tin Can]

You are in home country!

Buy from Intrepid, I bought their first 4x5 edition. It worked fine and they get better each iteration.

Now anxiously waiting for their Mark III 8X10. The lightest 8X10 ever made.

I am installing their NEW Devere Enlarger Head today as I have waited 10 years to fit a Head to my DeVere 504 chassis, wonderful design.

[Alan9940]

The only experience I have with Intrepid cameras is the 8x10 Mk1 and now the 8x10 Mk2. IMO, they are fine cameras for what they are. I think if you manage your expectations--none of the Intrepid cameras is a Chamonix--then you'll be fine. These cameras work, but precision? No. But the biggest selling point for me was weight! At 70 years young, I found it difficult to haul my 8x10 Deardorff very far from the car, whereas the 8x10 Intrepid enables me to pack it anywhere I'm likely to wander off to (while I can, anyway.)

For the price, I think you should go for it. If you decide it's not right for you, sell it. You probably wouldn't take much of a loss.

Good luck!

[Peter De Smidt]

The price is such that you can get one and try it out. If it works for you, that's great! If not, you can likely sell it for very little loss. Think of it as a rental fee. Another option: Sell your 8x10 and by a 5x7 Chamonix.

[Greg Y]

I'm with Peter, sell your 8x10 and buy a Chamonix 5x7. The horizontal only model is a real sweet spot.

[paulbarden]

I have the Intrepid 5x7, and I believe its the first iteration of the design. I suggest you take a few minutes to watch Mat Marrash's review of it on Youtube, which I found quite honest and factual.

That said, I like mine a lot and find it plenty precise in actual use. My only real complaint about the design (and Marrash found this to be an issue also) is that the only thing holding the rear standard in place are the two nuts at the bottom hinge. No matter how much you tighten them, it is still possible to nudge the rear standard out of position if you're not careful. Just removing a film holder (and either pushing or pulling on the standard forward or back) can result in moving the rear standard from position. Do I have to be extra careful how I insert/remove film holders to avoid this problem? Yes. Is it a deal breaker? Not at all. I wish they'd built it like they did the 8x10 (with an arm to brace the rear standard), but I would buy this camera again without hesitation, knowing what I know about it now. Heck, its even sturdy enough that I can mount my Voigtlander Petzval on it!

My post-pandemic budget these days (meagre, to say the least) doesn't allow for expensive equipment purchases, so I have to factor that in to the opinions I form. Would I prefer a Chamonix 5x7? Most definitely. But I cannot afford such a thing, so I gladly choose the Intrepid, in spite of its modest shortcomings. Obviously, if you have a bigger budget, you should choose something like the Chamonix. I'm happy to live with my Intrepid.

[iml]

Thanks all, very useful input. No, I am not going to sell my 8x10! I can't imagine ever giving up completely on that format.

I get the impression from people who use Intrepid cameras regularly that the design criticisms may be less significant in practice than appears from online commentary, and this thread is helping confirm that.

[paulbarden]

Thanks all, very useful input. No, I am not going to sell my 8x10! I can't imagine ever giving up completely on that format.

I get the impression from people who use Intrepid cameras regularly that the design criticisms may be less significant in practice than appears from online commentary, and this thread is helping confirm that.

I suspect that the people who are issuing the most conspicuous complaints about the Intrepid cameras are those that have owned (or currently do own) the most expensive cameras money can buy, and are making comparisons to cameras costing 10X what the Intrepid does.
I use my 5x7 Intrepid a lot and find it does everything I need it to do. It does require a bit of extra care in handling it and making adjustments, but these are trifling details IMO. Its an easy camera to use, its very light, sufficiently sturdy, and the build quality is far better than some of the very earliest designs Intrepid sold. They've learned a lot about design and engineering in a short time, and it shows in the results. But if you've owned a Chamonix (or other premium camera), then the Intrepid is almost definitely going to disappoint you in one way or another. As many have said in the past, a camera is just a light-proof box with film on one end and a lens on the other. You can decide how fancy/expensive a box you want, but how you use it is the important thing.

[otto.f]

I suspect that the people who are issuing the most conspicuous complaints about the Intrepid cameras are those that have owned (or currently do own) the most expensive cameras money can buy, and are making comparisons to cameras costing 10X what the Intrepid does.
I use my 5x7 Intrepid a lot and find it does everything I need it to do. It does require a bit of extra care in handling it and making adjustments, but these are trifling details IMO. Its an easy camera to use, its very light, sufficiently sturdy, and the build quality is far better than some of the very earliest designs Intrepid sold. They've learned a lot about design and engineering in a short time, and it shows in the results. But if you've owned a Chamonix (or other premium camera), then the Intrepid is almost definitely going to disappoint you in one way or another. As many have said in the past, a camera is just a light-proof box with film on one end and a lens on the other. You can decide how fancy/expensive a box you want, but how you use it is the important thing.

Agree. There’s one thing to notice however. All formats are under 1000$£€ at Intrepid. It differs a lot whether you’re comparing fancy Chamonix’s 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10’s with the Intrepids of that format. Where in 4x5 it could be a bridgeable gap, at 8x10 it’s such a difference that you’ll think twice if you start with that format for the first time to buy a fancy Chamonix.

[Bernice Loui]

Just moving down size from 8x10 to 5x7 reduces the weight/bulk and all related Significantly.

De-focus from the camera.. Consider:

~Lenses are often and tend to be smaller/lower weight and all for 5x7 compared to lenses for 8x10.

~Lens choice greatly improves as many 4x5 lenses cover 5x7 and any lens usable on 8x10 will work on 5x7.

~5x7 film holders are smaller and lower weight than 8x10 film holders. 5x7 sheet film tends to stay flatter in the film holder than 8x10 sheet film. This is often not considered reality of 8x10 -vs- 5x7 and smaller sheet film formats..

~5x7 is just big enough for contact prints. 8x10 and larger does better for contact prints..

Again, much a matter of what the print goals are and lesser about the camera -en- all..


Personally, flat bed folders (Dorf, Technika, Wisner and ... Meh) do not meet the image making goals for a long list of reasons.. Frankly, there is not a lot to any view camera as it is essentially a light tight box that is flexi in the middle. That said, there are a number of very specific needs that limits what works personalty and what never can do with a field folder. Regardless, keep in mind, the camera should not be the focus of your image goals as there are too many other significant real world factors involved..


Bernice