C.B. Canham

[DavidFisk]

I'm looking to upgrade from my Toyo system and have been looking at the Canham 4x5 metal setup. Looks rather compelling since there is lots of extension and no need for a separate wide angle bellows for my 58mm. The thing folds up rather compactly and the weight is O.K. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Thanks

[Steve Hamley]

You can find a great review of the K.B. Canham by Michael Mutmansky right here on the LF Info forum.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...canhamdlc.html

Steve

[Walter Calahan]

KB Canham DLC 4x5

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/c...ct_detail&p=96

Jeff can help you out.

[Scott Rosenberg]

is your only objection to the toyo the extension? if so, you might want to look at a technika. i shoot lenses from 58 (on a flat board) to 450 (on an extension board) with my MT2000. if a few pounds won't bother you, the technikas are in a whole different class from the DLC.

[naturephoto1]

is your only objection to the toyo the extension? if so, you might want to look at a technika. i shoot lenses from 58 (on a flat board) to 450 (on an extension board) with my MT2000. if a few pounds won't bother you, the technikas are in a whole different class from the DLC.

Hi Scott,

As lovely as the Technikas are (and I had a Super Technika IV) they are certainly much more expensive new than the Canham. Used is a different question. But, all but the MT2000 need the special focusing unit to be used inside the rear of the body of the camera for very wide angle lenses 65mm and shorter. The lenses have limited movement within this housing. I have never handled the MT2000, but as a question, how much rise/fall, shift, tilt and swing can you get with these very wide lenses inside the body. Also, the MT2000 is not widely available used, though they show up and are still expensive. When my Super Technika IV was stolen, I replaced the camera with the Linhof Technikadan 45S at Bob Salomon's suggestion. This camera is easier to handle a wide range of lenses and camera movements than any of the Technikas; this is particularly true of the rear standard/movements. Also, all of the Technikas are front focused which is fine for certain things, but more difficult for close-up work. The Technikardan 45/45S are rear focusing.

The main advantages of the Technika cameras are their handling- hand held RF for all but the MT2000, speed for set-up and take down, clam shell design for protection of the lens, bellows, standards, etc; additionally they are built like a tank, a beautiful tank but a tank just the same.

Rich

[Scott Rosenberg]

Hi Scott,

As lovely as the Technikas are (and I had a Super Technika IV) they are certainly much more expensive new than the Canham. Used is a different question. But, all but the MT2000 need the special focusing unit to be used inside the rear of the body of the camera for very wide angle lenses 65mm and shorter. The lenses have limited movement within this housing. I have never handled the MT2000, but as a question, how much rise/fall, shift, tilt and swing can you get with these very wide lenses inside the body. Also, the MT2000 is not widely available used, though they show up and are still expensive. When my Super Technika IV was stolen, I replaced the camera with the Linhof Technikadan 45S at Bob Salomon's suggestion. This camera is easier to handle a wide range of lenses and camera movements than any of the Technikas; this is particularly true of the rear standard/movements. Also, all of the Technikas are front focused which is fine for certain things, but more difficult for close-up work. The Technikardan 45/45S are rear focusing.

The main advantages of the Technika cameras are their handling- hand held RF for all but the MT2000, speed for set-up and take down, clam shell design for protection of the lens, bellows, standards, etc; additionally they are built like a tank, a beautiful tank but a tank just the same.

Rich

the only movements that are restricted when using my 58 are shift... and i can't remember a single time i missed a shot for lack of front swing!! sure when shooting that wide the front movements are a little more difficult to operate, but every camera i've ever owned required some compromise... what it came down to for me was the things that are most important to me (rigidity, toughness, size) are precisely where the MT2000 shines. if ease of use was more critical to me than say folded size, i would have kept my AS F-Line or TK45S - both brilliant cameras, btw. if size and weight were more important than rigidity, i would have kept my ebony or DLC.

sure, movements on my f-line or TK45S were easier to manipulate, but with a little added effort i can accomplish the same things with my MT2000... BUT, there's no way to make the TK45S smaller!

if you can spare a few inches in length and width, the TK45S is one hell of a good camera, as is the F-Line. the dlc is also a fine camera. it's brilliantly designed, and within the limits of that design - light weight, longest range - it's alone in the field. however, what keith chose to put at the top of his list wasn't what was at the top of mine. like i mentioned earlier, every camera has it's compromises - find the one that matches your particular needs and get out and shoot.

to each his own.

[naturephoto1]

the only movements that are restricted when using my 58 are shift... and i can't remember a single time i missed a shot for lack of front swing!! sure when shooting that wide the front movements are a little more difficult to operate, but every camera i've ever owned required some compromise... what it came down to for me was the things that are most important to me (rigidity, toughness, size) are precisely where the MT2000 shines. if ease of use was more critical to me than say folded size, i would have kept my AS F-Line or TK45S - both brilliant cameras, btw. if size and weight were more important than rigidity, i would have kept my ebony or DLC.

sure, movements on my f-line or TK45S were easier to manipulate, but with a little added effort i can accomplish the same things with my MT2000... BUT, there's no way to make the TK45S smaller!

if you can spare a few inches in length and width, the TK45S is one hell of a good camera, as is the F-Line.

to each his own.

Hi Scott,

Agreed, well said.

Rich

[DavidFisk]

Thanks to all. And, yes, I meant K.B. not C.B.

[Dan Baumbach]

I have a Canham 45 DLC and I like it a lot. I've used lenses from 58mm to 300mm with it. One day when I'm rich, I'd like to get a 400mm or 450mm. There are two things that I don't like about it. One is that unfolding and setting up the front standard when your hands are cold could be a little simpler and the second is that the back standard has no side arms holding it in place like most wooden cameras. I've never swung a tightend back by mistake but I wish it were stabler.

However, it's a metal camera with a bright screen that weights only 5 pounds. With that and the lens range, I'm very happy with it.

- Dan.

[DavidFisk]

I have a Canham 45 DLC and I like it a lot. I've used lenses from 58mm to 300mm with it. One day when I'm rich, I'd like to get a 400mm or 450mm. There are two things that I don't like about it. One is that unfolding and setting up the front standard when your hands are cold could be a little simpler and the second is that the back standard has no side arms holding it in place like most wooden cameras. I've never swung a tightend back by mistake but I wish it were stabler.

However, it's a metal camera with a bright screen that weights only 5 pounds. With that and the lens range, I'm very happy with it.

- Dan.

Notwithstanding the cold hands problem, do you find that the camera is reasonably stiff and rigid (i.e. more stable than a wood setup? Thanks)