Chamonix vs Ritter ULF

[sanking]

I have a friend (me) who is interested in one of those formats from one of those 2 companies. I am talking about things like cost, weight, built quality...or if you want to be blunt about it, which 20x24 would you buy and why?
Thanks to all and have a great big-camera year!

Richard K.

I own a 7X17 Chamonix and a 20X24" camera by Richard Ritter so my comments may be interesting.


Chamonix cameras are light and very well built. Aesthetically they are among the most beautiful cameras I have seen. Richard Ritter cameras are very light and well-constructed, and also allow setting up the camera for shooting in both vertical and horizontal orientation. They are perhaps not quite as "pretty" as Chamonix cameras, but they are very "functional." The ability to set the camera up in vertical orientation is in fact a big plus for the RR cameras.

Regarding the 20X24 format, I looked carefully at the features of Chamonix and RR cameras and decided to go with the camera by RR because of its very light weight, greater bellows draw and reversible back. The Chamonix camera that I considered did not allow for reversing the back, a serious negative to me for 20X24 format. I understand that Chamonix is now offering a 20X24 with a reversible back, and more bellows draw, so the scenario is not quite the same as when I made by choice.

The RR 20X24 is both very light and rigid, and I can also use it with a 12X20 reducing back. Focusing is not ideal because the rear worm mechanism does not cover much space with a turn, the result being that the image does not "snap" into focus as I would like. I would definitely like to have a faster moving focusing worm for this camera.

Sandy King

[scott_6029]

I own Chamonix holders, 7x17, and they are among the finest I own. A real work of art and very functional. As to the camera itself i cannot attest as I do not own one, but would imagine fine quality based on holders.

[John Bowen]

Focusing is not ideal because the rear worm mechanism does not cover much space with a turn, the result being that the image does not "snap" into focus as I would like. I would definitely like to have a faster moving focusing worm for this camera.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I had the opportunity to work with Richard's inital 7x17 prototype. One of my comments to Richard was that I thought the focusing wasn't fine enough. In other words, I felt you got too much movement for each turn of the "worm". I have also learned how to get pretty good estimating the "rough" focus using the rails. It helps speed the focusing...

I haven't used a Chaminoix, but I'm more than happy with my Ritter 7x17. Just remember, if your Chaminoix needs repair/modification... who ya gonna call???

[Bruce Barlow]

Sandy,

Just remember, if your Chaminoix needs repair/modification... who ya gonna call???

Richard, most likely. At least, I would. Prob'ly expensive, since he'd have to custom-make Chamonix repair parts, whereas he'd likely have parts for his own on the shelf.

[John Bowen]

Richard, most likely. At least, I would. Prob'ly expensive, since he'd have to custom-make Chamonix repair parts, whereas he'd likely have parts for his own on the shelf.

My point exactly!

[sanking]

Sandy,

I had the opportunity to work with Richard's inital 7x17 prototype. One of my comments to Richard was that I thought the focusing wasn't fine enough. In other words, I felt you got too much movement for each turn of the "worm". I have also learned how to get pretty good estimating the "rough" focus using the rails. It helps speed the focusing...

I haven't used a Chaminoix, but I'm more than happy with my Ritter 7x17. Just remember, if your Chaminoix needs repair/modification... who ya gonna call???

John,

It is entirely possible that you were right about the worm focusing with the 7X17 where you would have been using a shorter focal length lens than I am using with the 20X24. However, depth of focus is very great when back focusing with a 600mm - 750mm lens and the worm focus on my 20X24 does not snap in and out of focus as I believe it should. I have already mentioned this to Richard so I am not saying anything here that he does not already know.

This is a relatively minor complaint considering the many very positive qualities of this camera.

Sandy King

[John Bowen]

John,

It is entirely possible that you were right about the worm focusing with the 7X17 where you would have been using a shorter focal length lens than I am using with the 20X24. However, depth of focus is very great when back focusing with a 600mm - 750mm lens and the worm focus on my 20X24 does not snap in and out of focus as I believe it should. I have already mentioned this to Richard so I am not saying anything here that he does not already know.

This is a relatively minor complaint considering the many very positive qualities of this camera.

Sandy King

Memory is a little sketchy here, but I'd bet I was using a 355 lens. Thanks for pointing this out Sandy. I was trying to accept blame for your dilemna...

[robert]

In looking at both cameras it looks as though you may have greater movements with a Ritter camera. But that is just my first impression so I could be wrong. But this all depends on how much and how many movements you normally use. I owned a Wisner 8x10 pocket expedition that had every bell and whistle you could put on a field camera. I very seldom used half of them. I did like his rear geared and front geared axis tilts. But aside from that I could have lived without half of those features. But both the Chamonix and the Ritter are both very innovative in design. To see Sandy strap a 20x24 to a pack frame and take off hiking with it is pretty amazing. I know he's not getting any younger.( No offense intended Sandy) Robert

[Bruce Barlow]

Memory is a little sketchy here, but I'd bet I was using a 355 lens. Thanks for pointing this out Sandy. I was trying to accept blame for your dilemna...

Sandy! Blame him! It's good for his head to feel shame and suffer!

I'd suggest asking Richard if he could replace the worm with something coarser, but that means you'd probably have to ship the base back to him, and that's an ugly thought.

[RichardRitter]

Sandy! Blame him! It's good for his head to feel shame and suffer!

I'd suggest asking Richard if he could replace the worm with something coarser, but that means you'd probably have to ship the base back to him, and that's an ugly thought.

I am looking. You have to remember there is only one of me.

And yes I do repair Chamonix.