Linhof Technika vs. Technikardan?

[Tony Karnezis]

Recently I saw Linhof?s brochures for the Technikardan 45S and the Master Technika and, from the specs, they looked like they would handle the same range of lenses from wide to telephoto. For someone who does mostly landscape, architecture, and macro photos (flowers, rocks, etc; no jewelry or extreme close-ups), I don?t need extreme movements, and from what I?ve heard a field camera (or a hybrid design like a Canham DLC45) is simply the most practical and convenient travel-wise. My current lens range is 90-300, and I plan on acquiring a Fujinon 450C. Can anyone tell me why I would buy a Technikardan over a Technika considering the former is a little heavier (I think), more ?exposed? in the folded state, and has the problem of bellows pinching during folding? In other words, what does the TK offer over the Technika for a shooter like (or unlike) myself? Thanks.--Tony

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned and used both the Technikardan and the Technika. I personally prefer the Technika (my present camera) but the Technikardan does have some advantages that may or may not be important to you. They include the following: (1) the back movements are easier to use on the Technikardan; (2) The Technikardan with bag bellows is probably more user friendly with lenses wider than 90 mm unless perhaps you bought the 2000 which I haven't used but which I understand is easier to use with wide angle lenses than the Master Technika. (3) The Technikardan's bellows is about 4" longer than the Technika, making it usable with somewhat longer lenses without resorting to a telephoto lens (or allowing use of a longer telephoto lens). (4) The Technikardan has bubble levels which are nice for architectural work particularly; (5) some of the Technikardan movements are marked in milimeters. There probably are others that don't come to mind but these are the main ones that I remember from my Technikardan days. I actually didn't care much for the camera - I found it a pain to open, close, operate, and carry around - but many people love them and they do have some advantages compared to the Technika, though these advantages may not be important to you (as they weren't to me). As with any camera, it comes down to personal choices.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Tony,

Like any other camera decision, this is really going to come down to personal pr eference. Still, I've used both e cameras, and for the way I shoot, I prefer th e Tchnikardan TK45S over the Master Technika (I have not shot the newer, rangefi nderless Master Technika 2000).

Here are a few of the differences that I noted.

The Master Technika folds up smaller and faster (but not by as much as you might think, once you get used to folding the Technikardan) and is more self-protecte d when folded. It is also lighter.

The Technikardan TK45S has a longer maximum extension and more movements. It ha s the full compliment of front and rear movements while the Master Technika lack s shifts and rise/fall on the rear. Also, the tilt and swing on the rear of the Master (all Technikas for that matter) uses the four poster method. This is a clever implimentation that allows both rear swing and tilt as well as a little a dded extension. Still, it's a compromise in terms of ease of use (four knobs an d two latches) and magnitude of these movements. Again, personal preference, but I found the back movements not only more complete on the TK45S, but a LOT easie r to use as well.

The TK45S is also a LOT easier to use with wide angles - IF you have the bag bel lows - and IF you need to use movements with these lenses. The MT and MT2000 ca n both focus some pretty wide lenses, but anything shorter than a 90mm rests in the body cavity (box) which can severely limit both the magnitude of and access to the front standard movements. Not unusable, just more limiting than the TK45 S with bag bellows.

This was a big one for me, while the revolving back on the MT is nice, it causes vignetting of the corners with lenses longer than 210mm. The longer the lens, the worse the vignetting. With a 450mm Fujinon C or 500mm Nikkor T-ED, it becom es substantial (IMHO). In my experience the 450mm Fujinon C is, at best, margina lly useful on the MT. In addition to the vignetting, you're really maxing out t he bellows on the MT with such a long non-telephoto design. This means you can' t focus real close and since the back is used for added extension, you loose the ability to do back movements. Again, usable, but barely (an extender board wou ld help with the extension issue, but not the vignetting).

So, for me personally, I prefer the TK45S. Going in, I actually thought I'd fin d TK45S complicated and a chore to use in the field, and initially thought I'd p refer simpler, more classic design of the MT. In the end, after getting used to the way the TK45S operates (which didn't take that long), I found it much less limiting and easier to use FOR ME than the Master Technika. Again, we're gettin g back to personal preference here. I tend to use lenses between 110 and 300mm for the vast majority of my work, by I also do use wider lenses (75mm the widest currently) and longer lenses (the 450mm Fujinon C quite regularly). I sold the Master Technika and kept the TK45S which I am still using quite regulary. No c amera is perfect, and certainly no one camera can meet the needs of all users fo r all uses. My biggest complaints about the TK45S are the weight (it is a BEAST ) and the location of the tripod sockets. You can find the specifics on these t wo issues in the archives.

One more point. The TK45S is usually less expensive. Certainly when bought new , but usually also on the used market (although there tends to me more used Mast er Technikas available to choose from since I think it was a more popular model when new).

If I was just shooting with lenses from 90mm - 300mm, I probably would have been perfectly happy with the MT (although I still prfer the ease of using the back movements on the TK45S). Throw in the 450mm Fuji, and I definitely prefer the T K45s. But, that's just my personal preference. Others will, and do, prefer the Master Technika.

Finally, you might want to check out Paul Butzi's review of the TK45S at:

http://www.butzi.net/reviews/linhoftk45s.htm

Kerry

[Michael Kadillak]

I read the reviews from several prior users of the TK45S prior to acquiring one and am glad that I did not listen to the minor negatives listed for this camera. The tendency of the bellows to be pinched and damaged by a mistake when folding it up is easily resolved by taking the bellows off of the camera. A simple operation that takes five seconds and involves two levers on the front and rear standards. No big deal.

Bottom line is that while no camera is perfect, your desire to use a 450 mm lens in my opinion would lead me to recommend the TK45S for your application because of the longer bellows extension as previous posters have already stated. The Master with the rangefinder, as I have learned from my friend and pro Richard Boulware, has one application that bears mention - firing off a sharp hand held 4x5 photograph at the spur of the moment. In the art of compromise, balancing each of these flexibilities is where you will find the decision that is best for you. Either way you go, you will not be disappointed because of the fact that it is a Linhof. Good Luck

[Walter Glover]

Tony.

I concur with the preceding comments but would add my personal experience.

I use both cameras but find I use the MT2000 more frequenntly.

I shoot a lot of architecture and very often on 6x12 with the Apo-Grandagon 35mm which functions easily on the MT2000 with a FLAT lens panel. To use the same on the TK45s requires a special sunk panel which incurs the associated problems of accessing the controls, particularly with a centre-filter in place.

With nothing shorter than 90mm you would always be working on the front rail and have considerable rise available fairly easily. For lens fall I turn the camera upside down on the tripod (I use Foba plates on both bottom screwpoints and on the top where the accessory shoe normally sits.

The long lens issue is solved by the use of a Wista extension tube set. With it I utilise 450mm Nikkor-M and 600mm Nikkor-T.

Despite the TK45s having sufficient bellows draw to accommodate these lenses without the tube I feel that the MT2000 is a more rigid unit. Heavy lenses and RFHs always seem to stretch the rigidity of the side mounted frames on the TK 'L' brackets.

Twice last week I did shots with the MT2000 handheld - one from a cherry-picker and the other from an inclinator - and that fairly frequent. I replace the accessory shoe and fit the optical viewfinder.

Both cameras have magnificent build quality and precision of alignment. The final decision rests with you and the application to which you intend applying the kit.

Cheers ... WG

[Bob Salomon]

1: The master Technika uses lenses from 75mm up on the main focus rails of the camera. The 75 to 150mm are normally mounted on the recessed 001016 lensboard. The longer ones like the 150 use the recessed board only if you want to leave the lens on the camera when closed.

2: The master Technika uses lenses from 55 to 65mm on a special Auxialliary Focusing Device mounted on the lens standard and with the standard inside the camera body.

Without substantially loosing alignment 35 to 47mm lenses can not be used.

3: The Technika 2000 has a built-in wide angle focusing system inside the camera body and it can use lenses from 35mm to 65mm with no additional accessories (other then lensboards of course).

4: The Technikardan accepts lenses from 65mm up on a flat board and 35mm to 58mm on various recessed boards.

5: The TK has a bellows that is about 25% longer then the Master technika so it can use longer lenses and focus closer with any lens that can be mounted.

6: The Master technika and the TK cameras accept the same accessories for viewing and, accept for the adapter, the same compendium.

7: Obvious to anyone who opens the TK factory package there is no reason to remove the bellows when closing the camera. This is obvious as the bellows is mounted on the closed camera in the factory package.

The only requirement necessary to closing the camera without damaging the bellows is to follow the directions.

The directions on closing the TK are very simple. 1: Place all controls on 0 2: Unlock all green locks. 3 Lock all red locks. 4: Collapse the rail. 5: Turn the focus knob in the direction of the arrow.

Do it a few times and it is simple and fast. Much faster then writing or reading this.

Lastly the movements on the front and back of the TK are much greater and the front and rear tilts and swings are on axis where the Technika has less movements and the back movemnts are base movements.

All in all they are quite different in concept, design and range of application.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Bob wrote:

2: Unlock all green locks. 3 Lock all red locks.

I think you got those backwards (at least on my camera). On my TK45S, I return all front and back rise/fall and tilt movements to their neutral positions and t hen lock them in place (green levers). I then loosen all red levers, disengage the front and rear swing detents, crank the focus knob forward and pivot the sta ndards as it moves forward. Again more tedious to explain than to do. It reall y is quite fast once you get used to it, and like the Master Technika, you can l eave a lens mounted with on the camera during transport (without the same size l imitations as the MT).

WRT to the bellows, I'm more worried about damage to the corners when it's bounc ing around in my backpack than wrinkling them when folding/unfolding. I do plac e the camera inside a padded storage case before putting it into my backpack. B ut it still has the potential to cause premature wear to the corners of the over sized bellows. I suppose for really long hikes where the camera will be bouncin g around a lot, I could remove the bellows and store them separately. Of course , the camera is sufficiently heavy that it rarely goes on really long hikes with me anyway. For that, I have the much lighter Toho.

The TK45S and the MT (or MT2000) really are about as different as two cameras ca n get. They share the same lensboards, back accessories and brand name, but oth er than that, they are about as different in concept and operation as two "field " cameras can get. Some love one and hate the other and vise versa. All depend s on your needs and your working style. Most of the "complaints" you read about the Technikardan come from people who have never actually used one. Maybe they played with it in the store for five minutes, decided it was too complicated an d then ruled it out. If you read the online reviews from people who have actual ly used a Technikardan for any length of time, they are generally quite positive . More than any other "field" camera, this is one people seem to either love or hate. This is in direct relation to the uniqueness of it's design, which I thi nk is it's biggest strength, but other consider it's biggest weakness. See what I mean. Love it or hate, only you will know for sure - after you've had a chan ce to use one and learn it's unique operation. It's not rocket science, and I g rew quickly accustomed to using it after a few hours in the field. Still, it is unlike any other field camera on the market.

Kerry

[Ellis Vener]

"Can anyone tell me why I would buy a Technikardan over a Technika considering the former is a little heavier (I think), more ?exposed? in the folded state, and has the problem of bellows pinching during folding? In other words, what does the TK offer over the Technika for a shooter like (or unlike) myself?"

because you need the versatility and prefer the ease of use of a monorail view camera over the machinations of a technical camera.

[Tony Karnezis]

As someone who has never used a field camera, I guess I don't appreciate some of the compromises that are inherent to the design of a field camera. I've seen comments like Ellis' before about the machinations of a technical camera, especially with gloves on in the winter. It sounds like the TK may be better for me. I'll try to rent one. Anyone in NYC want to lend me theirs? (Just kidding)

Thanks for the great, informative answers as usual. Sincerely, Tony

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Tony,

I'm not pretending to speak for Ellis, but based on my experience, ALL large for mat cameras are a series of compromises involving, size, weight, maximum extensi on, rigidity, wide angle capability, movements (which ones and how much), ease o f use and cost (at the very least). Each design isthe culminations of a unique set of compromises. The goal is to find the right set of compromises that best match your needs (and you wallet).

In general, a monorail has more extensive movements and they are easier to get a t (since it is two exposed standards riding atop a rail). Technical cameras - w hich is what the Technika series is (hence the name) have a nice rigid box to pr otect the innards during transport. They fold up and unfold quickly. That's th e benefit of the "box". The drawback is that the box sometimes gets in the way. It can make it harder to get at all the controls and even physically limit mov ements in some cases. The Technika series has evolved over the decades in the a ttempt to overcome the limitations of the box (the little "car jack" front rise added on the MT V, the body flap added on the MT, the built in wide angle suppor t on the MT2000, etc.) - with each successive version getting better, but it sti ll is a box and will never be as versatile as a monorail. The key is - is it ve rstaile enough? Depends on the user and the use.

In older designs, the differences between a technical camera and a monorail are more pronounced. The two cameras you are considering here are both highly envol ved decendents of the older technical and monorail designs. The Technika series , as mentioned above, has evolved with the clear intent of removing the limitati ons (as much as possible, given the basic design) of the techical camera while r etaining the advantages, and the Technikardan has evolved with a unique folding, collapsable monorail design to make it much more portable than the traditional studio monorail. They are both still compromises, but both are better suited to the application of location shooting than their predecessors.

You really do need to get your hands on one of these, preferrably both, before c ommitting to spending this kind of bucks. These are expensive cameras - two of the most expensive 4x5 "field" cameras on the market. No matter what anyone say s here, the only real way to know which (if either) is right for you is to try t hem for yourself. Not always easy, but certainly recommended - especially for a first time field camera user. Once you've shot for a few years with a few diff erent field cameras, you can probably look at a spec sheet, read a few reviews a nd get a pretty good idea how a camera will suit your needs, but without any pri or experience, relying on the opinions of others (with different needs and prior ities) can lead you astray. If you can borrow or rent one or both, by all means do so. At the very least compare these two, and some other brands and models a s well if possible, in a well stocked camera store. NYC is a good place to find such a store - just keep in mind the timing of your visit and as Bob suggested call ahead to see who has what in stock and when they are open.

Kerry