Zone VI 8x10 opinions?

[Chris Dunham]

Looking for opinions re the Zone VI 8x10 camera ?

Thanks,

Chris.

[John Bowen]

These are great cameras. I've owned one for about 5 years now. I found it to be workhorse of a camera. The bellows material is top notch (a synthetic that doesn't seem to sag). The bail back is a real plus!

I replaced a Wisner with the Zone VI. I have since added a Ritter 8x10 and use the Ritter as my primary camera. The Ritter weighs about 1/2 what the Zone VI or Wisner weighed. The lighter weight means I can use a lighter tripod and lighter tripod head. So the Ritter setup is about 15 lbs less weight on my shoulder compared to the Zone VI setup.

I was one of the first purchasers of Richard Ritter's 8x10 cameras and requested that Richard use the same belows material that Zone VI used. So Richard's cameras have the same wonderful synthetic bellows material.

I still take the Zone VI along on photo trips just as a back-up or in case I find myself set up and waiting for the right light, I can set up the second 8x10 on a second tripod and keep shooting.

Good luck,

[Oren Grad]

There are two versions - the original one sold first by Fred Picker, and the later "Ultralight" version introduced by Calumet. Chris, do you know which one you're looking at?

[Vaughn]

I have one and it has been a good camera. Some occasional problems with light leaking in the back -- not very substantial baffles back there and there is a lot of "extra" room where the film holder slides in (it is a little too wide.) I have a model with the non-bail handle back (non-ultralight).

Other than that (I keep the darkcloth over the back of the camera), it is a great camera. I am wondering if the bail-back cameras might be a bit better constructed back there.

Vaughn

[pyro]

I used one for several months about fifteen years ago, during a trip out to the four corners area where I lugged it around the backcountry extensively. It was the original ZONE VI 8x10 camera, the heavier model, not the later lightweight version. It had all the gaudy gold-plated hardware Fred Picker used to gush about in all his wonderful catalogues.

It was a solid, well-made and capable 8x10 field. All controls/knobs/latches/hardware were very well-thought out and functioned smoothly. It was almost completely based on the smaller Zone VI 4x5 field (the last Zone VI 4x5 camera, called the Wisner version), only much, much larger. It had extensive movement capabilities in all areas. The bail back was a very useful feature; it made loading and unloading film holders much easier with one hand, without altering the camera's set-up. I never experienced any light leaks in the back or the bellows, though older cameras can develop these. It was a very pretty field. With all the gorgeous wood and shiny gold-plated metal hardware it never failed to attract a lot of attention wherever I set it up.

It was/is definitely not a lightweight by most modern 8x10 standards, though it could be carried by one photographer without renting/buying a burro. I carried it, along with a heavy tripod and and a bag full of equipment/holders, all the way down to the bottom of Canyon de Chelly, across Chinle Wash and to the base of White House ruins, and then back up again to the parking lot at the overlook....something I would never want to do again as long as I live. If I were still into that kind of lunacy, I would get a really ultra-lightweight 8x10. These days I never wander far from the car with anything heavier than my Canham DLC.

Maximum bellows extension was significant. The longest lens I ever used was an old 24" Artar; I believe the maximum focal length it could handle was longer than that, well over 30 inches. The widest lens I used with it was a 120mm Nikkor SW, the shortest FL that will cover 8x10 (back then, at least). The bellows material was flexible and it allowed full use of shorter lenses with few problems; I never used a bag bellows with the camera. With really wide lenses, and photographing subjects like architectural interiors, a bag bellows would be necessary for full movements. Most of the time I used a 305mm G-Claron, a 10" WF Ektar or a 150mm Nikkor SW...all these focal lengths/shutters were handled very well by the camera.

All in all, it was a very nice 8x10 field camera. After using the Zone VI 8x10 I ended up buying a slightly-used Wisner 8x10 field camera, pretty much the same camera design as the Zone VI 8x10, but without all the gaudy gold-plated hardware. That gold-plated hardware was already tarnishing and pitting when I had the camera; I'm not sure why Picker used this gold-plating on all the brass parts. I always liked the plain brass hardware much more on the older Zone VI 4x5 I had for many years.

If you can find a nice Zone VI, for a good price, I think it would make an excellent 8x10 for just about any type of use. However, if you really want an 8x10 for carrying far afield, more than a few hundred yards from your vehicle, you might consider a lighter camera...or get a burro, or a young, strong assistant.

[Vaughn]

While it does handle a 24" easily, my Zone VI can barely handle a 28" lens at infinity. I had to take both standards to the very end of their focusing tracks.

I have used a 159mm lens with it -- doable, but the movements get tough to do if one wants to do anything fancy.

[Chris Dunham]

There are two versions - the original one sold first by Fred Picker, and the later "Ultralight" version introduced by Calumet. Chris, do you know which one you're looking at?

Hi Oren,

The one I was watching is on fleabay - item # 250530341125. The text implies that is is a 1993 build. Other than that I'm unsure.

Regards,

Chris.

[pyro]

Just checked Ebay ad# 250530341125.

That's the original Zone VI 8x10, the same model I used, not the later "lightweight" model. It looks like it's in excellent condition, even the gold-plated hardware.

[Bruce A Cahn]

The originals were made by Wisner and he used polyurethane for some of his bellows.

[RichardRitter]

Wisner never made the Zone VI 8 x 10 camera.