Is the Technikardan 45S my only option?

[Sal Santamaura]

...the slightly more robust S model with the one-piece solid "L" frames...

You've got that backwards:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...12&postcount=4

[Bob Salomon]

You've got that backwards:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...12&postcount=4

No it isn't.

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned a Technikardan and a Chamonix. I'm trying to think of what the Technikardan could do that the Chamonix couldn't and I can't think of anything except the Chamonix was faster to set up and much easier for me to operate after it was set up.

Of course it's been a long time since I owned the Technikardan and I didn't have it for very long so there's probably something I'm forgetting. The bag bellows would definitely help in setting the TK up and taking it down, which was one of my main problems with it. But the bag bellows won't help when you have those two levers with identical plastic heads on either side of the camera and try to tell by feel from under the dark cloth which lever is which, which lever controls which movement, and what position that lever is in relative to the others. It frankly drove me crazy.

[Sal Santamaura]

No it isn't.

Bob, your post that I linked, from a 2003 thread titled "Technikardan vs. Technikardan-S," said

"...Originsl L made from one piece of metal with 2 90°. Later one has 3 straight pieces with a joiner block."

Was that post incorrect?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, your post that I linked, from a 2003 thread titled "Technikardan vs. Technikardan-S," said

"...Originsl L made from one piece of metal with 2 90°. Later one has 3 straight pieces with a joiner block."

Was that post incorrect?

Yes that is correct. In addition, the S has a beefier front L.

[mortensen]

Thanks for chiming in, Brian - I have read your TK review several times btw.

But, the thing is, that if the TK 45S just barely lives up to it's specs, it offers major improvements to my needs over the Chamonix. Zero-detents will easily square the standards, which is essential for me. Everything on the Cham has to be tightened (a lot) to be perfectly stiff. Extensive back movements, separate locks/switches for rise/tilt and shift/swing, geared focus (I guess the Cham has too, but not too impressive imo)... just to name a few. I liked my Chamonix, but found - as most others do with their first camera - that it wasn't perfect for my way of working.

Most cameras do most jobs - to me, the interesting part is how. I haven't had my hands on a TK, which is why I ask all these questions

btw... wouldn't you have solved the lever problem with a little rubber shoe on, say, the tilt and swing levers?

[Matus Kalisky]

I think one more camera you may consider is the Toyo 125CX (or 125VXb, NOT 125VXr which has only short rail and no geared movements). It is together with TK45S on my list ("at-least-get-my-hands-on-it-once"). It should be compact when packed (has telescopic rail) and has more geared movements. It should actually be somewhat lighter than the TK45S. It was (is) supposed to be very expensive new, but used should be under $2000. You should not need a bag bellows with the lenses mentioned.

[mortensen]

Interesting, Matus - will look into it, thanks!

Just read the review on the main page. It really sounds like the a true competitor to the TK45S... I wonder if you can still get them cheap in Japan? Seems like a truly outstanding camera.

[Nathan Potter]

I use a TK45 only now for 4X5 work and have exclusively for about 10 years. I prefer it to several other cameras I've used in the past mostly because of its movement flexibility and sturdiness. It is on the heavy side, 6+ lbs. without lens. I always remove the lenses because I transport it in a backpack. I have beat the hell out of my working TK but it still handles like new.

I will say that folded up, the bellows are open and so subject to abraison at the corners where they project beyond the edges of the rear standard. I get about 4 years out of a standard bellows. Folding the unit up after shooting was a bit crazy at first but I quickly got used to it so it was second nature within a couple of months.

Setup time for me from bag to holder insert is done in as little as 1.5 minutes. I use mine with 75mm to 700mm lenses.

I certainly concur with Franks comments that this is probably an under rated camera but I'm sure the weight issue is relevant for those backpacking.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for chiming in, Brian - I have read your TK review several times btw.

But, the thing is, that if the TK 45S just barely lives up to it's specs, it offers major improvements to my needs over the Chamonix. Zero-detents will easily square the standards, which is essential for me. Everything on the Cham has to be tightened (a lot) to be perfectly stiff. Extensive back movements, separate locks/switches for rise/tilt and shift/swing, geared focus (I guess the Cham has too, but not too impressive imo)... just to name a few. I liked my Chamonix, but found - as most others do with their first camera - that it wasn't perfect for my way of working.

Most cameras do most jobs - to me, the interesting part is how. I haven't had my hands on a TK, which is why I ask all these questions

btw... wouldn't you have solved the lever problem with a little rubber shoe on, say, the tilt and swing levers?

I did consider doing something to make it easier to remember which lever did what and to distinguish the levers by feel. I probably would have done something like that if I had otherwise really liked the camera. But since I didn't and sold the camera within a year or so of buying it I never got around to doing that. I also recognize, as I said in the review, that had I used the camera more frequently than I did, using the levers might have become more intuitive.