Comments on a Rajah 8 x 10

[Jim Allen]

Hi all,

Thanks to all for this group. What a bundle of knowledge.

I just acquired a Rajah 8 x 10 off eBay for a very decent price. I've been in 4 x 5 for some time and now I'm "movin' on up" Any comments would be appreciated.. ......Anybody used one - I understand that they are a Deardoff "knock off".????

Thanks,

Jim

[Ron_673]

At one time back in the mid 80's I owned and used a Rajah 4X5 which wasa basicly a 5X7 with 4X5 back. From a functional stand-point the camera worked well. The quality of the wood and the craftmanship was not up to par with other, more expensive wood field cameras. You always get what you pay for. If you don't expect Deardoff precision, this camera may serve you well. I did replace the coarsely etched ground glass and this helped viewing and focusing. Enjoy!

[Doug Paramore]

My experience with the Rajah was a lot like Ron's. It was a good workable camera. However, I got one with beautiful, well fitted wood and to the fair, the camera was a thing of beauty. The only problem I had was the ground glass holder-pressure plate. It appeared to have been a casting made by pouring metal into a footprint in the ground and painted. After I exchanged that part with one off an old Graphic or Calumet, I can't remember which, I had a good working camera. I would suggest that you check the ground glass registration to make sure it is the same as the film plane. Make sure the ground glass holder doesn't wobble when it is in focusing position. If that checks out o.k. and everything locks down tight, you ought to have a good, servicable camera. Good shooting, Doug.

[Jim Allen]

Doug and Ron,

Thanks for the response. I agree with you - you get what you pay for! Still and all, it will allow some 8x10 exposure to see if I want to move up, indeed. I am pretty sure that I do but probably Rajah is not going to be the vehicle. Since I wont be shooting too far from the car (4wd will help), I suspect I'll end up with a monorail. It'will be fun,anyway, and that what it's supposed to be........

Thanks and best,

Jim