Tachihara 4x5 or Shen Hao

[FredWilson]

Ok, since I got my lens question answered in my previous thread, I'm kinda rethinking the used Tachihara that I've seen.
Now I'm leaning much more towards a Shen-Hao, specifically:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/..._detail&p=2766


Any thoughts, one way or the other, to help guide a total newbee at LF photography.
I've done many years of 35mm film (slides most the original Velvia) and over a year now with digital so I'm not new to photography, but I want to give the 4x5 a shot now.
I do, mostly, landscapes (I live in the great SW, southern Arizona), nature and macro.

The Tachihara that I'm was/am considering is used, with no lensboard. The Shen-Hao would be new, comes with a lensboard (either way I'd need a lens/lenses, so that's a wash) and it's a little over $100.00 more than the used Tachihara.


Thanks,
Fred

[Lachlan 717]

Also consider the Shen Hao XPO. Longer bellow draw and the option to use Sinar bellows, lens boards and/or shutter.

I've used as short as a 72mm, and easily used a 360mm on it at 10-odd feet.

Bit heavier than the Tachi and the PTB, but not limiting. I'm very happy to add a little weight for the functionality I gain.

[Heespharm]

Either one... I can tell you my Shen hao is awesome.... But you can buy a used tachi or Toyo on these forums for cheaper... Take it from me... Be patient one will show up... The pounce on it

[rdenney]

Before making this decision, you might want to consider a more basic decision of what type of camera to consider. But first, you should a bit more carefully define what you will do.

How short will your shortest lens be? Will you ever use roll-film holders? What is the longest lens you intend to use? What do you mean by "macro"? Will you be carrying your camera in a backpack? How far from the car do you intend to go?

Most people use the term "macro" to describe close-up photography, while true macro really starts at 1:1 and gets larger from there. With a large-format camera, macro is very challenging. Large-format lenses, with the exception of a few telephoto designs (and perhaps a few very short modern digital designs intended for smaller digital backs) are approximately centered on their rear nodal points. That means that a 150mm lens will need about 150mm of spacing between the film and the lens board. That 150mm lens will require 300mm of spacing at 1:1. Many prefer to use lenses longer than the film diagonal for macro work, but that just extends the bellows draw out that much more. A 210mm lens (which some still consider "normal" in 4x5) will require more bellows that nearly any field camera when focused at 1:1.

The XPO mentioned above has some nice features along these lines. One is that it accepts Sinar bellows and lens boards, so you can clip in bag bellows to use very short lenses. It is also a quadruple-extension bed, so it provides quite a lot of bellows draw for a field camera that can also go short. With most, it's either one or the other. In return for this flexibility and Sinar interchangeability, you give up a design that folds into itself.

If you work close to the car and don't need a back-packable camera, then consider something like a Sinar F. They are cheap and plentiful on the ground, but they are also solid and well-made workhorse cameras intended for professional use. You can add the XPO later (if you feel the need) and enjoy the interchangeability. But with an F1, you can also buy a cheapie intermediate standard, connect two sets of bellows together, screw an extension onto the monorail, and focus a 300mm lens at 1:1. So, a $350 camera, with perhaps a couple of hundred in extra goodies, can provide the necessary 600mm of bellows draw. With the wide-angle bellows 2, it will easily focus a 47mm lens on a flat board and still provide movements. No field camera is as flexible and modular, and certainly not as cheap.

But monorail cameras are bulkier (not necessarily heavier), and they don't fit in backpacks easily. They also don't look like furniture. That's the trade-off, and the choice you make depends on what you will do with the camera.

Rick "who wouldn't mind adding an XPO to his Sinar F kit, because both is always an option" Denney

[evan clarke]

A friend of mine got one of these for Christmas and until now I always would have recommended the Tachihara. This Shen Hao PBT is an incredibly light, rigid camera and it's made very well..Evan Clarke

[alharding]

I just got the Shen Hao PTB a week ago and its great. It has a ton of movements and the hardware is excellent. The pictures on Badger don't do it justice. Its a small but rock-solid camera. I'd go for it.

Al Harding

[rguinter]

The Tachihara is extremely light weight and easy to carry in a backpack with all needed accessories. But as a result it is a bit more fragile than rock-solid heavy designs.

But for me I'd rather have a lighter camera so I can pack useful extras... like more lenses and a roll-film back... and maybe my ice-climbing crampons and ropes, snowshoes and poles... or maybe even my 45 Casull Mag and some ammo just in case....

Bob G.

[Roger Cole]

I'm wondering pretty much the same thing, except that I'm also looking at the Shen-Hao HZX 4X5 IIA and TFC45-IIB. Neither the (very slow from here, and in Chinese) Shen-Hao site nor Badger's make really comparing those cameras all that easy. I believe the PTB is pretty much a copy of the Chamonix? Most people who have that camera seem to love it, but I know I've read of some complaints depending on needs - slow to set up or fold or something, but a quick search didn't turn up what I was looking for.

I currently have an old Tech III I'd like to replace soon. The main thing going for the Tachihara seems to be the light weight. But I don't mind the Tech III and I'm sure wouldn't mind a couple pounds more. I'm in the camp that thinks the total kit weight with lenses, holders, meter, tripod etc is going to be enough that a small (emphasis on that, I'm not talking about a 15 lb. monorail here) difference in the camera weight isn't that important, especially if I get a tougher and more rigid camera in exchange.

The Tachihara lacks a few movements I don't need - front shift and rear rise/fall if I recall correctly. I don't recall ever using front shift on my Tech III and if I did need it, as someone said, the Tachihara is light enough to rotate 90 degrees on the tripod and use the rise/fall. You can also get into the same lens/film position by aiming the bed diagonally and swinging the front and back if you prefer. Either way, a pretty unimportant lack for me. For rise and fall just use the front (or again, aim the bed up/down and tilt front and back to compensate.) 90% of the movements I have used (doing mainly landscapes) have been front rise (trees, occasionally buildings) and rear tilt for foreground focus, preferring the perspective change. The other 10% is probably mostly front tilt for times I didn't want the perspective change from the back tilt. So the movements are fine.

But for slightly more than the price of a used Tachihara I can get a new Shen-Hao with longer bellows draw, the ability to use a bag bellows, which I consider pretty important in my next camera since I like wide angles and want to use a roll film back more often, and sturdier construction. You give up the bright screen but can add a fresnel for not that much more - or a Maxwell for admittedly a LOT more.

I may create a separate thread "help me spend my tax refund!" Also in my personal consideration would be a used metal Wista. I love the look of wood cameras but I'm a bit spoiled by the solidity of a metal one.

Choices, choices!

[FredWilson]

Before making this decision, you might want to consider a more basic decision of what type of camera to consider. But first, you should a bit more carefully define what you will do.

How short will your shortest lens be? Will you ever use roll-film holders? What is the longest lens you intend to use? What do you mean by "macro"? Will you be carrying your camera in a backpack? How far from the car do you intend to go?

Most people use the term "macro" to describe close-up photography, while true macro really starts at 1:1 and gets larger from there. With a large-format camera, macro is very challenging. Large-format lenses, with the exception of a few telephoto designs (and perhaps a few very short modern digital designs intended for smaller digital backs) are approximately centered on their rear nodal points. That means that a 150mm lens will need about 150mm of spacing between the film and the lens board. That 150mm lens will require 300mm of spacing at 1:1. Many prefer to use lenses longer than the film diagonal for macro work, but that just extends the bellows draw out that much more. A 210mm lens (which some still consider "normal" in 4x5) will require more bellows that nearly any field camera when focused at 1:1.

The XPO mentioned above has some nice features along these lines. One is that it accepts Sinar bellows and lens boards, so you can clip in bag bellows to use very short lenses. It is also a quadruple-extension bed, so it provides quite a lot of bellows draw for a field camera that can also go short. With most, it's either one or the other. In return for this flexibility and Sinar interchangeability, you give up a design that folds into itself.

If you work close to the car and don't need a back-packable camera, then consider something like a Sinar F. They are cheap and plentiful on the ground, but they are also solid and well-made workhorse cameras intended for professional use. You can add the XPO later (if you feel the need) and enjoy the interchangeability. But with an F1, you can also buy a cheapie intermediate standard, connect two sets of bellows together, screw an extension onto the monorail, and focus a 300mm lens at 1:1. So, a $350 camera, with perhaps a couple of hundred in extra goodies, can provide the necessary 600mm of bellows draw. With the wide-angle bellows 2, it will easily focus a 47mm lens on a flat board and still provide movements. No field camera is as flexible and modular, and certainly not as cheap.

But monorail cameras are bulkier (not necessarily heavier), and they don't fit in backpacks easily. They also don't look like furniture. That's the trade-off, and the choice you make depends on what you will do with the camera.

Rick "who wouldn't mind adding an XPO to his Sinar F kit, because both is always an option" Denney

Rick,
Good points and I have now had a couple more microseconds to think about things
- I'm not sure about what the shortest lens that I would use is, at least not now. Remember that I'm a newbee at the large format stuff. If I were to guess, I would venture to say 90mm, maybe even 75mm, at least in the near future, defined as maybe the next year or so. That gives me time to get my feet wet and see if I really want to continue down this road.
- Longest lens, same thing. Maybe 300 +- a little.
- Macro I would define, current, as no smaller than 1:1, which I've been doing a lot of lately, and a little larger.
- Backpacking, again, in the next year or so, not far from the 4x4, based on a few years previous experience. That can be measure in a few hundred yards.

I've kinda thought through things a little more now and have seen several Calumet CC400's for sale, cheap, one with a 16" and one with a 22" bellows extension.
Locally, there is someone who is selling a Sinar A1 as:

Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar-S 150mm f/5.6 Copal-No. 0 lens,
5 film holders, cable release, magnifying glass, dark cloth,
hard body foam-lined carrying case.

for $550.00.

I believe (though haven't talked to yet to confirm) that it has a 19" bellows extension.

So, any thoughts on the CC400 and/or the A1 (you've mentioned the F series and I see that there are a handful of those {used} available also).

Thanks again all,
Fred

[Jon Shiu]

I started out with the Calumet CC400, and then switched to the Tachihara. I photographed a lot more due to the portable nature of the Tachihara. The CC400 is fine, but it is not the best for wide angle. Would need a recessed lens board. Also, the screen is very bright on the Tachihara. You can get a fresnel screen to put on top of the ground glass on the CC400 to help see better.

Jon