He gave me a demonstration of it at the last PhotoPlus in NYC, and I was also able to play around with it a little at his booth. He was very nice to me, a lowly high school student. I was very impressed with it, but being used to big heavy monorails, it seemed to lack the sturdiness that I like - then again, as far as I'm concerned, all field cameras do.
I'd be interested to hear from someone who's actually shot with or owned one, but I was quite impressed with it. It's quick to setup and take down, and very very light.
Mr friend Pete recently acquired one and I was able to put it through its paces recently in the field when we were out shooting. There are a few things unique to Canham cameras that are a function of his design criteria in the interest of balancing items such as rigidity and weight that need to be understood.
First, the Canham JMC 810 camera is not as "rigid" in the literal sense of the word as my Kodak Master 8x10 and my Toyo 8x10M. This elasticity has absolutely no effect on this cameras ability to take razor sharp images as if it does exhibit a small amount of movement, it always facilitates the perfect re-registration of the film plane to its desired position. Ditto with my 5x7 metal Canham. However, it is also weights nine pounds versus the 12-14# for my 8x10 cameras which is a fabulous compromise for taking it in the field. Keith told me one time that many folks comment that they are concerned about this issue but when asked if they had any problems with this when making photographs, they all said that it did not.
Secondly, the metal camera only has tilt in the rear standard to save on weight and make it less expensive. One thing I can tell you is that the fresnel is one of the brightest most even balanced I have seen. Some folks might find the image rather course, but I think that it is fabulous.
Lastly, the position of the controls is something that you should try out for yourself to see if they work for you. One could argue that they are a bit close to each other, but this is a rather minor issue. If it were me and I were considering dropping $2,600 for an 8x10 field camera, I would want to see it first hand and check it out from opening it, focusing it and closing it.
Keith may be able to put you in touch with someone in your gepgraphical area that has one of the cameras you might be interested in to get in touch with. Cheers!
"The metal camera only has tilt in the rear standard to save on weight and make it less expensive."
I looked at the JMC but decided I needed either rear shift OR rear swing; otherwise there's no way to get the proverbial "photo of the mirror on the wall without the camera in the photo" (no, I don't photograph mirrors, but I think you get the point). One of the advantages of most view cameras, after all, is the ability to do movements, and there's a reason that very few 8x10's are made without rear swing OR rear shift: photographers use these movements. Unless the JMC is rigid enough to knock down walls, I'm a trifle mystified by the omission of both movements.
Ron: I gave my best answer to this previously. See: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/496649.html I couldn't find this with the search feature and had to scroll through the comments in 8X10 and larger cameras to find it since I knew it was there.
I have reread the previous response and haven't changed my mind after having used the camera a bunch more. I can live without rear swing and rear shift, especially as I have front shift (go ahead and take that "mirror picture") and front swing. The compromise in loss of movements I essentially never use is a very acceptable trade off for the light weight and size of the camera. I have had no problems with lack of rigidity in this camera, it does allow me to take the 8X10 on trips without a huge increase in weight and bulk vs my 5X7 and 4X5. If there is anything more specific you need to know, I'd be happy to help you out. The knob issue has become second nature and isn't even mildly annoying now that I am used to it. Kevin
There's not much I can add to my friend Mike's comments, but I've owned this camera for almost a year now and love it. You must understand that every camera makes some compromises on design, so you must decide what features are most important to your work and chose accordingly. In my case, portability, ease of setup/breakdown, weight and rigidity to capture the image were paramount.
As for rigidity, you can't do pull-ups on it, but it's more than adequate for making images!
Flexibility is important and the flexibity in this camera will allow one to take the mirror picture, but it wont be as easy as with a camera that has rear shift or swing... All you need to do is flip the camera 90 degrees to the right or left, now tilt becomes swing and front swing becomes tilt. Where's theres a will there is usually a way.
The only shooters that may find this camera inadequate are those shooting interiors, or strictly archeticture; certainly there are cameras that accomplish this task more easily. Some of my work includes what I call quasi -architecture, because I shoot a lot of abandoned structures, both inside and out and have not had a problem.
The ground glass on this camera is truly wonderful; once you see the image, you'll be hooked.
Phillips makes a wonderful camera, but in addition to the wait, it's not nearly as easy to setup and will not accomodate long focal length lenses.
Let me know if you have any specific questions and I'll be happy to answer them. For what it's worth, I was hesitant about getting this camera until I saw one, then I happened to be in Los Angeles on business and stopped into Sammys. They had one, I played with it and realized I couldn't live without it. The rest is history.
I've tried it out in a store. Though, handsome and compact, it is not a rigid camera. Maybe it is rigid enough under ideal conditions, but for me, those conditions are rarely met. Make sure you give it a thorough going over before you consider buying it.
I have not used the JMC in the field, but I have workerd with it at a trade show. I am very familiar with Keith's cameras, as I use a DLC and a 7x17 (which is based on the 8x10 wood camera chassis).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. Keith designs cameras that are 'rigid enough' for typical field applications that the cameras are built to be used in. This means that they are not the most ridid cameras in the world, but the compromise in rigidity is made up for in portability and weight for the most part. To build excess rigidity into a camera intended for field use is illogical.
To suggest that the camera is only suitable for 'ideal conditions' is somewhat unfair, because it is characteristic of all field cameras that this be at least partially true. There is no field camera that can withstand wind. If you want to do that, you need to use a (massive) aerial camera, and even then you will have to work to dampen the vibrations caused by the wind.
If you work in the studio, then this camera is not for you.
I can count on one hand the number of times I have ever used rear shift. Normally, front shift is all that is necessary for my needs. Occasionally, with a longer lens, I have needed to use both front shift and rear shift combined. But, I have never done this on an 8x10 or larger (my Phillips 8x10 doesn't have rear shift), only on the 4x5 camera.
Rear swing is also rarely used in my photography. I have used it some, but I prefer to do my focus plane adjustments with the front standard. Since the rear standard affects the perspective of the image, I generally am loathe to use rear movements for many subjects, unless I have a specific desire to emphasize or deemphasize a particular portion of the image.
It is possible to get an effective rear swing through indirect methods, so it is possible to have the same effect without actually having the movement built into the back.
I think this camera is a bit of a specialty camera, and a person purchasing it should try it before makeing a purchase, or make sure there is a return policy because the movements may be too limited for some people's satisfaction. The price difference between the JMC and his wood camera is not too great, and the difference in capabilities may be worth the additional money for you.
"I can count on one hand the number of times I have ever used rear shift. Normally, front shift is all that is necessary for my needs. Occasionally, with a longer lens, I have needed to use both front shift and rear shift combined. But, I have never done this on an 8x10 or larger (my Phillips 8x10 doesn't have rear shift), only on the 4x5 camera.
Rear swing is also rarely used in my photography. I have used it some, but I prefer to do my focus plane adjustments with the front standard. Since the rear standard affects the perspective of the image, I generally am loathe to use rear movements for many subjects, unless I have a specific desire to emphasize or deemphasize a particular portion of the image."
Indeed there are some very good photogorpahers who order their Phillips 8x10's without rear swing so as to simplify setup and rigidity/alignment - I guess they find they just never use it?
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks