I have used a TK45 for over 25 years. The extension slides can be a bit stiff when the air temperature is in the teens or colder, but otherwise I love the camera. Lenses ranged from 75mm to 600mm, the latter being a telephoto.
I have used a TK45 for over 25 years. The extension slides can be a bit stiff when the air temperature is in the teens or colder, but otherwise I love the camera. Lenses ranged from 75mm to 600mm, the latter being a telephoto.
Hello,
I worked with a Technika 5x7, but I found it too heavy to carry around. It was the same with a Technika III Mark 5 4x5.
I found the screws of the back tilt to weak. One broke in two pieces. Perhaps it was the lubrification that hardened the thing. I should have it repaired, but this was too expensive. And the bellows had pinholes.
In my opinion a Linhof is worth the money only if you get one of the newest models, perhaps from Linhof in Munich (I myself come from Germany, hehe, so I am a natural admirer of our industries). it is a statement, that you look for worthyness, sturdiness, build quality, and fairly produced things, too - "Deutsche Wertarbeit".
But a new Linhof costs about 5000 €. When used, you pay at least 1000 € to get something a good repair man can service.
What about the Wista 45D and her followers, including a rangefinder version? In my experience they are sturdy too, they're affordable, they're repairable, they have got better bellows than Linhofs, they use Linhof lensboards, they have geared movements, there are a lot of affordable accessoires, and you will be able to spend more money on good lenses ...
I think that in large format photography an accurately working shutter (to do zone system, tolerance between +-0.3 EV) is much more important than the difference in build quality between a Technika and other cameras. This concerns every lens you use, so there are a lot of costs waiting for you. Also filter quality will improve sharpness and contrast more than the material of the camera housing. Same with tripods.
It is the same with e.g. a Leica M2-M6 vs Nikon F2-FM2n. You pay a lot for the brand, the horizontal cloth-shutter of the Leica isn't as good as the vertical aluminium-one of the Nikon, the Nikon is less heavy and less bulky, its lenses are affordable and excelling, the SLR-system is more accurate than the range finder that needs to be adjusted regularly and you spend a lot less money for the Nikon than the Leica.
Unfortunately Nikon never produced 4x5 technical cameras ...
Regards
fotografie.ist ...
I don't know if this has been asked or stated (thread is getting longish): do you want the Rangefinder? Do you think it will be useful for the type of photography you do? If you don't want or need a Rangefinder, you could save yourself quite a bit of money by buying a Technika IV without the Rangefinder (they also made them with Rangefinders). They turn up once in a while at considerably less.
I have the Master Technika which I really like and have cams for the most often used lenses and... never use the Rangefinder.
You need one for each specific lens. Not by focal length. So, for example, there is one for the Rodenstock 65 and a different one for the Schneider 65mm since the flange focal lengths may be different and the depth of field scale is different since they are different speed lenses.
My experience is similar to Renato's, I have a nearly mint IV that does everything I want it to for not a lot of money. I have a cam for the 150mm lens and I use it with the rangefinder sometimes handheld, but I am on the tripod using the groundglass most of the time, so no other cams needed.
I do appreciate the excellent build quality, I am pleased to have and use it.
I love my Master Technika. I don't think it's too heavy to carry resonable distances. The back tilt take a while to get used to, but it does work. I've never used the rangefinder.
That said, lately I mainly use a 5 x 7 Kodak 2D for sheet film and a Sinar Vario roll film holder in the linhof.
Bookmarks