Instant gratification vs. Delay and Cost: Technikardan vs. Arca Swiss

**Bob McCarthy** · 7-Oct-2009, 13:17

I decided my words were a little strong, though my message was on the mark. The real estate world is on it's ass and it's the principle source of income for my little company (www.creativegeographics.com). So I'm in conservation mode waiting out the storm. It can't last forever. If the world were different I would still be happily using the Linhof. But picking up a cheap Sinar has not diminished the quality of my negatives/slides one wit.

Actually, after spending some time getting it optimized, I am enjoying it. And the prices are almost silly. I saw a 8x10P for under $500 yesterday, in decent shape too.

bob

**Ron Bose** · 7-Oct-2009, 14:01

TK45S is easy to fold, you just have to move both standards at the sametime to minimize the stress on the bellows.

The Canham 5x7 wood took me longer to figure out how to close properly.

If I knew when I was starting out in LF what I know now ...

- I wish I'd never bought the Sinar F2 with a pile of accesories - it's worthless now, but still an excellent (but heavy) monorail.

- I'm glad that I owned a Wisner Traditional 4x5 for 9 months, what a beautiful camera ! It taught me that you don't need geared movements or all the markings the Sinar has (the F2 doesn't have geared movements).

- I wish I'd never bought the Gandolfi Variant II - now sold.

- I'm in two minds about the Canham - even used it was pricey. But it's a nice camera.

- I'm glad I bought the wife a Chamonix, because now she doesn't want to use my Canham.

- I still love my TK45S - a foldable monorail.

- I still ask myself why anyone would spend so much money on a new Sinar or Arca-Swiss.

If your new to LF buy a cheap camera and nice lenses !! You never know when you'll meet your first Leica !!

**pocketfulladoubles** · 9-Oct-2009, 09:59

I've concluded that two cameras are really needed. One should be a lightweight field camera that is easy to deal with and has "enough" movements for what you'd need outside, which isn't much at all. The second should be a heavy and stable monorail with lots of room for movements that you can use for table-top and interiors. Having two cameras is of course ideal. The key is that you should not overspend on the camera itself. Spend you money on your lenses (eg Schneider XL), so that if you decide to do more technical shots, you have enough image circle to work with.

**Frank Petronio** · 9-Oct-2009, 10:33

After coming of age in the 80s, I think it is really funny that we are talking about a Technikardan as being "just OK" and Sinars as being bargain cameras ;-)

I've owned them all now and I would get a nice clean Sinar. We're talking about a pound or two of extra weight, maybe a couple of inches of bulk, for a camera system that is every bit as well-designed and built as anything ever was, for 1/10th the price of an Arca that you'll spend years finding exotic parts to.

With PART of the savings, you could always purchase an ultralight woodie, Toho, or Gowland for backpacking. Or a Mamiya 7 system for that matter.

But the weight and bulk savers are most often just fooling themselves -- so they save a little on the camera -- what about the holders, changing tent, film boxes, and that rack of exotic glass they must have along?

And for the record, of the three top brands mentioned, the Linhof had the best build quality of them all. The Arcas are very nice but face it, they are luxury, status, goal-orientated purchases. You really can't make a rational price-use-value justification. More power to you if you got one but don't go blowing smoke up my butt telling me your photos are better because of the camera. It's like having a Rolex instead of a Timex.

**Robert Fisher** · 9-Oct-2009, 11:21

Frank, Arcas are basically $1,000 cameras that sell for $5,000.

They consist of $25 of metal, $150 of machining and a $50 bellow.

**jb7** · 9-Oct-2009, 12:06

Souds expensive alright, when you compare used sinars with new arcas-

**percepts** · 9-Oct-2009, 12:40

Since the thread was started back in May I think the instant gratifciation is no longer a consideration. Infact since the OP isn't participating in the revival, the question is redundant. But then since we like to spout our opinions I'll spout mine too.

I own a Technikardan 45S. Been trying to sell it as I rarely use it now. It is a fine camera but it is a specialist tool best suited for location photography. If I were buying again I would get a Technika. Why? Because I want to backpack with low volume sack and have a very very rigid camera which is very simple to setup. But it would be nowhere as useable for table top / macro work as a technikardan which wouldn't be as good as sinar monorail.

If wanted to do all of those but only buy one camera then I would look at the Technikardan.

So it really comes down to having the best tool for the job. None of them are as good as another in a different circumstance. But if you want the flexibility to use one camera for all jobs, then the technikardan has it where others don't.

But then it seems to me that the primary overiding factor for most people is price rather than getting the best tool for the job. Go figure...

p.s. All 4x5 cameras are capable of equal quality results in the right hands. It's more a question of useability for the task at hand and the criteria each of set for ourselves on what constitutes "useability".