Chamonix 45N-1 Testing Procedure

[Darin Boville]

but again, it is meaningless to test a sample size of one.

Classic.

Not at all. While it may not give you enough data points for statistical analysis there are other ways of learning about the world

For example, if Jeremy's camera fails the test then that would cast serious doubt on all the Chaminox users who claim their camera is o.k.--Jeremy seems to be a knowledgeable user and he failed to see it in normal photography uses. So the others might be not seeing it in the same way.

Likewise, if his camera passes then we know that at least one is o.k., suggesting that it might be a QC or changing design issue.

--Darin

[lilmsmaggie]

This test has absolutely nothing to do with the Chamonix factory or Hugo.

I am making this test for myself as a Chamonix user and for the benefit of the users of the LFForum and Apug.org (I linked over to this thread on a thread there about Chamonix focusing issues).

As it is, the proposed test will only answer one question for Exactly one camera - Jeremy's....and is therefore, of little real use to anybody else. We have no idea, for example, what the variation in this critical dimension is from the factory. It would be interesting to select a random sample of production...and measure. In the real world it would just be nice if the sample size were greater than one - forget about the random sample just test more than one item!

I also agree it would be interesting to know how one brand compares to another...but again, it is meaningless to test a sample size of one.

Classic.

Jeremy,

Please don't take it personally. I understand that your tests have nothing to do with the factory or Hugo; even as a non-Chamonix owner, I still appreciate your effort in settling the issue at least in terms of your particular camera.

However, it still begs the question: "What purpose will these tests serve even if they are for the benefit of Chamonix owners?"

I would think the outcome should or at least could benefit Chamonix to consider their design methodology. Seems like a lot of effort and time that may be for naught if it can't be used to improve a product that so many LF photographers seem to have embraced.

[BradS]

Not at all. While it may not give you enough data points for statistical analysis there are other ways of learning about the world

For example, if Jeremy's camera fails the test then that would cast serious doubt on all the Chaminox users who claim their camera is o.k.--Jeremy seems to be a knowledgeable user and he failed to see it in normal photography uses. So the others might be not seeing it in the same way.

Likewise, if his camera passes then we know that at least one is o.k., suggesting that it might be a QC or changing design issue.

--Darin

Good point. Thanks.

[BarryS]

I look forward to your tests Jeremy. I suppose you can look forward to getting more criticism from non-Chamonix 45N-1 owners with too much time on their hands, but we actual owners are grateful. I hate doing testing and haven't felt compelled as my negatives generally look pretty sharp and I've been selling prints, but I'd still like to see your results.

[Jim Galli]

Jeremy, I can't believe this hasn't been asked before, but, isn't the better light self defeating since most of the supposed error will be in the far corners of the plate and the better light will only 'see' the center 'sweet spot'? Seems to settle the original intent that you would need full sheet 4X5 film so that the area most affected will be there. Although if you only use the center to focus, I guess it won't matter. Best of luck. The original GPS post was so idiotically biased it made me want to buy my 3rd Chamonix. Luvin' the Hexar!

[Jeremy Moore]

As it is, the proposed test will only answer one question for Exactly one camera - Jeremy's....and is therefore, of little real use to anybody else. We have no idea, for example, what the variation in this critical dimension is from the factory. It would be interesting to select a random sample of production...and measure. In the real world it would just be nice if the sample size were greater than one - forget about the random sample just test more than one item!

I've already stated that I *may* which has now been turned into WILL have 2 Chamonix 45N-1 cameras to test on Friday. They were purchased separately at 2 disparate times and come from different batches. I'd test more, but only have access to these 2. I'm doing what I can here.

I also agree it would be interesting to know how one brand compares to another...but again, it is meaningless to test a sample size of one.

In what way do you want to compare one brand to another? I'm just testing Chamonix design with a fresnel installed b/w GG and lens and no fresnel at all. I don't know what testing another brand would do FOR THIS TEST.

[Jeremy Moore]

Jeremy,

Please don't take it personally. I understand that your tests have nothing to do with the factory or Hugo; even as a non-Chamonix owner, I still appreciate your effort in settling the issue at least in terms of your particular camera.

Not a problem and I didn't, I just wanted it to be clear I don't have any connection to Chamonix other than owning a 45N-1 that I actually purchased 2nd hand.

However, it still begs the question: "What purpose will these tests serve even if they are for the benefit of Chamonix owners?"

The purpose of the test is determine if my Chamonix and the other camera I have available for testing suffer from a focus shift due to the placement of the fresnel. That is the sole purpose of this test.

I would think the outcome should or at least could benefit Chamonix to consider their design methodology. Seems like a lot of effort and time that may be for naught if it can't be used to improve a product that so many LF photographers seem to have embraced.

That's up to Chamonix to decide. It's worth it for me because I will know beyond the shadow of any doubt how my camera functions with the fresnel. There is no need to "improve" the Chamonix design, imo, just toss out the fresnel. I would have paid the same amount for a camera w/o a fresnel at all.

[Jeremy Moore]

Jeremy, I can't believe this hasn't been asked before, but, isn't the better light self defeating since most of the supposed error will be in the far corners of the plate and the better light will only 'see' the center 'sweet spot'? Seems to settle the original intent that you would need full sheet 4X5 film so that the area most affected will be there. Although if you only use the center to focus, I guess it won't matter. Best of luck. The original GPS post was so idiotically biased it made me want to buy my 3rd Chamonix. Luvin' the Hexar!

The intent for me is to see if there is a focus shift caused by the installation of the fresnel b/w the lens and GG. I can see this in the center of the frame just as well as towards the outer reaches as any shift visible at the center would only be worse at the edges. If I do NOT find any shift in the center then I will test at the edges, but shooting the Betterlight is essentially free and removes some of the other variables mentioned before. I can also test the edges of a 4x5 by focusing in the corner and introducing a slight bit of shift on the camera so this area is properly recorded by the not-4x5-sensor--the ZigAlign will make sure everything stays plumb.

[lilmsmaggie]

Not a problem and I didn't, I just wanted it to be clear I don't have any connection to Chamonix other than owning a 45N-1 that I actually purchased 2nd hand.



The purpose of the test is determine if my Chamonix and the other camera I have available for testing suffer from a focus shift due to the placement of the fresnel. That is the sole purpose of this test.



That's up to Chamonix to decide. It's worth it for me because I will know beyond the shadow of any doubt how my camera functions with the fresnel. There is no need to "improve" the Chamonix design, imo, just toss out the fresnel. I would have paid the same amount for a camera w/o a fresnel at all.

Understood and Good Luck with the tests

[Jeremy Moore]

I hate doing testing and haven't felt compelled as my negatives generally look pretty sharp and I've been selling prints, but I'd still like to see your results.

Barry, same thing here (though I haven't sold anything), but I haven't noticed anything substantially different in my negatives pre/post Chamonix purchase on my normal subject matter (small aperture landscapes with a 135mm lens).