My New Wilderness 8x10

[joica]

So... I can't remember... does this fine camera have zero detents for front swing? I assume it's the same knob that locks swing and shift, right? Does it have anything to guide you in keeping the standards parallel - also when applying shifts?

thanks...

wildness has zero detents and zero marks on front and back frame, and a zero mark for shift.
on front standard, there are 3 knobs , one locks swing , one locks shift , the left locks tilt.
zero marks can guide u in keeping the standards parallel.

thanks

[mortensen]

okay... so it doesn't have a dedicated zero detent for front swing (not tilt), right? It only has markings for 'zero' and no mechanical 'zero'? Likewise for shifts (and not rise/fall), I understand you as there is only markings and nothing mechanical to ensure parallel standards.

Not that I'm about to buy an 8x10, but this would really be a show stopper for me. It really puzzles me why they manufacture otherwise nice and great cameras (I'm thinking of Chamonixs as well, here) and leave out such an important feature. If you are careful, yes, most exposures will be great, but inevitably some of your shots - and possibly some of the really great ones - will be ruined by uneven focus.
Give us version IV with zero detents on EVERYTHING

[Brian Ellis]

okay... so it doesn't have a dedicated zero detent for front swing (not tilt), right? It only has markings for 'zero' and no mechanical 'zero'? Likewise for shifts (and not rise/fall), I understand you as there is only markings and nothing mechanical to ensure parallel standards.

Not that I'm about to buy an 8x10, but this would really be a show stopper for me. It really puzzles me why they manufacture otherwise nice and great cameras (I'm thinking of Chamonixs as well, here) and leave out such an important feature. If you are careful, yes, most exposures will be great, but inevitably some of your shots - and possibly some of the really great ones - will be ruined by uneven focus.
Give us version IV with zero detents on EVERYTHING

Of the 10 or so different brands of LF cameras I've owned I can't offhand think of any that had detents for swing (maybe I'm forgetting one because I don't use swing very often but I don't think so). I don't recall ever losing a photograph because the front and rear standards weren't parallel.

[Roger Cole]

Of the 10 or so different brands of LF cameras I've owned I can't offhand think of any that had detents for swing (maybe I'm forgetting one because I don't use swing very often but I don't think so). I don't recall ever losing a photograph because the front and rear standards weren't parallel.

I use it little enough that I had to check out my Tech III to be sure, but it does snap into a zero detent for front swing. Like you I can't recall ever losing an image because standards weren't parallel when I wanted them to be so.

[Sal Santamaura]

...It really puzzles me why they manufacture otherwise nice and great cameras (I'm thinking of Chamonixs as well, here) and leave out such an important feature...

Probably because it's not that important to many users, who place greater value on the simplicity, lightness and rigidity that such constructions permit.

Now, why Chamonix doesn't include a handle, that puzzles me.

[Oren Grad]

Now, why Chamonix doesn't include a handle, that puzzles me.

+1

[mortensen]

well, I found that using a heavy wide angle lens, which is more sensitive to subtle swing, occasionally left me with slightly uneven focus across the frame. Probably because I unintendedly have wiggled the front standard a little bit while composing with front rise. Nothing dramatic that you would notice on the neg, but a decrease of quality that could easily have been avoided... either by a simple zero detent or me using excessive force to lock the front. I know what I will choose in the future.

[Lachlan 717]

well, I found that using a heavy wide angle lens, which is more sensitive to subtle swing, occasionally left me with slightly uneven focus across the frame. Probably because I unintendedly have wiggled the front standard a little bit while composing with front rise. Nothing dramatic that you would notice on the neg, but a decrease of quality that could easily have been avoided... either by a simple zero detent or me using excessive force to lock the front. I know what I will choose in the future.

Wouldn't any issue show up less with a wide angle, given the inherent greater DOF? (Maybe it was mounted in a recessed board?)

[mortensen]

nope, the shorter lens-to-film distance, the more sensitive it will be to the scheimpflug rule (at least thats how I have understood it). Hence, with wider lenses parallel standards really need to be parallel. Depth of field and depth of focus are not interchangable.

[GPS]

Probably because it's not that important to many users, who place greater value on the simplicity, lightness and rigidity that such constructions permit.

Now, why Chamonix doesn't include a handle, that puzzles me.

Zero detents don't take away anything from camera's lightness or rigidity. The fact that they are missing on the camera in question has more to do with manufacturing costs. It's cheaper not to bother with them.
The lack of a handle on Chamonix can be just a decision to boast a lighter camera - at least on paper - beside the fact of manufacturing costs again. It's called cutting corners.