The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Ebony or Linhof Master Technika?

routlaw

Member
Been thinking about upgrading my field camera from the current Zone VI to either the Linhof MT or one of the Ebony's. Anyone having experience working with either or both of these cameras I would like to hear your positive and or negatives experiences, opinions and comparisons.

I like the idea of the precise geared movements of the MT, though some of the Ebony's do have a wider range of back movements which is a plus. I also like the idea of the non folding Ebony's due to the sizable weight savings but those cameras come with the universal bellows that leak infra red... not good for the Bettelight device. The MT also easily has the capability to add an MFDB, with Ebony's only one model is suggested for this.

Thanks

Rob
 

darr

Well-known member
Rob,

I have (2) Ebonies and have had 3 total. I have had the SV45U, and currently the RSW45 and 45SU. I loved them all, but favored the non-folding. The 45SU is a beautiful camera, quick to setup with every movement you could want including asymmetrical rear tilts and swings. I use the RSW45 for 6x12 exclusively. I recently purchased an Arca M2 (my intro into MF digital) and will be selling my 45SU. I also have (2) Arca F Lines (4x5" and 6x9) and this is my reason for selling the 45SU as I do not travel enough to justify keeping it. If you are interested in purchasing a slightly used MINTY 45SU please PM me.

Kind regards,
Darr
 

routlaw

Member
Rob,

I have (2) Ebonies and have had 3 total. I have had the SV45U, and currently the RSW45 and 45SU. I loved them all, but favored the non-folding. The 45SU is a beautiful camera, quick to setup with every movement you could want including asymmetrical rear tilts and swings. I use the RSW45 for 6x12 exclusively. I recently purchased an Arca M2 (my intro into MF digital) and will be selling my 45SU. I also have (2) Arca F Lines (4x5" and 6x9) and this is my reason for selling the 45SU as I do not travel enough to justify keeping it. If you are interested in purchasing a slightly used MINTY 45SU please PM me.

Kind regards,
Darr
What bellows does your 45SU have? How much do you want to sell it for?

Presumably then you prefer your AS cameras including the F-Line to the Ebony's. Is there much difference in weight?

Thanks.

Rob
 

JimCollum

Member
I use the Ebony 45SVTi with my Betterlight. You're right about the Universal bellows.. i use their normal and wide angle separately .... The Ebony is a pleasure to use (Mike Collette from Betterlight also uses the Ebony)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I've owned the Linhof tech (pre Master) and both the Ebony 45SU and SV45U2. Of those, my favorite to actually use in the field was the non-folding 45SU -- it is just such a sweet, Zen-like camera to focus and adjust; it just worked for me. The Ebony folder was a close second, the Linhof Tech a distant 3rd.

If I ever get back into LF *film* shooting, I would get either that Ebony or maybe the the Chamonix -- or maybe both! -- and I'd get them in 5x7 with 4x5 reducing backs.
 

routlaw

Member
I use the Ebony 45SVTi with my Betterlight. You're right about the Universal bellows.. i use their normal and wide angle separately .... The Ebony is a pleasure to use (Mike Collette from Betterlight also uses the Ebony)
Have talked with Mike about his Ebony's and yes he seems to really favor them for sure. Like Jack I like the idea of the non folding, its just not clear to me if one can get a non infra red leaking bellows with those, well maybe on the 45SU not sure about the others. Thanks Jim.

I've owned the Linhof tech (pre Master) and both the Ebony 45SU and SV45U2. Of those, my favorite to actually use in the field was the non-folding 45SU -- it is just such a sweet, Zen-like camera to focus and adjust; it just worked for me. The Ebony folder was a close second, the Linhof Tech a distant 3rd.

If I ever get back into LF *film* shooting, I would get either that Ebony or maybe the the Chamonix -- or maybe both! -- and I'd get them in 5x7 with 4x5 reducing backs.
I wonder how the MT version would compare with your pre master. I had been leaning toward these non folders, but then saw a litany of MT's for sale and they look pretty cool too. Maybe I should get one of each, hehe. Both cameras seem to have an almost cult following, not a bad thing. Thanks for the info this does help.

Rob
 

darr

Well-known member
What bellows does your 45SU have? How much do you want to sell it for?

Presumably then you prefer your AS cameras including the F-Line to the Ebony's. Is there much difference in weight?

Thanks.

Rob
The 45SU has the Universal bellows that came with it. I purchased it new from Badger Graphics 2.5 years ago and now they are selling for $4,150.00. I would like to get $3,200 and believe me it is as NEW. It is stored in a Gnass case (not included) and then stored in a Pelican case (not included). I am a girl and 'very fussy' about my stuff. I have used a 65mm, 90mm, and Cooke 229mm with it and never had any bellow issues. It has only been out of my studio twice and since moving to Tallahassee from the Miami area in 2007, it has been used only a few times for LF portraits. Since purchasing the RSW45, I use it exclusively for panoramic landscapes shots (an evolving project) and have not used the 45SU for what I intended it for: landscapes.

I have always used an Arca in the studio (retired commercial photographer). The Arca is too heavy for me to take outside (5'2", 125#) so I bought the Ebonys, but prior I had a Wisner for many years. Since I just made the leap into MF Digital via the Arca M Line 2, I have chosen to stay with the Arca line because of the interchangeability and the amount of Arca accessories I already own.

If you are serious about buying a 45SU, you would be foolish (economically) to not consider this camera. When I get the time, I was going to post it for sale at the LF Forum, but your posting came through my email box and I thought you may be interested. I have too many cameras and will be looking to purchase some MF Digital lenses in the near future so I feel I can let the 45SU go as it has been idle for too long, but I will miss its beauty for sure!

If you want some pictures, let me know and I will make time on Sunday to shoot some.

Kind regards,
Darr

This offer stands for anyone that may be interested.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I have the Ebony 45SU also and second the views that it is an exceptionally well made and beautiful camera.

Gary
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I should have clarified -- my issues with the Linhof folder were 1) the tiny adjustment knobs on the front standard, 2) the camera gymnastics required to shoot with anything wider than a 90 and 3) the lack of rear shift, rise and fall -- these were movements I used a *LOT* to final tune composition quickly and easily.

By contrast -- and I mentioned the Ebony was Zen-like -- the asymmetrical movement axis on the Ebony were almost always nearly spot on to focus point for most landscapes, like probably 80% of the time, so made the Scheimpflugs a piece of cake. Front tilts and swings were axial for when you needed that, so you had best of both worlds in one camera that was really easy to use. Finally, not having to screw around with folding and being able to leave your lens mounted when you put the camera back in the bag made for *really fast* set-ups. And come on, who doesn't fall in love with the little mirror level on the rear standard? :)ROTFL:)

Crap. All this discussion has me really missing that little Ebony!!!
 

routlaw

Member
I should have clarified -- my issues with the Linhof folder were 1) the tiny adjustment knobs on the front standard, 2) the camera gymnastics required to shoot with anything wider than a 90 and 3) the lack of rear shift, rise and fall -- these were movements I used a *LOT* to final tune composition quickly and easily.

By contrast -- and I mentioned the Ebony was Zen-like -- the asymmetrical movement axis on the Ebony were almost always nearly spot on to focus point for most landscapes, like probably 80% of the time, so made the Scheimpflugs a piece of cake. Front tilts and swings were axial for when you needed that, so you had best of both worlds in one camera that was really easy to use. Finally, not having to screw around with folding and being able to leave your lens mounted when you put the camera back in the bag made for *really fast* set-ups. And come on, who doesn't fall in love with the little mirror level on the rear standard?

Crap. All this discussion has me really missing that little Ebony!!!
Thanks Jack, that does help to clarify things. In the studio I use rear movements a lot, not having that option with the Zone VI hard to say if makes a huge difference for me in field work. But yeah the little mirror thingy, thats cool. The non folding idea seems great too, especially using a scan back in the field, the fewer steps the better.

You guys got me going on this Ebony thing again. ;)

Rob
 

bensonga

Well-known member
None... It isn't pratcial for use with a digi back, and I am 100% digital now...
Makes sense (despite the aesthetic appeal of the Ebony <bg>).

If I was going to start with a clean sheet of paper, so to speak, I doubt very much that I'd go with LF film now. Maybe something like the Arca M Line 2 or one of the tech cameras....such as the Cambo W-RS with the TS lens mount you reviewed. That would work for me.....of course, the all in cost is a lot higher going that route.

The demise of Fuji Quickloads has me re-thinking LF film in a big way.

Gary
 

Lars

Active member
For me, 4x5 falls a bit in-between. I have an Ebony SW23 that I use a lot with 120 film (6x9, stitched 6x17 using lens shift). For larger format I have my 8x10 Toyo monorail. In between, my Ebony 45S actually doesn't get used much. When I want to travel light I grab the SW23, if I go by car I might as well load the 8x10 backpack in the trunk. Maybe I should sell it - I just know that as soon as I do I'll need it again.

Anyways I'm not a big fan of 4x5 metal folders. Perhaps I haven't seen any good designs.
 

routlaw

Member
For me, 4x5 falls a bit in-between. I have an Ebony SW23 that I use a lot with 120 film (6x9, stitched 6x17 using lens shift). For larger format I have my 8x10 Toyo monorail. In between, my Ebony 45S actually doesn't get used much. When I want to travel light I grab the SW23, if I go by car I might as well load the 8x10 backpack in the trunk. Maybe I should sell it - I just know that as soon as I do I'll need it again.

Anyways I'm not a big fan of 4x5 metal folders. Perhaps I haven't seen any good designs.
Thanks Lars, interesting your thoughts on 4x5 film holders. Never gave it much thought, just used them and they seemed to work ok. Don't recall ever having much problem other than an occasional scratched film from blowing sand.

Regarding 8x10, rented one only once (big heavy cambo monorail type of deal) for a photo shoot down in Jackson Hole, WY that the client insisted on. Swore I would never use one again because it literally took two tripods to steady the thing enough for multi pop exposures which was necessary and that was using a Bogen 3058 tripod + 3263 geared head (together at least 25 lbs). No doubt field cameras are not so cumbersome and heavy but still not an ordeal I would want to repeat. I can certainly see the allure of them for landscape work though.

Rob
 

Lars

Active member
Thanks Lars, interesting your thoughts on 4x5 film holders. Never gave it much thought, just used them and they seemed to work ok. Don't recall ever having much problem other than an occasional scratched film from blowing sand.

Regarding 8x10, rented one only once (big heavy cambo monorail type of deal) for a photo shoot down in Jackson Hole, WY that the client insisted on. Swore I would never use one again because it literally took two tripods to steady the thing enough for multi pop exposures which was necessary and that was using a Bogen 3058 tripod + 3263 geared head (together at least 25 lbs). No doubt field cameras are not so cumbersome and heavy but still not an ordeal I would want to repeat. I can certainly see the allure of them for landscape work though.

Rob
Hehe I use one of those big heavy monorails in the field, Toyo 810G. Previously I used a Gandolfi Variant but needed something more stable. The Variant weighs about 4.5 kg whereas the Toyo is around 9 kg, but everything else weighs about the same so my 8x10 backpack went up from 20 to 25 kgs.

It's certainly a different kind of photography than 4x5. All spontaneity is long gone, each shoot requires some degree of planning. I use two tripods if shooting 480 mm or longer lenses, I can see the challenge you got yourself into in a multiexposure shoot.
 

Tex

Subscriber Member
Rob, speaking from personal experience, the Ebony SW810 (for 810 work) is a joy to use in the field and COMPLETELY stable & just 8.5 pounds. In stock form, it will accept up to a 360mm but Ebony can customize the body for longer lenses.

I found the SW810 to be much more stable, solid and rigid that any monorail (Arca & Sinar) that I have used in the field.

IMO, LF under 8x10 is dead - might as well take a new DSLR and stitch if required.

Thanks Lars, interesting your thoughts on 4x5 film holders. Never gave it much thought, just used them and they seemed to work ok. Don't recall ever having much problem other than an occasional scratched film from blowing sand.

Regarding 8x10, rented one only once (big heavy cambo monorail type of deal) for a photo shoot down in Jackson Hole, WY that the client insisted on. Swore I would never use one again because it literally took two tripods to steady the thing enough for multi pop exposures which was necessary and that was using a Bogen 3058 tripod + 3263 geared head (together at least 25 lbs). No doubt field cameras are not so cumbersome and heavy but still not an ordeal I would want to repeat. I can certainly see the allure of them for landscape work though.

Rob
 

Lars

Active member
Rob, speaking from personal experience, the Ebony SW810 (for 810 work) is a joy to use in the field and COMPLETELY stable & just 8.5 pounds. In stock form, it will accept up to a 360mm but Ebony can customize the body for longer lenses.

I found the SW810 to be much more stable, solid and rigid that any monorail (Arca & Sinar) that I have used in the field.

IMO, LF under 8x10 is dead - might as well take a new DSLR and stitch if required.
I don't think Rob ran into camera instability, once you get into longer lenses or bellows draws the tripod never has enough torsional stability. You just have to add a second tripod to dampen oscillations.
 

routlaw

Member
Hehe I use one of those big heavy monorails in the field, Toyo 810G. Previously I used a Gandolfi Variant but needed something more stable. The Variant weighs about 4.5 kg whereas the Toyo is around 9 kg, but everything else weighs about the same so my 8x10 backpack went up from 20 to 25 kgs.

It's certainly a different kind of photography than 4x5. All spontaneity is long gone, each shoot requires some degree of planning. I use two tripods if shooting 480 mm or longer lenses, I can see the challenge you got yourself into in a multiexposure shoot.
Lars, you're an animal.:thumbs:

Rob, speaking from personal experience, the Ebony SW810 (for 810 work) is a joy to use in the field and COMPLETELY stable & just 8.5 pounds. In stock form, it will accept up to a 360mm but Ebony can customize the body for longer lenses.

I found the SW810 to be much more stable, solid and rigid that any monorail (Arca & Sinar) that I have used in the field.

IMO, LF under 8x10 is dead - might as well take a new DSLR and stitch if required.
Hmm, with all due respect Tex I would have to disagree that 4x5 is DOA, albeit its end users have dropped like flies in recent years either because of MFD or as you say stitched 35 DSLR. I don't care for the rotational version of stitching for my own work but prefer the back shift or lens shift method. On many occasions I have taken my 35 mm Cambo Ultima/D3 into the field with superb results. The bad news is this camera is a dust whore used with the Ultima, really wide angle is impossible and there are limitations... not to mention the weight. I find composing a bit less satisfying and disconected for what ever reason when stitching vs full frame viewing too, but it is certainly a viable alternative.

For now I am quite excited and becoming reasonably comfortable using my Betterlight in the field with 4x5 cameras and under the right conditions and if I have all my ducks in a row image quality is outstanding. For me I would rather lug the laptop and scan back insert vs 8x10 and subsequent film holders especially in some of the country I hike in. Yet once again there are limitations on just how far you can push this type of system. Not sure I would want to carry either system hiking up to Piegan Pass in Glacier National Park... taxi! :eek:

Appreciate the feedback Tex.

I don't think Rob ran into camera instability, once you get into longer lenses or bellows draws the tripod never has enough torsional stability. You just have to add a second tripod to dampen oscillations.
Exactly, that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Thanks for the link Carsten, read through this one as well as quite a few on the LF forums too. I notice Brian Ellis continually shows up pitching for the MT. I think this conversation is much like the one you started on the MF forums and received some excellent comments I might add. Basically it boils down to what an individual is comfortable with or as Jack stated the "Zen" of the involvement with a given system.

Appreciate the comments and link.

Rob
 
Top