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!

Linhof Master Technika vs. Chamonix 45N-2 vs. Ebony ?

carstenw

Active member
I am slowly moving towards my camera purchase, having already picked up the following lenses: Schneider 90mm f/5,6 Super-Angulon MC, Linhof Select, Schneider 135mm f/3,8 Xenar, Schneider 210mm f/5,6 APO-Symmar.

I was planning towards a Chamonix 45N-1, now 45N-2 (which now comes with the Universal Bellows as standard, as well as a way of quickly removing the Fresnel), but last weekend, I had a short demonstration of a Linhof Master Technika, and was extremely impressed by the cleverness of the design, and the large variety of movements possible with a camera which at first glance would appear to have almost none. Some gymnastics is required for large movements, but smaller movements should be as easy on this camera as on most regular field cameras. The MT I saw was in great shape, for 1500 Euro, compared to the roughly 580 Euro for a 45N-1, or 640 Euro for the 45N-2. On the other hand, the Chamonix cameras would instantly lose value, whereas the MT would maintain value for some time, so if I wanted to leave 4x5 photography, the MT makes at least as much sense as the Chamonix.

Then there is the Ebony faction here, who strongly recommend various Ebony models. There are too many for me to get a good overview of, but I am looking for something which folded is no larger than the MT, i.e. 180x180x110mm. The price is a concern, so I would only consider Ebony models in the same neighbourhood as the MT, i.e. 1500 Euro. They could be used, of course, but not beat up.

My use will generally be for fairly straight photography, initially in cemetaries, later also of mechanical details on trains and so on, but no big plans for architectural work. Hence I just need a modicum of movements, but want to leave the door open a bit for later.

I have put together the following table comparing the Chamonix and the MT, and am wondering what Ebony might come in the right price and size range second-hand. In general, space is more of a concern than weight, although I wouldn't want anything much heavier than the MT.

Comments?

P.S. "bellows" in the table means limited only by the bellows.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
What makes you think the Cham is going to LOSE that much value? They are quite popular as evidenced by that fact you have to wait in line for an N-2.

The Tech is a fine camera, but I suspect you will tire of the gymnastics involved with that back tilt mechanism. First thing you need to understand is once you adjust it, NOTHING will remain in focus on your GG as the entire rear standard has moved rearward, and the front standard needs to be brought rearward. So it's going to be a coarse focus, adjust rear, re-focus, tweak rear, refocus, fine tweak rear if needed, fine focus, shoot. Let's not even mention you need to loosen and re-tighten FOUR of those little knobs each time you want to adjust one axis just a tiny bit... Most folks that own the Tech and use it in the field, NEVER bother with rear standard movements unless they absolutely need them for that reason. It's seriously the LAST camera I would recommend for somebody wanting to "learn" view cameras. I'd rather see you out there with a Sinar P or Toyo studio monorail. With the Ebony, it's focus, pull rear for swing and tilt, check focus -- oh, you're still in focus, and not only that, everywhere is in focus! -- shoot. What a joy ;). With the Cham, it has rear base tilt like the Tech, so similar to the Tech there, but not as bad on swing, so easier to get there more quickly. Seriously, the Ebony is a joy to use, just ask anybody who owns one. I like the non-folding 45SU the best, and if you want tons of movements in a folder, then the SV45 U2. The strength of the Cham is it's phenomenal rigidity and very light weight -- all at a very attractive price.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I didn't realize a brand new Chamoix was so inexpensive. I just had a look at their website......it's real bargain and looks to be very well made (from the photos). Hard to go wrong there.

Gary
 

carstenw

Active member
Jack, the Chamonix will lose value if I resell since I am buying new. No one would pay me back new price + shipping + VAT + import duties... The MT I could buy locally, already depreciated.

The point about repeated tuning is a good one. I need to think about how much I would use movements in my shooting. However, as you mention, the Chamonix is not a whole lot better there. The Ebony is where things start really getting better. How large is a 45SU collapsed?

My main problem with the Ebonys is the high new price and the lack of selection on the used market. The SV45U2 is 3x the price of a used MT, which is already much more than a Chammy. Really, I should be looking at something with centre or asymmetrical tilts and swings on the rear, if I want a better workflow than the MT (and Chammy), but at a much lower price than an Ebony, yet still light and compact. Suggestions?
 

carstenw

Active member
Another choice is a Technikardan. I know where I can get a basic one for around 900 Euro, and this camera does fold down compactly. Does anyone here have experience with this?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The TK (Technikardan) was my first view camera. It is a very good camera once you get the hang of folding and unfolding it. It's main upside is very large bellows draw within a compact and relatively lightweight package. It's downside is it isn't very rigid, especially so once you extend it beyond about the 210 range. It will do yaw-free movements (see Stroebel) if you position it 90 on it's side.

My main problem with the Ebonys is the high new price and the lack of selection on the used market.
And exactly why do you think that used selection is so limited? :D :D :D

The 45SU is actually fairly flat when collapsed, so about the same depth and width as most any other folder, just a bit taller. However, it is arguably also the fastest 4x5 to set up. I often stored mine in my pack face up with the lens mounted. With the RRS QR release, total set-up time is measured in seconds, not minutes.

Fair point on the Cham resale after VAT and all that. But you should know that when I sold mine, it sold for $50 less than the new price.

Another great choice is an Arca F-Metric, but I'd definitely try and get one with front Obix tilts.

Honestly, for the money, a used Sinar P (big studio monorail) may be a viable choice. The downside is size and weight, but it has assm tilts and swings on BOTH front and rear axes. You can sometimes find a "field P" that has a P geared assym standard on the rear and a basic F standard up front -- chepaer and lighter than a full on P.
 

carstenw

Active member
I saw a comment somewhere that to use lenses wider than 115mm on the TK requires the wide angle bellows. If true, this is a no-go. Too bad; neat camera.

I am guessing that when you sold your Chamonix for $50 less than you bought it for, you are counting only the camera price? Shipping from China to Europe, 20% VAT, and customs fees (20-40 Euro), are all things I would take the hit on. I would buy it second-hand locally, but there aren't any.

The 45SU is a dream camera, but I have seen only one sold second-hand, and the savings were not that great over new. The Ebony cameras I have looked at as being suitable for my uses are all 3000 Euro, or thereabouts. Given that my first thought was a 600 Euro camera, this is a significant increase. Even if I save 20% by buying second-hand, and I think this is optimistic, it is still a barrel of money. I think an Ebony might be in my future as a second camera, but not a first.

Aside: does anyone have exact measurements of a collapsed 45SU?

The MT would for me be as far removed as the Ebony, except that there is a flood of them on the second-hand market, keeping the prices in check. As soon as a V costs much more than a IV, it doesn't sell. The same for the MT over the V. 1500 Euro for the MT is a very nice deal, so I can stomach the extra cost, especially because there is no new+VAT+shipping+customs hit for me, so I might lose nothing by owning one for a year.

However, the MT (and to a similar extent, the Chammy), only make sense for me if I don't have to use rear swings and tilts on every shot, so I need to look at my photos to decide how often I would have used it.

About Sinars and other studio cameras, the 3kg of the TK and some Ebony cameras is already pushing my upper limit. The 2.6kg of the MT is merely okay, and the 1.3kg of the Chammy is a breath of fresh air. I don't want to carry too much, or I know that in 2 years I will be shooting a DSLR again.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
+1 on a used Sinar P (or other monorail view camera). With one of these, you can get a great camera and learn alot about view camera movements (even if you don't want to stay with a monorail forever). There must be some of these available in Europe. I bought a really excellent condition Sinar P last year from a GetDPI member for $570 USD....it's a beauty. Unless you're planning to hike into the backcountry with the camera....a monorail is not a problem. For the first 15 years I had a view camera....it was a monorail of one type or another.

Gary
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I used my 90 on the TK all the time with standard bellows, the only issue is shifts are severely limited because of the long bellows (that's the problem with overly long bellows). The bag bellows allows huge shifts and takes seconds to swap in, but it is something els to carry. Again, why the Ebony (or Cham) with universal style bellows is so attractive -- and why I think the Cham 45 N2 is worth the extra money.
 

carstenw

Active member
The Tech is a fine camera, but I suspect you will tire of the gymnastics involved with that back tilt mechanism. First thing you need to understand is once you adjust it, NOTHING will remain in focus on your GG as the entire rear standard has moved rearward, and the front standard needs to be brought rearward. So it's going to be a coarse focus, adjust rear, re-focus, tweak rear, refocus, fine tweak rear if needed, fine focus, shoot. Let's not even mention you need to loosen and re-tighten FOUR of those little knobs each time you want to adjust one axis just a tiny bit... Most folks that own the Tech and use it in the field, NEVER bother with rear standard movements unless they absolutely need them for that reason.
I have been mulling over this comment some more, and it occurs to me that you use back movements different than I thought I would be. If I understand correctly, a typical workflow would be to point the camera in the right direction, do a quick focus, adjust the back for perspective and shape, and then focus with the front, possibly tilting for control of the sharp plane.

Used this way, the MT's back construction hardly seems to be a disadvantage.

So, what am I missing? :)
 

carstenw

Active member
It occurs to me that your review of the Chamonix covers mainly mechanics, and little anecdotal description. How was it to work with, which lenses did you use most, and why did you sell it?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re use: For landscape, most folks speed their process by "pulling" the back instead of tilting the front. I usually leveled the camera and coarse focused, then composed. Once composed, I adjusted the PoF to maximize focus for elements I felt important. On most cameras with axial movements, I usually I did this with combinations of front tilt and rear swing. This included the Cham, since you can push one side in while pulling the other side out, leaving the central axis in focus. On the Ebony it was often mostly everything done at the rear, or depending on subject, front swing rear tilt. The strength was the ease and convenience of having BOTH assym movements at the rear and axial up front, best of all worlds for rapid scheimpflug adjustment.

Why I sold the Cham and how it was in use. I'll repeat once more -- I owned the Cham and the Ebony at the same time. I used the Cham when I wanted the lightest weight possible, like longer hikes from the car or multi-day treks, as it had all the movements I needed, but was lighter and more compact than the Ebony while being very rigid --- most uber light view cameras are not very rigid, the Cham and Phillips it's copied from are the exceptions.

In use the Cham was fine, but takes a few field trips to feel the Zen of it -- you can do everything you're likely need to do, and it's very light and rigid, and it's economical. The Ebony by contrast is about three exposures for most users to get the Zen :D. I sold because I moved to digital. The Ebony and my exotic glass went first because of the greater funds generated. I kept my Cham, 4 boxes of readyloads, three lenses, meter and loupe on the off-chance I'd miss the view camera. It sat for over 6 months without being used once, so eventually I sold the Cham and lenses. It wasn't until my selloff last month that I finally go rid of my meter and back-up loupe. I kept my beloved 8x for when I get a tech camera or view cam for digital. I still miss the view camera, just not the film workflow.

The advantage of STARTING with the Cham is it's economical, and a great second cam if you decide to pop for something more exotic later on, like an Ebony. Oh, and the Cham and Ebony (and Tech and TK) all use the same lensboards. You might be surprised to learn I'd sometimes leave both the Ebony and Cham set up with lenses in the back of the car, and just grab whichever one the image called for. Usually the 90 or 110 was on the Ebony and the 150 or 210 on the Cham.

PS: One disadvantage to the Cham design is changing focals takes added time, because you need to reposition the front standard in a new threaded slot for the longer or shorter lens. We're talking a few minutes is all, but notable when the light is changing fast and you want a different focal. By contrast, Cham or other is just extending or retracting the bed.
 

carstenw

Active member
Thanks for explaining why you got out of LF. I guess you, being a pro and presumably selling prints, the impetus is a little different than for people like me, who only have to please themselves. I am getting into LF precisely because it is a little quirky and slow :) And for the added flexibility and resolution over MF film.

Re use: For landscape, most folks speed their process by "pulling" the back instead of tilting the front. I usually leveled the camera and coarse focused, then composed. Once composed, I adjusted the PoF to maximize focus for elements I felt important. On most cameras with axial movements, I usually I did this with combinations of front tilt and rear swing. This included the Cham, since you can push one side in while pulling the other side out, leaving the central axis in focus. On the Ebony it was often mostly everything done at the rear, or depending on subject, front swing rear tilt. The strength was the ease and convenience of having BOTH asym movements at the rear and axial up front, best of all worlds for rapid scheimpflug adjustment.
Okay, so if I understand correctly, when you don't need the back to correct perspective or fix forms, then it is useful to have to speed up the rest of the corrections. In that sense, if one were to use a more traditional LF workflow, the MT doesn't really get in the way of that, it is simply lacking some flexibility to use back movements for convenience and speed. Food for thought.

I am in a bit of a quandary, as is easy to tell. The Chamonix appeals to me as a logical and good starting point, but on the other hand, the MT really fascinates me, and I loved handling it, so I guess there is a little illogical passion in that one. Maybe I should try to get my hands on one again somehow before deciding. This could prove difficult though, as the seller lives in Munich.
 

Jeremy

New member
I guess you, being a pro and presumably selling prints, the impetus is a little different than for people like me, who only have to please themselves.
Just a note: there are photographers selling prints and using LF :thumbs:

I think Jack was just tired of the film workflow as his work is all mediated through the computer. We're talking shoot, send out for processing and the time involved there (or develop at home with all those extra headaches), scan, dust-bust, and you're now at the same point you are after just shooting the digital camera without having the ability to chimp.
 

archivue

Active member
i will go with an arca F line field... the best one is the 110/141

Precise, all movements available with short lenses, can be pack very well...
Badger graphic have 3 second hand offers at the moment !

In my opinion, the technikardan S is not stable enought... i had one for a year, before buying an arca to replace it !

Tecnika is a pain with wide angle lens... but really good with a 150...
 

carstenw

Active member
Hmm, it looks like an interesting camera, but according to specs on B&H, the front rise is limited to 25mm, it has only base tilt, and the maximum extension is 240mm, not even enough for my 210mm lens, really. Finally, it has different lens boards than I do. I think it wouldn't make me very happy.
 
L

lilmsmaggie

Guest
Carsten,

Coming from the noob that I am, FWIW, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better deal than a new Chamonix 45N-2@ $860 USD, or the 45N-1@ $778 USD. I realize that you have additional costs to consider to take possession, but why worry about what you MIGHT do in regards to selling at some point in the future?

Making an assumption now about future events falls into the category of "self-fulfilling prophecies." Who knows, you just might sell it for what you paid for it!

On a different note, you stated in a previous post that the 45n-2 now comes with the universal bellows as "standard." I can't seem to find any information in that regard.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I think you should buy the Tech --- only way you'll get it out of your system... Bottom line is all of them do the same basic thing -- hold a lens in place and film in place all in a light-tight container. And all of them have enough movements for what you need to do.
 

Lars

Active member
I'll repeat what I said before - keep your investment down, three years from now you'll either not shoot LF anymore or use another camera based on what you learned using your first camera.
 

carstenw

Active member
On a different note, you stated in a previous post that the 45n-2 now comes with the universal bellows as "standard." I can't seem to find any information in that regard.
That was directly from Hugo Zhang when I asked him to add me to the waiting list. The other change was not a hole in the Fresnel, but some way to quickly remove it. I don't know that either of these is a certainty, but that is apparently what they currently plan to do with the 45N-2. I guess we will get it confirmed when there is an official announcement.
 
Top