Differences between Linhof Technikardan 45 and 45S

<p>I recently purchased a Linhof Technikardan. One thing that I have repeatedly read is that the 45 and the s45 are identical, except for the fact that the s45 has zero stops, and the standards of a slightly different construction.</p>

<p>However, the pictures of the S45 have scales on both the focusing apparatus and the rails, whereas my 45 does not.</p>

<p>Might these have simply fallen by the wayside at some point, and if so can replacements be obtained?</p>

<p>I suppose that I could tape some sort of scales on, but I’d like to maintain the precison that the rest of the instrument has, if possible.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Have you tested the focus yet or know about the issue with these cameras? I don't know about your issue here, but if you just bought this, the focusing issue is something you will need to understand and maybe a bit more critical to using it.</p>

<p>The differences are the construction of the standards;<br>

yours are made from one piece of extrusion bent into an L shape and your rear standard is wider then your front standard. The S standards are the same width front and back and made from 3 pieces. Two extrusions and a joiner block in the front and the rear.<br>

And the detents on the tilt and swing on the front and rear standards. The S has them and the original version that you have did not have them.<br>

Scales on both models are the same. If you are in the USA and missing them you should contact Linhof service at 252 652-4401. If you are not in the USA contact the Linhof service center in your country. Both versions of the TK cameras and the TKS cameras have a calibrated focusing scale, scales for horizontal and vertical displacements, front and rear and scales for tilts and swings front and rear.<br>

Some illustrations of the camera in the latest TKs brochure show a scale inside the extension rails and service should be able to get these for you.</p>

<p>What focus issue?<br>

And Linhof only has one F. Linhoff is a camera repairman in MI. Not a camera manufacturer.</p>

<p>The issue with the focus where the way film holders seat, Fidelity and Lisco, in the back. The ground glass rests about .5mm in front of the film plane with these holders. A spacer needs to be added to move the ground glass back or focus cannot be achieved.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>That is nonsense. Linhof was a distributor for Fidelit/Lisco until they closed the riteway/Fidelity/Lisco factory. Never have we reveived reports of film plane problems from any user, professional or amateur. That includes the likes of Sexton, Barnbaum, Tice, the HABS unit of the National Park Service, and thousands of others.<br>

Linhof ground glass screens sit on movable shims that are precisely adjusted to the proper film plane position. It is not unusual that owners or inexperienced "repair" people lose these shims or take them out or self-adjust them. Especially on older cameras where the Fresnel was behind the gg (closest to the lens) when they change the Fresnel or gg screen.<br>

There is no requirement for a spacer and your spreading incorrect information on a forum like this does a disservice to both you and the forum.</p>

<p>Bob, actually the issue is, or at least was back in 2006 when I got the camera, well documented in various on-line forums. To my knowledge the issue is only with the technikardan--don't John and Bruce use technikas?</p>

<p>Anyway, before I dug out the issue on-line--having bought the camera used--I sent it back to Martin to be sure the camera was to spec and to see if what the issue might be. The camera was to spec and he did suggest that he had in fact heard of some holders not seating correctly--somethng to do with the felt light seal on the back of the camera. He tested the back and thought it was fine--sending me his test film. The problem was that the film looked ok with a modest power loupe, but when I scanned it (200mb 8bit files) with an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner, it was significantly off where it was supposed to be sharp! (much like my own tests where sharp was reached by moving the camera back forward .5mm--otherwise it forward focused)</p>

<p>As I said, my own tests had led me to believe it was about .5mm off and then I found the articles about it on-line. I went to a fabric store with my caliper and found a knitting matt that was exactly .5mm thick and shimmed the ground glass. Now, the images are perfectly sharp!</p>

<p>So, as I have suggested before Bob, you need to look at who is talking before you suggest someone is spreading false information. I have extensive experience with view cameras, high level professional experience as well shooting for top companies throughout the world. I know when a camera is not working right. By the way, the problem did exist with the Kodak ReadyLoad holder as well, which is moot at this point.</p>

<p>(By the way, this is with an OEM ground glass although it was replicated with another)</p>

<p>Oh yea Bob, I am not dissing the camera, I love it. I just didn't find it very useful when everything I shot driving cross country (thankfully a personal trip) wasn't in focus. Since I had just completed two months on the road for a large commercial client using a different view camera, I was pretty sure it wasn't me!</p>

<p>I am sure many have shimmed the camera if they had the problem and maybe, when the felt is worn, the issue goes away. This is actually my biggest fear when a camera is set off from specs--when will it go back to working in spec and will it happen in the middle of an important project?</p>

<p>My point was to disperse useful information, something that should be checked since the problem has been documented to exist in some cases.</p>

<p>Just another note--Bob, here is one of those other threads and it is hear on Photonet and guess what, you even participated in it.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/0035p6</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sexton owned both a 2000 and a TK as well as the 57 Technika. Tice is a TK user. The backs on a TK, Kardan and Technika all have the same gg back frame and gg.<br>

John, I also have long experience with view cameras, actually since photo school in 1963. I also have regular contact with the Linhof factory and this is not a reported issue. It may have been an isolated instance but it certainly is not a continual or a common problem. BTW, was yours new or used? TK or TKS?<br>

There was a documented issue with felt seals that were left out of the first dozen or so original production cameras of the original TK. 5 of those cameras were sent to us. But that was in the early 80s.</p>

<p>Bob, I reacted to your accusing me of spreading false information. You seem to lash out when you don't agree with something rather than looking to solutions!</p>

<p>As I said above, my camera was bought used. As said above, I did send it into Martin at Marflex (inferred when I said Martin) who said it was in spec. He did not suggest that there was an issue with my felt and should have if that was an issue. I spent something like $200 and got back a camera back that still didn't work!</p>

<p>If there is a solution that would allow me to remove the shims and regain confidence that the camera will perform properly, I would love to hear it. Thanks!</p>

<p>I don't see any "S" designation on the camera.</p>

<p>I downloaded the "S" brochure and mine does have the type of standards pictured there, so maybe it is a 45S.</p>

<p>Several years ago Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques aka <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com">Photo Technique</a> had an article called Improving View Camera Sharpness.<br>

The basics are:<br>

1. Remove the back frame from the camera.<br>

2. Insert a film holder loaded with an expendable piece of film that you normally use, darkslide removed.<br>

3. Lay a rigid straight edge across the camera side of the back ensuring that the surface the straight edge is on is the same height on both sides of the back.<br>

4. Measure from the straight edge to the surface of the film at several places across the film surface. All should be equal. Record the measurement or mark the measuring device with a piece of tape or a mark.<br>

5. Remove the film holder, position the straight edge as in step 3 and measure to the surface of the ground glass.<br>

6. Add or remove shims as necessary to bring the ground glass to match the film holder/film.<br>

Use <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html">http://home.earthlink.net/~eahoo/page8/filmhold.html</a> to determine if your film holders are in tolerance.</p>

<p>John A: if the standards on your camera match those in the brochure for the "S", then it is an "S". The differences are unmistakable. The other difference that is easy to compare is the presence or absence of detents on the swing/tilt movements.</p>

<p>I've carefully tested the focus on my Linhof TK 45S and it is accurate. Anything can have happened or been done to to a used camera.</p>

<p>John,<br>

This is quite strange. I spoke to Martin this morning and he is not aware of any problem with gg spacing but he did fax me your email to him from 12/3/07 as well as a copy of the repair invoice of 3/3/08 which states that the gg was tested to be 0 to factory specs. They made a test film using your gg and that the gg was adjusted to +0.3mm and -0.5mm. And that the work was done at NC and they warrantied the work for 6 months. <br>

Looking at the link that you cited earlier in this thread and the OP of that thread claimed exactly what you clim but several other owners stated that they had no problem in focusing or sharpness.<br>

Makes us wonder if you had bought the OP camera.<br>

As far as we are aware, exactly two people have made this claim. One the originator of the older thread and then you. <br>

But the assumption made is that it has to be the camera. There are several other things in the chain that make the exposure; lens, aperture, lens board, film holder and the film. What are the tolerances of that individual holder, internal and external? New or used? Etc.</p>

<p>John,<br>

A little further checking and explanation. You did not send Marflex your camera. You only sent them the gg frame and gg (001615) which is the same gg frame that is used on all Linhof 45 cameras be they Kardan, Technika or TK models as well as the Aero Technika 45 EL.<br>

Furthermore your gg frame holder did not have a Linhof gg in it. It had a Boss Screen. The Boss Screen was made of two layers of glass with a paraffin wax layer binding the two halves together. The problem with this technique was that the imaging forming layer, the wax, did not sit directly on the shims unless you had a Linhof specific Boss Screen. And we do not know at this time if you did.<br>

If the bottom layer of glass was directly on the shims then the image was out of focus by the distance between the bottom layer of the Boss Screen and the wax layer.<br>

Did you have a Linhof specific version of the Boss Screen? Why would you only send the gg frame in if you thought that you needed a focus correction?</p>

 

<p>Bob,<br /><br />Facts! Getting them right can save a lot of time.<br /><br />Yes, I did discuss the Boss screen with Martin when I talk to him in December of 07. However, you should also note from his records that that was when I bought a Linhof ground glass from him and my records indicate paying $67 on approximately December 24. <br /><br />Upon getting the new ground glass (I had already tested the camera with another normal ground glass from another camera), I installed it and tested it again with the same results that I'd gotten with the Boss screen, the other ground glass, and the Linhof ground glass--the latter before and after sending it to Martin.<br /><br />I did not send it into Martin with the Boss screen in place. I did not send it back to Martin when I discovered that the problem still existed after getting it back as he already told me he could find nothing wrong. Believe me, we had extensive conversations about it. He also told me he had no way of measuring the plane of the ground glass and the plane of the film to see if they matched or not--seemed like a basic measurement that should have been made in the first place and one critical to view camera repair. He could only measure if the ground glass was placed correctly in the ground glass holder per Linhof specs. It seemed futile to send it back and incur more shipping costs when it appeared I needed to solve the issue myself(See further discussion below)<br /><br />Bob says: "But the assumption made is that it has to be the camera. There are several other things in the chain that make the exposure; lens, aperture, lens board, film holder and the film."<br /><br />Bob, that is basically just deflection of the issue and in some cases pretty naive. Lens boards, or any other physical characteristics of the camera, don't affect the focus on the ground glass once it is focused--at that point, either the ground glass and film plane match or they don't. I described my process above and here again. I would shoot at the focus suggested by the ground glass and the film was out of focus. I would move the back forward .5mm and shoot and the film was sharp. I didn't change aperture or anything else. I also didn't just do the test once. (The focus point was also in the exact center of the image and a fixed, recognizable point!) (On the trip where I used it and nothing was in focus, I used 5 different lenses and several different apertures--and obviously many different holders as I didn't reload on that trip--NOTHING WAS IN FOCUS!)</p>

<p>Even Martin agreed that a focus issue cannot stem from the other parts of a view camera, it can only be in how the ground glass and the film plane align--other than maybe a lens or holder issue to be sure. That is why I sent him the entire back assembly and he didn't see any issue with that, we discussed it at length. (and I don't use any reflex hoods for focusing, just your normal loupe method)<br>

<br />As to lens and holder issues, my tests were conducted with 2 different lenses(Nikon 210mm and Schneider 180mm) and at least 10 different holders. These holders included a selection of Lisco and Fidelity holders as well as a Kodak ReadyLoad holder. All combinations exhibited the same results. If I shot the film where the ground glass focused, the image was not in focus. If I moved the rear standard .5 mm forward, the film was in focus. Since all of these holders and lenses have been used on various view cameras including Cambo, Sinar and a ZoneVI field camera without issue, one would have to conclude that the only variable left is this particular camera back. In fact, to eliminate any "changes" that might have occurred with my equipment, I used the same lenses and film holders with my other main view camera during these tests to be sure that there was only one variable that was different, the Linhof's alignment. The lenses were and still are sharp and the holders work flawlessly. I have never had this sort of issue in thirty years of either personal or commercial shooting, and I shot mostly 4x5 commercially through 2007 when I discovered this problem. My testing of these things, including rechecking on other equipment, is always extensive as I can not afford to have these sorts of issues on a job. Imagine being on a month long assignment, traveling around the country with all the costs associated with that and paying crew as well and then having your film not be in focus. It would not only be costly financially, but would certainly not do one's reputation any service--and that was exactly the kind of work I was doing at the time!<br>

<br />Maybe the camera I have is a lemon--couldn't be from the other poster unless that was a false name, I bought mine from the original owner and the names don't match, but the problem exists and I have compensated for it by having to shim the ground glass .5 mm back from its “spec” position.<br /><br />As I said in my previous entry, Martin's tests–which he felt demonstrated that the focus was fine–did not pan out when scanned. Film can look reasonably sharp with the normal loupe but when it is scanned at high resolution, which I do routinely, it will exhibit issues not seen with the loupe.</p>

<p>It would be nice to hear a solution and if this is the only case, or only one of two, then send me another back and I will test it. If it works, then maybe Linhof should replace mine, if it doesn't, then maybe the issue doesn't show up because others aren't scanning the film at high resolutions or printing large enough for it to show--so it works for them. That doesn't mean it is as it should be.</p>

<p>John,<br>

You bought a used camera. Martin checked and adjusted your gg frame and gg to Linhof's specs. The warranty from Marflex was for 6 months from that date.<br>

If the camera was originally purchased in the USA it came with a 5 year warranty to the original owner. If it was a grey market camera it came with a 1 year warranty valid in Germany to the original owner.<br>

Any warranty requests are long over.</p>

<p>I didn't really expect any satisfaction in that regard Bob. But as I said, your statement "...and your spreading incorrect information on a forum like this does a disservice to both you and the forum." is what I objected to here from the start.</p>

<p>Your methods of responding do not represent you or your companies very well, you need to problem solve not accuse people of spreading misinformation. A problem that is not widespread does not mean there is no problem, it just means it isn't widespread! ....and letting someone else know about its possibility is proper, and responsible, if that is one's only experience with a product.</p>

<p>John,<br>

You did not state that you had a used camera. You did not state which model you had, you did not state that you sent only a gg frame and gg to service, you stated that it cost you $200.00 when Marflex charged you $0.00. You did not state that a 3rd party gg had been installed. <br>

It still boils down to 2 individuals stated that they had a problem. And in your case we never had a complete camera to check. And all other owners stated that they had not had a problem.<br>

Sorrry if this does not satisfy you but with what you sent to service would only allow for what Marflex had done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You did not state that you had a used camera. You did not state which model you had, you did not state that you sent only a gg frame and gg to service, you stated that it cost you $200.00 when Marflex charged you $0.00. You did not state that a 3rd party gg had been installed."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For God's sake Bob, what does any of this have to do with anything, you just can't let it go, can you! The camera back is either properly aligned or it isn't--I was told all of my parts were in spec!</p>

<p>Yes, Marflex charged me, over $130 for the service--you can send me a refund if you want to make such a claim!-- and I also paid Fed Ex shipping on top of that--all in all, with the ground glass it was well in excess of $200 as I said!</p>

<p>3 different ground glasses were used with the same result, including a Linhof--WTF is your point--I DIDN'T SEND IT IN WITH THE BOSS SCREEN!</p>

<p>Bob, you have no clue how a view camera works do you!?!?! Good God, a cardboard box, with ground glass and film plane aligned can make a great--and perfectly focused--photograph. The only thing that affects focus on a view camera is how the ground glass and the film plane align--get a grip man--talk about pure bullshit!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you did not state that you sent only a gg frame and gg to service</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just read this, and no this is not the case at all--another erroneous fact--seriously Bob, this is getting pretty old!</p>

<p>I sent in the entire back assembly (as I said in an earlier entry), the GG, GG frame and the Graflock back mechanism it rests in--the entire unit that pops off the back of the camera. The two things you mentioned would certainly be useless as one needs to know if the film plane and GG plane match--although I was told that could not be measured. These are the only parts that affect focus in the situation I describe--and the parts I sent in.</p>

<p>This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on photo.net. Clearly Mr. 'John A' doesn't get that some shims for the ground glass were missing, and that would effect any ground glass that was used in this situation. The other things just don't make sense, outside of user or repair incompetence.<br>

What Mr. Salomon says should be read, and re-read:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That is nonsense. Linhof was a distributor for Fidelit/Lisco until they closed the riteway/Fidelity/Lisco factory. Never have we reveived reports of film plane problems from any user, professional or amateur. That includes the likes of Sexton, Barnbaum, Tice, the HABS unit of the National Park Service, and thousands of others.<br /> Linhof ground glass screens sit on movable shims that are precisely adjusted to the proper film plane position. It is not unusual that owners or inexperienced "repair" people lose these shims or take them out or self-adjust them. Especially on older cameras where the Fresnel was behind the gg (closest to the lens) when they <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="00ZGCA">change</a> the Fresnel or gg screen.<br /> There is no requirement for a spacer and your spreading incorrect information on a forum like this does a disservice to both you and the forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have thirty-five years of experience with such issues, so please don't use foul language when you respond to what I've written here.</p>

<p>Noah, did you read any of my remarks? You must not have based on your insinuations here. I would suggest you reread what I said with regards to these various issues, including the back being sent in in spec to Linhof, including the shims.<br /> <br /> This thread escalated and became ridiculous because instead of addressing what appears to be a very rare occurrence, it was more convenient to accuse me of spreading false information than to accept it. In fact, there was a statement made above, in this thread, by Bob:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Never have we reveived reports of film plane problems from any user, professional or amateur. That includes the likes of Sexton, Barnbaum, Tice, the HABS unit of the National Park Service, and thousands of others"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>when in fact Bob had participated in a thread here on photonet several years ago on the same issue and my case was on file with Linhof service as evident from Bob's own comments--I guess that first line was a bit of a misstatement. Possibly it is just an anomaly with the two cameras where it has been called out, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that my pointing it out is ridiculous.</p>

<p>I do hope the OP's camera does not have this issue, but I do think it is one I would want to check before committing to using it for any serious work.</p>

<p>Moderator: Everyone has made their point several times. Enough. It isn't answering the original question. I am closing this thread.</p>