Zone VI Ultralight - why not?

Hello All,

<p>

I am in search of a new 4x5 field to replace my Linhof Technikardan currently being auctioned off. I am after something light yet with long enough bellows draw to fous a 450mm at least at infinity, and I prefer to spend as little as possible given a choice (so, no Ebony in the budget right now). The newest Zone VI 4x5 Ultralight weighs in at only 4 pounds yet will focus even a 480mm, and all for only $1499 new. Doesn't this seem like a great combo of weight/extension/price factors? Any users of this new Ultralight version want to share their hands-on experience? Unfortunately I do not have a Calumet retail store anywhere close to me to look at these in person.

<p>

Thanks in advance!

I would consider the Canham DLC 45. I just bought one last month, and

have been amazed. It has a roughly 21" bellows, and doesn't need a

bag bellows for a 75mm lens. Not sure about a 65mm lens, but the

shortest I own is a 75.

<p>

Yes, the Canham retails for $2300, but the extra moeny is well worth

it. It weighs in at something like 5 pounds 11 ounces.

Ross,

<p>

You might want to also consider the Phillips 4x5. I haven't seen it

or the Zone VI Ultrlight in person (but I am a former owner of a

non-Ultralight Zone VI). From what I've read, the Phillips is more

rigid than the Zone VI. I've also talked to someone who has used both

the Phillips and the Canham DLC (I myself am a long time DLC owner

having bought one of the first ones Keith made) and he assured me the

Phillips is more rigid than the Canham.

<p>

I'm not saying the Phillips is the camera for you, but it's worthy of

consideration. With the "Light" bellows (VERY similar to the Canham

bellows) and the spring back it weighs 3.9 lbs and has 18" of bellows

extension. With these bellows, the manufacturer claims it can be used

with a 58mm lens on a flat lensboard. Other bellows and back options

are avilable. The price is $1775 including a tubular focusing cloth.

<p>

I haven't seen one of these cameras, but I have seen several 8x10

Phillips models over the years and have always been impressed with

both the construction and design philosophy of these cameras. Dick

Phillips seems to put an emphasis on designing and building cameras

that are both as light and as rigid as possible. He accomplishes this

by omitting unnecessary features that don't do anything but add

weight, reduce rigidity and increase cost.

<p>

I just talked with Mr. Phillips on the phone last Friday and requested

information on his 4x5 model. He is very friendly to talk to on the

phone, and sent the information I requested promptly. He is also a

photographer, so he knows what works well and what doesn't in the

field - and his cameras incorporate that knowledge in their design.

If this sounds like a product you might be interested in, give him a

call and request the information packet (517-835-7897).

<p>

Yes, the Canham is also a very versatile camera that is light and

compact (the official spec is 4 lb. 11 oz. - mine weighs 4 lb. 14 oz).

It's also worthy of consideration, but at $2300 it's substanitally

more expensive than the Zone VI (or the Phillips). Still give it

careful consideration so you know what you might be giving up to save

some money.

<p>

Kerry

Ross: I first knew there was a lightweight Zone VI camera when I saw

it on the shelf at Calumet. I've been using the non-lightweight

version for about 12 years or so. I was favorably impressed, it

seemed like the same camera I was used to, it was just much lighter.

(Reminded me of when you reach for the full milk carton and find out

it's empty and your hand goes flying up in the air. It's that light

if you're used to the other one.) I did the math about selling the

one I had and getting one of those, but it didn't make sense since I

already have a very light Ikeda I use for backpacking. There was an

earlier question somebody asked about this camera that went

unanswered, which surprised me a bit since I thought this was a

camera which would tempt people to buy it. There are detractors of

the Zone VI design but I'm happy with it. I don't use a lens shorter

than 90 mm, however.

Hi Ross. Don't know much about the unltralight, but I have read it is

a much better camera than the original Zone VI. I'm just sticking my

two cents in because the Phillips 4x5 was mentioned. I am one of the

lucky few that have this wonderful little camera. Mine has the

combination bellows and the international back so it weighs 4.7

pounds. You can get it with the light weight bellows and the spring

back and it will weight about 4. I played with a number of other

cameras before buying this one including the Arca Swiss Field, Canham,

Wisner Pocket Expedition, Wistas. The only one I looked at that I

liked better than the Phillips was the Arca Swiss, but it was $1000

more and a couple of pound heavier. Good luck.

I do not know much about the other cameras but also once owned a

Technica V. I have also played alot with the Zone VI. Although it

doesn't seem to have much substance it holds up quite well and is

quite sturdy. I was alot more abusive to the camera. Done things I

never would have done with my Roles Royce Linhof. It also sped up

working time since I didn't really worry to much about a large

investment. It came home the same way it left, in perfect working

order. Things to get used to is that it is quite simple. Everything

slides {no geared movement}and locks when tightened down. Very good

degree of movement keeping in mind that it is not a view camera. I

did miss the free moving back movements of the Linhof though I never

really used them. The bail that opens up the back to insert film

holders is so simple and completely awesome. Accessories are cheap

relatively speaking and easily found new. Two pieces of advice. Buy

the bright screen for an additional $200.00 and throw away the groung

glass it comes with. Buy something anything to hang on your tripod.

One of those cheapy bookbags that you can throw some nearby rocks

into. Finally call Calumets 800 # ask for someone who knows large

format they are usually more than happy to talk to you.

Thank you for all the responses so far. Just so you know where I'm

coming from, I have owned an Iston, previous version Zone VI,

Tachihara, Wista DX, Toyo AX, Linhof TK, and used or carefully

examined Canham DLC, all Wisner 4x5's, all Horseman 4x5 fields,

Linhof Technika, and some Arca-Swiss. Obviously I am having trouble

locating my one true love! I realize the perfect 4x5 does not exist,

and each camera I've owned has had it's share of virtues as well as

irritations.

<p>

I will still consider a few of the cameras I've not had an

opportunity to see yet, but one question remains: If the new

Ultralight Zone VI is Calumet's #3 best selling product currently

(according to their website), then why are their no actual owners

responding to this and other threads about the camera? Seems strange

to me.

There is really only one wooden field camera to consider for a

serious LF photographer....the Ebony. Simply the best. Anything else

is a compromise.

<p>

Jonny

Well Jonny, unfortunatly for those of us who do not have unlimited

financial resources, *compromise* is a fact of life. Thank God the

artistry of a photographer is not dependent on how expensive his/her

camera is or the size of the wallet...

The Germans have a phrase that essentially says "But quality and you

only cry once - when you buy it" "Buy inferior and you cry about it

every time you use it." After the list of cameras you have been

through and are still looking, the odds are pretty good that the

Ultra Light or any other $1500 camera will not be the perfect camera

either. If I were you I would find a way to get the Ebony and hope

that your camera trading days are behind you.

Ross - Don't jump to conclusions about the cost of an Ebony! At

current exchange rates, Robert White lists the RW45 for only about

$150 more than the Zone VI. It doesn't have quite the movements of

the Zone VI, but they are ample enough for most landscape work. The

RW45 will focus a 500mm lens (of telephoto design), and it actually

weighs slightly less than the Zone VI.

<p>

I was also a user of the older Zone VI camera. It wasn't the most

rigid camera to begin with, and while it was fine for the first year

or so, everything just kind of loosened up over time until the thing

was essentially worthless. Until very recently, a friend of mine had

the ultralight. It was more rigid than I remember my Zone VI being,

but it was starting to loosen up a bit as well. He was concerned

enough about it that he sold it. This may be a problem with wood

fields in general, as I had the same thing happen with the first wood

field I purchased (a Wista, many, many years ago).

<p>

I came very close to purchasing an Ebony when I was last in the

market. I looked at two models; the RW45 and the 45S, which is non-

folding. They were by far the most rigid wood field cameras I've ever

handled (though I've certainly not handled them all), and were very

nicely designed. I ended up going with the Canham DLC (which I have

been extremely pleased with), but there is no doubt that I'd have

chosen the Ebony if I had ultimately decided to go with wood.

<p>

By the way, I took a look at your website. You've got some fantastic

images there! No matter which camera you ultimately purchase, I

suspect that you'll continue to prove your "artistry of a

photographer" statement for a long time to come.

Tim, thank you for the kind words about my images! And thanks to

everyone for giving me food for thought, I really do appreciate it.

I am going to try and get ahold of a local fine art shooter I met

recently and see if I can get some field time on his Ebony, and find

out what all the fuss is about. I'm ordering up literature on the

Philips and figure I'll give the Canham another look as well.

<p>

Regards,

Sometimes I see comments about cameras that are extremely puzzling.

Having used the Zone VI camera for 12 years now, and having used it a

lot, and having taken it many places, I can't imagine how anyone

could say it becomes so loose that it is worthless. I've had two of

the Zone VI 8X10's (first one was pre-production and was eventually

stolen) and nothing about those was flimsy or became loose either.

There is nothing "loose" on my 4X5 which doesn't get tight if you

tighten a knob. The comment along these lines which referred to

the "older Zone VI" might have referred to the original lightweight

which wasn't the one Zone VI made, but still I can't fathom some of

the criticism here. There's a review of the camera on or linked to

this website which is harshly critical of how incredibly complex and

difficult if not impossible it is to open and close the Zone VI.

Again, unless you're trying it one handed or blindfolded, I don't get

it. Every camera has its peculiarities of design and when you learn

how to fold it up and open it (and do it until you really have it

down) the camera is a piece of cake to use. If a particular piece of

equipment doesn't appeal to you for some subjective reason, fine.

Certainly a valid point of view to be shared. But anybody who is

looking for information here and runs across some of the ludicrous

over the top criticisms of equipment which get posted isn't being

done a service.

Well said, Kevin.

<p>

I am as guilty as anyone for being overly critical of various cameras

and for occasionally obsessing over the equipment to the point that I

lose my perpective on why I'm photographing. Now after starting this

thread I realize once again that I am worrying far too much about the

gear, when for me it's all about experiencing and capturing on film

the awesome majesty of creation. So for now, I will choose a simple

yet functional camera that I can afford, and let that tool be the

means to a greater end.

Kevin - Since my post was mainly intended to let Ross know that an

Ebony (a camera that his original message implied was an

extravagance) might actually be in his price range, I didn't want to

waste a lot of time detailing the poor performance and workmanship of

my older Zone VI camera.

<p>

Since you've asked though, let me go into a little more detail.

<p>

I thought it was pretty clear what I meant by loose, but for those

who were unsure, to me, looseness is the opposite of rigidty. At

longer extension, the bed was less tight and stable than it was

originally. The standards (while never exactly bombproof), got to the

point that they moved at the slightest touch. It didn't matter that

the knobs were tightened, things still wiggled and moved more than I

was willing to accept. Inserting film holders, pulling darkslides,

adjusting f-stops, and cocking shutters were all enough to

occasionally change focus. I tried different sized washers of

differing materials, and that didn't help. I cleaned metal to wood

and metal to metal contact surfaces, it still didn't help. I was

unsatisfied with the experience.

<p>

My results with the camera were sometimes disappointing, so yes, I

considered it "essentially worthless". When I went to sell it, I

found out that Zone VI had a fairly poor quality reputation (again,

older model) and I ended up taking far less for it than I would have

expected (entirely my fault, I now check resale value before

purchasing new equipment). The low resale coupled with the cost of

getting a new camera, made the Zone VI "essentially worthless" to me

financially as well.

<p>

Does that help or is that still "ludicrous over the top criticism"?

<p>

I know others have mentioned it here, but we should keep in mind that

all we are sharing here are our personal experiences. Mine was

negative and I know of others whose experiences were similar. Yours

was positive and you probably know others who have had positive

experiences. The fact that my experience was negative doesn't make

it "ludicrous", or "over the top". Two of the three reviewers you

mentioned on the linked review page mention the difficulty of folding

the camera. Why is their combined opinion "ludicrous" or "over the

top", while your single opinion about how it's a piece of cake for

anyone who isn't blindfolded, not?

Tim: Are we talking apples and oranges here? Again, what is

an "older Zone VI camera"? Zone VI originally put its mark on what I

understand was a lightweight Japanese camera and sold that as the

Zone VI Camera. (Actually a Wista, some say.) Is that the one you

had problems with? Then came the one they made which is extremely

similar to the Wisner. It was much more solid (and heavy) but it has

been around long enough (pre-Calumet) that one could consider that

an "older Zone VI camera." So point one is I'm still not sure we're

even discussing the same camera or manufacturer. If the Zone VI

camera became unstable and useless and you returned it for a warranty

claim under the lifetime warranty (Zone VI) or your friend made a

warranty claim for his loose lightweight camera (Calumet, 5 years)

what happened then? Was the warranty claim to Zone VI or Calumet?

My hunch is that we aren't talking about the same piece of equipment.

Your comments about resale value don't seem to square with what

people are bidding them up to on Ebay, nor the used store prices I've

seen, which again makes me wonder which product you sold. (Is

something worth $600 to $850 used [assuming it's the US

version] "worthless"?) As to my point about some criticism here being

over the top, I've received some private support from people who know

exactly what I was talking about. I didn't characterize your

comments as ludicrous; I made a general point which some people seem

to understand and the Zone VI reviews illustrate the point pretty

well. If you know a particular product well, then it can happen that

a subjective comment about it can be so far off the mark that it

falls into the "over the top" category. If I told you a Cobra was a

quiet and spacious but dog-slow automobile which seats 4 comfortably,

would you care if 2 out of 3 "reviewers" voiced similar comments?

Does that make me right? Are my comments valid because they are my

opinions? I think the only part of our discussion which has any

potential interest to anyone thinking about the Zone VI lightweight

camera, which is how we started on this, is whether your experiences

with your camera are with the Zone VI-manufactured camera. If they

were, and if your friend's problems were with the lightweight one

(more to the point, since the wood and metal of the camera are

different), I'd be interested to know about how the warranty claim

was handled. As others have noted, Calumet's website has this as one

of their best selling products and yet there don't seem to be any

first-hand users with comments on the camera. This does seem rather

odd and if somebody bought one and is using it, I'd like to know what

they think. I'm still considering getting one. If I offended you I

certainly didn't mean to and I apologize for doing so.

Ross,

<p>

I checked out your website. Nice work! Anyway, maybe one of the

easiest ways to address the issue of the Zone VI ultralight would be

to find an excuse to go to LA and check one out. Depending on where

you live in Washington airfare could be pretty affordable expecially

when you compare it to the investment you are proposing to make on

the camera. As for the other camers mentioned above I'm not sure

that the Ebony referred to has an adequate bellows extension for the

lens you propose using. It would at least be worth investigating at

the Ebony website.

<p>

Good Luck.