8x10 Kodak Century...

I'm curious about how usable the (ancient, circa 1900) Kodak Century 8x10 is. Which movements is it capable of, front & rear, & what the maximum extension of the camera is? And how heavy/rigid is it?

<p>

I would of course prefer a 'dorff or a Kodak Masterview, but they're out of my price range. I recently turned down a B&J rail (too heavy, short bellows), and I haven't come across a good enough Calumet aluminum/magnesium camera (bellows, missing rail hardware) to consider purchasing. I've considered the Bender kit, but for about the same price a mint Century with two lenses, case, extension rail, and probably some film holders might be worth investigating.

<p>

The camera will be for contact prints only, and I have no intention of getting more new glass for it than a 450mm Nikkor M to share with my 4x5 down the road. I'll need front tilt & 30" of draw at the minimum, with tilt on the rear a plus but not essential. Is the Century worth looking at?

I don't know the Century line that well, but as I recall they have no

front tilt, just front rise and rear tilt & swing. David Clark, out

in Washington state has made some nice portraits with a Kpdak 2-D and

it has about the same moves. He has posted here, ya might try e-

mailing him. Stieglitz did o.k. with one.

<p>

In the meantime, check out this page:

<p>

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/fcam.htm

Was this a camera designed for use with plates or sheet film? It might

make a big difference in how sharp your results are!

Most of these cameras are more or less the same design and I'd be

surprised if you found one in mint condition with two lenses, a case,

and some film holders for the price of a Bender. However, you

probably can beat Bender's price with one. I don't think you'll

necessarily end up with a more useful camera, though. Are you sure it

has front tilt? Also, what kind of photography do you do? If you are

sticking to the studio I suspect one of these cameras will be just

fine. But they are kind of wobbly for field use, at least the

battered up ones. (And most of them are battered up.) One thing

about this kind of photography is that film costs at least a buck and

a half a pop. If you botch twenty or thirty exposures a year to light

leaks, wobble, and misaligned things it will only take a few years to

make up for the cost of a used deardorff or Calumet. I'd get the

Century, try it out, and if you like the format, scrape together the

funds for a more sturdy camera. That's what I did, and I'm happy with

my decision. You are right about the lenses - stick with junky ones

nobody else wants and spend your money on film.

<p>

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.