Recommendations for architecture & FA field camera

[nicholas_rab1]

Ah, the slippery slope of photography purchases, I seem to have fallen

back onto it. Looking for some real world recommendations for a dual

purpose camera.

 

Background..

 

Over the last year I have been doing a bit of "Cheap and Cheerful"

architecture work for some clients, primarily with Canon digital.

While I think my interior work has been OK, my exterior work just

plain sucks without movements. The clients thought it was good, but

last week I made the mistake of going out and adding a couple frames

from my crappy Nagoka 4x5 with a borrowed 90mm lens. Revelation, for

both my client and I. These are the kind of results that I want!

 

I enjoy shooting landscape/fine art work for my personal enjoyment, so

would like the camera to really perform dual duty. Here's the

requirements I have put together.

 

* Able to act as a reasonably good and wide 6x9 camera for commercial

jobs (47mm with movements would be nice, 55mm without a recessed

board would be fine).

 

* Able to be used as a landscape shooter camera with 4x5 and 6x12

backs, lenses up to 200mm.

 

* Durable, compact, and collapseable. No monorails. I have actually

managed to break a canon 1Ds, so I am a little hard on equipment.

Prefer a camera that folds into a self protecting box rather than just

collapsing.

 

* Linhof boards would be really nice, as then I could continue to

easily use my nagoka for ultralight backcountry travel.

 

Any ideas? The Linhof 2000 sure looks nice, but it's a little out of

budget.

[leicaglow]

I used to shoot a LOT of architectural stuff. That and aerial photography was my niche. I always ended up taking my old Crown Graphic into the field for use with my 90 and 65mm SAs. The advantage was a) movement, and b) the front bed tilts down out of the way. I still use this camera and it's built like a tank. You can buy them in good shape for less than $200 or so. I know Toyo and others make modern knock-offs of this type of field camera if you want something newer.

[steve_hamley]

Nicholas,

 

I know you said no 'rails, but it sounds like an Arca-Swiss field monorail may be a good suggestion.

 

Other cameras closer to a folding "box" would be an Ebony SV45Te, SV45U, or a non-folding S45U and a bag bellows.

 

Steve

[pico_digoliardi]

The Linhof 2000 is a PITA with very wide lenses.

 

SILVESTRI is very good. :)

[scott_davis5]

For not a lot of money, look at a Shen-Hao. It'll out-move most monorails, folds into a neat and tidy box, takes Linhof Technica boards, has a real leather bag bellows that only costs $100, and the rear standard slides forward so you can use it with extreme wideangle lenses without the bed getting in the way. On the long end, you can easily shoot at 210 at infinity through closeup, and can work with up to a 300 Telephoto. It has a Graflok back so you can use it with rollfilm holders. I've shot architectural work with it that got published in Metropolitan Home. Best part? They're about $600 new. Solid teak, with black metal moving parts. I've taken mine hiking all over California, through the Pinnacles, and up and over the Sierras, as well as numerous places around here on the East Coast. For the money, it's the best field camera out there.

[michael_alpert1]

For architectual work, I use an Ebony SW45S (a camera which combines some of the features of the SW45 and some of the features of the 45S), which I use with a 45 back or a 6x9 reduction back. I have a separate 6x9 framed groundglass with fresnel for wide-angle lenses. I use Horseman 6x9 backs. I use lenses ranging from a 38XL (on a recessed board) to a 300 Nikon M (on a 30mm "top-hat" board). This camera, which is described on the Ebony Camera website, satisfies everything you have listed, except for the self-protective box (wood edges are protected with titanium fittings). Since it is very light, it will replace your Nagoka. I bought the camera from Badger Graphics.

[noah]

I second the recommendation to check out the Arca-Swiss cameras. I have the 8x10

version, and I can't say enough good things about it. The standards can move really close

together on a short section of rail, so the camera can be as compact as a lot of the folding

cameras, and also as tough, I think. It sets up super fast, since you can leave the lens on.

Some folding cameras let you do that as well, but only with small lenses, certainly not a

90mm SA or grandagon you might use for architecture.

 

I might be wrong, but I feel the folders won't have as much movement and won't be as

convenient for architecture work. I shoot architecture and as much as I like the idea of a

camera that folds into a little box, I've tried them and the don't work for me.

 

If you really want a folding field camera, and can't quite swing the price tag on the Linhof

2000, I'd check out the metal folding cameras by horseman and wista, which seem better

made to me than the toyo.

 

If the camera you end up with doesn't use a linhof board, you could always use an

adaptor. If one isn't manufactured, SK Grimes will make you one.

 

Keep in mind that if you start shooting 4x5 for your interiors and exteriors, and your work

improves, you can probably charge more...so maybe the Linhof isn't out of reach.

[paul_owen]

Make sure you check out the Ebony wooden cameras. The SW45 or the 45S sounds as if it would be an ideal choice!

[nicholas_rab1]

Thanks for all the thoughts everyone. The wide angle Ebonys and Arca swiss cameras may be the ticket. I really did want a folding camera, but if I have to give up one thing I guess that would be it. Part of the problem is I often don't have the luxury of using a camera bag, and am just tossing all kinds of crap in a rucksack along with the camera. It seemed that a "folding box" of a camera would hold up the the slings and arrows of (mis)fortune better. I dislike having to baby equipment.

 

It's all a comprimise though. I do like the idea of a dedicated w/a 6x9 fresnel/back. That makes a lot of sense.

[nbg90455]

Get an Arca Swiss Field Camera -- it is a monorail with a folding rail, and as such gives you all the movements you ever wanted at the weight/convenience of a field camera. If you think you're going to need extensive tilt etc. (rather than just rise/fall and shift), you can also upgrade it to "orbix" which makes tilt a lot easier...

 

Mike

[tedharris]

If you have the opportunity to actually lokk at some dcameras in the flesh I wouldn't givce up

on folding camers until you have a look at the Canham and Walker offerings. The Walkers

take a Linhof board and you cdan order the Canham that way too (the Toyo board is

standard). Both will givce you a bit of movement with the 47. Both are lighter than the Arca

and a lot less money than the Ebony. Both hace the more precise feel of a metal camera that

you get with an ARca but not necessarily with an Ebony. Both are nearly indestructible.

[brian_ellis16]

Let's see if there is a camera in existence that meets your specific needs. First, you say want a camera that folds into a box, so you want a "clam shell" design. That leaves out any Arca Swiss, any non-folding Ebony, any Sinar, and the Linhof Technikardan. Then you want one that takes Linhof lens boards. That leaves out any Canham and any Toyo (I think Keith Canham might make a Linhof board adapter but I'm not sure). Third, you want to use 6x9 and 6x12 roll film holders. That leaves out any camera that won't accept Graflok type backs, i.e. the Tachihara and many of the older wood 4x5s leave the picture.

 

So at this point we have left standing Linhof Technikas, Shen Haos, Walkers (I think, I don't know much about Walkers but given your propensity for breaking cameras we'll hope they're still in the running because they're particularly durable cameras), Zone VI, and Deardorff 4x5s and similar older cameras. Ah, but you have a propensity for breaking cameras so you probably want something other than a wood camera. So Zone VI, Shen Hao, and used Deardorffs and similar older cameras aren't good candidates. That leaves Technikas and Walkers. But you want to use 47mm and 55mm lenses. That leaves out all Technikas except the Master 2000.

 

So your choice is simple: you can buy either the Master 2000 or maybe the Walker. I say "maybe" the Walker because I don't know much about it and I'm not sure it meets all your requirements, especially the ability to use 47mm lenses. But it is at least worth investigating because of its durability and it may meet all of your other requirements. We know the Master 2000 meets your requirements but as you apparently have already discovered, it costs about $4000 new and you almost never see them used. Then of course you have to lay out another $1500 or so for your 6x9 and 6x12 backs. I hope those architectural jobs pay well. : - ) Or maybe a Canon digital with the three Canon tilt/shift lenses starts looking cheap? Or even better from the standpoint of your pocket book, maybe a little vertical convergence isn't such a bad thing after all?

[nicholas_rab1]

Gee Brian, thanks for the dose of reality :-)

 

Actually the walker XL wide looks pretty damn nice. Not hideously expensive, a little limited with long lenses but far more flexible than many of the other ultrawide bodies. It doesn't collapse, but does look like it can take a beating. Lack of rear movements is a bummer, but better alignment is the payback I guess.

 

Looks like a perfect 6x12 landscape camera.

[warren_williams]

As and architect and sometimes large format photographer I thought I would add my (complaining) 2 cents worth.

 

Where did this "For architecture you must need lots of camera movements" stuff come from. Most architectural shots are done with a 90 or wider and most non-press LF cameras have movements (particularly rise) which exceed the covering power of most WA lenses. If you don't believe me, listen to Julius Shulman "Since I use movements on the view camera for only a small percentage of exposures the minor adjustments of rising front and small tilt variations are adequately provided on the [sinar] F or other less sophisticated cameras"

 

Secondly, many on this forum seem to like the expensive cameras. Again Shulman says it best "My plea is to avoid purchasing expensive and superlative equipment arbitrarily.....of course the money saved by purchasing a lower priced camera could be put into the finest quality lenses which can always be used on other cameras as you upograde with experience"

 

My own choice was a Shen-Hao for it's price and bag bellows capability. Any shock that would break it would damage or at least misalign most metal cameras.

[gary_ferguson1]

"Where did this "For architecture you must need lots of camera movements"

stuff come from."

 

Warren, I guess it comes down to personal style. I've seen entire projects

superbly captured with just a Hasselblad 903 SWC, ie no movements apart

from cropping the shot. Equally I seem to be regularly up against the

movement limits.

 

One issue could be location, a lot of my architectural work is done in cramped

European cities. It's not just vertical rise and fall that I need, often the ideal

taking location will be in the middle of a busy street. So the only practical

option is a discreet withdrawl to the pavement and lots of side shift!

[tedharris]

Nicholas,

 

A couple of more points on two cameras .... I am sticking to the ones I use now or hace

used extensively in the past:

 

1) The Toyo All comes in an "L" model (L for Linhof front standard instead of Toyo). The L

model is AFAIK only available in Europe new but you can find them used in the US as well.

I got mine from Midwest .... wanted the Linhof boards for the reasons you state. Toyo

clearly states in their specs that you can use a 47mm lens. I have never used anything

wider than a 65 and that seldom. I do use a 75 frequently and just eyeballing the bellows

compression I tend to believe that 47 is possible but no experience. The AX and CF may

also come with the L front but I hacve never heard of it for anything except the All. The

Toyo to Linhof adapter plate is also readily available but it adds enough thickness to the

front that it will probably knock out the possibility of a 47.

 

2) The Canham T57/45 should have no trouble at all with a 47mm lens with the bag

bellows attached. Both the front and rear standards move and you can compress the

camera to a point where only the rear lens element extension into the bellows cavity is the

limiting factor. Again, the Toyo board is the standard and you can get an adaptor but as I

mentioned above you can order the camera with a Linhof Technika front standard, again

this is what I use.

 

These are my two most used cameras in the field and they both take a beating. I think the

Toyo is nearly indestructible and the Canham is tough too. I use theToyo in the dead of

winter when it is below zero and I have no trouble focusing it with gloves on. It is also

part of the kit that slung around in airlineoverhead compartments and stuffed under my

sat when traveling.

 

The Canham is a dream as well. My standard camera for most field work (when it is not

below zero). It is a bit larger than the Toyo sinfde it is basically a 5x7 and not a purpose-

built 4x5. This is an attraction to me since it means I havce enough bellows draw for any

lens I own as well as the ability to use extreme wide angles when I mount the bag bellows.

I am more a 5x7 than 4x5 shooter and it is also nice to take one camera and a reducing

back when I am on foot. Finally it is no treally a wood camera. More properly it is a metal

camera fitted in a fine wood box.

 

Two to consider seriously. The Toyo is the more durable of the two as it is all metal and I

think the only other metal field that may be as sturdy is the Linhof. The Canham is the

versitle.

[noah]

Mr. Williams makes a good point, maybe people do get a bit obsessed with excessive

movements. And I'm not one to argue with Julius Shulman. For me, and this is certainly a

matter of personal opinion, a simple monorail like the Sinar F Shulman says works for him,

or an arca swiss, is simpler to set up and the movements all work very seamlessly and

precisely.

 

Geared rise and fall, for example, can really save time and make your life easier. Even if

you're not using a lot of movement, you still want to be precise, I think. It's not necessary,

just a nice convenience. Also, I tend to use fall as much as rise, so it's nice to be able to

get direct rise and fall without resorting to messing around with a drop bed.

 

Not that field cameras with that sort of fall don't work, I just don't find them as

convenient. When you're shooting for a client and the light is changing fast, I find simple

cameras are best. While folding cameras might be more portable, and some are more

durable, simple monorails are actually simpler to operate. A sinar F, which is actually quite

a simple camera, would also be a good recommendation, although I think less portable

than an Arca. You could also look into the Misura, which does not have back movements

but does have a leather or metal case it fits into.

[michael_briggs2]

Julius Shulman has done most of his work in Los Angeles, which is an expansive city (allowing one to be farther from buildings and use longer lenses), and also he does a lot of interiors, so these may be factors in why he uses front rise less than some other architectural photographers. In his book "Photographying Architecture and Interiors", the chapter on equipment recommends a 4x5 view camera for its versatilty. One of the examples is the elimination of the foreground (a parking lot) of the Long Beach Water Department Building by using substantial front rise. He also shows a photo of his Sinar where he has gained extra front rise by tilting the camera upwards, then bringing both standards back to plumb. The Sinar monorail that he shows is certainly capable of more than a minor amount of direct front rise.

 

Most of the participants on this forum are amatuers; portability is frequently a high consideration in selecting a camera. We wish to travel with our camera and don't have assistants.

[nicholas_rab1]

Many thanks for all the thoughts here. After going back and forth on the topic, I have decided that I really am not positive what camera body is going to suit me correctly. Um, I guess that means I decided that I can't decide? Anyway, what seems to make sense to me in this case is to get quality lenses and a cheap body. So, I am picking up a 58xl, 110xl, and a Shen-Hao TFC45 (an Ebony SW45 clone, under $500 from china). I figure the money on lenses is well spent, and if I decide a different camera is right for me, no big loss.

 

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses to my question. This is a fantastic forum.