TK45S v. TK45

[david4]

What advantages does the Linhoff Technikardan TK45s have that the

predecessor model Linhoff Technikardan TK45 lacks?

[bob_salomon3]

0 detents on front and rear swings, new standard design.

[michael_briggs2]

As Bob said, there isn't much change. The TKS has detents on front

and back swings and tilts and redesigned standards. The old

standards appear to be bent from a single piece of metal and are of

differing sizes: the front has a smaller cross-section than the rear.

The new standards are of the same size front and back and are

assembled from three pieces: two straights and a bend. The redesign

of the standards probably reduced manufacturing cost. It may also be

better: one Linhof user told me that he has seen a surprising number

of TK cameras with bent front standards, so perhaps the old front

standard was too light. Overall, there is very little difference.

[bob_salomon3]

" one Linhof user told me that he has seen a surprising number

of TK cameras with bent front standards, so perhaps the old

front standard was too light. "

 

<p>

 

He may have but I strongly doubt it. I haven't had a single call,

letter, visit, memo or note about this since the day the TK was

introduced almost 20 years ago.

 

<p>

 

The 3 piece design was a manufacturing decision.

 

<p>

 

The old one piece design was difficult to make as the extrusion

had to be bent into a right angle while sldo keeping the faces at

a right angle. Too many had to be thrown out due to their not

being right angles in both planes.

 

<p>

 

The current system guarantees right angles and is stronger as

the bend is eliminated.

[gregor2]

Bob:

 

<p>

 

<b> <FONT COLOR="red"> The current system guarantees right angles and

is stronger as the bend is eliminated.</FONT> </b>

 

<p>

 

That probably explains why we see no reports of bent standards on the

s. <b> 8^)</b> What do you think?

 

<p>

 

Gregor

[bob_salomon3]

"That probably explains why we see no reports of bent standards

on the s. 8^) What do you think? "

 

<p>

 

You missed the point.

 

<p>

 

THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPORTS OF BENT STANDARDS ON

THE ORIGINAL OR THE S>

 

<p>

 

Except for one camera that was dropped 20' from a cherry picjer

during a job. And that one was an old one easily repaired.

[gregor2]

Bob:

 

<p>

 

I am not sure what a <b> cherry picjer</b> is. This was a joke.

Please reread the use of words in all of the posts and develop a sense

of language and humor. Thank you. It will help.

 

<p>

 

Greg

[rob_tucher1]

My Tk spent 6 months in Marflex back in 1988 because of a bent front

standard. It did not fall out of a cherry picker but was knocked over

on a tripod by an assistant into a foot-deep mud puddle. They said it

took that long to get a replacement. Ever since I have had to

recheck my camera with a hand-held level and adjust so I presume

something was not quite right even still, but at the time I didn't

go back because I did without it for such a long time. The camera is

phenomenal but that experience was not all that appreciated. The one

thing I don't like about use of the camera is lack of detents for

speed of set-up and for accuracy, so the TKS must be a dream. I don't

think there is a finer 4x5 out there. I will eventually switch to the

S.

[kerry_thalmann2]

Rob,

 

<p>

 

Yes, the center detents on the swings and tilts are a godsend (and a

highly underrated feature IMHO). They are very firm and positive and

make the camera a snap to get squared away. I've been shooting with a

TK45S for a last few months, and am very impressed with the camera in

general. The only things I don't like are the weight and the

placement of the tripod sockets. In spite of the Linhof claim that it

weighs 6.6 lb. my sample weighs over 7.5 lb. "naked". By the time I

add a RRS quick release plate and the bag bellows, it's over 8.5 lb.

That makes it, by two full pounds, the heaviest 4x5 I have ever

carried in the field. It even weighs over 2.5 lb. more than my 5x7

Canham (which doesn't require a bag bellows). With the tripod sockets

all the way at the back, it presents a very unbalanced (and heavy)

load when using long lenses or for close up work. I know about the

Macro Support Bracket (aka, heavy, outrageously priced metal bar), but

it adds even more weight and bulk to my pack (but would lighten my

wallet considerably) and needs to be removed to fold the camera. The

RRS plate helps a little, and can be left on the camera when folded.

So, it's not perfect, but it is still an extremely well made camera

that is a pleasure to use.

 

<p>

 

Kerry

[rob_tucher1]

Hi Kerry,

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your input. I am going to switch to TK-S eventually. The

detents are great. I tried one in a store and loved it. The weight

has never bothered me because I compare the TK to other cameras like

it, or at least in the same ballpark in a technical sense, and it is

much lighter. I use a Sinar C and my Technikardan. They have similar

abilities yet the Linhof is far lighter, packs smaller, has smaller

boards, and is machined better. And I bought a used Makro Bracket

for $90 and find it to be very helpful, especially for centering the

tripod holes better. It is heavy and expensive, but when you compare

it to Sinar's equivalent (a bar that clamps with very heavy

supports under connected monorails) it is cheap and light, albight

low-tech. I lump the Technikardan with monorails in ability and see

it as a hibrid monorail with great field applications, whereas the

wonderful Canham that you own is more a field camera with many but not

all attributes of a monorail. Have fun with them!