Best Modern 8x10's?

[tim_atherton2]

I'm starting to do some long range planning and looking at a new 8x10 to replace my Deardorff - mainly 'cause it weighs so much.

 

<p>

 

Of the modern options, what do people think of the pros and cons of:

 

<p>

 

Ebony 8x10's; Phillips 8x10's; Canham 8x10's ?

 

<p>

 

Bearing in mind I like the wide range of movements on the Dorff.

 

<p>

 

And I'm thinking other modern 8x10's - Wisner, Lotus, Gandolfi, Hoffman - who am I forgetting? - are veering to the heavy side again (maybe the Ebony too?). Oh, of course I'm talking only about field cameras BTW.

 

<p>

 

thanks

 

<p>

 

Tim A

[bob_salomon]

Wista 810 Cherry

[paul_owen]

Tim, Without a doubt the Ebony SW8x10. This must be the best 8x10

available, and what's more its the proven non-folding design. Superb!

Just wish I had one!!!! Regards Paul

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Gandolfi Variant 8x10, If you order this camera get it with the Sinar

front standard, the Linhof front standard restricts the movement

because of bellows block. The camera is only 8.8 pounds, easy to set

up and take down and very well made! One thing I like it that

although this is a wooden camera ( the frames) the front standard has

a metal frame and the film back is made of metal, which should

prevent warping as the camera ages, even with this the camera is very

light and a joy to use.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Canham, or Phillips. <P>

You definitely should try to put your hands on what ever you

narrow your list to and work with them for at least half an hour or

so. I think you'll find that like individual Steinway or Bosendorfff

pianos, each individual camera will have it's own personality

[struan_gray]

Bosendorfff? Is that the extra-loud one?

 

<p>

 

I lust after a Phillips. Or a Hobo.

[gudmundur_ing_lfsson1]

The Phillips Compact II is the 8x10" for the field. The Toyo M the,

Ebony S,the Sinar Norma or the Sinar f are all just as ridged but look

at the weight. The Chanham is also light but somwhat too overdesigned

and complicated to fold. The Phillips Compact is father light, simple

to operate and absolutly ridged. But then again if you have got two

assistants or better three get the Sinar P.

[george_losse]

Tim,

 

<p>

 

Another thing to consider is the whole package that the manufacturers

offer. I made the choice for a Wisner, even though its weight is a

little more. I don't go backpacking and my Jeep get the camera within

a comfortable walking distance for 95% of my shooting.

 

<p>

 

I went with the Wisner because I could get an 8x20 back for my 8x10

camera. Giving me the option of two backs on one focusing bed. This

plus the 4x5 and 5x7 reducing backs gives me four different film

formats with one camera.

[sal_santamaura]

You'll find my comments in archives here and elsewhere, but, to

summarize: Phillips Compact II. I couldn't be happier with it.

[nick_jones]

If price is a major factor, anyone wanting to get into an 8x10 field

might consider the Tachihara double or triple extension. Our 3X has

served us well. It is well constructed and rigid, and has sufficient

movements for uncomplicated outdoor landscape, exterior architecture,

portraits, etc. Yes, it's relatively heavy--just over 12 lbs--but we

would not attempt to pack an 8x10 any distance in any event. 4x5 and

5x7 reducing backs are available (we use the 5x7). I couldn't agree

more that you should try out the cameras on your short list prior to

buying; in fact, it was as a result of comparison of competitors in

our price range in a showroom that we arrived at our final decision.

Good light. Nick.

[rick_moore3]

I agree with George that you want to consider the complete system

available, even if you don't plan on using all the pieces now. The

Canhan 8x10 has 4x10, 7x17, 8x20, 11x14 and 12x20 back and bellows

conversions available, as well as 4x5 and 5x7 reducing backs.

 

<p>

 

I have had my 8x10 almost a year now and I am even more enthusiastic

about it now than when I first got it. I do not think it's overly

complex, and opening/closing it is trivial once you get the sequence

down. I find the controls very intuitive. One of its real

strengths is the ability to bring the rear standard forward very

close to the front standard, making the use of wide angle lenses

simple. The range of movements is quite wide, and includes front

swings, base and axis tilts, and rear swings, base tilts and

shifts. The shortest lens I've used is a 120mm, the longest a

450mm, and I've had no bellows compression problems at the short end

or rigidity problems at the long. I've been told that the camera

loses some rigidity when the bellows is fully extended to 36 inches,

but that is probably true of all large view cameras. I've had no

trouble with my 300mm at 1:1 in this regard. The 8x10 Standard

model I have weighs 9.4 pounds, which is not bad for a full-

capability 8x10. There is a 8x10 Light version available that

weighs one pound less by using a smaller front standard. However, I

wanted the ability to use lenses with large rear elements afforded

by the standard model, which uses 6 inch Toyo View lens boards - the

light model uses the smaller Canham or Toyo Field boards.

 

<p>

 

My camera is exquisitely made and finished, but does not give one

any impression of delicacy thst would distract one from using it for

its intended purpose, making pictures in the field. The black

anodized aluminum hardware is of very high quality. The company that

does Canham's machine work does most of its production for military

contractors, which is also the reason there are sometimes delays in

getting delivery of the larger cameras.

 

<p>

 

Another plus with Canham cameras is the attitude of Keith Canham

towards his customers. Although he does not have a web site or

email support, which I would like, he has never failed to return a

phone call promptly, and he is willing to talk at length to answer

any questions one may have. I have not had any problems requiring

modifications or repairs, but he has a good reputation for making

repairs quickly and inexpensively.

 

<p>

 

BTW, all the cameras you mention, with a few exceptions, are within

a couple of pounds of each other in weight. The Gandolfi Variant

Level 2 weighs 8.8 lbs, the Gandolfi Traditional 9.3 lbs, the Ebony

SV810 (mahogany) 11 lbs, the Wisner Traditional Field and Expedition

10.9 lbs, the Wisner Pocket Expedition 9.5lbs , and the Lotus 11

lbs. Only the Ebony SV810E (ebony), 14.3 lbs, and the Wisner

Technical Field, 17.5 lbs, weigh significantly more. I don't have

the Phillips specs handy, but the lightest Phillips models, which

trade some functionality for weight (the lightest one has a non-

reversible horizontal back, for instance), are quite light, less

than six pounds if I recall correctly.

[carl_weese]

If weight is your primary concern, then the Phillips is your answer. But if you want the best overall combination of features in an

8x10 field camera, then in my opinion you've already got it. I wouldn't trade my Deardorff for any currently made 8x10 camera.

[sal_santamaura]

The Phillips Compact II, with 26" bellows and a reversing back, weighs

7.8 pounds. Add some small Fuji lenses along with a few holders and

you've got just about the lightest well-featured 8x10 outfit possible.

[geoffrey_chen]

Hi Tim,

 

<p>

 

If you are planning purchasing an 8x10 camera, you might want to try

out those models you have been considering. Someone's favorite 8x10

might not be yours. It is a very personal experience. After you

have tried it, you know then whether that 8x10 camera will fulfill

your requirements. I vote for my Shanghai Shen-Hao HZX810-II, it's

like Ebony, but with longer bellows extension (41" without tilts),

lighter, "water-resistant", and only costs 1/8 of an Ebony! Cheers,

[edward_burlew]

I have a Wisner 8x10 and I really like he full solid bed and the size

of the controlls, I haven't found a subject that I could not adjust

for. The extension is terriffic and I can do macro too witha short

lense. I also have an ols Kodak magnesuim flat bed and it is lighter

but with the total weight of the whole outfit , the holders, lenses,

filters, tripod etc the difference between the light and heavy

cameras is just so much a waste of time, The total weight of the

whole outfit is as much to consider as the camera itself. If you are

concerned about weight then go to 4x5. If you are concerned about the

best image and fantastic optics then get the 8x10 you are comfortable

with, concentrate on easy of use and controls and rigidity. ANd

forget about cost, the cost of the camera body is miniscule compared

to the lenses and the film you will go through. Just tell the kids

their college fund is gone get over your guilt and enjoy!!

[tim_atherton2]

Thanks for the points, but weight is something of a concern if I am

carrying around the 8x10 on a tripod, over my shoulder, doing

8x10 "street" and urban/suburban photography, with a few holder,

meter, second lens and darkcloth in another should bag. Those few

pounds make a heck of a difference...

 

<p>

 

Now when I have the thing loaded in my car or big back pack to shoot

the proverbial "rocks trees and water" it isn't so much of an issue.

 

<p>

 

tim a