Linhof MT 2000 vs Canham DLC vs Ebony SV45U2???

[jim_hornstein]

Hi-

 

I currently own a Sinar F2 and have made a decision to

purchase a second 4x5 specifically for backpacking (mostly day trips)

and occasional urban excursions. I�ve toted along the F2 for a while

and while I love using it and I�ve figured out how to get it into a

pack, it�s too bulky and requires too much fiddling with too many

loose parts to set up and break down for it to be practical on the

trail and for travel. I shoot for my own artistic persuit, mostly

landscapes, with occasional architectural and very occasional

portrait work- while absolute percision isn't necessary, I like

having it and the Sinar has me a bit spoiled. Current lenses are 90mm

Grandagon-N, 150mm Sironar-S, 210mm Sironar-N, and 305mm G-Claron. At

some time in the near future I will pick up a wider lens (something

between 58& 72), followed by something longer (probably a tele in the

400-600mm range), and somewhere in my future I see a moderate Wide

(115-135)�.

 

 

 

I�ve spent a good deal of time (probably too much) reading the posts

on this forum and have narrowed my choice to three cameras- The

Canham DLC, the Linhof Master Tech 2000, and the Ebony SV45U2. I

complicated the list recently by adding the Ebony after the raves on

this forum prompted a closer look. At any given hour of the day, the

scales seem to tip in different directions on this decision. Also,

while there is admittedly quite a bit of difference in price between

the Canham on one end and the Linhof on the other, I�m not

uncomfortable paying about 40% extra now for the Linhof to appreciate

it over many years. Realizing these are all excellent cameras with

their own sets of comprimises, and none of them are perfect for

everything, I�ve tried to boil down the many comments on this forum

to some basic pros and cons to help with my decision.

 

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

 

Canham DLC

 

 

 

Pros

 

1) Movements pretty much limited by bellows

 

2) Bellows extension range without need for WA bellows

 

3) Slightly lighter than others, but I'll need to add a linhof

adapter.

 

4) Price- why not buy this and another lens for the same price as the

ebony or Linhof????

 

 

 

Cons

 

1) lack of zero detents on swing

 

2) packing requires removal of lens/setup requires fiddling

 

3) mixed comments on rigidity, sturdiness and longevity.

 

4) spirit levels provide questionable value due to placement and type

used...

 

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

 

 

Master Technika 2000

 

Pros

 

1) geared - precision � great feel

 

2) Folds with lens into well protected clamshell/built like a tank

 

3) it�s a linhof- tried and true design �attachments galore, will

hold value, accessories readily available.

 

Cons

 

1) doesn't have all movements - can get the extreme adjustments but

requires fiddling & in certain circumstances very creative fiddling.

 

2) slight vignetting with longer lenses (minor issue)

 

3) bellows at long end is shorter than others & needs special

attachments or lensboard extensions to extend beyond 15�.

 

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

 

 

Ebony SV45U2

 

Pros

 

1) quick easy setup, adjust & focus

 

2) can fold with lens (I may be mistaken here)??

 

3) Bellows extension � more than I need, but might open some doors

for Macro work�

 

4) Save for 1 posting with a minor manufacturing defect, there

doesn't seem to be anybody who has one has anything bad to say about

this camera.

 

 

 

Cons

 

1) Wood- might need occasional tweeking with humidity & altitude

changes.... this frightens me!!!

 

2) Availability of used parts/repair

 

3) A bit more bulky than the other two

 

 

 

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

 

 

I�m interested in hearing comments from folks that have physically

used either two or all three of these cameras in the field.

Specifically, I�d like to hear which you prefer under what

circumstances, and when, how, why & where did one work better for you

than the other. Again, I realize that there is plenty of information

on the virtues of each of these cameras on this site and each seem to

have a loyal following, but there is little discussion comparing

these cameras to each other from a subjective user experience

perspective.

 

 

 

And as much as this might warrant, please don't say "welcome to the

joys of LF"-

 

 

 

Thanks in advance for your sharing your experiences....

 

[bob_salomon]

Then you should also seriously look at the Technikardan 45S.

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

I wish I was in your shoes...poor guy

[rob_barker]

The Ebony won't fold with a lens on. You can use 150mm filters without fouling the bed though, which is why I traded my technical camera for one.

[brian_ellis3]

Ah, someone who is going through exactly what I went through a couple months ago. I owned a Linhof Technika V. I decided to replace it, primarily because (1) the back on the Technikas is a pain to use (at least it is for me), (2)I've started using wide angle lenses more than I used to and the Technika V isn't wide-angle friendly, and (3) the Technika V weighs around 6 lbs and I was hoping to lighten the load a little. I also had a secondary interest in having a bellows longer than 15" though that wasn't critical to me since my longest lens at the moment is 300mm. My three choices as a replacement were the same as the three cameras you're considering except that for the way I work the asymetrical back on the Ebony SU didn't seem worth the cost so it was the SVTi and SVTe that I considered.

 

I eliminated the Canham mainly because it is a somewhat unconventional design and because of that I didn't feel comfortable buying it without first having a chance to at least handle it. The nearest dealer is a long way away from me and only has a limited inventory so I abandoned my original idea of flying to Atlanta to try it out along with the other two cameras. Some of the comments in the review of it on Tuan's large format home page also concerned me though I now don't recall exactly what they were.

 

It was a very close call between the Technika 2000 and the Ebony. I ended up with the Ebony mainly because with the Technika 2000 I figured I'd still have to deal with those knobs to use the back movements (plus the back movements aren't very extensive)and I wouldn't save any weight or gain any extra bellows extension. I also read some things indicating that even with the 2000 it wasn't all that simple to use wide angle lenses though someone who actually has the camera might correct that.

 

I started with the Ebony Ti (mahogany wood) because it's about 2lbs lighter than the Te (ebony wood) but ended up with the Te because the Ti that I first bought was used and wasn't quite as solid or smooth as I would have liked. Whether that was due to the mahogony wood or the fact that it was used I don't know. In any event, I returned it and bought the Te. If you are thinking of the SU then ebony wood is your only choice unless you want to special order mahogany wood with the asymetrical back.

 

Of the things I was looking for in replacing my Tech V, the Te had all of them except the weight savings I had hoped for. I decided to sacrifice that for the smoother operation and the more solid feel of the Te compared to the Ti I had.

 

I've been very pleased with the Ebony Te so far. It isn't quite as smooth and solid as the Linhof but it's very close (unlike the Ti I had, which wasn't close). In all other respects it's a better camera for me than the Technika V was and probably better than the 2000 would have been given my dislike for the way the back works on the Technikas, the limited back movements, and the possible difficulty of using wide angle lenses even with the 2000.

 

With respect to Technikas being built like a tank, they aren't quite as great as you might think in that respect. Those pesky knobs for the back protrude a good bit. If you drop the camera and it happens to land on one of those knobs you have big trouble. You might think the chances of it landing on one of the knobs are slim but it happened to me twice, both times resulting in heavy repair bills. The front tilt mechanism also broke in the middle of a photography trip, resulting in another repair bill. Marflex, the Linhof service center, is great but very expensive.

 

I've owned three wooden cameras before the Ebony. Warping or flexing of the wood wasn't a problem with any of them so that doesn't concern me with the Ebony at all.

 

The vignetting that you mention with Technikas and longer lenses never bothered me. I think you're right to not be concerned about it.

 

The three cameras you're considering are among the very best field cameras made so I don't think you'll go far wrong no matter what you decide. If you'd like any elaboration of anything I've said here or have any questions, feel free to send me an e mail message. Trying to decide between several cameras each of which costs a lot of money without being able to use any of them beforehand can be a very frustrating experience.

[ed_candland1]

Wow 3 great choices. The Ebony is almost as heavy as your F2 at around 7lbs. if you could do without rear shift and a bit smaller bellows you could get the SV45U which is about a lb lighter and more compact. If you like monorails you could also check out the small, light monorails like the Arca F, Linhof TK.

[skygzr]

I have the Canham so I can only respond to part of your list�.

 

Lack of zero detents on swing.

I�ve never known anything else, so I�ve nothing to compare it to, but it�s never been a problem. You might feel differently.

 

Packing requires removal of lens. True.

 

Setup requires fiddling.

Fiddling? I�m not sure what you mean. It�s not as fast as a self-casing design, like a Toyo. It sets up very quickly with a little practice. Folding it up takes a few seconds more.

 

Mixed comments on rigidity, sturdiness, and longevity.

I�m not sure where you heard this. Mine is quite rigid, even fully extended. It�s all metal, so it will outlast me. Do you expect you�re going to destroy an aluminum camera?

 

Spirit levels.

Yes, they�re pretty useless. I carry a separate one.

 

The Canham is a fine camera. You can use lenses from 65mm to 450mm (non-tele) without dropping the bed or any other tricks. It has it�s quirks, like anything. I�m sure some people hate them. I don�t reasonably expect I�ll ever buy another 4x5.

 

Welcome to the joys of agonizing over a major equipment investment.

[michael_briggs2]

These are all excellent cameras -- it is more a matter of deciding which features are most important to you.

 

From your background of using a monorail and liking precision, I second the suggestions that you should consider the Linhof Technikardan.

 

I have used the Canham DLC and found it inadequate for my needs, specifically, the one-bellows-does-everything bellows couldn't cope with front rise for a 72 mm lens. On the other extreme, it could handle a 300 mm lens but was slightly less rigid than desirable for that job. If I were to own two 4x5 cameras, the Canham DLC would be my second one. Its weight is very attractive.

 

Of all the field cameras that I have used, I prefer the Technikardan. It can handle a wide range of focal lengths with precision. The only drawback for some uses is its weight.

[karnezis]

How wide a lens can the Technikardan take with reasonable movements for the field without resorting to a bag bellows? 90? 75?

[Troll]

I believe that Badger Graphics carries all three (in stock?). You might call and discuss these choices with them. I was going to suggest you might also consider a Gandolfi Traditional as being in the same ultra-fine class as the ones you mentioned, but a guy could go crazy trying to decide: this one? No, that one? No, that one? Aaaeeeeeee!

[michael_briggs2]

To answer Anthony's question: with the regular bellows, the Technikardan can do modest movements with a 110 mm lens. To use the Super-Symmar-XL 110 mm to its full potential, you need the bag bellows. It will focus shorter lenses with the regular bellows, but the available movements will be small. I don't know of any LF camera that with a single bellows can handle short and long lenses to their full potential. Changing the bellows of the TK is faster than on most field cameras because the bellows clips to the front of the rear standard -- on most other LF field cameras, you have to remove the ground glass assembly to pull the bellows through the back.

[bob_moulton7]

I went through a similar decision making process two years ago. I also suggest you consider the Lihof TK45S, and I would look at the Arca-Swiss F line field camera. Coming from your Sinar experience you may find the metal Linhof 45s or the Arca-Swiss to provide the ease of use plus the stability and scope of movements that you have with the Sinar. The Arca will collapse well enough to be packed in a large Lowe pack(see the Jack Dykinga text for many examples of that)orin other packs--I use either a modified kelty or an F64 pack. The latter holds everything but the tripod.

Good hunting.

Bob

[william_whitaker1]

Jim,

 

If you use lenses 90mm or shorter with any frequency, I would suggest staying away from the Linhof MT. For about a year I had a Technika V and it drove me crazy trying to use wide angle lenses. 90mm was "OK" with the bed dropped. The 75mm was all but impossible to use. (Ironic that the 75mm is a "Linhof" Super Angulon...) The MT admitedly has some concessions toward the wide lens user, most notably 30 degrees of back tilt on the front standard, which my Tech V did not. And the Technikas are very tempting cameras! They have that Teutonic tactile sense about them. I felt the seduction, then moved on to a somewhat more mundane field camera which has rear focusing and can much more easily accommodate my choices in lenses.

 

But a lot of photographers including some very well known and talented ones love the Technika. That was my argument for trying one in the first place. It may be just the ticket for you. I'm just relating my own experience. Good luck in your search and enjoy the ride.

 

Regards,

[david_goldfarb]

On the Tech V, I found it necessary to drop the bed with a 90mm Angulon, but not with a 90mm/8.0 Super Angulon, even in vertical orientation. Not sure how your Grandagon would do, but I suspect that you could use it without dropping the bed, like the Super Angulon. I also don't find it so difficult to use the 75/8.0 Super Angulon on the Tech V (requires bed drop for vertical orientation), and it should be easier on the MT.

 

Movements on the Technika are plenty for landscape work and a fair amount of architecture, although you have a Sinar for tasks that demand more, so you might decide that your field camera doesn't have to do everything. The one significant thing that I miss on the Technika is rear focus. A Linhof macro rail will compensate for that in part, but it's another thing to carry, and it's not quite the same.

[daniel_blakeslee]

Just to reinforce what Ed Candland asked. Are you really sure you need that rear shift on the Ebony? I would rather use the clumsy workaround that you have to live with on many field cameras than carry around the extra size and weight of the rear shift feature (plus the generous extra expense). That's why I bought an Ebony SV45U which is ideal for me. It's the same camera minus the rear shift. I did have a Canham DLC45 which I enjoyed very much. Don't discount it entirely. If you can live with its little flaws the DLC will serve you well. But if you need a field camera that sets up as quickly as a Hasselblad, consider the non-folding Ebonys.

[david4]

You said you wanted a camera suitable for urban excursions as well as backpacking. That suggests a need for a camera with ample front rise, readily adaptable to wide angle lens favored by architects. The MT 2000 accepts 58 and 72 mm lenses without bag bellows but has limited rise. The Linhof TK45S requires a bag bellows for lenses of 115 mm focal length and less to ensure lens rise. It has ample rise and extension, but weighs over 7 lbs with standard and bag bellows. The MT 2000 weighs about 6 lbs and folds up to better preserve the bellows from abrasion. If weight is a major consideration, you may want to consider a 3-4 lb flat bed camera, even if it offers less rigidity. Famed photographer Jack Dykinga uses an Arca-Swiss FC 4 x 5 for day-walks and a light weight wooden flat bed camera (Wista?) in the 3-4 lb range for longer treks. Most of his shots are in the desert without trees or buildings requiring front rise. Colorado landscape photographer John Fielder prefers a clam-shell compact Linhof Technika for 1 to 2 week backpacking (I do not remember which model). Famed Black and white photographer John Schaeffer (?) of Carmel uses a Linhof TK45 or TK45S for architectural photography and a Linhof MT 2000 for the majority of his roadside landscape work. David Muench prefers the Technika type camera for much of his work, and perhaps now uses the Linhof MT 2000. He uses a wide variety of focal lengths, between 47 mm and up to at least 210 mm. He might also use a lighter wooden camera for some of his shots. All of the lenses you have listed can easily be used with any of the cameras you listed as under consideration. The small lensboard of the Linhof cameras reduces bulk and eases storage, but limits the size of the rear element øf lenses (< 80 mm diameter). For backpacking, most landscape photographers prefer light-weight compact lenses designed to cover only 4 x 5 or 5 x 7, with rear elements smaller than 80 mm. It is only photgraphers who have both 8 x 10 and 4 x 5 systems who are likely to share larger and much heavier lenses between the two cameras.

[bob_salomon]

"but limits the size of the rear element øf lenses (< 80 mm diameter)"

 

The lensboard does not limit the size of the rear element.

 

The hole in the front standard of the camera that the rear element has to pass through is

the limiting factor.

 

Many people use Technika 45 lensboards on adapters for their Kardan or other cameras

with lenses that are too large to fit through the hole in the Technika or Technikardan or

Wista camera bodies.

 

As for weight Linhof lists the 45 TK at 6.6 lbs without lensboard. But at 6.6 lbs you have

20" of rail and bellows. Yes there are lighter cameras and some of those lighter cameras

let you add extra extension to get to the extension offered in a TK. But then what is the

weight of that lighter camera with the accessories for longer extension?

[jim_hornstein]

Thanks for all the great replies-

 

The TK45S seems to be a great camera and honestly, If I had purchased one instead of my Sinar in the first place, I might not have had the desire to purchase a second camera right now. I played with a TK45S a few months ago and was quite impressed, but I�ve ruled it out for several reasons- In thinking through those reasons combined with some of the comments here I may be able to get a bit closer to my decision - or maybe not...

 

One thing we�ll all agree on over and over is that there are compromises with any decision � that�s really what I�m trying to understand with this posting- functional trade offs. This decision is being driven by my desire to maximize mobility and minimize setup time,effort and pieces while taking a 4x5 camera along for the ride. Weight wise, I�m ok with the 6 to 7lbs- in fact my LF equipment packs in at less than my MF with the equivalent lenses� BTW: I have a sneaky suspicion that most of us (including myself) would be better off loosing 5 lbs from our waist instead of taking 1 or 2 extra lbs out of our backpacks �besides, there is a certain logic to combining exercise with photography� seriously, my priority is reducing bulk in a package that sufficiently protects my equipment, and then finding the best set of trade offs for my personal likes/disslikes that have to be made in exchange for the reduced bulk:

 

A quick look at dimensions and weight�.

 

Sinar F2 folded (this is where I�m at today)

I can fold it down to 8�Wx12�L x 8�D (576Cubic inches)

itsits in a tenba pouch slightly larger with the bellows 1 lens and the 6� rail.

 

Weight: more like 9 lbs when you include the 6� rail and the stupid rail clamp

 

TK45s folded:

10�Wx 8.5�L x 5�D (425 Cubic inches) - needs xtra protection.

weight 6.6 lbs

 

MT 2000 folded:

7�x7�x4.5� (220 Cubic inches) � I might want to wrap it with a dark cloth, but not always necessary.

weight 6 lbs

 

KB Canham folded

8"Wx7"Lx4.25"D (238 Cubic Inches) � needs to be put in pouch

weight 4 lbs 11 oz (4.7lbs) + linhof adapter (5+ lbs total)�

 

Ebony SV45U2

8.1W�x8.1W�x3.75D� (246 Cubic Inches)� I�d wrap it in a dark cloth

Weight- 6.9 lbs

 

Ebony SV45U �

6.9�Wx6.9�Lx3.75D (178 Cubic Inches) � I�d wrap it in a dark cloth

Weight- 6 lbs (rounded up)

 

I appreciate the comments regarding the non-folding Ebonys but I really want the compactness of a folding camera � thank you for those comments because in reading them and reading through Ebony's collateral, I realized that compactness is my highest priority- That said, the TK45s never made my short list � it folds nicely but at 425 Cubic inches, it�s almost twice the volume of the others and has no protection for the bellows. I didn't look much at the Arca-Swiss for the same reason. While I do appreciate the silkiness & precision of the Sinar, I�m looking for something to compliment it not replace it primarily because it�s too bulky (not necessarily too heavy) and with all of the pieces it�s too time consuming to put together before I zero it out and then repack it to move on. I apologize for not being clearer to those that did not read between the lines of my original post (my bad).

 

Regarding the Ebony, thanks again for the helpful comments: I can give in on rear shift, not so much as to save 1 lb, but for compactness and to save $400 - When you think about considering the MT all I get in the back is limited tilt & swing) and the Canham has no rear shift. If I decide to go with the Ebony, I will most likely go for the SV45U not the U2 (Thanks for the suggestion- I also realize that I�ll give up about 65mm of extension but 445mm out of the box is nothing to sneeze at in a camera this compact).

 

Regarding the MT Classic and the Tech V�s I�m specifically looking at the MT 2000 which I understand has a special focusing track for WA lenses. I�m certain that I would be happier with either the Canham or Ebony over the MT Classic-The limitations of the classic and Tech V in this department would not apply to the MT 2000, but I�m also aware that leveraging the WA features of the 2000 is not without cost.

 

Can anyone speak from experience to the WA quirks/strenghts of the MT 2000 vs the Ebony?

 

Regarding the size of the lensboard, I�m thinking MT lensboards because that�s the only practical way (other than constantly remounting) to share the lenses between the Sinar and whatever the next one is�. David, thank you for the list of illustrious users of various versions of the MT and TK- A few of the other posters on this thread alluded to the danger of purchasing an MT strictly on the basis of its �seduction� � I�m trying to heed those warnings. While it�s good to know that so many of photography�s illuminaries rely on this platform, if I do go with an MT, I�d like to have a usability driven reason for doing so � (I consider the clamshell/all metal design a +, but I won�t be considering alternatives such as the Toyo). The Technika lensboards measure 96x99mm � perhaps on some of the other cameras, I might be able to get a larger rear element through a technika adapter, but on the MT the flange on the front standard has a round opening and would have to be less than 96mm � without one in hand to measure, 8mm on each side of the hole looks possible so 80mm limitation on the rear element diameter seems reasonable. Bob since you corrected David�s post, for accuracy, perhaps you can provide us with the actual diameter of the hole? �It�s certainly something not obvious that one might want to be aware of when choosing a lens �..

 

Also Bob, how easily/frequently do those knobs break off on the MT 2000 and how much does it cost to have them repaired?

 

Brian and a few others started down a path I was hoping to get to-> that was a discussion of likes/dislikes from folks who have used two or all of these specific cameras � Brian, thank you especially for your comments. I hope to see more discussion along those lines. I�ve read all of the brochures, mfr websites, and a lot of the previous posts on this forum regarding these cameras- that�s what helped me narrow it down to these three- I�m just trying to understand from people who�ve used more than one of them, if I chose A, then I may be disappointed with xxx, but I�ll get yyy and a little more or less zzz in return- For the most part, the specs have gotten me to this point- I believe that there's much beyond whats in the specs that can be said from experience and qualitative observations, and that's what I'm hoping to draw out. With that, I�ll be able to schlep into Manhattan later this week and with camera in hand see if those things really bother me��.

 

[michael_briggs2]

Re TKs "needs xtra protection": In terms of packing it, I don't treat my Technikardan any differently from other field cameras that I own. I place it into a heavy plastic bag (from buying photo books at a museum) and put into my suitcase or backpack. It is in fine shape after several years of use. My lenses are wrapped in lens wraps and so the lens boards don't present sharp edges. You could instead wrap the camera in your darkcloth. Any of the cameras will look less pretty after awhile if they are stowed in a backpack without any protection.

 

The hole in the front standard of the TK45S is about 83 mm, so any lens with a rear element of 80 mm or less will be fine. There are few if any lenses well suited for _field_ photography that have rear elements more than 80 mm. Most lenses of this size are large plasmats more suited for studio use or use on an 8x10 or larger camera. The lens that people most commonly complain about as not fitting on the TK45S is the 90 mm Super-Angulon-XL. I have found the coverage of the much smaller 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW to be adequate. If you want to use the 90 mm SA-XL, that would be a problem.

[jim_hornstein]

OK Michael.... While I'm playing with the MT 2000, I'll give another look at the TK. I still have reservations/concerns about the bellows being unprotected, and there's absolutely no way you can convince me that it doesn't take more care to handle and measurably more volume than the clamshell design of the MT, the Ebony and even the Canham in it's carying bag, but I'll give it a look and I'll owe you a lunch if I end up with one :-) And if I do have second thoughts, I'll go back and look at the arca-swiss compact....

 

And thanks for the exact spec on the size of the hole- My Grandagon suits me just fine, but I'll keep 80mm in mind when I look at my next lens as the size of the hole probably carries over to the lensboard adapters on the other cameras...

[david_caldwell]

I wrote of John Schaeffer but I should have said John Sexton. As to Linhof 96 x 99 mm lens board being a limiting factor in lens seelction, I do not regard my comment being substantively different from that of Bob Salomon. The tapered bellows and front standard are sized to fit the smaller lens board (or vice versa), and the consequence is that the Linhof 4 x 5 cameras cannot accept certain bulky lenses whose rear element has an outer diameter significantly exceeding 80 mm. I was not aware that the 90 XL is one of these, and I appreciate mention that there are 90 mm focal length lenses with slightly less maximum aperture that fit the Linhof. I have not seen the MT 2000 in quite a while and was surprised to read that it is much more compact than the TK45S. The weight difference between the TK45S and MT 2000 appears negligible, but the relative compactness of the MT2000 vs TK45S is stupendous. Nonetheless I would prefer the TK45S because of its flexibilty, from closeup 1:1 photography with long bellows and 210/300 lens, to wide angle work with substantial rise available for the lens. I am too far out of shape to ever consider day hikes, much less overnight back packing trips, so I do not particularly value the compactness offered by the MT 2000. The landscape that is available to me typically has lots of vertical structures where lens rise is quite helpful, for which the TK45S is well adapted. While I admire much of the work of Fielder, Muench and Dykinga, they rarely have images that require any rise of the lens. I can understand why they do not use the TK45S. By now my chief point is obvious. We need to select the camera that best serves photographing the subject matter or range of subject matter of primary interest to us.

[bob_salomon]

"how easily/frequently do those knobs break off on the MT 2000 and how much does it

cost to have them repaired? "

 

Every 20 to 30 years.

 

Thius is simply not an issue.

[bob_salomon]

"the consequence is that the Linhof 4 x 5 cameras cannot accept certain bulky lenses"

 

Sorry David but no, Linhof currently makes in 4x5 the following cameras: master technika,

Master technika 2000, TechniKardan 45S, Kardan M, Kardan GT, Kardan GTL.

With the proper adapter the three Kardan cameras all accept the Master Technika/TK

lensboard. There is no lens that can not be easily installed directly to a Kardan M, GT or

GTL.

[david_caldwell]

I feel like a prairie dog who exits his hole, stands erect, scans the sky, then makes a dash for another hole, hoping BIG BOB won't sweep down and plunge his talons into the hapless prey.

 

Bob is correct. Those studio cameras that he mentions never came to mind. When I hear Linhof, I typically visualize only the MT 2000 (and its predecessors) and the TKS 45, both well suited for landscape photography.

 

The local camera store has the Linhof 8 x 10 GTL on display. I have never seen the 4 x 5 model. The 8 x 10 GTL is an awesome camera, well built to provide the stability for long exposures or multiple exposures during studio photography. Like the Sinar and Arca Swiss 8 x 10 cameras, it features micro-geared movements and very large lens boards and can accept 5 lb lenses with 135 mm front elements and oversize rear elements. Its weight and the that of the lens, mount, and heavy duty tripod, render it totally unsuitable for back packing by people who do not own llamas.

 

It would be appreciated if any one who uses the 4 x 5 Linhof GTL would comment on its relative suitability for field work, cmpared to the MT 2000 or TK45S. In publications on landscape and architectural photography, Sinar promotes some of its 4 x 5 studio cameras as the only ones suitable for long focal length lenses in the range of 600 to 1200 mm. I would assume that is the only range of focal length where the Linhof GTL would be advantageous to the MT 2000 or TK45S. I understand that the GTL is yaw free, whereas the MT 2000 and TKS 45S are not (at least in standard set up). I doubt any landscape photographer has a need for yaw free movements. I do not know whether changing bellows is as simple for the GTL as it is for the MT 2000 or TK45S.

[bob_salomon]

" I do not know whether changing bellows is as simple for the GTL as it is for the MT 2000

or TK45S."

 

Easier on the GTL they snap on and off with the same type of lock at the top as the back

and lensboard.

The 2000 does not have an interchangeable bellows. It works with any lens from 35mm

up.

 

As for long lenses or extension a GT or GTL can do exactly what Sinar does except the rail

is custom made (cut to length of up to 3m long) and you may need a special compendium

to attach a 57 bellows to the camera to avoid a tunnel effect from too long of a 45

bellows.

 

We did this for Dixie Cup who was using an 810 GTL with a 480mm to shoot one to one

shots of plates and cups on 810 with a 480mm.

 

They had well over 1200 mm of extension in their set up.

 

Needed a Lihof Large Studio Stand for the back and a Linhof Heavy Duty Pro tripod for the

front however.