alex_smith7

<p>Yes, Firedemann's way works as well. Adjust back standard if you have more need of front standard movements, adjust front standard if you prefer back standard movements, and adjust both if a short focal length is the paramount factor (which it won't be with a 90mm).<br>

Ebony describes the various combination of movements here:<br>

http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/wa.lenses.SV.html</p>

<p>Pierre,<br>

Sorry, one more thing. If you want even more available movement than with the method you described, add some front rise before the base tilt/center tilt combo. Just be sure to also use some rear rise to keep the image circle centered. If you want *even more* movement availability, use the movements described above, and then do the opposite with the rear standard--rise, *forward* base tilt, then center tilt to bring things parallel again. These movements will allow for a fairly tremendous amount of movements, albeit in a roundabout way. I had a 58XL that I used regularly with my Ebony folders. Ebony has a pdf on their website (or used to...I haven't checked lately) describing this set of movements.</p>

<p>Pierre,<br>

Sorry about your troubles, but yes, you found the correct way for dealing with the situation with one of Ebony's longer folders (assuming you don't want to go the bag bellows/recessed board route).It is a bit more of a hassle, but definitely doable.</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

The 45SU and the SV45U are very different designs. The 45SU would be expected to have a much more usable range of movements with the same wide lenses.</p>

<p>Bruce and Paul,<br>

Thank you both for your comments. I have nothing to add to the conversation other than to say that I have been a long-time beneficiary of the knowledge shared on the photo.net large format forum, but a very infrequent participant. I have thoroughly appreciated the comments of both of you over the years, and could not be more honored by receiving your responses here.<br>

Best wishes.<br>

P.S. - Paul, I am entirely envious of your location. I am a Utah resident, and while we have our share of landscape opportunities down in the southern part of the state, I always long to return to my one-time home of GB.</p>

<p >Please forgive the somewhat lengthy and informal review that follows. When originally searching for information on the Walker Titan XL 5x7 I had a difficult time finding answers to some of my questions, and others remained altogether unanswered. In hopes that the following will be of interest and help to someone contemplating purchasing a Walker large format camera, I write the comments below.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >First, however, the obligatory background information: I have been shooting with large format cameras for some years now, and have owned Toyo, Wisner, Arca-Swiss, Fotoman, and Ebony cameras, but have also had some experience with Canham, Zone VI, and Linhof models. So that you know my biases, I have preferred the folding and non-folding Ebony 4x5 cameras that I have owned to the other brands—though there were many things that impressed me about the Arca F-Field that I briefly owned. I am not in any way affiliated with Walker Cameras, other than that I happened to buy one of their products.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Looking for an Ebony-non-folding-like design led me to Mike Walker’s relatively new cameras. The non-folding design was a plus for me, but the real draw to the Walker Titan XL 5x7 was that it seemed to meet my various format needs in one camera. Without going into the arguments for or against Walker cameras in general—with their unique plastic bodies—let me echo the opinions of other reviewers. Mike Walker is a gentleman to work with. Polite, courteous, and he builds a great camera. Turn-around time for my camera was a little longer than the 8-10 weeks that he anticipated, but he is very busy with orders at the moment—a symptom of the very loyal following that he seems to have. In terms of payment and shipping options, and special modifications to the camera, he was entirely accommodating. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I had heard good things about the fit and finish of the camera, and had rather high expectations before seeing the camera, but when it arrived I found that in every way it exceeded my expectations. Smooth locking mechanisms, focus control, a beautiful finish, and I have never used a field camera (or even some monorails) that exhibited greater stability of the front and rear standards at full extension (part of this, of course, being due to the lack of rear standard movements). The layout and design of knobs is very intuitive, and will be very familiar to anyone who has used a non-folding Ebony camera. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now then, on to the specifics.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Dimensions: For some reason, dimensions are not provided for the 5x7XL on Walker’s website, as they are for the 4x5 SF and 8x10 XL cameras. Mike, however, provided them in an email prior to my ordering the camera. The camera is 28x28x17.5 centimeters. The first surprising thing about these numbers is that this shows the baseboard of the camera to be even longer than that on the 8x10 camera. Acknowledging that a smaller camera is more ideal for packing, the advantage of this is that the 5x7 XL has a longer maximum bellows draw—in relation to the format size—than either its 4x5 or 8x10 companions. With a 70-320mm bellows draw it is at least a little less specialized for extreme-wide-angle photography than the other two Walker non-folders, and this becomes more pronounced if the camera is used with a 4x5 reducing back.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >6x17: See below. But let me just say that the Canham 6x17 motorized back fits beautifully on this camera, and will likely be the reason many people would consider purchasing a 5x7 camera these days. As other reviewers have said, I cannot think of a more stable or appropriate platform for Canham’s back than this Walker camera. With the growing numbers of 6x17 shooters and the dearth of companies making even reasonably-priced 6x17 cameras, I would think a viable 6x17 option, with movements, at a reasonable price would be a welcome addition to the market.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >5x7 - 4x5 Reducing Back: My purpose for purchasing the 5x7 camera was not to shoot 5x7, but rather to consolidate my 4x5” and 6x17cm shooting needs in one camera, as I have grown tired of packing both camera systems simultaneously for the last few years. Additionally, the thought of shooting 6x17 with my current lenses on Linhof/Wista-style boards and a considerable range of available movements were too much to pass up. The 4x5 reducing back replaces the entire 5x7 back section. It does not merely slide into the 5x7 removable ground glass position. This will likely be obvious to anyone looking at the photos of the camera on Walker’s website. Before purchasing the camera I was a little concerned about the design of the 4x5 reducing back, and whether it would allow for use of a Fuji Quickload holder, as that holder has a significant bulge at the top, which faces the camera back. I was pleased to find that the Walker reducing back does indeed accept the Quickload holder just fine, but this is accomplished by setting the 4x5 gg and film plane further back than the 5x7 film plane when using the 5x7 back. The downside of this is that the quoted 70mm minimum bellows extension of the camera is really only applicable to 5x7 or 6x17 formats. Using a flat lensboard I am not able to focus my 75mm lens even considerably closer than infinity. Rough measurements of the focusing rails leads me to believe that nothing short of a 90mm lens would be usable with the 4x5 back, at least when using a flat lensboard, and even then, with potentially little room for focusing closer than infinity. Don’t quote me on this though. My 110 XL had plenty of room for focus, as did the 240A Fuji on the other end (I do not currently have a 300mm non-telephoto, but presumably that would be fine slightly closer than infinity as well). While the inability to use extreme wide-angles when using the 4x5 reducing back is unfortunate, it is a compromise I would gladly make to be able to use Quickloads rather than traditional film holders with all the other lenses available to the camera. Cost of the 4x5 reducing back is 240 GB pounds.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Front Shift/Cross: For some reason, the Walker 4x5 and 5x7 XL cameras do not come standard with any front shift (or “cross” for those on Mike’s side of the pond). The 8x10 XL does come with a small amount of shift. Prospective buyers should be aware, however, that Mike will include front shift for the modest additional sum of 100 pounds. Personally, I believe there is a stronger argument for including front shift on the 5x7 than on either of the other camera sizes. Shooting landscapes primarily, I rarely use front swing movements, but when I do use them, I would certainly like to be able to use an attending shift movement center the image circle over the film. This becomes even more important when using, for instance, the popular Schneider 110XL lens on either 5x7 or 6x17 formats. Any lenses that will only barely cover the larger 5x7 or 6x17 formats would seem to cry out for front shift in the rare cases that front swing will be used. On a side note, I use front and rear shift on their own rather frequently when shooting with my Ebony, but the amount of shift offered on the upgraded Walker 5x7 front standard is relatively small anyway.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Having already taken too much of your time, I close with thanks to Mike for building a great camera. If there are any follow-up questions that I might answer, please feel free to ask (or email Mike—he’s a great fellow).</p>

<p>Thank you Michale and Daniel for your suggestions. I will take a look at all of these options.</p>

<p>Greetings all!<br>

I have not been a regular participant on this forum (this is my first post), but I have been impressed with--and grateful for--the dialogue that takes place on this forum for many years now.<br>

Here then, is my query: Do you have any recommendations for a 5x7 camera case?<br>

To be specific, I am looking for a case along the lines of Justin Gnass's camera cases, a soft-sided, padded case suitable for holding only a 5x7 camera (non-folder). Ideally it would hold the camera snugly *without* any extra room for film holders, lenses, etc. The one major requirement is that it would need to have a shoulder strap, preferably not one that I had to attach later. Interior dimensions would need to accommodate a camera 28x28x18cm. I have looked at photobackpacker.com and Gnass products and have not seen anything suitable, but all recommendations will be greatly appreciated.<br>

Finally, it need not be designed specifically for photo products.<br>

Thank you,<br>

Alex</p>

Ian,

 

Sorry, one more thing. I should mention in the interests of full disclosure that while I too love the concept of a non-collapsing camera, my Ebony that gets taken out the most is the SV45Ti. Even more compact closed than the 45s, and I can use a 58mm on a flat board all the way out to a 450 non-telephoto on the same set of bellows. You are getting into significant cost and space with Arca-Swiss accessories in both rails and multiple sets of bellows to approach that range of focal lengths. Arca does not offer one single bellows solution that can accomplish that. Setup time is only marginally longer when you do it a few times.

Ian,

 

I may be coming late to the discussion. Forgive me. If you have narrowed in on an Ebony 45SU you have clearly done some homework about the types of things you're looking for. Since most of the repondants have suggested the Arca Swiss F-Field I thought I would try to redirect you toward your original choice. I have owned and used the Arca-Swiss field model (handy with the smaller standard on the front) and it is indeed a great camera. There are a lot of photographers who love it, and even more who use them since Jack Dykinga published his "Large Format Nature Photography"--a great book (and I mean that) that is as much an advertisement for his camera as an introduction to the field.

 

However...I have owned Ebony cameras both before, during, and since owning my Arca, and I have never looked back after selling my Arca. Sometimes I am still tempted to get another 4x5, but I never look outside of the Ebony line. I have also owned Toyo, Wisner, Wista, and Canham 4x5s. If you can settle for slightly less bellows length on the long end and live without asymmetric tilt, the Ebony 45S is certainly a much cheaper (and slightly lighter) alternative. With either Ebony you will have equal (in some cases slightly better, some cases slightly worse) movement capabilities as the Arca, in a significantly more compact package. It's true that the Arca is more modular, but I see this as a benefit as well as a negative. As far as the all-important rigidity, my Ebony cameras have all been able to lock down and remain as rigid as my Arca-Swiss. I like being able to use a 58mm Schneider on a flat board with plenty of movements with the default bellows, and then swap out to Fujinon 240A at the other end with some ability to focus closer than infinity, still with the same bellows. The real reasons for my Ebony preference though are less bag space, faster setup, and *center tilt* on front and rear standards (optional on the Arca Swiss for considerably greater cost and more bulk).

 

At any rate, either company produces a truly excellent camera, and you will likely be pleased with either one. Just don't turn aside from your initial feelings too quickly... ;-)

Jim,

 

Sorry to answer late. I use Lee grad NDs on almost every shot I take, using Ebony folding and non-folding cameras (45S, SW45, SV45Ti, etc) and with a variety of focal lengths. I've never had the problem of having too little space. Of course, on Ebony's cameras you can usually get away with positioning the front standard at the end of the rail and focusing with the back, but the real reason for a lack of problem is provided by Vinnie's answer. The filters invariably end up more centered than you might expect when you use them correctly.

My apologies for being a week late--you probably already have your new head. At any rate, mine is another vote for the Arca B1. I have one and will never part with it. However, looking for a small, light-weight head led me to the Bogen 410 Compact Geared pan/tilt. I don't intend to ever use my B1 on a 4x5 again. It weighs only 1.2k (heavier than you are looking for, granted), does not have the long arms of many pan/tilts, costs less than US$200, and is, for me personally, faster to use than my B1. The stats only rate it for 11 lbs, but I have yet to experience any lack of stability on 4x5. After falling in love with this little wonder I learned that it has become Joe Cornish's preferred 4x5 head (a little vindication never hurts).

I, too, am profoundly interested in the comparison of drum-scanned color transparency resolution and print sizes. Near my home there is a superb gallery (Scanlan�s gallery in Park City), featuring landscape and travel color photography, printed largely in the 16x20 to 30x40 inch sizes. I have never taken a roll of film with a medium format camera, though I have used 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 backs on the various 4x5 cameras that I have used for a number of years for landscape work. Granted, the print sizes above are not as large as those desired by Milan, but my comparisons between the Scanlan�s prints (almost exclusively taken with a 6x7 camera) and my own 4x5 images are that even at 24x30 inch sizes there is virtually no distinguishable difference. My images are drum-scanned at the same lab this gallery uses, and printed on the same paper. Using a crisp loupe, my images made with 110 Schneider, 150 Sironar, and 240 Fujinon-A (easily as sharp as the others�either mine is an unusually sharp sample or this is one of the most overlooked lens out there) on Velvia 50 paper are very sharp. Having said that, and obviously without walking into the gallery with an enlargement of my own to compare side-by-side, I can distinguish no difference, up to 24�x30� between their 6x7 images and my 4x5 images (or other people�s that I have frequently viewed in galleries). I am sure that in larger print sizes the difference would become more pronounced. Forgive this long post, but my query is whether others have observed similar characteristics in the 26x20, 20x24, and 24x30 print sizes between professional scans of 6x7 and 4x5.