PDA

View Full Version : Special Order of Canham Whole Plate cameras



Rob Skeoch
09-10-2007, 09:08 PM
I'm working with Canham Cameras to put together a special order of Whole Plate field cameras.

These are based on the popular 5x7 camera's with a modified back area and custom bellows. If you're interested in one of these custom made cameras from one of the top camera builders in the world, let me know.

Canham Whole Plate Wood Camera $3750.

-Rob

naturephoto1
09-10-2007, 09:11 PM
Hi Rob,

I am not in the market since I shoot Velvia Fuji Quickloads in my Linhof Technikardan 45S or my Toho Shimo FC-45X, but that is substantially less than the Ebony Whole Plate camera being discussed here and over at LF Forum.

Rich

juan
09-11-2007, 06:38 AM
Is that price US or Canadian dollars?
juan

colrehogan
09-11-2007, 06:52 AM
What film holders are they going to be built around? I had spoken to Keith at the View Camera conference about making a whole plate back, but he said he needed to know what kind of holders I was going to use with it.

Steve_7x
09-11-2007, 11:18 AM
What would be the price of just the back and bellows? I have the Chassis and would opt for just the back.

I vote for the olf Eastman type of back as that is very common here in the US.

Steve

colrehogan
09-11-2007, 11:40 AM
Steve,
I just saw over on the LF forum a price of $2100 mentioned for the back and bellows.

TheFlyingCamera
09-11-2007, 11:54 AM
That sounds about like what I paid for my 5x12 back and bellows. Pretty reasonable all things considered. I'd be interested to see a larger front standard, however, as there are a lot of lenses I've got that would like to live on a Sinar-sized board or bigger that I'd use on WP, and a lot of my 5x7/4x5 lenses wouldn't cover WP, but they live happily on a Linhof board.

Richard K.
09-12-2007, 08:12 AM
I'm working with Canham Cameras to put together a special order of Whole Plate field cameras.

Canham Whole Plate Wood Camera $3750.

-Rob

Rob, what would be the ETA on these? I hope the backs are fitted to Lotus or Fotoman? Thanks. PS is the price in US or real dollars? :)

-Richard

Sal Santamaura
09-12-2007, 05:39 PM
...I hope the backs are fitted to Lotus or Fotoman [holders]...My post here:

http://www.apug.org/forums/512495-post12.html

offered the suggestion that anyone designing a new 6 1/2 x 8 1/2-inch camera configure its back to accept Lotus holders. See the post for reasons why. Since then it's become apparent that Chamonix will also make 6 1/2 x 8 1/2-inch holders; they will fit such a "universal" back too.

Richard K.
09-12-2007, 07:38 PM
My post here:

http://www.apug.org/forums/512495-post12.html

offered the suggestion that anyone designing a new 6 1/2 x 8 1/2-inch camera configure its back to accept Lotus holders.

Sal, how much of a gap (at the top I assume) would there be then with a Fotoman holder? Significant enough to worry about light leaks?
Um, we'll also lose the top 1/16" of sky, er, I mean the bottom 1/16" of ground than we thought we had if the Fotoman is 1/8" less wide than the Lotus, no? :rolleyes:

-Richard

Sal Santamaura
09-12-2007, 09:00 PM
Sal, how much of a gap (at the top I assume) would there be then with a Fotoman holder? Significant enough to worry about light leaks?
Um, we'll also lose the top 1/16" of sky, er, I mean the bottom 1/16" of ground than we thought we had if the Fotoman is 1/8" less wide than the Lotus, no? :rolleyes:

-RichardHere's what Paul Droluk posted about detailed dimensions of the Fotoman holders:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=258019&postcount=74

By comparison:

Outside width of Lotus holders is 2.0mm greater, so there would be that much more positional imprecision (along the rib) when a Fotoman holder is seated in a camera designed for Lotus.
Distance from taped end to start of lock rib is 1.4mm greater for Lotus. So, when a Fotoman holder is seated, its taped end would be 1.4mm further away from the back's stop, but locked in place by the rib.
Film channel width of a Lotus holder is 165.2mm. Fotoman lists a maximum film width of 165.7mm, so its channel is wider. Fotoman also lists a minimum film width of 162.7mm, which is exactly the low end of allowable widths provided me by Ilford's cutting room manager, which in turn was the lowest figure I obtained from any film manufacturer. This leads to the conclusion that Fotoman holders' "lips" will be wider than those on Lotus. Fotoman is probably trying to insure against users having problems with "oversize" film from lower-tier film suppliers. I don't know what difference this will make in actual exposed image area, which is 157.6mm wide with Lotus holders.

I've not seen a Fotoman holder yet. It is not possible to determine from these specifications exactly what differences will be evident between the two manufacturers' holders in terms of actual exposed image dimensions and location. I don't anticipate a discrepancy of more than a few mm, but at this point can't say with absolute certainty, since Fotoman's design decisions could move the "window" around within the outer envelope and still comply with its posted specifications. When a Fotoman holder is available, I'll test and report the results.

None of these differences ought have any light leak implications; they're so small that it's difficult to imagine a camera back which wouldn't seal despite them.

Rob Skeoch
09-14-2007, 07:46 PM
I think the time frame for a camera will be about six months, which is normal for a special order from Canham. The cost of just the conversion back from 4x5/5x7 into whole plate will be Canadian $2350.
You can make the back fit any holder you want, but it helps if you send a holder into Canham during construction to help with the fit.

Rob Skeoch
09-14-2007, 07:47 PM
Richard... the prices are in real dollars.. er I mean Canadian dollars.
-Rob

DaveOttawa
09-14-2007, 07:57 PM
Richard... the prices are in real dollars.. er I mean Canadian dollars.
-Rob
Another few days and 1CAD will be 1USD, already at 97 cents.