This is the review where I got the review about the Galvin. Compared the specs he said with the specs for the horseman. He doesn't make the Galvin sound that great. He questions build, and also flimsyness. The camera while easy to set up is tough to level. But it is lightweight. I too found it hard to believe that a technical camera would have more movements than a monorail.
Thanks Dan, but I know all about view cameras. I actually just sold my Wista 4x5 that I had for about 7 years. I'm starting to miss view camera work, mainly the movements for perspective in architecture, but don't miss loading film holders and being limited on shots. I enjoy medium format and am limited to printing that in my darkroom currently, all reasons for a MF view camera.
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
What I was uncertain about is exactly how much movement I'd need to architecture, something I didn't shoot alot of with my 4x5. I did mostly landscapes, which used a tiny bit of tilt and maybe some rise here and there. I'm assuming interior architecture needs more movements than exterior? So would either the Galvin and Horseman offer enough movements for architecture? Thanks.
Brian, thanks for the patient explanation.
Funny, I'm acquainted with Jeff Goggin, although we haven't communicated for years. Per Google, his e-mail address seems still to be email@example.com. Why don't you ask him whether he'd use a Galvin for your application? His review makes it sound iffy, also makes me regret that when I started thinking about moving to 2x3 (around 1988) I didn't get literature from Galvin. Back then it seemed too hard to set up consistently to be worth pursuing.
BTW, www.cameraeccentric.com has a 2x3 Galvin brochure and a 1988 Horseman catalog.
This http://www.ebay.ca/itm/CAMBO-SC-1-6x...item5895820964 2x3 Cambo SC has been on offer off and on for the last year, you might ask the seller whether he still has it, also whether it has a bail or international back. Unfortunately the Super Cambo catalog on cameraeccentric doesn't report on movements. If you're seriously interested, I can take mine out and measure.
I don't know anything about them, really, but I know ebony makes a folding and a non folding version of a 6x9 or 6x12 camera. I'm not sure which it is.
I bought a Galvin new from Jim Galvin soon after he began making them. Sold it some time later. Went in other directions. Many years after that, forgetting how imprecise and fiddly the Galvin was, I bought another one used. Sold it too when use reminded me of its shortcomings.
Since my application is landscape, not architecture, and I don't "see" wide angle, I later bought a new Horseman VH. Still have and like it. But I wouldn't recommend it for architecture or with lenses shorter than 75mm -- unless you have one of the rare aftermarket recessed boards.
If I were in your situation today I'd give serious consideration to this:
Talk it over with Jeff at Badger; he's a straight shooter. Also, I'd track down one of the RB-67 power drive 6x8 backs. Really good film flatness and a convenient 9 frames per roll that fit in a single negative storage page.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm an architectural photographer using a 6x7cm view camera for exactly the same reasons the OP is looking for one. The problem is that with MF your technique needs to be absolutely spot on, which implies a precise and quite highly-engineered camera - and that isn't going to be cheap. There are quite a few "2x3" cameras out there, but very few are good enough to achieve reliable high-quality results.
There are only two I would actually recommend -
Arca-Swiss 6x9 (F or M series, depending on your preference)
Linhof Technikardan 23s
In either case, I would strongly recommend the addition of an Arca-Swiss binocular viewer, and the best and most modern analogue lenses you can get your hands on.
I use a TK23, and after 15+ years I am very happy with it, but if buying now would be hard pushed to choose between either of these. Note, however, that neither of these at present are ideal for MF digital, which requires even more precision!
Interestingly, I was so taken with my TK23 that I bought a TK45 a few years ago - but I sold it because it was much more cumbersome and I was not getting significantly better results.
Please don't let anyone tell you that something old/cheap will do - the smaller the format, the less margin for errors there is in any part of your technique. A cheap 4x5 with older lenses and a rollfilm back can be a recipe for real heartache. And before somebody accuses me of it - that is not because my technique is in any way flawed!
I hope that's useful.
This is something I've been discovering the more I research medium format view cameras and it's rather interesting to me. So the designs of most LF lenses just aren't good enough to produce tact sharp results with roll film? Makes sense to me. Are certain lenses better than others? I do love sharp results. I'm a MF RF shooter now so I'm pretty much spoiled by sharp lenses. I remember when I used to use my 4x5 with a 6x9 film back the results were always un-impressive. Somewhat soft and it seemed disappointing to me. But I just assumed it was my lens which was a 135mm fujinon. Shouldn't the dedicated lenses made for the horseman VH-R perform well enough with that camera? I mean they were designed for 6x9.
Originally Posted by IanBb
This camera looks interesting, and certainly affordable. Do you or anyone have experience with this camera? My fear with cheap wooden 4x5s is always flimsiness.
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
I don't, but can't recall anyone posting that their Shen Hao cameras were flimsy. The TFC-69A appears to be a well-made Ebony copy. Talk to Jeff about it, including what his return policy might be if you were to order one.
Originally Posted by brian steinberger
Being limited to enlarging from medium format in my darkroom too (for now), I've been concentrating more on contact prints, mostly from 5x7 and whole plate negatives. You might wish to consider that approach. While you'd once again have to load/unload holders, I view the smaller number of available exposures as a good thing that encourages better seeing rather than a limitation.
If you intend to shoot in a style similar to your current rangefinder camera, your options are somewhat limited. You cannot make use of shift/rise, perspective, or focus plane adjustments through the rangefinder. A technical camera like the Horseman VH-R gives you an option of using the rangefinder to focus and compose quickly with the rollfilm back in place (i.e. you don't have to remove groundglass back and replace with the rollfilm back). For instances when you need critical composition and want to make use movements, you can use the groundglass. The range of movements available on the VH-R are really quite extensive, and would be limited in only extreme situations (extensive rise/shift). As you and others have noted, good technique is required to get optimal results, but when isn't this true?
I haven't used Horseman lenses with the VH-R, although they are supposed to be decent. I've used Nikkor, Rodenstock and Schneider LF lenses with excellent results. You just need to make sure that the image circle for each lens covers the negative area with sufficient room for movements when you need to use them.
Let me know if you have questions specific to the Horseman.
Last edited by dlin; 09-15-2012 at 09:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.