I strongly recommend you take a peek at the Wehman 8x10 field camera. I have one and am very happy with it. It is light, sturdy, and very compact. A unique feature of this camera is that the bed extension is also used to cover the ground glass when folded. Weight < 9 lb, bellows ~ 30", and they run for $US 1850.
The 2006 version seems to be even more rigid than the previous models:
Please feel free to pm me if you have specific questions.
I have noticed; but last I heard the camera was still available. Lack of updates can also mean slow sales...
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
Thanks for replies - from a web survey (including British and American e-bay), the camera I liked best was indeed the secondhand Gandolfi Variant on the maker's site. I looked at this and found that it comes in 2 versions, made for Linhof Technika and Sinar lens boards respectively. The one on offer is for Linhof, whereas my big lenses are on (and need) Sinar panels. I am trying to avoid working with an f9 standard lens. Must keep looking - the Ansco Ian suggested looks good, too, but is obviously not easy to find.
Consider yourself lucky, I can tell you from personal experience that you need the Sinar front standard even with smaller lenses. I have the Gandolfi Variant II with the tecnika standard and it is a PITA. If you use more than an inch of movement you get bellows vigneting. Do yourself a favor and actually use a Variant before buying it. I bought mine new and there are many things I dont like, but then at the time it was the only one I could afford new......
Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
8x10 for field use
I have an ARCA and a Canam 8x10. The canham is my favorite, as I find the
folder easier to use and, to tell the truth, I grew up with folders.
If you are going to do arcitectural or landscapes that require a bit of rear swing, I would go with the ARCA, since you can really have movements with it,
front shift, rear shift , swing and shift, etc.
There is a recent thread about asymmetrical focusing I put up that should be informative.
bottom line: it ain't the camera that produces good work. Edward Weston worked with equipment we would turn our nose up at.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ask Eddie what he'd charge to change the front standard...
Nice to be in contact again.
Personally I'd back a Precision (sorry, now Traditional, I think) over a Variant, and as you may remember, I've used both.
I had a Nikon 150 SW, obviously it did no fit through the front standard, so I asked the guy who runs Gandolfi how much to send me the Sinar front standard, not change it for me! He wanted a ridiculous amount of money and getting the info was like pulling teeth. The traditional is a nice camera but too expensive IMO compared to a Canham or Wisner (if he is still in bussiness).
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
Another vote for the Wehman. I like mine a lot, and Bruce Wehman is a great guy to deal with!
Last edited by Tom Hoskinson; 05-20-2006 at 12:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Everything is analog - even digital :D
David - have you thought about actually giving your Sinar a whirl, to see how much of an inconvenience it would really be? With almost all of the 8x10 "field" models with larger boards, you'll face different sets of trade-offs.
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
That's odd. I've always found Eddie very easy to deal with. I obviously can't deny your experience. But much as I like both Keith Canham and Ron Wisner I still think a Gandolfi is far from overpriced. That's not to denigrate the opposition: just to say that I like Gandolfis better. My dream LF camera is a whole-plate Gandolfi Precision/Traditional chassis with a 5x7 inch/13x18cm/half plate back.