Chamonix or Canham 4x5 Shortest Lens??

[Mike1234]

I'm asking about the Chamonix 45N-1 & Canham DLC. As the title reads... both of these cameras do what I need them to do except I don't know the real-world minimum bellows extensions of either. This will be a dedicated 6x12cm roll film camera and the widest lens is a 38 SA XL with a rear focal distance of 52.1mm according to Schneider's brochure. Longest lens is a 300mm Nikkor-M.

What I need are real-world (measured) specs. Manufacturers' information seems to nearly always be a bit inflated.

I'm aware of the Chamonix focus issue and I know the Canham weighs a bit more and has more bellows extension and I realize the new price of the Canham is about 4x that of the Chamonix. All I really want to know at this time is the "true" minimum bellows extensions of these cameras (from the front of the lens panel to the inside of the ground glass).

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I'll use a recessed lens panel and I'm aware that the 96x99mm Technika panels are smaller than the Canham 110x110mm which means a 12mm recessed panel (Toyo) will have more room to access and adjust the lens on the Canham.

Thanks all!!

[rmann]

Canham will take a Toyo field recessed panel - so you can gain about 10mm over the listed specs - which are correct as far as compressed bellows is concerned.

[coriana6jp]

I have a DLC as well as the Schneider 38mm XL. The lens is mounted on a recessed board, & there are no problems focusing the 38XL on the DLC. Though the bellows will be so compressed the the bag bellows would be a good option. (At least they were for me. The 38mm XL just covers 4x5 when stopped down around f/32 to f/45 but there are no room for movements at all, and the Centre filter is a must.

Gary

[Mike1234]

RMANN, thank you. Yes, the Toyo Field lens panels fit the DLC.

GARY, that's great news. Are you using the 12mm or 25mm recessed lens board? Is it a challenge to reach the shutter/aperture controls? Did you have to pull any tricks to get the standards close enough for infinity focus? I'll probably opt for the bag bellows but I'm not yet sure. Although I won't be shooting 4x5 it's nice to know the 38 XL will cover. I do have the CF.

SIDE NOTE: Regarding XL coverage. I've read many threads in which every one of them have substantially more usable coverage than their specs indicate. The 38 just covers 4x5, the 58 allows for far more shift maybe approaching 5x7 coverage (?), the 72 covers 4x10+, the 110 covers 8x10, the 150 covers 5x12 with lots of room and probably 11x14. I haven't read about the 210 but all I can say is, "Wow!"

Now, has anyone tried the 38mm on the Chamonix or could someone please measure the flange to GG distance?

[coriana6jp]

Mike,

I am using a 10mm recessed linhof board, my DLC has accepts techinka type boards. There are no problems using the controls, the way I have it set up. The standards come close enough together that there are no tricks.

I had a 58mm XL as well, there is no way it will cover 5x7 mine had a usable IC of about 180mm, which is more than published but not nearly enough for 5x7.

Gary

[Mike1234]

Gary,

This answers all my questions. I can use either a Chamonix or a Canham. Thank you!!

Mike

[DanielStone]

are you looking for movements, if needed with longer focal lengths? have you considered one of the plate cameras? what about say the fotoman or da-yi(ebay) 6x12 or the horseman sw612(?)

I think that all have an option for shift. You might have to have a special lens cone made though. I believe the horseman's minimum focal length is a 45 or 55mm straight from the factory in the helical mount.

-Dan

[Mike1234]

Dan,

I want some movements... at the very least, front rise/shift and rear tilt/swing. I don't need much movement but enough for landscapes in which the ocasional old building sneeks in and to keep trees vertical. A full compliment of movements is preferable but not mandatory. Also, this is a 7 or 8 lens kit and I don't want to carry all those adapter cones. Lastly, one lens is a macro so I need a bellows.

Lens focal lengths will range from 38-300mm so I'll need at least 350mm of bellows extension. Both of the mentioned cameras will accomodate this range but the Canham will allow use of a 450mm should I decide to take it along. However, I don't think this option is worth doubling my camera costs.

Ahh... but I would really like a DLC.

Mike

[Mike1234]

BUMP...

What I'm trying to determine...

1. Is the larger Canham 110x110mm recessed board (12mm Toyo recessed board) easier to use than the smaller 96x99mm Technika style 12mm recessed board?

2. Is the min bellows ext of the Chamonix with a flat board the same as a Canham with a 12mm recessed board?

3. How do the bag bellows' on each camera affect the above criteria?

My choice is basically down to just these two cameras. I like the size/weight/price of the Chammy vs. the Canham but I like the US-made/max-bellows-ext/larger-lens-board-size of the Canham. And really, the deciding factor is the usability of the 38mm followed by ability to shoot with the 450mm Fuji-C... no tele lenses, please, due to size/weight.

[pocketfulladoubles]

Can't compare with the Canham, but here is what I can say. I have the Chamonix with lenses ranging between 65mm and 450mm and I swapped out the stock bellows with the universal belows. The 65mm has enough movements to lose portions of the image circle. I've read of folks using a 47mm onto 4x5. Since the 47mm has an even small image circle, I'd imagine it would also be adequate and you wouldn't need to lug around the bag bellows. The 450mm Fuji C works very well with the extension plate, and either the stock or universal bellow will be fine. Don't know about the 38 onto 6x12 though.