Okay, having some fun for the weekend here....
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a.../Cham_wrap.jpg
Look familiar?
:D :D :D
Printable View
Okay, having some fun for the weekend here....
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a.../Cham_wrap.jpg
Look familiar?
:D :D :D
Luckily I don't see a hand sticking out of a corner :p
For anybody interested, here's what the White Maple or "Blond" version of the Chamonix looks like.
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a..._side_view.jpg
Two more views:
Note the way the back attaches, very clean and clever (and yes, it is graflock compatible):
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a..._altview_1.jpg
Here's a look at the lensboard retainers, simple and neat:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a...oard_latch.jpg
Jack is infatuated with a sexy new blonde! :D :D
So that is why he is selling all of his other equipment. Affairs are expensive, in more ways than one. I wonder if his wife knows? :confused:
(In 1998 my wife asked about my 2 new Mamiya 7 II bodies and 3 lenses: "Was it less than $1,000?" I said no, and we left it at that.
Two years later we were getting on an airplane and the stewardess wanted me to check my camera bag. I said "There is $7,000 worth of camera equipment in there ...." Oops, in front of the wife, never lived that one down! Big mistake. :) )
Have fun Jack!
Best,
Michael
Very nice looking camera! Let us know your thoughts on how it works.
Scott
www.scottsquires.com
What are the two thumbwheels on the bottom of the back for?
What boards does it use?
Will do Scott. I don't want to repeat all the info in the other Chamionix threads, but I can tell you that it is essentially a copy of a Phillips which I used to own -- and used profusely. Surprisingly, this camera seems to be built every bit as well as Dick's, yet has incorporated a few simple refinements -- I am very impressed with the quality and functional improvements. Like the original, the design of each standard has a few peculiarities you need to learn to work with, but beyond that, this appears to be one sweet little camera for the money.
BTW, this one tips my postage scale at 3 pounds, 1 ounce and is quite rigid.
Cheers,
That IS sweeeeet!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3lbs 1oz...dang...
How much tilting can you get out of it? I like the idea of the threads to mount the front standard or are they for tripod mounting????
Gives me ideas on how I can modify my front standard to have this kind of leverage for swing...
What I find interesting (and will be exploring this concept over the next few weekends) is that they use 2 linear bearings and a leadscrew for focusing with a rear facing knob...I'm thinking something along the lines of a pair of heavy duty full extension ball bearing drawer slides and some 1/4-20 all thread, all of which I have sitting in my junk bin (shelves really, lots of them)
erie
Yes it is :)
Axial front tilt is limited only by bellows; base rear tilt is 90 degrees forward and guessing about 20 back -- I can measure it if you need more precise. Those holes on the bed are for different positioning of the front standard for different amounts of total extension -- just like a Phillips. The base has a beefy plate that has two 3/8 tripod mounting holes.
Cheers,
One of those refinements is the sliding guides at the bottom of the front standard to enable rise/fall without inducing tilt (when they're engaged in the upright supports). They do what the turnbutton does on a Phillips, only better; they constrain both forward and back tilt.
Jack, do the inner screws on those guides -- the ones you grasp to slide the guides -- ride in slots underneath the standard? If not, how are the guides constrained so they don't pivot around the other screws when slid towards center, i.e. disengaged from the upright supports' slots? Thanks in advance.
I'm curious what the bigger models are like? Just scaled up or other differences?
What kind of wood is it made from?
Hi Sal:
Obviously there is some kind of a slot and key pin because they don't rotate, but it's not easily visible as assembled, so I cannot say for sure how they did it.
FWIW, they use a similar sliding lock for the rear base tilt stops instead of the lever system Dick used.
Jack
Anybody taken a photo with their Chamonix yet??
LOL, what would be the point of that? ... it might spoil the aura and adulation of fine craftsmanship.
What I like about this forum is the (somewhat extreme) contrasts and odd parallel topics happening simultaneously. Consider this thread versus the one here.
It's all good, and just a wee bit ironic. :D
I think it's refreshing to be appreciating sub-thousand dollar cameras when so many adore v.expensive Linhof Technikas, Ebony's and Arca Swiss monorails ....
Ash,
You can see some pictures taken with the Chamonix 45N cameras in this thread...
http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.ph...1&pagenumber=1
Here are some more images and details:
Here is the camera with max rear tilt, which I measured at 30 degrees. Note the area in red are little holes as a reference scale spaced about every 5 degrees -- again, a clever little detail:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a...m_backtilt.jpg
~~~
Here is a view showing maximum rear swing, also about 30 degrees. Scale circled in red is to enable precise zeroing of rear standard:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a...back_swing.jpg
~~~
Here is the camera at minumum compression. I measure this as 45mm Film to Flange. Again, you can see the tilt reference holes, the 90 degree one being slightly larger in diameter:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a...am_min_ext.jpg
Here is a shot of the base. Note the wheels in red tighten the posts separately from the rear standard lock wheels, allowing you to adjust their position fore or aft for maximum or minimum extension and/or more convenient postioning of the rear standard lock screws for normal use. Also note the base plate -- an extra layer of aluminum with two 3/8 tripod threaded holes. I have an old RRS plate for an Ebony 45 SU mounted, and it fits perfectly:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a.../Cham_base.jpg
~~~
Here is a view showing the rear tilt stops as well as the grooves on the base of the front standard to help keep it in position when locked down.
Also note the thin aluminum GG protector. (Sidebar note: By mistake they sent me a couple of 5x7 film holders. I only got to inspect them, but that thin, sturdy sheet aluminum on the GG protector is the same material they use for their darkslides in their holders. The 5x7's I saw were very well built and very light -- probably the best film-holder I've ever seen, period. I'd say even better built than the Lotus 8x10 holders I had...):
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a...olded_rear.jpg
~~~
Final shot showing the bed. Note the scale for aligning front swing (1), the 5 location holes for mounting the front standard (2), and the shift zero marks (3):
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album08/Cham_bed.jpg
Cheers,
"Note the way the back attaches, very clean and clever (and yes, it is graflock compatible): "
same as the toyo 810M !!!
I'm still incredibly jelous of those spirit levels!
Jack,
What a beautiful camera and I especially enjoyed hearing your thought on the 5x7 film holders. It bolds well for the future of the 5x7 format now that there's another manufacturer in the wings. :)
Hmm... blonde and brunette film holders!
Any ideas as to what they'll be asking for them?
Cheers
Hi Jack,
Re the Chamonix front standard. How do you centered the rise? Meaning, when you do front tilts, how do you keep the same level of height? Is there a detent to keep the the rise? Or just half tighten the knobs?
Regards,
Utomo
It's not the best shot of them, but if you look at this picture, you can see some marks on the front standard frame, and others in the wood on the front standard itself -- line those up and you're zeroed :)
It is a continuous slot, so you use the half tighten for height, then you can still tilt; full tight to lock it down.
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/a...oard_latch.jpg
Hey Jack,
I remembered you sold your Phillips 4x5 a while back. I shoot with a Phillips Compact II and love these camera designs and am on the list for a walnut Chamonix now. For that price, it seems you can't go wrong. Since the Chamonix is somewhat of a carbon copy on design, what are your thoughts comparing these two cameras? Thanks.
Hi Nelson:
I made the following comment back on post #11, and showed some of the refinements in the photos I posted. Beyond those, I don't have much to add. From 11:
"I can tell you that it is essentially a copy of a Phillips which I used to own -- and used profusely. Surprisingly, this camera seems to be built every bit as well as Dick's, yet has incorporated a few simple refinements -- I am very impressed with the quality and functional improvements. Like the original, the design of each standard has a few peculiarities you need to learn to work with, but beyond that, this appears to be one sweet little camera for the money.
BTW, this one tips my postage scale at 3 pounds, 1 ounce and is quite rigid."
Cheers,
__________________
So Jack, is this the initial infatuation period before the full fledged heat of passion hits? Should we start a pool to bet how long this particular affair lasts?
I do know that Arca feels jilted and Ebony has run off with another man. But they're history, just like all the others...
$20 that Chamonix is on the streets by Christmas. Jack's a hard man and he's run through a lot of 'em... They've all been pretty but never quite good enough.
That's a fair comment Frank, and I probably deserve it. However, you of all people know I went from the relatively expensive Phillips to the more expensive Acra for the added movements, and then was offered an almost equally expensive Ebony at a reasonable price... I always knew I could not keep both the Ebony and the Arca, so one had to go. In the end, the Arca and Ebony were very different yet each almost perfection in their own right (and more than "good enough" fo me), but the little Phillips was the one that did everything I needed (good enough) and at a lot lower weight than the others. So when the Cham opportunity arrived, it deserved a look; a sub $1000 camera that weighs in at a hair over 3 pounds (less than half the weight of the Ebony or the Arca) and was truly rigid, was a hard temptation for me to pass up. One thing I am not is a brand snob, but neither am I rich enough to own all three -- and given how great the Arca and the Ebony are, if I were rich I would definitely still own all three! So in a way, I've come full circle back to a camera that meets all my needs while putting a *lot* of cash back in my pocket, cash I can use right now for other purposes...
And speaking of cash, I'll take your bet! $20 it is, and I've marked a reminder in my calendar for Christmas 2007. If I still have my Cham, I post a pic of it with a newspaper or Christmas tree, and you send me $20; if not, I send you $20.
Cheers!
Mmmm, it`s nice as a blonde too :)
Amund you're a skater! Cool!
By the looks of the board (cutaway Gravity, so about 40"+), you're a longboarder like me? :)
Desert and beach are not a good place for this camera, although it is much easier to clean the camera than chean the carbon fiber tripod.