(Old) Comments on the Canham metal field

Compiled by Q.-Tuan Luong for the Large Format Page

This file is a compilation of comments covering the period from the introduction of the camera to early 2000. It is superceded by a very thorough review that Michael Mutmansky subsequently wrote in Nov 2000.

I had a chance to see the first one off the production line last week. Typical of Keith, the camera is innovative and very well thought out. Beautifully finished and very compact the controls were very smooth and logical. One point - the nylon bellows allows an very large range of movement and will handle very wide angle lenses (did Keith say as wide as 47mm? I forget.) with adequet movements. A trade-off is there is some bellows sag, which did not cause any problem with the 300mm Nikon I tried on the camera but some people might object to it. Easily corrected, if need be, by placing a small support under the bellows when needed. The metalwork is very well done with much attention to keeping the camera lightweight. The dual focusing tracks seemed to make the camera very sturdy for its size.

The camera I played with was fitted with a Canham board, which worked *very* nicely in the camera, and was very nicely made. Yes, I know that lensboards are not high technology, but there *are* good lensboards and bad ones. Canham boards are nice.

Just looking at the lensboards, I ventured a guess that it was machined to match Toyo boards. The salesman commented that, yes, it it was the same size as Toyo boards, but that they had tried Toyo boards and they only fit *upside down*. I have to admit, I was stunned. But they gave me a stock Toyo board, and I got it stuck in the camera when I jammed it in the camera. Naturally, it was an undrilled board, and I had to pop the back to push it out again. I was *not* able to set the clasp to hold the board in - it didn't fit. It *did* fit in the camera upside down. Go figure. I suspect that it's related to the chamfered edge, which is on the bottom of the Toyo boards, and which probably allows the board to be wedge in if it's at the top, because although the board is not fully in the camera, the chamfer overlaps the front standard and the board goes in just enough to let you set the clasp. In other words, the Toyo boards are just very slightly taller than the Canham boards - just enough to not fit. Holding a Canham board and a Toyo board face to face, they look the same height.

I realize that that description is probably not very lucid. Anyway, I'd point out that with the board fitted to the camera this way, it's probably not resting properly on the machined lands, so it's probably not perfectly aligned, if you care. My take on the whole thing was that if I bought the camera, I'd just buy the Canham boards, which fit perfectly.

So then, I suggested that we try the Toyo manufactured T to L adaptor. Nope, it wouldn't fit. Even more of a mismatch than the standard Toyo board. And, of course, you don't want to put the adaptor in upside down (at least I wouldn't want to). So it's a quandry.

Note that, if you use the stock Toyo to Linhof adaptor made by Toyo, it adds about 5mm of extension - this might be a big deal if you were planning on using very short lenses.

Yes, you could presumably file the adaptor (or toyo boards, for that matter) to fit. The size is really, really close. So close that I suspect that Keith Canham really intended to allow use of Toyo boards and accessories, and got caught by some small measurement or specification error. I enquired about adjustments being made for the second run of cameras, and was told that Canham have already gotten the machining done for the next 100 cameras. Too bad.

I don't want to suggest by all this that the camera is anything less than stellar. My comments on my gripes being the choice of the Toyo board standard, and the difficult to use graflok back, were intended to reflect my feeling that all the gripes I could come up with in my attempt to avoid buying the camera were really very minor concerns. It's a beautiful, wonderfully designed camera. If it had been available when I bought my Wisner, I'd have bought the Canham instead, and I'd probably not be contemplating replacing the Wisner now.

I have the Canham and am using the Toyo adapter. There are several things I don't like about this arrangement and I have discussed them with Keith Canham (more on that below). Keith offers a choice of Toyo or Linhof compatible front standards on his wooden cameras, but has chosen to go only with the Toyo for the metal camera. If you would prefer a Linhof compatible standard, I suggest calling him to let him know. It is very expensive to have them built in single quantities (I was quoted $600), but if there is enough demand the cost could be driven way down. For a light weight field camera, I would expect the demand for the Linhof compatible standard would be great. Afterall, the Linhof board is the defacto standard for the light weight Japanese wooden cameras (Wista, Tachihara, Nagaoaka, Osaka, Calumet, etc.) as well as the Linhof (Technika and Technikardan) and Wista (SP, VX, RF) metal field cameras. I think Keith may have under estimated the demand for a Linhof compatible front standard, and the only way he will learn of the demand is for people to call and let him know (602-964-8624).

 
> Note that, if you use the stock Toyo to Linhof adaptor made by
> Toyo, it adds about 5mm of extension - this might be a big deal
> if you were planning on using very short lenses.

Actually, it adds 10mm. I measured minumum extension of 55mm without the adapter and 65mm with it installed. One of the reasons Keith favors the Toyo standard is that they have a "better" recessed board (easier to get at the lens controls). I pointed out that without the adapter in place, most people using Linhof boards wouldn't need a recessed board, and the added thickness of the adapter defeats the this supposed advantage.

> Yes, you could presumably file the adaptor (or toyo boards, for
> that matter) to fit.  The size is really, really close. 

My adapter was filed down and it is still a very tight fit (it will only go on the camera if I wiggle it around just right).

In addition to the comments above, I will add some more here along with Keith Canham's (paraphrased) responses.

First, cost. The adapter is expensive (I paid $176). Keith knew this and said it is still $400 cheaper than cost for a one of a kind Linhof compatible front standard. As I mentioned above, the cost for the Linhof standard could be brought way down due to economies of scale, IF the demand were high enough. I have priced small quantity machine shop work, and the single piece price is always quite high. This is due to set-up costs that can be spread out over each piece when ordering larger quantities. In my experience, total cost for an order of 10 units is only slightly greater than total cost for an order of 2 units. In other words, when ordering small quanities, the cost of materials and machine time are minor compared to the one time set-up costs. So, if demand is sufficient, and Keith agrees to do a special run of Linhof compatible standards (he hasn't, BTW), it may be possible to get the cost down as low as the cost of the Toyo adapter.

Second, weight. The Toyo:Linhof adapter weighs 5 oz. (almost as much as my 135mm lens). If you chose to use Toyo boards instead of Linhof, each board is both heavier and bulkier. This goes against the philosophy of a light weight field camera. Keith's reasons for using the Toyo standard are, better recessed board (see above), ability to handle larger lenses, lack of pre-drilled #3 boards from Linhof. Keith sited the example that he has a couple customers using the 155mm Grandagon. This is really an 8x10 lens, and I expect these people are using it on his wooden 4x5/4x10 as a wide angle for the 4x10 format. This certainly is not a light weight lens (over 3 lbs.) and I can't picture this being the lens of choice for 4x5 field use in this focal length range when there are several other alternatives that weigh in the 8 - 10 oz. range. The other potential issue is the large rear element on some of the newer wide angle lenses. Is anyone using a 90mm Schneider Super Angulon XL on a camera with a Linhof compatible front standard? I'm just curious if it fits OK, or presents a problem. Again, this lens would not be my first choice for field use in this focal length, but at least I find it more likely than a 155mm Grandagon. Also, does anyone know of a source of pre-drilled Copal #3 sized Linhof compatible lens boards? Keith said they were not available and he was constantly re-drilling boards for customers. Even if Linhof does not offer them, do any of the other Linhof compatible brands (Wista, Bromwell, etc.)? I personally have intentionally avoided lens in the heavy Copal #3 shutter for field work, but can understand specific cases where someone would chose otherwise (the 450mm Nikkor M as a long lens on 4x5, for example). I think Keith's point of view may be a little skewed by the fact that his previous 4x5 was also a 5x7 and 4x10. The new camera is his first "true" 4x5, and I think it will appeal to a whole new customer base than his previous model. Since it doesn't have a 4x10 back, many of the lenses that were appropriate for a 4x5/4x10 camera are not likely to find their way into the backpack of someone shooting strictly 4x5.

Third, time. It is not possible to fold the camera with the Toyo to Linhof adapter installed on the camera. Due to the poor fit of the adapter, it also takes longer to install/remove that a standard lens board. Plus, you still have to install/remove the lens board to/from the adapter. Although not a major loss of time (it takes about 3x as long as just installing a standard lens board), it is inconvenient. I still occasionally forget to install the adapter when I'm in a hurry to set-up, and there I am holding a lens in my hand ready to install but no adapter on the camera.

It is a wonderful camera, but it is not perfect (IMHO). Of course, for my application it is closer to perfect than anything else I've ever seen or used. So, all-in-all, I'm quite happy to have one. Since it is a full featured camera that has the advantages of light weight and compact size, it is a natural choice as a field camera where weight is a concern. I do feel that the lack of compatiblity with the defacto Linhof standard compromises these advantages to a slight degree. Besides, all my lenses are already mounted in Linhof compatible boards. I imagine this will also be the case for a great many field photographers who will want to upgrade to the new Canham. If you share this opinion, please let Keith know. He has always been very receptive to meeting the meeds of his customers.

NdE: Kerry wrote a serious review of this camera for Camera Techniques

Your statement (or Keith Canham's) that Linhof does not supply pre-drilled boards for #3 shutters is poppycock. Linhof provides as standard items pre-drilled boards for Compur#3 and Copal#3 shutters and all kinds of versions for other similar shutters. The boards are supplied with a beautifully machined spacer (which is needed if a lens is larger than the board itself, as is the case with some 8x10 lenses)and they cost exactly the same as the boards drilled for a #1 shutter. Call B&H Photo for example and you will find that they have a couple of dozen of these boards in stock all the time. Ther is also a plentiful supply of used ones. In fact, I bought one in mint condition for $40 last week. I would not use anything other than a Linhof board on ANY camera. I use them for my 4x5's as well as my 8x10's (including a Canham)and all my 8x10 lenses are Copal 3 shutters on STANDARD, PRE-DRILLED Linhof boards.x

Contributed by Mark Dubovoy ( md@itventures.com)

9/29/97 Just had a long talk with Keith. Over the years we have had quite a few debates about design, supply, photography, etc.

As a Canham dealer, I was concerned about the general misunderstanding regarding the Canham philosophy. My intent, as is Keith''s, is to solve problems.

Re-engineering a whole camera seems overkill for a small problem like a lens board. After some discussion the solution was quite obvious. Find a simple, cheap solution instead of re-design and increasing inventory. (Did you know Linhof has changed their design to match the Toyo/Canham board? Seems more Canhams are sold in America than L !!!)

Keep your eyes and ears open for the solution!

I would be happy to communicate with anyone who has questions.

Good Light!

David

I recently purchased a Metal Canham 4x5 and overall I am quite satisfied with the performance of the camera. When I first unpackaged the camrera, I was immdiately impressed by the weight and feel of the camera. I did not find the setup as cumbersome as some have reported previously. Front and rear tilts were easiy accomplished, but adjusting the camrera for front axis tilt was a difficult balancing act. Also on first setup, I was initially concerned by the stability of the rear standard. With finger pressure alone, the rear standard would move back and forth. Despite this movement, the rear standard would always return to its original position when bumped or moved. I compared this movement with a Zone VI camera 4x5 and found the vibration to be much worse with the front standard. Having no other camreras to compare, I cannot comment further. During a field test, using an exposure time of 1 second, I found no problems with vibration, despite using a relatively lightweight tripod, the Bogen 3021. All in all, I find my early experiences with the Canham enjoyable and would recommend it highly, despite my initial concerns.

I have just purchased a DLC with the Canham Technika converter. It is a brilliant and reasonably priced solution to all of the comments listed above, I have had the camera less than a week but so far I am extremely happy with it. It feels great to handle, rigid, lots of movements etc. I am currently using it on an an extensive architectural job, but I look forward to using it for some portraits and street photography.

Ellis, Can you enlighten us on what the converter looks like and how it works. Can you still focus short focal lengths with the converter? Does it add bulk to the camera? etc etc.

There''s not a whole lot to say. The DLC has a large squarish opening surrrounded by a slightly recessed metal lip about .5 inches wide (pls. excuse me if my size estimates are not exact measures.) The standard Canham lens board are held against these edges by sliding locking latches running along the top and bottom sides. The Technika to DLC converter fits flush into the square opening. Final Installation is a matter of tighting up a small set screw located in the bottom of the new throat. The adapter has a large throat that looks like it will accomodate some of the newer wide aangle lenses such as the 90mmXL Super Angulon. There are two pegs located on the outside of the adapter that support the bottom of the lensboard. A Technika style lens board sits down into these pegs and then is locked into place by the original locking latch at the top of the lens standard. The bottom latch is now unnecessary. Notice that I said Technika style boards. This includes original Linhof boards as well as some other makes of boards. There are some slight variations in sizes & tolerences not only between manufacturers, but also between various vintages of boards. For example, one of my boards is a little tighter sliding into place than the others; but none of them are a loose fit, all lock into place securely. Two of my boards are Linhof, and four I bought with my first V-pan. One last note: Linhof users know that the lens mounting hole on Linhof boards is drilled slightly lower than dead center. Keith Canham has taken this into account, and the adapter sits slightly higher to counter this and if you are using these Linhof boards your lens are vertically and horizontally centered when you zero all of your movements.

Sorry, but I didn''t answer your question fully. No it it doesn''t really add any bulk. The camera folds ups normally with no problem. I am sure it adds a couple of ounces, (like maybe 1.5> 3 US ounces). The shortest lens I own is a current design 65mm Grandagon and I have no problemusing it with a full range of movements.

opportunity to exam the camera first hand. Now I must preface the following comments by saying that they are observations and not criticisms. After all one mans poison is another mans food. After playing with this incredibly light camera I realized that (as an old Linhhof tech and metal wista field user) there was a price to pay for the combination of a wonderfully long bellows, extensive movements and light weight. In a word "rigidity" or the lack of it. No matter how hard I tightened the locks on this metal Canham the standards flopped around too much for my liking. A floppy front standard does not bother me near as much as a floppy rear standard. I routinely apply more (forceful) manipulation to the back standard than the front standard during holder insertion. For someone that is accustomed to the rock like rigidity of a mono-rail or the somewhat less rock like rigidity of a metal field, I recommend a hands on look at this metal camera before you pluck your money down. This lack of rigidity maybe well be with your parameters and then it may not. Again this camera has much to recommend it (just look at the specs). There is no denying this is a great camera but like all cameras it can not be every thing for every body.

I dont understand what you mean by floppiness. I am not trying to be funny, I just haven''t experienced what what you decribe in regular use with this camera. I focus the camera, insert the holders, shoot the film and it comes back sharp. I am using lenses ranging from 65mm to 300mm on a regular basis. I am very familiar with high quality(Sinar & Arca-Swiis F-line) I hate to display my ignorance in public, but again: what floppiness?

My complete comment did not get through to the net but the main thrust is there.

Dear Ellis,

My Sinar is more rigid than my linhof Tech.. My Linhof Tech is more rigid than my Wista SP and my Wista SP is more rigid than most Wood fields.

As a practical test put your fingers on top of both standards and push in. Is there flex? Yep. Not much with the Sinar. More with my Linhof Tech. Etc. And the Canham DLC? You tell me. Do the standards return to the original positions after release? Hopefully yes. I believe that even Mr Canham would admit that the torsional stability of the DLC is less than the Linhof, but then it was probably not meant to be as rigid.

Now, how much rigidity you need depends on what you are doing as a photographer. As a field photographer I encounter many windy days. Most view cameras have the aerodynamics of a box kite. Even with the umbrella trick rigidity counts, at least with me. In the rush to catch the fleeing light, I often repeatedly stuff the film gate with holder after holder without a refocus. I count on the rear standard, the camera and the tripod to hold their positions. For that reason I also use a relatively heavy tripod. There are many days when I rigidity is completely secondary, but when I need it I need it.

How much rigidity someone needs can only be determined by the photographer. Of course it is tough to determine how rigid a camera is by looking at its picture in some mail order catalog. So I hold firm to my recommendation to get a hands on "look" before you buy.

If the DLC works for you, GREAT! I am genuinely happy for you. You have just saved yourself carrying ~ 2 pounds over the Linhof tech and with the same philosophy probably several more pounds from a lighter tripod.

Dear Patrick, Actually I use a fairly big tripod (either a gitzo 410 w/ crank or a gitzo 340). I use Fuji QuickLoads, which means I have something else sticking out in the wind besides the camera bellows. So far--two months of actual outdoor achitectural shooting for paying customers-- no problems with vibrations or the camera going out of alignment. I shoot primarily with RVP & RDPII, so my exposures, especially in the magic hour and the gloaming beyond that can get to be a bit longish. I guess what I am trying to say is that my standards are hopefully every bit as high as yours. Weight and mass: no disagreement from me: a truly well designed well built monorail studio camera-- Sinar, Arca, Linhof, Toyo, Horseman or Cambo-- is going to be be as or more stable and more massive than any field camera. But I didn''t select and buy a DLC solely to save weight. I bought it for some of the features you haven''t mentioned: the bellows design for one, it makes my life easier not to have to carry two or three bellows and a variety of monorail extentions. I also chose it over other designs derived from press cameras, most notably the Linhof Technika, because I don''t have to wrestle with getting the bed out of the way for wide angle shots. There is a weight difference that I do like however, My bank account being at least US$1500 heavier (base price to base price) because I bought the Canham DLC instead of the Technikarden which was the only other camera design close to what I was looking for! There are things I am not thrilled with: I wish it was yaw free; I wish I hadn''t had to buy a seperate adapter for my Technika style lens boards (I have three LF cameras that I use: the DLC, an Arca F-line and a V-pan); I really wish the "graflocks" were closer in design and operation to Sinar''s or the Arca-Swiss'' mechanism; and I wish there was a zero detent for the front and rear swings. Is the DLC the ultimate camera? No. But so far, two months and several hundred sheets of polaroid, real film and about 30 rolls of roll film, I am satisfied so far. Just for the record: I don''t sell cameras, I don''t work for anybody who does, and I only know Keith Canham from talking with him over the phone. I appreciate your comments about the DLC and really did e-mail you with my query because I was truly curious to know what you were describing. Thanks! > Ellis

Dear Ellis, It is wonderful to see the variety of cameras people use and the excellent results they get. I have friend whose photographs I admire. They are technically as sharp as mine. More than occasionally, we shoot together. He uses what a would consider a flimsy woody for a camera whose name I will not reveal to protect the innocent. He also uses a relatively light camera. The other day we when out into a particular canyon. It always amazed that two photographers can go to the same place and come back with such different photos. A week later we were comparing notes (negatives) and I came across one of his beauties from this canyon, but could not understand how he got the prospective that he did. He told me that he climbed up on such and such a rock face, and that if I would get some of the lead out of my camera bag referring to my metal field camera and all the lenses I carry) then I could do the same. Not five minutes later he was admiring one of my beautiful negatives. It was a negative that I had made with my Schnieder 150mm Super symmar. Such a negative could only have been made because the super symmars enormous has coverage and resolution. So, I quickly reminded him that such a negative could only be made with the lead that I carried in my bag. We had a good laugh about the matter, but the incident did create some thought on both our parts. The thought is that our creative aspirations do determine our equipment but less well understood is that this equipment in turn influences (and sometimes limit) our creations. Maybe I should carry less. Maybe he should carry more. Food for thought.

By the way I am still considering the DLC. It has a lot to recommend it. Wonderful bellows draw, light, and great performance to cost ratio.

I had never used a 4x5 until this year, when I bought the Canham DLC and registered for the Santa Fe workshop on large format. When I got to Santa Fe, our group had 11 people. Three of us had the DLC, and a number in the group (me included) had never shot a piece of 4x5. We all produced some great shots. I was using a Schneider 110/5.6 Super Symmar XL. Viewing the tranparencies with a loupe, the resolution was outstanding. I never felt that the camera was not rigid, and never worried about it. The final product alleviated all concerns. One guy in the group arrived without a camera (wanted to see if 4x5 was for him). By Wednesday, he was on the phone buying a DLC. It arrived the next day. I''m not a pro, and don''t know Keith Canham at all. But from 15 years of using Hassy and Mamiya, I know what a sharp photo is. The DLC never disappointed, and I''m happy to have one.

I just spent about 10 minutes talking to Keith Canham on the phone about DLC 4x5 and the metal 5x7. I ended up buying the 5x7 metal field + 4x5 reducer, so this is effectively a 5x7/4x5 camera.

Several points Keith made that I found of great interest:

1) He does not recommend Bosscreen, and out of 15 or so people he talked to who use it, 2 or 3 had problems with it.

2) He said that the 5x7 is only about 2 inches bigger, is about 1 lb heavier, and costs only $200 more (well, about $600 if you factor in the 4x5 reducer)

3) All Cambo viewing accessories work on the 4x5 reducer back (and also on the DLC, which is 4x5 to start with), including the Binocular reflex Viewing housing, which was of paramount importance to me (I am new to LF, and find upside down stuff very disturbing).

4) It is much more intelligent to use Canham lens boards (than Toyo, Linhoff, etc.) with Canham cameras, unless you also have a Toyo, Linhoff, etc., becase Canham lens boards are a much tighter/better fit, they cost much less ($30), and it's pretty easy (supposedly) to reattach a lens to another board if such need arises.

Also, I talked to Rod Klukas on the phone (I ended up buying the camera and the reducer) and he confirmed all of the above points, and further suggested two more benefits of the 5x7 Canham:

1) It's more sturdy (the metal is more "beefy") 2) It has longer max bellows extension

Note that Cambo reflex viewing housing is NOT going to work with the 5x7, only with the 4x5 reducer.

I will post more info when I get the camera and play with it a while. sergey

I have owned and shot with Canham QVC57/45 (Metal 5x7, same design as DLC45, but bigger, with 4x5 reducing back), and here are my findings:

1) Keith Canham is a true gentleman and a great person to deal with -- I called him three times on the phone regarding different aspects of the camera, and he extensively talked to me each time;

2) The camera is very quick to set-up (but see below) on a tripod, and quite convenient to operate (but see below). Also very light, and has tremendous movements;

3) The lack of good zero detents on front and real tilts, and lack of useful levels on the camera, made the line-up of the camera to have its base parallel to the plane of the ground, and to have the front and rear standards perpendicular to that plane _extremely_ difficult and painstaking operation (to me), and I had to use a carpenter's level to do it. Call me picky, but this fact drove me absolutely nuts. I ended up returning the camera, and switching to Arca Swiss. Since I still did not receive the Arca, I can't comment on it.

4) The front and rear standard were not exactly aligned, but were rotated with respect to each other around the axis passing through their centers by several degrees. I found this very annoying, though it might not effect the picture. I saw another comment by someone else to the same extent, so this might be a design flaw.

5) The controls ranged from very convenient, to quite inconvenient. The tilts and shifts and swings were OK, but the movement of the standards on the rails were not convenient, and became a pain when using wide lenses, since it would be very difficult to reach in and move the locking lever when the standards were close to each other. Sometimes it was impossible, so the camera had to be moved out of focus, just to unlock one of the levers. I have not used any other field camera, so I can't comment here, but this design seemed to work well for me only with lenses longer than 150mm.

6) The back of the bellows would fall out almost every time I would rotate the back (from horizontal to vertical and visa-versa). This was more annoying than dangerous, but still...

7) Overall, I think this camera will appeal to people who prefer kitchen knife to a Swiss Army knife, and a shot gun to a sniper rifle. Also, it most likely will work best for someone who has enough experience to know why their shots are unsharp (was it wind, was it tripod shake, was it the loupe, was I tired, or was it the bloody non- lined-up standards on the Canham DLC?), i.e, to an experienced photographer, rather than to an amature like me. To me, it was important to eliminate as many variables as I could, and camera precision is one I am fortunate to have control over.

Sergey,

I have owned and shot with Canham QVC57/45 (Metal 5x7, same design as DLC45, but bigger, with 4x5 reducing back), and here are my findings:

1) Keith Canham is a true gentleman and a great person to deal with -- I called him three times on the phone regarding different aspects of the camera, and he extensively talked to me each time;

Yes this is one of the nicer aspects of buying a camera from Canham, you get co-operation instead of attitude. One of the first things that Keith will admit is the DLC and MQC cameras are not for everyone. (By the way if "QVC" is your idea of being a smartass insult, then you might want to think twice, the camera is named one of Keith's sons.)

2) The camera is very quick to set-up (but see below) on a tripod, and quite convenient to operate (but see below). Also very light, and has tremendous movements;

Yep.

3) The lack of good zero detents on front and real tilts, and lack of useful levels on the camera, made the line-up of the camera to have its base parallel to the plane of the ground, and to have the front and rear standards perpendicular to that plane _extremely_ difficult and painstaking operation (to me), and I had to use a carpenter's level to do it. Call me picky, but this fact drove me absolutely nuts. I ended up returning the camera, and switching to Arca Swiss. Since I still did not receive the Arca, I can't comment on it.

See my comments above about the camera not being for everyone. I also use the Arca Swiss F-line, so I know about precision. I don't like the recessed bullseye levels on the DLC camera either. But I don't have near the problems you had with yours. Maybe it is because I have never felt the need to level the base of the camera. With my camera set up and the standards locked at the detents, If I level the rear standard I have not, in the past year of heavy use, had any problems with the front standard being out of parallel with the rear standard. I use both small two-way bubble levels and a device that indicates the degree of tilt from the vertical.

4) The front and rear standard were not exactly aligned, but were rotated with respect to each other around the axis passing through their centers by several degrees. I found this very annoying, though it might not effect the picture. I saw another comment by someone else to the same extent, so this might be a design flaw.

I am confused by this remark. My technique to check side to side alignment with the DLC is to loosen the standard's swing lock and pinch the carriage and bottom of the standard frame between my thumb and forefinger and pull my fingers lightly along the intersection of where they meet and then lock the mechanism. I repeat for the other standard. This takes maybe 8 seconds total. As long as you have locked the rails to the base, you are are in alignment. At least this is what works for me.

5) The controls ranged from very convenient, to quite inconvenient. The tilts and shifts and swings were OK, but the movement of the standards on the rails were not convenient, and became a pain when using wide lenses, since it would be very difficult to reach in and move the locking lever when the standards were close to each other. Sometimes it was impossible, so the camera had to be moved out of focus, just to unlock one of the levers. I have not used any other field camera, so I can't comment here, but this design seemed to work well for me only with lenses longer than 150mm.

If I am going to work with a normal or short focal length lens (shorter than 210mm), when setting up the camera I rack the rear rail back and move the rear standard half way up the rail (or more if the lens is shorter than 90mm), tighten, and rack the rail back to the normal position. Now mind you most of what I shoot with this camera is architecture, portraits, and landscapes so I am naturally (or maybe through stylistic choice...) not using a lot of complicated movements. I conceed that occasionally the need to do what you found confounding has arisen, but not so often as to frustate me.

6) The back of the bellows would fall out almost every time I would rotate the back (from horizontal to vertical and visa-versa). This was more annoying than dangerous, but still...

Yes this is annoying, especially if the camera is pointing even slightly upwards. My guess is that in the effort to save weight Keith didn't feel there was a need to add bellows locks.

7) Overall, I think this camera will appeal to people who prefer kitchen knife to a Swiss Army knife, and a shot gun to a sniper rifle. Also, it most likely will work best for someone who has enough experience to know why their shots are unsharp (was it wind, was it tripod shake, was it the loupe, was I tired, or was it the bloody non-lined-up standards on the Canham DLC?), i.e, to an experienced photographer, rather than to an amature like me. To me, it was important to eliminate as many variables as I could, and camera precision is one I am fortunate to have control over.

To carry your tool/weapon analogy forward, I think a DLC cameras is more like a jackknife or an AK-47 or an M1. Which ever butch metaphor you like, the real answer is that a tool is only as good as it's user, and as in all things, practice makes closer to perfect. I think yours are very thoughtful criticisms and I'll forward them on to Keith if you don't mind. I don't advise that newcomers to 4x5 get a DLC or an MQC., but I wouldn't recommend a Linhof Technikardan camera either; I would recommend either the ArcaSwiss Discovery, The Arca F-Line, or the Sinar F2. The metal Canham cameras are in my estimation the most versatile of the folding field cameras with capabilities far beyond the simplified press camera designs without the necessary underlying mechanical complexities of the Linhof TK cameras or the Arca F cameras (and of these two very fine cameras I am more inclined to use the Arca as a true field camera) If I had any sway with Canham cameras there certainly are things I would change but these are more in the nature of modifications, rather than wholescale changes.

I have owned the 5x7 MQC and the 4x5 reducing back for about 2 months now and would like to add a few general comments followed by a continuation of the discussion around item #4 in the original post, and its follow-up.

I first want to say that I love my MQC!!! It has to be the smoothest and finest large format field camera I have ever used. I find its set-up and take-down to be simple and efficient. I love the option of shooting 5x7, 4x5, and rollfilm in 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 using the appropriate rollfilm back for 4x5. I am intrigued by Keith's adaption of the "4x5 Internatioanl Standard" style back to 5x7. I hope the rumor that this was partly for a coming 6x17 rollfilm back for the MQC is true. This camera is everthing I had hoped for in a light / packable 5x7 field camera.

I have only one less-than-positive comment about my MQC, and it relates to the original poster's item #4. I will recall the discussion below, followed by my additional comments.

Prior discussion in italics:

4) The front and rear standard were not exactly aligned, but were rotated with respect to each other around the axis passing through their centers by several degrees. I found this very annoying, though it might not effect the picture. I saw another comment by someone else to the same extent, so this might be a design flaw.

I am confused by this remark. My technique to check side to side alignment with the DLC is to loosen the standard's swing lock and pinch the carriage and bottom of the standard frame between my thumb and forefinger and pull my fingers lightly along the intersection of where they meet and then lock the mechanism. I repeat for the other standard. This takes maybe 8 seconds total. As long as you have locked the rails to the base, you are are in alignment. At least this is what works for me.

Your confusion over the orignal statement is that you are both talking about rotations around a different axis. My MQC exhibits the originally stated rotation issue, which I have my own work- around for, but plan on speaking to Keith about in the near future. To clarify the problem, picture that you remove both the ground glass and lensboard and look through back of the camera, straight out through the front where the lensboard was. (ie. just look through the camera...) The issue is that the front standard on my camera is rotated slightly counter- clockwise relative to the rear standard when viewed in this way. (It is also evident in the recessed bubble levels on top of the standards, which is how it originally came to my attention.) Rotated by how much? Seems by about one degree. That should clarify the type of rotation the original poster's, and my camera, have in common.

My work-around is that, given that the rotation is so minor on my camera, I can "correct" for it by loosening the left-side front rise lock, as viewed from the rear of the camera, and applying some pressure to cause the rotation to be corrected, then re-locking in the "forced" position. I am lucky that there is just enough "play" to allow for the full correction of about one degree rotation. I am slightly bothered by the fact that the "normal" position has the rotation, but happy that it is small enough to be "corrected" using the above technique.

I don't imagine in most shots that the rotation mentioned above would come into play AT ALL even if left in the un-corrected position. I still always "correct" for it when setting up and leveling the camera before beginning to adjust any movements for the shot.

Completely un-related to the above, and in case anyone cares, I shoot almost solely with the Schneider 110XL Super-Symmar lens, and with a Finney pinhole / zoneplate turret lensboard. (The one available from Calumet made for use with the Zone VI wooden field camera.)

Keith was helpful and kind to recommend an easy solution to using the Finney turret board on the MQC, and saved me a lot of money in not having to buy a Wisner to Canham adpater. (Such an adapter is available from Lotus designed for use of Wisner boards on Canham cameras...) The solution was velcro-ing the Finney turret to the front of a standard Canham #0 lensboard. I'll just say it cost my about $1.85 in sticky back velcro, and works like a charm. (Thanks again Keith!!)

Well, enough writing. It's time to get back to shooting with my MQC.

8/28/99 I received my new Canham DLC two days ago. Yesterday was the first time I got out to do some shooting. This is the first LF camera I have had or used. My impressions are that it is a very well made and compact camera. I can not comment of movements as I really do not know enough about them to opine intelligently. I must say one thing however. I read a couple of comments regarding rigidity. My camera is very solid and rigid. No "floppyness" in the front or rear standards at all. To say the least I am very pleased with this lightweight, compact, rigid, and well engineered camera.

Overall, I have very few complaints about my Canham 45 DLC. In fact, I prefer the use of a non Technica/Linhof Board, simply because otherwise my wife might steal my lenses. She is a fine photographer who uses a Wisner traditional. I always wondered why those boards had an off center lens hole. Actually, this has become less of a problem, since my wife and I frequently travel separately now. Keith and Ron are both making good adapters, and as I tire of changing lenses, I may get these.

My real input is on the DLC controls. First I should state I do landscape and fine art photography, but have learned from the style of Mark Citret, an fine-art and commercial architectural photographer. I level my tripod head, attach the camera, and set my camera movements to zero. The levels on the Canham have been tested for parallel alignment with two mirror pieces and check out extremely well. This probably adds a few seconds to each setup, but keeps inadvertent movement errors to a minimum.

Keith has designed a fine camera, which I have used now for over two years. I have no inclination to get anything else, except maybe my old Nagaoka to carry in the car as a backup. The range of movements and flexibility of the bellows are spectacular, and allow this camera to do more than most system cameras without any additional pieces. I also feel this camera will remain usable for longer than many other woood and metal cameras on the market.

My only "gripe" is with some of the controls, and with the rigidity of the rear standard. Let me say that gripe is too strong a word, and that any of these comments are for constructive purposes.

All of Keith's "T" knobs are self adjusting and are excellent. The rise/fall slides on the sides of the front standard are also perfect.

I spoke to Keith originally about adjusting the swing lever and the shift knobs. The swing lever is held in alignment with double .050" allen screws (english not metric). If I had sent the camera back to him, he would have adjusted this to my liking for a nominal or no charge. But I wanted to keep the camera, and learn to adjust these myself.

The controls I have had difficulty with have been the swing lever and the knurled shift knobs. I made some initial adjustments to my camera to tighten the swing levers to allow it to lock down without intefering with the knurled shift knobs. This has 1) avoided use of swings except when needed and 2) made it easier to access the knurled shift knobs.

On many modern view or field cameras, the all metal knobs have been replaced by knobs with knobby rubber inserts, to make them easier to grip. My alternative is as follows. I cut rubber washers from reinforced 1/32" neoprene, and placed these under the shift knobs on both standards. The improvement has been remarkable, the shift is much easier to use. The knobs hold firmly and yet release easily.

Other people have spoken of overall rigidity of the DLC. The front standard is as rigid as anyone could ask for. The rear standard however is a different story. It seems "wobbly" even when firmly locked up. However, if the movements are tight, I am not aware of any pictures than have ever been have been ruined by this seeming lack of rigidity.

When working with my 90 mm lens for architectural work, and using combinations of rise/fall and shift movements, the rear standard can move out of parallel by the force of the compacted bellows even with the movements locked down. The rear standard is about an inch across, and rests on a piece of aluminum about 3" wide and 1/2" across. If this small piece were changed into an inverted "T" an inch across, I believe the rear standard would be greatly rigidized. My measurements indicate there is clearance for this without changing any other part of the camera.

That concludes my comments about the Canham 45 DLC.

In may previous comment about the DLC 4 x 5 metal camera, my final comment was about the rear standard being a little "wobbly", and when using wide-angle lenses, large rise/fall movements can cause the back to deflect out of parallel, even when the movements are fully tightened.

First, I would like to correct my previous comment, that adding a metal flange on the bottom of the small metal( approx. 1/2 x 3#) piece the groove in the rear standard rides on. This would greatly rigidize the camera, it was claimed. It is actually the top piece, which is slotted to allow for the shift and tilt movements, has a very thin cross section in its center. A slight increase in this area would rigidize the rear standard greatly. The standard is actually more rigid when full rear shift is used.

Second, I bought a Toyo recessed board for my Super Angulon 90mm F8, and this reduces the problem considerably. Costs about $90, and requires a special adapter for the cable release. Very tight access to the controls, but it basically solves the problem.

More information