New 6cm x 17cm Canham roll film back

The new Canham 6x17 roll film back may soon be shipping to retailers. Street price is around $1100.00. Does anyone know yet if this back will fit a variety of 5x7 cameras?
I posted a similar question earlier this week on Photo.Net. Although nothing is solid until the manufacturer gets this product out and we get feedback from the large format field, some of us are curious enough to try to put 2 and 2 together with really incomplete data (An always fun excercise).
Contributions in the form of educated guesses and third-hand hearsay are therefore welcome.
Best regards,
John Randall

I was under the impression that the Canham back was only designed for Keuth Canham's own 5x7 cameras and that it would not fit other makes. But it will be interesting to see!!

Folks,

The Canham back is here. Motor wound, powered by a 9v battery. Robert White reports that Arca Swiss should have an adapter plate early in the year (I think, I'm not sure I understand English ;^)). Jeff Wheeler of Quality Camera in Atlanta reports that an ABS camera using this back from Mike Walker is in the works, ETA March-ish if you believe manufacturer's schedules, price point $2,500 for the camera and back, but no back movements.

http://www.canhamcameras.com/Roll%20film%2...ck%20index.html

Thanks!

Steve

Steve, Good sleuthing! I'll be interested in further posts that address compatability with (hopefully) this or that older 5x7 camera. Methinks this is going to take some time

Best regards,
John Randall

Folks,

A little more info. The Canham back has a "chip" in it that will remember what frame you're on if the battery dies and you replace the battery mid-roll.

The Walker camera is being built to do both 4x5 and 6x17, although i'd have a hard time buying into no back movements.

Thanks!

Steve

I wonder what the benefit of that back is. Ok - there are more film types available than 5x7 sheet film. But you can crop a lot of 5x7 sheet film before a $1100 back pays off. Or is it about converting a precision-gun into a machine-gun? Do you really go out shooting 6x17? And wouldn't you choose a GX 617, Technorama or Gilde in this case? Isn't panoramic format rather situation dependent? Will that back really help making a decision, how many film holders to carry with or leave at home? You will most likely end up with a heavier backpack.

Thilo,

Excellent points. I've previously thought through most of them on my own, but my answers probably won't be the same as anyone elses.

The reason the back is attracting such attention is that is the first affordable way to get into 617 unless you crop 5x7, and unlike 612, the first practical way to carry 4x5 and 617 capability together.

I don't go out and shoot 617 (because of the equipment cost), but I have been with folks who do and yes, I would go out and shoot 617, especially if I could also do 4x5. The reason I haven't and wouldn't choose a Fuji/Linhof system is that a 3-lens set on these cameras run $8,500 - $9,000 grey market, so if the Canham RFH cost doesn't make sense, these cameras are total insanity. Not to mention the Gilde that starts at $6,500 without a lens, about $15,000 for the high end body and 3 lenses. The 617 RFH cost is not all that much higer than a decent 612 back, and the formats look quite different to me.

I'm not really sure the format is more situation dependent, and this is a very thought provoking comment. I think the format is better suited to different compositions, but whether those compositions are more or less frequent is probably in the mind of the photographer.

A 617 back has several advantages, but only the buyer can decide whether it's worth it. 6x17 is the standard for stock, so if roll film is what people expect, that's what you give them. More film types as you stated. Better portability over 5x7 holders. I don't see precision decreasing any more than any other RFH on a 4x5 unless the back turns out to have film flatness problems. If I wasn't interested in shooting 617 fairly often, or only for myself, of course cropping 5x7 makes much more sense.

You also gain movements, no lens cost, any lens works that did before, and critical focusing of a gg, although you do lose the convenience of the scale-focusing viewfinder cameras. You also cannot carry a 3-lens Fuji/Linhof system with 4x5 system at all. With a RFH, I can carry it as far as I need, probably a couple of miles or more.

Does it get heavier? Sure. I use 4x5 quickloads/readyloads, so I'm only carrying 1 film holder anyway, and think I can add a 2-lb back without killing myself. I also use a real backpack - a Gregory Forester - that carries weight much more comfortably and only weighs 5.5 lbs empty compared to 12 lbs for the big Lowe Pros. There are lots of ways for me to save weight, including the best way, losing some of my own!


Thanks!

Steve

Steve,

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Steve Hamley @ Nov 21 2002, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The reason the back is attracting such attention is that is the first affordable way to get into 617 unless you crop 5x7, and unlike 612, the first practical way to carry 4x5 and 617 capability together.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

I was actually not aware that this is a back for a 4x5 (makes me wonder this can work). I always thought it would be designed for international 5x7 backs.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Steve Hamley @ Nov 21 2002, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not really sure the format is more situation dependent, and this is a very thought provoking comment. I think the format is better suited to different compositions, but whether those compositions are more or less frequent is probably in the mind of the photographer.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

I agree. I would even agree that our visual perception of scenic views is basically panoramic. And because of this, a photographer usually must pay special attention to the foreground. The result is a picture that presents a different view, stressing different aspects. The viewer has something to discover, he usually does not perceive on location, because of his panoramic perception. The most compelling panoramic pictures do make use of the inverse principle. In certain environments, our perception is not panoramic. Especially in more closed locations like a city or an even an interior. In these cases, a panoramic picture will open the same "different sight" to the viewer as the 1:1.3 aspect ratio would in a landscape picture.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Steve Hamley @ Nov 21 2002, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You also gain movements, no lens cost, any lens works that did before</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

I do not agree in this point. The movements are still limited by the mechanical capabilities of the camera. And if you really intent to crop a 5x7 to a panoramic format, you may ignore any vignetting outside the assumed frame.


Thank you for your interesting comments.

Thilo,

Pardon my lack of clarity. The back is for a 5x7. I plan to use a 4x5 back and the 6x17 RFH, but I did not make that clear. I realized it after I hit "send", of course.

So lenses that work on 5x7 should be O.K.

Thanks!

Steve

Thilo, one of the advantages of these RFHs is that you can build your own camera around them, thus avoiding the cost of Linhof or Gilde cameras. When making your own cameras the roll film holder is the most difficult part to make. I know, I have built my own 6x24cm rollfilm camera.
And yes, I agree with you, for landscapes our natural way of seeing is very much panoramic. Panoramic pictures must be read in a different way, allowing for a more meditative vision which makes for a greater impact on the viewer.
Beware, the panoramic RF backs are quite addictive though, you can easily end using them more than LF cameras with film holders...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (George @ Nov 21 2002, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Beware, the panoramic RF backs are quite addictive though, you can easily end using them more than LF cameras with film holders...</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
George,

thank you for your comments. I do own a 6x12 Calumet Back for my 4x5 and I never took it into the field. Nevertheless, I never felt missing a panoramic shot. I do always carry a set of passepartouts (cut black/white mats 4x12cm, 6x12cm, 9x12cm, 4x5") with me. They fit onto the ground glass on demand, but are usually used as a framing aid before I even unpack the camera. For me, the 6x12 back simply does not add any functionality but weight. There is a world of panoramic frames that can be assumed on a 4x5 sheet. And you may even revise a framing decision in the darkroom afterwards. If I wouldn't use my 6x12 back occasionally for architecture (when I usually take the big box in the car), I would have sold it already.
But it's just my personal point of view.

"For me, the 6x12 simply doesn't add any functionality but weigth" (Thilo).
Sure, everyone is different in its approach, no problem with that. For me it was just the opposite - once tried, I quickly realised that I can take more pictures without the hassle of film holders and at a better price. Today I have 3 cameras made around the Calumet 6x12 RFH. Sincerely, I'm affraid I will start making the 4th one too... ;-) (Were it only of a better quality, since it needed adjustments...)