December 2002
To say it right away: none of them is perfect. Both work well but each of them has got her particular shortcomings . The Deardorff is a somewhat flappy machine especially with a heavy lens attached. The well designed instability is especially apparent, when you do close up work and look at the extension racks under full draw. There is considerable bend which makes the dangerously underdimensioned design quite obvious. While this makes the camera light and sleek it also makes it weak. The ZONE VI has no such problems but I don't care in particular for the vertical shift design of the front standard that manages to annoy me every time I have to use it. The main difference between the two cameras is of course the format. 8x10 means bulky and heavy. 4x5 is neat and small - I'm always amazed how little storage space the ZONE VI requires. But as soon as you have the negatives in the enlarger then you realize what all that weight is worth. Even though the 4x5 negatives are of good resolution and of reasonable size they are no match for the 8x10s. 8x10 inches is an entirely different league. It all depends on what your ultimate goal is of course. For the kind of photography I practice I think of the 4x5" format as minimum and 8x10" as sufficient. There were times when I even thought of going up to 11x16" but this would mean even more weight, cost and restrictions on the depth of field. With a 300mm standard lens life is already far from easy in that department. Tripod. If you have got a heavy camera you need something sturdy to support it as well. For this I use a RIES J100 tripod with a J250 double tilt head. Except for the purchasing price I find this combination very reasonable and practical. Film holders. From the two available builds (wood or alloy-chassied plastic) I use mostly wooden holders for 8x10 film - budgetary reasons mainly. The more modern plastic ones are to be preferred though. One has far less trouble with light leaks. But they are also heavier - not to be overlooked when it comes to long hikes. Optics. One lens for each format here. As mentioned above already, for the Deardorff it's the 300mm Nikkor W. Heavy but bright. The Zone VI goes with a light 135mm Rodenstock (that has got the same max aperture of f5.6), but the image on the ground glass is considerable less bright than that of it's 8x10 companion. And this is one of the reasons I prefer to work with the Deardorff. Focusing in general is much easier because of the larger and brighter ground glass projection. The camera also feels smoother during adjustment then the smaller 4x5. There every small movement has dramatic effects, whereas the 8x10 gives you more tolerance, because of larger grounds to cover. I clearly prefer to work with the Deardorff, especially when things have to happen quickly and there is no time to tinker around with a loupe. Plus I can do reasonable close up work because of the generous bellows extension capability. My camera also has the nice front swing feature, which I find very helpful, especially for architecture photography where the camera isn’t always perfectly centered and right angled (for what you might call ‘artistic’ reasons) to the subject facing. Conclusion. If somebody would ask me about my favorite camera, I would have to say that (all drawbacks considered) it definitely has to be the Deardorff. Nevertheless there is nothing seriously wrong with the ZONE VI - except that it's (in this case) 'just' a 4x5. =) |
