I am strongly considering buying this RFH. The reason I am considering a RFH this expensive, it's the only one which measures 120mm, while the others are in the 112 - 113 mm range. The full 120mm is mandatory for what I am doing. A user of this back wrote me and gave me some insight on this back which raised some questions. Since I can not get my hands on this back and can not find a good set of pictures, I am being cautious. I plan to use it in the field doing nature photoraphy.

This is a special order item, hence no returns. B&H price about $3,000. If anyone has first hand experience, I sure would appreciate input.

1. I hear the 220 insert is very cumbersome to use when loading and unloading film?

2. The back is not hinged and I was told it was cumbersome removing and re installing it. Is there a reason it would not be hinged? The comment from a user was, 3 hands would be helpful.

3. Is the back very heavy? Anyone have the weight of this back?

4. A user advised me the chance of film buckle is pretty good as the film must go around roller prior to being exposed. Bob S informed me this roller is large to reduce the film bend, but I am still wondering after several hours of non use if this buckle is strong enough to be noticeable in the image. For this type of price tag, I wish it had a straight path such as the Sinar.

5. I was told this is an old design, anyone know how long this model has been around?

6. If the age of this design is a bit older, could there poosibly be any problems with gg / film alignment with newer 4x5 cameras? I plan to use it on a Toyo VX125. I am not sure how long all camera makers have adhered to the same international standard?

7. I assume there is a counter on the back and the ratchet stops when the film is would to the next exposure? It's not the type you look through a window to determine when to stop cranking it?

Thank you very much.... Bill G

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 27, 2001

Answers

Oops, item 7 should say "wound", instead of "would", sorry....

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 27, 2001.

Bill, I haven't used the RFH in question but your B&H price of $3000 set off an alarm right away. Go to www.robertwhite.co.uk and you'll find him listing it for £998, or under $1500. Quite a difference! It's under his "Large Format - Other" listings. He is very honest, reliable and prompt, BTW; I deal with him frequently.

Regards, Danny www.dannyburk.com

-- Danny Burk (foto28@aol.com), September 27, 2001.

Hi,

as i don't use the 6x12, but other holders, just a few notes. Roll film will always tend to buckle, as you have in most holders (even Hasselblad etc.) a roll that changes the direction of the film. For the old rollex-holders you have to remove the gg before you shoot so an insert-holder such as Sinar or Calumet are easier to handle. If you prefer the flatness of yor "normal" film, just calculate the cost of the RFH and how many 4x5 films you can shoot for that money. I have an older 6x9 rollex which is use to it's end and a Calumet 6x7 that I bought for little money and I use them only for special tasks. I once saw a 6x12 used on eBay, but the price was too high so I stay to my 4x5 holders.

-- Thomas Vaehrmann (TVaehrmann@web.de), September 27, 2001.

techno rollex back is suppose to be the better RFH in term of film flatness, but sinar are good too ! With a techno rollex you have one format, while with the sinar zoom 2 you can use : 4.5x6/6x6/6x7/6x9/6x12! i know that the sinar is just 112, so this is perfect, in fact 6 is not six either : 56x112 it's two squares ! With the sinar you don't need to remove the ground glass (less dust inside the bellow!) i use myself a 6x6 super rollex, it's a perfect tool, but the weight ! and again, i need to remove the GG ! If i found a sinar RFH 6x7 i sell super rollex on the spot !

-- dg (sacripant@online.fr), September 27, 2001.

The Techno Rollex is NOT a special order item. We maintain it in open stock. That is why I could mame the measurements you wanted on it.

Casey's could have it in your hands by Saturday if it was ordered today.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), September 27, 2001.

Bob, I am curious why you did not answer any of my quesitons? You are the Linhof rep. If you don't have the answers, who does?

I know you like the facts... I assumed it was special order because here is what I read on the B&H site...

Note! This is a special order item. Estimated arrival at B&H 3-7 business days. You will be charged upon placing your order.

I mistakenly quoted the price above at $3000, B&H has it for $3,400 - for a roll film back? Oh well....

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 27, 2001.

Bill, as I've said elsewhere, my experience is that diameter of a reverse curl feed roller seems only to affect steepness of the ramps up to maximum bulge displacement. It doesn't appear to "cure" the inherent problem. Also, I've not seen evidence that *all* camera makers adhere to "the same" international standard for groundglass depth even today.

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), September 27, 2001.

Bill,

No experience using the Techno Rollex, but I was just on the phone with Jeff at Badger Graphic. He has the Techno Rollex in stock at $1295. Compared to "special order" at $3400, that seems like a heck of a deal.

Kerry

-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), September 27, 2001.

So there is absolutely no question in Bill's mind the dealer quoted you list price with a $33.00 discount.

The list price for a Techno Rollex in the U.S. is $3,433.00. Any dealer would be happy to meet the price you were quoted but any dealer local to you would sell it for much less.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), September 27, 2001.

Bob,

I was just at the B&H web site. The price on their web site is $2917.95 for the Techno Rollex. I'm assuming (always dangerous) the $3400 price Bill listed above included the 220 insert ($464.50 at B&H for a total of $3382.45 for the Techno Rollex + 220 insert).

Are you saying any dealer would be happy to match Badger's price of $1295? If so why the HUGE difference in advertised pricing ($2917.95 - $1295 = $1622.95) between B&H and Badger. Are you saying B&H would be happy to match Badger's price of $1295. If they would be happy to do so, why are they quoting such a ridiculous price on their web site and scaring away potential customers?

Also as Bill mentioned, B&H does consider this a special order item:

"This is a special order item. Estimated arrival at B&H 3-7 business days. You will be charged upon placing your order."

Badger has it in stock and ready for immediate shipment. I'm really getting confused by all theis "price matching" business. Wouldn't it be easier if the dealers actually advertised the items at the price they are willing to sell them. And if they don't, why would I even bother to call them once I already know Badger (or whoever) already has it in stock at a much lower price? It just doesn't make sense to me to make additional phone calls to try to find somebody else who may match a price I have already been quoted from a dealer who has the item in stock for immediate shipment.

Kerry

-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), September 27, 2001.

Bob, I don't kow what you are talking about. The $3400 price I mentioned was the discounted price that B&H sells both the back and the 220 insert. (read the post) So from what I gather, you are suggesting the list price of the Linhof 6x12 220 back is approx $4000? Wow...

I am still baffled with your 50 years experience with Linhof, why you did not respond to any of the technical quesitons I asked? If you do NOT want to answer these questions, is there anyone I can call at HP marketing that would answer my questions? I am curious why you invest your valuable time answering questions I never ask? Such as, pointing me in the direction of a local dealer? I never asked that question Bob? Is this the value added "customer service" we get for paying 2x grey prices?

BTW Bob, I am curious how the other prices quoted above can be so drasticaly lower than the USA prices I got quotes on? I know you are persistent in making people deal with their local dealer, but guess what Bob, we are the customer, and we do business the we see fit, not as you desire! When I spend thousands of dollars on photo gear, I consider many issues, such as price, track record of vendor, return policy, waranties, etc. The proximity of a specific vendor you have in mind is not an issue with me. I can have product shipped overnight from anywhere in the world faster than I can make a trip to a local retailer. And since we do not have to pay sales tax, the overnigh shipping is more than free. That's how the business world has evolved Bob, we are not in the 1960's anymore - so please stop suggesting a local vendor as I am intelligent enough to buy product where it's best for my business, not your business!

Thanks again for your valuable input.

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 27, 2001.

Bill, can you explain a bit about why "the full 120mm is mandatory" for what you have in mind? That might give folks here more ideas as to whether the tradeoffs inherent in the Techno-Rollex make sense for your application. FWIW, my own preference is for the Sinar 6x12 "Panorama" holder, which I was fortunately able to find used at an attractive price...

-- Oren Grad (orengrad@world.std.com), September 27, 2001.

Oren, here is the dirt... I am turning a 4x5 into a MF stereo camera by putting two lenses on a lens board with a 6x12 back. The goal is two 56x60 images. A septum will take up 1mm, so this is close to 56x60. But if I drop down to a 112 mm back, such as Sinar, then I am confronted with two images 56 mm long, that is too short as they need some "left to right" roaming room as the right and left chrome is mounted in the 50 mm square mounts.

If this size requirement was not an issue, I would clearly get the Sinar back as its many addtional features are very desireable. My other options as mentioned above is to shoot 4x5 and crop, but this can get very expensive when you consider how much film I shoot...

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 27, 2001.

Bill - thanks for the extra details. What can I say - that's about as specialized an application as I can think of! You refer to "50mm square" slide mounts, but do you mean "56mm square"? The mount question makes me wonder whether you can get mounts with a slightly smaller opening. Or could you get a machinist to fabricate some sort of film-plane mask to crop at the time of exposure? If you could crop the vertical dimension to 50mm, for example, you could still have a slightly elongated horizontal dimension even with your septum and within the standard 112mm of the Sinar or Horseman holders.

Another thought - could the new Canham 6x17 rollholder, perhaps with appropriate masking, work for you? You'd have to work with a 5x7 camera, of course.

I doubt there would be a problem with film-plane standard between the Techno-Rollex and the VX125, but you should be able to get exact specs on film plane register from HP and from MAC. If the 6x7 and 6x9 Super Rollexes I've handled are any indication, the Techno-Rollex should be quite heavy. FWIW, my Sinar Panorama weighs about 1.75 lb.; I'm sure the Horseman 612 back is the lightest of the bunch.

Loading rollholders with separate inserts takes a little bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it it's not that difficult in the field; I can load my Horseman 6x9 holders pretty quickly, without too much fussing. The Sinar holder is actually trickier to load, because the film threading is fussier, though because it can be used as a slide-in, it's very fast once you're actually shooting.

Whichever way you go, good luck with this interesting project!

-- Oren Grad (orengrad@world.std.com), September 27, 2001.

Oren... you wrote

"you should be able to get exact specs on film plane register from HP"

I thought so too! But as you can see above, the HP rep (Bob Solomon) does not always answer questions about his products? It seems he answers questions when it suits him, otherwise he ignores the request? I will try calling the HP office tomorow and find out if someone is willing to help their customer. You would think for something over $3k there would be a set of specs on it?

I answered Orens stereo questions off list as I felt the subject matter was drifting.

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 27, 2001.

"I am still baffled with your 50 years experience with Linhof, why you did not respond to any of the technical quesitons I asked? If you do NOT want to answer these questions, is there anyone I can call at HP marketing that would answer my questions?"

I answer your questions whenever you call. \ I do not answer endless questions on line as phone is much faster and efficient.

if you have question call them to me.

As I travel I don't see every post uyou make.

However the last time you called, if you remember, I took calibers and made the measurements that you asked about on a new back from stock.

See how easy it was?

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), September 28, 2001.

Geez Bob, in the length of time it took you to make that rather high handed response, you could have answered most of his questions. : - )

-- Brian Ellis (bellis60@earthlink.net), September 28, 2001.

>I do not answer endless questions on line, as phone is much faster >and efficient.

Thats odd, when I look through prior posts you write endless parpagraphs answering questions? The benefit of the list is you share your valuable Linhof knowledge with everyone, then you would not have to repeat yourself as it would be documented in the archives. This is the ultimate form of efficeincy for you Bob, can't you see that? Get into the new century!

> if you have question call them to me.

You have the quesitons above Bob, how much easier can I make it for you? try picking up the phone and calling the customer for a change? I pick up the phone and call all my customers!

> As I travel I don't see every post you make.

You must carry a lap top, because any issues with Linhof on this list you are one of the firsts to respond? Travel is not the issue above, you obviously are vigorously particpating.

> However the last time you called, if you remember,

I distinctly remember Bob, I did NOT call you, I emailed the same question twice, then you responded via email, NO CALL Bob?

>I took calibers and made the measurements that you asked about on a >new back from stock. See how easy it was?

Yes, I do, I emailed you the same question twice and you finally emailed a response. Yes, it's very easy, now try to continue doing the same, except respond here vs. my personal email account, is that so hard Bob? Aren't us customers a drag with such crazy requests?

(Bob, a little sales secret, do as your customers ask, instead of forcing your methods and ideals down their throat - who knows, you might gain back some of the many customers you lost?)

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), September 28, 2001.

Why do so many posters on this list get so nasty with Bob Solomon from HP Marketing? Geez! You'd think from the tone of some postings that Bob participating in this forum a consitutional right granted to the forum. If Bob wishes to participate we should say thank you and be done with it. If we don't like the tone of his posts we can ignore them or delete them. I'm sure we could all come up with a list of posters whose comments we find annoying, grating, etc.

By the way, how many other manufaturer's reps are regular participants here?

-- Dave Schneider (dschneider@arjaynet.com), September 28, 2001.

"Geez Bob, in the length of time it took you to make that rather high handed response, you could have answered most of his questions. : - ) "

That is prehaps obviuus but what isn't is that I am on the road. travelling, for more then a week and don't carry everything withme that is needed to answer long questions that are out of the ordinary.

If you call the message gets forwarded to me and, if research is needed, I can have it done before calling by asking various people.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), September 29, 2001.

Just picked up this request for Techno Rolex info. I have used this back for the last ten years.IMHO it is probably the best engineered piece of Linhof equipment I have had the pleasure to use. Film flatness is not an issue, yes it is a litle heavier than the Horseman but not as huge as a Sinar zoom. If you do intend to buy one, I am sure you would not regret itas it will last a lifetime. I would suggest Robert White in the UK, www.robertwhite.co.uk - very reliable and efficient service - no I do not get a commision!

ATB Alan D

-- Alan Davey (alan@bdcreative.com), October 02, 2001.

I should add that the design is hinged and is very similar to the Horseman, just much better built. Although it has been around for many years it is still a thouroughly up to date design, and I would not anticipate problems with a Toyo.Have had no experience of 220, but as you have probably realised I do like this back very much.

-- Alan Davey (alan@bdcreative.com), October 03, 2001.