Intrepid 10x8

Lighter than my 5x4 as well; I went for the reducing back as the longer bellows (my 5x4 goes to 430mm) could be useful for longer lenses on 5x4.
 
look forward to results congrats must be wonderful to see that amount of detail!
 
Got one too. That is, ordered and payed, not yet received. Hopefully it will arrive within the next month.
 
My camera arrived last week. It has been a long wait, and the two film holders I ordered are still to come. I spent yesterday adapting a Sinar to Wista adapter I had lying around to fit. There are two basic types of these adapters. One is a circular hole with clamps in a Sinar board, and the other has a recess to take the Wista board, with a matching thin panel projecting from the back.

The Intrepid has a panel with a circular cut-out at the back of the mount. You can see this on the website illustrations. So my adapter board did not fit! I made a shim from 1/16" birch ply to space past the projecting part of the adapter, and a 1/8" piece of birch ply to make a Sinar-size mount, and backed it with some thin black cloth of a light trap. Then screwed the three parts together. I could have bought another adapter board, but adjusting this one to fit only took a few hours, including waiting for the paint to dry. I took pictures, so maybe I'll write it up. This is not an issue with the Intrepid design, of course.

I think the 1cm grid on the screen might be a bit too much - something about 1" would be more to my taste, but the screen is bright enough and focuses my 270mm f9 G-Claron without trouble. I will have to see if I can get out and use it this week.
 
I have my Intrepid 10x8 too.
Astonishing light, more robust than some reviewers have suggested and the focus action is smooth. It's not an Ebony, or even a Gandolfi, but the film doesn't know that and probably doesn't care. For a plain screen, it's not bad at all. I may add one of those cheap reading sheets to see if I like it.
I ordered a film holder too. Intrepid claim to be delayed by a last-minute improvement to the light-seal, which we must approve. Better a late delivery than a fogged film. Fortunately, I have some holders.
I have also got myself a red darkcloth to match the bellows.
I'll post a fuller account when I've done a bit more playing.
 
I popped round and finally collected mine this morning. I came back from the Photography Show with a bad cold (or worse) and still don't feel up to much. Nor does Sue; we bought a Sony a7riii at the show and have still to put the battery and memory card in, let alone see if it works! So unwrapping the Intrepid is another exciting job that is being put off for a few days.

The first impression was that it was light; the second, having seen Gemma wrap it carefully in bubble wrap (which bulks it out) and place it in a small carrier bag for me to take away was that it was small.
 
There is one tiny thing I've done to mine this morning.
The camera folds perfectly in portrait mode, but if you put it away in landscape mode, then top lug on the ground glass frame touches one of the struts. Not really a problem, but the frame is lifted by a few millimetres.
I cut a small wedge-shaped piece from the bottom of the lug and now the whole thing packs down snugly in either orientation. There doesn't seem to be any downside (so far). You will imagine that working on a frame with precious ground glass in it is a heart-in-mouth job. Gemma is a star.
 
I noticed that too. I am trying to decide on whether to make an adjustment, or just leave the camera back just short of parallel to the base when folding in this orientation. It is too much trouble to always store it with the back in 'portrait' mode. I have some trial exposures, so I will see if I can get them developed this weekend.

It is ridiculously light. I need to weigh it for real-world numbers. The published specifications, and adding in my 270mm G-Claron, gives 5lb 11oz. Four Fidelity 8x10 film holders come to 6lb. For comparison, my MPP VII (4x5, metal technical) with a 150mm lens comes in at over 7 lb on its own.

I am planning to weight down my tripod!
 
Another thing I discovered is that as the Intrepid is so small, it will just fit into a school-type rucksack that I bought in Ikea. Another Forum seems to have a permanent discussion on how to carry lesser (that is, bigger and heavier) cameras, in all sort of expedition- and military-grade equipment.
I've also made myself a ground-glass protector from soft foam (Apple packing foam, as it happens) and corrugated board. I'll do a nicer job in the future.
 
I've only had my Intrepid 10x8 for a short while so, maybe, time will tell a different tale... But, I don't see what all the ruckus is regarding the back needing to be in portrait orientation to fully close. This camera is so light and so easily carried around and placed into position, I'm figuring I'll only be closing it when putting it back into the pack for hiking back to the car. Besides, it takes less than a 1/2 minute to re-orient it.

Since the back screws can no longer fall out, here is my plan: with the back in portrait position for packing, I tighten the screws just a couple of turns making it quick and easy to change to landscape orientation. Once I'm done photographing, I'll place loosely back into portrait orientation for packing out. I guess it's an important note that I don't tend to take a single picture, then move miles, take another single picture, etc. Working this way would make the back orientation situation a little less tolerable. I tend to hike into an area that I'm interested in and work there until hiking back out.

I'd be a little nervous about leaving the back in landscape orientation with the camera slightly open because any pressure against the base or back (or both) might place strain where you don't want it. Just sayin...
 
Not really a ruckus. I just like fiddling. I didn't get it quite right either, because I was so worried about breaking the glass that I didn't cut quite accurately. I do think it's worth making some sort of protection for the screen.
It does seem to handle well in the field.
 
David M said:
Not really a ruckus.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a poor choice of word, but I've read similar "complaints" on other forums and on Intrepid's FB page. I don't like cutting into my new camera, regardless of how minor, so, for now, I'm going to work with it as is. As I said before, usage time will tell the tale on this one.
 
I got a spare from Gemma, before I cut into the first frame. If my modification didn't work, I would still have a working camera. In fact, it's very little trouble to return the back to portrait mode when packing up. Curiosity is sated for the moment.
 
I decided to invest in a reducing back for my 8x10, and I have finally had time to play with it.

Out of the box, and with a flat lens board, I think the minimum focal length is 110-120mm. The 5x4 film plane is some 10-15mm further back than the 8x10 film plane, and the minimum extension is set by the closest front standard mounting. Being a curious type, I fabricated a small bracket to let me mount the front standard some 33mm further back, and that allowed my 90mm f5.6 Caltar HR to focus at infinity when on it's flat Linhof/Wista board.

Using a recessed Sinar board ought to be enough, but I'm not about to remount my 90mm every time I want to use it on a different camera. The bellows are the limiting factor with a short lens like a 90mm. Swing and tilt are reasonable, but rise/fall is very limited. A recessed board would help here, too.

The rationale for using a reducing back on an 8x10 is a) film stock, b) effective image size on the film (short and long are easier to obtain on the smaller format), and c) simplifying equipment on an outing.

For me, a) does not really apply. I tend to use Delta 100 over HP5 in 5x4, and just HP5 in 8x10, but there is nothing I want to use that I can't get. Case (b) has some merit - I only have one lens for the 8x10 format, but longer and wider options at 5x4. I can enlarge 8x10, but it is more of an exercise than 5x4. And I am not interested in a digital second stage. Case (c) may actually be my best use, since it is a small extra effort to include some 5x4 holders and an extra
lens with the reducing back would allow for a change in plans. If I set 90mmCaltarHROnIntrepid810.jpg out with the 5x4, it is unlikely I'd hanker for the 8x10. Do I need it? Probably not. But then it is arguable that I don't /need/ the 8x10!

The picture shows my 90mm with my quick adapter to get infinity focus - a couple of pieces of scrap oak glued together, a hold of the normal screw knob, and a coach bolt for the new swing/shift pivot. You can see how compressed the bellows are. The lens panel is a modified Sinar-Wista adapter.
 
Thanks for the report, Graham. Personally, I've never really understood using a 5x4 reducing back on a 10x8; I always thought, 'Hey, if I'm going to lug the weight of the camera, holders, etc, I may as well shoot the largest format I can.' The Intrepid, of course, mitigates that logic somewhat due to it's light weight. That said, you certainly present some good arguments for going with a reducing back.

I became a backer on Kickstarter because I wanted a very lightweight 10x8 camera in which I planned to backpack with the camera, a couple of lightweight Fuji A series lenses, a couple of holders, and the carbon fiber tripod I use for the 5x4 outfits. If, when I'm out and about I want versatility, I'll grab my Toho outfit with its complete cache of lenses. Just my thoughts...everybody has their own needs, of course.
 
No doubt Intrepid would prefer to sell a complete 5x4 camera, but according to their blog, they produced the reducing back because of frequent requests from customers. As they already have the design and (digital) tooling for both the 5x4 back and the 10x8 back, it would be a simple project, I guess. Some users may want the longer extension of the 10x8 for long lenses or making close-up shots. Clearly its not a solution for wide angle lenses, but perhaps they will refine it. I suppose that a two-shot panorama back would be a logical addition, or 5x7, half-plate and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top