Looking for feedback on the Arca Swiss 4x5 F-Metric

[agregov]

i've been using an F-field for the past 5 years. I shoot a lot of architectural work and it's a great fit if you like precise movements. I didn't like the traditional folders--movements weren't tight enough for precision work. I did not get the metric so I have no opinions to share there other than to agree with some posters on having geared rise/fall would be nice. That's the movement I use the most for architecture and having to untighten knobs on both sides of the standard and work with two hand is a bit of a pain. I doubt the weight difference will be much. I do highly recommend getting Orbix--yaw free (axial) tilt. That'll be important for landscape shooting. The conversation around the 141 versus 110 front standard, if I had to do it over again I might go with the 141. The rise/fall is limited with the 110. If you're mostly doing landscape, might not matter. But for architecture I do hit the max rise/fall frequently with the 110. I doubt the weight of the 141 front standard is much of a difference. The collapsable rail makes the camera compact and a quick setup. You should be able to find a number of backpacks to hold it. The 4x5 kit is very stable and firm on a tripod. The conversion into an 8x10 is a nice option for the Arcas. As an 8x10, Arcas are among the lightest options out there. I do agree with a poster on the 8x10 conversion--the back standard is a bit wobbly. But a little wobbliness is worth it in exchange for a 8-9 pound 8x10. One accessory that you might consider is a viewing bellows. It's pricey but you can use the camera without a darkcloth. I like that it maintains the traditional upside down image on the ground glass as opposed to the reflex viewer. It's more compact than most darkcloths. And it has a 2x lens in the viewer cup that allows you to stay closer to the ground glass as well as see the image larger. It's great for city shooting. All in all, I've enjoyed the 4x5 Field camera and have no plans of switching platforms. And a shoutout for the Arca rep, Rod Klukas. First class guy and wonderful to work with.

That said, the only other camera that looks like a good match for me (for architectural) is an Ebony non-folder. Richard Sexton, an architectural shooter, has a good review on the Ebony site (45SU). He used to be an Arca shooter so you might find his review helpful. I agree with his sentiment on much larger rise/fall of the Ebony--awesome for architectural. And simply removing your camera from your case and plopping it on a tripod seems like the way to go. I doubt the size would be much bulkier than a Arca 4x5 with folded rail. While I don't have issues with the folding rail on my Arca, not having to unscrew the and de-collapse the rail every time you want to use it would be a bonus. And the Ebony non-folders have very precise movements which I have not experienced using friends Ebony folders. Price would probably be comparable to the Arca.

http://www.ebonycamera.com/rev/45SU.Sexton.html

[Theodoros]

What I don't like about the F-line, is that the swing mechanism is below the side shift mechanism. This means that if one swings and side shifts at the same time and on the same standard, he will have the entrance pupil of his lens repositioned to a different plane (parallel to the lens board) thus causing distortion of the image recorded on the image area, as well as different focusing distance than if there was no swing applied.

To my knowledge, the Sinar P series and the Arca Monolith are the only cameras that have taken care of having all shift mechanisms below the swing and tilt ones and thus ensure yaw free operation when combination of movements is applied, on all other cameras (please correct me if I'm wrong), one is better off if he swings/tilts with the front standard only and then shifts/side shifts using his rear standard (if combination of movements is required).

That said, even with the Monolith or the Sinar P series of cameras yaw free operation is only secured if the entrance pupil of the lens and the image area surface on the rear standard is positioned on the lens board (for the monolith) or on a plane parallel at 3cm distance to the lens board (on the Sinars), which usually can't be the case unless if one converts the cameras so that there is adjustment for the lens entrance pupil position and for the image area plane... Further more, such a conversion (which requires the front and rear frames to be sliding on the standard) can only be done for the Sinars and (additionally) only if the entrance pupil is positioned at (exactly) 12cm radius with respect to the tilt mechanism's arc....

It sounds difficult, but the conversion on the Sinar P series is quite easy to apply and then the results are very beneficial indeed. I have designed such a conversion kit for my P2 (new front & rear standard frames of circular shape both with L shape base that slides on an Arca swiss compatible slot and then new bellows) and will proceed to convert the camera by the end of the month. Additionally, the rear mount allows for a Sony α7 mirrorless, or a DSLR, or an MFDB (with or without sliding frame) to be used on the rear standard and for MF lenses, or even for 35mm ones if a mirrorless camera is used, on the front standard.

[Greg]

What I don't like about the F-line, is that the swing mechanism is below the side shift mechanism. This means that if one swings and side shifts at the same time and on the same standard, he will have the entrance pupil of his lens repositioned to a different plane (parallel to the lens board) thus causing distortion of the image recorded on the image area, as well as different focusing distance than if there was no swing applied.

To my knowledge, the Sinar P series and the Arca Monolith are the only cameras that have taken care of having all shift mechanisms below the swing and tilt ones and thus ensure yaw free operation when combination of movements is applied, on all other cameras (please correct me if I'm wrong), one is better off if he swings/tilts with the front standard only and then shifts/side shifts using his rear standard (if combination of movements is required).

That said, even with the Monolith or the Sinar P series of cameras yaw free operation is only secured if the entrance pupil of the lens and the image area surface on the rear standard is positioned on the lens board (for the monolith) or on a plane parallel at 3cm distance to the lens board (on the Sinars), which usually can't be the case unless if one converts the cameras so that there is adjustment for the lens entrance pupil position and for the image area plane... Further more, such a conversion (which requires the front and rear frames to be sliding on the standard) can only be done for the Sinars and (additionally) only if the entrance pupil is positioned at (exactly) 12cm radius with respect to the tilt mechanism's arc....

It sounds difficult, but the conversion on the Sinar P series is quite easy to apply and then the results are very beneficial indeed. I have designed such a conversion kit for my P2 (new front & rear standard frames of circular shape both with L shape base that slides on an Arca swiss compatible slot and then new bellows) and will proceed to convert the camera by the end of the month. Additionally, the rear mount allows for a Sony α7 mirrorless, or a DSLR, or an MFDB (with or without sliding frame) to be used on the rear standard and for MF lenses, or even for 35mm ones if a mirrorless camera is used, on the front standard.

Very interesting... would love to see images of your conversion.
thanks

[Theodoros]

Very interesting... would love to see images of your conversion.
thanks

Here is the first drawings before the CAD/CAM final design Greg. This is part of a project where a new camera will soon be available, but there will be a conversion kit for the Sinar P-series of cameras too which will be using the same front and rear frames, bellows, lens boards and camera/MFDB mounts... (I'm sorry I can't provide the final CAD/CAM design before the project is in production but I can ensure you the project is in its final stage where some minor modifications are applied as to maximise quality).

The new camera coming, will be of only 185mm of height and 95mm of width, with all shift, side shift, tilt & swing mechanisms on both standards and completely yaw free operation on both standards despite the sensor size or the type of lens used as both frames are adjustable to correct for this. There will also be an additional mechanism available as an extra for each standard, which will allow the two standards to be angled with respect to the main rail for cases when one uses the rail in an angle (much like the Sinar P & the Monolith only can) this later mechanism will add another 21mm of total height to the camera (if added).



EDIT: Note that the rear frame disk is of 72mm internal diameter (with respect to the front frame 85mm internal diameter - which is the Balpro & the Rollei X-Act2 standard) so that the grip of a Sony mirrorless or of a mirror box DSLR can be recessed by it, but at the same time it allows a 54mm width MFDB to fit without restrictions in the same image circle. When a sliding frame is used for focusing the MFDB, the mounting diameter of it is at 82mm of diameter and it is attached on the outer perimeter of the rear frame. There is also provision for one to use a focal plane shutter on the MFDB adapters (In the 2.1 cm of space that exists in-between the image area and the rear mounting frame.)

Specifications of the new camera will be for 60mm of shifts and side shifts (+/-30mm) 40degs of tilts (+/-20degs) & 100degs of swings (+/- 50degs)... Rigidity will be phenomenal!

[neil poulsen]

. . . One accessory that you might consider is a viewing bellows. It's pricey but you can use the camera without a darkcloth. I like that it maintains the traditional upside down image on the ground glass as opposed to the reflex viewer. It's more compact than most darkcloths. And it has a 2x lens in the viewer cup that allows you to stay closer to the ground glass as well as see the image larger. It's great for city shooting. . . .

I happened to pick up the following (161015) adapter needed for the viewing bellows, along with some other accessory that I had purchased.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_161001.html

It's dimensions line up just about perfectly with those of a Sinar bag bellows, which doubles as the viewing bellows for Sinar cameras. The following links to a DIY thread that describes how to use the much less expensive Sinar bellows viewing system on an Arca.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...a-Swiss-Camera

It's a bit bulky for a backpack, but it works fine. Attaching a strap, and both hands are free to make camera adjustments. (e.g. to adjust rise on the non-metric camera.) The Sinar viewer also has magnified lenses that easily swings into position.

The Arca version costs $732 new at B&H. Purchasing the adapter (161015) new at $188, and purchasing the needed Sinar parts used, this hybrid system can be easily put together for less than $400.

[12pmc]

Thank you all for the wide spread of comments and guidance; as usual on this site the extent of knowledge is tremendous! I have now gathered a good feeling for the Acra Swiss Metric and its flexibility. (Rory I know well that sea water and cameras do not mix having spent many years at sea and using cameras. I can tell you for what it is worth, that the old Nikon F2a was the most robust camera and continued to function regardless of many dousing with waves - albeit with duct tape sealing back flap...) My next question would be how does the Linhof Techinkardan measure up against the Arca Swiss Metric ? I currently use a Technika IV but want a camera with more reach in the bellows and easier use of wide angel lens.

Thanks
Peter

[biedron]

I can't say about the Techinkardan, but the current, 141mm rear / 110mm front AS 4x5 Field and Metric models will handle a 55mm wide angle without a recessed lens board, and a Nikkor 500mm Telephoto (flange focal length of about 350mm) using the same, standard bellows. The Nikkor 500T will be pushing the limits though - infinity focus and perhaps a little closer.
Bob

[Theodoros]

Thank you all for the wide spread of comments and guidance; as usual on this site the extent of knowledge is tremendous! I have now gathered a good feeling for the Acra Swiss Metric and its flexibility. (Rory I know well that sea water and cameras do not mix having spent many years at sea and using cameras. I can tell you for what it is worth, that the old Nikon F2a was the most robust camera and continued to function regardless of many dousing with waves - albeit with duct tape sealing back flap...) My next question would be how does the Linhof Techinkardan measure up against the Arca Swiss Metric ? I currently use a Technika IV but want a camera with more reach in the bellows and easier use of wide angel lens.

Thanks
Peter

Peter, IMO it all depends on what one's priorities are... For instance, if one aims not to use a (smaller) digital image area in the future and only stick with LF sheet film then surely his priorities change... My priorities are to use my (both with multishot ability) MFDBs as well as my mirrorless and my mirrobox DSLRs with my view camera but I've ended up being a fanatic of geometrical accuracy (which directly reflects to a distortional image) too and thus, I can only speak on my priorities (which may differ to yours)...

As I said before, cameras that have their swing mechanism underneath the side shift mechanism, should NOT be used with combination of both movements on the same standard as this causes additional (geometrical) distort on the recorded image, if this isn't an issue for somebody, or if he can overcome the fact, then I would go for any of the choices you have and choose the sturdiest ones to use.

I've chosen the Sinar P2 for my own use, because it has all shift mechanisms below of all its tilt/swing mechanisms and additionally, because it's the easiest one to convert for extremely accurate (geometrical) use with MFDBs and DSLRs... but if I was to use the camera with 5x4 shift film too, the Sinar would also be my choice because one can fit the original 5x4 frames back on it within seconds... That said, I would also convert the original 4x5 frames of it (again very easy to do), so that they are aligned with the centre of the standards (would get rid of Sinar's original off axis parallel planes design) and would be careful to retain the centre of the image area and the entrance pupil of the lens (some call it the nodal point) on a plane as to intersect the swing mechanism's arc exactly at the centre of it...

To do that, I would add (simply bolt it on the existing holes but centred to the frame) a 5mm thick Arca swiss compatible rod underneath the frames so that they are of L shape (the base plate perpendicular to the frames) and then simply slot the frames instead of the circular frames of my conversion as it is described before in my previous comments. Then one has simply to readjust the shift mechanism so that the "0" position is at a minus value (-7mm usually) so that he corrects as to be exactly at the centre of the circle of which the swing mechanism's arc is part of... (120mm radius).

[mike rosenlof]

I have the F-line classic, not metric so I can only comment on what I've got. There's not a whole lot to say, it's well designed and well made. It just works and I don't have to worry about it. I have the 171mm standards front and back for 4x5. It fits well in a backpack when I move the standards together and put them in the pack on the 15 cm rail section.

Lately the camera spends most of its time with the 8x10 conversion back on it.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

My next question would be how does the Linhof Techinkardan measure up against the Arca Swiss Metric ?

Before I purchased my first Arca Swiss F-line, a 6x9 F-classic model (bought used; i should say: bought second-hand since I bought it from England ), I had carefully looked at the Linhof Technikardan brochures.
Actually I also had looked at the Baby Linhof 6x9 camera, but I immediately realized that had no use of a hand-held technical camera (I already had two 6x6 MF cameras), I had no need for a coupled rangefinder 6x9 camera.
The Baby Linhof 6x9 with its small lens boards appeared to be both a very desirable camera, but a very specialized camera, not able to take a wide variety of large format lenses avalaible either used of new.
Hence, I looked at the more modern Technikardan line, and realized that I had to make the choice between the 6x9 or the 4x5" Technikardan model. You cannot transform a Technikardan 6x9 into a 4x5".

I did not want to start with a 4x5" camera [this was probably a wrong analysis, this is another issue], I wanted to practice view camera movements, tilts and shifts, with rollfilm and the 6x9 format.
At the time (year 2000), Sinar did not offer any 6x9 camera, only various 4x5" models with, of course, many adaptable rolllfim backs.

So the logical choice for me was the Arca Swiss 6x9, much more compact than a Sinar, with its 110 mm lens boards capable of accepting almost all view camera lenses ever manufactured except the biggest (e.g. a 800 mm Apo Ronar ..).
I knew that some day I could expand my 6x9 F-line camera to a 4x5" with the tapered bellows and rear format frame without changing the function carriers.
Actually a few montrhs after I acquired my 6x9 F-classic, I met somebody who was really interested to buy my 6x9 F-classic camera, so eventually I decided to sell it and purchase a F-metric 6x9, expanded a few years later to a 6x9-4x5" "field" model.

When I bought my 6x9 F-metric, I had a discussion with Philippe and Martin Vogt here in Besançon about the 6x9 Arca Swiss models, they told me that US customers preferred 4x5 cameras and larger sizes, but Japanese customers appreciated the 6x9 models.
For sure when you compare the average size of cars or appartement or homes bewteen Japan and the US, you may understand why, in Japan, sometimes 'small is beautiful'