Arca swiss 6x9 for architecture photography

[keng]

Hi all.


I'm new to LF and planning to purchase Arca swiss F Metric compact 6X9 for architecture

photography.
Here're my questions:

1 Lenses lineup: 47 - 65 - 150, Good choice for architecture? Is 47 MM wide enough? Do i need
to go as wide as 35?
2 using Schneider 47 MM XL ,Do i need a bag bellow and recessed lens board(7 MM?) or just a
standard universal bellow+ recessed lens board?
3 reflex viewer, How many type are they? (I've seen Binocular and "Mono" viewer.)
4 Do I need micrometric orbix? or just "dynamix orbix" is enough?.

Any other comments are welcome!
Thanks for your help.

[Kirk Gittings]

Don't own the Arca, but I do shoot Architecure in a VC with 6x9. See www.gittingsphoto.com. So:

1) I use a 47,65,90,150,210,305. Get Copal Press shuttters if you can for multiple pops with flash. The longer focal lenghts 210, and 305, are used rarely. I have never seen the need for a 35. Too much distortion.

2) You will need a bag bellows I believe. I don't know about the recess board. Try to avoid it if you can.

3) I don't use one. No need.

4) I don't know what these are.

I use the Calumet/Cambo 6x9 roll film backs. I carry 4 of them.

[Lei Meng]

I have Arca 6x9/4x5 and 47, 72, 90, 240 lenses.

1) Looks good.
2) For 47XL, I use both bag bellow and recessed board -- even under this condition, the operation still feels tight.
3) I never used it.
4) Although I don't have micrometric orbix, I recommend you get one. It will make front tilt much easier and more precise. Moreover, since you will get a F-matric version which has geared front shift, why not get a micrometric orbix to make tilt also controllable?

Btw, if you consider buying a used Arca, let me know. I am thinking to sell my system (F-Classic).

[GPS]

The bag belows is indeed limiting for the 47mm. I made my own bag belows and have full freedom of movements. It was even cheaper than the official version...

[Leonard Evens]

I find that extreme wide angle lenses have to be used with extreme care with architectural subjects because of the "perspective distortion" resulting from the fact that prints are seldom viewed from the center of perspective. With 4 x 5 I generally use my 90 mm lens in preference to my 75 mm lens, but I prefer to use my 150 mm lens if I can get far enough back from the subject. Of course, there are situations where you can't get very far back, and in that case an extreme wide angle lens is the only choice, but I've found that to be the case only rarely.

It is a bit difficult to compare 4 x 5 to 6 x 9 because of the difference in aspect ratios. For many years I used a Horseman Technical 6 x 9 camera, but most of the time with a 6 x 7 roll film back. Even when using 6 x 9 format, I cropped for printing to the 4:5 asepct ratio. My shortest focal length was 65, and I found that and I found that a trifle too long in some cases. I am happier using 90 mm with 4 x 5.

6 x 7 has the same aspect ratio as 4 x 5 and for that the mutiplier/divider is 5/3. Here are some rough comparison sequences.

6 x 7: 47, 55, 65, 80, 90;

4 x 5: 80, 90, 105, 135, 150.

What may be more important than the focal length is the image circle and the ability ot take advantage of rise within that circle. Short focal length lenses often have relatively small image circles and many cameras allow for limited rise for short focal length lenses. A wide angle lens without adequate rise will typically present you with a large empty foreground, and a somewhat longer lens with adequate rise may allow you to frame the subject better.

[giancatarina]

1 Lenses lineup: i'm using 58xl, 80xl, 110xl, 150 apo sironar S, ans rarely a G claron 305
i tend to use the 80 everytime is possible, it looks more "natural" compare to the 58
Sometime i miss a 47xl, but rarely ! but i miss a 210 !

2 lens board(7 MM?) or just a standard universal bellow+ recessed lens board?
arca recessed lens board are far better than the linhof type, while it's not necessary, i'm using a recessed lens board even with the 58...
i recently bought the wide angle bellow, and using it with my 58xl and my 80xl.

3 reflex viewer(I've seen Binocular and "Mono" viewer.)
for arca Fline 69 there's just one binocular... a very good choice !

4 Do I need orbix?
actually, most of time you can't use tilt or architecture... but i will take the dynamic anyway !

don't forget to buy a good tripod head... for your camera, a bogen/manfroto makes sense (micrometric as well !).

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

As an alternative, the Ebony SW23 is a good choice for architecture. It focuses my 47XL on a flat board with full rise, and is very quick to set up.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

I have an Arca Swiss 6x9 metric compact with foldable rail. I can answer most of your questions, and beyond, since my office is located 5 minutes from Arca Swiss International ;-)

The recommended configurations for use with short focal lengths from 35 to 55 are listed on page 19 of the Arca Swiss catalogue that you can download from here
www.largeformatphotography.info/arca-swiss.html
www.largeformatphotography.info/ARCA.pdf

For the 47XL, the manufacturer recommends the 7mm recessed board for the classic model, the mertric version can bring both standards closer so you'll not need the recessed board.
There are 3 leather bellows

The standard covers from 55 to 150 ref 071000

The wide-angle is similar to the standard but with fewer pleats ref 071010

The new ultra-wide bellows is a flat & square bag bellows designed for ultra-short "digital" lenses 35 mm and shorter ref 071011 ; this bellows is not yet listed in the downloadable catalog mentioned above. You probably don't need it with the 47.

So probably you'll need the wide-angle pleated bellows ref 071010, with the metric a flat lensboard is enough.
I'm using the apo-grandagon 55 on a flat lensboard. It will focus easily on the standard 071000 bellows, the 071010 will alow more movements.
I know a professional architecture photographer in Lyons, France, who owns the 35 Rodenstock, the 47 and the 58 Schneider, he uses them all on his Arca Swiss 6x9 classic. But the 47 is probably enough to start with. I already find the 55 not so easy to manage, not because of the camera which handles the 55 and movements extremely comfortably, but for example outdoors, it becomes difficult to avoid the photographers' shadow to appear in the field !!

Another remark concerns the choice between the manual Orbix® ("dynamic") or the geared Orbix® ("metric").
I have the manual Orbix® installed, it is a true joy to use but you should get trained to push exactly at the right place, the device is self-locking and does not move except if you push exactly at the right place.
In winter with mittens this becomes tricky, therefore a friend of mine who lives in a cold and mountaineous place of the Swiss Jura has opted for the geared Orbix® as an add-on to his Discovery®. His arguments are convincing.
So if you intend to use your camera with gloves in winter, the geared orbix is more convenient, but you'll loose the tactile pleasure of the manual orbix... More seriously : the geared orbix is easier to operate with one hand ; so you can focus with the right hand and tilt with the left hand in a continuous operation.

Regarding the viewfinder : I was lucky to find a second hand 6x9 binocular viewfinder. For shooting sessions where I can carry all accessories, the binocular viewfinder is a pleasure to use, especially in low light levels. For example I have used it to take pictures inside a church with only available light, it would have been difficult with a single loupe ; do not forget that the 6x9 ground glass is quite small. You can tilt the mirror angle to optimize the distribution of light whan you're using a wide-angle lens, this is very important.
When I backpack, I usually take a loupe to save weigth and volume and leave the bino viewer at home, but focusing in the corners even with a 55 on a 6x9 ground glass is tricky. The bino viewer is an extremly useful accessory for the 6x9 format. the 6x9 model is not so big. In 4"x5" the bino reflex viewer is less useful and more bulky... but this is so comfortable !!

[neil poulsen]

I'm wondering, what's driving you towards 6x9, and do you currently have a 4x5?

I thought seriously about 6x9, but with a medium format back for 4x5, I get all I need from an Arca 4x5. I can use any lens I need, from 47mm and up. (And with the right recessed board, from 35mm on up.) The primary difference between 4x5 and 6x9 is the couple of pounds of weight it adds, and for me, this is offset by the advantage of diminishing internal flare offered by the larger bellows. (I HATE flare!)

The thing is, if it doesn't already, 35mm digital will soon rival medium format quality. A Canon full-frame 5D sells for just about the same price as the 6x9 Arca. So, unless one's planning on getting a high end medium format back, where's the future in 6x9? However, it'll be a long time before affordable digital catches up with the quality one can achieve with 4x5, scanned or otherwise.

As I said, I was just wondering. The above logic applies to my situation, but I'm not sure it applies to yours.

[Frank Petronio]

You'll probably be able to buy a 22mp back for around $10K in the next year or so. The newer 39mp backs will command a premium, making the older 22mp backs a "bargain". Frankly, I think the 22mp size is probably all that you practically need, and I would choose a back based on workflow as the next criteria.

Arca makes a "balloon" bag bellows that is better suited for ultra wides.

I would consider the digital lens if you are sticking to medium format. Some can cover 6x9 with movements.