Thank you all very much for the advice! I am currently a junior in college working on my bachelor's degree in photography, so if I do end up buying the Arca it's going to take some saving. And I'm also gonna have to sell some more photographs to justify spending that kind of moneyBut you all provided me with insightful information that is very much appreciated.
I've never regretted buying an Arca, never regretted returning a rented Sinar.
If only I was a dentist, I'd buy another one-
You know Frank still has an older Arca-Swiss for sale in the for sale section. No it aint the F-Field but its still Arca. Now seeing is you have a Sinar you might consider a lightweight wooden field camera as a combo to go with the heavier Sinar for a lot cheaper than the F-Field.
And you might also consider my route of a Discovery and add a folding rail. It is 95% of the camera, only 10% larger, but 50% or more cheaper.
That is a great idea Darren, thank you. I am going to look into it!
Glad to help. The Discovery is a great camera. The 171mm standards are a smidge bigger than the 141 rear 110 front on the current F-field but the slight increase in bulk is worth it for the reduced price.Originally Posted by KyledeC
Remember the Discovery as it shipped had a non-folding rail but add in the folding (or really the telescopic too) really makes it a great field camera.
Especially if you add the adapter to a smaller lens board like the Linhof or the 110 Arca boards. Finally if you like lenses wider than 135 you will want the bag bellows. Speaking of bellows, I have the regular, wide angle vinyl bag, and the wide angle leather bellows too. The leather wide angle is by far the best of the three. It is useful with any lens upto a 210mm and is a much better bellows than the vinyl.
Now a used Discovery, lensboard adapter, folding rail and a bag bellows will set you back $1500-1800 depending on what you can find used, but that is a significant savings over an F-Field.
You can see some write-ups I did about using the Discovery and some images with various bellows on my large format blog.
http://thetravelingcamera.blogspot.c...ss%20Discovery
I'd love to sell the older Arca but... actually to be honest, a 171mm Arca Swiss -- either the older or the later F series -- is just as bulky as a Sinar Norma or F. The base can be smaller than the Sinar but the frames are actually a good inch larger all the way around. And frankly holding both in hand, the Arca is lighter... by a little bit. Not a lot.
To me at least, they seem close enough in bulk-weight to say, why bother? And with the price of a decent Sinar F hovering under $300, you'd have to want to waste money -- you'd have to be working for the government -- to buy an Arca for 3x to 15x more.
Now if you want a 141mm with Orbix it will be a thing of beauty, no question. But if you're borrowing money to buy it, don't. That's stupid debt. It really is a luxury you give yourself after you've "made it".
It won't help you get a better picture, no matter how hard you rationalize. Or to look at it another way, of all the great and famous photographs you've studied and grown to love, how many have been made with a $5000 Arca? Something between Zero and 0.001%.
If you haven't noticed, I like playing Devil's Advocate. But the advice to go with a super-light field camera as a counter to your Sinar should be an interesting experiment.
The nice thing is you can buy a $500 Tachihara or a $800 Chamonix and if you tire of it, you can break even reselling it. Do your homework and be patient....
Wow that was extremely helpful Darren. It was also nice to see all the different images of the camera, thank you.
And Frank I couldn't agree with you more. It would be a very nice luxury, but definitely not a necessity. The only reason that I have even given the camera a thought is because of the fact that it would be so much easier to backpack with, and it has more movements than a typical field camera. I photograph nature, and I will go out for days backpacking and photographing. And the weight and bulk of my Sinar can be very frustrating and painful. But I am going to give it some major thought, because like you said a high priced camera won't help me get a better picture. I am going to continue doing research and saving. Thank you Frank.
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/reviews.htm
This is older but still accurate, Kerry carefully figured out some optimal backpacking configurations. The best value in an ultralight is going to be a used Tachihara or Ikeda type camera, $500 if you're patient and lucky. But with such a light camera you have to use light lenses, and so on....
Regarding Franks comment, I've got an Ikeda, and it is very light, but when you add in the film holders, tripod, lenses, filters, one degree spot and all the other assorted doo dads, the camera itself is a relatively small percentage of the weight you will be carrying.
Here is my advice, for what it is worth. Use the camera you have, or another that fits your budget and needs. Buy or make a box for your equipment that allows easy and fast access and fit that box to a good pack frame, and have at it. Think of all the weight they carried in the old days. You're a young fellow, and should easily carry 30-35 lbs all day up and down mountains with a good rigid pack frame. That will be all your equipment and enough camping gear for summer trips. Add fifteen pounds and you're ready for any season.
Forget the weight. Its your willingness to do whatever it takes that will allow you to get the shots that no one else can. Someone once said you have to suffer for your art...
Cheers, Tim
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks