DaYi 612 film back compatible with Arca Swiss 45 F-line Classic?

[toreyang]

Will be really thankful if someone can share experience.

[toyotadesigner]

If it does have a Graflok mount, yes. Otherwise no. The one in your image doesn't look like a Graflok version.

It should look like this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Horseman-120...item41680033f1

See the big plate in front of the 6x12 roll film back.

[rdenney]

The picture you showed is from the bhcamera store, and it shows the 6x12 back for a different camera. But it's on the page for the 4x5 Graflok model. A picture from further down that page shows a back that will fit any camera with a Graflok or International back:



I have a similar Shen-Hao 612 back that works fine in all my 4x5 cameras, ranging from a Speed Graphic (with Graflok back) to a Sinar F2 (with International back).

Rick "it works fine" Denney

[toreyang]

Thanks very much toyotadesigner and rdenney.
I was told even if the Graflok fits, for some rollfilm back there is a possibility the film plane is not located exactly in the plane of the GG, hence results in the loss of sharpness, guess you haven't come across this issue.

[rdenney]

Thanks very much toyotadesigner and rdenney.
I was told even if the Graflok fits, for some rollfilm back there is a possibility the film plane is not located exactly in the plane of the GG, hence results in the loss of sharpness, guess you haven't come across this issue.

If the Graflok fits as it should, the image plane will be in the correct place equally for all cameras. The only thing that could affect that positioning would also affect its ability to fit into the Graflok back. And if it does not seat correctly, the Graflok tabs will not slide in place. They will likely be tight in any case.

My Shen-Hao, which is of similar design (and which might well come from the same factory) is accurate in my Sinar. I've gotten very sharp images using it even with a 47mm lens, which is short enough to have very narrow depth of focus, and will thus expose issues with flatness and positioning moreso than with other applications.

What makes it inexpensive is the red-window film advance. There is no mechanism to stop the advance at the correct frame, so you have to monitor the advance using the red window. It is simple but effective.

Rick "who has not, however, attempted to fit one of these in an Arca" Denney

[Kodachrome25]

There is no mechanism to stop the advance at the correct frame, so you have to monitor the advance using the red window.

Ahhhh, thanks for saying that, I was thinking I might run some of my HIE / Aerographic 2424 in this back, on that note maybe not...

[Joseph Dickerson]

If the Graflok fits as it should, the image plane will be in the correct place equally for all cameras. The only thing that could affect that positioning would also affect its ability to fit into the Graflok back. And if it does not seat correctly, the Graflok tabs will not slide in place. They will likely be tight in any case.

My Shen-Hao, which is of similar design (and which might well come from the same factory) is accurate in my Sinar. I've gotten very sharp images using it even with a 47mm lens, which is short enough to have very narrow depth of focus, and will thus expose issues with flatness and positioning moreso than with other applications.

What makes it inexpensive is the red-window film advance. There is no mechanism to stop the advance at the correct frame, so you have to monitor the advance using the red window. It is simple but effective.

Rick "who has not, however, attempted to fit one of these in an Arca" Denney

Hi Rick,

I wanted to point this out before you get flamed by someone who doesn't share my respect for anyone who would put themselves through what it takes to play tuba! I know, as my little brother is a tuba-ist. I, on the otherhand, played drums, and as a drummer I got all the chicks (yeah...right)!

Anyway, short lenses, ei: 47mm, will have more depth of field, and yes, I know you already know that...just sayin'.

JD

[Andre Noble]

Anyway, short lenses, ei: 47mm, will have more depth of field, and yes, I know you already know that...just sayin'.

JD

My understanding is that Rick is correct. Wide angle lenses will have more depth of field in the image plane, but LESS depth of field in the virtual image (film) plane.

Someone with more definitive knowledge correct us if wrong.

[Joseph Dickerson]

I read Rick's response too quickly, and substitued depth of field for depth of focus. And yeah, I too know better.

I'll go to my room now.

JD

[Oren Grad]

If the Graflok fits as it should, the image plane will be in the correct place equally for all cameras.

Depends how picky you are:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...l=1#post306889