Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,972

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    Like Glenn said, the stiffness is probably the result of the camera not being used much. I've had my A-S F4x5 F-line is approximately six years and I'm the second owner. The controls and movements are smooth as silk, smoother than a Sinar F1 that is approximately the same age that I just looked at.

  2. #12

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    Wilfried

    I left you a response at rec.photo.equipment.LF. However, there are more guys here that have chimed in and I would like to philosophize a little.

    It seems that the 4x5 cameras are getting lighter and smaller such that there is little weight or size difference between 6x9 and 4x5. There is no "miniaturization" program for any of the 6x9 cameras as vendors and manufacturers have for the 4x5 (Canham, Phillips, Ebony, etc) I see this as a relative advantage to the 4x5, especially as my vision gets poorer. My Canham is as light ast an AS 6x9 and almost as small. Only a Galvin 6x9 will be lighter and smaller than an Ebony and not nearly as functional. The trimmed down Ebony 4x5 is approaching the SV23 in size and weight. Notwithstanding the binocular viewing system of AS which several are nearly orgasmic about, 6x9 GG images are pretty small. 4x5 is not as bad and more easily accepts a focus loupe. I use a Cambo monocular viewer on the Canham which I think is a nice compromise. 6x9 eliminates some other interesting formats (ie 6x12) which are easy (but relatively expensive) to implement on any 4x5.

    The reasons for going to a 6x9 view camera in my opinion are to decrease size, decrease weight, eliminate film holders/sheet film (and attendant dust problems etc), use cheap roll film, and possibly to be in position to use a digital back with a reasonably sized sensor. I just doubt that this is reasonable anymore given the changes in 4x5. Unfortunately, you also won't save any on lenses because you will want to use the new aspheric lenses that also have massive coverage applicable to larger formats. One possible additional reason to go to 6x9 is that you just love that format. But a 6x9 RF holder is easy to put on a 4x5. There is very little sheet film available in BW for 6x9 if you are zone freak and develpment controls. You would have to have multiple RF backs and fiddle.

    Having said all that, I must admit to being seduced by the format and the 6x9 cameras. That's why I bought a Galvin to get it out of my system without breaking the bank. HIghly engineered and precise...NO but a functional playtoy nevertheless. ONce you have gone to a 6x9 view camera it seems only a small step to a regular medium format camera with all the automation and other goodies. Perhaps what you really want is 8x10 (or larger)!! Good luck Keith

  3. #13

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    Well Keith, the Arca binocular viewer has not really been a part of my sex life... but, although I agree with most of your comments, there are still rational reasons for choosing a 6x9 camera.

    As one of Phil Greespun's parables goes, photography is about recording light. I went to 6x9 because I was loosing good shots because 4x5 was too slow in changing light. The Arca 69FC has significantly speeded (sped?) up my work, not to 35mm autofocus speed, but well ahead of 4x5.

    I also find that I don't "ration" my shots. I don't power through film like a motor driven 35mm, but with roll film instead of sheets, I don't find myself asking "is this sunset really getting richer and can I afford another shot." And the "afford" is more than money... I can carry alot more film with me, and replentish my supply at alot more photo shots than I could with QuickLoad or Grafmatics.

    Keith is right about the size of the 69 groundglass. That is why, for me, the magnified binocular viewer is the key to the whole system. For most shots, I do not need to use a loupe. I have actually tested focusing with a 6x loupe vs. using the binocular viewer on a flat resolution chart, and statistically, there is no difference in the accuracy that I achieve.

    There are two other groundglass issues. First, fresnel screens on 4x5 cameras are optimize for longer lenses than used on 6x9s. You can deal with this with a custom fresnel. I also find it distracting to have to compose on a groundglass that is significantly larger than my image. My eye has to constantly pay attention to the masking marks, which detracts from my ability to concentrate on the overall composition. The ability to visualize the image on the groundglass is one of the things most of us cherish about a view camera and I find it diminished when using roll film on a 4x5.

    I can store the camera, with lens in place, and have it set up with the rail clamp and focused in well under a minute, without rushing. That's just near impossible with darkcloths and loupes.

    While you are right about the lenses being just as expensive, I take comfort in knowing that I use only the best central part of the image circle... like eating center cut tenderloin. My overall lens kit is brighter and lighter than when I shot 4x5. For example, a 200g 135mm replaces a 400g 210mm.

    Finally, most 6x9s have some optimization for dealing with attaching rollfilm holders. The Arca has the direct connect approach which eliminates fussing with Graflock sliders. The Ebonies have the Graflock sliders, but they also have a unique swing away groundglass.

    If I were shooting B&W and using the zone system, I would certainly stay with sheet film... but for my color transparency work 6x9 is fine since I print digitally and never larger than 20x30. And as for recording the light, with rollfilm I have many more emulsions available... a wide variety of color neg if I want, and high speed color neg and transparency films which are available in sheets.

    Now clearly one can use a rollfilm holder on a lightweight 4x5. And the Canham is a neat design, although I wouldn't trade the precision of the Arca-Swiss for the compromises that the Canham makes (smooth focusing should not be a function of how tight the locking knob is set and I shouldn't have to constantly worry about the bellows when switching from horizontal to vertical).

    If you are going to use roll film regularly on a 4x5 camera, you really need an insertable holder. Would I be happy with a couple of Sinar Vario-Zooms... sure, but cost and weight are prohibitively high.

    The point is, if you might shoot sheet film get a 4x5. If you are sure you want roll film, look at a 6x9 and see if it better serves your needs. My 6x9 outfit is much smaller and a fair bit lighter than my 4x5 outfit was, and it has 5 lenses not 4. This, coupled with the increased speed of operation means two things... first, I take it with me more often. The 4x5 never did take good pictures when I left it at home. Second, in changing light, I get shots I would have missed with 4x5.

  4. #14

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    I would like to respond to Glen who has contributed to the dialogue with some excellent points because, frankly, Wilfried really needs to think this through before he parts with his hard earned money.

    If the magnified binocular viewer is the key to sane use of the 6x9 view camera, then the choice must be Arca Swiss. I imagine that there are people out there that use a 6x9 without a viewer with some success but it's not easy. I'd say that fussing about masking marks on the ground glass is a very fine point of distinction but I respect personal preferences. I can't actually buy the argument that one is really missing good shots with 4x5 that are to be had with 6x9. Perhaps your 4x5 was just too big and cumbersome a setup. My experience is that it is just about the same, and to some extent a view camera is a view camera, no matter the format. I think I can setup my 8x10 about as fast as the Canham, although I admittedly am much less inclined to shlep it for other reasons than setup time. Kerry Thalmann who regularly contributes to the rec.photo.LF newsgroup is a veteran gearhead (unashamedly so) and an avid backpacker/professional photographer with a mission to lighten his 4x5 load to the minimum. I'd like to hear his response to the "missing shots" theory because if he were missing anything or could scrounge a few ounces off his shoulders by going to 6x9, he would do it.

    Now there is a difference, in my opinion, between setting up and taking down a field camera and setting up a monorail or hybrid. A monorail like the AS or a hybrid like the Ebony 23S is much easier to deal with than a folding camera of any sort, Ebony 23SV included. I find it a little annoying to take pictures with a folding camera that has to be unfolded and then folded just to carry it a ways to find a better vantage point, only to have to unfold again. This is just one of my personal peeves.

    Having said that,it is a more valid comparison to put the AS up with the Ebony 23S than with the 23SV. I don't have the specs at hand however even the Ebony has a better range of useable focal lengths with the standard bellows and may have more "movements". I am still annoyed with changing (and carrying) extra bellows characteristic of Arca. Again, my Arca friends remain unswayed. Spend two or three thou on a camera and accessories and positions get pretty entrenched. Keith

  5. #15

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    Keith has a point... Arca's bellows aren't always exactly what one would dream of. The standard leather bellows on the 6x9 works fine with my main battery of lenses that go from 55mm to 180mm. I can focus the 180mm to about 4 feet which covers any closeup work I do. I am annoyed that I cannot use the full length of the folding rail to focus a non-telephoto 240mm lens. Add to that the fact that Arca doesn't make an extended lens board. I am having Camera Bellows make me a custom synthetic bellows that will work from 55 to 265 which is about what I can get out of the rail.

    I often get confused on the particular Ebony models (especially since they don't have pictures of them all on the web site) but I guess the 23S and 23SW don't fold, while the 23SV folds.

    A nice benefit of the Arca viewing system is that I can transport the camera with the roll film back on the camera, and the groundglass safely enclosed in the binocular viewer. This protects the groundglass without needing a folding viewing hood or groundglass cover.

    One additional feature of the Arca I have come to appreciate (in 4x5 and 6x9!) is the nature of the zero stops on swings and tilts. These are stops, not detents. There is no force driving the movement toward zero, but a clear stopping force when you reach zero. I don't know how they do this, but it makes very small displacements away from the zero position easy to achieve. Some other cameras I have owned use a spring loaded ball to achieve a zero detent. I got tired of fighting the tendency of the movement to fall back to zero.

    One other aspect of the speed issue (and I am sure that Kerry might be able to beat me to a shot!) is that with the reflex viewer I typically work with the camera at about mid-torso height. When I shot 4x5, using a dark cloth and loupe I usually had the camera at eye height. I find that most operations such as attaching filters, setting shutter speed and aperture and adjusting the lens hood are easier at the lower height. This is obviously a property of using a reflex viewer and would apply to 4x5 as well.

    As Keith also points out, the 6x9 Galvin is a nice little camera. I know several people who use and love them. They can be hard to find in good condition, but they do show up every few months on eBay or photo.net, and if the Ebony and Arca's are a bit rich for a first plunge, the Galvin would be a fine starting point which might serve you forever, but would be easy to sell if you later decided on a different camera.

    Regardless of which camera you go with, I have a couple of suggestions for using roll film. First, buy good modern lenses. In 4x5 and 8x10, absolute lens quality is not the most critical issue. Enlargement factors are low (or 1x in the case of contact printing) so high MTF and 70+ lp/mm aren't the major control on useful image quality. With roll film your enlargment factors will be greater, often 6x to 10x. With roll film, you want the film, not the lens to be the limiting factor. This also means high quality roll film backs. Horseman, Linhof, Wista, Toyo and Sinar all make fine backs... but don't (and I have seen this) plop down a lot of money on a camera and lenses and then scour flea markets for 1950's vintage Graphic backs.

    One thing that 4x5 and 8x10 offer is room for "slop". Choose the wrong lens and you can crop away 2/3 of the image area and still have more film real estate than 6x7. If you want to achieve the best that roll film can offer, you need to be aware of any "weak links" in the chain. Lens, film, roll film back, groundglass alignment, focusing accuracy, scanner quality or enlarging lens quality must all be as good as you can get. But with careful attention to the details, the results can be spectacular.

  6. #16

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    Actually Keith's post has made me reexamine my own comments... so here is a clarification on the speed thing...

    The speed advantage comes from 1) a non-folding camera that can be packed with a lens in place, and 2) the use of a reflex viewer that can replace the use of a loupe and dark cloth in many shooting situations.

    We all agree that there are many 4x5 and 6x9 cameras that meet the first challenge.

    I tried some reflex viewers on my Toyo 45A and found them all to be either optically wanting or the size and weight of small field artillery pieces. In addition, in 4x5, these viewers hang from the spring back that holds the groundglass in place. This seemed to want to shift the groundglass out of position which clearly defeats the focusing effort. To counteract this, some had spring bails and others chains to suspend the weight of the reflex viewer. So given my propensity to roll film, and the nice design of the Arca 69 viewer I went with that solution.

    So, if you can find a convenient quality reflex viewer for 4x5, the speed advantage can be had there as well. Another solution that I see alot of 4x5 users adopting are focusing bellows.

  7. #17

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    First of all, I wanted to thank you all for taking the time to help me with this decision. I have spent a fair amount of time just researching and comparing different models to narrow down my choice. I have searched the archives of this board (and others) and I found the information extremely valuable and helpful.

    I have thought about using a 4x5 instead of a 6x9, and in fact 3rd on my list right now is the Canham DLC. However, I have also concluded that I like rollfilm more than sheet film and I don't see that changing; this is just a personal preference. I have used Rolleiflex and Hasselblad cameras for many years and am quite happy with them, and I will continue to use these cameras in the future. However, the lack of movements has led to a level of frustration that I decided I had to address it - hence my search for a view camera. I wanted to share some of the considerations I went through during the past months.

    I'm trying to find a view camera that supports a similar range of lenses as I'm using on the Hasselblad today, and that goes from (modest) wide angle to approx. 400mm. As I said in my original post, weight is important to me, too. My back just doesn't support the kind of heavy packs anymore that I used to carry around some years ago. Someone already commented on the issue that with the Arca-Swiss, in order to support a wider range of focal lenghts, multiple bellows might be required (plus an extension rail). This is one of the reasons why the Ebony appeals more to me. On the other hand, I don't fancy the thought of using a loupe and dark cloth to focus an upside- down image very much, and so I decided that I'd only buy a camera that allows me to use a reflex viewer. The AS provides that as a standard accessory, the Ebony does not. I conacted Ebony and they said (for a reasonable extra charge) they'd modify their back to allow using a Horseman reflex viewer. One of the replies to my post (I believe it was Glenn) actually pointed to an even better viewing solution for the AS using their binocular viewer. I'm not sure why that didn't occur to me before, but that does indeed sound like an even better solution (thanks Glenn!).

    Regarding the film format, I actually like the 6x6 format the most. Again, this is personal preference, but the square format just appeals most to me and I'd expect that not to change anytime soon. AS offer a Hasselblad adapter, which would allow me to use the same magazines I'm using on my Hasselblad also on the AS. Ebony doesn't have that as a standard item, but they said they could customize the back to allow that (extra charge).

    To go back to the 4x5 question, I did go down that path and essentially eleminitaed all except the Canham DLC from my list; most of them didn't offer any significant advantage for me (either their wide angle support (for 6x9) is not as good as the 6x9 cameras, or they are heavier, accessories are heavier etc.). I'm still contemplating the Canham mostly due to its large bellows range and its light weight. It seems, from comments on this board, most Canham DLC users are very happy with it, although there are also some who weren't so thrilled about it.

    It's obvious to me that there isn't the "ideal" camera out there for my preferences, and it boils down to making the best compromise. The really hard part in this is that it is not possible to go to a store, pick up these cameras, try them out, and then decide. Especially for this reason, boards like this are so incredible valuable.

  8. #18

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    I'm not sure wether this is a real alternative, but in case you want a rollfilm view camera, have you considered the Linhof M679?

    It's not exactly light-weight (though you won't need a tripod head because a 3-way panning head is integrated into the camera) and perhaps even more expensive than an AS (don't know about Ebony), but the IMHO the most precise and highest quality view camera I saw up to now - and I say this as a (rather happy) AS F-line owner... the Arca is fine, but the M679 feels still better. What you loose (compared to AS) is tele versatility (max. focal lens w/o extended lensboards spec'ed at 240mm), and the enormous direct shifts of the AS (the M679 works basically with indirect shifts, although there is some geared rise on the back standard).

    What you get in addition to an AS are extremely smooth geared movements - you can use your Hasselblad backs (as well as many other MF accesories from Mamiya to Silvestri) on it. And in the info material I collected from Linhof at Photokina, an adapter for the AS 6x9 bino viewer is mentioned! Personally, for now I choose the sheet film (i.e. 4x5) way and bought an AS therefore - but if I would consider going back to rollfilm (and had enough money , I think I'd get an M679.

  9. #19

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    Sorry to stray off topic (I have no experience with either the Ebony SV23 or the Arca Swiss F Line), but since Keith said:

    "Kerry Thalmann who regularly contributes to the rec.photo.LF newsgroup is a veteran gearhead (unashamedly so) and an avid backpacker/professional photographer with a mission to lighten his 4x5 load to the minimum. I'd like to hear his response to the "missing shots" theory because if he were missing anything or could scrounge a few ounces off his shoulders by going to 6x9, he would do it."

    Well, it certainly is tempting to lighten my load and go with a 6x9. As others have noted, the 6x9 camera and lenses are not really that much lighter (and in some cases heavier) than an ultralight 4x5 (my 4x5 Toho FC-45X is less than 3 lb., the Arca and Ebony are in the 4 - 5 lb. range). The REAL savings in terms of both weight and cost is in roll film vs. sheet film. On a long backpacking trip, even using Fuji Quickloads, my film and holder represent the heaviest bit of camera paraphernalia in my pack. 60 Quickload packets + the Quickload holder weigh more than my tripod + head. And even though the Quickloads save both weight and bulk over conventional holders and a changing bag, they are still quite bulky compared to a few rolls of 120/220. So, obviously using roll film could cut down considerably on weight and bulk. The Fuji Quickload holder weighs 12 1/4 oz. compared to 15 oz. for a Horseman roll film back. As it comes packaged from the factory, a box of 20 Quickload packets weigh 20 3/4 oz. compared to 1 oz. for a boxed roll of 120. Of course, I strip away any unnecessary packaging before hitting the trail, but the weight of the Quickloads still comes in at about 1 oz. per exposure. If you want to really save weight and shoot 220, you get 16 6x9 exposures for less than an ounce. So, with weight factor for the film is about 16:1 in favor of 220 roll film (or about 8:1 for 120). Also, 4x5 sheet film runs about $4.00 for exposure for film and processing. I don't shoot enough 120/220 to remeber the exact cost per shot, but I seem to recall it's somewhere around $0.90 per shot. So, again, roll film wins by a factor of greater than 4:1. Like I said, it's REAL tempting.

    Still, at this point, I still prefer 4x5 for most of my work - even backpacking. As far as speed of shooting, a roll film view camera might be a little faster than 4x5, but it's still a view camera that requires a fairly slow, methodical working style. Things like changing lenses, using movements, etc. seem to be pretty constant regardless of sheet film or roll film. Once you are set-up and ready to shoot, it's a little faster to shoot multiple exposures on roll film in the changing light than sheet film (although I've found I can slam and shoot Quickloads as fast as my wallet will allow). Again, you have to manually cock the shutter for each exposure, manually wind the film, etc. As Glenn mentioned, there is also less of an economic barrier to shooting multiple exposures on roll film just to make sure you got THE perfect frame. For me personally, the only way I've come up with to SIGNIFICANTLY increase my shooting speed would be to go with a 6x7 SLR (GASP!), but I'm not sure I want to give up movements to do so.

    WRT to missed shots and carrying less film. When limiting myself to 60 - 75 exposures on a multiday backpacking trip, obviously, I come home with a lot fewer images than if I a nearly limitless supply of film. However, when I know I have a limited number of exposures, my hit rate goes way up. I'm much more selective about what and when I shoot. So, in terms of total number of exposures, the numbers go down, but in terms of "keepers" the number probably stays pretty contant (but the ratio of "keepers": total exposures is much higer). Would the total number of "keepers" go up if I was shooting roll film? Hard to say without trying it.

    One aspect of speed of use that's been overlooked is the relationship to weight. If your pack weighs less, you can probablly hike a little faster without stopping to rest (or you can work out at the health club to the point you can haul your 8x10 up the side of a mountain without breaking a sweat). With the lighter pack, I can get to my locations faster and still have plenty of enegery left to devote to photography. That's one thing I like about the Toho - the incredibly light weight. Although it's slower to set-up and use in some regards (changing lenses, changing between horizontal and vertical) than most conventional view cameras, it's just so darn light, I often find myself leaving it mounted on the tripod while I carry it around. For example, last Summer, on an overcast day up at Mount Rainier, I sepnt all day wondering around the flower fields at Paradise with the Toho and my 300mm Nikkor M mounted on my tripod. I was able to shoot all day without ever having to dismount the camera and pack it up between locations (and I easily covered over 6 miles of trail that day with lots of shooting). Even with my BIG tripod, the total weight of tripod + camera + lens was only about 9 1/2 lbs. (substitute my lightweight tripod and that total goes down to about 7 1/4 lbs.). With a heavier camera, I'm more inclined to stow it in my pack when walking more than couple hundred yards at a time. This means I spend a lot more time setting up and tearing down the camera.

    So, not only do all format choices involve a series of trade-offs, so do the individual camera choices for each format. There is no one perfect solution for all users or all uses. It's hard for me to make specific recommendations, because what works well for me may be a total disaster for someone else with different needs and expectations. I may indeed eventually move to roll film (actually, the 6x12 format intrigues me), or who knows, by the time I'm ready to do so, digital may have reached the points on the cost/weight/quality curves that it may be the way to go. Too soon to tell at this point. In any case there have been a lot of good opinions and experiences shared in this thread. It certainly gives Wilfried a lot to think about. Of course, the Ebony and the Arca Swiss are both highly regarded, so there is no "wrong" answer. The important thing is to not be fozen into indecision. Get something, one or the other, and get out ans shoot with it. That's the only way you know for sure if it's the "right" choice. If not, sell it and buy something else (that's why god, or the devil, depending on your point of view, invented eBay).

    Kerry

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 1998
    Posts
    339

    Ebony SV23 camera vs Arca Swiss

    A tidbit for 6x9 camera users; there's a new Schneider loupe that has a 7x7 base .

    While that may not seem exciting, what it means is that perhaps this loupe wou ld work well as a monocular viewer, eliminating the darkcloth, especially for th ose who shoot 6x7 format. I have no idea of the price; Schneider's product numbe r is 08-034551.

Similar Threads

  1. Digital back on Ebony SV23
    By Santiago Vanegas in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2006, 22:13
  2. Ebony SV23 angled viewfinder
    By Santiago Vanegas in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 4-Sep-2005, 05:08
  3. Ebony or Arca-Swiss or ??
    By Robert McDonald in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 3-May-2005, 09:35
  4. Is Lotus still alive? + Ebony vs Arca-Swiss
    By Ed Candland in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2002, 19:19
  5. Ebony v. Arca Swiss
    By William Teller in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2000, 15:00

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •