Best 4x5 camera for Architecture

[Jay Lnch]

What is the best light weight 4x5 camera for shooting architecture. What I am looking at are the Arca Swiss and Sinar A1 or F1. I like the Linhof Technikardan 45s but its too pricey for me. Should I look at the Bi Kardan?

thanks for your help.

[Rick Heitman]

Thats a very easy question for a toyo GX owner, A Toyo GX. Sorry , had to say it eventhough its a 15 pound camera with no lenses.

[Dan Neilson]

I think that the Bi-Kardan is by far the best camera on your list. It is extremely well built, reasonably light weight for a rail camera, and the best finished and smoothest camera that I have used. I have played with a Technikardan and have owned 2 Sinar F's. In my own humble opinion, they don't compare to the Bi-Kardan in quality. Without spending a whole lot more money, I can't think of anything that I would rather use. No, it isn't a field camera and I wouldn't want to carry it very far, but of the 5 large format cameras that I own, it would be the last to go.

Well, there's my 2 cents worth.

[Gary J. McCutcheon]

My old Toyo G will do everything and has geared rise/fall, and shift. It is much sturdier than a TK45s and weighs a ton more. It is expandable beyond anything you'll ever need.

[Andre Noble]

Toyo 45C 'til you outgrow it.

[Roberts]

Sinar P2 or P is good for camera movement to control perspective. With wide angle bellow, 65mm Super Angulon could be used to shoot closed to the subject.

[James Driscoll]

Sinar F2...the F1 or the F's front standard will drive you nuts. The A1's 18 inch rail will drive you nuts shooting architecture...and it feels quite flimsy anyway. The F2 weighs in at 6 pounds without a lens...not a light weight...but it is no studio camera.

Linhof Bi's are beautiful cameras....but you won't feel that way about it after using one to shoot architecture.

I shoot architecture for a living....my current F2 has had over 3000 exposures run through it without a problem. Plus you don't need a recessed lens board unless you want to use a 47mm lens. Try that with a Linhof Bi. Plus accessories abound on EBAY and other sources of second hand gear. Accessories do not abound for Linhof Bi's....

Plus if you ever have to rent anything....your out of luck with any Linhof (with the exception of getting a lens on a Technika board) or Arca.

[giancatarina]

i had and used several4x5 camera to shoot architecture (starting with a technika (not enought movements), then technikardan S45(not enought rigid for my 6x12 back), then Sinar F2), and now i'm using a second hand arca swiss F line 45, and i'm very please with it !
Considering the fact, that arca just change their camera size (new 140mm VS 171mm), i'm shure that you will be able to find more second hand arca soon (some backpackers will probably change their camera in order to reduce weight and size...)!
If money is a concerne, i will try to find an arca discovery (first price arca, but still very good).
And if you want best value for money to shoot architecture, i will go with an old sinar norma with bag bellow !
Some people love their Sinar F, i just didn't like it (quite big, while less rigid than an arca).

Film is expensise, so if you can buy a better camera for only few more dollars, in my opinion, it's worth the investment !

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

I did a test Arca F-Line Classic against Sinar F1 in my case and I used booth cameras for a similar job inside and outside architectures!
Lenses I used was a 55mm APO Grandagon 47mm Schneider XL 75mm Nikkon and a 90mm Nikon.
I have to say that I worked for years with the Arca! So it was the first time I used the Sinar outside for a job!
Film was Porta 160VC in readylods and the results are as follows after shooting with both cameras 22 negs.
With my in the past loved and sometimes really unloved Arca I had 6 negs thad had unsharp parts on one side wich I did not understand at all!
With the Sinar F1 not one neg with unsharp parts the Arca was used on the 1. day and the Sinar on the 2. because I had to mount the lenses on Sinar boards!
So it was clear to me what in the future my camera would be for outside the f1 an f2 would of course be better and in the studio I allready switched to a Sinar P!
So very soon there will be an Arca F-Line for sale!

[Frank Petronio]

Sinar Norma or Arca-Swiss Discovery or Linhof Bi - but only the Sinar has a ready supply of cheap accessories on eBay. But how much do you need after a good bag bellows and enough rail to cover your lenses?

To me, the base tilts of the Arca or Sinar beat the axis tilts of most Linhofs, although I think the Bi has base tilts. The Linhofs have the best finish, followed by the Arcas. Arcas have the best lensboards (171mm) - luxuriously large and slightly recessed - they can handle any lens you can through at it. The Arca (and Linhof) are also overbuilt, able to handle 8x10 components on their standards, whereas the Norma and F need special 8x10 rear standards.

Lots of pros use Sinar F2s but more in the sense of it being an inexpensive, rugged, beater. But they are cold, souless beasts (the cameras at least). If you want to "love" a camera, get one with some character (any of the three above.)

[Bob Salomon]

Rather then the Bi you might look at the current GT. Like the Bi it hase base and center movements but they make the GT yaw free. The Bi is not. The GT takes lenses down to 65mm on flat noards and, unlike the Bi, you can use film horizontally with a rear center tilt or a Polaroid back and still operate the holder or the back. On the Bi you would need the Polaroid Spacer to do that. The rails for the B are no longer available. The GT has a telescoping monorail, longer ones are available, and the GT does not require a rail clamp so it has a continuous focus track 19" long.

All accessories that fit to the front or rear standard on a GT are the same as the ones for the B so boards and accessories are plentiful. Lastly the GT is current and a new one has a 5 year warranty. There are no parts left at the factory for the B rail or the items that attach to the rail.

The only function the B had that the GT does not have is geared shift. On the GT you slide the standard for shift. The current GTL has geared rise and shift.

[paul owen]

Don't neglect to look at field cameras! An Ebony SW/RSW/S will suit most architecture shots!

[Jay Lnch]

Thanks for all your help... I did mean light weight for those Toyo users..

I think the F2 is the answer. A workhorse light weight and cheap on the used market. Eventhough there is a Bi Kardan on eBay for about $280....

wish me luck.... jay

[James Driscoll]

Frank....I LOVE MY SINAR F2!!!

It is far from being a "cold souless beast"....it has done a variety of jobs, been on two continents, all over the USA, fallen several times, been yelled at countless times yet still does its job with gusto. It has worked in pouring rain, falling snow, and sub-freezing

weather.

I own several LF cameras...a Linhof 5x7 Technika, Sinar Norma, Sinar P2, and a Plaubel. All of them are great...but the F2 is like an American Express card...never leave home without it. I also have the 8x10 standard for my Sinar F2 (as well as the P2 and the Plaubel). I actually only bought a P2 system because it was 1. Dirt Cheap (for a Sinar) 2. I couldn't afford or find a 5x7 F2 (which are quite rare).

Also...the F2 only recently became cheap...it used to cost $2800...far from a cheap beater. Used ones before EBAY used to cost $1600-$2000.

Oh and Jay...if you buy a Sinar F2- do yourself a favor and find one with a non-metering back...the metering back is a large bulky pain in the ass that is almost useless....at least I never knew anyone who uses the meter probe. Also buy a Sinar Fresnel...it makes life a lot easier.

And Frank....have you tried to find either lensboards, rail, or a bag bellows for a Linhof Bi??? They are not the easiest things to locate. A freind of mine had a Bi...and got rid of it after spending months combing EBAY for rails with no luck.

[Bob Salomon]

"d got rid of it after spending months combing EBAY for rails with no luck"

That's part of the beauty of the Gt. A telescoping rail. No accessory rail needed unless very, very long extension is needed. Then, unlike the Sinar, no double rail block is needed for long extensions as the rails don't "butt" together like the older monorail systems do.

[Frank Petronio]

James - com'on, the Norma is just so much smoother than the F2, not that the F2 is a bad camera at all. If I could afford the latest Linhof though, that would be the ultimate...

[Bob Salomon]

"Archi=A... Arca

Daily use=D... Deardorff

Smooth=S...Sinar

Luxury=L... Linhof"

Ridiculous. A Linhof or a Sinar are just as able to be used for architecture as an Arca and 1000s of users of each do so.

A Sinar can be much more then a Linhof as for luxury, and so can an Arca.

Nothing is smoother then a Linhof and it is extremely doubtful that a modern Arca is any less smooth.

And all are excellent for daily use. And the Deardorff is the least likely to be used today if extreme wide angle is a requirement.

[Andre Noble]

Jay, the Toyo 45C monorail is lightweight, all metal, and even back packable with careful stowage. Mint ones sell for $300 or less ebay. Accesories inexpensive on eaby. High bang for the buck.

[Ellis Vener]

There is no "best" in this category. Any decent monorail view camera will do the job, but some will make your life easier than others --and there is the matter of personal preference: Atthe most basic level some people like base tilt designs and some people prefer axis tilt design.

The most popular among professional architectural photographers are the Sinar F2 (I prefer a Sinar C because it has the rear end of a Sinar P or P2) 7 P2 cameras ; the Linhof TK45s or the Arca-Swiss F-line series of cameras. My preference for the past ten years has been the Arca-Swiss F-line cameras and before that i used Sinar cameras. If I had not chosenthe Arca-Swiss I'd have gone with the TK45s. I chosethe Arca-Swiss becasue it is yaw free (this is more importnt in the studio but if you are using tilts and swings in the field can make your life simpler); because it is a base tilt design which I was familiar with from the Sinar; and becasuewhen you employ rise or fall combined with a tilt movement of the film plane , you don't have to refocus as is the case with many of the axis tilt cameras.

If you are leaning toward the Sinar avoid the F1 or the A1 and go with the F2 -- or as I said above, a Sinar C or C2 camera. The advantage of the F2 over the F1 is that it is more robust and isolates the tilt and swing controls. You should also very seriously consider the Sinar Norma camera.

[David E. Rose]

Whatever you do, do not get a camera that does not have a depth of field calculator built-in (like the Sinar). In all of the professional architectural photography that I have done, I have never been suprised by an out of focus error when using the Sinar F-2. When traveling I use a Wista SP that does not have a DOF calculator. With this camera I have to guess on the correct focus point and aperture, leading to occasional missed judgements that mean foreground or background objects being less than sharp. This is not acceptable for professional architectural work.

[Kirk Gittings]

There are no perfect cameras for architecture. Only ones you make work and adapt to. Do you work with assistants to help haul things around or work alone? It depends on your style and travel etc. and what kind of lenses you use. I'll give you an example. For years I was a photographer for Architecture Magazine in DC traveling all over the west. What did I use? A Tachihara with a 90, 120, and 210 lense. I used it for ten years on the road and had many covers in that time. It was finally was stolen. I replaced it with an old Calumet Wide Field and a used Zone VI (the last 15 year). Robert Reck a shooter for Architectural Digest who travels all over the world (and a friend of mine) uses a Toyo field camaera. David Muench (also a friend of mine) who is not an arch. shooter but faces alot of the same problems, because of his use of wide angle lenses, uses an ancient Linhoff. Steve Simmons, also an old arch. photographer, uses an old Sinar (C, I think). Vision is far more important than which camera body you use. If I was to recommend one. I like the Arcas in a rail and Canham in a field.

[Bob Salomon]

" When traveling I use a Wista SP that does not have a DOF calculator. With this camera I have to guess on the correct focus point and aperture, leading to occasional missed judgements that mean foreground or background objects being less than sharp. This is not acceptable for professional architectural work."

Nonsense. Just get the Rodenstock pocket DoF and Scheimpflug calculator. It is inexpensive, rugged and accurate.

Unlike the scale you use the Rodenstock accurately computes the DoF and Scheimpflug angle at various magnification ratios and CoC as well as with a level or an inclined rail.

For those cameras like the SP that do not have a calibrated rail or screen the Rodenstock calculator has a MM scale on both sides.

[Ben Calwell]

I'm curious -- what's the problem with the Sinar F-1 front? I use an F-1 for architecture, and it's just fine.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Ben

I also use now a Sinar F1 it works but I would prefer a F2 because the frontstandard is a bit better build and stronger a bit so for heavier lenses it would be safer.
But I got a very good deal on an F1 and have now always a second F1 frontstandard with me if the first would break!
And for very long lenses I use my Sinar P anyway!

[John Kasaian]

FWIW it was SOP for the firm of Hedrick-Blessing in Chicago to employ 8x10 Deardorffs for architectural photography. From what I can tell, their photographers did a heck of a fine job with those 'dorffs.

[Warren Williams]

I’m surprised at the overwhelming preference for monorails for architecture. I realize this is the common wisdom but Jay doesn’t say if he wants to do this professionally or as an amateur. A professional needs a monorail because he must get the shot at all costs but an amateur might want to sacrifice a small percentage of shots for the weight savings of a wood field. I’m an architect and recently purchased a Shen-Hao with a bag bellows, reflex viewer (for urban shots where I don’t want to be buried under a dark cloth) and a light carbon tripod. It gets me most of what I want and I can carry it around all day. My only disappointment is that I max out the bellows on a Nikkor 300 mm lens

[Kirk Gittings]

"With this camera I have to guess on the correct focus point and aperture, leading to occasional missed judgements that mean foreground or background objects being less than sharp. This is not acceptable for professional architectural work."

This may be one of the silliest statements that I have ever seen on these forums. I have been a professional arch photographer for 26 years now and I will put my credentials up against anyones and I have never used nor needed a DOF calculator. With a little bit of experience anyone can estimate the DOF good enough at any given aperture. Where do these ideas come from?

[Ellis Vener]

if you think you need a DoF calculator for any camera or format the Rodenstock tool Bob mentions is all that he says it is and only costs about $35.00. No batteries or coddling needed.

[Bob Salomon]

Ellis,

The list price is actually under $30.00.

[David E. Rose]

"This may be one of the silliest statements that I have ever seen on these forums. I have been a professional arch photographer for 26 years now and I will put my credentials up against anyones and I have never used nor needed a DOF calculator. With a little bit of experience anyone can estimate the DOF good enough at any given aperture. Where do these ideas come from?"

Kirk- I am familiar with and admire your work, and I don't doubt your credentials. I also have a considerable background as an architectural photographer and as a practicing architect. All I am saying is that for me, the Sinar DOF calculator has been very reliable, accurate and quick to use. Have you ever tried it- you might be pleasantly suprised! In looking for an architectural camera, if all other things were equal (they never are) I would give preference to a camera that has a built in DOF calculator- there are several. I realize that there are other methods and tools to measure the standards and determine the same focal point and aperture settings, I just prefer the speed and simplicity of the Sinar calculator. I don't find it necessary for many shots, but when facing a dimly lit interior with near/far elements and reciprocity issues, I don't want to stop down any more than necessary. The Sinar allows me to achieve this result very quickly and without another piece of equipment to carry. If this feature is so useless, why does Norman McGrath review the Sinar and Arca Swiss DOF calculators when discussing view camera designs in his book "Photographing Buildings Inside and Out"?

[Kirk Gittings]

David,

I'm sorry that I teed off on you. It drives me a little crazy when I see wrong info passed on to new photographers, particularly suggestions that needlessly complicate things.

I once ran into a well known arch photographer from Santa Fe who shot from a tent structure for every exterior shot to keep dust off of everything. He insisited that this was what "real professionals do". He had two assistants to help him move the thing. I laughed so hard I thought I would vomit. His client fawned "yeah he does 4 great shots a day". I guess the fewer shots you do the better photographer you are. I remember when I used to work for Architectural Record. They wanted twenty a day, interiors and exteriors. That made me know my stuff to heart and work quickly with no BS.

Because of my relationship with Calumet in Chicago and teaching Arch. Photo at the School of the Art Institute, I have had the opportunity to try most of the advanced View Cameras out there at one time or the other (even the Sinar Ultima 35). Most in my opinion have alot of unnecessary bells and whistles (as far as architecture photo is concerned). Most people make Arch. Photo far more complicated technically than it is. My biggest problem with your posting is this "This is not acceptable for professional architectural work." It is simply and categorically a false statement. It is very misleading to entry level people. I have spent alot of time at Hedrick Blessing with my students and watched Nick Merrick and many of the great photographers there. They work quickly,simply and intuitively with sturdy solid equipment. Hursley and Peter Aaron too and the fine photographers at HABS and HAER. I have never seen any of them use DOF scales. It is more about vision and experience than cameras. Keep it simple. Know what your lenses and film do. Stay at f22 or below (4x5) focus carefully a third of the way into the scene and you virtually never have to worry about DOF with a 90mm lens and most of us use a 90mm 90% of the time. I primarily use a 50 year old Calumet Widefield, because it will handle from a 47 to a 210 on flat lens boards and the stock bellows with full movements. The last one I bought (three years ago)was for $150 at Universal in Chicago. Nothing fancy and not pretty or slick, but with a few adaptions solid as a rock and a near perfect Arch. camera. I use the best lenses. I probably have $8,000 in lenses (and a $150 VC!!). Most of my students walk in with a "better" VC than I have.

I say if you needlessly complicate things is when you make mistakes. Keep it simple. The biggest problem students have is how to see architecture. They have no sense of composition or what light does to form.

After the current book project settles down I hope to update an earlier text that I wrote a lifetime ago for the National Trust. I'm sure that it will not include a discusion of DOF scales on VC's. I think it is an unnecessary distraction. Nor will it include the tent.

[Frank Petronio]

Kirk, treat yourself to a decent camera, you've earned it! But I never found DOF scales worth the trouble either, and even if I had one, I'd still be checking what I've got on the camera itself. The whole reason you have a ground glass and movements is so that you can SEE what you're doing. Knobs and calulators get misaligned, and human error is all too easy. Most of the time you're trying to hit your optimal aperture, and in a pinch you stop down further... Trust your eyes (or get auto-focus.)

[Ellis Vener]

re: Krk's approach.

well obviously it works and goes really cares hw you getthere as long as the pix are great.

I think we all must be clear aboutthe debts all of us in the cult of gear owe to St. Ansel of Carmel who once, as it is written i nthe holy text "The Camera', proclaimed: "if a man has something worthwhile to say he will find a way to say it even if he only has a pinhole camera. Of course he could probably say it more effectively , an reach a larger audience if he used a modern Sinar or Arca-Swiss view camera..."

Who walks among us that is strong enough to always resist the call of that siren?

cya

Ellis

Disclaimer: This forum post is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given
the internet's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may
fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of
the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was
composed any ill feelings that may arise.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank, You know what I need? More time and gas money to shoot my own personal work. A new camera is great in theory, but a higher overhead just keeps me chained to the commercial work. My goal is to free myself from that and lowering my costs as much as possible helps me get there.

[Frank Petronio]

Hear ya. I got a Noblex 150 six weeks ago and have shot that many rolls (for myself). And one 4x5 shot for myself, plus only a 100 or so baby/xmas pix. The rest is work, work, work... to pay for cameras? (more like taxes and colleges, but you know the drill.)

[Kirk Gittings]

Yeah, I'm in my 10th consequtive year of putting kids through out-of-state schools with maybe a couple more to go. That has forced me much deeper into the commercial quagmire than I had ever intended.

I'm really just whining-not relly complaining. It has been a great life. I haven't had a real regular job since 1976. I can't imagine having had to work a regular job for a lifetime like my dad. What I am doing was his dream. He got me into photography.

[David E. Rose]

Kirk,
Thanks for the apology- no blood, no foul! I think that you may have misunderstood my point when I wrote "This is not acceptable for professional architectural work". I meant the out of focus foreground/background, not a camera without a DOF.

I started serious architectural photography with a Bender 4x5 that I built myself, so like you I have worked with some very basic cameras. I very much agree with the concept of simplicity in equipment and technique (think of Edward Weston). Understanding and having a vision for architecture is by far the most important thing. I owe a lot in this area to my photographic mentor Balthazar Korab. He shoots with a Sinar F-1, which is the main reason I went with it in the first place. When I first started with my Sinar, I did not use the DOF calculator, and I still have never used the tilt/swing calculator. At some point I read the instructions for the DOF and tried it, and I was amazed that it removed the guesswork from focusing, pretty much insured the desired result, and took about 10-15 seconds to use. For me, there is just no reason not to use it.

Sorry to be such a pest about this issue, but it did generate a lot of good thoughts and information for Jay- I wish him luck in finding his own simple and effective working method! I also look forward to seeing Kirk's book.

[Jay Lnch]

Thanks everyone for your great input. I have chosen a camera and it should be here in a few days. I picked up a older Arca Swiss model AB. It comes complete with camera Lens shade both standard and bag bellows all for under $350. Jim at Midwest photo helped me out.

jay...

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm sure you will be happy with it. I don't want to be preachy but I love arch. photography. At best the camera is just a good or better tool. As I'm sure you know it is really not about the camera. It is about light and form and that little shiver that goes down your spine when everything come together on the ground glass. Go and create your brains out and I hope to see your work some day. Best of luck.

[Ted Harris]

I was gonna add something but all I can do is read the thread again and smile. Well said Kirk.