8x10'' –– Arca Swiss F-Line Metric vs. Lotus View

[cfd]

Hello everyone,

I'm pretty much new to the forum, but I'm looking to hopefully find someone who can help me on this big decision :)

The title is pretty much self-explanatory, but what I'm trying to do is to decide between an Arca Swiss F-Line Metric and a Lotus View camera (http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/cameras/lovica_8x10_e.html) (both in 8x10'' format). I said it's a big decision because I had never planned to spend (or spent) so much money on anything; and neither thought I would ever do!

I am looking for a very rigid/stable camera (as well as one that it's a pleasure to operate :p ) that I can "easily" take with me to the field, since I will not be using it in a studio environment most of the time. The movements I would be using the most are tilts and swings (mainly front standard, but also the rear standard is important).

I would love to try both of these cameras as it's very difficult to decide without having even seen nor operated one before, but it doesn't seem that it will happen (I'm based in the UK by the way).

Has anyone on here had any experience with any of these two models? Any thoughts on them? Specially rigidity and easy of transport I suppose...

Thanks a lot!

[thomasfallon]

Neither of those. I would buy a Ritter 8x10 or a Chamonix.

[biedron]

Well, you are somewhat comparing apples and oranges - the Lotus is a wooden folder while the Arca is an metal monorail...

I've never used a Lotus, but I have an Arca 8x10 F (not the metric). If you get a 15cm rail for the Arca, you will be able to transport it fairly easily (to the extent that an 8x10 can be easily transported). The rail section will dictate the max thickness when stored for transport. I have a 4x5 version of the Arca, so when I went looking for an 8x10 the Arca was a natural for me, since I was used to the smaller format already, and the operation is identical between the two. Setup is pretty quick and easy: attach the optical bench to the tripod, slide the 15cm rail (with the standards) on the bench, extend the bellows and you are set.

Bob

[Jeff Keller]

I'm not an Arca Swiss expert but I believe with the F-Line "Metric" shifts are gear driven but not swings nor tilts. "Orbix" does tilts.

Compare the weights (along with the Ritter recommended by thomasfallon) and you may change what you want.

Good luck, jeff

[John Kasaian]

Which 8x10 are you using--or have been using until now?
I'd suggest going with the camera you can best envision yourself out in the field shooting with---you'll probably find it more sympatico with your vision so it will be less likely to stay at home collecting dust and the more you shoot the better your results are bound to be.
See where I'm going with this?

[StoneNYC]

If you ONLY want to consider those two, the Lotus is the obvious choice since its a field camera, if you want other options I highly suggest the 8x10 Chamonix, I own one and its a pleasure to use, very stiff and sturdy. But if you only want 1 of your two options, the Lotus for sure, fiddling with rails and assembling might be easy for you but it's bulky and takes more time than a field camera, imagine losing a part in the dirt/mud/water as you try assembling it while holding your gear in a swamp or tall grass.

Good luck!

[jb7]

I haven't used a Lotus, though it looks great, and well thought out.

I have an Arca Swiss, and it doesn't require assembly or fiddling, it is probably the most completely well thought out large format camera I have used.

In the end, I'm sure that you'll be very happy with either of your choices.

[Peter De Smidt]

Arca Swiss. It's quicker to use and sturdier than the Lotus.

[Sal Santamaura]

...it doesn't require assembly or fiddling...Joseph, this is the second thread recently in which you've used the word "assembly" to subtly denigrate Phillips and Phillips-clone cameras. I don't understand why you find one particular approach to erecting the front standard, either on those cameras or more conventional field designs, worthy of such negativity. I've handled a wide variety of field cameras and found none of them "fiddly" except Canhams.

To the OP: since you're in the UK, I'd strongly suggest a hands-on evaluation of both your choices before making a decision. The cost of either camera new is going to be high enough that travel to Austria and a stocking Arca dealer in your own country will be cheap insurance against buyer's remorse.

[jb7]

Sal, this is the second time you've misrepresented me, and to be frank, now I'm tired of it.

If you read the comment preceding mine, I believe someone claimed that it was the Arca Swiss that required assembly, another erroneous misrepresentation.

Regarding the assembly issue in the other thread, I'm not subtly denigrating anything, I'm simply pointing out a design feature of the camera. You may think it a very good design, I prefer a camera that can be put on top of the tripod and used immediately, such as the Arca Swiss. Or whatever camera Adams used when he photographed 'Moonrise' ...

The fact that the assembly issue is accepted by users of the Phillips design, and that I accepted the reasoning behind it as presented by another poster in the other thread would serve to prove that I'm not subtly denigrating anything.

The issue is not about me, this is a design issue. If you like having to screw your camera together before you can use it, fine. If you don't like having to do that, there are other choices.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from Besançon, France !

Being a happy Arca Swiss F-line user (6x9 cm and 4x5") and living close to the factory, It is impossible for me to give an advice without being biased.
A friend of mine living close to here has a 8x10" F-classic, actually he first bought a second-hand 4x5" F-line and eventually acquired the 8x10" bellows and back new. So at least I have an address in France outside Arca Swiss where you can manipulate a similar 8x10" F-line camera (my friend's model is not the F-metric, it is the F-classic).

In general, 8x10" field cameras of traditional design can be folded into something quite compact an portable in the field.
Traditional 8x10" monorail cameras were, at least in the past, mostly used in the studio, and they were big and heavy.
So the choice in terms of compacity for field use should be obvious.
But actually it is not so obvious when F-line cameras enter into the game ;)

For example you can have a look at an Arca Swiss Oschwald 8x10" camera (pre-1984, before the F-line) on this "for sale" advertisement (seller is in France, but just across the Channel, the items are located in département de la Manche, in Normandy). (http://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/761375240.htm?ca=12_s) (note that the seller includes in the lot a 4x5" Arca Swiss Reflex camera, an absolute rarity for collectors).

The 8x10" Arca Swiss Oschwald camera looks really big, and not very easy to carry in a back pack.
However since 1984, many improvements have been made, and among many improvements, folding rails and the very last compact model, the 8x10" misura (see below) have been introduced.
The Oschwald camera featured above is equipped with the telescopic rail.
The rails is made of 3 parts, a lower rails as a base, plus two halves sliding on top of the lower rail.
Current F-line models can be equipped exactly like this.
What 8x10" F-line users do with the telescopic rail is that they choose a short rail element in front and slide both function carriers to the short rail element and separate the rear rail element and base from the rest of the camera before packing.
Hence you do not have to disassemble the whole camera, you just have to slide-off the lower rail under the camera's front rail element, and pack something quite flat.
But instead of the telescopic rail, you can use the folding rail, named 'collapsible' in official A/S literature in English.
So for a 40 cm rail, you can fold it into 2 halves of 20 cm.
Another friend of mine who had bough a second-hand 8x10" Oschwald camera, had a shortened rail, the previous owner and simply cut the rail do make it shorter!

An evolution of the 8x10" F-line in terms of compactness and light weight is the 8x10" misura model. It is not really much cheaper than a F-metric 8x10", and not easy to see at dealers' stores, but the solutions proposed to make the camera really compact are interesting.
The 8x10" Arca Swiss misura, folded. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/43175600@N00/4730679838/)
The rail folds into 2 unequal parts, the shorter in front and the longer in back, folding upward. So you take the whole camera out of your backpack using the rear rail as a handle, and in 30 seconds the camera is ready to use.
Note however that the misura has no tilts at rear. This saves a lot of weight, for landscape use you my not feel the need for rear tilts. For studio use, this is another story, the misura is not designed for such kind of traditional studio work with a lot of combined tilts and swings.
F-metric function carriers are heavier than F-classic function carriers, since they carry a rack and pinion control system for lateral shift, and they are much heavier than the simplified rear misura carrier, since it includes a tilting mechanism, this needs some metal to properly operate.
But a F-metric 8x10" fitted with a telescopic rail when collapsed to a 15 cm front rail element is almost as compact as the misura.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the original question, actually the choice between field and monorail cameras is one of the most often asked questions on all photographic forums dealing with large format equipment.
Both kinds of cameras have a very strong character and it is hard to decide without manipulating them.
With monorails, movements are almost unlimited, applying movements is obvious and simple. And the smoothness & precision of Arca Swiss controls is legendary, even more: it is addictive ;)
But if you do not need a lot of movements, for example in landscape photography, the field camera is perfect.

And since the proposed choice is between two excellent European manufacturers, being a Continental Euro-Patriot, I cannot say anything else that: "any choice between both cameras will be the good choice ;)"

[StoneNYC]

Welcome to the forum, you already have your first argument between other members on your thread, so you must be one of us now... HAH!

[Sal Santamaura]

...If you read the comment preceding mine, I believe someone claimed that it was the Arca Swiss that required assembly...Post #6 referred to the fact that many Arca Swiss cameras have monorail sections which must be screwed together prior to use.


...Regarding the assembly issue in the other thread, I'm not subtly denigrating anything, I'm simply pointing out a design feature of the camera. You may think it a very good design, I prefer a camera that can be put on top of the tripod and used immediately, such as the Arca Swiss...Many Arca Swiss cameras cannot be used immediately; they require screwing monorail sections together first.


...Or whatever camera Adams used when he photographed 'Moonrise'...I've never found a reference that identifies the specific camera Adams used to make his "Moonrise" negative beyond "8x10 view camera." Nor can I see what relevance that has with respect to the OP's question.


...The fact that the assembly issue is accepted by users of the Phillips design, and that I accepted the reasoning behind it as presented by another poster in the other thread would serve to prove that I'm not subtly denigrating anything...On the contrary, your repetitive use of the word "issue," with its negative connotation, makes clear the subtle dig you're delivering each time. This doesn't seem as accepting as you appear to be of the reasoning that making Arca Swiss monorails from multiple pieces requiring "assembly" before use enables a smaller form factor for transport.

[jb7]

the subtle dig

Critique.

Read Emmanuel's post if you're interested in learning about how the Arca actually works as a field camera; all the rebuttals are contained within it.

[jeroldharter]

I had and Arca F-Line Metric 4x5 and it was outstanding. An 8x10 would be great so long as you had long enough rails and bellows for you lenses. For example, the standard equipment does not cover a Fujinon 600 if I recall.

Were I to buy a new field camera, I would get a Ritter. Very lightweight.

[evan clarke]

I have 2 Arca 8x10s and several smaller ones. I bought a Chamonix 8x10 convertible and it's the only 8x10 I use now.

[Rory_5244]

I think, once upon a time, I was the only person online with a review of the Arca-Swiss 8X10 F-Metric. I sold it last week after 11 years of use. The Arca required no assembly in the field unless I wanted to use an extension rail (which took all of 3 seconds to attach).

I have 2 complaints about the F-iteration of the 8x10 Arca. The first is that I came to the conclusion that the huge back standard, cantilevered off of a base attachment to the function carrier, was vibration-prone, especially in a stiff breeze. I also had to lock down the tilt controls a bit too much for my liking when I had the monorail inclined to prevent the back from slipping backwards or forwards. Secondly, well, not a complaint really, but the Arca is sort of boring. Everything works so well without a fuss. I must getting sentimental for more traditional cameras in my old age.

[Sal Santamaura]

...The Arca required no assembly in the field unless I wanted to use an extension rail (which took all of 3 seconds to attach)...About the same length of time it takes to screw the front standard into the bed of a Phillips or Phillips clone. :D

[Rory_5244]

LOL, I don't doubt it, Sal. I didn't mention previously, but I use a Linhof Master Technika now for landscape, and for handholding. It's a compromise in many ways compared to a monorail but when I got it I stopped using the Arca, as weird as that may seem. I like that w.r.t. large format cameras: there is no 'best camera'.

[Dave Tolcher]

I had an Arca 10x8 'Oschwald' and it actually quite light with an amount of plastic parts. Can be packed reasonably small on a 15cm rail laid flat in a lowepro bag. Assembly on to the tripod is straightforward but nevertheless it is quite a heavy lump to align the 15cm rail into the lower rail. Its is a precise and easy to use camera and can be found cheaply in the UK with patience. My friend has the camera now and loves using it.
I now have a Phillips (now cloned by Chamonix). On weight and packability its a no brainer - this is so light, sturdy and easy to manipulate that we both agree starting from scratch the Phillips/Chamonix would be the way to go for field use. I happily pack mine a few miles over rough ground and can still walk at the end of it ! Fitness is more of a necessity with the Arca...
What I can offer - we both live in York/Harrogate district and I am sure we could work something out to look at both together as you wont find either in a dealer in the UK.
Best regards
Dave

[agregov]

One thing not mentioned in the thread yet is the modularity of the Arca system. I started out with a F field 4x5 and recently acquired a used 8x10 conversion kit (171 front standard, back standard with ground glass, bellows). You just slide off the 4x5 standards from carrier, replace them with the 8x10 standards and poof, you have Arca 8x10 field camera (with telescopic rail). If having a consistent 4x5 and 8x10 system, that might be a consideration. I haven't started using the 8x10 yet, but I did notice that it's not quite as solid sitting on the rail as the 4x5--simply due to weight. The telescopic rail is great for portability but it appears to come at a cost for some stability--that could be an issue for windy environments perhaps. Though, Arca has other rail solutions if stability is a concern. In terms of setup, I regularly shoot with friends who have Ebony folders and have not noticed any quicker/slower setup between folders and the Arca rail system.

I started out in 4x5 with a Tachihara and the first time I used it I knew I needed a field camera with more precise controls for movements (most of my shooting is Architecture). That led me to Arca Swiss and I've been very satisfied since. I also echo people's plugs for Chamonix. While I don't own one of their wood field cameras, I did purchase a Saber and love it. And Hugo and team are great to work with. Even being an Arca user, I'd consider an 8x10 Chamonix if I were buying new. The quality and price are hard to beat.

While both the cameras you are considering are great, I'm partial to a more conservative approach when moving into a new camera size. There are some very fine used 8x10s that come up for sale in the forum and picking up a kit for $1500-2K (USD) is a great to place to start to explore the 8x10 world. If you fall in love with the format, that makes a new 8x10 purchase much easier to stomach.

[Drew Wiley]

Do you prefer a fiberglass yacht or a teak one?

[tgtaylor]

Boy, I'm sure glad that I solved the "which camera to get" question before I started visiting an internet forum. Not only did I end up with a camera that fulfilled my main concerns at the time (affordable and good looks) but also with a camera and brand of cameras (I have 5 LF cameras) that I am completely satisfied with. Even if I don't trip the shutter, it's a pleasure just to look at them set-up and I get a lot of compliments on their good looks from passerby's and, of course, they deliver what I need.

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

My one complaint about owning a Chanonix8x10 is that when people ask "how old is that 'old timey' camera?" I have to say 2 years old... Haha

[Rod Klukas]

One thing not mentioned in the thread yet is the modularity of the Arca system. I started out with a F field 4x5 and recently acquired a used 8x10 conversion kit (171 front standard, back standard with ground glass, bellows). You just slide off the 4x5 standards from carrier, replace them with the 8x10 standards and poof, you have Arca 8x10 field camera (with telescopic rail). If having a consistent 4x5 and 8x10 system, that might be a consideration. I haven't started using the 8x10 yet, but I did notice that it's not quite as solid sitting on the rail as the 4x5--simply due to weight. The telescopic rail is great for portability but it appears to come at a cost for some stability--that could be an issue for windy environments perhaps. Though, Arca has other rail solutions if stability is a concern. In terms of setup, I regularly shoot with friends who have Ebony folders and have not noticed any quicker/slower setup between folders and the Arca rail system.

I started out in 4x5 with a Tachihara and the first time I used it I knew I needed a field camera with more precise controls for movements (most of my shooting is Architecture). That led me to Arca Swiss and I've been very satisfied since. I also echo people's plugs for Chamonix. While I don't own one of their wood field cameras, I did purchase a Saber and love it. And Hugo and team are great to work with. Even being an Arca user, I'd consider an 8x10 Chamonix if I were buying new. The quality and price are hard to beat.

While both the cameras you are considering are great, I'm partial to a more conservative approach when moving into a new camera size. There are some very fine used 8x10s that come up for sale in the forum and picking up a kit for $1500-2K (USD) is a great to place to start to explore the 8x10 world. If you fall in love with the format, that makes a new 8x10 purchase much easier to stomach.

And the one other nice part of the Arca-Swiss Field, is that it is precise enough to go digital if you ever wanted or needed to. Be well,
Rod