Looking for feedback on the Arca Swiss 4x5 F-Metric

[12pmc]

I am considering purchasing a Arca Swiss F metro 4x5 for general purpose work; if anyone can share their experiences with these cameras - still life, portraits, landscape / sea scapes - out of the back of the car, and backpack.. All comments appreciated .

Thanks
Peter

[neil poulsen]

I'm not sure what's motivating you the get the metro, but there is an option between the metro and non-metro Classic F.

One can put a metro conversion kit on non-metro function carriers. This combines the advantage of the lower weight of the non-metro camera with the advantage of geared rise and fall of the metro. After finding a metro conversion kit on EBay, I've done this, and I really like it.

Bear in mind with this combination, one loses the shift centimeter scales. That's because on the non-metro, the scales are on the standard, and the reference line is on the function carrier; and with the non-metro, the scales are on the function carrier, and the reference line is on the standard. But while the shift centimeter scales are lost, the two reference lines remain (one on the metro standard and one on the non-metro function carrier), and they can be used for zeroing the shift by lining them up. In using shift, one can still measure the distance between the reference lines to determine the degree of shift.

Frankly, I don't really care, nor do I need geared swing or shift. But, having geared rise/fall is sweet!

[biedron]

I agree with Neil, having the geared rise/fall of the metric model is a very nice luxury. You don't need it, but it sure is convenient for one-handed rise/fall. With the non-metric, you have to loosen two knobs on each side of the standard, then rise/lower the standard, then tighten both knobs again. With the metric, you just twist one knob to raise or lower the standard. No unlocking/locking required - it is "self locking". I don't think I have ever used shift in my work (landscapes exclusively), so I don't find any gain from having geared shift. If photographing products for advertising, geared shift may be very convenient.

In terms of backpacking, there are lighter wooden folders, but the Arca is not too bad in terms of bulk or weight - probably one of the lightest monorails out there. If you go with the telescoping rails setup in the field is very quick. The metric carriers add a little weight, but relative to the whole 4x5 system of lenses, film holders, etc., it is insignificant.

Bob

[12pmc]

Thank you for your comments, I made a mistake it is the F-Metric I am looking at not the Metro

Peter

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from France ! (et le bonjour de Besançon)

I have the F-metric Arca Swiss camera in its 'field' version i.e. I have a 6x9-110 mm front standard and a 4x5"-141 mm rear standard.
Similar to Neil's experience, I can say that have little use of the geared lateral shift of the F-metric function carriers, but I would find hard to abandon the geared, self-locking rise controls.
And more generally speaking, I would find hard to abandon this LF camera for another kind of LF camera, but I do not want to start a controversy here ;)

I have the folding rail, 30 cm long, but I can carry the whole camera in a Lowe Pro backpack without actually folding the rail.
This is a advantage of the 141 mm version, you can carry the whole camera unfolded and ready to take pictures in most backpacks that can offer a depth of about 180 mm (the bellows is slightly wider than the 141 mm format frames).

Hence in this configuration the camera is faster to set-up than most other large format cameras including wooden field cameras !
I grab the camera as a whole, a lens can be kept mounted on the front standard, so this is really fast. I never need to take the function carriers off the rail.

Regarding the choice between current 141 mm format frames or previous, pre-2004, 171 mm format frames, if you go for the F-field version, the difference is minimal between the 141 and the 171 version.
However if you go for the standard version with front and rear standards of the same size, the current 141-141 mm version is really more compact than the 171-171. So it depends on your plans for buying a new one or looking for a used one.

[neil poulsen]

Thank you for your comments, I made a mistake it is the F-Metric I am looking at not the Metro

Peter

I guess I fell in stride with your original terminology; I also was speaking about the metric.

[neil poulsen]

. . . I have the folding rail, 30 cm long, but I can carry the whole camera in a Lowe Pro backpack without actually folding the rail. . .

That's interesting; very convenient.

As it is, even the 171mm version (front and back) that I have easily breaks down to a quite manageable size for backpacking.

[neil poulsen]

At the additional "expense" of a little weight and a somewhat larger camera, I have both the 171mm front and rear standards. This configuration has advantages that I prefer. The long bellows is 700mm, and because of the additional size, a little sag will not obstruct the image. Not that I would necessarily, but I have a 600mm lens and could use it with this camera, if I chose. If I recall correctly, the long bellows for the smaller 141mm version is 500mm, perhaps for that reason.

Another "reason" that I prefer the 171mm, is that I hate flare. The larger version permits a little more room around the 4x5 film format to avoid possible reflection off the bellows onto the image. I had a conversation with Wisner about this, and he also saw this as an advantage in the design of his earlier cameras. (Say, versus the Pocket Wisner.) The 171mm front also enables me use the Arca lenshood from the pre-Classic F cameras, which has four blades that can be adjusted to come right to the edge of the 4x5 film format. I had to modify my front standard a little to accommodate the adapter for this lenshood. But, this lenshood is more convenient and effective than any of the current, Arca versions.

But who knows, if I had been using the 141mm version all along, I might argue equally in favor of it. And as I say, while I could, I have never used a 600mm lens for 4x5. :)

While there are a couple of minor disadvantages to my mind, the 6x9 front makes the 6x9 conversion kit less expensive and easier to change. Arcas, regardless of configuration, are excellent cameras.

[Rory_5244]

I sold my Arca-Swiss F-Metric 4x5/8x10 system last year (I had the 171 version). I have few complaints, just quibbles: a few days after I took the camera out to the seaside in 2006 some screws on the rear standard started to rust. This peeved me after just spending thousands on a new camera. I replaced the cheap screws with titanium screws and used a plastic garbage bag to shield the camera from sea-blast thereafter. I think the black paint on the camera could be more robust: this is in comparison to Linhof's black paint which can take some real abuse without flaking off. I didn't think the small rear function carrier was ideal for use with the 8x10 standard and was a little wobbly; something to keep in mind if you ever want to move to 8x10.

[Noah A]

I've owned two Arcas, although the second one I owned for a very, very short time. I used an 8x10 F-Metric for a few years and loved it but sold it when I stopped shooting 8x10. It was a wonderful camera.

A couple of years ago, I figured I could replace my two Linhofs with an F-Metric 4x5. I bought a new one, and when I got it something seemed off. The standards didn't align with the movements zeroed out. After some time and back-and-forth with the company, I realized that Arca had make a small change to the design of either the format frame or the carrier, I can't remember which. But the result was standards that weren't aligned properly.

Arca said they'd make it right and send me the new parts, but it was going to take a few more weeks. And delivery of the camera itself took much longer than they originally said it would. I had a trip coming up to work on a photo project, and the delay wouldn't have given me enough time to throughly test the camera. So I sent it back.

I still think they make great cameras, but my point is that you should check it out carefully. I really would have expected better quality control, the problem was obvious and clearly no one looked at the camera before they sent it out.

My favorite thing about the Arcas is the geared rise.

[agregov]

i've been using an F-field for the past 5 years. I shoot a lot of architectural work and it's a great fit if you like precise movements. I didn't like the traditional folders--movements weren't tight enough for precision work. I did not get the metric so I have no opinions to share there other than to agree with some posters on having geared rise/fall would be nice. That's the movement I use the most for architecture and having to untighten knobs on both sides of the standard and work with two hand is a bit of a pain. I doubt the weight difference will be much. I do highly recommend getting Orbix--yaw free (axial) tilt. That'll be important for landscape shooting. The conversation around the 141 versus 110 front standard, if I had to do it over again I might go with the 141. The rise/fall is limited with the 110. If you're mostly doing landscape, might not matter. But for architecture I do hit the max rise/fall frequently with the 110. I doubt the weight of the 141 front standard is much of a difference. The collapsable rail makes the camera compact and a quick setup. You should be able to find a number of backpacks to hold it. The 4x5 kit is very stable and firm on a tripod. The conversion into an 8x10 is a nice option for the Arcas. As an 8x10, Arcas are among the lightest options out there. I do agree with a poster on the 8x10 conversion--the back standard is a bit wobbly. But a little wobbliness is worth it in exchange for a 8-9 pound 8x10. One accessory that you might consider is a viewing bellows. It's pricey but you can use the camera without a darkcloth. I like that it maintains the traditional upside down image on the ground glass as opposed to the reflex viewer. It's more compact than most darkcloths. And it has a 2x lens in the viewer cup that allows you to stay closer to the ground glass as well as see the image larger. It's great for city shooting. All in all, I've enjoyed the 4x5 Field camera and have no plans of switching platforms. And a shoutout for the Arca rep, Rod Klukas. First class guy and wonderful to work with.

That said, the only other camera that looks like a good match for me (for architectural) is an Ebony non-folder. Richard Sexton, an architectural shooter, has a good review on the Ebony site (45SU). He used to be an Arca shooter so you might find his review helpful. I agree with his sentiment on much larger rise/fall of the Ebony--awesome for architectural. And simply removing your camera from your case and plopping it on a tripod seems like the way to go. I doubt the size would be much bulkier than a Arca 4x5 with folded rail. While I don't have issues with the folding rail on my Arca, not having to unscrew the and de-collapse the rail every time you want to use it would be a bonus. And the Ebony non-folders have very precise movements which I have not experienced using friends Ebony folders. Price would probably be comparable to the Arca.

http://www.ebonycamera.com/rev/45SU.Sexton.html

[Theodoros]

What I don't like about the F-line, is that the swing mechanism is below the side shift mechanism. This means that if one swings and side shifts at the same time and on the same standard, he will have the entrance pupil of his lens repositioned to a different plane (parallel to the lens board) thus causing distortion of the image recorded on the image area, as well as different focusing distance than if there was no swing applied.

To my knowledge, the Sinar P series and the Arca Monolith are the only cameras that have taken care of having all shift mechanisms below the swing and tilt ones and thus ensure yaw free operation when combination of movements is applied, on all other cameras (please correct me if I'm wrong), one is better off if he swings/tilts with the front standard only and then shifts/side shifts using his rear standard (if combination of movements is required).

That said, even with the Monolith or the Sinar P series of cameras yaw free operation is only secured if the entrance pupil of the lens and the image area surface on the rear standard is positioned on the lens board (for the monolith) or on a plane parallel at 3cm distance to the lens board (on the Sinars), which usually can't be the case unless if one converts the cameras so that there is adjustment for the lens entrance pupil position and for the image area plane... Further more, such a conversion (which requires the front and rear frames to be sliding on the standard) can only be done for the Sinars and (additionally) only if the entrance pupil is positioned at (exactly) 12cm radius with respect to the tilt mechanism's arc....

It sounds difficult, but the conversion on the Sinar P series is quite easy to apply and then the results are very beneficial indeed. I have designed such a conversion kit for my P2 (new front & rear standard frames of circular shape both with L shape base that slides on an Arca swiss compatible slot and then new bellows) and will proceed to convert the camera by the end of the month. Additionally, the rear mount allows for a Sony α7 mirrorless, or a DSLR, or an MFDB (with or without sliding frame) to be used on the rear standard and for MF lenses, or even for 35mm ones if a mirrorless camera is used, on the front standard.

[Greg]

What I don't like about the F-line, is that the swing mechanism is below the side shift mechanism. This means that if one swings and side shifts at the same time and on the same standard, he will have the entrance pupil of his lens repositioned to a different plane (parallel to the lens board) thus causing distortion of the image recorded on the image area, as well as different focusing distance than if there was no swing applied.

To my knowledge, the Sinar P series and the Arca Monolith are the only cameras that have taken care of having all shift mechanisms below the swing and tilt ones and thus ensure yaw free operation when combination of movements is applied, on all other cameras (please correct me if I'm wrong), one is better off if he swings/tilts with the front standard only and then shifts/side shifts using his rear standard (if combination of movements is required).

That said, even with the Monolith or the Sinar P series of cameras yaw free operation is only secured if the entrance pupil of the lens and the image area surface on the rear standard is positioned on the lens board (for the monolith) or on a plane parallel at 3cm distance to the lens board (on the Sinars), which usually can't be the case unless if one converts the cameras so that there is adjustment for the lens entrance pupil position and for the image area plane... Further more, such a conversion (which requires the front and rear frames to be sliding on the standard) can only be done for the Sinars and (additionally) only if the entrance pupil is positioned at (exactly) 12cm radius with respect to the tilt mechanism's arc....

It sounds difficult, but the conversion on the Sinar P series is quite easy to apply and then the results are very beneficial indeed. I have designed such a conversion kit for my P2 (new front & rear standard frames of circular shape both with L shape base that slides on an Arca swiss compatible slot and then new bellows) and will proceed to convert the camera by the end of the month. Additionally, the rear mount allows for a Sony α7 mirrorless, or a DSLR, or an MFDB (with or without sliding frame) to be used on the rear standard and for MF lenses, or even for 35mm ones if a mirrorless camera is used, on the front standard.

Very interesting... would love to see images of your conversion.
thanks

[Theodoros]

Very interesting... would love to see images of your conversion.
thanks

Here is the first drawings before the CAD/CAM final design Greg. This is part of a project where a new camera will soon be available, but there will be a conversion kit for the Sinar P-series of cameras too which will be using the same front and rear frames, bellows, lens boards and camera/MFDB mounts... (I'm sorry I can't provide the final CAD/CAM design before the project is in production but I can ensure you the project is in its final stage where some minor modifications are applied as to maximise quality).

The new camera coming, will be of only 185mm of height and 95mm of width, with all shift, side shift, tilt & swing mechanisms on both standards and completely yaw free operation on both standards despite the sensor size or the type of lens used as both frames are adjustable to correct for this. There will also be an additional mechanism available as an extra for each standard, which will allow the two standards to be angled with respect to the main rail for cases when one uses the rail in an angle (much like the Sinar P & the Monolith only can) this later mechanism will add another 21mm of total height to the camera (if added).

150423

EDIT: Note that the rear frame disk is of 72mm internal diameter (with respect to the front frame 85mm internal diameter - which is the Balpro & the Rollei X-Act2 standard) so that the grip of a Sony mirrorless or of a mirror box DSLR can be recessed by it, but at the same time it allows a 54mm width MFDB to fit without restrictions in the same image circle. When a sliding frame is used for focusing the MFDB, the mounting diameter of it is at 82mm of diameter and it is attached on the outer perimeter of the rear frame. There is also provision for one to use a focal plane shutter on the MFDB adapters (In the 2.1 cm of space that exists in-between the image area and the rear mounting frame.)

Specifications of the new camera will be for 60mm of shifts and side shifts (+/-30mm) 40degs of tilts (+/-20degs) & 100degs of swings (+/- 50degs)... Rigidity will be phenomenal!

[neil poulsen]

. . . One accessory that you might consider is a viewing bellows. It's pricey but you can use the camera without a darkcloth. I like that it maintains the traditional upside down image on the ground glass as opposed to the reflex viewer. It's more compact than most darkcloths. And it has a 2x lens in the viewer cup that allows you to stay closer to the ground glass as well as see the image larger. It's great for city shooting. . . .

I happened to pick up the following (161015) adapter needed for the viewing bellows, along with some other accessory that I had purchased.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1895-REG/Arca_Swiss_161015_Adapter_Frame_f_161001.html

It's dimensions line up just about perfectly with those of a Sinar bag bellows, which doubles as the viewing bellows for Sinar cameras. The following links to a DIY thread that describes how to use the much less expensive Sinar bellows viewing system on an Arca.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100825-Sinar-Binocular-Viewer-on-Arca-Swiss-Camera

It's a bit bulky for a backpack, but it works fine. Attaching a strap, and both hands are free to make camera adjustments. (e.g. to adjust rise on the non-metric camera.) The Sinar viewer also has magnified lenses that easily swings into position.

The Arca version costs $732 new at B&H. Purchasing the adapter (161015) new at $188, and purchasing the needed Sinar parts used, this hybrid system can be easily put together for less than $400.

[12pmc]

Thank you all for the wide spread of comments and guidance; as usual on this site the extent of knowledge is tremendous! I have now gathered a good feeling for the Acra Swiss Metric and its flexibility. (Rory I know well that sea water and cameras do not mix having spent many years at sea and using cameras. I can tell you for what it is worth, that the old Nikon F2a was the most robust camera and continued to function regardless of many dousing with waves - albeit with duct tape sealing back flap...) My next question would be how does the Linhof Techinkardan measure up against the Arca Swiss Metric ? I currently use a Technika IV but want a camera with more reach in the bellows and easier use of wide angel lens.

Thanks
Peter

[biedron]

I can't say about the Techinkardan, but the current, 141mm rear / 110mm front AS 4x5 Field and Metric models will handle a 55mm wide angle without a recessed lens board, and a Nikkor 500mm Telephoto (flange focal length of about 350mm) using the same, standard bellows. The Nikkor 500T will be pushing the limits though - infinity focus and perhaps a little closer.
Bob

[Theodoros]

Thank you all for the wide spread of comments and guidance; as usual on this site the extent of knowledge is tremendous! I have now gathered a good feeling for the Acra Swiss Metric and its flexibility. (Rory I know well that sea water and cameras do not mix having spent many years at sea and using cameras. I can tell you for what it is worth, that the old Nikon F2a was the most robust camera and continued to function regardless of many dousing with waves - albeit with duct tape sealing back flap...) My next question would be how does the Linhof Techinkardan measure up against the Arca Swiss Metric ? I currently use a Technika IV but want a camera with more reach in the bellows and easier use of wide angel lens.

Thanks
Peter

Peter, IMO it all depends on what one's priorities are... For instance, if one aims not to use a (smaller) digital image area in the future and only stick with LF sheet film then surely his priorities change... My priorities are to use my (both with multishot ability) MFDBs as well as my mirrorless and my mirrobox DSLRs with my view camera but I've ended up being a fanatic of geometrical accuracy (which directly reflects to a distortional image) too and thus, I can only speak on my priorities (which may differ to yours)...

As I said before, cameras that have their swing mechanism underneath the side shift mechanism, should NOT be used with combination of both movements on the same standard as this causes additional (geometrical) distort on the recorded image, if this isn't an issue for somebody, or if he can overcome the fact, then I would go for any of the choices you have and choose the sturdiest ones to use.

I've chosen the Sinar P2 for my own use, because it has all shift mechanisms below of all its tilt/swing mechanisms and additionally, because it's the easiest one to convert for extremely accurate (geometrical) use with MFDBs and DSLRs... but if I was to use the camera with 5x4 shift film too, the Sinar would also be my choice because one can fit the original 5x4 frames back on it within seconds... That said, I would also convert the original 4x5 frames of it (again very easy to do), so that they are aligned with the centre of the standards (would get rid of Sinar's original off axis parallel planes design) and would be careful to retain the centre of the image area and the entrance pupil of the lens (some call it the nodal point) on a plane as to intersect the swing mechanism's arc exactly at the centre of it...

To do that, I would add (simply bolt it on the existing holes but centred to the frame) a 5mm thick Arca swiss compatible rod underneath the frames so that they are of L shape (the base plate perpendicular to the frames) and then simply slot the frames instead of the circular frames of my conversion as it is described before in my previous comments. Then one has simply to readjust the shift mechanism so that the "0" position is at a minus value (-7mm usually) so that he corrects as to be exactly at the centre of the circle of which the swing mechanism's arc is part of... (120mm radius).

[mike rosenlof]

I have the F-line classic, not metric so I can only comment on what I've got. There's not a whole lot to say, it's well designed and well made. It just works and I don't have to worry about it. I have the 171mm standards front and back for 4x5. It fits well in a backpack when I move the standards together and put them in the pack on the 15 cm rail section.

Lately the camera spends most of its time with the 8x10 conversion back on it.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

My next question would be how does the Linhof Techinkardan measure up against the Arca Swiss Metric ?

Before I purchased my first Arca Swiss F-line, a 6x9 F-classic model (bought used; i should say: bought second-hand since I bought it from England ;) ), I had carefully looked at the Linhof Technikardan brochures.
Actually I also had looked at the Baby Linhof 6x9 camera, but I immediately realized that had no use of a hand-held technical camera (I already had two 6x6 MF cameras), I had no need for a coupled rangefinder 6x9 camera.
The Baby Linhof 6x9 with its small lens boards appeared to be both a very desirable camera, but a very specialized camera, not able to take a wide variety of large format lenses avalaible either used of new.
Hence, I looked at the more modern Technikardan line, and realized that I had to make the choice between the 6x9 or the 4x5" Technikardan model. You cannot transform a Technikardan 6x9 into a 4x5".

I did not want to start with a 4x5" camera [this was probably a wrong analysis, this is another issue], I wanted to practice view camera movements, tilts and shifts, with rollfilm and the 6x9 format.
At the time (year 2000), Sinar did not offer any 6x9 camera, only various 4x5" models with, of course, many adaptable rolllfim backs.

So the logical choice for me was the Arca Swiss 6x9, much more compact than a Sinar, with its 110 mm lens boards capable of accepting almost all view camera lenses ever manufactured except the biggest (e.g. a 800 mm Apo Ronar ..).
I knew that some day I could expand my 6x9 F-line camera to a 4x5" with the tapered bellows and rear format frame without changing the function carriers.
Actually a few montrhs after I acquired my 6x9 F-classic, I met somebody who was really interested to buy my 6x9 F-classic camera, so eventually I decided to sell it and purchase a F-metric 6x9, expanded a few years later to a 6x9-4x5" "field" model.

When I bought my 6x9 F-metric, I had a discussion with Philippe and Martin Vogt here in Besançon about the 6x9 Arca Swiss models, they told me that US customers preferred 4x5 cameras and larger sizes, but Japanese customers appreciated the 6x9 models.
For sure when you compare the average size of cars or appartement or homes bewteen Japan and the US, you may understand why, in Japan, sometimes 'small is beautiful' ;)

[neil poulsen]

Here are two reviews of the 45TK from B&H . . .

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/72978-USA/Linhof_000108_4x5_Technikardan_45s_Camera.html

By accounts, it's an very nice camera.

[Theodoros]

As the Arca F line resembles the accuracy of L cameras due to its swing mechanism approach (which aims to ensure entrance pupil accuracy for lenses that the entrance pupil coincides with the mounting flange and for image areas that are on the rear standard's plane), I don't think there is much in-between the Arca or the TK for one to choose from... it's purely a matter of preference IMO... Yet, I would also add the Horseman L 45 in my choices as it is cheeper, sturdier and easier to convert for different image areas down the smallest digital ones... All of these cameras do have their swing mechanism underneath the side-shift one though and thus combination of these two movements on the same standard has to be avoided.

EDIT: I just realised that the F-classic isn't like the F-Universalis on the positioning of its shift mechanism (which I thought was the case - sorry about that) but it has its shift mechanism above all other mechanisms, rather than bellow all other as it (correctly) is positioned on the Universallis or the Monolith... I have then to recommend the TK as a much better option than the F-Classic (or a Horseman L45 - even better IMO) as combining any shift with any tilt or swing on the same standard with the F-Classic, it will cause distortion on the image... It is strange that the people in Arca have corrected things on the Monolith or the F-Universalis, but left the F-classic with the handicaps that have been avoided on the other cameras of the Arca line.... Sorry from my part too for not noticing in the first place.

[Rory_5244]

Hi 12pmc, yes, sea water and cameras don't mix. I used the Schneider 47mm XL lens with a recessed lens board on the Arca just fine.

[12pmc]

Thank all for your comments.

Emmanuel. - do you know if it's possible to visit the Arca Swiss factory, or even if they have their own website, because I cannot find it?

Thanks
Peter

[Theodoros]

There is no Arca Swiss site... only Arca shop. Arca sells much of its stuff directly to the customers at the same price as retailers do.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

...Emmanuel. - do you know if it's possible to visit ...

It is of course possible to meet the Arca Swiss people, see and manipulate all products under the supervision of those who design and make Arca Swiss products!

Simply place a phone call and make an appointment.
People speak English, German and French fluently.

ARCA SWISS INTERNATIONAL
29, rue de Châtillon
Quartier de l'Europe
25480 École Valentin
France
phone: (+33) (0) 3 81 85 40 60
This is located very close to Besançon, close to the motorway A36, exit #4. From Nice to Besançon, travel time by car is about 7h30.
And you can also reach Arca Swiss International by train + 10 minutes walk, no car required, same travel time about 7h30. Train station is named École Valentin (or Ecole Valentin if you use a train planner web site)

[12pmc]

Theodoros, thanks for that, and

Emmanuel, appreciate the coordinates, will make a visit.

Merci
Peter

[Theodoros]

Theodoros, thanks for that, and

Emmanuel, appreciate the coordinates, will make a visit.

Merci
Peter

Peter, if you pay a visit to Arca, please ask them to explain to you on why they've designed the F-line shift mechanisms above than the shift/swing ones... Putting a shift mechanism above a tilt one, means that if a combination of the movements is performed on the same standard, the rotation centre (where the entrance pupil of the lens should be - ideally) "drops" or "shifts" with the swing mechanism operation... focus is altered and there is distortion (ellipsis instead of circle) on the image captured. The same is with side shifts and swings... if they are combined on the same standard, the entrance pupil of the lens operates like being on a door (!!! - never on an axis - it moves on the perimeter of a circle) ...Now, they did things right on the Monolith, (all shift mechanisms below the tilt/swing ones) so ask them why they did things different on the F-classic!

That said, there will be no problem if one operates an F- classic and avoids to use combination of swings & side shifts, or of tilts and vertical shifts on the same standard (no problem with the Monolith), but since the extra mechanisms are not right on the F-classic, why not consider the F-Univesalis that is lighter, cheaper and does (correctly) all the F-clasic does, avoids the mistakes of the F-classic and even has a shift mechanism on the front standard that is (correctly) positioned below the tilt & swing mechanisms?

Another thing to bear in mind... On the Arcas, (all Arca - the Monolith too) yaw free operation is only ensured if the lens entrance pupil is positioned on the lens board (the Orbix system), if one uses a retrofocus lens that has its entrance pupil in a different plane than its mounting (like a Mamiya RZ lens, or a Hassy V and many others), you then can "kiss yaw free operation good bye".... But again, yaw free operation isn't assured with the "arc type" mechanisms either... But the arc-type systems are far easier to correct for this (if one cares to convert his lens boards so that each different lens he uses is mounted with the entrance pupil exactly positioned at the centre of which the arc-type mechanism is part of the perimeter - or better, if one converts the mounting frame to be sliding back & forth on the standard). Hope this helps.... :)

[12pmc]

Theodora's. I will indeed ask them, but may need some if the answer gets too technical!

[Theodoros]

Theodora's. I will indeed ask them, but may need some if the answer gets too technical!

They are honest people in Arca Peter... They'll admit that it's wrong to combine swings with side shifts, or tilts with Shifts on the same standard. Think about it....

Say you are using a symmetric lens on an Arca F-line, or another lens designed so that its entrance pupil is positioned exactly where it mounts... Then if you tilt the frame, you'll notice that the entrance pupil remains at a constant point by which all tilting is happening... It is the centre of a circle that has a radius as long as the distance from the tilting mechanism... Now if you shift the lens, won't the amount of shifting added to the radius? ...but the tilt mechanism's radius is constant, isn't it? As a result the lens entrance pupil is no longer the center of the circle, but it rotates around the centre at a radius that equals the shifting amount.

Now this error (that causes distortion of the image recorded but change of focus too) wouldn't be happening if the shifting mechanism was underneath the tilt one would it? You would then shift the lens with the tilting mechanism and thus the lens entrance pupil would remain at the centre of the circle of which the tilt mechanism is an arc all the time! (like it does with the Monolith or the F-Universallis) Same thing is what is happening if the side shift mechanism is above the swing one... In this case it is even easier for one to understand since swing is happening around an axis that passes through the entrance pupil of the (symmetric) lens... If side shift is above the swing and one side shifts, the lens centre will be moved right or left from that axis and thus swinging the lens at the same time will cause the lens to rotate around the axis...

I've used a camera like that in the past and I can tell you, the difference in having a distortionless image is far more than one may think and is quite visible. Off course one may avoid the problem by using only tilts and swings on the front standard and only shifts on the rear standard, but there are many-many cases, where you have to use shifts on both standards (especially if the capture involves stitching). Thus, I changed my other camera for a Sinar P2 (which -like the Monolith has all shifting done underneath tilts) and now I even convert the P2 as to have the lens entrance pupil position and the image area position adjustable, so that I will secure fully distortionless operation despite the lens or the image area (mirrorless, MFDB, DSLR , film) used...

[neil poulsen]

I guess I'm not seeing the "distortion" to which is being referred. The need on a front standard is the ability to place the lens axis at any desired position, and at any desired 3-dimensional direction. The Arca, and similarly designed cameras, enable this capability.

I directly compared a Sinar Norma standard (base tilt above shift/swing) with a Sinar F (base tilt below shift/swing), and the worst I observe is that the latter rotates the lens a bit. But obviously, this does not cause distortion of the image, since lenses are axially symmetric. (Round.)

As for whether or not tilt is on axis, or at the base, it's always possible to use the focus knob in conjunction with other movements, to achieve the same position/orientation of the lens axis with base tilt that can be achieved with axis tilt.

[Mark Darragh]

Peter Hello,
I use both a Linhof TK 45 and an Arca Swiss F Line Field with orbix (although not the Metric). For what it's worth the majority of my work is field based and often on multi-day backpacking trips. Both cameras are very well engineered and extremely capable. I'll make a few general comments on the two but if there is something specific I don't address, please ask.

The most common complaint the I've seen regarding the Technikardan is it's unique folding design. Compared to using my Arca for instance, it does require more care when setting up to position the standards and to ensure the bellows has not been pinched when packing up but overall it is quite straightforward. Still, the Arca is certainly simpler and quicker to setup and pack away.

Where the TK does win out the bi-conical standard bellows which allows you to work with a wide range of focal lengths without changing the bellows and needing extension rails. I have used a SA 47mm XL on a recessed board (tight but usable ) through to a 450mm lens using the standard TK bellows. Having said that, at longer extensions I do find the Arca with an extension rail to be more rigid.

If you need extra movement for wide angle use, the TK wide angle bellows is cloth with velvet lining. Great for movements but a sponge if you are working in wet weather. The leather wide angle bellows of the Arca is much more weather proof.

In terms of movements, the major difference as has been mentioned are the axis tilts of the TK vs the base tilt of the Arca. There are probably as many different opinions as to the relative merits of the two as there are LF photographers, I personally don't find a overwhelming advantage of one over the other.

In the end, both are fine cameras and I'm sure you would not be disappointed either way.

All the best

[12pmc]

Mark thanks for the practical comments - is there much weight difference between the TK and the Arca Field ?
Peter

[Mark Darragh]

The weights are quite comparable between the two.

My TK weighs 3080 grams with standard bellows attached and an Arca style quick release plate. The wide angle bellows adds about 150 grams.

The F Line Field (older 171 rear standard btw) is 3090 grams with the leather conical bellows and 30cm telescoping split rail. The Arca long bellows adds 235 grams. Using the long bellows with the split rail gives you similar maximum extension to the TK.

I recently carried the Arca on a 7 day trip using the 30cm folding (or compact) rail and leather bellows which came in about 2850 grams.

As as been covered on the forum in the past, there are many potential combinations with the Arca Swiss system depending on whether you choose the field or standard 4x5 versions, 141 or 171 standards, metric or classic, whether you decide to add Orbix or not. The newer versions of the cameras based around the 141mm standards are all obviously a little lighter and more compact. For all practical purposes the differences in weight only come down to a few hundred grams.

The new Arca Universalis 4x5 might also be worthy of consideration although it has more limited movements on each standard.

One other point I forgot to mention regarding the TK relates to the Linhof recessed lens boards. Imho they are very fiddly to work with especially if you are using a lens with a center filter in place or filter holders like the Lee system. The Arca 110mm boards are a little more user friendly to get to the shutter controls. No issues with the larger Arca 141 or 171 boards if you went down that path.


M

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

I'm re-posting here a detailed weight budget current A/S 6x9 and 4x5" "field" F-classic and F-metric with Orbix® in front.
(was posted some day here in 2004, but I did not find the message yet)

Summary:
The 6x9 A/S F-classic weights about 2.2 kg / 4.8 lbs with ground glass & attaching dovetail (short 8.5 cm bracket) but without lens.
The 4x5" F-metric "field" 141 (front 110 -> rear 141) weights about 2.4-2.5 kg / 5.5 / 5.5 lbs with GG & attaching dovetail, without lens and without any film holder; weigth is almost identical to the 6x9 F-metric.
Choosing the metric model instead of a classic adds about 275 grams = 0.6 lbs to the weight.

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

In detail:
Weights in grams. Exact conversion factors are : 1 ounce = 28.35 grams ; 1 pound = 16oz = 453.59 grams
Arca Swiss F-metric compact 6x9-6x9, 300 mm (12") folding rail, optional Orbix® in front. Current model as of 2004.

Front "metric" format frame including 6x9 Orbix® : 341
Rear "metric" format frame : 281
(Additional weigth of the 6x9 Orbix® : 60)
Standard 75-150 6x9-6x9 bellows, 110x110 frames : 95

6x9 ground glass & Fresnel lens : 150

300 mm (123) Folding Rail type II : 314
Connecting bracket to quick release clamp, 8.5 cm type II : 123

Functions carrier "metric" w. geared self-locking shift, front : 583
Functions carrier "metric" w. geared self-locking shift, rear : 603

Additional compendium rod holder : 27

Typical lens mounted on a 110 board ; 400-600 grams, heavier for telephotos of course.

Total weight of the 6x9 metric : about 2.5 kg / 5.5 pounds, slightly more than the misura w/o leather case but with baseplate. Clearly, metric functions carriers add bout 100 grams each w/respect to classic non-geared models. Metric frames are probably similar within a few grams to a classic non-geared frame. I had measured 1700 grams for both classic 6x9 standards, function carriers and bellows. Subtracting 100 grams for the bellows yields 800 grams for a non-metric functions carrier plus a non-metric frame. Classic non-geared functions carrier are therefore about 520 grams each. To be confirmed, I no longer have them handy ;-)

Other Comments.

The 6x9 manual Orbix mechanism adds only 60 g to the weight and virtually nothing to the height of the frame. Truly amazing. The 4"x5" (141 or 171) model is probably bigger, I do not know.

Misura bellows = the same bellows is used for the current F-field 4x5" 110-141.
Same kind of molded leather bellows as 6x9 wide-angle bellows, but with more pleats, front size 110x110, and rear size 141x141. Maximum extension about 270 mm.

The rear metric functions carrier has an additional overhanging platform to shorten the length between both standards.

The 8.5 cm connecting bracket represents 30% of the weight of the 30cm rail+bracket assembly!
The simplified misura clamping dovetail saves weight.
Nowadays, current Arca Swiss quick-release clamps feature a twin-dovetail system, hence the short 8.5 cm bracket is no longer necessary to clamp the camera directly by its rail ... at least if you use an A/S clamp.

The front misura standard is the same as a 6x9 non-metric with orbix so about 340 grams.
A 6x7-6x9 Horseman/Arca rollfilm holder weights about 600 grams; this is heavy!

[Mark Darragh]

Thanks Emmanuel.

That's the thread I had in mind.

M

[Oren Grad]

I guess I'm not seeing the "distortion" to which is being referred. The need on a front standard is the ability to place the lens axis at any desired position, and at any desired 3-dimensional direction. The Arca, and similarly designed cameras, enable this capability.

I directly compared a Sinar Norma standard (base tilt above shift/swing) with a Sinar F (base tilt below shift/swing), and the worst I observe is that the latter rotates the lens a bit. But obviously, this does not cause distortion of the image, since lenses are axially symmetric. (Round.)

As for whether or not tilt is on axis, or at the base, it's always possible to use the focus knob in conjunction with other movements, to achieve the same position/orientation of the lens axis with base tilt that can be achieved with axis tilt.

Extended general discussion raised by this post has been moved to a new thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?131061-Understanding-entrance-and-exit-pupils-camera-design-and-image-distortion