Arca Swiss F-Line Metric vs Metric C Field for architecture

[tom roe]

Hi,

I've been shooting architecture with DSLR's and tilt shift lenses as well as medium format film for many years but am new to large format photography. I'm looking at buying either the Arca Swiss F-Line Metric or the Field version to shoot mainly architecture plus some landscapes. I plan to shoot 5x4 as well as some 6x7 with the roll back. A digital back is a possibility in the future but it will be all film for now.

I'm leaning towards the Field version because of the reduced weight/size and the universal bellows allows for greater lens flexibility without switching bellows around. My only concern is the reduced front rise on the field. The field camera has "Front: 25mm rise, 35mm fall Rear: 100mm rise only" whereas the regular metric has "Front and Rear: 3.9" (100mm) geared rise". I expect that when shooting architecture front rise will be my most used movement so am I limiting myself too much with the field version? I realise you can incline the bed (tilt the whole camera) and re-level to get extra rise but is this going to be annoying if I'm doing it regularly? 25mm rise on the Field doesn't sound like much but maybe it is? Being new to Large format I have no idea.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Tom

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, how much rise do you use with your tilt/shift lenses?

[tom roe]

Thanks for your reply. Often the maximum amount which says 12mm for the canon tilt shifts. Does that equate to large format though?

[otto.f]

If architecture is your main thing and thus movements are important then 25mm front rise does not seem very much. I have a Chamonix F2 and use the front up and down a lot for studio stills. I find it very practical too, I often use it just because changing the camera position on the tripod everytime costs more time. Front rise on the Chamonix is 45mm (30mm fall) and it might be that I don’t use it that often for the final shot but in finding the composition of my taste I do. LF is for me not at all just calculating, but to a large extent also experimenting with the effect of movements. In fact, it is the only reason to have such a camera, since there’s so much possible with digital in postprocessing with oblique lines and perspective for archtictural photography. Besides, Arca Swiss is not the cheapest, so I would not cut down on freedom of movements.

[mhayashi]

I use both metric and classic (4x5 and 8x10).
Buy the normal 4x5 metric model with orbix.
When you upgrade to larger formats 5x7 and 8x10, the small Field model front standard is not “directly” compatible to them.
To chose an arca means modularity. You should buy a model with compatible parts with all larger formats.

[Peter De Smidt]

Is the weight difference really that much? If you're doing extreme rises, a real bag bellows would likely be helpful, as well. Personally, I'd go for the standard model.

[tom roe]

Thanks for all your suggestions. The weight and compact size were appealing but it was more the universal bellows allowing use of lenses from 55mm all the way to 300mm without switching that was the big drawcard. I'd obviously be shooting way less exposures that with digital though so it's probably not as big a deal as it is in my head. I'm now leaning back towards the standard model.

Does anyone have any suggestions regarding the compact (collapsable rail) vs regular rail?

Thanks again,

Tom

www.tomroephotography.com

[mhayashi]

Tom, if you tend to use wide angle lenses from 47mm to 90mm focal length, you should buy the wide angle bag bellows additionally.
I recommend you to buy the normal two 15cm rails on the 30cm extension bracket. This allows the bellows extension longer than 300mm, that you would need for the 300mm lens focused closer than the far distance.

Check out the arca site for options.
https://www.arca-shop.de/kameras/f-line-m-line-zubehoer/optische-bank/?p=1

If you are located in US and intend to buy an arca camera as new, contact Rod Klukas.
https://www.rodklukas.com

[agregov]

I have the F-Field Compact and shoot architecture and landscape equally. There's no issue for me shooting with a 90mm lens using the standard leather belows. It could probably handle a 75mm with decent movements still possible. I tried a 65mm with a recessed lens board and the standard bellows could not handle any movements. You will need a wide angle bellows for anything lens 65mm or smaller. I use the collapsible rails. They're fine. I have a 8x10 conversion and those rails aren't too sturdy for the heavy 810 rear standard if you ever upgrade. The sliding rails are more future proof. And they may reduce having to join rail extenders into the folding rail for long lenses (kind of annoying). If 80% of your shooting will be architecture, I'd go with the 141 front standard. That said, I rarely hit the limits for front rise with the 110 front standard shooting architecture. The weight difference won't be that much a difference. The metric model will increase weight and I'm not sure it's worth it in the 4x5 model. Geared movements are very helpful for 810 and the longer lenses needed. Rod can explain the exact weight diffs and help a lot with buying advice.

[Bernice Loui]

Consider the lenses needed to meet your image goals.. only after knowing what lenses are needed to meet and achieve your image goals for a given film format can any camera choice can be made.

This LF view camera stuff is not like digital or roll film fixed lens to a fixed box camera as there are essentially few limits to what optics can be used or applied to a view camera as it is essentially not a lot more than just a light tight box that is flexi in the center.

Significant view camera rise can be achieved by tilting the front/rear standards then effectively straightening up the image plane level as needed.

~Example with a 5x7 Sinar P2 and bag bellows.
231409

~Without bag bellows to illustrate lens position relative to rear standard where the film plane is located.
231410

~Example with a 5x7 Sinar Norma, same bag bellows.
231411

~Without bag bellows and full rise on front standard which places the rear of the lens past the rear standard frame.
231412

~~Lens image circle fixes and places an absolute limit on how much camera movement can be applied~~
This harsh reality is not negotiable or escapable due to the laws of Physics releative to optics design and the way Nature is.

~~Avoid using recessed lens boards if at all possible as they tend to make accessing the lens shutter controls not so nice in many ways~~
Ideal is for a monorail camera being able to use a 47mm lens on 4x5 with a bag bellows allowing nearly full camera movements front/rear without a recessed lens board. This aspect of any view camera becomes very significant once 120 roll film backs are used with wide angle lenses. With the Lihnof Technikardan 23s (6x9) specific monorail a recessed lens board is required to use the 38mm Super Angulon XL and bag bellows to fully utilize camera movemnt capabilities.

Geared camera movements are nice if fine control is needed with convenience and ease of applying camera movements as needed. Do have a look at this previous post from the Linhof view camera book which illustrates many examples of camera movements and how they alter focus, image position and much more. Camera movements are one of the best attributes a view camera can offer over any fixed lens to a fixed box camera. Even with a tilt/shift lens there are lens/view camera/tripod/tripod head combos that have far more image control capability than any fixed lens to fixed box camera combo can offer.https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164126-Importance-of-camera-movements-gt-Alan-amp-others-long-amp-Linhof

Priority should be knowing precisely what the image goals are then making choices as to what lenses can meet these needs followed by a camera system that can fully meet these needs and any possible image goal needs with their specific lenses in the future. This is one of the primary advantages a Good modular monorail camera system(Arca Swiss, Linhof, Sinar, Toyo..etc) has over a lightweight field folder. Other considerations for a modular monorail camera system are initial purchase cost, availability of accessories such as bag bellows, replacement standard bellows, extra standards as needed for increasing camera and bellows extension as needed to filter holder/compendium lens shade and much more as needed. This is where Sinar does better than Arca Swiss and other brands. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?157832-SINAR-Norma-Now-I-get-it!

Arca Swiss monorail cameras can be had new per order along with a number of accessories like extra rail, bag bellows, format conversions and more. There are a LOT more used and available Sinar modular bits around than Arca Swiss and their cost remains mostly modest at an excellent value to this day. Arca Swiss does offer a nice 6x9 view camera that can be converted to 4x5 or 4x5 to 6x9. The Arca Swiss 6x9 monorail view camera is nice in many ways as it retains the modularity, precision/accuracy of Arca Swiss cameras. The 6x9 AS view camera can be an advantage with using 120 roll film backs due to it's smaller size and being designed for 120 roll film backs... Been and done the Arca Swiss 6x9 monorail and 5x7_4x5 Arca Swiss monorail.. back to Sinar. Then Linhof Technikardan for 6x9_120 roll film.

As for 120 roll film backs used on a view camera. Linhof Super Rollex are the best in every way except they are not the easiest to use due to the need to remove the ground glass to fit the roll film back per image exposure. This is the same for other graflok style 120 roll film backs. Sinar, Linhof, Toyo and others (stay away from the Calumet brand slide in roll film back, they are problem prone and flimsy) make 120 roll film backs that slide into the same position as a sheet film holder. These can work good and eliminates the problem of needing to remove the ground glass to install the roll film back per exposure. Do keep in mind lens focal length for 6x7 does not directly translate to 4x5 and the focal length needed/used is not fixed back focus distance fixed as with lenses for lens fixed to the box cameras. This means using a 90mm lens on 6x7 typically needs about 90mm of distance between the front standard with the lens to rear standard where the film will be. This distance is the same regardless of 6x7cm or 4x5 inches with the 90mm being a wide angle lens on 4x5 and "normal_ish" for 6x7cm. To gain full advantage of camera movements often means using a bag bellows instead of a standard bellows to allow enough flex between front to rear standards.

Then we get into lens image circle and what lens apertures are used for film exposure. Image circle fixes how much camera movement is allowed for a given film format. Majority of modern view camera lenses designed and made are optimized for f22 which might not be ideal for 6x7cm in differing ways. This is one of the many realities of how and why view camera lenses/optics drive the camera's abilities to support the lens/optics needs.

Tripod and tripod head becomes another significant systems factor as tripod stability and ease and stability of tripod head adjustments are a very integral aspect of using a view camera. Basically, ball heads don't do well with view cameras where three-way pan/tilt/nod tripod heads in general do far better in many ways.


Essentially, don't make any camera choice until what lenses and how the images will be made has been mostly established.
Bernice


Hi,

I've been shooting architecture with DSLR's and tilt shift lenses as well as medium format film for many years but am new to large format photography. I'm looking at buying either the Arca Swiss F-Line Metric or the Field version to shoot mainly architecture plus some landscapes.

I plan to shoot 5x4 as well as some 6x7 with the roll back. A digital back is a possibility in the future but it will be all film for now.

I'm leaning towards the Field version because of the reduced weight/size and the universal bellows allows for greater lens flexibility without switching bellows around. My only concern is the reduced front rise on the field. The field camera has "Front: 25mm rise, 35mm fall Rear: 100mm rise only" whereas the regular metric has "Front and Rear: 3.9" (100mm) geared rise". I expect that when shooting architecture front rise will be my most used movement so am I limiting myself too much with the field version? I realise you can incline the bed (tilt the whole camera) and re-level to get extra rise but is this going to be annoying if I'm doing it regularly? 25mm rise on the Field doesn't sound like much but maybe it is? Being new to Large format I have no idea.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Tom

[Greg]

There are a LOT more used and available Sinar modular bits around than Arca Swiss and their cost remains mostly modest at an excellent value to this day.

An understatement in this member's opinion. A few years ago I picked up a disassembled 8x10 Arca-Swiss (Series 11 from the late 1970s as best I could determine at the time) camera for what I thought was a bargain price. Parts were in excellent condition but just not all there. I spent maybe two years trying to track down the missing parts... I believe the phrase "going down the rabbit hole" totally applied. Finally gave up and sold the pile of parts. In comparison it once took me probably only two months to acquire the parts to assemble a completely working 8x10 Sinar Norma Expert system which I still use today.

[Joshua Dunn]

I was going to suggest Sinar as well, I second Bernice's comments. Much of architectural photography comes down to lens coverage and understanding movements. Is there a reason you want the Arca Swiss? It's a fine camera however very expensive. If you are new to large format I would start with a Sinar F2. You can usually pick one up for $500 or less with a bag bellows. It's an excellent camera to learn on and completely modular. Meaning it will always be able to adapt to your needs. Which is good as you don't know what you really need until you start getting a feel for how you going to shoot with large format. I have shot from 38mm to 1200mm on my Sinar cameras in four different formats. If you wants to grow into a more technical camera, you could later invest in a P2 and most everything you have for a F2 would work on a P2.

I would start with the Sinar F2 and take the savings and invest in good lenses.

-Joshua

[neil poulsen]

An alternative to the 30mm extension bracket is the following. I configure my 171mm Metric with the 6x9 Metric front standard. But instead of using the Metric rear function carrier, I substitute an Arca Swiss, old style, Oschwald era Type A, rear function carrier. It carries the rear Metric format frame lower than the rear Metric function carrier, so there's better alignment between the rear and front format frames. In this way, I need only use about 7mm of front 6x9 rise to make the front format frame on axis with the rear.

The nice thing about the Type A, versus the Type B or Type C Oschwald function carriers, is that it has no tilt. So, improved chances of front and rear being parallel. This is no problem, because I prefer front to rear tilt. Besides, rear "tilt" can still be effetively achieved by using the tripod head. The Type C function carrier has swing. Cosmetically, Type C function carriers are silver. (But, I have a very rare black Type C.)

While I have the 30mm extension, I've never found it necessary to use. Besides, changing back and forth is annoyingly fidgity.

My camera has the 171mm Metric rear functiion carrier. But I'm thinking that there would be less front rise needed to align front with back using a 141mm rear Metric format frame.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm in the Sinar camp, too....but....I borrowed an Arca f-line from a friend. I used it for about 2 months. It's the nicest multi-purpose camera that I've used, being better than the Sinar F2s, P, and P2 that I have when it came to packability and use. I prefer the ARCA rails, and the manual movements were so smooth that I didn't miss geared movements. I haven't used a Norma. I'm sure they're great. Sinar makes the most financial sense, but then LF doesn't really make financial sense anyway.

[alan_b]

Thanks for your reply. Often the maximum amount which says 12mm for the canon tilt shifts. Does that equate to large format though?
With 35mm, 12mm shift gets you halfway across the short dimension of the sensor (film). Proportionately, 25mm would be plenty of shift for MF, while 50mm would be needed for 4x5.

I have an Arca Swiss w/ 110mm front, and Sinar F, P (with Arca 110 adapters). As everyone else has said, the Sinars are fully capable and much more widely & cheaply available. Their downside is more bulk in the pack. I greatly prefer the Arca for it’s compact, elegant design (very subjective). I use the Arca for multiple formats: 35mm & MF digital, MF & 4x5 film. This is another plus for the Arca, enough precision for the smaller formats.

My standard bellows for 65, 90, 135, 210mm 4x5 lenses is a custom hybrid that is mostly pleated with a flexible bag section in the front. I think Chamonix cameras use this style? 65mm lenses don’t allow much movement on 4x5 anyway, so this gives me what I need.

Maybe figure out what you want with the Sinar first, then move to the Arca once you know exactly what you need. You may have to buy the Arca new rather than used, but by that point you’ll know if it’s worth it to you.

[Chester McCheeserton]

My standard bellows for 65, 90, 135, 210mm 4x5 lenses is a custom hybrid that is mostly pleated with a flexible bag section in the front. I think Chamonix cameras use this style?

where did you get this custom hybrid bellows made?

my goal is to use a 150mm on an arca 5x7, which from my experience using on deardroff 5x7 seems right on the line between standard and bag bellows, closer to bag when shooting a building with max front rise applied....

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, Arca Swiss makes nice precision/accurate view cameras.

Sinar makes a camera system that is modular like Arca Swiss, the Sinar system is simply FAR more extensive, more configurable, easier and lower cost to obtain camera modules and better overall compatibility. Then add the Sinar shutter which allows using optics from microscope objectives to centuries young lenses in barrel with good shutter timing accuracy/precision/repeatability. There is also the behind the lens metering system, filter system and lots more..

While the Arca Swiss rack geared rail is nice, it will be pressed if greatly extended in cases such as being used with long focal lenght APO process lenses or similar macro work. The Sinar modular rail is rigid and strong (more than the Arca Swiss rail due to design) enough to set up as a camera copy stand.
231449

Sinar Silly_ness
231455

Then there are the non view camera applications of using the Sinar modules..
231450

Configured to meet the needs of a video/cinema producer that needed to produce cinema images of a view camera's gorund glass image..
231451


As for digital, bendable cameras like the

Linhof M679..
https://linhof.com/en/linhof-m-679cs/

Sinar P3.. variation of the Sinar P..
https://sinar.swiss/products/cameras/p3-df-en-us/

Arca Swiss..
https://www.captureintegration.com/arca-swiss-view-camera/#1579878755574-4b6fd358-0abc3cb0-9142

Cambo..
https://www.cambo.com/en/view-cam/actus-xl/actus-xl-35-view-camera/

Toyo..
http://www.toyoview.com/Products/VX23D/23D.html

Digital centric view cameras should be a differnt kettle of pixels due to the size of the solid state imager device requiring more precision/accuracy smaller camera movements and accommodation for different lenses that are inteted for solid state image sensors.. Yet the basic foundation of how a view camera works is the same.


It comes down to the system capability of Sinar far beyond just a view camera and what the image goals/needs are.

Bernice

[alan_b]

where did you get this custom hybrid bellows made?

my goal is to use a 150mm on an arca 5x7, which from my experience using on deardroff 5x7 seems right on the line between standard and bag bellows, closer to bag when shooting a building with max front rise applied....
I made it myself, sized for my application. I'm traveling at the moment, so don't have a photo of it at hand.

[Chester McCheeserton]

I made it myself, sized for my application. I'm traveling at the moment, so don't have a photo of it at hand.


Oh Cool Thanks...would love to see a photo of it someday

[alan_b]

Oh Cool Thanks...would love to see a photo of it someday

Here you go - shown on camera w/ 25mm rear fall, 12mm shift. Since my camera only has 35mm shift in any direction, I just left out the stiffeners for the first couple of pleat rows to give enough flexibility. For more movements, you'd probably want more flexibility.

231510

[tom roe]

Hi, thanks for everyone's comments, it's been very useful. I ended up going with the standard metric with the 141mm front. I appreciate that the sinars are more cost efficient but I've been saving up for an arca and had my heart set on it so it's hard to look back at that point!

[tom roe]

Here you go - shown on camera w/ 25mm rear fall, 12mm shift. Since my camera only has 35mm shift in any direction, I just left out the stiffeners for the first couple of pleat rows to give enough flexibility. For more movements, you'd probably want more flexibility.

231510

Thanks for this Alan, is that a horseman 6x7 back you're using? Would you recommend? I'm tossing up between this and the toyo for when I need to shoot 6x7

[Chester McCheeserton]

Here you go - shown on camera w/ 25mm rear fall, 12mm shift. Since my camera only has 35mm shift in any direction, I just left out the stiffeners for the first couple of pleat rows to give enough flexibility. For more movements, you'd probably want more flexibility.

231510

Thank you – looks good

[alan_b]

Thanks for this Alan, is that a horseman 6x7 back you're using? Would you recommend? I'm tossing up between this and the toyo for when I need to shoot 6x7
It’s a Horseman 6x12 back, but it’s just like the 6x7 & 6x9 versions. I like them better than the Toyos, even though you have to take off the ground glass. From memory, I think the Toyo bends the film more(?)

[Bernice Loui]

Appears to be an Arca Swiss_Sinar hybrid.
231517


As for roll film backs, 120 roll film backs that fit on to the 4x5 graflok back after removing the ground glass can be a hassle and risk droping the ground glass frame/carrier each time the 120 roll film back is exposure cycled (on-off). Best of these are Linhof Super Rolex. The Horseman (also re-branded Arca Swiss) or Toyo 120 roll film backs work ok, but not nearly as good at holding the film flat or durable as the Linhof Super Rolex.

Better solution for 120 roll film backs for 4x5 are the slide in variety which does not require removal of the ground glass carrier/frame to install the 120 roll film back. These function near identical as a 4x5 sheet film holder.


Bernice





Here you go - shown on camera w/ 25mm rear fall, 12mm shift. Since my camera only has 35mm shift in any direction, I just left out the stiffeners for the first couple of pleat rows to give enough flexibility. For more movements, you'd probably want more flexibility.

231510

[Bob Salomon]

That better solution may also have film flatness problems.

[alan_b]

Appears to be an Arca Swiss_Sinar hybrid.
Correct: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166118-arca-swiss-F-metric-5x7&p=1622036#post1622036


As for roll film backs, 120 roll film backs that fit on to the 4x5 graflok back after removing the ground glass can be a hassle and risk droping the ground glass frame/carrier each time the 120 roll film back is exposure cycled (on-off). Best of these are Linhof Super Rolex. The Horseman (also re-branded Arca Swiss) or Toyo 120 roll film backs work ok, but not nearly as good at holding the film flat or durable as the Linhof Super Rolex.
Another issue with the Toyo holder and some cameras: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?165774-Roll-film-backs-for-4x5-cameras&p=1623060#post1623060


Better solution for 120 roll film backs for 4x5 are the slide in variety which does not require removal of the ground glass carrier/frame to install the 120 roll film back. These function near identical as a 4x5 sheet film holder.
Better in some ways, worse in others - like most things in photography and life.

[Sal Santamaura]

That better solution may also have film flatness problems.

If Kodak expands upon its recently introduced 120 Gold film, which is coated on polyester rather than acetate base, there might be enough choices to put the reverse-curl-take-a-set-bulge behind us forever. All roll film holders that don't have a straight feed path from supply spool to gate suffer from bulges to greater or lesser degrees. Which is to say virtually every holder that was made, with almost no exceptions. The degree to which bulges matter varies based on lens focal length (shorter suffers more than longer) and taking aperture (wider makes things worse). The extent of bulge varies based on how much the feed path bends.