Arca - 171mm versus 141mm - is it worth it?

[Frank Petronio]

Just wondering if anyone who spend the extra bucks to swap their 171mm Arca to the new 141mm standards and bellows felt it was worth it or not?

Is saving a few ounces overall -- and maybe packing slightly smaller -- worth the large price penalty you pay for swapping old parts and buying new?

Is it true that the savings are only a couple of ounces and the size difference between the 171 and 141 frames only about 1/2 inch? (Assume a standard 4x5 regualar bellows comparison).

I understand if price is no object, getting set-up with brand new 141mm Arca gear is the ideal, but I am more of an eBay lurker.

[Doug Dolde]

Well Frank...I bought a new 141mm Arca Field with Micrometrix Orbix to replace my 171mm Field without Orbix. Cost me $3500 minus the $1600 I got for the old one, or about $1900.

Note that $1600 is exactly what I paid for the old one (used, one owner) about a year and a half earlier.

I didn't really do it for the size (that is indeed a plus) but to get the Orbix AND the standard bellows will go out to around 380mm compared to 240mm for the old one. Swapping bellows is a pain. Now I just plug in my 15cm extension and it's good to go.

Whether it is worth it is a personal matter, but it's a fantastic hunk of camera.

[Jack Flesher]

This is a tough call... For me, my older camera had Dynamic (friction) Orbix and I really wanted Micrometric (Geared) Orbix. I used the smaller size of the 141 along with the lighter weight as added justifications to make the swap. I had already upgraded to a bellows with deeper pleats in the new thinner material, so my 171 made 55 through 450 on flat boards already -- but that was a $300 upgrade. In my case, I had to pony up a almost $1800 over what I sold my old one for to get the new one.

Was it worth it? Well the new one is a tad smaller -- about a half inch all around (but did not generate any extra room in my pack) -- and a tad lighter (and for the most part un-noticeable in said pack). But the geared Micrometric Orbix ends up being the kicker for me -- definitely enjoy having it, use it regularly and would never want to go back to an Arca without it. Oh -- IMO the 141 board and back release "wheels" are easier to use than the older 171 "slide" style so call that a $100 convenience improvement ;)

HOWEVER-BUT! If one already owned a 171 of any description -- Metric, Classic or Field -- and it already had Micrometic Orbix, I would advise them to simply get a new bellows made for the old camera and save their money. IMO 141 by itself is not enough reason to upgrade from 171.

FWIW, here is a comparison of my 171 Metric next to my 141 Metric showing their relative size difference. Note that the maximum dimensions of the 171 bellows and 141 bellows are almost identical as the 141's are larger than the frames:

http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album08/Arcas_sm.jpg

All that said, I would not sell my current 141 Metric even if I was offered what I paid for it brand new. This one is perfectly aligned, perfectly zeroes, GG is at the exact PoF and it is the closest thing to being 'the perfect camera' that I have ever used (at least for me). I love it.

Hope this helps!

[Rory_5244]

Well, I bought an 8x10 conversion set for my 171 4x5 Arca just as the new 141 version was announced. So, replacing the whole caboodle now would be financially insane of me. I don't have Orbix, and I was never really certain what I would need that for, so no need to upgrade there. I think the reduced size of the standards just makes the bellows more prone to damage when the camera is folded up and jostling around in the bag. The larger standards make sure that nothing squeezes the bellows around the sides.

[Rory_5244]

Oh yeah. To all the helpful people: please don't all chime in about how great Orbix is etc etc. Please. I don't want to hear it. I don't need no Orbix. No no no.

[evan clarke]

I have both and I love my 141 for the long bellows. I keep the universal leather bellows on my 171 and use it for really wide lenses and for a 6x17 Chinese panoramic back..Can't go wrong with either one of them.. Rory, you would never want the convenience of a one or two click instant, perfect tilt anyway..HaHa..EC

[Rory_5244]

dammit

[Jack Flesher]

Yeah Evan... That little knob up front that you simply twist with your left hand while your right is holding your loupe to your GG allowing you see the image as it snaps into focus is really over-rated.

:D,

[Rory_5244]

Well, REAL men only focus with the rear standard. :cool:

[Doug Dolde]

Focusing with the rear standard (base tilt) will require stopping down more than with front axis tilt (Orbix).

The delta displacement is greater due to the larger size at the rear. This could be more of a deal breaker on 8x10 than 4x5 since you already are stopping down more.

But yes base tilt works fine as long as you are into emphasizing the foreground...an effect of rear base tilt.

[Rory_5244]

Thanks Doug. It was a joke!! However, I didn't know about the greater delta displacement of the rear standard w.r.t. the front when using tilt. :(

I try to keep my front standard locked down as much as possible, and fiddle only with the rear. The perspective distortion works for my landscape shots, which is all I do anyway. Thank you for the info., I'll have to consider that point from now on.

[evan clarke]

Yeah Evan... That little knob up front that you simply twist with your left hand while your right is holding your loupe to your GG allowing you see the image as it snaps into focus is really over-rated.

:D,

I don't loupe and I almost always use 1 click..it's a real no brainer..automatic. I haven't missed focus with this new camera yet. Rory, I do rear focus!!..EC