Arca Swiss F-Line 8x10 reducer board -- Anyone using one? Experiences?

[Mark Carstens]

I've wrestled with the idea of buying a 8x10 reducing board for my hybridized Arca Swiss sytem (4x5 Discovery and 8x10 conversion kit) for the past six months. I tend to carry both systems into the field -- heavy, but worth every mile I lug them. That said, I'd like to simplify my pack and my shooting workflow.

The reducing back, in the end, is probably the most practical and, strangely, "economical" solution to my dilemma versus owning two complete systems (like buying a separate 4x5), but I'd like to hear from others who have experienced this themselves. I've looked at trying to piece together a second system, but used parts are very hard to come by (witness my recent WTB ad that yielded nothing), not to mention costly.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

~Mark

[Jack Flesher]

My thoughts FWIW...

I obtained an 8x10 > 4x5 reducer for my 8x10 Arca for the very reason you suggest -- saving weight by avoiding carrying two systems.

And I've never used it.

The real issue is you can get down to one body, but you need to either carry extra lenses or trim your lens selection down to a few for each format -- yes you can doulble-up on a few, but the point is I found I wanted to carry more than I usually do. Either way, you need double up on film and holders if you want to shoot both formats. In practice I find I usually just make a choice for one format or the other and go with that system. (And generally, if the shot is more than a mile from the car, the 4x5 wins.)

;),

[Mark Carstens]

Thanks, for your insight, Jack.

I'm down to four lenses 150.240.355.450 with the last three being my "dual format" lenses. It 'bout killed me, but I sold my 110XL to help finance the 8x10 kit and have missed it ever since. My point is, I can handle (physically) one more lens, but don't have the means to buy a reducer back and replace my 110 this year anyway, so right now, my focal length range "compromise" mostly works for me. With that said, there have been times when I've wished I had a 210 and a 300 for the 4x5 in addition to a 110XL.

The primary goal of a reducer back would be to pare down the bulk of carrying the second system (4x5). It would mean one less 13x7x9 case in my backpack and more room for holders. I suspect that the reducer board probably only eliminates bulk and not weight. It looks pretty stout. But I'm still fit enough to pack a fair amount of weight (and foolish enough to do so), so until that changes, pack it I will.

Just for my edification, how much would you say the reducer back weighs without the 4x5 GG holder installed? I'm trying to get a feel for the weight difference.

~Mark

PS - Hope you can make the next Bay Area LF get together. Big Sur was a blast!

[evan clarke]

I have complete Arca cameras in all formats and have the reducers. I have found the same thing that Jack mentions and find it better to keep the kits packed with their proper lenses. I frequently carry everything in the car, at least my 8x10 and 4x5 but it seems that the 4x5 wins 99% of the time for me also...Evan Clarke

[evan clarke]

One more note, my workflow is almost automatic with my 4x5 and I can be set up to photograph almost instantly. I have occasionally used the 6x9 reducer on my 4x5 but found that while I was fumbling around changing the backs, I would lose the opportunity for the photograph...better to just make a sheet especially if it is good..EC

[Jack Flesher]

Thanks, for your insight, Jack.

Just for my edification, how much would you say the reducer back weighs without the 4x5 GG holder installed? I'm trying to get a feel for the weight difference.

~Mark

PS - Hope you can make the next Bay Area LF get together. Big Sur was a blast!

I have not ever weighed it (and can do so tonight when I get home) but it isn't that heavy even with the 4x5 back in place -- maybe 2 pounds total?

On lenses, my favorites for 4x5 are 65, 90, 150 and 300. On 8x10 they run looser at 150, 240, 450. I have the 150 XL which covers 8x10, and of course my 240, 300 and 450 will also cover both. So really, I could just add my 90, film and the 4x5 back to my 8x10 kit and go since the 8x10 won't compress enough to allow infinity focus with my 65 -- and for that matter has very little flexibility for movements with the 90.

The reality however is two-fold: One, I don't have room in my normal 8x10 pack for all that extra gear and second, what do I really gain from carrying the 4x5 adapter without the 4x5?

If you think about it, I don't really gain ability to carry more film because as I make room for the extra 4x5 accessories and film, I lose room for my 8x10 holders and may only carry two instead of five. So at least for me, all I really gain is cheaper per-shot costs and ability for longer lens work. Hence I realized that for the relatively few shots I might want the longer view, I can simply crop an 8x10 -- yes it costs a bit more at the end of the day, but certainly saves a huge amount of carrying hassle. By contrast, if I suspect I might want to shoot a "lot" of images, the 4x5 with ready-loads is the easy choice...

Thus, the way I look at it is if I want to shoot 8x10, that's what I shoot -- if 4x5 is better suited, that's what I shoot. The one real advantage I see for the 4x5 reducing back, is it gives me a back-up 4x5 if I somehow damage my main 4x5 on a trip -- and in fact I sold my "back-up" 4x5 (Shen Hao) for this reason.

Again, these were my findings for my style of shooting, and share them only FWIW -- I realize they may not apply for others.

Jack

PS: I will definitely plan on making any of the Nor-Cal shoots I can -- just had a family conflict on this last one!

[Mark Carstens]

Thank you both, Evan and Jack, for your thought-provoking responses.


Thus, the way I look at it is if I want to shoot 8x10, that's what I shoot -- if 4x5 is better suited, that's what I shoot.

That kind of hits the nail on the head. I think a large part of my dilemma is being new to 8x10, and learning to be smooth at evaluating a scene to decide whether the shot would be best at 4x5 or 8x10 (unless the shot requires great depth of field, of course).

I also really feel spoiled by the view from behind an 8x10 ground glass. Composing in 8x10 format is so much easier for me. My close-focus vision isn't what it used to be (presbyopia sucks!), and the elements of the image seem to fall into place with greater clarity viewing through a larger picture window.


One more note, my workflow is almost automatic with my 4x5 and I can be set up to photograph almost instantly. I have occasionally used the 6x9 reducer on my 4x5 but found that while I was fumbling around changing the backs, I would lose the opportunity for the photograph...better to just make a sheet especially if it is good..EC

While I'll agree that it's better to get the shot, regardless of format, there's no doubt that I've missed shots for other, less justifiable reasons than fumbling between setups. Also, I imagine it's easier to switch out boards than to slide on/off frames and detach/reattach the bellows like I do now.

I was warming to the idea of trading off risk for reward if it meant that I can carry one system into the field that serves a dual purpose, but I need to know how short I could go with the 8x10 bellows, especially after reading your post more carefully, Jack...

...the 8x10 won't compress enough to allow infinity focus with my 65 -- and for that matter has very little flexibility for movements with the 90.

Do you think it would handle a 110?

I'm still seriously mulling the possibilities, and all this information surely helps. Thanks again, gentlemen. If you've got anything more to add, by all means, do so.

~Mark

[Jack Flesher]

Do you think it would handle a 110?



To reitierate, I have an older style Arca 8x10 with a fresh "normal" bellows that allows infinity focus on a 600 and a 90 using a flat board -- and to be sure, other cameras will be different.

Since it handles my 90, yes it will handle a 110. However, on my camera, I doubt there is going to be enough bellows flexibility to use all of the IC on that 110 SSXL for the 4x5 back with the stock bellows.

However, if I were to use the 110 SSXL or my 90 with a sheet of 8x10 on that camera, I would have the *ENTIRE* IC to work with and could frame any way I wanted after the fact, including 5x7, 617 pano or maybe even 624 pano with the 110 SSXL! :)

So again, I ask what is it you really gain by carrying one camera and bellows? In my case, I'd lose the wide capability on 4x5 and really only gain the ability to shoot normal and longer shots on 4x5. I decided that exercise for the sake of a relatively small amount of film economy wasn't worth the added hassle or loss of space -- space that could be better used by carrying more 8x10 sheets...

Hope this helps!

[Mark Carstens]

However, on my camera, I doubt there is going to be enough bellows flexibility to use all of the IC on that 110 SSXL for the 4x5 back with the stock bellows.

Hope this helps!

Yes it does, Jack. I didn't realize you had the older model 8x10. I have the later one and it would seem (from picutres I've seen of the older models, if memory serves) that I might have a bit more flexibility with the bellows, but not much (my bellows will collapse fully into themselves).

Based on the feedback I'm receiving here, I'll go back and reassess my situation.

Thanks again, Jack and Evan, for your input.

~Mark

[Pete Roody]

Mark,

I have both Arca Cameras (8x10 and 4x5) and have seperate kits for each. I use one at a time and never bring both with me. I prefer 8x10 and use 4x5 more for convenence. The 4x5 with readyloads when I want a lighter, smaller camera, etc. I also have the 8x10 to 4x5 reduction board that came with the 8x10 camera but never use it.

Having one system that shoots 8x10/4x5 has no real advantage (except cost) and if you want to shoot both formats, then eventually plan to have 2 cameras. With the Arca system you can build up the system as you get the money.

Pete

[Mark Carstens]

Having one system that shoots 8x10/4x5 has no real advantage (except cost) and if you want to shoot both formats, then eventually plan to have 2 cameras. With the Arca system you can build up the system as you get the money.

Thanks, Pete. The trouble is finding the "parts" of an Arca to assemble two complete systems without the intermittable wait and/or exorbitant expense. I passed on a used Discovery for $800 about a week back. I would have cannabilized it or my current Discovery for the parts to fill out the 8x10 kit. In truth, that may be as good as it gets.

Either that or I create a permanent 8x10 conversion/Discovery "hybrid" and upgrade my Arca Swiss 4x5 camera. It's more a consideration of cost over perceived convenience.

~Mark

[Pete Roody]

The trouble is finding the "parts" of an Arca to assemble two complete systems without the intermittable wait and/or exorbitant expense. I passed on a used Discovery for $800 about a week back. I would have cannabilized it or my current Discovery for the parts to fill out the 8x10 kit. In truth, that may be as good as it gets.

Either that or I create a permanent 8x10 conversion/Discovery "hybrid" and upgrade my Arca Swiss 4x5 camera. It's more a consideration of cost over perceived convenience.

~Mark

Mark,

It does take time and money to piece an ARCA system together.

I started with the 4x5 f-line and pieced together the 8x10 camera.

Instead of buying a used Discovery, you could use parts from an older system. The older function carriers will work with the F-line parts. I went this route until I was able to find f-line parts for 2 cameras.

You can also try Precision Camera Works (http://precisioncameraworks.com/). They service ARCA cameras and they have miscellaneous used items available.

Also check the European eBay listings.

Pete

[Mark Carstens]

Instead of buying a used Discovery, you could use parts from an older system. The older function carriers will work with the F-line parts.

Thanks, Pete. Do you know whether the frames of say, a Model B, will accept the F-line 171x171 bellows?

~Mark

[Jack Flesher]

FWIW, a few Arca tidbits:

171 and 110 Lensboards between older Arca models and current F-Line models are interchangeable; old function carriers fit on the new rails, though can be tight; bellows frames are different and bellows won't interchange between new and old; older 8x10 B rear function carriers are significantly more robust than the older 4x5 B function carriers if you want to build any custom ULF formats.

[Mark Carstens]

... bellows frames are different and bellows won't interchange between new and old..

Well now, that's disappointing. I'll need an F-Line front frame for my bellows in any case, then. Wild dogs!! :(

~Mark

[archivue]

the trouble with the reducing back : i'm not shure that you will have full movements with a 110xl...
By the way, considering 4x5 only, the new field 110x140 is exceptionnal... with one bellow (and extension rail) you can use 38 to 360 lens !!!

[Pete Roody]

Well now, that's disappointing. I'll need an F-Line front frame for my bellows in any case, then. Wild dogs!! :(

~Mark

As of about a month ago, Precision Camera Works had used 171 front format frames (both f-classic and f-metric).

[Jack Flesher]

the trouble with the reducing back : i'm not shure that you will have full movements with a 110xl...
By the way, considering 4x5 only, the new field 110x140 is exceptionnal... with one bellow (and extension rail) you can use 38 to 360 lens !!!

Good point, the new synthetic bellows are great. FTR, on the new F-line 141 x 141, you can use a 47 through 450 on flat boards and maintain infinity focus. However, the bellows is fully compressed and you have zero movements at the 47 end ;)

[Marco Annaratone]

I just sold my 4x5 Arca F-line and I will soon be selling my 8x10 kit as well. I too was used to go around with either one (mountain climbing) or both (by car), and kept separate lens kits for either format.

The decision of which one to carry was relatively easy to make, actually, depending on the subject and whether I was shooting color (typically, but not always, 4x5) or BN (typically, but not always, 8x10).

Cheers

Marco

[Pete Roody]

Good point, the new synthetic bellows are great. FTR, on the new F-line 141 x 141, you can use a 47 through 450 on flat boards and maintain infinity focus. However, the bellows is fully compressed and you have zero movements at the 47 end ;)

The newer bellows are definately better. I played with the new 8x10 with standard length bellows and you get full movements at 150mm and can effectively use a 600mm lens. The extra flexibility comes from both the material and design (deeper folds?). Arca said they have no plans to redesign the 171mm bellows.

[Mark Carstens]

As of about a month ago, Precision Camera Works had used 171 front format frames (both f-classic and f-metric).

Thanks, Pete. I'll shoot them an email. The frames are not on their downloadable "For Sale" list, so I'm not optimistic, but we'll see.


Good point, the new synthetic bellows are great. FTR, on the new F-line 141 x 141, you can use a 47 through 450 on flat boards and maintain infinity focus. However, the bellows is fully compressed and you have zero movements at the 47 end ;)

Wish I had the $$$ to make that happen, but that dog don't hunt.

If I were to buy a complete 4x5 camera, it would be a used F-Line 171x171 with orbix and shoot for under $2K, the LF gods willing. I've got a synthetic bag and the long bellows already, so I've got a fairly broad bellows range covered.

~Mark

[Jack Flesher]

If I were to buy a complete 4x5 camera, it would be a used F-Line 171x171 with orbix and shoot for under $2K, the LF gods willing.

Wise choice Mark! (But under $2K might be difficult.)

Here is an image to whet your appetite... Wanting the smaller 141 camera and micro-metric (geared) Orbix, I finally broke down and ordered one. Previously, I owned a 171x171 F-Metric with dynamic (friction) Orbix and newer style synthetic bellows, but figured the geared Orbix would be more convenient to adjust and the 30mm lost off width and height would be a non-trivial gain. Then the 141x141 arrived... Look at the pair of them side-by-side:

http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album08/Arcas.sized.jpg

As you can see, the size gain was in the end, trivial. The synthetic bellows of the 141 sits outside the 141 frame to essentially the same dimensions of the 171 camera -- slightly smaller, but certainly not any significant gain. Moreover, the 171 frames offer protection to their collapsed bellows while the 141's do not so I have to pack it more carefully to prevent rub holes. Nowhere is this mentioned in the Arca literature, nor is it obvious from any of the current marketing materials. Though it is supposedly a half-pound lighter in weight. Whoopee.

For sure, the geared Orbix is preferable in use to the friction: it was really tough to make a small, sub-one-degree adjustment with the friction Orbix, but very easy with the geared. I tired at the time, but could get no commitment on how much or if my friction Orbix could be upgraded to Geared. I understand it is now readily available for $695 and they'll loan you a classic frame while performing the upgrade. (It figures...)

FWIW, as for the geared adjustments of the Metric over the classic, I like them. No need to lock any shift or rise adjustment, just dial it in and shoot. Probably not a big deal in reality, but it is easy and fast and does remain rigid for those curious...

Oh yeah, one other thing. I mount all my lenses in Tech boards and have a few in #3 shutters, so of course I have Arca 171>Tech and 141>Tech adapter boards. But the 141 board is small and the way the 141 release button is configured is really stupid; it points down at the lens. The gap between the button and the rim of the #3 is so narrow (a few mm) there is no way to get a finger between them to press the button and actually release the board -- so I have to carry a Popsicle stick in my bag to fit the gap to release a #3 lens! By contrast, there is no issue in this regard using the 171>tech adapter. Stupid, stupid design.

At the end of the day, I had paid close to $4400 for my new 141 and another $350 for the idiotic 141>Tech Adapter. I sold my used 171 for $2900. So it cost me $1500 to "upgrade" plus the adapter. I think I would have rather paid the $700 to convert my old camera to geared Orbix and spent the $$$ saved on a lens or two.

FWIW only,

[Pete Roody]

Thanks, Pete. I'll shoot them an email. The frames are not on their downloadable "For Sale" list, so I'm not optimistic, but we'll see.


~Mark

Mark,

Bob doesn't list this stuff on the website. You have to call or email him. I just checked and he emailed me in late December. I don't know for sure if they were front or rear carriers but he said they were near mint.

Pete

[Mark Carstens]

Wise choice Mark! (But under $2K might be difficult.)

Yeah, it's probably just wishful thinking.



...the 171 frames offer protection to their collapsed bellows while the 141's do not so I have to pack it more carefully to prevent rub holes. Nowhere is this mentioned in the Arca literature, nor is it obvious from any of the current marketing materials.

For sure, the geared Orbix is preferable in use to the friction: it was really tough to make a small, sub-one-degree adjustment with the friction Orbix, but very easy with the geared...now readily available for $695 and they'll loan you a classic frame while performing the upgrade. (It figures...)

FWIW, as for the geared adjustments of the Metric over the classic, I like them. No need to lock any shift or rise adjustment, just dial it in and shoot. Probably not a big deal in reality, but it is easy and fast and does remain rigid for those curious...

Oh yeah, one other thing. I mount all my lenses in Tech boards and have a few in #3 shutters, so of course I have Arca 171>Tech and 141>Tech adapter boards. But the 141 board is small and the way the 141 release button is configured is really stupid; it points down at the lens. The gap between the button and the rim of the #3 is so narrow (a few mm) there is no way to get a finger between them to press the button and actually release the board -- so I have to carry a Popsicle stick in my bag to fit the gap to release a #3 lens! By contrast, there is no issue in this regard using the 171>tech adapter. Stupid, stupid design.

At the end of the day, I had paid close to $4400 for my new 141 and another $350 for the idiotic 141>Tech Adapter. I sold my used 171 for $2900. So it cost me $1500 to "upgrade" plus the adapter. I think I would have rather paid the $700 to convert my old camera to geared Orbix and spent the $$$ saved on a lens or two.

FWIW only,

Wow! You're a wealth of information, Jack. This is ALL really helpful. I trimmed some of your reply, but all the info I've quoted is great user data.

Based on what I'm reading, the conversion of my Discovery to geared Orbix (assuming that's possible) would be a logical first step. Then, if I can secure a used front frame (just for convenience sake), I'm golden. I'll have to rethink how I pack the two camera bodies so that switching out in the truck isn't such a hassle, but that's a minor obstacle. I think the greater obstacle is learning to discern between the true 8x10 shots and the ones that the 4x5 captures more effectively. Carrying one system into the field at a time will no doubt encourage me toward that end ;) .

Thanks again, Jack!


Bob doesn't list this stuff on the website. You have to call or email him. I just checked and he emailed me in late December. I don't know for sure if they were front or rear carriers but he said they were near mint.


Thanks, Pete. I just emailed Bob.

~Mark