PDA

View Full Version : Arca-Swiss Field 4x5 vs. Canham DLC



Blumine
27-Apr-2008, 19:23
I have been using a Canham DLC 4x5 for the last several years and have been generally happy with it. It has worked well for all my lenses from 47mm up to a 600mm Telephoto. My only real complaints are its lack of detents, sometimes when using long lenses its not the most stable of cameras, though mostly it has been a good camera.

The tax man smiled on me this year and it has made me think about a new camera. While I like my DLC, I have always wanted a Arca Swiss 4x5 Field camera. I handled one at a workshop a year of so ago and have been wanting on ever since.

Sadly I can't keep both, (the wife would remove various body parts). So before I sell my Canham and plunk down all that cash new camera. I was wondering if anybody had any experience with both or either cameras and any other opinions about them.

Appreciate the help.

Blumine

Walter Calahan
27-Apr-2008, 19:53
I love my Arca-Swiss 4x5 as much as my KB Canham 8x10.

Not used the DLC, so can't compare.

My Arca handles my Nikkor 500 mm just fine, and my 58 mm as well (I recommend a recessed lens board for the 47 mm).

Sheldon N
27-Apr-2008, 20:12
Haven't really handled the DLC much - only briefly. I will say that the Arca 4x5 field is about as good as it gets, though.

One of the main differences to me is the user interface, all the controls on the Arca are just "right there" and intuitive. Rigidity is definitely better on the Arca too.

The Arca you really want is this.... Arca Swiss 4x5 Field 110-141 with leather bellows, 30cm telescoping rail and micrometric orbix. Not cheap, but worth it!

Scott Rosenberg
27-Apr-2008, 21:19
the cameras are very different animals... they handle and perform differently, but then that's to be expected, as the are designed for different purposes.

in my experience, the primary design criterion for the DLC was weight savings and portability... kieth set out to create the ultimate backpackers 4x5, and in many ways succeeded. the dlc is tiny, light, and can shoot a huge assortment of lenses w/o and additional accessories. it's a fine camera to the extent that those parameters are most important to you.

the arca, on the other hand, is a completely different beast. whilst the dlc is the finest camera for a backpack, the arca is the finest all around camera hands-down. in fact, arca stands for All-aRound CAmera. the f-lines are, imho, the finest view camera ever executed. the configuration sheldon cites above is the small, compact take on the f-line concept, and it is BRILLIANT. it's larger and heavier than the DLC, but sets up faster and is SO much easier to use. the cameras are truly wonderful tools... don't handle one unless you're ready to buy one, as they have a way of making every other type of camera feel in one way or another, inadequate!

Jorge Gasteazoro
27-Apr-2008, 21:30
Never used the Canhams, but I do love my AS. I would never, ever go back to a field flat bed camera after using the AS. You know how sometimes you just find that piece of equipment that fits just right...well, the AS was it for me.

Capocheny
27-Apr-2008, 22:24
Hi Blumine,

I've not used a Canham before... so, this is a one-sided comment, ok?

I'll add that the gearing is a fabulous feature on the A/S. Precision built camera!

As Sheldon mentioned... it's a very intuitive camera to use. And stable.

I use to have a Dorff 5x7/4x5 for shooting in the field. However, after using the A/S...I'll take the A/S over ANY other camera ANY day of the week.

For studio use... I still like the Sinar X.

Lastly, if you've always wanted an A/S and can afford it, I'd say, "go for it!" Life is too short NOT to treat yourself every so often" Besides, that's why we work our buns off. :)

Good luck on the decision.

Cheers



I have always wanted a Arca Swiss 4x5 Field camera. I handled one at a workshop a year of so ago and have been wanting on ever since.

Blumine

audioexcels
28-Apr-2008, 03:00
the cameras are very different animals... they handle and perform differently, but then that's to be expected, as the are designed for different purposes.

in my experience, the primary design criterion for the DLC was weight savings and portability... kieth set out to create the ultimate backpackers 4x5, and in many ways succeeded. the dlc is tiny, light, and can shoot a huge assortment of lenses w/o and additional accessories. it's a fine camera to the extent that those parameters are most important to you.

the arca, on the other hand, is a completely different beast. whilst the dlc is the finest camera for a backpack, the arca is the finest all around camera hands-down. in fact, arca stands for All-aRound CAmera. the f-lines are, imho, the finest view camera ever executed. the configuration sheldon cites above is the small, compact take on the f-line concept, and it is BRILLIANT. it's larger and heavier than the DLC, but sets up faster and is SO much easier to use. the cameras are truly wonderful tools... don't handle one unless you're ready to buy one, as they have a way of making every other type of camera feel in one way or another, inadequate!


My Arca 810 will be ~6lbs;)

I believe the Canham 57 is about this weight.

My vote is for the Arca all the way. Plain and simple, both are setup to do conversions, but I find the simplicity of the Arca, while being able to do anything with it regarding converting formats is second to none. I.E. Two knobs are right on top of each other to serve the dual purpose of rise/fall/swing/tilt/etc...not bad for convenience;).

evan clarke
28-Apr-2008, 03:22
ARCA, no question..But move quickly, the prices are increasing 20%...EC

Clyde Rogers
28-Apr-2008, 06:35
I've used a DLC for a while, and think it is an excellent camera. It's combination of adequate strength, versatile standard bellows, lens versatility, and compact light weight is unique.

On the other hand, the camera is a bit vague to set up. The detents on the front and rear standards can be inconsistent, and although it works, the rather weak rear standard mounting always has me wondering if something moved when inserting a film holder.

I think the DLC is an excellent, well-made camera suited to people with particular requirements who are willing to accept its compromises. In the final analysis, I found the DLC a bit too distracting, and prefer carrying the extra size and weight of the much sturdier wood Canham.

Until later,

Clyde Rogers

Eric Brody
28-Apr-2008, 07:04
When I decided to replace my venerable Toyo 45A, still a fine and capable camera, I looked reasonably carefully at both the AS and Canham. I had always thought the AS was kind of cool.

I respect the opinions of Canham lovers but feel that if you're going to have only one 4x5 camera, the AS is the one. I played with Evan Clarke's AS at a Barnbaum workshop and fell in love, with the camera, not Evan (though he's a really nice guy). The Canham's with which I have played seemed just a bit wobbly and less rigid than the AS. I subsequently chose the AS Field, with the help of Rod Klukas and have been a happy camper ever since. The only thing I would change is that I would spring for the Orbix, which is nice but not absolutely necessary. I have had it for over two years and use it with lenses from 75 to 500. I expect that even if I win the lottery (which will be hard since I do not buy tickets), I'll keep the AS (though I'll get an Orbix front standard).

Good luck.

Eric

Blumine
29-Apr-2008, 01:11
I want to thank everybody for the input. After sleeping on all the comments last night, I have decided to get the Arca with micro orbix. I figure if I am going to do it, I might as well do it right. Seems everybody is happy with it.

I am a little curious about a couple of things I have read. I read that the telescoping rail is longer than the folding rail and can handle extension up to 450mm or so. Also would a bag bellows be necessary for W/A lenses. I use everything 47mm to 600mm T.

Sheldon I saw the camera you were selling here, the only thing that stopped me was I wanted the orbix, but it looks like a great camera.

Thanks again!.

Blumine

Emmanuel BIGLER
29-Apr-2008, 02:19
After sleeping on all the comments last night, I have decided to get the Arca with micro orbix.

I do not need to add any comments, being the happy user of a 6x9 plus the "field" 6x9-4x5" F-line A/S camera.
I'll just answer your questions :

I read that the telescoping rail is longer than the folding rail and can handle extension up to 450mm or so.

The standard folding rail for 4x5" is 300 mm (12") long.It folds in two equal halves.
The telesccopic rail is made of two 150mm (6") rails on a long (300mm) bracket.
The rule for A/S telescopic rails is simple : each half can extend out of the bracket by 50% of its lenths ; overall the rail can extend to 50% of its length. So a 300mm telescopic rail goes up to 450.
But the bracket is non foldable !
To carry the camera with the folding rail, you collapse the whole camera on the front half and fold the rear. You can keep a lens mounted on the board if necessary but be careful that the rear lens element cannot touch the ground glass when you slide the standards before packing. I have thought of some kind of a home-made wooden block as a safety spacer between function carriers to be absolutely sure that the lens deos not touch the GG in the backpack. Martin Vogt recommends for backpacking to leave all tigntenig screws loosen, I obey the rule ;) but I try to be careful about the lens/GG colliding issue.

With the telescopic rail what some people do in order to be as compact as possible ist to collapse the camera on the front half rail and slide the whole assembly off the bracket.

In front (or at rear, but in front is slightly more convenient) of any rail you can if required screw-in an extension rail, two lengths are available : the short one, 15cm (6") and the long one, 25cm (10"). The extension rail is very fast to use. So it is designed for backpackers since it is very compact. So you can go up to a total rail of 300 + 250 = 550 mm (22") with the standard foldable rail.
I have the short 150mm extension rail plus the standard 300mm folding rail that allows up to 450 mm (18"). This is perfect for me, so far have not used in the field any lens longer than a 360 ; I have a 360 apo ronar which focuses fine with 450mm of rail plus a 360 tele arton which does not even need the extension rail.

Regarding the isssue about how long the focal lenght can be, one should keep in mind that the rear function carrier takes for itself some rail length off, about 4-5 cm, from what is actually useable for the bellows. Also you should be confortable for focusing on objects that are not at infinity, hence you need some extra rail length to properly focus. In other words if you have a 450mm rail, a 450 quasi-symmetric lens design is not actually useable, you'll need a telephoto. But this is a common rule to all view cameras.

Also would a bag bellows be necessary for W/A lenses. I use everything 47mm to 600mm T.
With the standard leather belows of the "field" version, you can probably focus with a 47mm ona flat lensboard but with very little movements. You can if you wish use a recessed board
If you go for the standard "square" version 141-141, then you'll probably require to swap the standard square belllows for the bag bellows in short focal lengths.

I wanted the orbix..
The orbix, be it the manual or the geared one, can be added to any F-line front standard, the price to pay for the parts plus labor is listed by A/S as a standard service to customers, but you have to send the format frame to Besançon, France. The US service company for A/S products, Precision Camera Works, does not do it.
I do not think that you have to send the function carrier, but this has to be confirmed.

Sheldon N
29-Apr-2008, 09:59
You should read this thread to help in your decision about which rail to use for the Arca. Note that I prefer the telescoping rail since it is lighter, sturdier, easier to use, and more compact (camera portion) when compared to a folding rail plus a extension rail.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=27514

The telescoping 30cm rail combined with the standard leather "field" bellows on the 110-141 camera allows for roughly 380mm of extension on the long end. I could get maybe a little more if I was willing to put some strain on the bellows.

Make SURE you get the 141mm size on the rear format frame, otherwise you are dealing with a different set of bellows with much less extension.

You would need to add a 50cm conical bellows ($500+) to get more extension. With the 30cm telescoping rail I think you can get about 425mm of physical extension which will *just* allow you to focus a Fuji-C 450mm lens at infinity. The next item you could add would be a 30cm rail segment ($150?). That would not take up any extra space in your pack, since you could keep the rail segment in the 30cm extension bracket and the camera on a 15cm rail segment. You would just slide the 30cm rail segment over to slide in the 15cm rail segment and camera. That would give you close to 600mm of extension.

I think the f/t/f length of the 600mm Nikkor Telephoto is 409mm and the Fuji 600mm telephoto is 383mm, so depending on which lens you have you may be able to get by with just the standard 30cm telescoping rail and standard bellows.

Regarding movemens and very wide lenses, you should be able to fully utilize the image circle of pretty much any wide lens with the standard leather field bellows on the 110-141 Arca. They are very flexibile and the ultrawides have a fairly small image circle. I would recommend a recessed board for the 47, but I know that you can easily use a 58XL on a flat board. You could focus the 47xl on a flat board with no problem, but a recessed board would allow greater movements.

Frank Doering
29-Apr-2008, 10:05
Blumine,

I bought the DLC to complement my F-line Arca Swiss. I take the DLC whenever I need to walk any distance. It's much lighter and smaller, and you can shoot much longer lenses without extra rails or bellows. The Arca setup gets quite a bit heavier and larger when you want to shoot lenses longer than 300mm. Convenience goes clearly to the Arca. But detents aren't crucial: they aren't really precise on ANY camera. If you want good parallelism, you need a double-mirror tool or something comparable. For lenses shorter than around 90mm, this makes a noticeable difference--even with the Arca. Lastly, the Arca has the Fresnel lens in front of the ground glass. This makes focusing off-center with wide angle lenses less precise.

Steve Hamley
29-Apr-2008, 16:10
I'll offer a different opinion, starting by saying that the Arca is everything its proponents say it is, but...

The Canham is a good camera concentrating on light weight and a wide range of lenses with few accessories. While I've never owned a DLC, I have owned the traditional 8x10 which I sold because of the rather unconventional controls, which I believe the DLC shares - lever locks, love 'em or hate 'em. The back was limber enough to make you wonder if it could take a sharp picture, but it did time and time again, as does my wobblier 8x20 Korona. Keith Canham stated that he's never had a complaint of lack of sharpness due to his design, and I believe him.

I handled the Arca at Quality Camera in Atlanta several years ago when deciding on my "upscale" 4x5 camera purchase. I made the trip after reading Dykinga's book. Jack makes a comment in the book to check the GG after every shot to make sure you've got the shot, which I thought an odd comment. After inspecting the Arca hands-on, the reason is apparent; the standards don't really lock. They do get hard to move, but if you try to tighten the knobs to lock the standards in the conventional sense, the focus will shift. Tom Westbrook confirmed this to me years ago by examining his. I didn't care for this, although you can certainly live with it.

I eventually bought an Ebony SV45U and have been happy with it. Before the flames begin, let qualify this by saying that I am a metal monorail fan, and the Arca is one of the best if not the best. But to duplicate the range of lenses the Ebony accomodates (like the Canham), the Arca system would weigh upwards of 8 pounds which is why some Arca owners have lighter field cameras (!). The Ebony is of course a field camera and makes compromises as all field cameras do. It is not as smooth or as rigid as an Arca, but has never failed to produce bitingly sharp photographs using 55mm to 450mm lenses with one bellows and is quite compact.

If weight and complexity is not an issue, go with the Arca. If you hike, camp, go for a field camera, or if money is no object, an Arca and a field camera.

In the end, you make your choices and pay your money.

Hope this helps,

Steve

resummerfield
29-Apr-2008, 17:01
......The next item you could add would be a 30cm rail segment ($150?). That would not take up any extra space in your pack, since you could keep the rail segment in the 30cm extension bracket and the camera on a 15cm rail segment. You would just slide the 30cm rail segment over to slide in the 15cm rail segment and camera. That would give you close to 600mm of extension......That's exactly what I do. One reason the Arca system is so versatile.

Arthur Nichols
29-Apr-2008, 17:04
I own a DLC and have used it extensively for hiking in the mountains. I have regularly used a 16" lens on and have never noticed any loss of sharpness due to camera flex.
I don't find setup or break down overly fussy. Overall I like the camera and it is great for backpacking but there is one thing that I just do not like and this is the front base tilt. I also regularly use an 8x10 Deardorff and much prefer the axis tilt to base tilt on the front.
The DLC is hard to beat for back packing but you have to decided if you have the stamina for lugging around the heavier Arca. You won't be disappointed with either one.

Blumine
29-Apr-2008, 21:34
Thanks for the great help. I do some hiking, but never more than 4 or 5 miles at any one time, nor anything overnight. Before I bought the DLC, I borrowed a friend's Toyo 45 AII and very close in weight to the Arca-Swiss (at least the specs say so). So I doubt it will be any different.

I will definately get the 30cm telescoping rail. It sounds like it will cover all the normal lenses.

I emailed Jeff at Badger and am waiting for his response. If they have everything I am after I will order before the price increases next month.

Thanks again for the great advice!

Blumine

evan clarke
30-Apr-2008, 03:41
When I decided to replace my venerable Toyo 45A, still a fine and capable camera, I looked reasonably carefully at both the AS and Canham. I had always thought the AS was kind of cool.

I respect the opinions of Canham lovers but feel that if you're going to have only one 4x5 camera, the AS is the one. I played with Evan Clarke's AS at a Barnbaum workshop and fell in love, with the camera, not Evan (though he's a really nice guy). The Canham's with which I have played seemed just a bit wobbly and less rigid than the AS. I subsequently chose the AS Field, with the help of Rod Klukas and have been a happy camper ever since. The only thing I would change is that I would spring for the Orbix, which is nice but not absolutely necessary. I have had it for over two years and use it with lenses from 75 to 500. I expect that even if I win the lottery (which will be hard since I do not buy tickets), I'll keep the AS (though I'll get an Orbix front standard).

Good luck.

Eric

Definitely buy the Orbix at the outset if you want it, I bought my first new 4x5 without it because the camera was available and thought I could just bolt one on myself. I had to send the standard to Arca in Europe and it took a fair amount of time to retrofit. I wouldn't be without Orbix. One more thing, I would buy the full 141mm F metric over the field. My 141 is wonderfully compact and it takes a variety of accessories that you can't get for the 110mm front standard (lensboard adapters come to mind)..Evan Clarke

marschp
30-Apr-2008, 11:11
I will definately get the 30cm telescoping rail. It sounds like it will cover all the normal lenses.

Blumine

Just a note on the rail - I went for the 30cm collapsing rail + 15cm extension on the basis that when shooting wide it is possible to just use the short front segment of the collapsing rail - you leave the back section hanging down - that way it doesn't get in the way of the focusing cloth, loupe, or prevent you from getting in close to the ground glass.

I've been very happy with the Arca Swiss F since buying it 6 months ago. However, I did find that I needed to reverse the format holders so that all the knobs (focus, swing, rise, orbix tilt) are on the left hand side of the rail. Out of the box the focus knobs are on the right and the swing/tilt/orbix tilt/lock are on the left - this means that when focusing on the ground glass, if you hold the loupe with your right hand (like I do) you have to keep swapping back and forth as you go through the focusing process . With the format holders reversed its a much easier process, the only downside is that the horizontal level indicators now face inwards. I did a lot of research before buying my Arca and never saw this mentioned anywhere, so maybe I just focus differently to everybody else. Thought it was worth mentioning though.

Cheers. Paul

Rust Never Sleeps
30-Apr-2008, 21:46
I just got a Arca F-Field with micrometric orbix about two months ago or so, a little earlier than originally planned but I heard prices were going up a lot so I picked one up asap. So I don't have a full system yet but I am getting there one step at a time. Already have a 90mm 6.8 Grandagon. A lens hood, 15mm extension rail, Fuji quickhold holder and film on the way. And a 65mm 4.5 Grandagon just around the corner.

Anyway I already know the camera is a piece of equipment that will only leave my possession by prying it from my cold, dead hands. It is truly a very well thought out large format camera. I thought about a DLC at one time and finally settled on a Ebony 45SU before finally caving in on the Arca that I gave serious thought on a one time too. Now I have no excuses for a botched photo that I could blame on the camera. If I screw up I have only myself to blame and not the poor camera. Now lets not get into Arca-Swiss's business model :rolleyes: which is a whole other thread ;)

Frank Petronio
1-May-2008, 05:25
Frankly I am just waiting for the Chinese knock off ~ with improvements ~ for 1/3 the price. Tick tock it can only be a matter of time....

snuck
1-May-2008, 05:41
Frankly I am just waiting for the Chinese knock off ~ with improvements ~ for 1/3 the price. Tick tock it can only be a matter of time....

Yeouch... ice burn. Still that's a legit concern about Arcas is the price versus return on investment. I was thinking about getting the discovery, but with prices being high and 5x7 backs and accessories being hard to obtain, I decided to spring for a Sinar Norma. Which while being heavier and without yaw-free movements, has more parts available to it (I routinely mangle my stuff), accepts most Sinar accessories, and is really just an Arca-Swiss in disguise.

BigSteveG
1-May-2008, 19:55
What's the dif between F and M lines? Is it primarily gearing?

Peter De Smidt
1-May-2008, 20:01
The M-line is geared, and much, much heavier than the f-line. The f-line is in the Sinar F2 class, although the Arca is a much nicer camera. The M-line is in the Sinar P and P2 class, and, imho, the Sinars are nicer have a much greater selection of reasonably priced accessories.

audioexcels
1-May-2008, 20:24
I just got a Arca F-Field with micrometric orbix about two months ago or so, a little earlier than originally planned but I heard prices were going up a lot so I picked one up asap. So I don't have a full system yet but I am getting there one step at a time. Already have a 90mm 6.8 Grandagon. A lens hood, 15mm extension rail, Fuji quickhold holder and film on the way. And a 65mm 4.5 Grandagon just around the corner.

Anyway I already know the camera is a piece of equipment that will only leave my possession by prying it from my cold, dead hands. It is truly a very well thought out large format camera. I thought about a DLC at one time and finally settled on a Ebony 45SU before finally caving in on the Arca that I gave serious thought on a one time too. Now I have no excuses for a botched photo that I could blame on the camera. If I screw up I have only myself to blame and not the poor camera. Now lets not get into Arca-Swiss's business model :rolleyes: which is a whole other thread ;)


Did you snag the compact off Ebay from the Canuck seller? It's a 6X9 cam and not an LF cam;). It went very low IMHO. I would have bid had I not had my camera already with the main man working on an 810 back for it.

Cheers!

BigSteveG
1-May-2008, 20:42
The M-line is geared, and much, much heavier than the f-line. The f-line is in the Sinar F2 class, although the Arca is a much nicer camera. The M-line is in the Sinar P and P2 class, and, imho, the Sinars are nicer have a much greater selection of reasonably priced accessories.

I see....Thanks Peter, for the clarification.

Really Big Cameras
1-May-2008, 22:10
I decided to spring for a Sinar Norma. Which while being heavier and without yaw-free movements, has more parts available to it (I routinely mangle my stuff), accepts most Sinar accessories, and is really just an Arca-Swiss in disguise.

An interesting, but little known fact - both the original ARCA-SWISS monorail and the Sinar Norma were designed by members of the same family. The company that designed both was called Alfred Oschwald & Co. The owner's son Alfred Oschwald, Jr. designed the original ARCA-SWISS monorail. And the father, Alfred Oschwald Sr. and his other son Max Oschwald, at the request of Karl Koch, did the design work for the Sinar Norma and the original Sinar behind the lens shutter.

So, it's not just coincidence that these two classic Swiss monorails share many desirable attributes - and continue to be usable over 50 years after they were originally designed. Clever guys those Oschwalds.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

audioexcels
1-May-2008, 22:12
Speaking of clever, your historical information and extremely valueable information in general is something I'm sure those Swiss could use more of in getting Arca owners better support for their cameras;).

Ben Chase
1-May-2008, 22:15
I am hoping someday that AS decides on finally getting a web presence. I want an F-metric or F-field NOW.

Really Big Cameras
1-May-2008, 22:27
Speaking of clever, your historical information and extremely valueable information in general is something I'm sure those Swiss could use more of in getting Arca owners better support for their cameras;).

Actually, it was Martin Vogt at ARCA-SWISS who was the source for much of my knowledge and historical documentation on the ARCA-SWISS cameras. A few years ago I wrote and article on the history of ARCA-SWISS cameras for View Camera magazine and Martin Vogt was extremely generous and cooperative. He dug through the company archives and sent me several megabytes of scans of old catalogs and brochures going all the way back to the early 1950s. Although I couldn't include everything he sent in the article, I constantly refer back to those catalog and brochure scans for information on the older ARCA-SWISS cameras.

One other cool thing about that article - Alan Ross sent me a scan of a previously unpublished photo of Ansel Adams using his ARCA-SWISS camera at Tunnel View in Yosemite National Park taken in April, 1976. That photo was used as the article opener and REALLY made the article special for me.

Thanks to the generous help of Martin Vogt and Alan Ross, that is my personal favorite of all the articles I've had published.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

Rust Never Sleeps
2-May-2008, 20:22
Did you snag the compact off Ebay from the Canuck seller? It's a 6X9 cam and not an LF cam;). It went very low IMHO. I would have bid had I not had my camera already with the main man working on an 810 back for it.

Cheers!

No, I got mine new from Rod at Photomark as he had the best price at the time. Actually B&H had a Field for $2800-$2900 but without a orbix, but that is cheap as the non orbix usually goes for $3275 or so. But I really wanted the orbix and now that I've had the camera for a few months I am really glad I did get it as I find geared front axial tilt to be very very useful.

butterflydream
3-May-2008, 05:02
I like my arca swiss f-classic (field-c) 4x5. For panorama I recently purchased a wood field Canham 4x10 and I like this camera, too. They are very much different in philosophy of making and using but I don't have any problem using both, only more joy to use both in different way and feeling. Now I'm considering to purchase 5x7 rear standard, bellow and back for Canham.

Blumine
27-Jul-2008, 04:11
After a nearly eight weeks of waiting my Arca Swiss Field Camera finally arrived yesterday, and at the same time the delivery guy brought my 110 to linhof adapter board from SKGrimes. Great timing.

Setup went well, minus the fact the Arca provides nothing in the way of a manual. (Come on guys, for that much money provide a manual)

First problem, the 15cm extension rail had come out of its shipping tube and was rattling around in the bottom of the box. I think, it got banged around and the knob the controls the locking mechanism is now freely spinning and the locking device itself won’t open or close. Its locked fully opened can’t be inserted into the camera rail. (Not worried about it, I am sure the vendor will take care of it on Monday).

Second problem (more like minor annoyance). One the supplied 30mm collapsible rail that comes with the camera, there is a about a 3cm section where the focusing is not entirely smooth. On close inspection, it appears that groves where the focusing gear grabs were not completely milled out, The result being it vibrates a little bit over that 3cm section, other than that its completely smooth. Though it locks down tightly and there is no movement at all then. (When over that 3cm spot). You can actually see it quite clearly/ Not sure whether I should request another rail or not. Minor annoyance, but an annoyance none the less. Any thoughts?

Other than that, the camera is great, its easily the most stable and smooth field camera I have used. The Micrometric Orbix is worth the price, on my short outing today it made focusing with front tilt so much faster. With the SK Grimes inhof adapter board is beautiful. Using the adapter board I can focus and get movements with my 47mm Super Angulon XL and the 72mm XL works well too.

Thanks again to all those who helped with my choice! Once everything is fixed I am going to be very very happy I think.

Blumine.

Sheldon N
27-Jul-2008, 08:19
Congrats!

You'll have to post a snapshot to the "Show off your Camera" thread. :)

BradS
27-Jul-2008, 08:37
After a nearly eight weeks of waiting my Arca Swiss Field Camera finally arrived yesterday, and at the same time the delivery guy brought my 110 to linhof adapter board from SKGrimes. Great timing.

...

Blumine.

So...the DLC is for sale then? :) :):D

resummerfield
27-Jul-2008, 08:43
......it appears that groves where the focusing gear grabs were not completely milled out, The result being it vibrates a little bit over that 3cm section, other than that its completely smooth. Though it locks down tightly and there is no movement at all then. (When over that 3cm spot). You can actually see it quite clearly/ Not sure whether I should request another rail or not. Minor annoyance, but an annoyance none the less. Any thoughts?.......I would request an exchange of that rail. As time goes on, your annoyance will intensify. So get it working perfectly, now. You did pay a premium price for an outstanding camera; why settle for anything less?

Blumine
27-Jul-2008, 19:11
So...the DLC is for sale then? :) :):D

At this point, I am going to hold on to it a little longer. I think it would be good to have a light weight back up for some things. The Arca is just a little bit bulky for some things.

Give me about another month and I will have more of a chance to compare them side by side!

Thanks.

Blumine

Blumine
27-Jul-2008, 21:14
I would request an exchange of that rail. As time goes on, your annoyance will intensify. So get it working perfectly, now. You did pay a premium price for an outstanding camera; why settle for anything less?

You are right and I already sent an email requesting a replacement rail. Hopefully, they will send those prior to me shipping the others back. Can't use the camera otherwise.

Thanks again.

Gary

more photography
28-Jul-2008, 04:07
I am hoping someday that AS decides on finally getting a web presence. I want an F-metric or F-field NOW.
May be we should set-up a dedicated Arca-Swiss Forum Website or have a dedicated section for Arca users on LARGE FORMAT forum, having said that, may be we should have a section by camera make.

Regards

Matus Kalisky
28-Jul-2008, 22:47
What are the differences between Arca Swiss F and Discovery? How much do these cameras weight?

GSX4
29-Jul-2008, 10:42
Frank, My chinese knock off is, or should be on it's way as the second payment email came the other day :-)

Blumine
29-Jul-2008, 17:35
I would request an exchange of that rail. As time goes on, your annoyance will intensify. So get it working perfectly, now. You did pay a premium price for an outstanding camera; why settle for anything less?

The dealer provided a new extension rail and a replacement collapsable rail is coming directly from Arca. Very easy and outstanding service from both parties.

Thanks much.

Blumine

Blumine
29-Jul-2008, 17:39
Frank, My chinese knock off is, or should be on it's way as the second payment email came the other day :-)

Hi Andrew,

If I may ask, what exactly did you order and who is making it?

Blumine

audioexcels
30-Jul-2008, 21:25
Hi Andrew,

If I may ask, what exactly did you order and who is making it?

Blumine

They are likely referencing to the Chamonix, a very beautiful looking and built cam. For most, I don't think the Chamonix gives up anything. I think there's got to be a way to build a different rear standard size also, like the Wisners/Canhams, etc. So it's a very flexible cam.

Matus Kalisky
12-Dec-2011, 15:43
Sorry for bringing up an old thread, but it seems to be one with the most information about the current model of Arca Swiss F-field 110/141 (with telescopic rail).

What I would like to ask those who actually have one - what are the basics "numbers" of this camera? I mean size, weight, bellows min/max (what lenses on flat board), does one need a bag bellows, etc..

thank you

Sal Santamaura
12-Dec-2011, 18:02
Sorry for bringing up an old thread...Please don't apologize! That's exactly what you should have done rather than starting a new, redundant thread.

Sorry I can't provide any first-hand information on either camera. :)

jeroldharter
12-Dec-2011, 18:08
The answers to your questions depend on the configuration. Without checking the scales, I think my 4x5 f line metric with orbix, 141mm function carriers, 30 cm telescoping rail weight about 7.5 pounds. The longest lens I use on it is 300 mm. They have a long bellows and longer rails which increase weight and cost. I also have a bag bellows which is more bulky than light. I use it with 75 and 90 mm lenses. I could probably use the standard bellows, at least with the 90, but the bag bellows is much more pleasant touse with the wide angles. Also, they have a very nice compendium lens shade which add a little weight.

So it is no ultralight but not a pig either, especially when you consider rigidity and flexibility.

Emmanuel BIGLER
13-Dec-2011, 02:46
Hallo, Matus !

What's new from your last posts here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=83600&page=2

Regarding the weights, I have recently posted some information in the following thread
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=83102

I own the Arca Swiss F-metric "field' 110-141, the extra weight with respect to the F-classic model mostly comes from the function carriers: F-metric geared, self-locking functions carriers add bout 100 grams each (200 g for 2x) w/respect to classic non-geared F-classic models.

Regarding the universal molded leather bellows, the 141-110 F-field uses the same bellows as the 4x5" misura, wit this bellows I can focus the apo grandagon 55 mm at infinity on a flat 110 lensboard with some useful shift margin, and I use the apo grandagon 45 on a recessed lens board.
Sure, the apo grandagon 45 does not cover the 4x5" format but I can use a reducing plate 141-to-110 in order to attach rollfilm backs in the 6x9 baby-graflok style.

does one need a bag bellows
probably not if you never use lenses shorter than 65 mm.

However a 110-to-141 leather bag bellows dose exist, ref#071037
there are 2 other 110-to-141 bellows:
- standard molded leather bellows 110-to-141 ref#071035 from ~ 55mm to ~ 270mm (quasi symmetric lens design) or up to 400-500 (telephoto designs only).
- long synthetic bellows ref#071033 up to 600 mm bellows lenght.

Matus Kalisky
13-Dec-2011, 04:20
Thanks guys. Starting to see some light :)

- Emmanuel -
I have checked the website of lensfielders and realized that both models they are offering for around $2000 are the older ones 110/171. I understand that the main disadvantage is the shorter standard bellows (240mm or so). I have also asked them how much would a used 141/110 F-field cost and the answer was about $2800 - $3200 - what would be more than I would be able'/willing to pay within reasonable future.

Thanks for the links - both threads (THIS (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=83102) and THIS (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=209862#post209862)) now allow to get all the "numbers" I was looking for.

There is one last point that I am not so sure about - namely the carriers. If I understand correctly one eihter has the "standard" one that has no geared movements apart from focusing (I guess), the metric one (some movements geared - but it seems quite large and heavy and meant for studio) and then there is Orbix (friction) and micrometric Orbix (geared) which add a lens-center tilt. Are there any other carriers or variations? Which movements are actually geared?

Just for a reference - I found a very good explanation on Orbix HERE (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=12465)

Now onto bellows - I understand that the "standard" leather bellows allows to use lenses as wide as 47 on recessed and 65 on flat lens board and offer up to 270mm extension. But there are 2 rail types - the folding one which is 300mm long and the telescopic one which goes up to 450mm. The folding one should be on the "C" F-Field model, the second one on the "F-Field" model. But this somehow does not sound too logical - so with which bellows comes with the "non-C" F-Field model? Emmanuel listed 3 bellows: bag, the standard one (up to 270mm) and a long one (up to 600).

just please note - I am only talking about the 110/141 variation.

... these Arcas are somehow complicated ... :)

jeroldharter
13-Dec-2011, 18:01
I know you are asking about 141/110, but if I could buy one now, I would get the 171 model and use an adapter board for Canham lens boards (cheap, small and available). The 171 carriers are large enough to fully protect the compressed bellows when the cam era is in transit. With the smaller standards, the bellows protrudes beyond the edges of the function carriers and is subject to mischief.

Frank Petronio
13-Dec-2011, 19:07
Back when they introduced the newer 141 frames I think a few people posted reviews and said the trim-down didn't amount to much in the real world, unless you are a gram-shaving backpacker. However it did allow AS to sell more new cameras instead of competing against their own brand of used cameras.

I'd look for the 171-171 front and back myself, since they should be considerably less expensive for the same features. It can't be much heavier but the larger lensboards makes working with larger lenses much easier. And as Jerold points out, they protect the delicate bits more.

Matus Kalisky
14-Dec-2011, 00:51
So you guys mean something like THIS (http://www.ebay.de/itm/ARCA-SWISS-F-LINE-CLASSIC-4X5-INCH-KAMERA-TOP-/400263152733?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Analogkameras&hash=item5d318b045d#ht_1099wt_909).

That is a good point indeed. My understanding is that the weight difference of the 171/171 to 141/110 should be just under 1kg (3.4 versus 2.5) if I got that right.

However what I do not know is the range the standard bellows of 171/171 model offers (lenses on flat board). My understanding was that one of the interesting features of the 141/110 was the new flexible bellows. If one would not need the bag bellows that would safe unnecessary item in the bag and additional weight ...

Frank Petronio
14-Dec-2011, 05:19
In the USA I would simply talk to Rod Klukas or Bob Watkins to get the straight scoop.

No question the 141 Metric Orbix is an awesome camera.

jeroldharter
14-Dec-2011, 05:59
So you guys mean something like THIS (http://www.ebay.de/itm/ARCA-SWISS-F-LINE-CLASSIC-4X5-INCH-KAMERA-TOP-/400263152733?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Analogkameras&hash=item5d318b045d#ht_1099wt_909).

That is a good point indeed. My understanding is that the weight difference of the 171/171 to 141/110 should be just under 1kg (3.4 versus 2.5) if I got that right.

However what I do not know is the range the standard bellows of 171/171 model offers (lenses on flat board). My understanding was that one of the interesting features of the 141/110 was the new flexible bellows. If one would not need the bag bellows that would safe unnecessary item in the bag and additional weight ...

The flexible bellows is nice on the wide end, less so on the long end. I don't think it handles a 300mm lens for example. If you max out at 240, that works if I recall.

Yes, that camera you liked is what I was talking about. Maybe a bit extra weight, but I think it is more packable.

evan clarke
14-Dec-2011, 07:52
I have a 171 4x5 and a 141 4x5, both loaded with Orbix. The 171 standard bellows was really pretty bad and I have a leather combination bellows on my 171..I thought there could never be a better camera until I saw the 141..The bellows may be the biggest factor, I can draw from 58mm in a recessed board to a 500 tele and even to 720 tele with a small add on rail I carry with the lens..mounts in 10 seconds. I do a fair amount of IR and the leather bellows isn't safe the new 141 is..For my money, the 141 F metric with optical bench and Micrometric Orbix is the complete package. I have about 20 modern view cameras and have had a fair amount more..This configuration of the 4x5 Arca is the bomb..Evan Clarke

Matus Kalisky
14-Dec-2011, 08:09
- Frank -
thanks, I did. I will share once I get an answer.

- jerold -
You mention that the max at about 240 mm. Is this the max extension or the longest focal length that can be used reasonably and focus a bit closer than infinity?

- evan -
Do I understand correctly that the difference between "metric" and "classic" models is that the "metric" have geared rise/fall? Adding micro-metric Orbix than adds geared axial tilt. From the (not anymore up to date)

Also, the PDF catalogue it seems that "metric" frames have less shift (+/- 30 mm) than the "classic" (+/- 50 mm). Is that the case? It seems that the more I am looking into Arca Swiss cameras the less I know about them ...

Matus Kalisky
14-Dec-2011, 08:50
As Frank proposed - I have contacted Rob Klukas (US representative for Arca-Swiss international) and here are his answers to my questions about the differences between the models and their respective weights:

********
171 series F-line field had 171 rear and 110 front. Universal bellows allowing 55-210mm on flat boards usage.

141 series F-line field had 141 rear and 110 front. Universal bellows allowed use of 55-300mm on flat boards.

Both were mounted on the same 30cm collapsible monorail which could take a plug-in extension. There are 50cm long bellows available as well, for use with the extensions.

The 171 series used are around $2000.00 + - in good condition and are good buys a 141 series is closer to $3000.00+ used.

A 141 series new F-Line field Classic is $4408.00 and $5172.00 with Micro orbix geared tilt.

A 141 series new F-Line field Metric(geared rise/fall, geared shift) is $5311.00 and $6075.00 with Micro orbix geared tilt.

...

The 171 series classic F-line field is just over 5lbs, while the 141 series is just under: 4lbs 9oz The Micro orbix tilt adds 3 oz to either (per standard).

Metric camera is 4 oz heavier.
********

I hope others will find this information helpful too.