New Arca

[more photography]

Hi

Well after reading hundreds of posts in this form and others on the web, and the advice I have recived, including many vists to LF users and RobertWhite in the UK.

I have decided on an Arca 5x4 f Metric, however I am considering the 6x9 front to reduce weight and eventually if I want to move to 6x9 at some time in the future.

I would like to know from existsing owners if they are happy with 6x9 F and 5x4 B, any pros /cons.

Thanks

[evan clarke]

The new camera has a 141mm front and back. The 110 front was a little advantage when the camera had 171mm standards but now I would not sacrifice the ability to use all the front adapters by using the 110 front. The 141 standard bellows is the best thing since buttered bread and I can draw from 58mm to 720mm tele. I am including pics of my 141 and my 171 f metrics, as you can see my 141 is really compact..Evan Clarke

[marschp]

Hi - I bought the Arca Swiss F Field with the smaller front standard (from RW). I think it works very well, and like you say it holds out the option of adding a 6x9 back later. One issue which I had not spotted beforehand, but which I've got used to, is that the smaller front standard does mean it is quite tight around the lens controls - in effect the lens panel is recessed as the lens panel sits to the rear of the standard frame, and is flanked by 15mm recesses on the right and left verticals. I think its like this in order to situate the lens correctly over the axis for yaw-free front centre tilts (if you go for orbix). This recessing of the lens panel can make it difficult to access the lens controls. Like I say - I'm used to it now. This is different to the setup on the Ebony, the Linhof TK, and the Toyo 45A, all of which have the lens panel completely flush with the front of the front standard, and therefore easier to access the lens controls. Paul

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

I have such an Arca Swiss F-metric camera with 6x9 front and 4x5" back in 141mm size.
In fact I started with a F-line 6x9 camera so the upgrade to the mixed 6x9->4x5" was the logical choice for doing 4x5". I have kept my 6x9 rollfim backs in small baby graflok size so when I do 6X9 on rollfilm I use the small 110mm back.
But I agree that if you start from scratch, the 141-141 is perfect and not much heavier than the mixed 6x9 to 4x5".
One advantage of the mixed 6x9 to 4x5" is that you use the superb molded leather bellows similar to the misura's, this bellows is a real joy to use, it can be compressed to accommodate a 55 mm on a flat lensboard with some possible movements !
You can even focus with the 45mm but then the belows is really at its maximum of compression. Recessed boards exist as an option to solve this issue, if you want to use 6x9 rollfim backs on the 4x5" back with a 45 mm lens !! (the 45 Rodenstock does not cover 4x5" ; however the 55 rodenstock and 58 Schneider do).

For those who intend to use rollfilm backs on the big 4x5 graflok plate, with the 141mm rear standard, for using the 6x12 format, I have eventually bought a second 141-to-4x5-graflok adapter, so I can swap from ground glass to rollfim back in one second like I do with the 6x9, I take advantage of the one-hand-onesecond Arca-style latches and I do not manipulate the graflok sliding bars any more within a given session.
This is really convenient when you use the binocular viewer, I keep it attached to the GG and swap the whole assembly to the rollfim back only using the Arca latches.

[more photography]

Paul / Emmanuel

As always very helpful - many thanks.

Initially I intend to use this as 5x4 and will sometimes use 6x9 roll film with international fit, therefore for now 5x4 is my primary goal. I would be happy with both 141 Front and Back set-up, and I might order 5x4 F metric with Orbix, thus saving the hassle at a later stage of adding Orbix.

However I thought if there was an advantage to the 110 front other than cost, such as weight, then I might bite the bullet and order 5x4 with 110 front.

Please correct, from what I have heard 141 front and back is a better set-up, the only advantage of 110 front is the bellows, and cost down the road if I move to a full
6x9 set-up, which I only do, if the cost of digital backs becomes affordable.

Thanks

[evan clarke]

I have a couple leather bellows and they are great but the 141 bellows is still better than the leather one and is IR safe. You can get a 141 to 110 adapter which works on both front and back which will allow you to use a roll film holder. or to mount your lenses on 110 boards for compact storage. I have the adapter to 110 boards on all my cameras. Definitely buy the Orbix at the beginning. My 171 in the picture was retrofitted and it took months...Evan Clarke

[more photography]

I have such an Arca Swiss F-metric camera with 6x9 front and 4x5" back in 141mm size.
In fact I started with a F-line 6x9 camera so the upgrade to the mixed 6x9->4x5" was the logical choice for doing 4x5". I have kept my 6x9 rollfim backs in small baby graflok size so when I do 6X9 on rollfilm I use the small 110mm back.
But I agree that if you start from scratch, the 141-141 is perfect and not much heavier than the mixed 6x9 to 4x5".
One advantage of the mixed 6x9 to 4x5" is that you use the superb molded leather bellows similar to the misura's, this bellows is a real joy to use, it can be compressed to accommodate a 55 mm on a flat lensboard with some possible movements !
You can even focus with the 45mm but then the belows is really at its maximum of compression. Recessed boards exist as an option to solve this issue, if you want to use 6x9 rollfim backs on the 4x5" back with a 45 mm lens !! (the 45 Rodenstock does not cover 4x5" ; however the 55 rodenstock and 58 Schneider do).

For those who intend to use rollfilm backs on the big 4x5 graflok plate, with the 141mm rear standard, for using the 6x12 format, I have eventually bought a second 141-to-4x5-graflok adapter, so I can swap from ground glass to rollfim back in one second like I do with the 6x9, I take advantage of the one-hand-onesecond Arca-style latches and I do not manipulate the graflok sliding bars any more within a given session.
This is really convenient when you use the binocular viewer, I keep it attached to the GG and swap the whole assembly to the rollfim back only using the Arca latches.


Emmanuel

What size is the leather bellows on you 110-141 camera. do you have any issues tilt/shit or rise with the smaller front ?

Thanks

[Sheldon N]

I also shoot an Arca Swiss 4x5 Field camera with the 110mm front and geared Orbix tilt. It is an exceptional camera. I don't have the "metric" version, since I dont feel that I need geared shift or rise and I wanted the lighter weight of the classic function carriers. The Metric version is heavier than the regular version.

Note that if you want the "Metric" camera, it would be an expensive custom order to get the 110mm (6x9) front standard size. Normally the metric version has the full size front and rear standards, while the "Field" version with the 6x9 front and 4x5 back is a non-metric camera.

I should point out, if you are in the market to buy an Arca Swiss 4x5 field camera - I would HIGHLY recommend that you buy Don Boyd's camera posted for sale here on the forum. His setup has everything you would need, folding rail, extension rail, wide angle bellows (allows full movements on wide lenses) and a long bellows for lenses up to 450mm. His asking price is very reasonable, and you would save yourself over 50% of what you are likely to spend buying new at Robert White.

Hope this helps!

[more photography]

I also shoot an Arca Swiss 4x5 Field camera with the 110mm front and geared Orbix tilt. It is an exceptional camera. I don't have the "metric" version, since I dont feel that I need geared shift or rise and I wanted the lighter weight of the classic function carriers. The Metric version is heavier than the regular version.

Note that if you want the "Metric" camera, it would be an expensive custom order to get the 110mm (6x9) front standard size. Normally the metric version has the full size front and rear standards, while the "Field" version with the 6x9 front and 4x5 back is a non-metric camera.

I should point out, if you are in the market to buy an Arca Swiss 4x5 field camera - I would HIGHLY recommend that you buy Don Boyd's camera posted for sale here on the forum. His setup has everything you would need, folding rail, extension rail, wide angle bellows (allows full movements on wide lenses) and a long bellows for lenses up to 450mm. His asking price is very reasonable, and you would save yourself over 50% of what you are likely to spend buying new at Robert White.

Hope this helps!

Please send me the link

Many thanks

[Sheldon N]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=38215

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

What size is the leather bellows on you 110-141 camera. do you have any issues tilt/shit or rise with the smaller front ?

The leather bellows is identical to the misura's and can be stretched to about 300 mm of extension.
see the article here with a picture of the bellows at 270mm of extension
http://www.galerie-photo.com/misura_peronne_us.html

You can accommodate any 300mm lens of quasi symmetrical design and a 400 mm telephoto.
The bellows can be compressed to focus a 45mm on a flat board but with no movements. You can even focus a 35mm, but with a recessed board.
A long synthetic bellows exists in the catalog in 110-141 size if you want to go for lenses above 300 mm (quasi symmetrical design.)

[more photography]

What size is the leather bellows on you 110-141 camera. do you have any issues tilt/shit or rise with the smaller front ?

The leather bellows is identical to the misura's and can be stretched to about 300 mm of extension.
see the article here with a picture of the bellows at 270mm of extension
http://www.galerie-photo.com/misura_peronne_us.html

You can accommodate any 300mm lens of quasi symmetrical design and a 400 mm telephoto.
The bellows can be compressed to focus a 45mm on a flat board but with no movements. You can even focus a 35mm, but with a recessed board.
A long synthetic bellows exists in the catalog in 110-141 size if you want to go for lenses above 300 mm (quasi symmetrical design.)

Emmanuel

Thank you very much - Most of my photogrphy 90% on the time is on 5x4 should be the 90 to 250 range, therfore no need for longer bellows, however I will be using 6x9 and will need to go down my to 58, again That should be ok.

I can't find any where to tell me the length of these bellows, are they 30cm ? Do you have a copy of anew cataologue, the one I have is the old one where 171 back is used.

Regards

[evan clarke]

Believe it or not, B&H has the newest info on their site with pretty good specs...Evan Clarke

[Sheldon N]

The stock conical leather bellows on the 110-141 camera is actually good for closer to 380mm of extension, provided that you have enough rail to work with. I shot a Fuji 360A on my camera for a while, but decided that a 300mm lens would be preferable as my longest focal length. The leather bellows can focus a very wide angle lens, but gets a little constricted when trying to apply movements in the sub 65mm focal length range. When shooting 4x5 it is not a problem, since the really wide lenses dont have enough coverage the allow drastic movements. Shooting the same lenses on a smaller format (6x9/Digital Back) might present more of a difficulty, since you could conceivably want to apply stronger movements.

The stock conical leather bellows on the 110-171 camera are shorter, having 7 pleats versus 11 pleats for the 110-141 camera. They are good for roughly 250mm of extension. They are also better for wide angle movments, since there is less material bunched up to get in the way when shooting with wide angle lenses. They are a natural match for the 30cm folding rail, since the max extension of the rail is the same as the max extension of the bellows.

Keep your rail options in mind when selecting a camera. The standard 30cm collapsible folding rail that comes with either of the 4x5 field cameras is actually only good for roughly 250mm of extension. You need an extension rail to use longer focal lengths. Extension rails insert into the round opening on the end of the folding rail, and come in either 15cm or 25cm lengths. Alternatively, you can get the 30cm optical bench with two telescoping 15cm rail segments than can separate to create up to 410-420mm of extension. I went with the 30cm telescoping rail for my 110-141 camera, since it allows me to use my full range of lenses with one rail and one bellows system. With the 110-171 camera you would need to add a rail extension and swap bellows (fairly easy to do) in order to shoot longer than 250mm.

The smaller 110mm sized front standard does somewhat limit your front rise, when compared to a full size 141mm front or to the 171mm front. The 171mm front allows for even more rise than the 141mm. However, with an Arca it is VERY easy to do indirect front rise or fall. All you do is point the camera at your subject with your intended framing (pointing up or down) then use the base tilt and bubble levels on both the front and rear standards to bring everything back to level. It takes about 10 seconds, and I find that I use this even when I could use conventional rise/fall. Having Orbix also makes it very easy to fine tune the focus at the top and bottom of the frame so that you are sure the standards are parallel or that the focus plane is exactly where you would want it.

Hope this helps!

[neil poulsen]

I have a couple leather bellows and they are great but the 141 bellows is still better than the leather one and is IR safe . . .

Hmm. That's a new one. So I'm curious, which of the Arca bellows are not IR safe?

[evan clarke]

Hmm. That's a new one. So I'm curious, which of the Arca bellows are not IR safe?

The leather ones which I have on 3 of my Arcas. One of the big selling points of the new 141mm standard bellows was that it is IR safe..according to Martin Vogt who demonstrated the camera to me before I bought it..EC