I am considering purchasing a Arca Swiss F metro 4x5 for general purpose work; if anyone can share their experiences with these cameras - still life, portraits, landscape / sea scapes - out of the back of the car, and backpack.. All comments appreciated .
Thanks
Peter
I'm not sure what's motivating you the get the metro, but there is an option between the metro and non-metro Classic F.
One can put a metro conversion kit on non-metro function carriers. This combines the advantage of the lower weight of the non-metro camera with the advantage of geared rise and fall of the metro. After finding a metro conversion kit on EBay, I've done this, and I really like it.
Bear in mind with this combination, one loses the shift centimeter scales. That's because on the non-metro, the scales are on the standard, and the reference line is on the function carrier; and with the non-metro, the scales are on the function carrier, and the reference line is on the standard. But while the shift centimeter scales are lost, the two reference lines remain (one on the metro standard and one on the non-metro function carrier), and they can be used for zeroing the shift by lining them up. In using shift, one can still measure the distance between the reference lines to determine the degree of shift.
Frankly, I don't really care, nor do I need geared swing or shift. But, having geared rise/fall is sweet!
Last edited by neil poulsen; 1-May-2016 at 15:46.
I agree with Neil, having the geared rise/fall of the metric model is a very nice luxury. You don't need it, but it sure is convenient for one-handed rise/fall. With the non-metric, you have to loosen two knobs on each side of the standard, then rise/lower the standard, then tighten both knobs again. With the metric, you just twist one knob to raise or lower the standard. No unlocking/locking required - it is "self locking". I don't think I have ever used shift in my work (landscapes exclusively), so I don't find any gain from having geared shift. If photographing products for advertising, geared shift may be very convenient.
In terms of backpacking, there are lighter wooden folders, but the Arca is not too bad in terms of bulk or weight - probably one of the lightest monorails out there. If you go with the telescoping rails setup in the field is very quick. The metric carriers add a little weight, but relative to the whole 4x5 system of lenses, film holders, etc., it is insignificant.
Bob
Thank you for your comments, I made a mistake it is the F-Metric I am looking at not the Metro
Peter
Hello from France ! (et le bonjour de Besançon)
I have the F-metric Arca Swiss camera in its 'field' version i.e. I have a 6x9-110 mm front standard and a 4x5"-141 mm rear standard.
Similar to Neil's experience, I can say that have little use of the geared lateral shift of the F-metric function carriers, but I would find hard to abandon the geared, self-locking rise controls.
And more generally speaking, I would find hard to abandon this LF camera for another kind of LF camera, but I do not want to start a controversy here
I have the folding rail, 30 cm long, but I can carry the whole camera in a Lowe Pro backpack without actually folding the rail.
This is a advantage of the 141 mm version, you can carry the whole camera unfolded and ready to take pictures in most backpacks that can offer a depth of about 180 mm (the bellows is slightly wider than the 141 mm format frames).
Hence in this configuration the camera is faster to set-up than most other large format cameras including wooden field cameras !
I grab the camera as a whole, a lens can be kept mounted on the front standard, so this is really fast. I never need to take the function carriers off the rail.
Regarding the choice between current 141 mm format frames or previous, pre-2004, 171 mm format frames, if you go for the F-field version, the difference is minimal between the 141 and the 171 version.
However if you go for the standard version with front and rear standards of the same size, the current 141-141 mm version is really more compact than the 171-171. So it depends on your plans for buying a new one or looking for a used one.
I guess I fell in stride with your original terminology; I also was speaking about the metric.Originally Posted by 12pmc
That's interesting; very convenient.
As it is, even the 171mm version (front and back) that I have easily breaks down to a quite manageable size for backpacking.
Last edited by neil poulsen; 1-May-2016 at 15:47.
At the additional "expense" of a little weight and a somewhat larger camera, I have both the 171mm front and rear standards. This configuration has advantages that I prefer. The long bellows is 700mm, and because of the additional size, a little sag will not obstruct the image. Not that I would necessarily, but I have a 600mm lens and could use it with this camera, if I chose. If I recall correctly, the long bellows for the smaller 141mm version is 500mm, perhaps for that reason.
Another "reason" that I prefer the 171mm, is that I hate flare. The larger version permits a little more room around the 4x5 film format to avoid possible reflection off the bellows onto the image. I had a conversation with Wisner about this, and he also saw this as an advantage in the design of his earlier cameras. (Say, versus the Pocket Wisner.) The 171mm front also enables me use the Arca lenshood from the pre-Classic F cameras, which has four blades that can be adjusted to come right to the edge of the 4x5 film format. I had to modify my front standard a little to accommodate the adapter for this lenshood. But, this lenshood is more convenient and effective than any of the current, Arca versions.
But who knows, if I had been using the 141mm version all along, I might argue equally in favor of it. And as I say, while I could, I have never used a 600mm lens for 4x5.
While there are a couple of minor disadvantages to my mind, the 6x9 front makes the 6x9 conversion kit less expensive and easier to change. Arcas, regardless of configuration, are excellent cameras.
Last edited by neil poulsen; 1-May-2016 at 15:49.
I sold my Arca-Swiss F-Metric 4x5/8x10 system last year (I had the 171 version). I have few complaints, just quibbles: a few days after I took the camera out to the seaside in 2006 some screws on the rear standard started to rust. This peeved me after just spending thousands on a new camera. I replaced the cheap screws with titanium screws and used a plastic garbage bag to shield the camera from sea-blast thereafter. I think the black paint on the camera could be more robust: this is in comparison to Linhof's black paint which can take some real abuse without flaking off. I didn't think the small rear function carrier was ideal for use with the 8x10 standard and was a little wobbly; something to keep in mind if you ever want to move to 8x10.
I've owned two Arcas, although the second one I owned for a very, very short time. I used an 8x10 F-Metric for a few years and loved it but sold it when I stopped shooting 8x10. It was a wonderful camera.
A couple of years ago, I figured I could replace my two Linhofs with an F-Metric 4x5. I bought a new one, and when I got it something seemed off. The standards didn't align with the movements zeroed out. After some time and back-and-forth with the company, I realized that Arca had make a small change to the design of either the format frame or the carrier, I can't remember which. But the result was standards that weren't aligned properly.
Arca said they'd make it right and send me the new parts, but it was going to take a few more weeks. And delivery of the camera itself took much longer than they originally said it would. I had a trip coming up to work on a photo project, and the delay wouldn't have given me enough time to throughly test the camera. So I sent it back.
I still think they make great cameras, but my point is that you should check it out carefully. I really would have expected better quality control, the problem was obvious and clearly no one looked at the camera before they sent it out.
My favorite thing about the Arcas is the geared rise.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks