Arca-swiss f classic - query about format conversion from 4x5 to 5x7

[neil poulsen]

Arca DOES have modularity, versatility and all that. Difficulty is adder parts are not easy to come by and they are not low cost. Arca bits are very high quality and the camera does function good in many ways. This is why the 6x9 Arca remains a keeper. It can only be that specific 6x9 view camera within it's own world and not much beyond as it is good at what is require from it. . . .

Are you kidding? I sure hope so.

Put a 4x5 conversion on that Arca Swiss 6x9 kit, either with or without the 6x9 front standard, and you have a terrific camera. I think that putting a 5x7 conversion kit on the two function carriers of a 6x9 kit would also yield quite a nice camera.

That said, I draw the line at putting an Arca Swiss 8x10 conversion on Classic F function carriers, and especially NOT on Metric function carriers. In my view, it's much better getting the well designed Misura 8x10, versus either a Classic F or Metric 8x10.

[Bernice Loui]

neil poulsen

From the photos, it looks like you were attempting to mount the Sinar shutter onto the rear of the front standard. But, you speak of mounting the Sinar shutter onto the front of the Arca Swiss, so I'm having a little trouble connecting the photos with what you've suggested in the text.

*Due to the width of the Arca front frame rails being larger than the width of the Sinar front frame it interferes with how the Sinar shutter can be mounted between the bellows and back of the front frame. ~Front means front of the view camera~ And no, there is no possible way the Sinar shutter will be mounted on the front of the front frame with the lens mounted to the Sinar shutter, the shutter was never designed to be used this way or support the weight of significantly sized lens.

But if indeed you were mounting the Sinar onto the front, all you needed was the standard 5x7 for that particular camera. So, how is it that you needed a "customized" bellows?

*One end of the bellows is Sinar, the other end is 5x7 arca swiss.. This would not be an off the shelf item.... and the camera MUST have a bag bellows... and the capability of a LOT more bellows draw than what a single tapered bellows can offer.

As for extension, your 40cm bench and rails should be able to achieve at least a 700mm total length. So, how is it that Arca Swiss rails are limited in this regard?

*No this bench rail, it is fixed 400mm. At 400mm of fixed rail, makes it not easily portable. The ideal was to get a folder arca rail which would have made it more portable. Except this become a camera-bellows extension problem again. On the Sinar, simply add rail, rail-camera supports and as much bellows as needed. This is NOT easily possible with the Arca Swiss modular system.

I can't really tell from the photo, it's possible that you had a single 40cm rail residing in your bench, versus two 20cm rails? If so, one could have cut that rail in half to achieve the 700mm extension, or combined it with another 40cm rail to achieve at least an 1100mm extension. But, there was no folder rail that was required in either case. Nor was there really a limitation in extension.

*Not worth the hassle. Got wore out from trying to source the various arca swiss bits as they were pricy and not easy to get. Eventually, the reality of cost-vs-performance and ... made the decision to give up on all this. Side ways move with no significant camera advantages and far more dis-advantages.

Mounting a Sinar shutter to an Arca Swiss camera my have required customization when you were engaged in that project. But, there may currently be a ready made solution. There are 3rd party adapters to mount a Sinar shutter onto a 141mm Arca, and there are adapters sold to mount a 141mm lensboard to a 171mm Arca Swiss camera. These two adapters may have done the trick.

*Which would put the Sinar shutter between the Arca Swiss lens board and lens mounting board... No Possible way, as previously mentioned, the Sinar shutter IS not designed or ever intended to support the weight of a sizable lens connected to it. "Just because, ya can does not mean it should be done."

Know the 6x9 arca swiss is a keeper, very nice camera in many ways. Has it's own set of lenses and accessories.


Bernice

[neil poulsen]

I do agree. If you want to use a Sinar shutter, it's better to do so on a Sinar camera.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, the only exception that worked out really GOOD was installing the Sinar front frame onto a Toyo 810M. This allowed using the sinar shutter between the bellows and front frame with no restrictions on the original Toyo from standard camera movements..

That was a NICE camera.


Bernice

I do agree. If you want to use a Sinar shutter, it's better to do so on a Sinar camera.

[neil poulsen]

Here's an interesting thread which shows how Kerry Thalmann customized a Lotus 4x10 conversion kit to an Arca Swiss camera. It involves using a dovetail that he fabricated to mount the camera onto an older style Arca function carrier. (See the thin part between the rear function carrier and the rest of the customization.)

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=thalmann+4x10

I wish I could find his "Frankenarca" that he put together. It would be yet another example.

[Bernice Loui]

The 5x7 arca came from Kerry. After the try, that 5x7 arca found another home as the original 5x7 arca. All the modified parts got removed and are still here some where in a box.

What is nice about the arca, it uses a 60 degree dove tail to connect the frames to the self contained standard bases. This allows LOTs of customization and options for what can be done as a camera.

This is why the suggestion to OP about having a 5x7 frame with film back made to fit the arca base then get a bellows made as needed.
IMO, this is the FAR better solution to the need produce a 5x7 camera than purchasing something new.

There is a LOT desirable to stay within any modular camera system.

Not just 5x7, 4x10, 8x10 and other format sizes can be made in the same way by using the arca swiss standard bases. IMO, they are sturdy enough and stable enough to do this with not a lot of problems and they are light weight for what they can do.


Bernice

Here's an interesting thread which shows how Kerry Thalmann customized a Lotus 4x10 conversion kit to an Arca Swiss camera. It involves using a dovetail that he fabricated to mount the camera onto an older style Arca function carrier. (See the thin part between the rear function carrier and the rest of the customization.)

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=thalmann+4x10

I wish I could find his "Frankenarca" that he put together. It would be yet another example.

[neil poulsen]

The old-style 5x7 conversion that Kerry sold in the FS section, is the only Arca 5x7 that I've seen. Rare indeed.

Sinar made several accessaries that facilitated customizations. One of the Sinar accessaries I keep is shown in the photo. It enables one to attach a Sinar P back (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) to just about any flat surface.

Occasionally, items like this show up on EBay.

Honestly, if I wanted to have 5x7 as part of a 4x5 total kit, I'd probably go with Sinar. For example, a Norma 5x7 rear standard and bellows works well with a Sinar F front standard. Similar to Arca Swiss, Sinar F 5x7 rear standards are rare.

[agregov]

While the current folder-lightweight view camera fashion appears to be the intrepid, it would never be the precise, durable, stable camera, versatile camera the arca swiss is. Add to this the question of lens boards for the current set of optics. IMO, intrepid's popularity is riding on the current fad of
folks curious and wanting to try LF with a perceived low cost new camera. The other on going repeat is to ditch it all and get a Sinar Norma with 4x5 and 5x7 backs. This allows 8x10 as an option if that becomes a need.
Bernice

I think there is something to be said of staying cheap while spinning up in a new format, especially with all the potential accessory costs to get going (film holders, lens boards, lenses with the right coverage, etc). I began large format with a Tachihara 4x5, a great starter camera. Only then did I see I needed something like an Arca for my shooting needs (architecture). As we all know, 5x7 is not the easiest format to get in to. Color film is special order only and enlargers are hard hard to come by or take up too much space. Contact prints work well. But it's a more special format these days and I think it's better to test the waters with a cheaper camera system first before heading off in more involved directions or more $$. I'm an odd duck as I have a F compact 4x5 with 5x7 and 8x10 conversion kits which I slowly acquired over some years. They work great. But there is also something to be said for having a camera all ready to go in a backpack--just grab it and go. You can't do that with the modular camera systems--first you need to swap front/rear standards and bellows, then reconfigure your backpack or carrying case for the larger or smaller camera and grab the right lenses. It's by no means hard, but it's another thing to do that gets in the way of shooting. Also, swapping in the field is pain--I never do it.

I draw the line at putting an Arca Swiss 8x10 conversion on Classic F function carriers

+1 on the Arca 8x10 conversion not anywhere near as solid as the 4x5 and 5x7. The 8x10 standards on standard F function carriers just don't feel as solid when in 8x10 mode (on a collapsable rail in my case). I recall Rod suggesting a standard rail for more rigidity. I'm sure an 8x10 setup could be made more solid.

I do think there is something to using an Arca in a non modular way. Get a monorail camera for what it's great at (eg. subjects needing precise movements) and use other cameras like a wood folder or non folder for light, quicker work in the field. With specific respect to the 5x7 Arca, I'd call Rod and ask him about availablilty (full camera or conversion). If it's still being produced, picking up an inexpensive 5x7 for a year and shooting a lot will help justify an Arca purchase. The 5x7 form factor in the Arca F is really a beautiful camera. 5x7 ground glass is wonderful to compose on, I like it best over 4x5 or 8x10. What keeps me from using 5x7 more is a simply a dedicated enlarger. I easily prefer 5x7 over 8x10. The 8x10 format is tough to use as a field camera--so heavy. That makes my 4x5 F compact my most used of the three at the moment.

[neil poulsen]

The old-style 5x7 conversion that Kerry sold in the FS section, is the only Arca 5x7 that I've seen. Rare indeed.

Sinar made several accessaries that facilitated customizations. One of the Sinar accessaries I keep is shown in the photo. It enables one to attach a Sinar P back (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) to just about any flat surface.

Occasionally, items like this show up on EBay.

Honestly, if I wanted to have 5x7 as part of a 4x5 total kit, I'd probably go with Sinar. For example, a Norma 5x7 rear standard and bellows works well with a Sinar F front standard. Similar to Arca Swiss, Sinar F 5x7 rear standards are rare.

I got this just backwards. This is actually a device to mount some sort of customization onto a Sinar P standard. (See photo above.)

[Bernice Loui]

Likely different for folks entering LF today than it was back in the early 1980's when my first Sinar F outfit happened. Back then film was mostly it, 4x5 color transparencies were the road to printed color images, new and much improved films were still being introduced and much more. From that came 8x10 and eventually settled on 5x7 which IMO the best overall trade off for large sheet film IF projected prints are to be made and it is just large enough to make contact prints.

Essentially been doing 5x7 for so many decades, there is zero new, much has been lost with other aspects little has changed.

Disagree getting into 5x7 is difficult as optically, a good number of 4x5 lenses will do for 5x7. Lenses often being one of the prime factors with any view camera.

This is one of the prime reasons for Sinar system only, it has the ease and ability to film format change with ease while allowing the same lenses and more to be used as needed. There was a point when several view cameras were owned including a wood folder and Linhof and Toyo 810M.. all those are gone, only the Sinar system remains.

As for stable 8x10, Sinar P or a Century Studio camera would be a stable 8x10. Never liked the Arca Swiss 8x10 set up. IMO, it is too much for the basic design of the Arca Swiss rail. It is excellent for 6x9, sort of ok up to 5x7.

Those who backpack should seriously consider a wood folder with the smallest lens set possible, alternative would be a metal camera like Canham DLC. IMO, monorail view cameras are not the hiker's view camera, Graphicmatic 4x5 film holders and the minimal accessories set possible. It is a trade off between lowest weight most compact -vs- capability and flexibility.

The 5x7 _ 13x18cm film question persisted back then and remains to this day. Fact is trying to produce high quality projected film based color prints today is IMO, not really possible due to the lack of materials and the support system that once allowed absolutely excellent projected photo-chemical prints to be made. Really a non-issue and why there is zero interest in sheet film based color prints today.. The standards that once was is near impossible to achieved today. This leaves B&W, even so these materials have become iffy.

If the film thing really bothers you, cut down what ever residual 8x10 sheet film to 5x7. Been there done this lots, it is NOT difficult to do, just another process to meet a specific goal.

As for enlargers, having used most the only ones that appeal to me for 5x7 Durst (138) or DeVere (507). All others are just not ok. There was a time when SO many of these excellent enlargers were shoved into the dumpster to be crushed and scrapped. Few were interested, few good ones survived. It is still possible to obtain a good Durst or DeVere, it is just more difficult and the really good ones have good homes. The belief a floor standing enlarger takes up more darkroom space than a table top enlarger is IMO false. Take away the table space required to support a table top enlarger results in about the same area as a 5x7 floor standing Durst or DeVere. Difference being the floor standing enlarger can fully utilize the distant from enlarger head to base board that would be lost to a table top enlarger. This is an advantage that is not often discussed or considered as using along focal length enlarging lens will have more uniform illumination if the projection enlarger optical system is properly set up. The added enlarger head to base board distant allows absolute alignment between head to board if properly set up.

It really comes down to the kind of print images and work you're trying to produce and do. There is no one system or method that works for all.
These days the Canon digital is used for lots of images as is the phone camera. IMO, B&W projected prints made from a 5x7 film negative remains special in many ways.


Bernice

I think there is something to be said of staying cheap while spinning up in a new format, especially with all the potential accessory costs to get going (film holders, lens boards, lenses with the right coverage, etc). I began large format with a Tachihara 4x5, a great starter camera. Only then did I see I needed something like an Arca for my shooting needs (architecture). As we all know, 5x7 is not the easiest format to get in to. Color film is special order only and enlargers are hard hard to come by or take up too much space. Contact prints work well. But it's a more special format these days and I think it's better to test the waters with a cheaper camera system first before heading off in more involved directions or more $$. I'm an odd duck as I have a F compact 4x5 with 5x7 and 8x10 conversion kits which I slowly acquired over some years. They work great. But there is also something to be said for having a camera all ready to go in a backpack--just grab it and go. You can't do that with the modular camera systems--first you need to swap front/rear standards and bellows, then reconfigure your backpack or carrying case for the larger or smaller camera and grab the right lenses. It's by no means hard, but it's another thing to do that gets in the way of shooting. Also, swapping in the field is pain--I never do it.



+1 on the Arca 8x10 conversion not anywhere near as solid as the 4x5 and 5x7. The 8x10 standards on standard F function carriers just don't feel as solid when in 8x10 mode (on a collapsable rail in my case). I recall Rod suggesting a standard rail for more rigidity. I'm sure an 8x10 setup could be made more solid.

I do think there is something to using an Arca in a non modular way. Get a monorail camera for what it's great at (eg. subjects needing precise movements) and use other cameras like a wood folder or non folder for light, quicker work in the field. With specific respect to the 5x7 Arca, I'd call Rod and ask him about availablilty (full camera or conversion). If it's still being produced, picking up an inexpensive 5x7 for a year and shooting a lot will help justify an Arca purchase. The 5x7 form factor in the Arca F is really a beautiful camera. 5x7 ground glass is wonderful to compose on, I like it best over 4x5 or 8x10. What keeps me from using 5x7 more is a simply a dedicated enlarger. I easily prefer 5x7 over 8x10. The 8x10 format is tough to use as a field camera--so heavy. That makes my 4x5 F compact my most used of the three at the moment.