Ebony RW810 or Arca Swiss F Series

[Drew Wiley]

Such different animals! I personally can't imagine being without BOTH a 4X5 basic RW Ebony folder and a full monorail system (Sinar in my case). When it comes to 8x10, however, the problem became more narrowly defined because I've been a backpacker my whole life, and portability-wise, an 8X10 folder has just made more sense, plus the fact I bought a very early Phillips 8X10 remarkably cheap. If it were later on, I would have no doubt pounced on the RW Ebony 8X10 when they were briefly offered at quite reasonable cost; but I simply don't need two 8X10's. If I did, I'd simply add 8X10 conversion components to my Sinar Norma system. But I'm not a studio photographer, and approaching 73, don't think I'll be upping the ante in backpack weight. Happy with the Phillips.

So far, I haven't seen a clue exactly how the two camera options in question might be predominantly used. Field and travel logistics can be quite a bit different from studio applications. Also, what about repair and maintenance issues down the line? Monorails get repaired mainly through component replacement (if such parts are still available when needed); repair of wooden cameras is more analogous to a skilled cabinet shop task.

[Rod Klukas]

If you like I'd be happy to post the e-mail exchanges that I had about this with you and the forum member in Europe. In any event, @alan_b makes a good point (post #24), and there are third party makers (post #21).

R.E.

You are correct. I went back in the email and found the thread, but they did not clarify fully to me until today. So there is a current, though bag type, 171series, wide angle bellows available.

Thanks for catching for me. If I had not asked again, I might not have gotten the answer we need.

Be well,

Rod

[neil poulsen]

The 171 series are OK, but they are a little heavier. . . .

One reason I like the 171mm, is the extra side-to-side distance that it offers around the 4x5 format. There's less likelihood that light can reflect off the bellows onto the film and cause flare. I find that reassuring . . . . . because, I HATE FLARE!

[neil poulsen]

I've had many 8x10 cameras that include Sinar, Burke and James, Oschwald (older style) Arca Swiss, Kodak 2D, and even a Bender Kit camera, a Kodak Master, etc.

The best 8x10 that I've owned was an Oschwald era Arca Swiss that was designed from the ground up as an 8x10. It had an oversized rear function carrier to support the extra weight of the 8x10 format frame. (In fact, it was one solid piece.) The front risers were extra tall, so that after raising the format frame to be on axis with the rear 8x10 format frame, there was length remaining for plenty of additional rise. Let me say that this camera was rock solid. I sold it, because I've generally been downsizing in 8x10, and I didn't need a camera with bag-bellows capability. Here's the listing.

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...61#post1617761

I should clarify a little. The front standards sold with these cameras were designed for 8x10 (unlike the currently sold version), but I purchased mine with a front standard intended for 4x5. So, S.K. Grimes custom made the risers for the camera shown above, and they did a stunning job. Their risers were even better than those originally sold by Arca, because Adam made them 50% thicker. They worked beautifully. Strong, and very smooth. They were a bit expensive, but worth it.

If I were in the market for the type of camera that you've described, this is the direction that I would pursue. And, probably at substantially less cost than the two options you're considering now.

I believe the above to be the best Arca Swiss option.

However, it should be considered that the only Oschwald era 8x10 bag bellows that I've run across on EBay is the one shown in the images. They're rare. An alternative is to find a standard Oschwald 8x10 bellows for the frames and send them to Custom Bellows to have a bag bellows made.

The primary difference between Oschwald and currrent Arca Swisss cameras is that the former cameras rely on seals to maintain a light tight camera. It's not really an issue, other than a little extra care needs to be taken to maintain their integrity.

[Craig Tuffin]

Thank you everyone for your input!

You're correct that I didn't add any information as to the cameras primary application because it changes from field to studio quite often.

The bellows availability isn't a concern. Keith from Custom Bellows in the UK has been making bellows for my cameras and enlargers for many years, so I can reach out to him if I need to.

Just to round off this thread, I've decided to go with the Ebony. I can always move to the Arca later if I want/need to but the Ebony cameras tend to be kept by photographers that own them, so I don't think I'll have the option to buy one in the future. I've had some great personal experiences shared with me via PM with no negative feedback in regards to the Ebony system.

The Ebony comes with the standard 8x10 back as well as the custom 9x11 (with film holders). The 9x11 format intrigues me for my urban landscape daguerreotypes. If I later decide the format is not for me, well I can simply sell of the back and holders.

Once again, thank you all for the experiences you've shared.

Craig

[Rod Klukas]

Such different animals! I personally can't imagine being without BOTH a 4X5 basic RW Ebony folder and a full monorail system (Sinar in my case). When it comes to 8x10, however, the problem became more narrowly defined because I've been a backpacker my whole life, and portability-wise, an 8X10 folder has just made more sense, plus the fact I bought a very early Phillips 8X10 remarkably cheap. If it were later on, I would have no doubt pounced on the RW Ebony 8X10 when they were briefly offered at quite reasonable cost; but I simply don't need two 8X10's. If I did, I'd simply add 8X10 conversion components to my Sinar Norma system. But I'm not a studio photographer, and approaching 73, don't think I'll be upping the ante in backpack weight. Happy with the Phillips.

So far, I haven't seen a clue exactly how the two camera options in question might be predominantly used. Field and travel logistics can be quite a bit different from studio applications. Also, what about repair and maintenance issues down the line? Monorails get repaired mainly through component replacement (if such parts are still available when needed); repair of wooden cameras is more analogous to a skilled cabinet shop task.

Drew,

The great thing about the Arca-Swiss 8x10 is that it does pack well. While also lighter than the Sinar, or the Ebony, it also can be collapsed on a 15cm/6" monorail for back packing or storage or shipping. and the rest of the camera is about 3" thick. It is modular down to 4x5, so that is why the front is smaller as the 4x5 would be bulkier to pack with extended front frame rails. Contrary to Neil's assertion that the 171 front was an 8x10 design it was just that size carrying over from the ABC cameras. The 4x5 classic had the same front and rear,. The 141 series 4x5 carries the design philosophy over with the classic 141 Camera, or 4x5 Metric, as well.

Remember that design wise the standard lens board for the geometry to be correct with movements is the 13mm recessed 171 lens board. Not the flat board of the Oschwald/ABC Arca-Swiss cameras.

But all of us has our personal needs, so one camera does not necessarily fit all.

Be well,

Rod

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Rod. I admit I rarely ran into Arcas in the field, if ever. Sometimes other Sinar users, but of the ridiculous Sinar P mentality fumbling around five yards from their van, saw lots of 4X5 wood folders; nowadays, almost nobody else with large gear. I'm personally a long lens type, and seldom shoot wide, in LF at least. So even with 4x5, I consider 18 inches of rail my norm; but that of course can be reconfigured if needed. Unfortunately, with climate change issues causing a lot of weird wind storms in normally calm seasons, it's been difficult to use the 8X10 many instances I've been out in the past two years.
I've been forced into quickie MF gear quite a bit, ironically atop an 8x10-worthy tripod to prevent the whole thing blowing over. Have several nice shots of that nature in the print washer right now. Might try again with the 8x10 tomorrow. Thanks for helping folks with their needs. And it's nice to know Arca is still in the game.

[r.e.]

Great that Craig has made a decision. I just want to make a general comment on 171 and 141 Arca-Swiss cameras.

I have a 171 Arca-Swiss F-line, but I don't feel religious about it. As a practical matter, if you want a new F-line, it's going to be a 141. If you want a second-hand camera, they are not plentiful on the market. I wouldn't approach purchasing one on the basis that it "must" be 171 or "must" be 141, at least not unless that question is so important to you that you're prepared to pass on an Arca-Swiss camera indefinitely. That's also why I said (post #13) that I didn't understand the idea of passing on a real offer of an Ebony, a camera that Craig has used and likes, against a theoretical offer of a second-hand Arca-Swiss. Both cameras are uncommon on the market, and if I thought that I'd be happy with either, I'd purchase whichever comes up first.

[Ari]

Thank you everyone for your input!

You're correct that I didn't add any information as to the cameras primary application because it changes from field to studio quite often.

The bellows availability isn't a concern. Keith from Custom Bellows in the UK has been making bellows for my cameras and enlargers for many years, so I can reach out to him if I need to.

Just to round off this thread, I've decided to go with the Ebony. I can always move to the Arca later if I want/need to but the Ebony cameras tend to be kept by photographers that own them, so I don't think I'll have the option to buy one in the future. I've had some great personal experiences shared with me via PM with no negative feedback in regards to the Ebony system.

The Ebony comes with the standard 8x10 back as well as the custom 9x11 (with film holders). The 9x11 format intrigues me for my urban landscape daguerreotypes. If I later decide the format is not for me, well I can simply sell of the back and holders.

Once again, thank you all for the experiences you've shared.

Craig

Hi Craig,
I agree with your choice, and I would never opt for wooden cameras.
In this case, given the two cameras up for grabs, I'd have chosen the one that opens and closes quickly: the Ebony. I don't know if that was part of your decision.
I've never owned an Ebony, but I have owned an 8x10 Arca. It was a combination of some older and newer components.
While it was a great system and camera, very steady, I had to build it each time I took it out of the bag, then take it apart when I was done.
Some parts had to be stored separately, other parts could fold up with the camera. In the end, it got annoying.
I now use a Wehman, which folds up into a clamshell, and setting up takes seconds, as does tear-down. No extra parts to keep handy or forget.
Use the Ebony in good health!

[Rod Klukas]

With an Arca-Swiss 8x10 collapsed onto a 15cm/6" rail, it was way faster than any would 8x10 for a ful featured and full lens range camera to setup. You set your tripod where you want to shoot from. Mount the base rail. pick up camera on 6" rail and slide in and lock. Scroll front forward ont to other 40cm rail in my setup and mount lens ---ready!