5x7 Chamonix or Arca Swiss Compact?

[Darryl Roberts]

Hi,

I'm 54 and prefer a 5x7 system I can backpack with.

I want a camera that will easily last 20 years of outdoor, inner city, architecture shooting.

Chamonix has an offering around 3k, Arca Swiss Field compact, 2 pounds heavier, twice the price.

Will the Chamonix do? Or, will I be better off spending more now?

I'm hoping for an answer from someone with experience.

Thank you.

 

[zeta3]

Not the Arca Swiss, but the Sinar F2. And 4x5 not 5x7.

I bought the F2 to try on a trip to Greece ... and will be buying the Chamonix (57FS2 or 45H1).

I have a large backpack and even in that, the F2 took up a large amount of space and the rail (unlike the Arca) does not fold conveniently and the standards do not collapse. Taking out of the bag and setting up (attaching bellows, screwing together a second rail piece, adjusting heights) took more time and effort than the Chamonix does. The weight was not a problem as the bag distributed it well, but on the tripod if just moving a few metres, it was heavy and cumbersome.

 

[MarkS]

I've never used an Arca-Swiss but they are fine machines. As far as wooden field cameras go, I bought a 4x5 Zone VI in 1992 and I've been using it steadily since then. Often for the subject matter that you mention, from England to Oregon, both professionally and for personal work. So a wooden field camera can do the job. The Chamonix seems to be well built, and would likely be satisfactory.
I also have a 4x5 Sinar Norma and have travelled with it, too. (I've retired that one until I can refurbish it; after 50+ years it need some maintenance).
I think it will come down to which style of camera you prefer, and how much your total budget is; the cost difference between the two cameras will buy a fair amount of film, paper, and travel.

 

[CreationBear]

If you're defining "backpacking" as a multi-day hiking/camping trip, I don't think the Phillips/Chamonix design has been improved on in terms of weight/compactness. (The Chamonix 57N3 is especially impressive in that regard.) That said, since I own a couple of "expedition" sized backpacks (~ 6500 cu in) it's been no problem to make longish day-hikes with my Sinar Norma 5x7, with overnights being a possibility in all but the dead of winter.

 

[Vaughn]

The Chamonix 57s look great. I have the 11x14 and it is sweet. But to significant reduce weight from my present 5x7, I would have to go with the N3...and I am under the redwoods too much to have a horizontal-only 5x7.
I'm 67. My present 5x7 weighs 10 pounds, including the lens (Fuji W 180mm) and darkcloth. I could take a couple pounds off by removing the sliding base of the Eastman View No.2 (a little stability would be lost) and going with a lighter darkcloth. But I'd rather take a couple less pounds of food, skip the tent, whatever. If I reduced the weight of the camera/lens/cloth, I'd probably just use that as an excuse to toss in a couple more film holders. Carbon fiber tripod instead of Al would help. Space in the pack (I don't use the expedition size pack anymore) is more of a premium than weight. The last pack trip was a solo in September. Six pounds of food, 28 pounds of camera gear (nine holders and the tripod was hand-carried). The pack on the hike out weighed more than most folks' going in...so it goes. More leg muscles than brains, I suppose. Now if I only had the lungs/heart of old!

My 4x5 is a Gowland PocketView marketed by Calumet...at 2.5 pounds with the lens it is pretty sweet...if one accepts its limitations then one can hike a little farther.

Some of the older Japanese folding 5x7s might make a good backpacking camera. Perhaps not as versatile as the Chamonix, but having a light-weight camera specifically for backpacking, and also having a more versatile camera for home/car use (Sinar, etc) might be more practical...rather than compromising between both due to weight.

From a previous backpack trip...5x7 platinum print. This was about a 4.5 mile hike in, with the trailhead fairly high up in elevation. I carried the camera on the tripod in my arms...which ended up being no fun, but I had to have room for the two or three pints of beer in the pack. The first few miles were the steepest, of course, and that section also had a lot of down trees across the trail from a fire a couple years earlier. The lake was a welcome sight.

 

[bdial]

You might want to consider a Ritter 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back. In 8x10 trim it weighs 6.4 pounds.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

The Chamonix 57s look great. I have the 11x14 and it is sweet. But to significant reduce weight from my present 5x7, I would have to go with the N3...and I am under the redwoods too much to have a horizontal-only 5x7.
I'm 67. My present 5x7 weighs 10 pounds, including the lens (Fuji W 180mm) and darkcloth. I could take a couple pounds off by removing the sliding base of the Eastman View No.2 (a little stability would be lost) and going with a lighter darkcloth. But I'd rather take a couple less pounds of food, skip the tent, whatever. If I reduced the weight of the camera/lens/cloth, I'd probably just use that as an excuse to toss in a couple more film holders. Carbon fiber tripod instead of Al would help. Space in the pack (I don't use the expedition size pack anymore) is more of a premium than weight. The last pack trip was a solo in September. Six pounds of food, 28 pounds of camera gear (nine holders and the tripod was hand-carried). The pack on the hike out weighed more than most folks' going in...so it goes. More leg muscles than brains, I suppose. Now if I only had the lungs/heart of old!

My 4x5 is a Gowland PocketView marketed by Calumet...at 2.5 pounds with the lens it is pretty sweet...if one accepts its limitations then one can hike a little farther.

Some of the older Japanese folding 5x7s might make a good backpacking camera. Perhaps not as versatile as the Chamonix, but having a light-weight camera specifically for backpacking, and also having a more versatile camera for home/car use (Sinar, etc) might be more practical...rather than compromising between both due to weight.

From a previous backpack trip...5x7 platinum print. This was about a 4.5 mile hike in, with the trailhead fairly high up in elevation. I carried the camera on the tripod in my arms...which ended up being no fun, but I had to have room for the two or three pints of beer in the pack. The first few miles were the steepest, of course, and that section also had a lot of down trees across the trail from a fire a couple years earlier. The lake was a welcome sight.

Thank you very much for this knowledgeable reply. Nice photograph.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

You might want to consider a Ritter 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back. In 8x10 trim it weighs 6.4 pounds.

Ritter or Rittreck?

 

[abruzzi]

https://www.lg4mat.net/LFcamera.html

 

[Vaughn]

Thank you very much for this knowledgeable reply. Nice photograph.

Thanks. Here is what they were looking at...

 

[Craig75]

Walker titan 5x7 xl is another option. These things are near indestructible, if you don't need rear movements.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

Arca Swiss is my primary camera system, and I have a lot of experience with them. I will always use my Arca kit for 4x5. For one thing, for the kind of super-wides that I like to use, I consider a rail camera as my only option.

But for 5x7, I would consider a flat bed, but I would need to have a bag bellows along with the regular accordion bellows. I think that a 120mm Super Angulon would come close to a super-wide for 5x7, and these will work fine on a flatbed with a bag bellows.

An Arca Swiss 5x7 outfit is very expensive, and they rarely come up on EBay as a used option. If you decided on a 5x7 rail camera, then I would look towards a Sinar Norma. These are nice cameras, they can be found reasonably priced on EBay, and they become available fairly often.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

Arca Swiss is my primary camera system, and I have a lot of experience with them. I will always use my Arca kit for 4x5. For one thing, for the kind of super-wides that I like to use, I consider a rail camera as my only option.

But for 5x7, I would consider a flat bed, but I would need to have a bag bellows along with the regular accordion bellows. I think that a 120mm Super Angulon would come close to a super-wide for 5x7, and these will work fine on a flatbed with a bag bellows.

An Arca Swiss 5x7 outfit is very expensive, and they rarely come up on EBay as a used option. If you decided on a 5x7 rail camera, then I would look towards a Sinar Norma. These are nice cameras, they can be found reasonably priced on EBay, and they become available fairly often.

Thank you very much. I'm considering a new Arca Swiss 5x7, $5000. I want a 5x7 that will last me, outdoors for the next 20-25 years.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

Thank you very much. I'm considering a new Arca Swiss 5x7, $5000. I want a 5x7 that will last me, outdoors for the next 20-25 years.

Part of me is saying go 4x5 Arca, due to the film options still available vs 5x7.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I opt for either 4x5 or 8X10, and can't really justify yet another format this late in life. But I have always admired the longer rectangle shape of 5X7. And I once coveted a 5X7 Canham walnut wood camera. In my opinion, it is the sweet spot of his entire lineup, and should also be given a look too. The Chamonix is basically a little brother to my vintage 8x10 Phillips, and itself very well made if you decide for a folder. An Arca monorail that size is going to cost you a lot; and components can be hard to find. I'm a Sinar guy, so understand the versatility advantages and weight/bulk disadvantages of monorails quite well. Depends on your budget and what kind of carry weight you are comfortable with. Most 5X7's, including the Canham, can be obtained with 4x5 reducing backs. It's often hard to find 5X7 color film, if you're interested in color; so having a fall-back option to 4x5 film as well might be wise.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

I opt for either 4x5 or 8X10, and can't really justify yet another format this late in life. But I have always admired the longer rectangle shape of 5X7. And I once coveted a 5X7 Canham walnut wood camera. In my opinion, it is the sweet spot of his entire lineup, and should also be given a look too. The Chamonix is basically a little brother to my vintage 8x10 Phillips, and itself very well made if you decide for a folder. An Arca monorail that size is going to cost you a lot; and components can be hard to find. I'm a Sinar guy, so understand the versatility advantages and weight/bulk disadvantages of monorails quite well. Depends on your budget and what kind of carry weight you are comfortable with. Most 5X7's, including the Canham, can be obtained with 4x5 reducing backs. It's often hard to find 5X7 color film, if you're interested in color; so having a fall-back option to 4x5 film as well might be wise.

Thank you. Now I'm thinking Chamonix 5x7 with a 4x5 reducer. As far as I know Arca doesn't offer this. Yes I know it's modular.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I agree with Drew. Take a look at the Canham.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

Will do

I agree with Drew. Take a look at the Canham.

L

 

[Darryl Roberts]

I agree with Drew. Take a look at the Canham.

28.58 mm front rise, Chamonix triples that.

 

[jeffzeitlin]

I went with the Chamonix 57Fs-2. No regrets. A great camera - lots of functionality. Extremely high quality built. Easy to handle in the field. I purchased it using the lease to purchase program that Hugo Zhang offered -
hugo zhang hugoz_2000@yahoo.com

 

[Neil Poulsen]

Thank you. Now I'm thinking Chamonix 5x7 with a 4x5 reducer. As far as I know Arca doesn't offer this. Yes I know it's modular.

Perhaps not. But, it could be easily customized.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

I went with the Chamonix 57Fs-2. No regrets. A great camera - lots of functionality. Extremely high quality built. Easy to handle in the field. I purchased it using the lease to purchase program that Hugo Zhang offered -
hugo zhang hugoz_2000@yahoo.com

I decided last night that's what I'm going with too, add the reducing back. I'll still come out cheaper than the Arca Swiss. Hugo is excellent, I've dealt with him before.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Order the reducing back at the same time. You never know what the situation will be like later down the line. Chamonix products are well made.

 

[Darryl Roberts]

Order the reducing back at the same time. You never know what the situation will be like later down the line. Chamonix products are well made.

I will, along with a bag bellows.

 

[dodphotography]

My only gripe with Chamonix is that they wedged their into the market with very competitive pricing but over the last few years that’s eroded a bit. I’m not doubting their products at all, but the pricing has in a way made the train depart from the affordable category. I don’t expect Intrepid pricing but the 810 is now north of 3 and at that price I’m just buying a Canham and having support here stateside.