Any Experience with Arca Swiss MF or Universalis for 4X5 film

[JWMster]

Not much info here on either of these or on the LF website. Rod Klukas says he sells about 1 F-Classic type a month. He mentions the Universalis can do 4X5 quite well for considerably less, but you do lose rear tilt... something that's been probably too much of a crutch for me in the short term. Yes, I'm curing my bad rear tilt ways now, but see there are a lot of us. Stroebel's text kind of assures that this isn't the end of the world, and that axis tilt on the front standard is a better solution for focusing. Got it.

But I'm still wondering how this works in the real world. Yes, I've read the Australian LF article on a Universalis 4X5 film shooting process, but love to hear more experience and opinions. Apparently if you go with an MF, Rod says you get to keep rear tilt and EVERYTHING is geared. Not sure the ca-ching $'s involved, but I'm sure it's up there. Same ballpark? Maybe. So if you're shooting an MF, are you finding the rear tilt something you use as much as anticipated? I did read Dykinga's book and talk to Rod about his experience learning to work with front axis tilt... as a life changer. So it can be done.

Love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Alan9940]

OK, please read this as my personal opinion only...

I wouldn't purchase any LF style camera that doesn't have rear tilt; simply too many things you can accomplish with rear tilt that any front control can't do. I know some photographers use MF cameras that have bellows and controls, but I've always felt that if I'm going to carry the weight and have the "inconvenience" of shooting this style camera I might as well get the largest neg I can out of it; exactly why I choose my Intrepid 8x10 over my 4x5 outfit (Arca-Swiss btw) for many treks into the wilds.

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth...

 

[JWMster]

Yep. That's sort of my hesitation. I sense that Arca designed to help the digital crows avoid misalignments which can be so much more finely required at 100MP. If I were to shoot digital... I'm not likely to plunk $20,000 or even close to that for a digital back. Rod says under 40 or 50MP's the problems are much less confining anyway. But I'm hearing you on this. And that's why I'm curious. I've seen some say they have MF's and Rod says the MF has all the movements (or can), but getting less while paying more is a bit of a puzzle at the moment. THanks for your thoughts.

BTW, which Arca Swiss are you NOT using? I have an old Model B, and use a Chamonix F2 instead.

 

[Alan9940]

BTW, which Arca Swiss are you NOT using? I have an old Model B, and use a Chamonix F2 instead.

Hmm...it's basically a cobbled together camera from Arca bits-n-pieces. I have the 30cm collapsing rail, B era function carriers on the front and rear, F-line format frames with the front being 6x9 size (i.e., 110mm lensboard), long bellows for lenses up to 19", and a leather universal "bag" bellows for short focal lengths. Even pieced together, it's a wonderful piece of kit; more solid and functional than any 4x5 I've ever owned or used.

 

[JWMster]

I can see how that would work. Amazed that you were able to cobble it together though. My gaze at prices is that I'd quickly end up near the price of a new F... or not far off. Maybe I'm wrong? Probably. But how does it work in the field? Weight?...Weight isn't everything, but it IS something.

So it's the old B era rail, the function carriers too. Then remove the format frames and add F-line for 110 on the front, keep the 171 on the rear. F-line there, too? Then find a bellows.... I see there's a bellows guy on ebay in Hong Kong... so I see how you could do this. Did it yourself, or bought that way?

 

[Alan9940]

Honestly, I don't know the era of the rail. It certainly works like the more recent ones, but the releases are different. it's not difficult to carry; weighs about six lbs. Packs up in a pretty small space by racking the front standard on to the rear rail piece, then remove that section and it lays flat in a case. Rail slips into it's own pouch. The whole outfit--camera, 5 lenses, bellows not on camera, rail, extension rail, and all the other bits-n-pieces brings the pack to about 18 lbs; light enough for even this old guy to carry!

Didn't "build" it myself...bought it already done. I did buy the leather bellows for wide angle work separately from Ron Klukas.

 

[Rod Klukas]

Hi,

Just one more post on this. When you use rear tilt, you must stop down your lens a lot more to create enough depth of focus. This assumes you want everything sharp.
With a film shot you can usually stop down to 16-32 range for many prints, depending on size and film used.

Someone correctly noted that the Universalis and M-Two do not have rear tilt, because they were designed to aid the digital photographer as with digital you cannot stop down
as far as you can with film due to the onset of diffraction coming on much faster. So with a digital back of 50 or 60mp, like the Hasselblad 907 CFVII, or a Phase 50 or 60mp back,
You can get down to F11 or F11.5, with wide to normal lenses, and gain at least one more stop with longer lenses. This is for best quality. Capture one does have a algorithm to help with
the diffraction, but while it does great in improvement, it still does not match the untouched image shot at a more open aperture. However, a person may be perfectly satisfied with the manipulated result.
So you just have to decide if it fits your quality goal.

When you go to an 80mp back you are now back at around F8.5, 100mp at F11, etc. But as I said it has to do with your quality choices as well.
I am here for any questions. I do shoot with a 907x back and the GFX50R on both platforms as well as 4x5 film.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I sure wouldn't sweat losing rear tilt. In fact, I prefer not having rear tilt. I like photographing architecture, so I want my film plane to be vertical. "Losing" rear tilt helps assure this. It seems to me that a combination of camera tilt and front tilt can accomplish anything that rear tilt might offer.

As for the real world, I like to photograph out of the house, in the field. And in these situations, I absolutely do not see the need for super-precision. Maybe, if I were photographing flat artwork; but, not in the field. I have a 39mp Phase One P45+. I have a used 6x9 Arca Metric camera purchased from KEH for less than $7C, and it meets all my needs for digital and MF film. Of course, this camera has rear tilt. But, that is a necessary compromise in order to retain gear driven, rear shift. I find that gear driven rear shift is very useful on a digital camera.

Also in 4x5, I do not have rear tilt. I"m using an Oschwald era, Type A camera with a Metric, rear format frame. This combination gives me no rear tilt, it gives me front axis tilt, which I really like. And, it gives me the one, gear driven movement that I find most convenient, which is geared rise-fall. Of course, it was necessary to alter bellows frames, in order for this hybrid to work. But, the end result justified the means.

Alas, rear tilt can come in handy when one needs additional rise. Rise can be simulated by using front and rear tilt. For example, in using a 6x9 front standard with 4x5 rear, or a 4x5 front with an 8x10 rear, it's easy to imagine this occurring. But even then, Arca has an extension accessory that can extend rise.

 

[BarneyL]

Hello there,

Sorry for resurrecting a pretty old thread, but I have been recently looking at eBay and someone had listed there an Arca M-Line two model for 4x5. It's pretty expensive (especially seeing it's second hand...), so it's unlikely I'll be going for it, but it made me look more into Arca Swiss stuff, and the F-Universalis (that looks almost the same) seems like a great option for shooting architecture and such, with wide to normal lenses (though I assume to use a longer lens I would just have to switch rail and bellows).

I'd like to ask, what are the functional differences between F-Universalis and M-line two? Does the latter offer, for example, more movement range? Sadly it's difficult for me to find that information.

 

[abruzzi]

M-line is a geared everyting model. Its heavier and bulkier and I don't know a whole lot about it. F-line has multiple versions and is a lightweight field camera. The F-classic has geared focus, with friction clamps for everything else. F-metric adds geared rise/fall/shift. Orbix add geared axis tilt to any of the F-line models. Discovery is like f-classic, but with slightly different controls. F universalis is one I'm not super familiar with, but it has a very different carrier than all the other F models. It has rise/fall at the base while the other F-line have rise/fall at the format frame (i.e. a riser on either side of the frame that the frame rises and falls on.) Arca claims the universalis is lighter and more comapct than other F-line models which would be great, but I'm pretty happy with my F-metric, and all the later Arca gear is so hard to find used, you either take what you can find or consign youself to buying new (which I'm expeting to do when upgrading my 4x5 to 5x7 eventually.)

 

[mdarragh]

Hello there,

Sorry for resurrecting a pretty old thread, but I have been recently looking at eBay and someone had listed there an Arca M-Line two model for 4x5. It's pretty expensive (especially seeing it's second hand...), so it's unlikely I'll be going for it, but it made me look more into Arca Swiss stuff, and the F-Universalis (that looks almost the same) seems like a great option for shooting architecture and such, with wide to normal lenses (though I assume to use a longer lens I would just have to switch rail and bellows).

I'd like to ask, what are the functional differences between F-Universalis and M-line two? Does the latter offer, for example, more movement range? Sadly it's difficult for me to find that information.

I've used Arca-Swiss F-Lines, Universalis and M-Lines in various 4x5 configurations. I haven't seen a M-2 4x5 in person unfortunately.

The Universalis and M-2 are similar cameras in many respects. The M-2 is heavier and more rigid with a fixed front standard that only has geared swing and tilt. Geared rise/fall and shift on the rear standard. The Universalis has geared rise/fall both front and rear, geared rear shift and geared tilt and manual swing on the front standard.

I suspect the movement range is very similar in the Universalis and M-2 4x5. The 4x5 leather bellows allows you to work with wide angle lenses through to moderate telephotos. Both cameras come with a 25cm rail so if you are going to use them as a 4x5 you would want extensions or get one of the longer folding or telescoping optical benches.

 

[Rod Klukas]

I've used Arca-Swiss F-Lines, Universalis and M-Lines in various 4x5 configurations. I haven't seen a M-2 4x5 in person unfortunately.

The Universalis and M-2 are similar cameras in many respects. The M-2 is heavier and more rigid with a fixed front standard that only has geared swing and tilt. Geared rise/fall and shift on the rear standard. The Universalis has geared rise/fall both front and rear, geared rear shift and geared tilt and manual swing on the front standard.

I suspect the movement range is very similar in the Universalis and M-2 4x5. The 4x5 leather bellows allows you to work with wide angle lenses through to moderate telephotos. Both cameras come with a 25cm rail so if you are going to use them as a 4x5 you would want extensions or get one of the longer folding or telescoping optical benches.

The M-Two does retain originally chosen perspective,(lens position), by not moving lens laterally or up and down. And it has greater movement latitude, than the Universalis. There is no front, rise and fall, or lateral movement, as that is available in the rear as rise/fall, or shift, and would alter perspective. There is no rear tilt, as with the consideration for diffraction, you cannot close down the lens enough to increase depth of focus at the image plane, to cover this movement.

So the M-Two is a bit more precise and efficient, especially with regard to digital capture, which i think, was more a factor in both camera designs.

The Universalis is a good, very light platform, again, pointed at digital more than film. If used correctly, the perspective issue can to some extent be mitigated. If you raise both front and rear standards1/2 way to a center position, and then, use the rear rise fall and lateral shift for composition or stitching, it will operate like the M-Two, albeit with less maximum movement available on the Universalis camera.

If the Universalis is used this way, then both cameras can be said to operate with All-In-Plane, movements. This movement is best for stitching if it will cover image requirements and lens allows for it.

So both cameras, have their pluses and minuses. But both can do a great job. Many people do want, and use rear tilt movements on film cameras, but even here, it means you must stop your lens down further to increase
the depth of focus, in order to increase Depth of Focus to accommodate the tilt of the image plane. So Diffraction increases, and your ability to print a large enlargement is truncated to some extent.

Hope this helps.

Rod