I know that Theodoros, but you didn't answer my question. Isn't it true that Arca's tilt mechanism is in the base of the camera, and therefore is further away from the entrance pupil than Alpa's?
So which design do you think is "worse" from that perspective? Shouldn't you really be harping on Arca more than Alpa?
These things are pancake technical cameras. If you (or in this case Bernard) wants a view camera then get a view camera. Or the Linhof Techno. All this time you have been arguing Alpa's design /engineering is bad because it doesn't do something the way a view camera does. Well that's not what it is. And in fact, as pointed out in the other thread, unless the lens board mount has the ability to reposition each lens so it's entrance pupil is precisely aligned with the tilt mechanism, most view cameras have exactly the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree.
Please note for me, and I think most owners of Alpa, Arca and Cambo, none of the above arguments matter. Bernard asked about using these for landscape, while Theodoros is complaining it affects his "very complex architectural photography".
So to summarize, Alpa's design does not work as Theodoros thought, despite his claim that he has used the system before. From the "tilt and refocus" perspective, Cambo is the best, followed by Alpa then Arca.* None of which matters much at all, especially in landscape photography.
Dave
*It's been 6 years since I handled a Cambo. I don't know for sure whether the lens tilt mechanism in the lens mount hinges close to the lens or at the base near the camera, so I'll give it the benefit of my ignorance and assume it is closest to the lens.
