Misura, Arca Swiss

[Leonardo Barreto]

I don't know if you have seen images of this camera by Arca Swiss. It is supposed to be the most compact monorail view camera available... and it comes with a nice looking container.

I have a tendency to think that this is the perfect camera for something, but it would probably be difficult to justify the price since it can't go wider than 35mm, and as light as it is it would compete with the likes of Alpa and Combo Wides. But for a photographer who wants to look smart...

[Jack Flesher]

GREAT camera.  It is however a 4x5, so slightly larger than the 6x9 F classic version if you want it dedicated for digital, and the Misura has NO rear movements, only front, but that saves weight.  At the end of the day, the ideal camera for digital might be the Arca 6x9 F metric with orbix ~ $4000 in the states.

[Leonardo Barreto]

It is interesting that you mentioned the Orbix feature because I was impressed about it. Here is the text explaining the way it works...

Even at this stage in the digital revolution the camera manufacturers are almost ignoring -- the big gorilla --. An example is this camera. In the PDF brochure with all the photos they could think of there is none with the camera using a digital back ! I know that you can use one, but wouldn't it be good to have a field view camera designed from the ground up exclusively for a 6x45 Digital Back? ... even smaller ... with choice of one or double Orbix ...

 
)The ARCA-SWISS misura is fitted with
the revolutionary ARCA-SWISS Orbix® tilting
system. In contrast to the conventional way
of tilting a camera in segments, this  new de-
sign conceptallows for the lens to remain in
its correct position whilst the camera is be-
ing tilted. This leads to the desired plane of
sharp focus and prevents blurring in the cor-
ners which form the diagonal of the image.
The tilting mechanism is integrated into
the lens standard at its base. Due to this
important innovation the Scheimpflug rule
is being accomplished more precisely than
ever before. The Orbix® Dynamic tilting con-
struction facilitates quick and efficient tilts
by hand. Five perceptible clicks inform the
photographer about the amplitude of the
tilt. Once the alignment has taken place,
it does not need to be locked into position
as the tilting mechanism is self arrestive.

GREAT camera.  It is however a 4x5, so slightly larger than the 6x9 F classic version if you want it dedicated for digital, and the Misura has NO rear movements, only front, but that saves weight.  At the end of the day, the ideal camera for digital might be the Arca 6x9 F metric with orbix ~ $4000 in the states.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[MattLaver]

This camera has been around for a few years now, and was squarely aimed at 4x5 film shooters when it came out. I expect the brochure you've seen is still the original, hence lack of any real reference to digital use. ARCA aren't big on updating their information....

In reference to the 6x9 F series view cameras I have the 6x9 F-Compact (from my film shooting days) and it works well with a digital adapter from Kapture Group. As you say it can't go wider than 35mm but with the incredibly fine tolerances required by the widest lenses I wouldn't want to try accurate adjustment of focus across the sensor plane. It does work well, though, for longer lenses such as studio and macro use.

Composing on the ground glass with a MFDB frame size is a pain so I prefer tethered/live video use only with this combo. Others may have different experiences.

I hope thats all of some relevance.

Matt

[Jack Flesher]

Composing on the ground glass with a MFDB frame size is a pain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You got that right. Add to that the miniscule DOF and alignment tolerances as lenses get shorter, using MF digital on a view cam without electronic focus confirmation is challenging to say the least.  Using live focus with my Betterlight scanning back even with longer 4x5 lenses, showed me that less than 1/2mm of standard movement made the difference between perfect focus and just so-so focus.  I ended up buying a 10x Schneider loupe just so I could closer for the live-focus final.

Cheers,

[MattLaver]

You got that right. Add to that the miniscule DOF and alignment tolerances as lenses get shorter, using MF digital on a view cam without electronic focus confirmation is challenging to say the least.  Using live focus with my Betterlight scanning back even with longer 4x5 lenses, showed me that less than 1/2mm of standard movement made the difference between perfect focus and just so-so focus.  I ended up buying a 10x Schneider loupe just so I could closer for the live-focus final.

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To elaborate on the tolerances needed for wide lenses with digital; I've just had my Cambo WDS calibrated/adjusted at the manufacturer (was having focus issues with the 24xl) and the difference needed to move the infinity focus point on the 24xl from infinity in to 30 meters was 2/1000ths of a millimeter (1/500th mm). I don't think its possible to control that evenly across the frame when using moveable standards. Additionally 2/10ths (1/5th mm) difference across the frame is enough to prevent focus at all. One side was in focus but the other was off, regardless of what I did with aperture or focus position etc. Its sorted now, thanks to some very meticulous staff at Cambo.

Cheers

Matt

[shutay]

To elaborate on the tolerances needed for wide lenses with digital; I've just had my Cambo WDS calibrated/adjusted at the manufacturer (was having focus issues with the 24xl) and the difference needed to move the infinity focus point on the 24xl from infinity in to 30 meters was 2/1000ths of a millimeter (1/500th mm). I don't think its possible to control that evenly across the frame when using moveable standards. Additionally 2/10ths (1/5th mm) difference across the frame is enough to prevent focus at all. One side was in focus but the other was off, regardless of what I did with aperture or focus position etc. Its sorted now, thanks to some very meticulous staff at Cambo.

Cheers

Matt
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess that's why new "digital view cameras" like the Silvestri Flexicam don't try to be excessively flexible and instead either have movements only on the front standard, or else in the case of the Flexicam, it separates tilt, swing and shift to the front standard, and rise/fall is on the rear standard.

[Leonardo Barreto]

I don't understand why this is more of a problem than 4x5 since there is much less depth of field for a "normal" 80mm on a 645 than a "normal" 150mm on the larger format. When I shoot a landscape with my 4x5 and a 135mm at f16 or closer there is focus almost all the way from foreground to infinity. It must be more so on the smaller format view camera, no?

I guess that's why new "digital view cameras" like the Silvestri Flexicam don't try to be excessively flexible and instead either have movements only on the front standard, or else in the case of the Flexicam, it separates tilt, swing and shift to the front standard, and rise/fall is on the rear standard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[jing q]

I don't really understand the whole focus issue also
As far as I can tell being able to use a loupe on a ground glass with careful movements is far more accurate than trying to manual focus through a viewfinder on an AFd or H3D.

[Jack Flesher]

I don't really understand the whole focus issue also
As far as I can tell being able to use a loupe on a ground glass with careful movements is far more accurate than trying to manual focus through a viewfinder on an AFd or H3D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is about the amounts of lens movements required to focus and the rate the relative CoC's change as you go shorter:  A 150mm lens is moved through 150mm of extension to change focus from infinity to a 1:1 magnification ratio.  Similarly, a 55mm lens is only moved 55mm to accomplish the same range of focus.  However the CoC is also reduced for smaller formats, so the tolerance for accurate focus is further diminished. These two effects combine to exacerbate the problem with smaller formats.  Also more critical is parallelism across the image plane for the same reasons...

Cheers,

[Leonardo Barreto]

The part that I am yet to understand is that I always believed that you get more issues of depth of field when shooting 8x10, less with 4x5, less with MF and the "easiest" was a 35mm with, say, a 24mm. Why is it different with digital?

I understand that focusing a 4x5 with a 35mm "reducing back" would be harder than with the standard sheet film size, but this are two different issues.

In principle a MFDB should give less problems than a 4x5 in terms of focusing...

I think that using designed-for-4x5-and-6x9 systems is not good, and we have to wait for the "mechanical" side of the industry to catch up, or realize that either they design for digital or perish...

Probably one solution would be to make a body with helicoidal focusing mechanism similar to that of the Nikkor PC 85mm Micro lens with tilt and shift and make it so that it is modular.

This way the parallelism problem is diminished  ...


 

It is about the amounts of lens movements required to focus and the rate the relative CoC's change as you go shorter:  A 150mm lens is moved through 150mm of extension to change focus from infinity to a 1:1 magnification ratio.  Similarly, a 55mm lens is only moved 55mm to accomplish the same range of focus.  However the CoC is also reduced for smaller formats, so the tolerance for accurate focus is further diminished. These two effects combine to exacerbate the problem with smaller formats.  Also more critical is parallelism across the image plane for the same reasons...

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]