Have any of you downsized from 8x10 to 4x5? Why?

Of course, downgrading from 8x10 to 4x5 can be a matter of degrees . . .

At various times, I've had a Sinar P 8x10 (a lightweight version), a Toyo 8x10 G, a very nice Deardorff, and an Arca Swiss 8x10 older version. (Not necessarily at the same time.) All were excellent cameras. And, I had a set of 8x10 lenses, including a 250mm f6.7 Fujinon for moderate wide-angle (ic of 398mm), a 355mm G-Claron, a Nikon 450mm M, a Nikon 450 Q, a 600mm Fuji C, and a Repro Claron 610mm. And, I should probably mention an 8x20 that I owned.

But, I didn't really use them. Any of them. :D

Alas, they've all been sold. I still have an 8x10 representation. I have a Bender kit 8x10 that I've customized. (It's actually quite a nice camera.) And, I recently purchased a 355mm Red Dot Artar in a Copal 2 shutter mounted by S. K. Grimes. Not to be caught short-handed, I also own an 8x10 enlarger. I'm keeping these items for one purpose, to photograph an old violin that I own.

The fact is, straight out and simple, I'm a 4x5 person. That's what I like, and that's what I've used the most. I took a workshop from John Sexton, and he articulated much the same sentiment. He said that he owned an 8x10, but he wasn't sure of where to find it.

I guess I'm in good company.

I am still working slowly on my largest possible/affordable camera for me

I have 500 sheets of 2x 14X36" X-Ray

Maybe I get it done and usable before the sky falls

I keep busy as I fiddle about

PTL

I'm not sold on the idea that going from 8x10 to 4x5 is a downgrade. I use 8x10 and 4x5 for different purposes, but tend to use 5x7 the most. The downsides of 8x10 can be many.

Having ended my professional activities, I have no more use for the 36x60" prints, so 8x10" gets less use.
I now have time to walk in rough terrain, then I take the 4x5" Linhof Technika.

Why is it a downgrade? Best camera is the one with film in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael R

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

---

The vast majority of us, myself included, probably make better images with digital now. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like a normal person.

For some reason, I find it hard to do impressionist soft focus landscapes on 4x5. So I still use 8x10, or I will this summer after a 2 year hiatus for health reasons.

I have found a lot of fun with 4x5 this past year. I only contact print (alt processes), so working with the small image has been challenging. Form becomes dominate over detail, and that sort of thing. The 4x5 has made it possible to do a small series of images while solo backpacking in the redwoods, hopefully continued when the water goes down this summer. Although the 5x7 is also possible, the extra weight is killer on the hike back out (and up). But 8x10 is a load unto itself these days...my equipment is too heavy, and spending the bucks to lighten that load no longer makes sense for backpacking concerns. That wind has blown...can't do both at the same time.

But for portability and print size, I have been loving the 5x7 quite a bit. 8x10 is still a lot of fun...it was cool and fun to get it out in Yosemite Valley for the participants of my workshop to use last month! And I need to make the purchase of the 11x14 worthwhile by printing the negatives! Especially the 5.5"x14" negs.

Wimping out on this trip to Scotland with family. Time-wise and all, the Rolleicord is going. Hopefully the 5x7 to Japan in the late Fall...but who knows, the 4x5 might be sweet in Kyoto.

I've generally settled upon 5x7 negatives for scanning and digital printing ( I have a 5x7 Omega E5 cold light enlarger but prefer digital processes for 5x7) and upon 11x14 for silver gelatin contact printing. The 5x7 Canham MQC57 outfit is only marginally larger and heavier than the 4x5 outfit and uses the same lenses, yet the larger negative and wider aspect ratio are preferable, at least to me. The Ritter carbon-fiber 11x14 is about the same weight as many 8x10 rigs, but my own sense is that the 11x14 negative makes a usefully bigger contact print. It's certainly larger and more awkward, though.

I may well be quirky, but 4x5 and 8x10 are the two formats that I generally do not use.

No plans to downsize in this life

I need to get back to work on 14X36"

I can't afford 8x10 film on a regular basis. that said, I did just buy an 8x10 studio camera. For me, there is a huge difference in looking at an 8x10 ground glass vs. a 4x5. Magic. 4x5 seems small after shooting 8x10