Quality 8x10 gear...how much does it matter?

Hello I have a few questions about 8x10 gear. Now that I have a drum scanner and am able to scan my 8x10 color negatives (Portra 160) I have been more interested in shooting 8x10 and have been wondering if I should think about upgrading certain pieces of my kit in order to obtain the highest possible resolution for large enlargements. (Currently my max print size from a single capture is 40x50, though I have made prints up to 40x80 by stitching 4x5). However, I see a 64in printer in my future, so I am keeping this in mind while asking these questions.

1) How much do film holders matter if I am looking for ultimate resolution? I currently own 3 Fidelity Elites and 1 Lisco Regal. They seem fine and are in good condition, but I am tempted by Toyo holders as my experience with them in 4x5 has been great. So, if I switched to Toyo holders would they really hold the film flatter? Would you think I might notice a difference?

2) How much should I worry using top quality optics? I am very pleased with my 4x5 line up, and would hate to use second rate optics for 8x10. Currently the lenses I have that cover 8x10 comfortably are a Caltar-S II 300mm f5.6 (with Schneideritis) and a Nikkor-M 450 f9 (purchased for 4x5). From my understanding the Caltar-S is a re-badged Schneider Symmar-S, is this correct? And, if i upgraded my 300mm to a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S, would I potentially experience a noticeable increase in resolution? My 150mm Apo-Sironar-S has quickly become my favorite 4x5 lens, so I’m contemplating upgrading to the 300mm for 8x10, even though it seems difficult to find these lenses used.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but any opinions would be greatly appreciated. I know the real answer would be test the lenses and film holders I am thinking about to compare to what I currently have, but have not had the opportunity yet. And I know there are many other factors contributing to resolution other than lenses and film flatness, but I’m using a Sinar 8x10 F2 on a Gitzo giant and it seems like a darn solid setup, and just want to know if I can improve things..........

Filmholders make a significant difference. They should be modern and unwarped for starters. Brand doesn't make a lot of difference, but none of them will hold film flat enough
for critical big enlargements. Film tends to bow a bit at times, might pop in very long exposures during cold conditions as the film warms up, but mostly, just isn't dead flat. I
personally modified a number of holders for critical work. You might find some past posts
on adhesive holders. Lenses also make a difference, but most relatively late lenses (from
the 60's onwards) are well corrected, though closeup work might need specialization.
Depends on the exact application. All the little details do add up. But the most frequent
culprits are film plane flatness, camera shake, and just plain technique.

A lot of very recognizable images have been shot with that Nikkor 450/9. I'm sure the Caltar-S is a great performer. I'm not convinced film flatness is a real problem.

IMO, just shoot. Your gear is sufficient to get fantastic enlargements at your desired size.

Technique might be the single most important factor, followed by filmholders, then lenses. For example, I use a mid 1920s uncoated lens, a set of 8 Kodak/Folmer&Schwing wooden filmholders which I have carefully checked and repaired where neccesary, and a 61 year old wooden camera on a wooden tripod. I am utterly happy with the technical quality of my images.

Your lenses are more than adequate, don't worry about them. Used 8x10 holders should be carefully checked for damage, it isn't always apparent. The tripod is the foundation, it must be solid. The rest is up to you, enjoy! (smiling smiley)

Wanky holders and tripods, locks that won't lock, the wind and ground vibes will all cause bad ju-ju, but that is common knowlege. AFAIK, the maximum difference between one lens and another is example specific when it comes to the major players. If you settle on a lens model have MIT or JPL select the best resolution from a sampling of lenses representing that make and model (thats what Bradford Washburn did.)
But does it matter?
Probably not. It sounds like you're itching to go on a hunt for magic bullets.
Christopher Burkett gets truly amazing resolution working with color 8x10 and his gear seems to be third, maybe even fourth generation and yet his results are, to my eyes, stunning.
I'd suggest taking a look at his site. Google is your friend ;)

Thanks everyone for your opinions so far, they are very helpful and I am taking them all into consideration. I don't think I'm searching for magic bullets....just want to squeeze very thing I can out of my setup. I am already getting excellent results with what I have in 4x5 and 8x10.....however when I did upgrade my 4x5 lenses I noticed a difference. Like I said above..I'm consistently blown away with my 150mm Apo-Sironar-S, as well as my 210mm Apo-Symmar. But who knows....my technique could have improved around the same time I got these lenses.....its hard for me to say.

But I agree that technique and actually shooting is the best way to get good results.....and since I think I have good technique...and do get out and shoot...I just want to make sure I'm getting the best results I can.

Thanks!

If they're clean and in good shape I've never had a problem with a really old 8X10 film holder. Some of them are quite light too.

Sorry to lock horns with you again, Ben, but I'll bet if you actually compared enlargments
done my way (precision filmholder) vs conventional, you'd see quite a difference. Not so
noticable 20X24 down, but makes a significant difference with 8X10 in big enlargements.
4X5 is less a problem. Acetate film like Provia is distinctly worse for sag than the stiffer
polyester base. With ULF the problem is major, though again denial might be in operation
due to the non-enlargement of contact prints (though ULF shooter were probably the very
first to put at least a spot of ATG tape behind the film).

John - I wouldn't call all of Burkett's gear third rate. His enlarger probably cost 75 grand
and has all kinds of fancy trimmings. I'll bet he's pretty damn nitpicky, but that doesn't
exclude the fact that older cameras can be solid, or that lenses at f/45 have to be less
than ten years old. Plenty of good lenses out there to choose from, though at my age the
cumulative wt of them is getting to be a relevant factor (that pack feels a pound heavier
each year). But a precision filmholder is something of a magic bullet if sharp detail is a
priority. It's just like folks who think they get crisp enlargements without using a glass carrier - which is of course either relative or just plain a myth. Just try one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

...or that lenses at f/45 have to be less
than ten years old.

---

Just curious why... have they changed the rules on diffraction limits in the last ten years?