When to go 4x5? Or to stay with mf?

[Nick Morris]

Hello, I used to shoot primarily with a 4x5. When I moved up to 8x10, I thought about replacing the 4x5 with MF 6x7, (more flexibility, handheld shots, etc) and bought a Koni-Omega. That lasted about a month. After shooting with 4x5; going to the effort and exercising the care, I found that the MF really didn't offer the "freedom" I thought it would, I lost the quality of the larger format, and the ability to process individual sheets of film. If I was going to the effort of using a tripod and spot metering, I might as well use the 4x5. My 4x5 is a Super Graphic, so I can hand hold it if I want, and use a rollfilm back. But I don't. So I sold the Koni. Trouble is, I really haven't used the 4x5 much either. Those 8x10 negatives and contact prints can be addicting. You may want to consider a used Crown Graphic. They are pretty cheap. I bought a nice outfit for $150 locally, with the old Flash, 127mm lens, case, holders, etc. A better choice is a Super Graphic, but they are more expensive. They offer a rotating back (very nice!) and good front movements. They will also take at least a 75mm, and maybe 65mm lenses, without special bellows. There is no question that the larger negatives will provide better quality, all things being equal, but really good pictures are made with MF, and even 35mm. But working with LF is different than working with a handheld camera: in some ways more restricted, in other ways more liberating. Good luck.

[Nick Morris]

Sorry, I meant to say in my previous post that suggesting the Graphic cameras was intended to give you an inexpensive way of trying out the larger format and seeing if the working methods for LF suited your style. Until you work with the larger format, hands on, it really is hard to know for sure if it suits you. However, the Super Graphic is a really good field camera, and worth considering.

[Eric Rose]

If your not butting your head up against a wall on 60% of your shots by not being able to get the shot you need due to lack of movements you don't need LF. If you find the prints you are making now are sharp enough for you, you don't need LF.

Most of us use LF because we had a "need" for the additional capablilities it offers. Not to mention those big cameras a major chick magnets!

Eric

[CXC]

It is unwise to make this decision based on the relative costs of the cameras; in the medium and long term, the cost of LF film and processing will make the LF road the more expensive road.

I find that I shoot far fewer shots with an LF camera than with an MF camera. But then I love ReadyLoads, which cost three times as much as normal film, so it is still expensive.

Be aware that movements are slim to none on a 65mm lens. I have an SA 65mm, and it has its uses, but I was disappointed when I realized that it vignettes with only slight rise, and much rear tilt bangs the ground glass into the rear element.

The bigger the negative, the more detail you will have. More is better. Is 4x5 overkill? Maybe, but you can still get that killer shot with overkill, and not with underkill.

[Bill_1856]

4x5 is a great way to go for B&W, but I'm not sure that is true for transparancies. I'd go with the MF system that already works for you, and buy a scanner.

[MIke Sherck]

If you were impressed by the difference between a 35mm and 6x4.5 negative, wait until you see a 4x5!

I went through a similar debate when I decided to try a view camera (in my case, 5x7) after years of shooting 35mm and with my Mamiya 645's. A year later I was down to the view camera, a broken 645 body which I probably will never fix because I stopped using it, and one 35mm body with three lenses which gets pulled out very occasionally. I adapted to working with a view camera fairly quickly and it turned out to be exactly the right move for me (well, except now I want an 8x10, or maybe an 11x14...) but your mileage may vary.

You really should try to use one for a day or two before you make the plunge. If you can't rent a camera, lens, film holders, etc. ad infinitum, see if you can find a local large format photographer who is willing to help you. See if there's a large format photography group near you and join them some time. Despite our media image of savage lone wolves, most large format photographers I know of rarely bite and they've all had their shots.

Mike S.

[John O'Connell]

"I know I can see the difference between 35mm and 645 in an 8x10 print I would think that same type of detail increase would be noticeable in a jump to 4x5 too."

There's probably not as much difference as you think between 645 and 4x5 on an 8x10 print, especially if you print digitally. In your position I wouldn't bother moving up to 4x5, or even 6x7.

The only reasons to move up to LF are for movements or for better print quality at larger sizes. If you're happy with your Epson and with the Costco prints then I wouldn't upgrade.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Ag,

You have posed your question on the Large Format Forum. As expected, almost all of the loyal respondents here are recommending that you, at least, try large format. Post the same question on the Medium Format Forum and I'll bet that most of the respondents there will recommend that you stay with medium format.

I'm not advocating medium format here. However, since you are mostly shooting chromes and making relatively moderate sized prints, there is not much to gain from moving to larger format sheet film. Too many hassles with the lab when it comes to processing sheet film. Using a view camera with a roll film back is not entirely necessary, since there is only a minimal amount perspective or depth of field control needed for landscape photography. That would be a lot of gear to purchase and lug around for the small amount of movement advantage it would offer.

The solution to your dilemna may be to get a camera like the Fuji 6X9 rollfilm camera (the Leica on steroids) or one of the 6X12 or 6X17 panoramic format cameras. They will give you a fairly large negative without the difficulties and expense of having color transparency sheet film processed, scanned, printed,etc.

[Peter Langham]

The real issue is how do you like to work. Working with large format is a different beast. It is slower....you say you like to work slowly. Looking at the big ground glass is just a joy. Seeing upside down and backwards can help seeing relationships as opposed to subject. At small image sizes, I would say it is very diffcult to see a quality difference between my medium and large format prints, but the difference in taking them is incredible. I would much rather be using the big camera when I can. So I would say go with what you enjoy.

My evolution was a little different than yours..I went directly to large format when I got serious about photography, and haven't regretted it for a second. I only recently got a medium format for times I can't carry the large format and to do some night photography.

[Guy Tal]

"However, since you are mostly shooting chromes and making relatively moderate sized prints, there is not much to gain from moving to larger format sheet film"

I couldn't disagree more. Other than the (fairly obvious) difference in print quality, even in moderate size prints, the question was specifically regarding landscape photography where movements will make all the difference in the world.
MF is a poor compromise for landscape - it buys you some more detail than 35mm, but the inability to tilt/swing puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to DOF. This is further compounded by the long'ish focal lengths you're forced to use and gets worse the larger you go (as in - it will be much more of an issue with 6x7 compared to 645).
Regardless of any religious beliefs in the sanctity of one format or another, this is a simple case of using the right tool for the right job.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography