Vote: Reducing Back vs New Camera

[Ginette]

The question to ask is what are you shooting and where.

I can't really use bigger longer lenses like the kodak 305 on my 4x5 speed graphic; not enough lensboard and not enough bellows. Nothing quite like a 9" lensboard on a fixed front standard 8x10 for old brass lenses that makes ilex5 look small. But I don't lug that stuff around too much, and gladly lug a 4x5 miles for nature/abstract photos, so there is no substitute for a 4x5 for that sort of thing. Now a canham 5x7 is close... I borrowed one for a shoot and it's nearly as practical/portable as a 4x5 field camera but can handle longer lenses and isn't much of a reduction to go to 4x5.

I support also the 5x7 idea. I have a ShenHao 5x7, the older HZX57-IIAT with 20" extension, use Sinar lensboard for larger lenses, smaller lenses on Linhof with an adapter. A 4x5 back on the 5x7 is all that you need to shoot 4x5.
This way, with 2 cameras, you can shoot the 3 formats and had more choice for expired films!

[John Kasaian]

When in doubt one should always buy another camera........................until you get old and on a small fixed income-then you just make do with what you have.......

^^This^^
The number of times I've used the reducing back on my 8x10? 1.
And that was with Type 54 p/n .
Inside a studio a reducing back is more practical than in the field.

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, a lot of older wooden 4x5 cameras (Agfas, Anscos, B&J, Deardorff, ect...) were 5x7s that came with 4x5 backs.

[Jim Andrada]

I use a 4 x 5 back on my Agfa 5 x 7 as well as my 5 x 7 Linhofs, but would probably not do so on my 8 x 10. Re large shutters, I use large Compurs/ Ilexes on the 4 x 5 Technika by using a 1" thick wooden spacer fastened to the front of a normal lens board - works fine and gets the shutter far enough out to not interfere with the front standard.

[SergeiR]

For most 8x10 cameras, it is a little difficult to use lenses shorter than about 210. Shorter than 150, you may as well forget it.

Hmm.. i have 3 8x10 cameras, and none have issues using lenses up to 100-110mm.

[jbenedict]

Hmm.. i have 3 8x10 cameras, and none have issues using lenses up to 100-110mm.

Well, bully for you....

[angusparker]

Also, I'm shooting with a Ritter 810 so bulk and weight isn't a huge concern. I have a decent investment at this point so dollars are becoming very important now a days

A new camera. I have a Ritter 8x10 and a Chamonix 4x5. Even with the super light Ritter I don't think I'd consider a reducing back. Many of my lenses cover both formats so it's just a matter of having an adapter for my Ritter for the lensboard.

[Drew Bedo]

A lot of good thoughts in this thread.

My two cents: The reducing back will allow you to do some really extreme macro by mounting a shorter lens and cranking out the bellows to full extension. You may not want to do this . . .most other folks don't want to either.

Maybe its only $0.01 worth.

[IanG]

FWIW, a lot of older wooden 4x5 cameras (Agfas, Anscos, B&J, Deardorff, ect...) were 5x7s that came with 4x5 backs.

The Agfa Ansco 4x5 and 5x7 view cameras I've seen are different sizes, the 4x5 is rather chunky looking though so does look disproportionally larger than one might expect.

A 5x7 back won't fot a 4x5 camera, but of course a you say soem people did use reducing backs on their 5x7's/

Ian

[jnantz]

^^This^^
The number of times I've used the reducing back on my 8x10? 1.
And that was with Type 54 p/n .
Inside a studio a reducing back is more practical than in the field.

exactly ..