Best Format?

[Alan Gales]

5X7 can be contacted or enlarged. Or scanned. Used lenses are relatively cheap and plentiful. Holders easily available and so is film. You can always put a 4X5 back on the camera, or roll film. I'd use 5X7. But I wouldn't give up my Hasselblad or Fuji 6X9 or my 8X10.

Attachment 129944

Robert, you look tired in that photograph!

[lfpf]

I've tried to figure out how to make this less of a loaded question but I don't think that's possible.

What is the best large format in terms of brand new equipment availability? I was thinking about 5x7, but it looks like the only newly manufactured film holders are $120/ea., and you could wait weeks for delivery.

So, what are thoughts on 4x5 and 8x10?

Only you have your answer. Ask yourself, "Which format and hardware will suit my projects best?" The wide range of opinions are based on the wide range of projects and preferences.

New 5/7? Do it and fire it up.

Do it for your own reasons and it can either be your last or yet another might grab your interest in a few months or next decade, or so. No sweat.

By the way, my 4/5 and 8/10 are tools of the trade and have been mulling-over a 5/7 to try. Wise? Insane? Adventures in formats . . .

[Peter Gomena]

For considerations of cost, weight, availability of gear (new and used), versatility, film availability, printing or scanning, I'd go with 4x5. I've owned 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 cameras, and have kept the 4x5. I added a 6.5x8.5 antique a few years ago, and I use it on occasion, but 4x5 is my go-to gear for LF work. I can put a 90mm, 150mm, and 210mm in my bag with holders and accessories and go all day. If you buy lenses carefully, you can accumulate focal lengths with coverage for larger formats if you want to step up. Or, as others have suggested, go ahead and buy the 5x7 and get a 4x5 reducing back. The 5x7 is not a whole lot bigger, and it gives you extra unimpeded bellows flexibility when using 4x5.

[Drew Bedo]

Looking for "The Best" of anything is chasing a chimera. Is a Rolls better than a Tesla or a F-150? It all depends. I have a Leica M-3 in the closet. It was a cutting edge camera when introduced and is now a classic collectable. Yet even when new, there werecredible arguments to be made for similar offerings from Contax. Rolliflex and Hassleblad were also high-end cameras of that era; were either of them better? The answer is both yes ND NO.

tHE 5X7 film holders for $120 each a little too high? Film photography is no longerA viableCAPTURE MEDIUM for most professional photographers and is perceived as a quaint nich by the general imaging public. The consumer pool for Large Format equipment and materials is shrinking relative to the general pool of monied consumers, and may be shrinking in real numbers. Reading other threads here, it seems that the number of films available has shrunk, while the cost of name-brand 4x5 film has doubled (tripled?). I have read here that only Rodenstock still producesnew LF lenses. Does that make Rodenstock the best lens maker now?

Get the gear you want now while it is still available. Shop carefully of course, but do not figure in relative cost of one format over another. There is no inexpensive path.

Looking for the "Best Camera Format" is as futile as chasing unicorns in the mist.

[StoneNYC]

10x10 then you crop how you want... DUH!

[Drew Bedo]

Oops . . .that sounds a little strident and bitter as I read it back just now; sorry.

[John Layton]

I guess its all about compromises and sweet spots. 5x7 pretty much does it for me these days...although I must admit that gazing through an 8x10 is so satisfying that I hardly even need to bring film (like when I used to go fishing, and rarely cared if I didn't catch anything). And 11x14 contacts can be sweet - but a bitch to carry with my 60 year old frame. Then again...when the wind is blowing surf spray directly into my lens, I can hardly keep my 8x10 still enough but the 5x7 still works. Thus the aspect of diminishing returns of 8x10 sometimes. Like that little bit of extra vibration - or just a bit too risky to do that down-angle closeup with the 8x10 because film this large tends to sag (gotta work in the "sag factor!" to kick out the focus, but sometimes I forget) when the 5x7 still works. 4x5? I'm starting to get addicted to printing large (actually, I'm an epiphany junkie but big prints will do just fine) - and am noticing that for a 20x30 or 30x40 a 4x5 neg just doesn't quite do it for me. Ironic that an 8x10 neg might not either - unless conditions are ideal (no wind, enough light, etc.) which for me they (conditions) never are it seems. So maybe I'm frustrated by 8x10? Thus the "sweet spot" factor of 5x7. Plus an aspect ratio that truly rocks! (although sometimes a bit too much for verticals). One thing is for sure...that in feeding this addiction, it became, long ago, essential for me to connect with Bill Maxwell, and then to cough up whatever dough was and is necessary to allow me to contemplate my epiphanies using one of his fresnel/focussing screen combos. Yeah you can go cheaper - but never better, and you only live once! Right now I've gotta put another log on the fire (damn cold this winter in VT) and pour myself another Laphroig...cheers!

[Moopheus]

You might still come out ahead financially with used equipment. I let my accountant handle this kind of stuff but this is my understanding.

Also, used film gear is so much cheaper than new that your up-front cash savings might still be more than any later tax benefit. On the other hand, for a business, reliability has to be considered as well, and servicing costs.

Used film tends to be not such a bargain, though.

[Kirk Gittings]

Used film tends to be not such a bargain, though.

[fishbulb]

More information on my situation would include: these will be contact prints

Then you should buy the size of camera that matches up with the size of the contact print you intend to make. 4x5 is kind of small for contact prints, in my opinion. 8x10 would probably be a better choice.

and the equipment is for a business. Therefore, used equipment is not desirable for depreciation purposes. I need to have a solid book value of the assets and used stuff isn't very good for that.

I think you may want to ask a business person and/or accountant about that. Are you sure you understand how depreciation works?

Depreciation is an expense that can lower your taxable income. But it's not that big of a deal compared to the money you'd save buying used instead of new. Example, using simple linear depreciation over 10 years (in practice, more complex accelerated depreciation schedules may be used, but it doesn't change the conclusions).

New 8x10 camera: $5000 - Depreciation to zero value on a 10 year linear schedule: $500 per year
Used 8x10 camera: $1000 - Depreciation to zero value 10 year linear schedule: $100 per year

Obviously, you save $4000 right away by buying used gear.

If you buy new gear, you spend $5000 right away but you get to reduce your taxable income by $500 per year. Let's say your total tax rate (U.S. state + federal) is 40%. So, your tax bill will be $200 lower each year (40% x $500 = $200) than it would have been without any depreciation. Over ten years, that's a $2000 total tax savings. So your net cost is $5000 - $2000 = $3000.

If you buy used gear, you spend $1000 right away, but can only reduce your taxable income by $100 per year. This would be a $40 per year tax bill savings, or $400 over the ten years. So your net cost of the used gear is $1000 - $400 = $600.

See how it works? At the end of the depreciation period, your net cost of the asset is just the price you paid for the asset multiplied by (1-(tax rate)).

Although the depreciation on the new camera is a higher dollar amount, it still makes much more sense to buy used equipment. Even if the price difference between new and used is lower, (say $5000 vs. 4000) you're still always better off spending less. Buy the cheapest things that will still work for your business. Keep some dry powder in your bank account for a rainy day.