LF Camera Recommendations

[rpagliari]

Hi All,
I'm interested about LF photography. I have got vast exposure to full frame and medium format; never done LF before.

What would be a good 8x10 camera to start with? I've heard about Intrepid and Sen Hao so far, but I'm not sure if there are other not too expensive alternatives as well.

[Jac@stafford.net]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/
is a good srart

[Ted R]

Older models are often less expensive however some repairs are often needed and not everybody has the tools and skills for this. For a beginner in LF the front and rear movements are perhaps not so important. Deterioration of the bellows can sometimes be a problem due to light leaks.
You don't give your location, in the US a good place to look is ebay.com

[B.S.Kumar]

LF starts at 4x5. You might do well to dip your toes before jumping into the deep end.

Kumar

[Greg]

LF starts at 4x5. You might do well to dip your toes before jumping into the deep end.

Kumar

Agree but with reservations. 4x5 is a good format to start off with but you can easily acquire a 4x5 enlarger and enlarge your negatives as you would for 35mm and 120 film. I personally think the leap into shooting LF starts with 8x10. Actually probably more accurately starts with Whole Plate, but Whole Plate cameras are a whole lot harder to find than 8x10. For me, my personal definition of LF is contact printing the negatives. When I was a student at RIT in the late 1970s, LF was defined as shooting 8x10. Shooting 4x5 was the norm and equated with shooting 120.

[B.S.Kumar]

When I was a student at RIT in the late 1970s, LF was defined as shooting 8x10. Shooting 4x5 was the norm and equated with shooting 120.

But micro 4/3rds wasn't invented back then

Kumar

[Luis-F-S]

What would be a good 8x10 camera to start with? I've heard about Intrepid and Sen Hao so far, but I'm not sure if there are other not too expensive alternatives as well.

A 4 x 5 camera would be good to start with.

[docw]

Learning large format and its idiosyncrasies can burn up a lot of film. 8x10 film is very expensive so unless you have a lot of money to spend on film, 4x5 is a good place to start. Also, you can contact print 4x5 negatives until you get an enlarger or until you think you have enough knowledge to go 8x10, in which case you don't need an enlarger.

[Jim Jones]

An 8x10 contact print is no more impressive to most people than a bigger enlargement from 4x5 film. 4x5 cameras, Film, and enlargers are less expensive than those for 8x10, and are more plentiful. A 4x5 is much more convenient when travelling. I used a variety of 4x5 cameras for years before buying an 8x10, and rarely see an advantage of using the larger camera.

[agregov]

There are many in the forum who believe that 4x5 is not “large format.” I've seen these questions come in again and again and reps from each of those camps will come out with “8x10 is no big deal” or “start with 4x5 first.” Having shot 4x5 for years now and just spinning up on 8x10, starting with 4x5 is an order of magnitude simpler than dealing with 8x10 as a newcomer to using view cameras and sheet film. 4x5 cameras are easy to find, can be cheap, film holders are way less money, your existing camera bags can likely hold the equipment, film is way cheaper and easier to find labs to develop film.

I think your first objective should be to see if you like shooting with view cameras and workflow you'd like to use to develop film (yourself or lab) and how to make prints (darkroom or digital). That should easily keep you busy for the next year. In terms of equipment, while I love what the Intrepid folks are doing, I'd favor a camera with smoother movements and control. The Chamonix 4x5 cameras are hard to beat for price and quality workmanship. Then pick up a cheap lens from KEH that's close to whatever you consider “normal” in your other camera systems, and you're off to the races for under $1,500. Good luck.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...s/LF4x5in.html