4x5 or 8x10?

[Jonathan_5775]

I considered 8x10 many years ago - I borrowed a camera on a few occasions... but it just wasn't for me. I find there are certain formats that just work better for certain people. I cannot really compose anywhere NEAR as well on 8x10 as I can on 4x5 or medium format. I think it has partly to do with seeing the whole image at once also. I suspect ALSO that it has a great deal to do with what size drawings are the most comfortable for you as well. I tend to draw small - probably 4x5-ish size... so there you go. Don't know if it's related but it would make sense at a certain level. Just try it and see.

Jonathan

[Struan Gray]

I keep being tempted by cheap 8x10 conversions for my Norma, but sanity usually asserts itself before I get out my credit card. I would love to have the big ground glass and the image quality of 8x10, and I freely admit I would like to have the bragging rights that a bigger negative confers, but 8x10 tips over into the impractical for the sorts of image I currently like to take. It's not the bulk and weight, but rather the effects on my seeing.

I'm currently on a long-lens kick. My most used lens in 4x5 is an 18", and duplicating that angle of view on 8x10 would be a major effort. Lenses are more expensive; tripod(s) are heavier; my arms are not long enough to adjust the front standard while looking at the ground glass; and depth of field gets harder and harder to manage.

I also like to take semi-macros looking straight down at the ground with a 240mm lens. On 8x10 this will again be a major undertaking. Suddenly I'm doing true macros at 1:1 instead of bodging and winging it at 1:2. I'll need a stepladder to see the ground glass because with a 500 mm lens it needs to be at least two meters off the ground to form an image at all. Depth of field is non-existant.

Finally, I like to explore the world through the camera. Moving from an MF SLR to 4x5 as made things hard enough, 8x10 would make it impossible to mooch about setting up the camera on spec to see what things look like on the ground glass.

So for now, I have my ears well-plugged with parsley and can't hear the sirens at all. No, no. Not I.

[Calamity Jane]

(Ok, who stole my post?! I KNOW I made a response yesterday but it ain't here!)

Wes,

I started with a 4x5 about a year ago - made a camera, bought a couple of lenses, and got all set up to process and print 4x5 colour. I was (and am) happy with the 4x5.

This summer an old 8x10 flatbed came along on a certain auction site and was sitting there, ignored, at a price less than what I'd expect an 8x10 lens to fetch. Ok, I can't resist a bargain! The old 8x10 joined my stable. Then I added a better lens to the 8x10. Of course my $80 CombiPlan 4x5 tanks wont do 8x10 so I invested in a used Jobo CPA-2

So now I have 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10.

Of the 3 formats, 4x5 is the lest expensive to shoot and the easiest to pack around. It probably gets used three times as much as the 8x10 because the cost per shot is so much less. (4x5 E-6 costs me about $3 a sheet Canadian for a finished transparency; 8x10 E-6 costs about $15 a sheet.) I find that I save the 8x10 for those shots that I KNOW will be special. If I were rich, maybe the 8x10 would replace the other two formats but I am not so I will stick with having my economic 4x5 and the "special shots" 8x10. Only the 5x7 is in danger of meeting the auction block

One thing I will say in favour of the 8x10 is that my ratio of good pictures to so-so pictures is MUCH higher with the 8x10. With the effort and cost of shooting 8x10 I am much more selective in what I shoot and take ALOT more care in setting up the shot.

You know Wes, there's nothing to say you are limited to ONE format. Start with a 4x5 - they come up for a reasonable price at auction - and add an 8x10 later. If you start off with that intent, you can accumulate your darkroom equipment to accomodate both.

[giancatarina]

a good start may be an arca swiss f line 45 ( areal 4x5), later you will be able to buy a 8x10 back for it...

[Antonio Corcuera]

Calamity, with her usual common sense (at least when not buying anything that comes across her eWay;-)) has got it right again. Mistakes in 8x10 are expensive. And you'll screw it up in the beginning for sure. I would go for a 4x5 and once you're used to the format and learnt about camera movements, decide to make the move.
Something not mentioned earlier but highly recommended is to borrow or rent a 4x5 and/or 8x10 and try it out. See if you like it. Take it easy, don't rush it. Maybe you don't like LF.

[Calamity Jane]

" common sense (at least when not buying anything that comes across her eWay)"

**** thumbs nose at Antonio ****

Can I help it if I have a love affair with historic cameras?

I tried collecting fellers but my last husband objected 8-)

[Wes_5872]

I just want to say that I sure appreciate how helpful you all have been. I think I'm going to give the Arca Swiss F-Line a close look. The modular-ness (I know, not a word) of the system is very attractive. It is a little above what I was hoping to pay, but I think the versality of the camera is worth it.

Thanks again!

[Craig Wactor]

Sinar and Arca-swiss make cameras that can be upgraded to 8x10 from 4x5 by changing the top of the back standard and bellows. You should be able to get a Sinar P 4x5/8x10 package for around $1500 used. Plus, you get those asymmetrical movements.

[jantman]

8x10.

[Oren Grad]

You do not want to be lugging an 8x10 Sinar P in the field.

As for the Arca Swiss, it's a marvelous 6x9/4x5/5x7 but at least from the literature I have, it looks as though the 8x10 version loses all the rear rise/fall, and the effective front rise is severely constrained because much of the travel of the front standard is swallowed up in recentering the front against the larger back. Look carefully at this if your intention is to start with 4x5 and then use the format conversion kit to move up to 8x10.