A couple of days ago I posted a response to "Suggestions for a cheap 5X7" in which I promoted the 5X7 Ansco as possibly meeting Ron Marshall's needs. I know there are newcomers to LF who don't have access to dealers or camera swap meets and must buy their first LF camera sight unseen, likely off eBay. Some reading my comments might think the Ansco sounds like the camera for them - and it may be, but I want to add a little more information. Again I will mention the weight - 9 3/4 pounds. Go to the grocery store and grab a 10 pound bag of sugar to give you an idea what this feels like. A 1929 catalog I have gives the weight of a 5X7 Eastman no.2 as 7 pounds. My no-front-swings 5X7 Deardorff weighs 6 1/2 pounds. Then there is the size of the Ansco when folded - 10 1/4" wide (across the focusing knobs), 11 5/8" tall, and 7 3/4" deep. I'll guess the 5X7 Eastman is somewhat less in height and width, and a lot less in depth (my 8X10 Eastman is only 6" deep). The 5X7 Deardorff is 10 1/8" wide, 9 1/4" tall, and 4 3/8" deep; much handier to carry. Comparing an Ansco with a Deardorff may seem silly since the Deardorff costs four or five times as much. However, I never used my Ansco as much as I should have, mainly due to the size and weight. In hindsight I feel this was a mistake. The stock car racers say "Ya gotta run what ya brung", and I should have used the Ansco much more rather than being put off by the size and weight. If you want a 5X7 for hiking and use far from your vehicle, you may find the Ansco just a little too much. An Eastman or Korona may be enough smaller and lighter to make you happy, although the additional movements of the Ansco could be important enough to justify the extra weight. Another Ansco limitation is use of short focal length lenses. Mine at minimum extension measures 4 3/8" from ground glass to front of lensboard. At this extension there are essentially no movements, although a more flexible bellows than mine might allow slight movement. For 5X7, this may not be a huge problem, but if you also want to use a 4X5 reducing back (maybe for color) think about whether or not you can live with this. I have 4X4" metal recessed lensboard that looks like it can be adapted to the Ansco with a reducing lensboard. If you don't need to do a lot of wide-angle work, this may be a workable option. WA is where the Deardorff really shines. Mine measures 2 7/8" minimum extension, and the wonderful sliding front panel allows rise and fall movements even at this extension. Deardorffs aren't expensive cult cameras just because they look pretty. A place I feel the Ansco is superior to the Deardorff is set up speed. Once on the tripod, dropping the Ansco tailboard and spinning the lock knob tight takes almost no time. With the Deardorff, you must raise the rear body up and lock a knob on each side, then raise the front up and lock four knobs. When shooting landscapes in changing light or urban landscapes when you want to get a shot and get away before the panhandlers spot you or do a spontaneous portrait, these few seconds may be important. I bought my Ansco in the late 1970s largely because Art Kramer who wrote the wonderful Large Format column for "Modern Photography" magazine had one and wrote about it. If I had to do it over I'd do the same thing. However, I wouldn't go through several years of trying to find a smaller, lighter, prettier, whatever camera (which is what I did). But, if the limitations I've mentioned seem serious to you, an Eastman or Deardorff may be better for you. Finally, there is something endearing about the clunky, chunky, not really beautiful Ansco. I plan to make a 4X4 adapter board so I can start using it again. But I'll keep the Deardorff too.