Is bigger better?

[SAShruby]

Yes it is,

I started 35mm and been there for 15 years, then moved to 6x6 just only for one year, skipped 4x5 and went straight to 8x10. After two years of doing research and hunting gear down and doing only 10 pictures so far, I already think about 8x20, no... 16x20 (i don't want to be restricted to do only one size - horizontal, I also wanna do 8x20 vertical). Hmm. It would definitely get expensive, I would say you invested 2000 Dollars into solid 4x5? Quadruple it for 8x10, another double or tripple for 16x20.

So, if you have a budget, my advice, go for it. If you can afford it.

[Ben Calwell]

I agree with an earlier poster, who recommended shooting 5x7. In my opinion, that is an excellent size for contacts. Get an 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back, and you'll have the best of both worlds.

[Capocheny]

Gary,

I've been shooting 4x5 (strictly for studio monorail) for the past 5 or so years and have enjoyed it immensely. Back about a year and a half ago I developed the itch to go slightly larger. I wanted a piece of film which I could have contact printed rather than enlarge. Secondly, I wanted to be able to take it out into the field. So, off I went in search of a larger format. :|

I ended up with a restored 5x7 Deardorff with 4x5 reducing back. This gave me the best of both worlds and one of the nice things about this camera is the size. It's small and light enough so that it's not too, too unmanageable for field work.

However, these days, I'm tossing the idea of going even larger. [John K. did warn me to go 8x10 initally! ] So, in spite of the higher costs involved in film and processing, I'm now on the prowl for an 8x10 Dorff! :>o

My suggestion for you is to consider an 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back. As Ralph has suggested, on those occassions where you don't want to bother with taking a larger camera out... you still have your 4x5!

Will it EVER cease???

Good luck on the decision.

Cheers

[Ole Tjugen]

I've shot 4x5" and 5x7", along with 6.5x9cm, 9x12cm, 13x18cm, 18x24cm, 24x30cm and 30x40cm....

4x5" is (mostly) to small, 30x40cm (12x16") to cumbersome. 90% of all my shots are on 5x7" or 13x18cm, which is very close to being exactly the same size. I haul out the 18x24cm once in a while, but if I'm dragging a big camera around I might just as well use the 24x30cm one. I hope my new 4x5" will be used more often than the old one - I've bought a Carbon Infinity and sold a Linhof Color...

Except for a slightly better availability of films, I see no great advantages to 8x10". At least not compared to 24x30cm (9.5x12")!

[Richard Kelham]

Yes of course Bigger is Better. It's also Heavier and more Expensive.

You have to shop around – I managed to get a serviceable Kodak 2D, a decent modern lens (nikkor-W 300mm) and a few DDS for under 500 GBP (900 USD). Can't find any way of reducing the film costs though....



Richard

[Bruce Watson]

All these people seem to be saying "go for it." You need a devil's advocate. I'm it.

I say, don't do it. If you ever intend to hike, stay with 5x4. If you ever intend to shoot color, stay with 5x4. If you are worried about availability of film, even today you get your greatest variety in 5x4. If your "hit rate" is low, stay with 5x4.

Everything about 10x8 is heavier and more expensive than 5x4. Save your money for film, and use it to take more shots. The more you shoot, the better you should become. If you spend all your money on 10x8 equipment and find you aren't willing to take but a few dozen shots a year for fear of "wasting" your money on questionable shots, what have you accomplished?

If you are going for some serious enlargements (bigger than say 150 cm long) or contact prints, then 10x8 wins. Anything else and 5x4 wins. Of course, the decision is yours, and YMMV. But I've been shooting 5x4 for almost five years now and never been tempted by a larger format. I can do everything I want with 5x4. Everything.

There - was that "devil's advocate" enough for you?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Wow, you asked for some advice and you got a lot of very good advice, but here is my two cents worth anyway.

I think you need to figure out what style of photographer you are and get a camera that compliments what you are trying to express.

For example, I often like to photograph abstract details and the more square format of the 4X5 camera is well suited to this, it fits my vision better. Also, I often like to hike and here again the 4X5 fits my needs well. I agree with Bruce that the cost of film is also a large consideration, I like to put A LOT of film through my camera and will often work an idea with different compostions so the 4X5 is again a better choice. This format just suits my personailty and vision better than does a larger camera.

I have made very nice contact prints from my 4x5 negs and really enjoy the small image size for some subjects, so if you already have a 4X5 outfit don't let that stop you from trying and learning alternative processes. Remember, MANY very well known photographers use the 4X5 as the primary format.

But it is really about you as an artist and how/what you want to communicate. I don't think bigger is really better, it all depends on how you want to use it. I have seen as many bad images made by big cameras as those made by small.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . I hope my new 4x5" will be used more often than the old one - I've bought a Carbon Infinity and sold a Linhof Color...

If you're not sure about that Carbon Infinity, Ole, I'd be glad to "test" it for you, and then give my opinion of whether it's right for you.

[Patrik Roseen]

Hello, This question is something we all face after a while...especially after reading all the enthusiasm on this forum (Great!) I remember a thread recently where someone said "Welcome to LF4x5...we will have you shooting 8x10 in less than a year." And this is very likely to happen.
Now I have not stepped up to 8x10 since I started doing 4x5 about a year ago and I always said to myself to wait, when suddenly I found myself bidding on a Cambo 8x10 on ebay...fortunately I lost this time. Why do I say that? Well simply because I think 4x5 has so much to offer that I still have not experienced...Think about it, do you not wish to have the main dish and then go for the dessert? Why the rush if you like me hope to stay healthy and hopefully be able to do 8x10 later. 4x5 for me brings the joy of swing,tilt,shift and raise, added tonal values etc really to distinguish itself from 35mm and 6x6 format.
As for contact prints and enlargements...I have done nice contacts from 4x5. For enlargements I set up my Linhof gear in the bathroom. It's a bit primitive but it works. And I must say that I have grown out of the 4x5 to 8x10 enlargements and am now looking to enlarge bigger than this...To enlarge bigger than 8x10 from an 8x10 negative really requires another bathroom.
As for portability...I started doing handheld with my 4x5 recently as a way to go out and do photography more often. (Ole Tjugen is probably one of the few to do handheld with even larger formats.) It's not only about the weight and size of the gear...I simply do not have the time to handle the logistics of the larger format right now. So, I'm happy shooting 4x5 and hope to do 8x10 in the future...I have just started enjoying the meal. Kind regards, Patrik

[Gregory Gomez]

I agree with Eric Biggerstaff.

Bigger is not necessarily better, and likewise smaller is not necessarily better.

If you were a wildlife or sports photographer, for example, your camera of choice would be the 35mm. If you were a wedding photographer, you might be highly inclined to chose the 6x6cm medium format camera. If you were a studio photographer with a large clientele, you might choose a medium format or 4x5 monorail camera with a digital back. If you wanted to do Edward Weston style photography, you might choose an 8x10 or 11x14 view camera and make only contact prints. If you wanted to emulated Ansel Adams, you might own a variety of cameras from 35mm to 8x10. If you wanted to make big enlargements of sweeping landscapes and you wanted only to make contact prints, then you might use a 16x20 or 18x22 camera.

The point is what type of photography do you want to do and what do you intend to do with your images?

If you need maximum depth of field but good image quality, the 4x5 delivers an optimal solution in allowing you to make up to 11x14-inch prints. But in your case, you have no darkroom, which I understand to mean that you have no option now for making enlargements. Will this situation continue indefinitely? If so, then maybe you will end up choosing the 8x10 camera and making contact prints. If you choose this option, keep in mind that a typical light 8x10 outfit will range in weight between 35 and 50 pounds. If you are in good shape and are using a good backpack, you can hike several miles with this gear with no problem, until you reach old age that is.

Good Luck!