Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I appreciate the input. Most of the posts are from 8x10 afficianados. Any folks who tried 8x10 but returned to 4x5 want to share their story? Best regards.

Mike

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hello! I appreciate the input. Most of the posts are from 8x10 afficianados. Any folks who tried 8x10 but returned to 4x5 want to share their story? Best regards.

Mike

I think that too many people fall victim to the "bigger is better" mentality, and when they see all their buddies with new 8X10s, thier 4X5 just seems inadequate by comparison. All of us can invent technical justifications for our move upward in size, but for most people the emotional element of just wanting a bigger, more impressive looking camera surely plays a role, at least at the subconscious level. Although I wouldn't say that I've completely "returned" to 4X5, after shooting 8X10, I think that 4X5 will remain my main format, with the 8X10 only being used for appropriate special projects. I should indicate upfront that I shoot color and then scan my transparencies, so contact prining is not one benefit that I get out of 8X10. In addition, there is not much to be gained from 8X10 over 4X5 when using high res scans in a digital workflow.

I feel that 4X5 is definately the "sweet spot" between ease of use, portability, depth of field, price, and lens/ film /accesory equipment availability. It is not hard to backpack the 4X5 for up to 5 miles or so, whereas I don't want to drag the 8X10 more than a mile. In a brief period of sublime light, which usually lasts for 10 minutes or less, I can easily expose 10 sheets of 4X5, whereas with the 8X10 I'm lucky to get off 2. With the recent increases in film price, each shot with my 8X10 and E-6 processing costs about $15.00- not exactly cheap. One huge turnoff for the 8X10 is the lack of depth of field. With all else being equal, using a 300 mm normal lens on 8X10, you would have to stop down 2 more stops to get the same depth of field as you would with a 150 mm normal lens on 4X5. At these small apertures, any gain that you get from bigger film size is dilluted from the losses due to diffraction and longer shutter speeds (camera and subject movement due to wind, etc. Also, 8X10 cameras of the same design tend to be quite a bit less stable than 4X5s) In addition, you just can't do the same "near-far" compostions that 4X5 allows you to do.

One additional point, although many users rave about the big ground glass on 8X10, I much prefer to look at a 4X5 ground glass. The 8X10 gg experience is kind of like trying to watch a movie on the big screen from the second row back in the theater. The 4X5 gg is far easier to take in the whole view, since I like to look close up with my loupe and make sure everything is sharp.

I'm sure other people have different reasons why they select 8X10 over 4X5, and everyone's experience and photographic desires are different. However, 4X5 is a better choice for many, and in general a far more versatile camera for shooting landscapes in the field. Do not feel inadequate if your camera is smaller than your buddies- it's not the size of the camera, but what you do with it that matters!

[Jim Ewins]

To see whats on the other side! or Because I could!

[Jack Flesher]

One additional point, although many users rave about the big ground glass on 8X10, I much prefer to look at a 4X5 ground glass. The 8X10 gg experience is kind of like trying to watch a movie on the big screen from the second row back in the theater. The 4X5 gg is far easier to take in the whole view, since I like to look close up with my loupe and make sure everything is sharp.

Brian -- you need a bigger darkcloth!

,

[Jim Rice]

I'd shot 4x5 since my teens (I'm nibbling on fifty now). It's a wonderful format, especially for color work. Unfortunate circumstances forced me to sell my dream 4x5 rig (Wisner Tech, say what you will about Ron but when he was hitting on all fours he made a fine damn camera) about two years ago.
Having regained my footing I'm starting back in 8x10. Why? Because I always wanted to.
I'm not making actual photographs yet (sorting out the darkroom issues). The ground glass is indeed a dream. I fully expect to fall smooth in love with Azo contact prints. The DOF issue is indeed a little scary at this point (there isn't much at all at the stops I'm used to). My exposures on 4x5 were always in the 1/2~1 second range for Velvia, so I don't really see that as an issue.
Check with me in six months, I'll let you know.

[buze]

I have a 8x10 on the way. My primarily reason is the contact print size. I don't think 810 is very practical for pure landscapes, for the reasons mentioned before.
I think 4x5 will still be my "primary" format, to scan, enlarge+print, do E6 etc. The 8x10 will be exclusively for getting negs to contact print... And yes, a few E6s too just to get a slap in the face on the lightbox

The other reason mentioned above is also very valid : "because I can". As a new photographer, I realize I might arrive just in the nick of time to be able to enjoy it... soon it might get a lot harder...

[John Kasaian]

I think a lot of it just depends on what happens to float your boat. With a computer you can make enlarged negatives any size you want for contacts so honestly I see it as more of an excuse to buy into another format than a need, but that also strikes me as being another 'degree of separation.' The less going on between my initial exposure and the final print the better I feel about it. YMMV of course!
Oh yeah, go ahead and buy the 8x10---it will spoil you!

[Ben Calwell]

After 20-some years of shooting strictly 4x5, about five years ago I jumped into 5x7 (used Linhof) and then 8x10 (Kodak 2D).
I began shooting the larger formats because I like contact prints, and in my opinion, there's nothing more beautiful than a black and white contact.
I use 4x5 when I want to enlarge bigger than 8x10, or when I want to shoot color transparencies.
The only down side, for me, is having to lug several cameras around. I guess I need an 8x10 with reducing backs for all formats.

[David A. Goldfarb]

With a computer you can make enlarged negatives any size you want for contacts

You can even do it with an enlarger and ortho film--no computer required.

[Ed Richards]

As others have said, it depends on what you want to do. I wanted to some of the same work as I did with 35mm, but with more detail and tonality, so a 4x5 rangerfinder gives me that flexiblity. I think Linhof did build a few 8x10 rangefinders, but you would have to go on Ole's body buildling program to use one.:-)

Print size is also important, but the difference between 8x10 and 4x5 depends on a lot of things going right - DOF, wind movement, etc., very quickly eat into the theoritical advantage of 8x10. I have shots with my Technika (pretty wind resistant) that would not have been very sharp on 8x10 because you could not have kept the camera still enough for long enough - remember, you are going to be stopping down more. OTOH, when you can control the situation, 8x10 would be great.