Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    296

    4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    I've recently posted some threads on here asking for advice on different camera styles (6x24 to 8x10) and I am came to some dilemma's that I'm hoping you all can help with.

    Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

    Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?

    Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.

    I have used a 4x5 camera before (Toyo 45AX), but am considering an 8x10, only if it is worth the quality upgrade. I realize that cost and development increase, as well.

    Any help is appreciated.

  2. #2
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    I think there's a big difference between 8x10" and 4x5", though the logistics of enlarging 8x10" make things more interesting, whether you're scanning or enlarging by projection. For instance, if you are going to use a flatbed and make your own scans, a bigger transparency gets you more information. If you're going to send out for drum scans, it's usually more expensive to scan 8x10", so it's worth pricing it out first, and deciding what's in your budget.

    There are other aesthetic issues, like whether you might be interested in classic portrait lenses, that often work best with larger formats, and less enlargement. You might also prefer composing on the larger groundglass. On the other hand, you might want a smaller camera for travel.

    Dedicated panoramic cameras are interesting if you really do a lot of panoramas, or if you need to be very compact, otherwise, if you have an 8x10" camera, you can always crop to 4x10 or 3x10 or 5x10 or whatever size suits the scene, and the same would be true for 4x5". Note that there are now 6x17cm expansion backs for 4x5" cameras. They have some limitations, but so do dedicated 6x17 cameras.

    If sheet film is made, I'm not worried about being able to find 8x10". It's much more popular than 7x11, 11x14, 6.5x8.5, 2.25x3.25, 4x10", 7x17", 8x20", half-plate, 20x24", and many other sizes that are available by special order (and in some cases as regular stock).

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    198

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    I was in your position a year ago. I have a project I want to photograph in color and exhibit with large prints at 50 inches. I really like the 8x10 format and I wanted to shoot it with the Cooke XV convertible. I eventually decided to stick with 4x5 for a couple reasons.

    1. Self funding this project in 8x10 color would be incredibly expensive. 3x the cost of 4x5. This is probably the biggest reason for me. Sucks to be a poor artist, but I have to work within my financial limitations.

    2. Some may disagree, but I think 8x10 color is going to be gone in 2 - 3 years. B&W film in my opinion will survive because it has a larger following. When I have a darkroom again, I will enjoy contact printing 8x10.

    3. 6x17 Canham back on a 5x7 body was also a possibility for me, but after much thought, the panoramic format was not how I see. I prefer the crop of 4x5 or 8x10.

    4. 50 inch prints made from 4x5 drum scans do look quite wonderful. I still think 8x10 would give me that extra mirror like quality I am wanting, but I need to refer to reason #1 for now.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    For 4x5 versus 8x10:

    • What subjects do you plan to shoot ? (depth of field, shutter speed, aperture, lens selection and availability, coverage)

    • Do you need to travel or hike with the camera ? (size, weight, portability, tripod)

    • Do you plan to shoot color of b&w ? (cost, convenience, availability, processing)

    • How do you plan to enlarge/scan the film/negatives ? (cost, availability, convenience)

    If your only consideration is the look of the final image, when printed, framed, and displayed, then only you can decide about the difference in image quality between photos made using different film formats. What looks perfectly fine to one person, might be unacceptable to another - and vice versa. As they say, that's what makes a the world go 'round.

  5. #5

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    It's pretty easy to answer these questions. You require both 4x5 and 8x10 formats to fully fulfill your strict needs for quality control and exact size requirements. Select as many lenses as you can that will work on both formats.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,597

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    Issue #1---I'd think in terms of fidelity rather than quality. 8x10 film can record more information. I have seen some enormous enlargements made on 4x5 that were very nice. My issue with large enlargements is that now a days they are nearly all digital and the viewer dosn't have to stand very far away to "enjoy" a pixel mush . IMHO traditional materials and either 4x5 or 8x10 negatives will yield better results with 8x10 having an 'edge' with increased sizes.

    Issue #2 ---Use the sliders as found on many Deardorffs and Ansco large format cameras and save film. My personal tastes in panoramas tend toward swing lens cameras.

    Issue #3---If there is 4x5 there will certainly be 8x10 film since both are cut from larger rolls. It becomes a matter of making the cuts and packaging. As long as there is a market there should be fim in any size format that the market will support. 8x10 In color is brilliant stuff but the cost is very high.

    If you think shooting 8x10 color will give you something with an edge over 4x5 color, I'd have to agree, but it comes with a price tag, not only for film & chemicals (8x10 uses a lot more chemicals than 4x5) but in bulk and portability of your gear, since you'll need a tripod that can supprt an 8x10 and the film holders are quite a bit larger and heavier that 4x5 (remember, no grafmatics or readyloads!)

    If you can deal with that, I'd say go for it!
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  7. #7
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Shailendra View Post
    Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.
    LF lenses deliver the sharpness they deliver, whether to 5x4 or 10x8 film. In other words, sharpness doesn't scale particularly well. Also, DOF requirements for 10x8 often require the use of smaller apertures which acts to reduce sharpness (you may find yourself diffraction limited most of the time). The counter to this is that for the same size print, 10x8 requires half the enlargement of 5x4.

    But... for your workflow you also get the limitations of today's scanners, drivers, operating systems, and photo editors. The bottom line is that it's very difficult to work with files bigger than about 2.0 GB.

    I use 5x4 and do my own drum scans. I've made some excellent (to my eye, your opinion may be different) very sharp and grainless large prints (125 x 100 cm). The files to do this were 1.5GB -- 125 x 100 cm, 16 bits, 360 ppi output resolution. (10x8 film is 4x bigger, so scanning 10x8 at this same resolution would result in a 6.0GB file).

    That's really about the practical limit on file size. Photoshop is seriously slow in just about every respect at this size (I'm talking 3.5-4 minutes to write the file to disk here). You could probably do 2.0GB or maybe even 3.0 GB if Photoshop and your computer can handle it, and if your scanner can deliver it. But you'll have to have mythical levels of patience and lots of non-computer work to do between operations. And you can forget completely about using any layers.

    So... if you are scanning both 5x4 and 10x8 to the same file size (that is, the scanner resolution for 10x8 is much lower) you'll still likely see some improvement in the final 125 x 100 cm print, but it will mostly be tonally smoother, not really much sharper at all.

    So no, I don't think you gain enough going from 5x4 to 10x8 with your workflow to make it worth while.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shailendra View Post
    Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?
    You could. Many people do. This is what I do shooting panos with my 5x4. I shoot instead 5x2 and take a slice right out of the middle of the frame. It's difficult to visualize to some degree but you could solve that by marking your ground glass.

    You could also do the split frame thing - using darkslides cut in half so you can make two different exposures on the same piece of film. This tends to keep your exposure out of the "sweet spot" and more towards the outer edges of the image circle though, which will tend to degrade sharpness more or less depending on the lens in question.

    Plus, you'll be carrying a 10x8 camera around which typically weighs some to considerably more than a smaller dedicated-to-a-smaller-format camera.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shailendra View Post
    Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.
    It seems silly to me that any manufacturer of film would make 5x4 but not make 10x8. They already have the cutter dies. I'm not saying that it won't happen. Just that it would be silly. And if it does happen, it's not going to happen for decades. You can't let a fear of what might or might not happen in the future make this decision for you. If 10x8 is right for what you want to do, then do it and don't look back. Film will be available for a long time to come.

    Bruce Watson

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    235

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    For me, 8x10 is easier to 'paint' the ground glass. So visually i think you would enjoy it immensly. An 8x10 contact print is something to behold. Not just in sharpness, but in tonality...don't worry about 8x10 film either, it will be around for a long time imho.

    i own both 4x5 and 8x10 and use 8x10 almost exclusively. IF you are strictly color....well, that is a different story.

  9. #9

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    Being relatively new to 4x5 and 8x10 (about 2 years now) one thing I find is I fumble allot
    less with 8x10.From loading sheets, to working camera controls, to processing, everything is just bigger and easier for me.I find I can scan the 8x10 on my relatively cheap Epson 4990 and get great 16x20's compared to 4x5 on the same.I get all my film from freestyle, badger, and B&H.Very easy quick and painless transactions.Every couple months I buy more film and stockpile it in the garage freezer so I'll be set for years to come.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Orange County, Ca
    Posts
    92

    Re: 4x5 vs 8x10 camera

    I shot with a Fuji GX617 camera for many years, decided to sell the camera and later regreted it! I bought a Canham 8x10 wood standard with the 4x10 back and it has worked well but can be a big package for hiking. I decided to buy the Canham 4x10 camera and it has been a dream to carry and use!! The only problem now is I love using the 8x10! The size of the ground glass and the Transparencies or B&W Negatives are so beautiful. So I have pretty much gave up my 4x5 after 12 years. There is a reason so many guys here shoot using ULF cameras. I don't even want to look under the dark cloth of one, it could ruin my marriage!

    Scott

    www.scottsquires.com

Similar Threads

  1. 8x10 lens on 4x5 camera
    By Jacques Augustowski in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-Jun-2004, 07:52
  2. Kodak 2D 8x10 field camera and assorted lenses-should I purchase?
    By Jeffrey Fookson in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 8-Sep-2000, 21:23

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •