617 vs 4x10'' format

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, if you're thinking of a dedicated 4x10" camera, there are issues of film and filmholder availability and cost, and the need to cut down film, if you want films that don't come in 4x10", for instance if you shoot color.

[Nick_3536]

Shen Hao makes [or at least sells] 4x10 holders. I think Ebony might sell the same ones.

Does anybody stock 4x10 film? I always figured it was a cut your own. So no better/worse then 8x10.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I see the 6X17 and 4X10 cameras as distinctly different beasts. The 6X17s, such as Fuji, Linhoff, and Fotoman, are basically medium format cameras that are overgrown in the horizontal direction. They offer quick and easy workability, not needing a dark cloth, and don't really need any movements to be useful. On the other hand, dedicated 4X10 cameras, as well as 8X10s with half darkslides, are large format cameras offering larger film, movement capabilities, and a generally different work ethic and connection to the user. I have used all three (Fuji 6X17, dedicated 4X10, and 8X10 with half darkslide) for a number of years now, and each has it's advantages depending on the subject. Choosing which to take on a photo trip is a matter of "the best tool for the job".

What I don't understand is the appeal of these 6X17 view cameras that have recently appeared. I will preface this with the fact that I've never used one, but to me they seem to offer serious disadvantages of both the "point and shoot" 6X17s and those of using a true view camera. My Fuji 6X17 is a great camera since I don't have to use a dark cloth, can use it in windy and inclement weather, and can set it up and take a shot very quickly. With a 4X10, you get an appreciably larger piece of film which makes a huge difference, particularly if you're going to be enlarging to big sizes or are using a consumer flatbed scanner to make your prints. With scans from my 4990, I can make 12X30 prints that look fantastic, but the same size print from a 6X17 scan looks soft and mushy. With a 6X17 view camera, why would you want to buy a camera that has small film size and more limited usability?

You really don't need as many movements using a panoramic format as you would for a regular format, so the value of them on a 6X17 view camera is not entirely clear to me. And the price of the Ebony 6X17 is pretty shocking, especially since it's more than their 4X10 and some of their 8X10s!

Of course, as mentioned above, dedicated 4X10 cameras have many issues of their own, first and foremost the lack of film holders and other support available. In B&W, there's only one emulsion available in that size- Berger (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)- and while it's not too difficult to cut 8X10 film in half in the dark, it's tedious and is another step in an already long and challenging process. But the main reason that stoped me from using a dedicated 4X10 is the lack of available E6 processing. If you're doing B&W and/or have a Jobo to do it yourself, it's not a big deal, but I have yet to find a commercial lab that will do 4X10 E6 at a reasonable price. A local camera store was charging me more per 4X10 sheet than I can get an 8X10 processed for if I send it out, which, or course, has 2 4X10 exposures on it!

So, for me, I will continue to shoot both 6X17 and 4X10, but not with dedicated 6X17 or 4X10 view cameras. I carry my Fuji along with my 8X10, and, by carrying a 4X5 back and a half darkslide, I can shoot any of 4 formats, depending on what the light, subject, and mood dictate.

[ambroz]

It is getting clear to me, that 617 view camera has disadvantages of both worlds (medium and large format): 'small' film size and slow workflow. I also think, 6x17 shots that need tilt are rare.

Drum scanned 617 transparency should be OK, I believe. OTOH, I compared 6x17 and 4x10'' film formats and the difference in size really is enormous.

I'll probably go for Fotoman, for it has best price/performance ratio (my opinion only). But in the future maybe I'll try 4x10. Christopher Burkett also has Hasselblad for fast work and 8x10 for dedicated shots.

Ambroz

[randy larson]

I shoot 4x5 with an Ebony and 6x17cm with a Fotoman, which I like very much. I will probably try the Shen Hao 6x17 view camera, and these are my reasons: I really like the 6x17 format and using roll film. Most of my panoramic prints are sold at 17"x50" and the image quality from a drum scan is terrific. I will be able to use most of my 4x5 lenses, up to 300mm. On the Fotoman I use a 90mm and 180mm combo, and shoot the longer lens much more frequently. The Fotoman is not as handy with longer lenses because of the bulk of the cones, and changing lenses is clumsy. The Shen Hao may give me the opportunity to dayhike with the 4x5/6x17 in one (large) backpack. I shoot 90% of my work or more composing off the groundglass, so the slower but familiar use of the Shen Hao is not much of an issue. I think the view camera 617 and the Fotoman type systems are complimentary and fill different roles. I also want to say that the results I have gotten from the Fotoman have been terrific and I would recommend highly. I will keep mine for now to compliment the Shen Hao. I have a good friend that shoots with a dedicated 4x10 and gets terrific results. For me the convenience of roll film and the attraction of the 6x17 format are the deciding issues.
Randy

[Scott Morgan]

... mainly shoot landscapes. My style is 'setup and wait for the light', not 'point and shoot'. I like the idea of GG for precise composing and ability to tilt for getting more DOF.

So I intended to buy 617 view camera (Ebony / Shen Hao 617 type), not the rangefinder type (Linhof, Fotoman, ...). But - if I am buying a panoramic view camera, why not 4x10'' format?
Ambroz

Hi Ambroz,
I have been mulling over the exact same thing with the same use. I like the panoramic format and want to start shooting it (have a 4x5 now). I would love to have the $$$ to buy a Fuji or Linhof 6x17, however with a 3-lens kit you're talking serious money, and those lenses are dedicated to the camera.

Dedicated lenses as well for the Fotoman and Gaoersi, because your lenses for those won't be dual use....you won't be changing out the lens onto a lensboard for view camera use too often.

So, for me, on a budget, it boiled down to having the ability to use my same lenses on both my 4x5 and on a future panoramic camera. (So my 4-lens kit will be ones that cover the 4x10 format, and of course are on lensboards common to both cameras.)
Scott

[Mr_Toad]

Just a comment...

I've just ordered a Shen-Hao 617 bellows pano camera...and I'm quite anxious to receive it, because I already have a Shen-Hao 4x5...and both cameras use the same lens boards. This will be a great benefit, versus the need to unattach/ reattach one of my 4x5 lens to an expensive Pano lens adapter, just to shoot pano.

Also....while the need for some movements in pano are few, the need to raise or lower the film plane is almost inevitable. To get the horizon where you want it in a pano image is very desirable for us, and can't be accomplished by tilting the entire camera, since...as we know...it curves the horizon.

Also...my vote is for the safety of 120 rollfilm cameras, simply because a camera investment in todays world must support 20 years of future use for me, and I hope to be able to buy 120 rollfilm when sheet film and processing sadly comes to an end.

Thanks!

Robt.

[butterflydream]

Do you shot vertical panorama sometimes? That would be also a point to consider.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Some say that sheet film has a longer projected life span than medium format. 220 is dwindling. 120 depends on the manufacture of backing paper, which is not a simple matter. The manufacture of medium format cameras has been on the wane for some time. Wedding and portrait shooters were the big MF users, and they've mostly gone digital.

Sheet film in master rolls can be cut to any size, and LF and ULF are experiencing something of a revival.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I haven't taken the time to read all the posts so this may have been mentioned earlier.

I debated 4x10 vs 6x17 also. I've shot LF and ULF since the mid 60's and
have owned and shot a great deal of film through my 6x17 fuji over the past 15 years. I debated 4x10 but finally decided to buy a Canham 5x7 and Canham 6x17 back. My reasons are that the selection of emulsions for 4x10 / 8x10 are much more limited than 120 and my favorite B&W film is not available or easily found in 8x10. Processing issues for color 4x5 and OK for 8x10 but no issue for 120. MY 8x10 Deardorff is large and heavy and I'm much less likely to take it places than I am a dedicated 617 or my Canham and 6x17 back. Convenience of roll vs cutting sheet film and the high probability of dust and scratches happening while cutting 8x10. 4x10 film almost certainly has to be done in a tray which increases the potential of damage. Cost of film is a factor with 4 shots of 6x17 for about the cost of 1 frame of 4x10. I can print my 617 in my Durst 138 and I no longer have an 8x10 enlarger. I like the look of silver gelatin prints vs digital so I would have to buy an 8x10 enlarger again which is an issue with regard to space. I rarely print larger than 16x20 so quality is not an issue. In any case there should be little to no difference even in a carefully made 40 inch print between a 10 inch neg and a 7 inch neg. The difference is just under 6x for a 6x17 vs 4x for a 4x10 which is virtually a non issue.

I decided that I would go really large rather than mess with a 4x10 if I wanted a sheet size pano camera. I figure if I ever want larger negs I will buy a 7x17 and contact print. The camera is bigger, film is more costly, tray dev. is required but the contacts are large enough to be viewed with ease. For the moment and I think for the future I'm more then happy with the 5x7 Canham and 6x17 back and my 617 Fuji when I'm feeling lazy.