Isn't 4x5' too small?

[David Hedley]

There's a lot more to using different film formats than just the size of the film, the weight of the gear, or its cost.

I couldn't agree more. Only you can decide, Vincent, if 8x10 is just right, or whether a different format works better, but it sounds as if you should give it a go. Then you can reconcile dreams to reality. Perhaps you're able to rent an 8x10 and related equipment for a few days, or alternatively buy a less expensive model that you may be able to sell for pretty much what you paid if it's not right for you?

[RK_LFteacher]

The 8x10 format does have some other benefits not mentioned. Composing is easier on an 8x10 as you are looking at a possibly finished size.(print) The Canham and IMHO, especially the ARCA, have such great screens, that just looking at the image on the glass
is an experience, not quite matched by smaller formats. Obviously, there is the weight and bulk issue, but that doesn't dissuade me from having a different and exciting experience seeing the beauty of the image on the glass and then capturing it on film.
Contact prints also have the abillity to hold a wider contrast range as they do not have the issue of light scattering on the surface of the print which enlarging does. You may gain control of as much as a zone and a half more.
Rod

[Steve M Hostetter]

Hello,,

I have shot 8x10 since 91 and one thing I've found is the bigger you go the more preparation involved. Remember, you can fit 4-4x5 images in an 8x10 and the normal lens is a 305mm or 12"
The key to safty is to know your limits physiclly or suffer some pretty harsh consequences. But how you gonna know without doing it..?
I guess I just won't try something w/ an 8x10 I wouldn't do with a 4x5 ,, besides most ppl that shoot with larger formats still use the 4x5 ,, as someone mentioned.

Some ppl say that they can see the image better with an 8x10 image staring back at them on the GG. I see there point but also want to note a darker image at that.."most of the time"

You can shoot way more film with a 4x5 which can be a big + sometimes! Ever been walkin out of the woods and notice something and say,, "dang I wish I'd save at least one film"!

I'd say stay with the 4x5 no matter what you decide,,, keep the 4x5 and spend some time with it even if you only use in studio

steve

PS.. ever hear, " your eye's were to big for your belly "?

[Daniel_Buck]

I enjoy 4x5 and 8x10. But usually I grab my 4x5 first, because it's easier to carry, and I can more easilly carry more film with me. I enjoy using the 8x10 better once I'm actually shooting, but it's not always as practical as a 4x5 is. For me and my print size, 4x5 is plenty enough. 8x10 is wonderful, but for me I can't sell my 4x5 equipment and just stick with 8x10. I would be doing alot less shooting if I did that.

[Eric Leppanen]

I am shooting architecture mostly 70s concrete buildings in suburbs and I feel sometimes that the 4x5 is not an enough tribute to the massive scale of those sites and buildings.

I'm assuming that you are primarily shooting architectural exteriors, primarily medium to large buildings.

I enjoy shooting architectural exteriors with 8x10, but unless you are contact printing it is not the most practical of endeavors:

- Even after judicious use of movements, you will frequently find yourself shooting at f/64 to get the required depth of field. Stopping down this much significantly reduces the resolution advantage of 8x10 versus smaller formats. Also, you will also have to be constantly vigilant of potential reciprocity issues due to slow shutter speeds.
- I find myself mostly using three focal lengths in 8x10: moderate wide (200-210mm), normal (300mm) and moderately long (450mm). Because exterior architecture requires lots of lens coverage (lots of front rise), coverage for all of these lenses must be generous, which severely limits lens choices. The Nikon 450M is relatively small and light and has excellent coverage, so I find it to be an excellent and practical 8x10 architecture lens. However, the wider focal lengths can prove more troublesome. If you don't need to focus in low light, then perhaps something like a 210mm f/9 Computar (very rare), 240mm f/9 G-Claron (common), 240mm f/9 Germinar W (somewhat rare), 300mm f/9 Fuji A (somewhat rare), and 305 and/or 355mm G-Claron (common) could do the trick. But if you like to do alpenglow or very early morning/early evening shots like I do, a lens with a wider maximum aperture is preferable (for brighter focusing). In 8x10, such lenses are huge, expensive, and typically require rectangular filters due to their large front elements. I currently use a 200mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N and 300mm f/5.6 Sironar S; these are excellent lenses, but the Grandagon is so big that I have to use a Cokin X-Pro filter on it (I have an orange filter that I use when shooting B&W). The Sironar S can get by with standard Lee filters.

In contrast, there are many, many 4x5 wide and normal lenses that are suitable for architecture, which are a fraction of the size and price of the 8x10 lenses mentioned above. And yes, 5x7 can be a good compromise if you like the aspect ratio and shoot B&W (5x7 color film is difficult to consistantly obtain outside of special orders).

Frankly, I shoot 8x10 for architecture because I enjoy composing on the large ground glass, not because I expect dramatically improved image quality versus 4x5.

[Rory_5244]

As regards weight considerations: I have an Arca 4x5 with an 8x10 conversion set and the 8x10 is about 2 pounds heavier than the 4x5. It is, however, more bulky. I really don't find much difference carrying the 8x10 vs 4x5. Nothing beats an 8x10 transparency on a light box, however.

[Vincent Malaud]

Thanks for commenting all of you, a lot of valuable advices. I appreciate it.

@Rory, the 8x10 conversion set for the Arca Swiss is exactly what I would like despite its price.
@Eric Leppanen, thanks for your advise on lenses, you are quite right, I use lots of front rise for my exterior shots.

[Robert Hughes]

Hey - if it's good enough for Jackie Kennedy, it's good enough for me...

[Steve M Hostetter]

I loved 8x10, it was a great format. But I found that I saw things differently and made very different photographs with it than I did with 4x5. With 4x5 a 210mm lens was my normal lens and I seldom used my 80mm lens. I just didn't see "wide angle" when using 4x5. With 8x10 it was the opposite - I tended to see things much wider. A 210mm G Claron lens became my normal lens with a 159mm Wollensak also used much more often than the longer lenses I bought because I thought I'd "see" 8x10 the same way I saw 4x5. My 8x10 cameras had plenty of bellows extension so it wasn't a matter of mechanics, for some reason - possible the size of the screen - I just saw things differently with 8x10.

There's a lot more to using different film formats than just the size of the film, the weight of the gear, or its cost.

Hello Brian,,

I was wondering,,, how do you know that it's not the size,weight,and cost of 8x10 that makes you think differently..?

[Stephane]

Difference in weight between 4x5 and 8x10 isnt much, just bulkier back and bigger holders. Everything else is the same. I use sinar norma, and not I am going for small shutterless vintage optics. So yes, 4x5 is too small if you have a working system for carrying an 8x10 around.