4X5 OR 8X10 is the question?

[Drew Wiley]

4X5 and 8x10 really cultivate a slightly different way of seeing things. You need to spend a fair amount of time with a given format to get used to it enough to recognize
the distinction. I use both, but for technical reasons and personal satisfaction the
8x10 really wins out. 4x5 is obviously much cheaper to shoot, more portable, and
easier to find film for. Depends on your style too. If you're a machine-gunner making
twenty shots a day, 8x10 will put you in the poorhouse fast; so the nature of the game is that if you do choose the large camera, you will almost automatically be more
careful with your choice of compositions, and shoot less film overall - so end up spending about the same.

[William McEwen]

Ataim, I agree with those who say it's too early to decide -- you've got to spend some time shooting with the 8x10.

I used a terrific 4x5 Sinar for five years, then traded it (and other stuff) for an 8x10. During the first months, I sometimes thought, "What have I done?" But with the 4x5 gone, I didn't have a choice to revert back to the 4x5. I'm glad I didn't have a choice.

I've been shooting 8x10 for 21 years now. I still have nostalgic feelings for that 4x5 Sinar and those 4x5 negatives, but I prefer 8x10.

[ataim]

Thanks to all for the advise. I've got some both B&W and slides coming in the mail. I'll run at least 50 sheets before I make a final decision. I'm new to LF (about 150 sheets) so I still make some mistakes, and with a 4x5 the $$$ loss is not as great. But as Drew said, I WILL take more time with a 5 to 12 dollar sheet of film in the holder.

[John Kasaian]

I'm kind of in the same situation. So far I have survived a lengthly spell of unemployment and I'm still shooting 8x10---not as much 8x10 of course, but I enjoy the format the most so I've become very selective of my exposures---and over the long haul this works out to be a good thing, I think. It has taught me a lot about having confidence in my vision a well as my skills.
I can see myself shooting more 5x7 in the future though.

[alharding]

I would sell both and consider getting a lightweight 8x10. I have the Shen Hao Folding 8x10. Its great. It weighs about 9 pounds and folds really small. Its about 1900$. Also The Chamonix 8x10 is a very similar design and has an optional 4x5 reduction back. Its more expensive but you could have the best of both worlds.

[Gem Singer]

ataim,

You state that you do a fair amount of hiking and enjoy shooting landscapes and nature.

Yet, you have two heavy weight monorail cameras. Neither one is suitable for the type of photography that you enjoy.

Why not keep your 4x5 film holders and lenses, sell both cameras and their accessories, and purchase a light weight 4x5 folding flatbed camera that is compatible with the type of photography that you prefer?

8x10 is a wonderful format if you plan on shooting B&W, developing your own negatives, and making contact prints. Otherwise it is expensive for color photography and a bulky heavy weight format to use outdoors in the field.

BTW, there's a large number of large format photographers in the DFW area who can help you

[Noah A]

... If you're a machine-gunner making
twenty shots a day, 8x10 will put you in the poorhouse fast; so the nature of the game is that if you do choose the large camera, you will almost automatically be more
careful with your choice of compositions, and shoot less film overall - so end up spending about the same.

Only in the Large Format world does 20 photos a day constitute a 'machine gunner'!

But drew is spot-on. I've found that with 8x10 you do choose your photographs more carefully and you do shoot fewer frames. And with 4x5 you're free to experiment more and shoot a higher volume (though to me it's still a slow, contemplative medium).

Only you can decide which is best for your needs and preferences.