Why do you shoot medium format with your 4x5" equipement ?

[Steve Barber]

Having a 6x7 roll film holder makes it possible to have the full capability of both the 6x7 and the 4x5 for the negligible added weight of the roll film holder and a couple of rolls of film put into the bag with the 4x5. Since I do not like being without the ability to make 6x7 slides, the result is that the 4x5 gets taken along where it would otherwise be left at home and I get the best of both worlds. Using a Linhof Rapid Rollex holder is just like using any other, slide-in, 4x5 holders, but it gives you the equivalent of a 6x7 body with all of the features of a 4x5 view camera. Also, with it, you get full use of a filter system that would be awkward or impossible to use on a 6x7 rangefinder camera.

[E. von Hoegh]

I heard that almost every day from an elderly neighbor of mine. He was such a stubborn "Kraut" that he waited until just a few years ago to die from injuries sustained during the Second World War. ~That's stubborn~

My father's family comes from Germany, they were on both sides in WWI and WWII; at one point my father (US Army) and his third cousin(Wehrmacht) were within 100 miles of each other near the Rapido river in southern Italy. What is interesting is that, although the family split between the US and Germany in the 1870's, both sides still contain an amazing number of incredibly stubborn people. I learned this during the family reunification in 1998. I guess genes do matter.

[Scratched Glass]

1) Expense
2) Convenience - easier to load and carry in the field especially hand held shots
3) Not every subject needs to be enlarged to billboard size

[David N Docherty]

I purchased a Sinar F2 kit last year and it came with a Calumet C2 roll-film holder. Using roll film in the holder is, at this time, for me, an educational solution with several benefits.

Consider:
*I can practice tilt/shifts using the much less expensive roll film.
*I can practice to understand DOF and bellows extension issue more cheaply.
.....roll film costs less than a third the cost of sheet film.....
*10 exposure session and the film is quickly loaded into a daylight tank to develop
*My enlarger's condensor is too small for 4X5, so until I get a larger one, I am still "in business."

None of this takes away from the Sinars ability to capture magnificent LF images, it simply helps me to become better able to exploit the capabilities of my fine equipment in much the same way that digital has helped to improve (and motivate) my 35mm and MF photography. When I encounter, or manufacture, a subject that screams out LF, I still have the equipment to use, and better yet, I am experientially more ready to tackle the project.

Bottom Line: MF film in a LF system has a valid place and deserves consideration.

[Sirius Glass]

I use 35mm for 35mm.
I use MF for MF.
I use LF for LF.

No mixed media for me.

[D. Bryant]

My advice, don't waste your time and money on a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back for your 4x5 camera.

+1!

[Sirius Glass]

My advice, don't waste your time and money on a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back for your 4x5 camera.

+ 2

[alexn]

+3

Having said that, I am more than happy to use my 6x17 and 6x12 roll film backs on my 4x5... Why? Well...

1 - Its cheaper to buy, cheaper to process.
2 - Much easier to load/unload in the field.
3 - Less weight to carry.
4 - 6x12 is still fairly large format. Yes its 120 MF roll film, but its still a large neg/slide
5 - 6x17 is so close to 4x5 in surface area that to consider it as MF as opposed to LF is silly.
6 - I personally prefer the panoramic format.
7 - I like to bracket exposures. Doing this with sheet film is expensive, difficult to remember which shot is which and requires lots of holders. doing it with 120 roll film is easy... Shot 1 - on meter. Shot 2 - +1 stop. Shot 3 - -1 stop.. All on the same roll.

I wouldnt go smaller than 6x12... But 612/617 and 4x5 are all shot with my 4x5

[goodfood]

I still consider to buy a 6X17 attachment (us$600) attach to my 4X5 with lenses up to 150mm or buy a 6X17 field camera (us$1500) can fit to all my longer lenses. Or buy a 6X17 camera ( Photoman or Dai Yi , around us$1000) for my 75mm or 90mm lens. Each addition cone quite expensive. This is a easy use camera and ready to shot. Any advise.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

When Ektar 100 came out in 120, before it was available in sheet film sizes, I fell in love with it on my Pentax 645. So I picked up a Super Speed Graphic and a 6x9 lever style RH8 back for it. Never warmed up to working this way, though, as framing was too imprecise when shot handheld, and when working off a tripod and swapping out backs in the field for accurate framing there was rarely anywhere safe or convenient to set the GG down. I briefly considered one of the better slide in Sinar or Linhof roll-film holders, but the high prices these fetch negated any potential cost savings over sheet for the volumes I shoot. Then Ektar became available in sheet and I never looked back.