Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide open

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    2,184

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Syverson View Post
    Good luck finding that Xenotar...
    Indeed more rare than Ektar, and certainly more pricy but not impossible to find.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    211

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by SergeiR View Post
    Why use odd heavy chunk, when you can use 150mm 2.8 Xenotar, which is lighter and can go into compur shutter, beyound me, but ok...
    Doesn't sound like you've read the OP's original post. Things he said like "I looked at cost to purchase" and "without actually shooting I'm in the dark" should hint that dumping several thousands on a Xenotar 150 before ever having shot LF before is not a particularly smart move.

    On the other hand, you can get excellent results on a budget with an Aero Ektar and a Speed Graphic. Have you seen how cheap they are and how easy to sell they are?

    The Xenotar 150 was essentially my first LF lens too. And there's a part of me that regrets that move as when you start from 4x5, you naturally want to move on to 8x10. And on 8x10, you can more than replicate that look with a $300 300/5.6 lens.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    2,184

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by genotypewriter View Post
    Doesn't sound like you've read the OP's original post. Things he said like "I looked at cost to purchase" and "without actually shooting I'm in the dark" should hint that dumping several thousands on a Xenotar 150 before ever having shot LF before is not a particularly smart move.

    On the other hand, you can get excellent results on a budget with an Aero Ektar and a Speed Graphic. Have you seen how cheap they are and how easy to sell they are?

    The Xenotar 150 was essentially my first LF lens too. And there's a part of me that regrets that move as when you start from 4x5, you naturally want to move on to 8x10. And on 8x10, you can more than replicate that look with a $300 300/5.6 lens.
    Well... I did read it.
    And Aero's do go for 700$ now, b/c they are fast and re-sellers buying them for cheap and selling higher b/c of demand.. Of course if one is patient - there is possibility to get it for about 2-400. Same is true however for Xenotar. If one is patient - there is chance of getting it for less than couple thousands.

    Anyway. Beside the point and stuff, b/c it doesn't matter how "fast" lens it - larger in format you go - different look you get, smoother transitions and more details. Overwise 50/0.95 would be giving looks fairly close to those lenses / formats on 35mm body, and its not. Not even when printed on 8x10 or so. Its not just about DOF

    So while going for 8x10 with 300/5.6 is good and shiny, its cheaper to get along with whatever 210-250mm could be slapped on top of Speed Graphic and see how it goes - like look or not, like pace of work or not. Cheaper film-wise too.

    But i do agree - natural progression is towards 8x10..

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by genotypewriter View Post
    On the other hand, you can get excellent results on a budget with an Aero Ektar and a Speed Graphic. Have you seen how cheap they are and how easy to sell they are?

    The Xenotar 150 was essentially my first LF lens too. And there's a part of me that regrets that move as when you start from 4x5, you naturally want to move on to 8x10. And on 8x10, you can more than replicate that look with a $300 300/5.6 lens.
    Of course, after one has seen the 300mm f/5.6 on 8x10, one will naturally want a Kodak Commercial Ektar 14 in. f/6.3 next for an even further step in that direction.

    Then I guess it goes totally backwards to brass lenses, but that is not my thing.

    Regarding the Aero Ektars, I personally would not want a lens that is radioactive in my house.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    193

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    The other issue is that a 300mm 5.6 will generally perform much better at f5.6 than a 150mm 2.8 will wide open. When enlarging 5x4 to 20x24 you will likely see the deficiencies in resolution of such a lens wide open if the subject matter has detail to show.

    This all seems to conclude that replicating the look on 5x4 is very difficult and that shooting on 5x4 with a longer lens - circa 210mm - might be better than the literal translation of a 150mm.

    I would go so far as to recommend 5x7. Much smaller and easier to handle than 8x10, but noticeably larger than 4x5 and with a real tonality boost even on sub-20x24 prints. You could then slap a 300mm 5.6 lens on that and IMHO get an even better portrait angle of view than the same lens on 8x10 (300mm on 5x7 being the same as 210mm on 5x4- prob the most common portraits focal length). Alternatively, a 240mm f5.6 plasmat, which can be found for $350 or less, will give an ever so slightly long of normal look more akin to the 360mm/14" (which is many people's favourite on 8x10).

    5x7 cameras weigh only a touch more than 5x4, but lots less than 8x10. Holders are cheaper and so is film.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    211

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by SergeiR View Post
    Well... I did read it.
    And Aero's do go for 700$ now, b/c they are fast and re-sellers buying them for cheap and selling higher b/c of demand.. Of course if one is patient - there is possibility to get it for about 2-400. Same is true however for Xenotar. If one is patient - there is chance of getting it for less than couple thousands.
    Here's a list of Aero Ektars sold recently on the auction site:

    2nd Apr: 153/2.5 sold for $451.95
    24th Mar: 178/2.5 sold for $611
    22nd Feb: 178/2.5 + aerial camera sold for $515.00
    19th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $426.40
    5th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $388.07


    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    Regarding the Aero Ektars, I personally would not want a lens that is radioactive in my house.
    It's not that bad actually. As long as you don't keep it under your bed it's fine


    Quote Originally Posted by turtle View Post
    The other issue is that a 300mm 5.6 will generally perform much better at f5.6 than a 150mm 2.8 will wide open. When enlarging 5x4 to 20x24 you will likely see the deficiencies in resolution of such a lens wide open if the subject matter has detail to show.
    True but the Xenotar 150 combo is a bit of an exception, at least lens-wise... it's a lot cleaner and sharper wide open than my 8x10 Fuji 300/5.6 wide open:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6806479707

    The only thing getting in the way of resolution is the film grain.

    With that said... still, larger the format, the better... as long as you don't have to carry it

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    2,184

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by genotypewriter View Post
    Here's a list of Aero Ektars sold recently on the auction site:
    24th Mar: 178/2.5 sold for $611
    22nd Feb: 178/2.5 + aerial camera sold for $515.00
    19th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $426.40
    5th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $388.07
    see? The do go up as soon as people wake up after New Year
    In all seriousness - i tried it last year, failed miserably to find one, but kept seeing ones that gone for like 200$ (here on forum too) and on auctions they were in area of 400-700.. So i gave up. And at that moment i have found Xenotar And yep - if cells are positioned right (said person who didnt tighten rear one right after cleaning, and have found it only after session or two) - its pretty sweet even opened wide (and scanned with cheapo HP scanner)


    Self portrait by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

    But 5x7 or 8x10 obviously will be better, b/c media size is larger, so less enlarging required for final image and more details getting recorded --> better light/shadow transitions. Weight/film flattness/cost aside. Thats why i have couple of 8x10 covering lenses sitting, waiting.. planning revolution to overthrow 4x5 cameras from me closet..

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    109

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    To the original poster... you will achieve the extremely limited depth of field similar to a 300mm f5.6 on 8x10 by using a 150mm f2.8 or f3.5 on 4x5, a 80mm f 2.0 or 2.8 on medium format , or a 50mm f1.4 on 35 mm. Certainly if you want limited depth of field you can get even more using longer lenses in any of these formats. Probably more important is how each format treats tonality (bigger is smoother) and how any particular camera affects the subject and photographer/subject interaction. One of the real joys in using big cameras is that the pictures are carefully considered and the subject tends to participate rather than just smile a big toothy smirk. One could probably make some very good images hiding a digital point and shoot in the inside of a Deardorff.

    I would say that it matters quite a lot what experience you already have shooting fully manual film cameras and doing your own developing and printing. Anything larger than 4x5 is a very taxing process even to assemble all the equipment you need. It is often useful to simplify a new adventure.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by genotypewriter View Post
    It's not that bad actually. As long as you don't keep it under your bed it's fine
    I would not say that with such surety. Radiation is cumulative. So if you have had or will have other exposures fro other sources, it could be more significant. Also, some people react differently to differing levels.

    I would definitely not want one of these in my house, personally.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    2,184

    Re: 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide o

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    I would not say that with such surety. Radiation is cumulative. So if you have had or will have other exposures fro other sources, it could be more significant. Also, some people react differently to differing levels.

    I would definitely not want one of these in my house, personally.
    You might get more than that from flying on airplane , but generally speaking you right - constant exposure is not a good thing.. Can start mutate or worse. And it can be next generation who gets it, unfortunately.

Similar Threads

  1. 8x10 First shot
    By sdwfx in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21-Oct-2010, 01:05
  2. 210 Xenar 4.5, cover 8x10 wide open?
    By Daniel_Buck in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 5-Nov-2008, 22:55
  3. 240-300 lens for 8X10 wide open... Bokeh ?
    By archivue in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 25-Jul-2008, 19:20
  4. 8x10 Advice Needed - Wide-Open 240 at f/5.6 coverage, Chamonix Rationalization
    By Frank Petronio in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 23-Jun-2008, 06:14

Tags for this Thread

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
  •