4x5" to 5x7"... is it worth changing?

[Vaughn]

For day hikes (okay, strolling a few miles under the redwoods), the 5x7 (an Eastman View #2) is on the tripod and over my shoulder, and the film holders and meter in a shoulder bag. A waterproof stuff sack goes over the camera and lens to protect it from branches and rain. The Computar 210/6.3 lives on the camera...a very fine lens in a Copol 1 shutter...but soon to be joined by a 159mm.

I put it in a pack for longer hikes in rougher terrain where I need both hands, but compared to my non-lightweight 8x10 gear, the 5x7 feels like a point-and-shoot!

It would be great, Alberto, if you could find someone semi-local to see their 5x7.

Vaughn

[Roger Cole]

I dunno Sal, I am badly nearsighted and became presybyopic a few years ago - been wearing progressives lenses for seven years now. But the only affect on my large format photography has been that I really need to remember to bring my dedicated reading glasses with me to work under the dark cloth. Otherwise, it's so hard to get into the very close up bottom range of the progressives I just take them off, typically dangling them from my teeth, which I'm sure looks weird - a guy with his head under a BTZS hood with a pair of glasses hanging out. For shutter speeds and f/stop settings and such I typically just prop them on my forehead and get within 6" or so of the object.

I've thought about larger than 4x5 formats but I have two 4x5 enlargers and nothing for larger. I don't think any size would be appreciably easier to work with from the point of view of my close up vision. My computer monitor is larger than an 11x14 ground glass and I need to use the middle of my progressives or wearing my reading glasses for it.

[ROL]

I use 5X7 and might be considered (at least by me) some kind of mountain photographer. All other plusses and minuses aside, the format gives me a bigger negative to work with both in terms of enlarging and cropping. The fact is, when size and weight considerations are important considerations, and shooting positions are frequently restrictive, cropping may be another very necessary option.

My only caveat, based on ultimate availability, is that if color is a consideration at all, you might as well stick with 4X5. I personally don't use a 5X7 for color work at all. I consider it to be a tool for producing fine art monochrome enlargements.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am badly nearsighted and became presybyopic a few years ago - been wearing progressives lenses for seven years now. But the only affect on my large format photography has been that I really need to remember to bring my dedicated reading glasses with me to work under the dark cloth. Otherwise, it's so hard to get into the very close up bottom range of the progressives I just take them off...I don't think any size would be appreciably easier to work with from the point of view of my close up vision...

I'm -6 diopters nearsighted in both eyes and have been presbyopic for more than a few years. As the myopia increased, even before needing progressives, I went to somewhat smaller frames in order that my nose wouldn't suffer so much weight, despite having already worked through a number of lens materials. I'd settled on Hi-index 1.6 plastic as a best compromise between lightness and cone-of-clarity size.

With 5x7, a BTZS hood is long enough that I can take in the entire screen using my progressive's maximum add (1.75 diopters). For fine focusing, the somewhat smaller frames enable peering right over their tops with no need to remove and hold them in my mouth or elsewhere.

This doesn't work for 4x5; the screen is just too small. Ancillary magnification is mandatory for critical focus with the "smallest" large format. 5x7 provides just enough edge so the loupe can stay home, waiting for a day when the 5x7 eventually exceeds my pack-carrying weight limit.

[domaz]

I use 5X7 and might be considered (at least by me) some kind of mountain photographer. All other plusses and minuses aside, the format gives me a bigger negative to work with both in terms of enlarging and cropping

+1 on cropping. Especially in the field, it seems like your chances of getting the perfect full-frame photo are basically nil. There is always some tree branch you didn't see getting in the way disturbing your composition. It's a big advantage to LF that no one really talks about much.

[Vaughn]

+1 on cropping. Especially in the field, it seems like your chances of getting the perfect full-frame photo are basically nil. There is always some tree branch you didn't see getting in the way disturbing your composition. It's a big advantage to LF that no one really talks about much.

And yet what I appreciate about LF is doing the opposite...always full frame, including the rebate (always in the field, often with one lens). To each their own!

[dupont07]

I got a shenhao 4x5 too but without red bellows. I think I will order 1 like yours. I also got a 5x7 Mahogany antique camera but it's not as solid as the Shenhao. If I got enough money I will buy a new 5x7 Shenhao.

[Roger Cole]

I'm -6 diopters nearsighted in both eyes and have been presbyopic for more than a few years. As the myopia increased, even before needing progressives, I went to somewhat smaller frames in order that my nose wouldn't suffer so much weight, despite having already worked through a number of lens materials. I'd settled on Hi-index 1.6 plastic as a best compromise between lightness and cone-of-clarity size.

With 5x7, a BTZS hood is long enough that I can take in the entire screen using my progressive's maximum add (1.75 diopters). For fine focusing, the somewhat smaller frames enable peering right over their tops with no need to remove and hold them in my mouth or elsewhere.

This doesn't work for 4x5; the screen is just too small. Ancillary magnification is mandatory for critical focus with the "smallest" large format. 5x7 provides just enough edge so the loupe can stay home, waiting for a day when the 5x7 eventually exceeds my pack-carrying weight limit.

Well that makes sense for you. I'm -6 in my left eye but much better in my right eye. I can see a 4x5 gg ok with the closest vision portion of my progressives but it's just too narrow and too near the bottom. My dedicated reading glasses work best, really, I just keep forgetting them. Considering I can order them online for very little money I'm thinking about just getting an extra pair to go in the 4x5 kit.

[John Kasaian]

The large glass to compose on is a joy to work with! I keep a 5x7 for when the 8x10 is too large to take along. A lightwieght 5x7 like a Nagaoka is lighter than many 4x5 cameras and the same tripod you have for your 4x5 will handle a Nagaoka or similar. FWIW I must say that I prefer the 5x7 ground glass to the 4x5 (now if I could only find a 5x7 Nagaoka! They rarely come up for sale.)

[Roger Cole]

I might have an interest in 5x7 IF I could enlarge it. But I have two 4x5 enlargers (couldn't pass up the deal on the second) but nothing bigger. 5x7 enlargers are either old, huge, and hard enough to move you need to find them locally (Durst, Elwood) or quite expensive (Zone VI, maybe some others.) 8x10 is almost more practical because, even though it's even harder to enlarge, contact prints are large enough for display. So are 5x7s to some extent, but I don't really think 4x5 comes into its own in sizes under 11x14 (that is, anything smaller and you might as well use medium format) so why use a bigger negative to make a smaller print?

If a suitable enlarger drops out of the sky into my yard I might get into 5x7. Otherwise I doubt it.