When to go 4x5? Or to stay with mf?

[Ag Jones]

I know these questions have been asked and I have read through many of them. I just have not found the answer. So please bear with this ramble.

I shoot landscapes, rocks, trees, and big views. I work slow (ask my wife), but must admit I like that I can work quick with roll film in changing light. I favor wide angles and often use the Cokin P sized filters. I found 35mm film did not cut it and moved upto a Mamiya 645 a few years back. The increased detail in my prints really wowed me. I shoot exclusively chromes (mostly Velvia), on a tripod, and with manual focus primes. I have a local lab scan the images I want to print. Printing for me means 8x10s on my Epson or a 12x18 at Costco-cannot beat $2.99 for that.

While this works for me now, I am thinking about evolving to a bigger camera or bigger printing or both. I also happen to be at a place where I can set aside some cash to make a purchase. Here is what I am thinking.

Large Format- The tool of choice for landscape is still the view camera. My research here has leaned me toward a Shen-Hao and a Nikon 90/8 lens. My plan would also be to use Quickloads. An alternate camera could be the Cadet Wide, but I think I would prefer a field camera. Already projecting a second lens being a Rodenstock 65mm, because it takes 58mm filters and should accommodate my Cokin P sized filters- like I said, love wide angle. Once I started to accumulate a few images, get an Epson 4870 to digitize.

Of course I have had three friends (who all did shoot LF) say that LF is not the best solution and that 6x7 is a better compromise. I can understand their logic of speed and roll film, but wonder about the difference in the details. I know I can see the difference between 35mm and 645 in an 8x10 print I would think that same type of detail increase would be noticeable in a jump to 4x5 too.

So I have looked at an alternative of a 6x7 and think an RZII would be awesome and the Pentax 67II would be pretty nice, but even used they both would cost more than a new 4x5 setup. Would the quality increase of 6x7 over a 645 be worth the price and increased gear size?

I have also considered sticking with 645 and maybe a get Nikon Coolscan 9 or Epson 4000 and printing big from 645 scans.

I have seen but never used a 4x5 so I have a little hesitation on ordering. Renting is not an option for me locally. I have read the Dykinga LF book and looked through Steve Simmons too. I think I could master the controls, it is the myriad ways to mess up and upside down image that worry me.

Does everyone go through this angst?

Any wise words would help. Thanks.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

I have solved this dilemna by the purchase of a 6x9 Arca Swiss F-line camera as my beginner's 'large format' camera. The camera has full movements and is part of a monorail camera system expandable to 4"x5" and beyond. Until now I'm happy with 6x9 on rollfilm but will probably upgrade to a 4"x5" back like Jack Dikinga's equipment sooner or later.

[Calamity Jane]

"Wise words"?

Well, you won't get any of those from me :-)

I just ventured into LF and absolutely LOVE what my 4x5 can do.

However, this morning on my way to work, just as the sun was rising under heavy clouds and a dense fog blanketed all the low lands, I looked out my car window to see the most incredible scene - the bight yellow light and black shadows, the blood-red of the sunrise under leaden clouds, and the silver blanket of fog with the odd tree poking thru - WOW!

The problem? NO CAMERA! Even if I had the 4x5, it would not have been quick enough to capture that 1 minute of perfect conditions, though my Pentax 645 would have.

Each camera and format has its strength and its weakness. As much as I love the 4x5, I MUST start carrying the 645 more!

[Tony Galt]

I shoot with a Shen Hao with a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon (at that focal length a faster lens would be nice), among other lenses. I use both sheet film and I have an old Graflex roll film back that I use mostly for color (often color negative film) because color sheet film and processing is expensive. While 4x5 color transparencies are nicer and probably more detailed than the 6x7 negatives I get with the roll film back, I think the thing that keeps me using a large format camera (rather than thinking more about medium format--actually I do have an old Rolleiflex TLR) is movements. I enjoy cleverly being able to produce sharp focus from just in front of the camera to infinity with a bit of a tilt and/or swing. I like being able to correct for converging verticals on buildings and other upright objects like rock formations or even trees. Also I think the experience under the dark cloth with an upsidedown image on the groundglass actually helps me think about composition better than with quicker smaller cameras. Also using sheet film (especially in color)--because it is more expensive, or with black and white, labor intensive--makes me think more about capturing what I want with a single effort, instead of shooting many frames as one might do with medium format, or especially 35mm and now digital capture.

[Ernest Purdum]

To me, the biggest advantage of LF over MF is the ability to use movements to control perspective and zones of sharp focus. The gain in information that your film can display is a bonus, but secondary to the movements.



You can, of course, always put a rollfilm back on an LF camera, and sometimes it's a good idea to do so, but you can't put a 4X5 holder on a Mamiya.



I'm glad you have already got an idea of your focal length preferences. This is a very personal matter. I'd suggest, though, spending some time with your first lens choice, paying attention to how often you feel limited by it, before spending your money on another lens.



Choice of camera is also a very personal matter. Generally most people who work mostly in studios like monorails and the backpackers want field cameras. Those whose work is strongly varied have a decision to make.



Sure, you have more opportunity to mess up with an LF camera, it goes along with having more opportunity in general. Fortunately, the consequences of messing up are not like those of messing up in your car.



Some people say that the upside down image enables a better sense of composition. Maybe that's rationalization, but you can very quickly get used to viewing an inverted image. I've never heard of anyone finding this a real problem.

[Moe_4073]

To me, the operation of the camera MF vs LF cameras is secondary to the convenience/handling/cost/processing of the film (I have come love battling it out with my monorail and flatbed cameras). Quickloads are nice, but limited to available emulstions (this may not be an issue for you). If renting a 4x5 camera is out of the question, see if you can find a cheap Speed Graphic or Toyo field camera to test out the format, it can always be sold later. There will be extra detail available from the larger negative, as well as perspective control if you choose to use it, but it is very subjective to whether it is worth the expense to move up from 6x7's convenience and quality. All I can suggest is that you try it, you will really love it or, not. Regards

[Leonard Evens]

I had been doing medium format, some of it with a technical camera capable of limited movements, for some 45 years. A few years ago I switched to a 4 x 5 view camera, so, like a lot of others, I can relate to what you are thinking now.

If you are just interested in more detail, going to 6 x 7 may be a viable choice. You will get more detail---a multiplier of about 1.25. (Of course, 4 x 5 will give you a multiplier more than 2.) On the other hand, if you want to use view camera movements, you are entering a whole new world, so you should make sure you understand just what you get and what you lose. There are some medium format view camera possibilities, but they tend to be very expensive and/or not nearly as flexible as 4 x 5 view cameras.

I found that many of my ideas before getting the view camera (a Toho FC-45X) were mistaken or incomplete. So, should you decide to get a view camera, I advise not trying to work everything out in detail beforehand and being open minded as you learn how to use it. For example, the 65 mm Rodenstock may not be a good choice since it has a relatively small image circle. Issues like filter size may be less important.

I wouldn't worry about the ground glass image being rotated 180 degrees. You get used to that pretty quickly, and you learn that up is down and right is left.

[Guy Tal]

A couple of things you might find useful:
1) If you can find a LF photographer in your area (where are you?) who's willing to spend some time in the field with you and show you the ropes - you'll learn more in one afternoon than any book or web site will teach you.
2) Failing that, see if you can rent a LF outfit that's similar to the one you have in mind and test drive it for a day. You will need to learn the basics on your own (practice a lot of "dry runs" until you're comfortable with it). It may be frustrating trying to figure it out on your own, but you'll at least know what's in store.

As most on this forum will tell you - the first successful LF image you produce will likely prove to be a major milestone. There's no going back...

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

I will try and give an answer to your question based on my personal experiences. For a number of years I was quite happy with my Nikon and Hasselblads which I still use frequently. Then, I bought a 5X4 for a special commission and I developed my problem. When I am out doing the thing with any other camera than my 5X4 I get Sinar P withdrawl symptoms. I have become so addicted to the sheer quality of the larger image that any picture I take with a lesser format gives me guilt complex - that I am not doing the scene justice. I am now under a self imposed course of treatment to limit the desires of the 5X4 by making sure that I select locations that are just not compatible to the humping of a heavy monorail camera, lenses and equipment. I hope this confession has helped you arrive at a rashional decision.

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

I will try and give an answer to your question based on my personal experiences. For a number of years I was quite happy with my Nikon Fuji 6X9 and Hasselblads which I still use frequently. Then, I bought a 5X4 for a special commission and I developed my addiction problem. When I am out doing the thing with any other camera than my 5X4 I get Sinar P withdrawl symptoms. I have become so addicted to the sheer quality of the larger image that any picture I take with a lesser format gives me guilt complex - that I am not doing the scene justice. I am now under a self imposed course of treatment to limit the desires of the 5X4 by making sure that I select locations that are just not compatible to the humping of a heavy monorail camera, lenses and equipment. I hope this confession has helped you arrive at a rational decision.

[Nick Morris]

Hello, I used to shoot primarily with a 4x5. When I moved up to 8x10, I thought about replacing the 4x5 with MF 6x7, (more flexibility, handheld shots, etc) and bought a Koni-Omega. That lasted about a month. After shooting with 4x5; going to the effort and exercising the care, I found that the MF really didn't offer the "freedom" I thought it would, I lost the quality of the larger format, and the ability to process individual sheets of film. If I was going to the effort of using a tripod and spot metering, I might as well use the 4x5. My 4x5 is a Super Graphic, so I can hand hold it if I want, and use a rollfilm back. But I don't. So I sold the Koni. Trouble is, I really haven't used the 4x5 much either. Those 8x10 negatives and contact prints can be addicting. You may want to consider a used Crown Graphic. They are pretty cheap. I bought a nice outfit for $150 locally, with the old Flash, 127mm lens, case, holders, etc. A better choice is a Super Graphic, but they are more expensive. They offer a rotating back (very nice!) and good front movements. They will also take at least a 75mm, and maybe 65mm lenses, without special bellows. There is no question that the larger negatives will provide better quality, all things being equal, but really good pictures are made with MF, and even 35mm. But working with LF is different than working with a handheld camera: in some ways more restricted, in other ways more liberating. Good luck.

[Nick Morris]

Sorry, I meant to say in my previous post that suggesting the Graphic cameras was intended to give you an inexpensive way of trying out the larger format and seeing if the working methods for LF suited your style. Until you work with the larger format, hands on, it really is hard to know for sure if it suits you. However, the Super Graphic is a really good field camera, and worth considering.

[Eric Rose]

If your not butting your head up against a wall on 60% of your shots by not being able to get the shot you need due to lack of movements you don't need LF. If you find the prints you are making now are sharp enough for you, you don't need LF.

Most of us use LF because we had a "need" for the additional capablilities it offers. Not to mention those big cameras a major chick magnets!

Eric

[CXC]

It is unwise to make this decision based on the relative costs of the cameras; in the medium and long term, the cost of LF film and processing will make the LF road the more expensive road.

I find that I shoot far fewer shots with an LF camera than with an MF camera. But then I love ReadyLoads, which cost three times as much as normal film, so it is still expensive.

Be aware that movements are slim to none on a 65mm lens. I have an SA 65mm, and it has its uses, but I was disappointed when I realized that it vignettes with only slight rise, and much rear tilt bangs the ground glass into the rear element.

The bigger the negative, the more detail you will have. More is better. Is 4x5 overkill? Maybe, but you can still get that killer shot with overkill, and not with underkill.

[Bill_1856]

4x5 is a great way to go for B&W, but I'm not sure that is true for transparancies. I'd go with the MF system that already works for you, and buy a scanner.

[MIke Sherck]

If you were impressed by the difference between a 35mm and 6x4.5 negative, wait until you see a 4x5! :)

I went through a similar debate when I decided to try a view camera (in my case, 5x7) after years of shooting 35mm and with my Mamiya 645's. A year later I was down to the view camera, a broken 645 body which I probably will never fix because I stopped using it, and one 35mm body with three lenses which gets pulled out very occasionally. I adapted to working with a view camera fairly quickly and it turned out to be exactly the right move for me (well, except now I want an 8x10, or maybe an 11x14...) but your mileage may vary.

You really should try to use one for a day or two before you make the plunge. If you can't rent a camera, lens, film holders, etc. ad infinitum, see if you can find a local large format photographer who is willing to help you. See if there's a large format photography group near you and join them some time. Despite our media image of savage lone wolves, most large format photographers I know of rarely bite and they've all had their shots. :)

Mike S.

[John O'Connell]

"I know I can see the difference between 35mm and 645 in an 8x10 print I would think that same type of detail increase would be noticeable in a jump to 4x5 too."

There's probably not as much difference as you think between 645 and 4x5 on an 8x10 print, especially if you print digitally. In your position I wouldn't bother moving up to 4x5, or even 6x7.

The only reasons to move up to LF are for movements or for better print quality at larger sizes. If you're happy with your Epson and with the Costco prints then I wouldn't upgrade.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Ag,

You have posed your question on the Large Format Forum. As expected, almost all of the loyal respondents here are recommending that you, at least, try large format. Post the same question on the Medium Format Forum and I'll bet that most of the respondents there will recommend that you stay with medium format.

I'm not advocating medium format here. However, since you are mostly shooting chromes and making relatively moderate sized prints, there is not much to gain from moving to larger format sheet film. Too many hassles with the lab when it comes to processing sheet film. Using a view camera with a roll film back is not entirely necessary, since there is only a minimal amount perspective or depth of field control needed for landscape photography. That would be a lot of gear to purchase and lug around for the small amount of movement advantage it would offer.

The solution to your dilemna may be to get a camera like the Fuji 6X9 rollfilm camera (the Leica on steroids) or one of the 6X12 or 6X17 panoramic format cameras. They will give you a fairly large negative without the difficulties and expense of having color transparency sheet film processed, scanned, printed,etc.

[Peter Langham]

The real issue is how do you like to work. Working with large format is a different beast. It is slower....you say you like to work slowly. Looking at the big ground glass is just a joy. Seeing upside down and backwards can help seeing relationships as opposed to subject. At small image sizes, I would say it is very diffcult to see a quality difference between my medium and large format prints, but the difference in taking them is incredible. I would much rather be using the big camera when I can. So I would say go with what you enjoy.

My evolution was a little different than yours..I went directly to large format when I got serious about photography, and haven't regretted it for a second. I only recently got a medium format for times I can't carry the large format and to do some night photography.

[Guy Tal]

"However, since you are mostly shooting chromes and making relatively moderate sized prints, there is not much to gain from moving to larger format sheet film"

I couldn't disagree more. Other than the (fairly obvious) difference in print quality, even in moderate size prints, the question was specifically regarding landscape photography where movements will make all the difference in the world.
MF is a poor compromise for landscape - it buys you some more detail than 35mm, but the inability to tilt/swing puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to DOF. This is further compounded by the long'ish focal lengths you're forced to use and gets worse the larger you go (as in - it will be much more of an issue with 6x7 compared to 645).
Regardless of any religious beliefs in the sanctity of one format or another, this is a simple case of using the right tool for the right job.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[Ken Lee]

" I also happen to be at a place where I can set aside some cash to make a purchase"



Magic words, those...



You can't decide beforehand. Get something in Large format, or rent if you like. Go through the whole proces of creating some images. You may love it, or you may not. If not, then try renting or borrowing some other equipment.



If you're like many of us, you'll want to keep them all and use them all, and you'll soon find yourself in a "place where you" can't set aside some cash to make a purchase".

[Morey Kitzman]

I shot medium format for a couple years and for the last two years have shot large format. My medium format was a Mamiya 7II with excellent glass. The difference in quality and tonality is quite striking especially with 40 x 50 prints. Another thing to consider is the joy of composing your scene when looking at a 4 x 5 image on the ground glass. I debated the move to large format for quite awhile and had similar questions like yourself. Now I would not consider going back to medium, the quality is that much greater in larger. Good luck.

[Gem Singer]

Guy Tal,

I think you took my sentence out of context. Please re-read the entire paragraph. It, essentially, comes to the same conclusion that your last sentence does."The proper choice of tools". Pardon my clumsy choice of words.

By the way, is it proper for a contributor to insert a direct link to his/her website in his/her posting on this forum?

[Ralph Barker]

You've received lots of good advice on both sides of the question, Ag, so I'll give you some "marginal" advice. Skip the 4x5 and go 8x10. There's nothing like looking at an 8x10 Velvia chrome. And, a 150mm Super Symmar on 8x10 is way better than sliced bread, and almost as good as sex.

Of course, then you'll want a Jobo system to do your own E-6 processing. And, scanning 8x10 chromes can be a problem. There are a few desktop scanners that will handle 8x10, but their D-max specs may fall short of what you'll want to pull from your Velvia chromes. So, professional drum scans may be the better option. Then, you'll need to seriously upgrade your computer configuration to handle the huge image files. Then, in a couple of years you'll be having ULF dreams - visions of 8x20s or 11x14s dancing in your head at night.

In other words, image detail is a siren singing her temptation song on the rocky shore of equipment-induced poverty. ;-)

[John D Gerndt]

Ag,

6x9 doubles your sharpness (in theory) and keeps your ease of shooting and processing. It doesn't seem like the lenses get wide enough for you though. I shoot a Mamiya Universal with a 6x9 back and a 50mm lens and like it a lot but still it may not be enough for you.

Information costs money. If you have a dealer you can trust, go to him, explain and be willing to pay some for the chance to find out what works for you.

Shooting sheet film is quite a bit different that roll film and can lead to a serious depletion of funds as well as a shift away from what used to be quite "good enough". You better be sure you are willing to go there.

Cheers,

[Guy Tal]

Eugene Singer,
I don't think I took your sentence out of context since you repeat your assertion further on, saying "there is only a minimal amount perspective or depth of field control needed for landscape photography", which in my experience is simply not true. I think we agree on the concept of matching the tool to the job, but we seem to be at odds about which tool actually is most suitable.
And yes, I believe it is proper to include a link to one's web site. I was not making a commercial/promotional post. If anything, I think it provides some credibility to my experience with regards to landscape photography.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[Harley Goldman]

I went through a similar dilemma a couple of years ago. For me, the biggest factor in going with LF was movements, especially tilt and to a lesser degree swing (I just use it less). As others have mentioned, in 6x7 you are using fairly long lenses and that will definitely limit your depth of field. Nothing is sweeter than using a bit of tilt on a nice landscape and seeing everything come into focus on the ground glass, even when it is wide open. Stop down and the details in the chromes are wonderfully sharp. If you know anyone who shoots 4x5, borrow a chrome and put the 6x7 and 4x5 side by side on a light box.

[Ag Jones]

I gotta say both wow and thanks!! I knew this was a passionate bunch and I got alot of input to read a few times. I find it funny that as I read each comment how I will agree with each post-the dreamer in me will say go for it or the accountant will say hold on you are good with a 645.

I am going to explore the nearest juco to see if their art department has any large format equip and maybe I can do a continuing ed class or something to have a trial.

Thanks again for all the fantastic advice!!!

-AG

[Brian Ellis]

I've never used 645, my medium format is 6x7, my large format is 4x5 and 8x10. I used to do my own printing in the darkroom, now I do it by scanning, Photoshopping, and printing with an Epson printer. In the darkroom I saw no difference in quality of print between 6x7 and 4x5 unless the print was larger than 11x14. Scanning with a moderately priced flat bed scanner is different however. I doubt that you would be happy with the quality prints you'd get after scanning 6x7 slides on the Epson 4870 though I can't speak from experience because I don't have the 4870/ I have a Linoscan 1400, an older scanner but about three times the price of the 4870 when new.

With that scanner and either the Epson 1280 or 2200 printers the largest prints I make from my 6x7 negatives are 8x10, anything larger doesn't have the quality I want. OTOH, I get great looking prints from 4x5 and 8x10 up to about 16x20. So if your long range plans are scanning with the 4870 and making prints in the 11x14 and up range, I'd be concerned that 6x7 wouldn't work for you. Are the friends who recommned that as a compromise scanning 6x7 transparencies on the 4870?

I doubt that you're going to see the kind of dramatic quality difference you saw between 35mm and 645 if you go from 645 to 6x7 until you get to prints in the 16x20 range but I don't know for sure since I've never used 645. I know that I could see a significant difference between 35mm and 6x7 even with just an 8x10 print but I see no difference in the darkroom between a 6x7 and a 4x5 print at that print size or even at 11x14.

[Andy Jones]

Ag, I certainly went through the same angst but just decided (recently) to do it! The Nikon 90/8 is the one I use the most and it's actually pretty wide. As you drop in focal length you run into image circle size problems and the need for center filters. As others have suggested, try it first and see. After my first milestone, I'm no longer in any hurry to explore wider angles. I also use QuickLoad (Provia) for the convenience.

One thing no-one has really touched on is printing. For me the large format moniker refers to the print size and I got into 4x5 because the creation of large (24x30) landscapes is not something digital (my other camera and LF meter is a Canon 10D) can do easily/cheaply and it had always been a dream. If you are not thinking of printing up to this sort of size, then the MF vs LF issue is much more relevant. If you want to print these guys, then the Epson 7600 is a great way to go (24"wide) and you should figure something like this into your thinking - for now or later - along with the scanner issue. Even for the 24x30 prints I'm "throwing away" pixels from my 2500dpi scans, so I could go a bit larger if I had a 9600 ;-).

If your goal is large detailed landscape prints, you need to determine 1) "How large?" and 2) "How detailed?" Then other questions will be easier to answer. It may turn out, however, that the versatility of the movements on a 4x5 is high on your list of capabilities. There are smaller formats than 4x5 that have those capabilities, but use smaller film and thus limit the ultimate print size (see #1 and2 above!)

From a LF newbie who's really enjoying 4x5 and large prints - go for it, you'll love it. You seem to have done your research and will succeed!

Andy

[Capocheny]

Ag,

You've received some really good advice here and at the end of the day... you'll just have to jump in and get your feet wet.

Bottom line? Each format has it's uses and different users will have different preferences. If you have one format already... spring for the other. Give it a try and time will determine what's best for YOU.

Guy,

There is one MF camera that does offer significant swings and tilts... the Fuji 680III. I looked at buying one of these but it also weighs a ton. But... it DOES offer some of the movements of a LF camera.

Ralph,

".... way better than sliced bread, and almost as good as sex." I take it the wife doesn't read your postings! :>)

Hope this helps...

BTW, I LOVE my 4x5 chromes....I can only imagine what they would look like in an 8x10 size.

Cheers

[evan clarke]

Hi Ag, If you are in a large city, perhaps you could rent one for the weekend or take a photo class at community college. At the technical college here in Milwaukee, they have a one-semester view camera course..Evan

[Don Miller]

One nice aspect of a view camera is the ability to avoid the retrofocus wide lenses of an SLR while retaining the ability to effectively use filters. Some other small points:

-You should know that the plain ground glass that comes with the Shen Hao will be dim at 90mm and very dim at 65mm. Search here and at photo.net for alternatives to plain ground glass.

-Especially with wide lenses, to reduce frustration don't try to learn focusing the camera in good soft light. Put the camera in the shade with the subject in contrasty sunlight.

-Front tilt is very nice for focusing but it's needed much more in LF than 645.

-As others have pointed out, there is little reason to go to 4x5 for 8x10 enlargements.

-The difficulty in making a recomendation to you about getting into LF is that you won't know if you'll like it until you try it. We here give logical reasons for using LF but there are also strong emotional reasons that is hard to define. Either LF "clicks" with you or not. And as men we really don't want to talk about it :)

-Dykinga says that he switch to 4x5 to get the definitive shot. I feel the same way. If I'm getting up at 3am and driving two hours to maybe get a shot the small inconvinance of 4x5 vs 6x7 is trivial.

Good Luck!

Don