Vote: Reducing Back vs New Camera

[dodphotography]

What's your personal opinion: a reducing back from 8x10 to 4x5 or a separate 4x5 rig.

Issues are with weight, size, but the disadvantage of having to gear up new glass.

[Peter Lewin]

Obviously a 4x5 saves weight and size. If you can get an adaptor lens board for your 8x10 which will take the lens boards from the 4x5, then much of what you do is simply remount the lenses on the smaller board. You probably have a fair amount of overlap, wouldn't need much new glass for the 4x5.

[IanG]

I use 5x4 and 10x8, there's no way I'd use a reducing back on my 10x8's even though one came with one.

Lenses are relatively cheap these days second hand and there's bargains to be found on this Forum & APUG. There's a another advantage you can't use WA lenses like 65mm/75mm.90mm etc on a 10x8 camera with a 5x4 reducing back (with most cameras).

Ian

[djdister]

A second camera, with potential to use some of the same glass from the 8x10 (like a 210 or 240mm, using the same lens boards or remounting). My rationale is this - if I am hauling my 8x10 rig out to the field, I want to shoot the biggest neg I can possibly come back with. If my intent is to shoot 4x5, I sure don't want to shlep the 8x10 setup around. Of course, if this is for studio shooting, disregard the above...

[jbenedict]

For most 8x10 cameras, it is a little difficult to use lenses shorter than about 210. Shorter than 150, you may as well forget it.

If your lenses are mostly in #3 Copal or Ilex #5, you may have a hard time hanging them on a 4x5.

With those ideas in mind, if you just want to use 4x5 occasionally, a reduction back might work for you. If you intend to use 4x5 most of the time and occasionally 8x10, you might find a separate 4x5 camera more to your liking.

[Dave Wooten]

Wista 8x10/4x10 split board. Chamonix will make a 5 x 8 back and holders. In some situations it is convenient to have a reducing back in the bag.

5x7 / 4x5 Dorf

My 4 x 5 / 5 x 7 Deardorff is becoming my favorite camera 115 mm Rodenstock to 450 fuji C with reg boards.

[neil poulsen]

I'd prefer to have an additional 4x5 camera for a number of reasons. It's lighter and more precise in its adjustments. 8x10's are, of course, quite a bit larger. So, more cumbersome to carry around. They also catch the wind, and this makes even more of a difference on a smaller format. Depending on the 8x10, it's difficult, or impossible, to use lenses on an 8x10 that would be considered wide-angle for 4x5. Even with a 120mm SW, a moderate WA for 4x5, it would be difficult to employ much in the way of movements on an 8x10. Another thing, 4x5 reduction backs for 8x10 don't do a great job of reflecting light away from the edge of the format. From their typical design, I think that they're vulnerable to channeling stray light onto the sheet of 4x5 film.

With all of that said, I can see using an 8x10 until one had enough saved to afford a reasonable 4x5 camera. But, I would find a reduction lensboard that uses the smaller lensboards that one would need for the desired 4x5 camera.

I don't see why you would need to "gear up" with new glass. Any lens that I have for 8x10 can be used on a smaller format, assuming that one has a compendium lenshood. Actually, this might be true for my 4x5, which is a monorail camera, where it wouldn't be true for a lightweight field 4x5.

[Alan Gales]

If you own lenses which cover 8x10 and are in small enough shutters you can get an adapter board for your 8x10 and swap lenses back and forth between the 8x10 and a 4x5 field camera.

The problem is if you own lenses like my 14" Commercial Ektar in an Ilex #5. You can't mount something that big and heavy on a 4x5 field camera or at least the cameras I know about.

[dodphotography]

I have a Nikkor SW150 and Nikkor 300 5.6... Both are large glass.

[axs810]

I prefer to use a reducing back because main camera is an 8x10 cambo sc. I like having the option of switching between 31 and 18 inch rails without having to worry about bellows length. Others may argue that it's not worth it but I'd prefer to stay comfortable with only one camera. A 4x5 cambo would be nice but not really worth the money in my opinion. I had one and sold it to just stick with the reducing back. Heavy and sometimes a pain in the ass to carry a few miles but I've gotten quick using my "2 in 1" set up. Plus if I carry a backpack I can switch right away from 8x10 to 4x5 without having to go back to my car for another camera.


Edit/ I've also switched from a heavy (but quick set up) bogey tripod to a 5lb bento a3580f tripod that can hold up to 33lbs so I'm been feeling more mobile lately.

[dodphotography]

Also, I'm shooting with a Ritter 810 so bulk and weight isn't a huge concern. I have a decent investment at this point so dollars are becoming very important now a days

[axs810]

I say just find a perfect backpack for your needs and get a reducing back. I believe it'll give you more options out in the field along with allowing you to become used to our camera inside and out. As long as your not getting fatigued carrying your stuff out then I don't see a problem. As photobackpacker says "fatigue kills creativity"

[Kirk Gittings]

When in doubt one should always buy another camera........................until you get old and on a small fixed income-then you just make do with what you have.......

[axs810]

But why? His camera is lightweight. What would be the benefit? He would spend more money adapting his lenses to a new set up when he could buy more film or something. This is a genuine question (not looking for negative responses) I just curious one your point of view

[dodphotography]

The sole reason for the question is that while I absolutely want the largest negative I can get im also not a millionaire... So I find a lot of great deals on 4x5 color film (expired). I have an equal love for color and Bw and I can't really drop the coin on fresh color 8x10 sheets

[axs810]

Dodphotography- if you were to buy a new 4x5 what would your budget be? IMO I still think it's best to get a reducing back and film over a new camera set up but I also don't have any idea of what your budget is. A new camera could be beneficial but if you get a new camera and don't have money for color film an processing then it doesn't seem worth it to me. Would it be cheaper to buy an 8x10 back and film or a new camera? I have no idea of the costs of a reducing back for your camera

[jcoldslabs]

I like using long lenses with the 4x5 format, but my 4x5 field cameras do not allow for lenses longer than 300mm. A 4x5 back for the 8x10 lets me to use up to 600mm lenses with no problem and allows lots of room for movements to boot.

Having said that, I also own--ahem--multiple 4x5 cameras.

Jonathan

[IanG]

When in doubt one should always buy another camera........................until you get old and on a small fixed income-then you just make do with what you have.......

Sound advice Kirk. I went the other way starting with 5x4 (actually a very heavy whole plate/half plate/5x4 monorail) in 1976 for work, then a Wista 45DX 1986 for my own personal photography, I only started shooting 10x8 about 9 or 10 years ago.

5x4 kit is very cheap now in comparison second hand if you're patient, I paid around £100 ($160) for a Super Graphic about 5 years ago (another £50 for parts), $100 for a crown Graphic with a lens, excellent modern lenses for about $100-$150. All as good as the Wista and lenses I paid far more for 28 years ago.

The Forums (here & APUG) and ebay meant I could afford build up a entirely new 5x4 kit very quickly at a surprisingly minimal cost so that I now have an entirely separate LF kit in Turkey to my UK kit(s - some for workshops).

Ian

[Alan Gales]

I own a Wehman with 19" Artar, 14" Commercial Ektar, 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon, 121mm Schneider and 90mm Caltar.

I have a bad back so I haul my gear in a wheeled cordura tool bag. A 4x5 field camera would not help me that much since I would still use the same tool bag and Ries J100 tripod.

Your Ritter is even lighter than my Wehman plus you also use large glass so I would stick with what you have unless you want to use wider lenses than your Ritter can take. Of course that is me and my 90mm is as wide as I want plus I don't travel far from my Jeep due to back issues even when shooting my tiny Fujinon X100s.

[jp]

The question to ask is what are you shooting and where.

I can't really use bigger longer lenses like the kodak 305 on my 4x5 speed graphic; not enough lensboard and not enough bellows. Nothing quite like a 9" lensboard on a fixed front standard 8x10 for old brass lenses that makes ilex5 look small. But I don't lug that stuff around too much, and gladly lug a 4x5 miles for nature/abstract photos, so there is no substitute for a 4x5 for that sort of thing. Now a canham 5x7 is close... I borrowed one for a shoot and it's nearly as practical/portable as a 4x5 field camera but can handle longer lenses and isn't much of a reduction to go to 4x5.

[Ginette]

The question to ask is what are you shooting and where.

I can't really use bigger longer lenses like the kodak 305 on my 4x5 speed graphic; not enough lensboard and not enough bellows. Nothing quite like a 9" lensboard on a fixed front standard 8x10 for old brass lenses that makes ilex5 look small. But I don't lug that stuff around too much, and gladly lug a 4x5 miles for nature/abstract photos, so there is no substitute for a 4x5 for that sort of thing. Now a canham 5x7 is close... I borrowed one for a shoot and it's nearly as practical/portable as a 4x5 field camera but can handle longer lenses and isn't much of a reduction to go to 4x5.

I support also the 5x7 idea. I have a ShenHao 5x7, the older HZX57-IIAT with 20" extension, use Sinar lensboard for larger lenses, smaller lenses on Linhof with an adapter. A 4x5 back on the 5x7 is all that you need to shoot 4x5.
This way, with 2 cameras, you can shoot the 3 formats and had more choice for expired films!

[John Kasaian]

When in doubt one should always buy another camera........................until you get old and on a small fixed income-then you just make do with what you have.......

^^This^^
The number of times I've used the reducing back on my 8x10? 1.
And that was with Type 54 p/n .
Inside a studio a reducing back is more practical than in the field.

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, a lot of older wooden 4x5 cameras (Agfas, Anscos, B&J, Deardorff, ect...) were 5x7s that came with 4x5 backs.

[Jim Andrada]

I use a 4 x 5 back on my Agfa 5 x 7 as well as my 5 x 7 Linhofs, but would probably not do so on my 8 x 10. Re large shutters, I use large Compurs/ Ilexes on the 4 x 5 Technika by using a 1" thick wooden spacer fastened to the front of a normal lens board - works fine and gets the shutter far enough out to not interfere with the front standard.

[SergeiR]

For most 8x10 cameras, it is a little difficult to use lenses shorter than about 210. Shorter than 150, you may as well forget it.

Hmm.. i have 3 8x10 cameras, and none have issues using lenses up to 100-110mm.

[jbenedict]

Hmm.. i have 3 8x10 cameras, and none have issues using lenses up to 100-110mm.

Well, bully for you....

[angusparker]

Also, I'm shooting with a Ritter 810 so bulk and weight isn't a huge concern. I have a decent investment at this point so dollars are becoming very important now a days

A new camera. I have a Ritter 8x10 and a Chamonix 4x5. Even with the super light Ritter I don't think I'd consider a reducing back. Many of my lenses cover both formats so it's just a matter of having an adapter for my Ritter for the lensboard.

[Drew Bedo]

A lot of good thoughts in this thread.

My two cents: The reducing back will allow you to do some really extreme macro by mounting a shorter lens and cranking out the bellows to full extension. You may not want to do this . . .most other folks don't want to either.

Maybe its only $0.01 worth.

[IanG]

FWIW, a lot of older wooden 4x5 cameras (Agfas, Anscos, B&J, Deardorff, ect...) were 5x7s that came with 4x5 backs.

The Agfa Ansco 4x5 and 5x7 view cameras I've seen are different sizes, the 4x5 is rather chunky looking though so does look disproportionally larger than one might expect.

A 5x7 back won't fot a 4x5 camera, but of course a you say soem people did use reducing backs on their 5x7's/

Ian

[jnantz]

^^This^^
The number of times I've used the reducing back on my 8x10? 1.
And that was with Type 54 p/n .
Inside a studio a reducing back is more practical than in the field.

exactly ..