Recommendations For Affordable Lightweight 8x10 Field Camera

[Old-N-Feeble]

I've been trying to decide whether or not to shoot 8x10. I have some ambulatory issues so I'll only be shooting a few yards from my vehicle. I'll probably use a cart with large wheels or may try to find an affordable motorized electric trike with a small pull-behind cart.

I currently have a Toyo 810G which is a fantastic camera but completely impractical for me outside of a studio situation with it permanently on a tripod and dolly. I'd like to keep the Toyo for still life images but finances won't allow it so I'll surely have to sell it to fund purchase of a much lighter weight camera.

I really like my Chamonix 45N-1 (focus screen replaced) and would love the 8x10 version. However, funds are extremely tight so that's not financially practical for me.

Finally to the question: What affordable alternatives are there to the latest Chamonix 8x10 that don't lose movements nor decrease rigidity nor gain weight?

EDIT: I should have been more thorough. I want interchangeable bellows so I can use a bag bellows and also lenses up to 600mm focused to 20 feet or so. I realize this makes it even more difficult.

[Kirk Gittings]

I feel your pain but that's a pretty tall order!

[vinny]

Their aren't. I suggest reading the other threads on lightweight 8x10's but there's no such thing as good, light, cheap, and rigid.



The 8x10 I built does everything from 90mm to 800mm w/o bag bellows. Yeah, I can't do much rise with the 90mm but I use my 4x5 when in need.
What lenses to you need a bag bellows for?

[John Kasaian]

Take a look at a Gowland monorail, or a Century Universal, or a Nagaoka.

[Old-N-Feeble]

What about that new $1800 8x10 offering from Eastern Europe. Has anyone had their hands on one? That's more than I can spend at the moment even if I sell the Toyo but maybe I can find a way if it's a good candidate.

The Century Universal might work... I'll investigate it.

I edited my original post.

[Bill_1856]

You ain't gonna find one at any price that's all that much lighter. You might look at the RITTER 6.4#, then figure how to dismantle your 810G so you can use it in the field (by the car).

[Old-N-Feeble]

I can dismantle the 810G. It's just very heavy and clumsy outside a studio setting. I'm much better off mounting a field camera to a tripod then unfolding it. The 810G weighs approximately 22 pounds including rail and tripod block. I realize that doesn't seem like a lot of weight but as clumsy as I've become plus some weakness in my left arm it's better that I go the lightweight field camera route.

[Bill_1856]

I can dismantle the 810G. It's just very heavy and clumsy outside a studio setting. I'm much better off mounting a field camera to a tripod then unfolding it. The 810G weighs approximately 22 pounds including rail and tripod block. I realize that doesn't seem like a lot of weight but as clumsy as I've become plus some weakness in my left arm it's better that I go the lightweight field camera route.

Mein Gott -- I had no idea that it was THAT heavy!
I can sympathize with the "old and feeble" mantra -- nearly 80 and a heart bypass and stroke. Giving up the Kodak 5x7 2D soon.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, the Toyo G, GX, Robos, etc. are fabulously sturdy and versatile but heavy monsters for certain.

[Regular Rod]

Take a look at Shen Hao...

RR

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't see any prices for Shen Hao 8x10 cameras. I'm guessing they're less costly than the Chamonix equivalent but do they cost less than the Svedovski (http://svedovsky.com/cameras/8x10-camera/)? The Svedovski looks nice for the price but I'll probably miss rear swing.

[djdister]

Can't believe no one's mentioned the Wehman. A couple of Wehman 8x10 cameras have been for sale in this forum in the past 6 months or so -- one sold, the other I don't think so.

[Drew Wiley]

My original Phillips doesn't have rear swing, and that makes it even more rigid and fast to set up than the Phillips II, and only rarely an inconvenience for those
subjects I generally use 8x10 for. When I need a full-featured architectural camera I switch to my 4x5 Sinar anyway.

[Scott Davis]

I'd suggest a Canham 8x10 Woodfield (fits pretty much all your requirements) except on price. A NEW Canham 8x10 is going to run north of $3500. You might get lucky and find a used one for under $2500. They have their fans and their detractors (the controls are not quite as intuitive as a Deardorff, but you can get used to that). The upside is that A: a Canham 8x10 Woodfield will weigh in at a scoch under 10#, and B: Keith Canham's customer service is second-to-none. That's why I have three of them (5x7, 5x12 and 14x17).

[John Kasaian]

What about that new $1800 8x10 offering from Eastern Europe. Has anyone had their hands on one? That's more than I can spend at the moment even if I sell the Toyo but maybe I can find a way if it's a good candidate.

The Century Universal might work... I'll investigate it.

I edited my original post.
Sorry no interchangeable bellows on the Century or the Nagaoka. Maybe the Gowland?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Oh yeah, I know the Century doesn't have interchangeable bellows. But it may be all I can afford.:)

Did Gowland make an 8x10 field camera?

[John Kasaian]

Oh yeah, I know the Century doesn't have interchangeable bellows. But it may be all I can afford.:)

Did Gowland make an 8x10 field camera?
Peter made a monorail that's lighter than most field cameras.

[Drew Wiley]

Gowland? Uncommon, and light weight for sure, but hardly stable.

[Jim Noel]

Sorry no interchangeable bellows on the Century or the Nagaoka. Maybe the Gowland?

A bag bellows is not required for lenses down to 150mm, maybe shorter, on the 8x10 Century, and it is probably the lightest one mentioned so far.

[richardman]

Priority wise, I am guessing: 1) Weight, 2) Cost, 3) Rigidity, and 4) Movement. Why? Because that's my list there :-)

Anyway, if you nail down the weight at Chamonix-ish, then there is nothing new that cost less than the "Polish Specials" that I can find. So $1800-$2000 is the minimum you will pay for that weight (new camera).

[Old-N-Feeble]

A bag bellows is not required for lenses down to 150mm, maybe shorter, on the 8x10 Century, and it is probably the lightest one mentioned so far.

Okay, so I could use a 110 SSXL with a recessed board on the Century. Good to know!!


Priority wise, I am guessing: 1) Weight, 2) Cost, 3) Rigidity, and 4) Movement. Why? Because that's my list there :-)

Anyway, if you nail down the weight at Chamonix-ish, then there is nothing new that cost less than the "Polish Specials" that I can find. So $1800-$2000 is the minimum you will pay for that weight (new camera).

Yeah, that's sort of what I've been figuring too. But I'm still searching for options.

[djdister]

This Wehman may still be available ... http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?115076-FS-Wehman-8x10-Camera-Extras

[Old-N-Feeble]

The Wehman looks very interesting but how wide a lens can be used before the bed gets in the way of the image?

[djdister]

The Wehman looks very interesting but how wide a lens can be used before the bed gets in the way of the image?

Here's what the Wehman camera website says:

2. What is the shortest W.A. that the camera will accommodate? The 110 Schneider XL. It, along with most of the 120 SW type lenses will cover when stopped down, and their field of view will not interfere with the camera body in it's normal squared up position.


http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html

If you look at the Wehman page, you will see that you can remove the front bed piece altogether, so it won't get in the way with shorter lenses.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Excellent... thank you djdister.

[Bill_1856]

http://www.lg4mat.net/LFcamera.html

[Alan Gales]

I have a bad back so I cart my Wehman around in a wheeled cordura tool bag. With the clamshell design of the Wehman I don't need any padding around it to protect the camera or ground glass. I pull the camera out of the bag by the strap and hold it up to my Ries head which I have tilted so I can easily see to thread the screw into it. It's a breeze. I can understand your difficulty with the heavy Toyo you have.

[vinny]

Here's what the Wehman camera website says:

2. What is the shortest W.A. that the camera will accommodate? The 110 Schneider XL. It, along with most of the 120 SW type lenses will cover when stopped down, and their field of view will not interfere with the camera body in it's normal squared up position.




http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html

If you look at the Wehman page, you will see that you can remove the front bed piece altogether, so it won't get in the way with shorter lenses.

The wehman bellows are very stiff and the bellows on mine would vignette when using my 165mm if I used any rise at all. The standards also would flex out of alignment when compressing the bellows any further than this.

[Corran]

I used a Century for a while and had no problems using a 120mm with no bag bellows. Just FYI. It was, however, a pain to set up, but it was doable. But that's a really short lens.

I don't know what it weighs but I have a Wista (Tachihara) now and it's great, other than needing a new knob/gear that I can't seem to source. Going to get SKGrimes to make one, maybe after tax season.

[Tim Meisburger]

Bender 8x10. Less than 6 lbs. and $430 brand new! http://www.jaybender.com/BPH/8x10.htm

[richardman]

Hey WOW, I CAN afford that!! Thanks....


Bender 8x10. Less than 6 lbs. and $430 brand new! http://www.jaybender.com/BPH/8x10.htm

[Alan Gales]

The wehman bellows are very stiff and the bellows on mine would vignette when using my 165mm if I used any rise at all. The standards also would flex out of alignment when compressing the bellows any further than this.

The bellows on mine are quite stiff also. I own a 121mm lens but it just barely covers 8x10 stopped down straight on. It's extremely wide on 8x10 and I've only used it for 4x5. The widest lens I use on 8x10 is 250mm so the bellows are not a problem to me.

There are not many choices in light weight 8x10's. The Ritter and Chamonix look nice but are more expensive. The Chamonix has a shorter bellows i believe. It's going to be a trade off for Old-N-Feeble somewhere unless he builds a "Vinny". :cool:

[Oren Grad]

Hey WOW, I CAN afford that!! Thanks....

Sorry, long out of production - the website is there for historical record only:

http://www.jaybender.com/BPH/index.htm

This page is posted for friends and family so you can see the web site that used to be on the internet when I was manufacturing and selling Bender View Camera Kits throughout the world. For thirty years of my adult life, this is how I made my living. It was a great business, supported me well, and allowed me a lot of free time to pursue many other interests. But, as you may know, digital photography has indeed killed film, and film based cameras like this. I can not complain that I did not know the end would come. In 1977 I gave a talk at the Society for Photographic Education, introducing photography instructors to "pixels" and how digital images were formed. During that talk I predicted the demise of film and suggested that film based processes would be relegated to the art world only. While I was sad to see the business die, after 30 years I was certainly ready to do something else. I design homes for a living now, and enjoy that immensely. Have a look at the old Bender Photographic web site. This is only available as a way of telling the story of a company that does not exist any more. If you have found your way here via search engines or other old links, please understand that these cameras are no longer available (sorry).

[Tim Meisburger]

Sorry about that. I searched Bender 8x10 and came up with a page with prices and order button and I thought they were making it again.

[Oren Grad]

I don't see any prices for Shen Hao 8x10 cameras.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/category&path=2_22_98

[Oren Grad]

Peter made a monorail that's lighter than most field cameras.

He made a few. I think production was so low that each might as well have been a custom job. You really need to see a specific example to know what the exact specifications will be.

Long ago I had a very early 8x10 Gowland that was little more than a bellows riding on a pipe. Later ones were a little more sophisticated in construction.

[richardman]

Hope and dream dashed again :-)

[Larry Kellogg]

That Bender at 5 3/4 pound was certainly interesting, too bad it is no longer made.

I was tempted by Richard Ritter's camera, but I find 8x10 film holders to be too heavy to carry around. I've drawn the line at 5x7. My Wisner 5x7 weighs just 5 1/2 pounds.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ah, yes... I should have checked Badger's website. Thanks for the link, Oren. It appears the Shen Hao offerings cost about the same as Chamonix.

What I'm looking for in an 8x10 field camera... or any portable camera for that matter... is an excellent compromise between weight and rigidity, plus plenty of (all) front movements and a minimum of rear tilt but rear swing is much appreciate, repositionable back, plus relatively easy setup, plus the ability to use ultra-wide as well as somewhat long lenses, interchangeable bellows is 'almost' a necessity, and of course reasonable price. What's killing me is that last requirement. "If I were a rich man... budda budda biddy biddy bum".:)

Larry, I agree that carrying several 8x10 holders is a pain. In my situation I'd be carrying no more than two and only a few yards from my vehicle aided by a wheeled cart.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't know. Not to derail my own thread but... maybe I should just sell both the Toyo 810G and the Chamonix 45N-1 and buy a 5x8 to replace them both. The main reason I'm not very interested in 5x7 is limited availability of film. Maybe a single system in the 5x8 format is a better compromise. If I sell both of my current cameras then I can probably afford a Chamonix or Canham 5x8 so I can use cut 8x10 film. If 8x10 film ever becomes difficult to find then I can buy a 4x5 reducing back.

Opinions... ???

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 film can be cut down to 5x7 or 5x8, this is simply not that difficult to do. If this is done in batches, the film problem mostly goes away.

Size of camera and all related is why 5x7 has significant advantages over 8x10 and larger. Beyond camera size, weight and all, the choice of optics is extreme as many 4x5 lenses cover 5x7, 8x10 lenses easily cover 5x7.

Difference between 4x5 -vs- 5x7 is quite significant and not much different than 8x10, there tends to be less of a DOF problem with 5x7 compared to 8x10 allowing the use of larger apertures relative to 8x10.

Figure size and weight difference between 4x5 -vs- 8x10 to be a factor of 4x, for 5x7 about twice or less than 4x5.


Bernice





I don't know. Not to derail my own thread but... maybe I should just sell both the Toyo 810G and the Chamonix 45N-1 and buy a 5x8 to replace them both. The main reason I'm not very interested in 5x7 is limited availability of film. Maybe a single system in the 5x8 format is a better compromise. If I sell both of my current cameras then I can probably afford a Chamonix or Canham 5x8 so I can use cut 8x10 film. If 8x10 film ever becomes difficult to find then I can buy a 4x5 reducing back.

Opinions... ???

[Drew Wiley]

By the same token you can just cut down 8x10 to 5x7 (two cuts involved per sheet), and 5x7 black and white film is still fairly common, color not much. But 5x7
holders are getting harder to find in good condition. But at least it's a standard size. 5x8 will be a completely custom holder you'll pay dearly for apiece. But either
way, you'll have a camera lighter and easier to support than 8x10. I love the proportion of 5x7, but have stuck with the more common proportion of either 4x5
or 8x10. I often really do need than bigger neg, esp when making big color prints.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Bernice / Drew... Thank you. Yes, I know I can cut 8x10 to 5x7 but I don't want to make more than one cut because my hands aren't as steady as they once were. I'd hate to waste pricey film due to my error... or worse yet the tip of a finger.:D Also, I like 5x8 better than 5x7. Regarding cost of 5x8 holders. Yes, that's a concern but I'll never need more than four and can probably get by with just two. This will force me to be even more discriminate in my shooting than I already am. I consider that a good thing.:)

Regarding neg size: I really would prefer two systems (4x5 and 8x10) but I'm realizing this probably won't be possible due to cost. I prefer a longer format with ratios of 2:3, 1:2 or 2:5 so I'd be cropping 8x10 to 6.7x10 or narrower most of the time anyway. Even in mural-sized prints up to 10 feet wide I doubt I could tell much difference between those made from a 4x8 neg vs a 5x10 neg but I could surely see a difference between a 2.5x5 neg and a 4x8 neg.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud. I appreciate you folks allowing me to use you as "idea springboards" and very much appreciate the continuing advice. Sometimes I need a little help deciding what is the best compromise between what I want and what I can afford... which are always two different things.;)

[Bernice Loui]

Gave up on 4x5 years ago, too small with the resulting B&W prints being of lesser visual quality than the larger film sizes. Gave up on 8x10 due to size, weight, bulk, lens choices, size of enlarger and related. Yet, 8x10 or larger makes nice contact prints.

It has been all consolidated into 5x7 for many years now with zero regrets. It has been far easier to deal with one primary format size than dealing with a number of them. Fewer technical obstacles like film size, lenses and all that mean better ability to focus in image making.

Film cost should be much lower on the scale of considerations as the cost of stuff related to making sheet film images are often far more. Once the consideration of one's time, travel cost and related expenses, film cost are not that significant.


Bernice



Bernice / Drew... Thank you. Yes, I know I can cut 8x10 to 5x7 but I don't want to make more than one cut because my hands aren't as steady as they once were. I'd hate to waste pricey film due to my error... or worse yet the tip of a finger.:D Also, I like 5x8 better than 5x7. Regarding cost of 5x8 holders. Yes, that's a concern but I'll never need more than four and can probably get by with just two. This will force me to be even more discriminate in my shooting than I already am. I consider that a good thing.:)

Regarding neg size: I really would prefer two systems (4x5 and 8x10) but I'm realizing this probably won't be possible due to cost. I prefer a longer format with ratios of 2:3, 1:2 or 2:5 so I'd be cropping 8x10 to 6.7x10 or narrower most of the time anyway. Even in mural-sized prints up to 10 feet wide I doubt I could tell much difference between those made from a 4x8 neg vs a 5x10 neg but I could surely see a difference between a 2.5x5 neg and a 4x8 neg.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud. I appreciate you folks allowing me to use you as "idea springboards" and very much appreciate the continuing advice. Sometimes I need a little help deciding what is the best compromise between what I want and what I can afford... which are always two different things.;)

[angusparker]

I don't know. Not to derail my own thread but... maybe I should just sell both the Toyo 810G and the Chamonix 45N-1 and buy a 5x8 to replace them both. The main reason I'm not very interested in 5x7 is limited availability of film. Maybe a single system in the 5x8 format is a better compromise. If I sell both of my current cameras then I can probably afford a Chamonix or Canham 5x8 so I can use cut 8x10 film. If 8x10 film ever becomes difficult to find then I can buy a 4x5 reducing back.

Opinions... ???

Cutting film is a PITA. I'd go either 4x5 or 8x10, or 5x7 if you don't mind limited film availability. If you are optically enlarging 4x5 makes most sense. If you are contact printing bigger the better within reason so 5x7 is nice, 8x10 nicer! Just using a bulb and a contact printing frame is pretty sweet.

[Corran]

If I were you......

I'd just shoot 4x5.

I respect if people disagree with me, but I really doubt you'll gain anything with larger film. I mean, what are you doing? Are you enjoying your photography or are you trying to make 40x50 prints with ultra-sharpness when viewed with a loupe for sale in major galleries? I mean come on - I think many of us lose sight of the point of photography (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118181-Are-Photographer-s-Obsessed-With-Sharpness-but-blind-to-the-bigger-picture) when it comes to such statements as "4x5 is too small." I have some 20x24 prints from 4x5 hanging in a gallery right now and they are fantastic, and I'm not even a great darkroom printer yet. The one massive 32x40 print from 8x10 (digital print) is definitely great, most probably better than a 4x5, but that's huge.

In contrast, a Chamonix 4x5, 65/8 SA, 90/6.8 Angulon, 150/9 G-Claron, 300/9 Nikkor-M, and a CF tripod, bam you've got a ridiculously nice 4x5 kit at less weight than just an 8x10 camera. Add some Grafmatics and you're done. KISS!! Or whatever tiny lenses you want to substitute.

That's my kit when I finally get to go visit some family in Arizona, hopefully sometime next year, ready for carry-on baggage on a plane.

[angusparker]

The Ritter 8x10 got a mention. Super light, not very rigid but ok. Can do at least 120mm wide angle with regular bellows but requires flipping around front standard and angling the base board. Haven't tried 110mm SSXL but suspect it would work. Great option if you want portability.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Gave up on 4x5 years ago, too small with the resulting B&W prints being of lesser visual quality than the larger film sizes. Gave up on 8x10 due to size, weight, bulk, lens choices, size of enlarger and related. Yet, 8x10 or larger makes nice contact prints.

It has been all consolidated into 5x7 for many years now with zero regrets. It has been far easier to deal with one primary format size than dealing with a number of them. Fewer technical obstacles like film size, lenses and all that mean better ability to focus in image making.

Film cost should be much lower on the scale of considerations as the cost of stuff related to making sheet film images are often far more. Once the consideration of one's time, travel cost and related expenses, film cost are not that significant.


Bernice

Thanks, Bernice. Yes, I've been thinking similar thoughts. However, I believe 5x8 is a better fit for me than 5x7.

[Old-N-Feeble]

If I were you......

I'd just shoot 4x5.

I respect if people disagree with me, but I really doubt you'll gain anything with larger film. I mean, what are you doing? Are you enjoying your photography or are you trying to make 40x50 prints with ultra-sharpness when viewed with a loupe for sale in major galleries? I mean come on - I think many of us lose sight of the point of photography (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118181-Are-Photographer-s-Obsessed-With-Sharpness-but-blind-to-the-bigger-picture) when it comes to such statements as "4x5 is too small." I have some 20x24 prints from 4x5 hanging in a gallery right now and they are fantastic, and I'm not even a great darkroom printer yet. The one massive 32x40 print from 8x10 (digital print) is definitely great, most probably better than a 4x5, but that's huge.

In contrast, a Chamonix 4x5, 65/8 SA, 90/6.8 Angulon, 150/9 G-Claron, 300/9 Nikkor-M, and a CF tripod, bam you've got a ridiculously nice 4x5 kit at less weight than just an 8x10 camera. Add some Grafmatics and you're done. KISS!! Or whatever tiny lenses you want to substitute.

That's my kit when I finally get to go visit some family in Arizona, hopefully sometime next year, ready for carry-on baggage on a plane.

What I want and what I can afford are two different things these days. I WANT to make huge enlargements. However, this will be costly to set up and maintain... and surely I'll have to pay someone to help me manipulate the paper in the printing process which I can't AFFORD to do much of. Heck... nothing I ever do again may be worth the bother anyway but I hope it does.

FWIW, I have a very complete Chamonix 45N-1 kit. The camera has a Maxwell screen installed by the technician Maxwell recommended. I have a very nice carbon fiber tripod and decent ball head for it. The lens kit is extensive... 38, 58, 90, 135, 203, 300 and 450mm plus 120, 200 and 300mm Imagon lenses. I have all the accessories I need for it.

The reason I want to go with larger film is because I WANT to make HUGE prints... though that may not be possible anymore.

Regarding cost: The 4x5 kit is worth quite a lot. Sale of the 4x5 kit plus sale of the 810G would surely pay for an extremely nice 5x8 complete system with 72, 110, 150, 210, 300, 450 and 600mm lenses. The tripod and all the accessories from the 4x5 kit can be used for the 5x8.

Really though... I'm still just thinking out loud. Please keep the recommendations coming. I am listening. I could still be persuaded to go solely 4x5 or solely 8x10 (or both), or compromise with a 5x8 kit.

[Bernice Loui]

larger format is NOT about increase in sharpness, resolution it is much about tonality. As the format size increases, there is a significant difference in overall tonality and image quality to a point. Meaning overall image quality increases to a point before reaching diminishing returns. For film and it's related technologies, that point resides between 5x7 & 8x10 unless one is doing contact prints which is a completely different can-O-worms. For macro and telephoto images, a smaller format can have far greater advantages than any sheet film format. Knowing what to use and when is key to getting optimum results.

Print size alone is not reason to justify film format size as there are many other factors involved with format size chosen for a given result.

And yes, all these technoid things aside, all of it is very much a tool and a means of expression. Yet the tools and mean for this expression is very much an individual choice. What does tend to happen, too many get overly caught up in the hardware and process and stop focusing on expressive image making.


Bernice




If I were you......

I'd just shoot 4x5.

I respect if people disagree with me, but I really doubt you'll gain anything with larger film. I mean, what are you doing? Are you enjoying your photography or are you trying to make 40x50 prints with ultra-sharpness when viewed with a loupe for sale in major galleries? I mean come on - I think many of us lose sight of the point of photography (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118181-Are-Photographer-s-Obsessed-With-Sharpness-but-blind-to-the-bigger-picture) when it comes to such statements as "4x5 is too small." I have some 20x24 prints from 4x5 hanging in a gallery right now and they are fantastic, and I'm not even a great darkroom printer yet. The one massive 32x40 print from 8x10 (digital print) is definitely great, most probably better than a 4x5, but that's huge.

In contrast, a Chamonix 4x5, 65/8 SA, 90/6.8 Angulon, 150/9 G-Claron, 300/9 Nikkor-M, and a CF tripod, bam you've got a ridiculously nice 4x5 kit at less weight than just an 8x10 camera. Add some Grafmatics and you're done. KISS!! Or whatever tiny lenses you want to substitute.

That's my kit when I finally get to go visit some family in Arizona, hopefully sometime next year, ready for carry-on baggage on a plane.

[Corran]

As the format size increases, there is a significant difference in overall tonality and image quality to a point. Meaning overall image quality increases to a point before reaching diminishing returns. For film and it's related technologies, that point resides between 5x7 & 8x10

And I respect your opinion on this, but I don't agree at all. I know it's not all about sharpness/resolution. There are certainly things that I like to shoot my 8x10 with (most commonly for contact printing) but again, it comes down to what one is doing with the film.

I don't know how you arrived at the "point of diminishing returns" being between 5x7 and 8x10. Is that a chemical fact?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Bernice... I agree that tonality is the biggest factor after an acceptable degree of resolution and lack of granularity are achieved. For the moment (this brief moment) I'm thinking 5x8 is the best compromise for me.

Again though... I'm still listening!!

[Scott Davis]

If you're looking at 5x8, why not go up to whole plate (6.5 x 8.5)? The cameras aren't that much bigger than 5x7 cameras, but the film isn't that much smaller than 8x10 film - best of both worlds. Not only that, but (IMHO) the proportion of the rectangle is more pleasing- less oblong than 5x7, less square than 8x10. The biggest challenge is finding film holders in whole plate size.

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you're looking at 5x8, why not go up to whole plate (6.5 x 8.5)? The cameras aren't that much bigger than 5x7 cameras, but the film isn't that much smaller than 8x10 film - best of both worlds. Not only that, but (IMHO) the proportion of the rectangle is more pleasing- less oblong than 5x7, less square than 8x10. The biggest challenge is finding film holders in whole plate size.

Thanks, Scott. My reasoning is: Because 5x8 is one cut of 8x10 film. The last two commonly available sheet film formats are 4x5 and 8x10. In the next few years I'm guessing 8x10 will be increasingly more difficult to find than 4x5 but, for now, 8x10 is still fairly common.

[Drew Wiley]

For really big quality enlargements it's hard to get around 8x10 in terms of image quality. Any film and camera size bigger than that and there are significant logistical problems. If you're just going up to 20x30 inch prints or so, then 5x7 or 5x8 film is plenty big, though 8x10 will give a bit of qualitative edge. What kind
of film and paper are you intending to work with anyway? And it you are insisting on very big enlargement, the fact you'll apparently be using conventional film
holders of some type, rather than precision ones, will pretty much compromise the precision of the film itself, so you're advantage over 4x5 will be negligible.
Why does everyone want huge prints these days? Oh well.... But film sag or bowing in sheet film holders potentially increases with film size. You have to design
special holders to prevent this. With 4x5 it's a minor problem, with 8x10 it's significant (I know, people will argue, but most of the naysayers do not in fact try
to make big precise enlargements, so don't even have the experiential basis to argue. It's a measurable fact anyway.) 5x7 is somewhere in between in this respect.

[Old-N-Feeble]

For really big quality enlargements it's hard to get around 8x10 in terms of image quality. Any film and camera size bigger than that and there are significant logistical problems. If you're just going up to 20x30 inch prints or so, then 5x7 or 5x8 film is plenty big, though 8x10 will give a bit of qualitative edge. What kind
of film and paper are you intending to work with anyway? And it you are insisting on very big enlargement, the fact you'll apparently be using conventional film
holders of some type, rather than precision ones, will pretty much compromise the precision of the film itself, so you're advantage over 4x5 will be negligible.
Why does everyone want huge prints these days? Oh well.... But film sag or bowing in sheet film holders potentially increases with film size. You have to design
special holders to prevent this. With 4x5 it's a minor problem, with 8x10 it's significant (I know, people will argue, but most of the naysayers do not in fact try
to make big precise enlargements, so don't even have the experiential basis to argue. It's a measurable fact anyway.) 5x7 is somewhere in between in this respect.

So isn't 5x8 also?

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah. What you can do is slip a sheet of film in the holder then hold it in such a manner that you get a reflection of a linear light source, like a bank of bare fluorescent tubes. Then fiddle around tilting it this way and that, to see to what degree the film sags. This will obviously be worst when the camera is pointed
steeply down, although temp or humidity changes can accelerate the variable even in horizontal use. There are some previous threads on how to customize an
adhesive holder that prevents this. But I understand your rationale for ergonomics, and a mid-sized format would indeed be easier to handle than 8x10. But an
additional factor to consider is that excellent 5x7 enlargers like the Durst 138 series are fairly common. 5x8 would require a full 8x10 enlarger unless you're building one from scratch. Or maybe you intend to scan instead? Whatever... Once you do figure this out you're going to have a wonderful time, regardless.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Your absolutely right, Drew. I'd need a full 8x10 enlarger to make prints from 5x8 negatives. I have an old Eastman Century No. 7 sans the roller base plus the rail system from an old B&J 11x14 copy camera that I can have built onto a sort of "railway" system. I've been considering a LED panel as a light source. Unfortunately, the only building I have available to house such a horizontal enlarging setup is only fifteen feet long so I must lengthen the building to facilitate 10-12 foot wide prints. That will be a pricey endeavor.

Regarding keeping film flat: I'll probably use very thin double-stick tape.

[Bernice Loui]

There is a wonderful image quality to 8x10 contact prints, the problem appears when enlargements are wanted or needed. This means 8x10 enlarger. The good ones are similar or equal to a good machine tool with similar or greater real estate requirements.

This was figured into what worked best for me in the end.

largest size B&W print to be done would be 20x24 which happened to be the largest size off the shelf B&W fiber paper at that time. Fitting that 20x24 ratio to 5x7 resulted in something closer to 17x24 or about 3.4x enlargement which is close to the max I'm willing to accept to preserve image quality.

Film flatness is easier to deal with for 5x7 as the film often has the same thickness base as 8x10 in a smaller size. During the 8x10 days, keeping the film flat was often a problem, a real problem when the camera is pointed down. Along these lines, 5x7 film holders are significantly smaller than 8x10 film holders allowing easier transport and storage for the same number of film holders.

Based on darkroom space available and the supporting devices, the Durst 138 fit the bill. These requirements basically set the largest reasonable format size based on these limitations. The camera, optics and such simply fall in place once these factors are set. Then one simply concentrates and focuses on expressive image making knowing the back end of the image making process is set and capable of print making from 110 roll film to 13x18cm sheet film.

Film processing is much the same for 5x7 to 8x10.

As Drew noted, 5x8 does not fit in a Durst 138 film carrier. It might, very bit might fit with a highly modified film carrier. When one has a good long look at how that Durst 138 film carrier is made and used, the idea of making something similar or equal is not simple. While there are numerous smaller, more compact enlargers that will project 5x7 or 8x10, that Durst simply works and does what is needed, what is expected with little to no grief day after day, year after year. Out of alignment enlargers, enlargers that are not stable or consistent are often the source of much grief, frustration and wasted time and materials.

Then again, if there is a current 8x10 print making process fully functional, 5x8 should be much less of an issue. What remains is the image ratio, would it be acceptable?

Rather than looking at and considering just the camera, look at the entire print making process and largest sized finished print to be made. It is in the entire system where your answer lies.


Bernice



Bernice... I agree that tonality is the biggest factor after an acceptable degree of resolution and lack of granularity are achieved. For the moment (this brief moment) I'm thinking 5x8 is the best compromise for me.

Again though... I'm still listening!!

[Larry Kellogg]

I struggled with these exact same questions and came down to adopting 5x7 as my standard. As they say in the computer world, the great thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from! ;-)

For me, 5x7 is a sweet spot in terms of the quality of the negative over 4x5, size and weight of required optics and holders, availability, cost, and size of enlargers and heads, and ease of handling during loading, shooting, and developing.

Keith Canham is still selling 5x7 Kodak film, even though you have to get in on an order with him and wait. I have Tri-X 320 and TMax 400, plus Portra 400 in 5x7 size. Yes, it's expensive, but 8x10 film is even more expensive and having to cut film down all the time is a pain, although relatively easy to do.

In terms of aspect ratio, 5x8 strikes me as kind of strange. Paul Strand masked off the ground glass on his Graflex Home Portrait 5x7 camera to 5x6.25, according to the Strand exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, which has his camera. Strand liked that aspect ratio and thought it was ideal. I can see what he meant, as 5x7 seems a bit long to me sometimes.

I'm glad to hear all the nice comments about the Durst 138 because I'm going to get mine on Monday! I'm getting a bunch of stuff with it, including the copy lights. It's going to take me a bit of time to get used to it, and I'm going to experiment with condenser printing, as well as with cold light.

As for 8x10, I shot a Wisner 8x10 on the street in New York when taking a class with Richard Renaldi at ICP. It was just too much weight for me. I could barely make it a block with that thing over my shoulder, and somebody else was carrying the holders in a cooler. I know you won't be going far from the car but you still have to manipulate the tripod which needs to be heavier to support a heavier camera.

[Old-N-Feeble]

It seems that 5x7 makes more sense to most people if one wants to moved beyond 4x5. I understand why but I'm not sure I'll see a large leap in image quality. The actual image area of 4x5 when cropped to 2:3 ratio is 80x120mm (96 square cm) whereas 5x7 cropped to the same ratio is 113x170 (192 square cm) so the latter is double the image area, if both are cropped to 2:3 ratio. The difference is certainly significant but not necessarily substantial. If I were to switch to 5x8 (261 square cm, when cropped to 2:3 ratio) the difference is not quite 3X the image area of 4x5 cropped but I expect the difference will have reached true substantiality.

I'm reading that 5x8 is so impractical that I might as well go all the way to 8x10 which is, of course, 4X the image are of 4x5 and that is a large leap.

I'm reading that 8x10 may be impractical given my physical limitations and this may be true even with a relatively lightweight camera.

I may never make prints larger than 18x24 inch but I want the option of doing so with excellent quality and richly fine detail and tonality. If I make a 56x112 inch print I want the viewer to walk up with their nose to the print and see extreme detail, highly defined tones and very little grain.

For the moment I'm struggling with this QUANDARY: I'm certain I'll see some difference, in very large prints, between 4x5 and 5x7 film but will the difference be enough to sell the 4x5 kit and replace it with a 5x7 kit?

[John Kasaian]

I assume that you already have 8x10 film holders, filters, lens & tripod. That's a huge expense you've already got covered. Those are good reasons for staying with an 8x10.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I should add this information: I already own a set of lenses that will work beautifully on 5x7 and provide plenty of movements for landscape imagery. The two focal lengths I'll need to replace are 150mm and 210mm.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I assume that you already have 8x10 film holders, filters, lens & tripod. That's a huge expense you've already got covered. Those are good reasons for staying with an 8x10.

John, no I'll need to buy film holders, tripod and a couple of lenses. This is also true if I change to 5x7 though, except the tripod. The carbon fiber tripod I have is fine for 4x5 or 5x7 but is probably too small for 8x10 and the larger aluminum tripod I have is too heavy. The two lenses I'll need to replace are the same as I'd have to replace if I move to 5x7 (150mm and 210mm) but those for 8x10 would cost more than those for 5x7. I want substantial movements when I need them so for 8x10 I'd likely need something like 155mm and 200mm Grandagons.

Before others mention it: Yes, those big optics are heavy monsters but I can't afford SSXL lenses in those focal lengths. I want multicoated lenses in shutters, BTW.

[Bernice Loui]

It's quite deceptive, on paper 4x5 -vs- 5x7 appears to be little if any difference at all in image area or possible improvement due to what seems like a small increase in actual area. Once enough images have been made and compared using both film formats, turns out 5x7 or even 5x6 is significant image quality improvement over 4x5. The once inch difference in film size is why most don't bother with moving from 4x5 to 5x7, they go from 4x5 directly to 8x10 under the belief that twice the size has got to be better with 5x7 being the why bother with that tiny increase. What is often not appreciated is the problems associated with 8x10 and how they directly affect image quality. This is all a set of trade offs with no clear winner.

If there are 8x10 film negatives on hand and ability to make prints, why not crop a section of the 8x10 film (center of the film area) into 5x7 or 5x8 or even 5x6 and make some prints of these cropped areas and see what they look like. This can give an indicator for tonality, but might not work for evaluating resolution since most 8x10 film images will be made using optics that cover 8x10 with smaller aperture that might not be the case when producing the similar image using 5x7 film format. There could also be a film flatness issue with the 8x10 film (eye opener for this is to load a sheet of 8x10 film into a holder, orient the film holder with the tim towards the floor and gently press on the center area of the 8x10 film, the gap between film and film holder is surprising).

The better evaluation would be to get or borrow a 5x7 system and use it. There are more than a few who have used and lived with 4x5, moving up to 8x10 and eventually settling on 5x7.


Bernice


It seems that 5x7 makes more sense to most people if one wants to moved beyond 4x5. I understand why but I'm not sure I'll see a large leap in image quality. The actual image area of 4x5 when cropped to 2:3 ratio is 80x120mm (96 square cm) whereas 5x7 cropped to the same ratio is 113x170 (192 square cm) so the latter is double the image area, if both are cropped to 2:3 ratio. The difference is certainly significant but not necessarily substantial. If I were to switch to 5x8 (261 square cm, when cropped to 2:3 ratio) the difference is not quite 3X the image area of 4x5 cropped but I expect the difference will have reached true substantiality.

I'm reading that 5x8 is so impractical that I might as well go all the way to 8x10 which is, of course, 4X the image are of 4x5 and that is a large leap.

I'm reading that 8x10 may be impractical given my physical limitations and this may be true even with a relatively lightweight camera.

I may never make prints larger than 18x24 inch but I want the option of doing so with excellent quality and richly fine detail and tonality. If I make a 56x112 inch print I want the viewer to walk up with their nose to the print and see extreme detail, highly defined tones and very little grain.

For the moment I'm struggling with this QUANDARY: I'm certain I'll see some difference, in very large prints, between 4x5 and 5x7 film but will the difference be enough to sell the 4x5 kit and replace it with a 5x7 kit?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Bernice... I tried to reply to your PM but you've reached your message limit.

[Bernice Loui]

PM fixed, do try again.

Bernice


Bernice... I tried to reply to your PM but you've reached your message limit.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thanks, Bernice. PM replied to.:)

[Old-N-Feeble]

I stated earlier that I'd need to replace both my 150mm and 210mm lenses no matter if I change to 5x7 or 8x10. That's not accurate. If I switch to 5x7 I'd only need to replace the 150mm. I'd prefer to swap the 210mm for a lens with a little more coverage but it wouldn't be necessary.

[Larry Kellogg]

I may never make prints larger than 18x24 inch but I want the option of doing so with excellent quality and richly fine detail and tonality. If I make a 56x112 inch print I want the viewer to walk up with their nose to the print and see extreme detail, highly defined tones and very little grain.


I think 56x112 is huge, and I would not go that step unless you have a serious market for your work. I've seen 30x40s printed in the darkroom for professional shooters, and they're a pain to make, and they're very susceptible to damage at every step of the process. For 30x40s, you can still flip them in a tray and see what is going on when you develop them, but no way with 56x112. So, your process will have to be standardized because you'll be rolling them in a gutter.

The expenses mount up fast when making huge prints, in terms of paper costs, mainly, and gallons of chemistry.




For the moment I'm struggling with this QUANDARY: I'm certain I'll see some difference, in very large prints, between 4x5 and 5x7 film but will the difference be enough to sell the 4x5 kit and replace it with a 5x7 kit?

Generally, I would say that it is not worth it to go to 5x7 for normal size prints, 4x5 will be plenty. I've seen 35mm shots enlarged to 20x30 for gallery shows, and they hold up enough to sell. At some point, it is more about the photograph than it is about the tonality due to differences in film size.

I prefer 5x7 to 4x5 because it is easier for me to compose on a larger ground glass, and I prefer the aspect ratio, a different aspect ratio than 4x5 and 8x10.

[scheinfluger_77]

I don't know. Not to derail my own thread but... maybe I should just sell both the Toyo 810G and the Chamonix 45N-1 and buy a 5x8 to replace them both. The main reason I'm not very interested in 5x7 is limited availability of film. Maybe a single system in the 5x8 format is a better compromise. If I sell both of my current cameras then I can probably afford a Chamonix or Canham 5x8 so I can use cut 8x10 film. If 8x10 film ever becomes difficult to find then I can buy a 4x5 reducing back.

Opinions... ???

I'm kind of hot for the 5x8 myself and about convinced to start saving for this. It seems like a good compromise between shear size of 8x10 but is double the 4x5 in area. I'm old fat guy but still in reasonable shape for moderate jaunts.

[Bernice Loui]

Image quality is subjective and individual in many ways. 35mm enlarged to 4" x 6" print is about as large as acceptable for my taste. 3x to 4x is pretty much the enlargement limit IMO. This does not mean a 20"x30" is not more than acceptable for others.

We have 20x30 color prints made using a 10 mega pixel digital, visually OK, meets my technical expectations, not by any means and this is being viewed from 8-10 feet away. Yet it is the content of the image of why that print is on the wall.

It is much a matter of individual requirements and needs. There is more to just print image quality, there is what the print has to say. To be worthy, prints must be of outstanding visual excellence and expressive with much to say to the viewer for individual interpretation.

As mentioned before, the only to really know is to try.



Bernie



I've seen 35mm shots enlarged to 20x30 for gallery shows, and they hold up enough to sell. At some point, it is more about the photograph than it is about the tonality due to differences in film size.

I prefer 5x7 to 4x5 because it is easier for me to compose on a larger ground glass, and I prefer the aspect ratio, a different aspect ratio than 4x5 and 8x10.

[richardman]

IMHO, There are really only two reasons to debate about which larger/better cameras to get:

1) you are already making decent sized prints, and physically see limitations where a larger print will fix. Note: it is rare (only because I hate the word "never") that a lousy print at 16x20 will all of a sudden looks good in 30x40 or bigger. If the image is so-so, then it will be so-so large, or possibly worse.

2) you are frustrated from lack of time, money, mobility, nice weather, etc. to actually go out and make photographs. In that case, the Sky is the limit.

Note that if you want to make absolutely the most pixel-packed photograph with even more resolution than 8x10 or even higher, get yourself a Sony A7r and a Gigapan and you can stitch, somewhat effortlessly, to multi-gigabytes resolution. These are the files that when print 8x10 FEET, you can stick your nose right up there and see details.

Personally, I am on both 1) and 2), so a 8x10 makes sense to me XD

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thanks, Richard. I want to go back to my roots... B&W hand-processed imagery. I met my wife at age 22 and virtually gave up that passion (for photography:)). As life progressed, my son was born... more financial worries. I took a job for the USAF and our shop went digital soon after. Later it was other worries... my son's medical bills, pension, 401K, then later caring for an elderly parent, then my own illnesses. I just never had the option of returning to LF analog photography for my own selfish edification. At any rate, I shot digital since the very early Kodak/Nikon hybrid 2MP cameras and PS 2.0 and I've had my fill of that. I want to use whatever little energy and time I have left to have some fun.:)

[richardman]

Then if I were you, I would go out right now and shoot a couple hundred sheets of 4x5 any-film. That's what I would do if I have a whole week.... There is nothing more satisfying then making images...

[Corran]

Then if I were you, I would go out right now and shoot a couple hundred sheets of 4x5 any-film. That's what I would do if I have a whole week.... There is nothing more satisfying then making images...

YES, THIS!!
That was my point earlier...

Just got back in from hiking and I shot 15 sheets of film. 4x5, b&w and chromes. My chemicals are heating up right now. I just had some fun, and took my own advice - I shot my Chamonix 4x5 with 65/8 SA, 90/6.8 Angulon, and an old 135/3.8 Xenar. The shoulder bag was so light I kept thinking I forgot a lens or two on the ground or something. Fresh air, some nice relaxing photography, just what I needed after a long semester.

[Larry Kellogg]

YES, THIS!!
That was my point earlier...

Just got back in from hiking and I shot 15 sheets of film. 4x5, b&w and chromes. My chemicals are heating up right now. I just had some fun, and took my own advice - I shot my Chamonix 4x5 with 65/8 SA, 90/6.8 Angulon, and an old 135/3.8 Xenar. The shoulder bag was so light I kept thinking I forgot a lens or two on the ground or something. Fresh air, some nice relaxing photography, just what I needed after a long semester.

As someone once wrote, even a bad day of large format photography is a good day of walking.

[richardman]

The BEST line though is: "I hiked 6 more miles with a 20 lbs pack for WORSE light?" ;)

[Alan Gales]

Image quality is subjective and individual in many ways. 35mm enlarged to 4" x 6" print is about as large as acceptable for my taste. 3x to 4x is pretty much the enlargement limit IMO. This does not mean a 20"x30" is not more than acceptable for others.
Bernie

Wow, Bernie! 4x6? I thought I was picky. ;)

I used to print 35mm at 8x10. I was shooting 25 ASA Kodachrome and doing Cibachrome prints. I have a few that I paid a pro lab to print at 11x14 that turned out nice. I always thought that 8x10 was the max that looked good for 35mm film except for certain images.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Alan, if I was shooting 135 format, 8x10 prints would be pushing it VERY hard for my taste even with extremely fine-grain film. I'd probably stop at 5x7... best case scenario. Decades ago when I was shooting Agfapan 25, 100 and 400 processed in Rodinal 1:50, 1:100 and 1:150 there were 4x5 negs I wouldn't enlarge beyond 8x10 due to visible grain and degrading tonality. Hopefully, today's emulsions will allow greater enlargement potential.

[Larry Kellogg]

I found this thread about "War Photographer", the documentary on James Nachtwey, and the large prints that were made from his 35mm negatives:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/103696-show-ovation-very-large-prints-35mm.html

I've seen Nachtwey's large prints, up to 20x30, I believe. The prints look amazing. 8x10 is no limit in my eyes, certainly not with modern emulsions, as was mentioned.

Nachtwey does an incredible job exposing his negatives correctly. You'll notice in the documentary that he is constantly taking incident readings, while in conflict zones!

[Alan Gales]

Yeah, I guess it's like Bernie says, we all have our standards. :)

I just cringe when I see some of the large prints today taken by cheap DSLR's.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, I guess it's like Bernie says, we all have our standards. :)

I just cringe when I see some of the large prints today taken by cheap DSLR's.

Oh yeah... me too.

[Michael Roberts]

Have you considered shooting 5x8s using an 8x10 camera with a splitter in back? I like the 5x8 ratio, too, and this is how I do it.

[Michael Roberts]

This is an interesting thread in that you've set out several criteria for what you want, some of which are competing (which is normal). And the conversation has taken some twists and turns (e.g., deviating from 8x10 to 5x8 and from camera selection to printing murals) (also normal). I teach a decision making process for problems like this, so I'm interested in applying it here if it would be helpful to you.

First, the problem seems to be that you want a larger (than your current 4x5) format to take outdoors (your current 8x10 is too heavy) to photograph so that you can then print very sharp, mural-sized prints. Neither of your two current systems allow you do to this.

Here are your criteria as I understand them:
-light weight
-field style camera
-8x10, possibly 5x8 size
-low cost
-interchangeable bellows (120-610 fl)
-full movements
-rigidity
-easy set-up.

The first thing I would ask is whether any of these criteria are absolutes, e.g., what is the maximum weight you would consider? I understand your 4x5 is 3lb and your 8x10 is 22lb. So, something in between, I would guess, but what exactly is your max weight?

Likewise, what is the absolute max you would spend--first, w/o selling either of your current cameras, and second, selling one or both as you've indicated you might do?

Again, is an interchangeable bellows an absolute requirement or merely a desirable feature?

Same with movements--which ones are absolute?

Some really good options have been mentioned--the Cham, Ritter, Sved, and Wehman 8x10s; as well as the Cham 5x8. But it gets really, really hard to juggle four or more criteria holistically, so it usually works better to disaggregate decisions like these, i.e., break it down to smaller, bite-sized pieces. If you want to chat off-line, we can do that, too.

Somewhat aside, I find it interesting that costs seems to be a very high concern and yet you are also talking about enlarging a building, constructing (modifying) an 8x10 enlarger, and manually printing up to 10' wide. And doing this physical work given some not insubstantial limitations that prevent you from venturing more than a few feet from your car. Maybe I'm overestimating the work that would be involved in the physical printing part, but that seems a lot more physically daunting to me than handling a lightweight 8x10 camera outdoors, and more expensive. But that may just be my prejudice, as I have experience with outdoor photography, but not printing murals with an 8x10 enlarger. Have you considered--just for the purpose of printing murals--having your film drum-scanned and printed digitally? Is that even an option, or are you fully committed to a completely analog process for this new direction? I only ask b/c you indicate you have some physical and financial limits that must be considered.

Also somewhat aside, on the topic of selling one or both of your current systems, are you finished doing studio work? Sounds like you really enjoy using the Toyo (with all its precision, rigidity, and movements) indoors and would really prefer to add a new camera to make mural prints of outdoor scenes. Given your physical limits, I would hang on to the studio camera unless you are "done" with that phase of your photography.

Similarly with your current 4x5--it has advantages in terms of weight and ease of transport and set up that an 8x10 would not have. However, if you bought the 4x5 to be your field camera and you have since decided you want/need an 8x10 (or 5x8) field camera to make the murals you want, then maybe the 4x5 could be traded up w/o much loss overall, and the net additional camera outlay may be closer to $1k (for the 5x8) than to an out-of-reach $3k+ to add a new Cham or Ritter 8x10 in addition to the 4x5.

I think it's great you have a good idea of your goal (sharp, mural sized prints), you seem very committed and passionate about this, you have experience with both the Cham 4x5 and Toyo 8x10, are realistic about your limits, and you already have a good list of criteria in mind.

[Peter De Smidt]

Another one to consider is an Arca F-line 8x10. Light, rigid, compact (for the format), and easy to use. A used one without all of the fancy stuff, (orbix...), might be affordable.

[Regular Rod]

How many times will you use your 8x10 outdoors?

If it is on an occasional basis how about simply continuing with your existing 8x10 and engaging the services of a fit young person with an interest in LF photography to be your assistant?

Maybe a deal can be done in exchange for lessons?

RR

[scheinfluger_77]

One daunting problem I see with the Chamonix 5x8 is you will have to buy film holders as well as a good paper cutter. The Chamonix 5x8's are $165, at that price $1000 will get you 6 of them. Personally I would want at least 10 of them.

Steve

[Old-N-Feeble]

Have you considered shooting 5x8s using an 8x10 camera with a splitter in back? I like the 5x8 ratio, too, and this is how I do it.

I have considered this but will probably just shoot 8x10 instead if I'm carrying the larger camera anyway.


This is an interesting thread in that you've set out several criteria for what you want, some of which are competing (which is normal). And the conversation has taken some twists and turns (e.g., deviating from 8x10 to 5x8 and from camera selection to printing murals) (also normal). I teach a decision making process for problems like this, so I'm interested in applying it here if it would be helpful to you.

First, the problem seems to be that you want a larger (than your current 4x5) format to take outdoors (your current 8x10 is too heavy) to photograph so that you can then print very sharp, mural-sized prints. Neither of your two current systems allow you do to this.

Here are your criteria as I understand them:
-light weight
-field style camera
-8x10, possibly 5x8 size
-low cost
-interchangeable bellows (120-610 fl)
-full movements
-rigidity
-easy set-up.

The first thing I would ask is whether any of these criteria are absolutes, e.g., what is the maximum weight you would consider? I understand your 4x5 is 3lb and your 8x10 is 22lb. So, something in between, I would guess, but what exactly is your max weight?

Likewise, what is the absolute max you would spend--first, w/o selling either of your current cameras, and second, selling one or both as you've indicated you might do?

Again, is an interchangeable bellows an absolute requirement or merely a desirable feature?

Same with movements--which ones are absolute?

Some really good options have been mentioned--the Cham, Ritter, Sved, and Wehman 8x10s; as well as the Cham 5x8. But it gets really, really hard to juggle four or more criteria holistically, so it usually works better to disaggregate decisions like these, i.e., break it down to smaller, bite-sized pieces. If you want to chat off-line, we can do that, too.

Somewhat aside, I find it interesting that costs seems to be a very high concern and yet you are also talking about enlarging a building, constructing (modifying) an 8x10 enlarger, and manually printing up to 10' wide. And doing this physical work given some not insubstantial limitations that prevent you from venturing more than a few feet from your car. Maybe I'm overestimating the work that would be involved in the physical printing part, but that seems a lot more physically daunting to me than handling a lightweight 8x10 camera outdoors, and more expensive. But that may just be my prejudice, as I have experience with outdoor photography, but not printing murals with an 8x10 enlarger. Have you considered--just for the purpose of printing murals--having your film drum-scanned and printed digitally? Is that even an option, or are you fully committed to a completely analog process for this new direction? I only ask b/c you indicate you have some physical and financial limits that must be considered.

Also somewhat aside, on the topic of selling one or both of your current systems, are you finished doing studio work? Sounds like you really enjoy using the Toyo (with all its precision, rigidity, and movements) indoors and would really prefer to add a new camera to make mural prints of outdoor scenes. Given your physical limits, I would hang on to the studio camera unless you are "done" with that phase of your photography.

Similarly with your current 4x5--it has advantages in terms of weight and ease of transport and set up that an 8x10 would not have. However, if you bought the 4x5 to be your field camera and you have since decided you want/need an 8x10 (or 5x8) field camera to make the murals you want, then maybe the 4x5 could be traded up w/o much loss overall, and the net additional camera outlay may be closer to $1k (for the 5x8) than to an out-of-reach $3k+ to add a new Cham or Ritter 8x10 in addition to the 4x5.

I think it's great you have a good idea of your goal (sharp, mural sized prints), you seem very committed and passionate about this, you have experience with both the Cham 4x5 and Toyo 8x10, are realistic about your limits, and you already have a good list of criteria in mind.

-light weight ------------------ 12 pounds maximum and 10 pounds is better
-field style camera ----------- absolute... rails too fussy for me in the field given my limitations
-8x10, possibly 5x8 size ----- 8x10 is much preferred if other criteria are met
-low cost ---------------------- somewhat malleable requirement... lower is better... if I sell both my 4x5 and 8x10 I think I can afford up to $2K for the camera
-interchangeable bellows ---- almost absolute (90-610mm focal length)... a 90mm SAXL covers 6.5x10 if pushed beyond factory limits... 610mm focused to 30 feet
-full movements -------------- almost absolute but I can do without rear shift/rise/fall if front has plenty... rear tilt is mandatory and rear swing is very much wanted
-rigidity ------------------------ this is absolute... within reason
-easy set-up. ----------------- absolute


How many times will you use your 8x10 outdoors?

If it is on an occasional basis how about simply continuing with your existing 8x10 and engaging the services of a fit young person with an interest in LF photography to be your assistant?

Maybe a deal can be done in exchange for lessons?

I won't be using it often. I live in a rural area with people who have zero interest in this type of thing.


One daunting problem I see with the Chamonix 5x8 is you will have to buy film holders as well as a good paper cutter. The Chamonix 5x8's are $165, at that price $1000 will get you 6 of them. Personally I would want at least 10 of them.

That's a good point. I was hoping to find used 5x8 holders for around $100 each and buy four and a good Rotatrim for another $100 or so. I can buy very nice 8x10 holders for half that price if I search long enough and won't need a cutter. For the few images I may take while I'm still able, 8x10 probably makes more sense.

[Michael Roberts]

Great. Thanks for playing. Now, are there any other criteria that are not already on the table? E.g., do you prefer new or is used equally acceptable? Wood vs. metal preference? Do you care about the esthetics of the camera or just functionality (I think functional traits are already listed, but nothing on esthetics/appearance--do you care?) Anything else missing that you can think of?

I've got to pack for my trip today, but I can go back and forth with you as I pack. I actually think this could be a really helpful exercise for a lot of forum members--I mean, we all go through this from time to time, don't we? Not this exact set of criteria, but similar decisions with multiple, competing criteria about equipment....

[Regular Rod]

How many times will you use your 8x10 outdoors?

If it is on an occasional basis how about simply continuing with your existing 8x10 and engaging the services of a fit young person with an interest in LF photography to be your assistant?

Maybe a deal can be done in exchange for lessons?

RR


I won't be using it often. I live in a rural area with people who have zero interest in this type of thing.


Do the people in the area include any young folk with an interest in money?
;)
RR

[Old-N-Feeble]

Do the people in the area include any young folk with an interest in money?
;)

Yes, but most are firmly attached to the govt teat and want $25/hr to lift a finger to do anything.:(

[Drew Wiley]

How does anyone make a living on $25 an hour? If I were young, I'd ask $75, and you'd gladly pay it just to get me to shut up!

[neil poulsen]

I dunno. I just got an 8x10G, and I've been toying around with ways that it could be "backpacked". :)

My thought is to put the lenses, front, rails, lenshood, and film holders in the backpack, carry the unattached back and extra bellows in a lightweight, padded, zippered bag w/handles in one hand, and carry the tripod w/head and rail clamp in the other. It slows you down, if you're trying to get out of the way of a fast moving vehicle, but it's doable as far as getting around with the camera. After all, an 8x10G only has about 8lbs on a Deardorff. That's not really that bad, is it? I mean, is it? :confused:

Once you arrive at the destination, it's easy enough to put it all together. (Put the middle rail in the clamp, add the front and back, attach the bellows to the front, and screw in the extention(s). Presto!). I have the standard 250mm rail, with two 250mm extensions. This gives a total of a 750mm rail, which is the limit of the bellows and enough for a 600mm lens. Plus, the three rails fit conveniently into a portion of the backpack. Etc.

The 8x10G is really a great camera. So, it's worth trying to figure somethin' out.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts on the matter. We'll see how far I make it into retirement.

[Michael Roberts]

Great. Thanks for playing. Now, are there any other criteria that are not already on the table? E.g., do you prefer new or is used equally acceptable? Wood vs. metal preference? Do you care about the esthetics of the camera or just functionality (I think functional traits are already listed, but nothing on esthetics/appearance--do you care?) Anything else missing that you can think of?

I've got to pack for my trip today, but I can go back and forth with you as I pack. I actually think this could be a really helpful exercise for a lot of forum members--I mean, we all go through this from time to time, don't we? Not this exact set of criteria, but similar decisions with multiple, competing criteria about equipment....

The toyo is too heavy, Neil. See the OP response at 89....

O-n-F, any additional criteria?

[Old-N-Feeble]

How does anyone make a living on $25 an hour? If I were young, I'd ask $75, and you'd gladly pay it just to get me to shut up!

Wage is determined by cost of living which varies greatly across the US. I guess SF is very high, unlike south Texas. Too, I live in a poor area.:)

[Old-N-Feeble]

I dunno. I just got an 8x10G, and I've been toying around with ways that it could be "backpacked". :)

My thought is to put the lenses, front, rails, lenshood, and film holders in the backpack, carry the unattached back and extra bellows in a lightweight, padded, zippered bag w/handles in one hand, and carry the tripod w/head and rail clamp in the other. It slows you down, if you're trying to get out of the way of a fast moving vehicle, but it's doable as far as getting around with the camera. After all, an 8x10G only has about 8lbs on a Deardorff. That's not really that bad, is it? I mean, is it? :confused:

Once you arrive at the destination, it's easy enough to put it all together. (Put the middle rail in the clamp, add the front and back, attach the bellows to the front, and screw in the extention(s). Presto!). I have the standard 250mm rail, with two 250mm extensions. This gives a total of a 750mm rail, which is the limit of the bellows and enough for a 600mm lens. Plus, the three rails fit conveniently into a portion of the backpack. Etc.

The 8x10G is really a great camera. So, it's worth trying to figure somethin' out.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts on the matter. We'll see how far I make it into retirement.

I agree the 810G is a fantastic camera. Your method seems practicable to me. However, my strength is leaving me and me left arm is often extremely weak... sometimes I can't lift it high enough to flip a light switch. So I need a solution that's very easy.:)

[Old-N-Feeble]

Great. Thanks for playing. Now, are there any other criteria that are not already on the table? E.g., do you prefer new or is used equally acceptable? Wood vs. metal preference? Do you care about the esthetics of the camera or just functionality (I think functional traits are already listed, but nothing on esthetics/appearance--do you care?) Anything else missing that you can think of?

I've got to pack for my trip today, but I can go back and forth with you as I pack. I actually think this could be a really helpful exercise for a lot of forum members--I mean, we all go through this from time to time, don't we? Not this exact set of criteria, but similar decisions with multiple, competing criteria about equipment....

Used is fine. In fact, I can't remember the last time I bought a new photo item. Wood or metal doesn't matter but the metal Canham is a bit fiddly for me. Appearance doesn't matter... especially the way "I" look these days, LOL!! I can't think of any other criteria at the moment.

[Michael Roberts]

-light weight ------------------ 12 pounds maximum and 10 pounds is better
-field style camera ----------- absolute... rails too fussy for me in the field given my limitations
-8x10, possibly 5x8 size ----- 8x10 is much preferred if other criteria are met
-low cost ---------------------- somewhat malleable requirement... lower is better... if I sell both my 4x5 and 8x10 I think I can afford up to $2K for the camera
-interchangeable bellows ---- almost absolute (90-610mm focal length)... a 90mm SAXL covers 6.5x10 if pushed beyond factory limits... 610mm focused to 30 feet
-full movements -------------- almost absolute but I can do without rear shift/rise/fall if front has plenty... rear tilt is mandatory and rear swing is very much wanted
-rigidity ------------------------ this is absolute... within reason
-easy set-up. ----------------- absolute


Okay, so the 4 Absolute criteria are:

1. Weight: 12lbs max

2. Style: field

3. Price: $2k max

4. Movements: rear tilt

I'm going to say, with your permission, that rigidity and ease of set up are relative criteria even though you labeled them absolute b/c both of these are subjective.

W/re to Relative criteria, then, we have the following six:

-Weight

-Cost

-Focal length capacity (e.g., 90-610mm desired)

-Movements

-Rigidity

-Ease of set-up

The next step is to decide which one of these six Relative criteria is the most important to you. Assign it a 10 on a 1-10 scale (lowest to highest importance).

Then assign a score of 1-10 to each of the other five relative criteria by comparing it to the one that is the most important. For example, if you decide weight is the most important criterion, a 10; then how important to you is cost compared to weight? Is it also a 10? an 8? a 6? Assign cost whatever score, compared to weight, that seems right to you.

Then move on to focal length capacity and compare that to weight--compared to a 10 for weight, is 90-610mm fl a 10? 8? 5?

Do this for all six relative criteria. You should come up with a list that looks something like this:

Weight--10
Cost--7
Focal length--9
Movements--8
Rigidity--7
Ease of setup--9

If you think they are all equally important--all 10s--that's okay; just say so. But if, in fact, you care more about some of these criteria than others, it will really help later in evaluating the different camera options, if you can work out any differences in the relative importance of your criteria now without the interference of considering actual cameras.

[axs810]

Take a look at a Gowland monorail, or a Century Universal, or a Nagaoka.


+1 on Century Universal (weighing in at 9lbs)

[neil poulsen]

I agree the 810G is a fantastic camera. Your method seems practicable to me. However, my strength is leaving me and me left arm is often extremely weak... sometimes I can't lift it high enough to flip a light switch. So I need a solution that's very easy.:)

Yes of course. I see what you mean. But as I say, I've been pondering on this recently.

There actually is quite a lot of difference between 4x5 and 5x7, or 5x8. It varies as the area, versus the length or width.

I like the 4x5 aspect ratio, so I would compare 4x5 versus 5x6.25. In area, that's 20 inXin versus 31.25 inXin, a 56% increase in area. That's substantial.

If one likes the 5x8 aspect ratio, then one compares 3.125x5 vs. 5x8. In area, it's 15.625 inXin versus 40 inXin, which is a 256% increase in area.

[mdm]

An affordable light weight 8x10 field camera, look at 4x5, fits perfectly. Why compromise with a dodgy flimsy 8x10 when any half decent 4x5 will do a fantastic job in the circumstances.

[axs810]

A nice 4x5 set up and maybe some Adox CMS II 20? If the film fits your work process (isn't too finicky to switch over) then this could actually fit your needs for large printing but also maintaining a lightweight camera set up.

[djdister]

Given the camera weight and your ambulatory concerns, why 8x10? Why wouldn't 4x5 be a good alternative?

[Drew Wiley]

I certainly admire your determination given certain physical limitations, but maybe there is some way to mount a solid articulating arm to the back of a van or
something, to support the weight of a bigger camera, yet still allow you to easily aim it?

[Michael Roberts]

I'm on the road, don't have my notes, but as best I recall, the following cameras have been mentioned:
-Chamonix
-Ritter
-Shen Hao
-Gowland
-Bender
-Century Universal

If your max weight is 12lb (IIRC),
then I will add the following:
-EKC view 1, 2, or 2D (without the base rail, the 2D is about 10lb); if you are working out of your car, I presume you can step back to the car for accessories....
-Korona
-Kodak Master View
-any one of several vintage Rochester Optical models (weight 5-8lbs, typically 24" bellows extension).

The vintage cameras often can be found for $200-500, depending on condition.

Most of these field cameras have much fewer movements than studio cameras, but they all at least have front rise/fall and rear tilt and usually swing. These are usually adequate for landscape work. In addition, I have seen lens boards that have front tilt adjustments and mini-bellows.

[axs810]

If you go with a korona 8x10 maybe you can do this front standard conversion

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100556-Better-than-a-deardorff-my-korona-front-standard-conversion