PDA

View Full Version : Adding a 4x5 back to a 8x10 body......is it worth it



ndwgolf
26-May-2017, 13:57
I have a Wisner 4.5 and have just bought a Chamonix 8x10. I noticed they sell a 4x5 adapter for the Chamonix.........is it worth getting one.

Neil

Eric Woodbury
26-May-2017, 14:01
Not for the kind of work I do. I wouldn't want to haul an 8x10 to use as a 4x5. I have a 45 adapter for my 5x7. I have never used it in 30 years. If I needed a 4x5 image from a 5x7, I'd crop.

Leigh
26-May-2017, 14:07
One problem with shooting 4x5 using an 8x10 body is the bellows.

They're not designed to collapse enough to focus the shorter focal length lenses used for 4x5.

This is not just an issue with the bellows themselves, but also with the lens support structure and the body thickness.

- Leigh

jp
26-May-2017, 14:41
Probably depends on how you use it, it's probably typically not needed.
I have a 4x5 back for my 8x10 B&J. It gets used once in a while. If you have lenses that work and fit best on a 8x10 camera and don't mind some crop factor due to the smaller negative size it works well. I have a couple treasured 4x5 shots from my 8x10 camera which has the Kodak 305 portrait lens on it, which is too big for 4x5 cameras. Same smoothness/softness, smaller negative with less distortion around the edges as the lens was made for 5x7 purposes. Maybe shoot a few 8x10 sheets then switch to 4x5 for a different field of view yet consistent style.

Jac@stafford.net
26-May-2017, 14:44
I have a Wisner 4.5 and have just bought a Chamonix 8x10. I noticed they sell a 4x5 adapter for the Chamonix.........is it worth getting one.l

Do you stay up late nights to find silly questions?

Pere Casals
26-May-2017, 15:01
One problem with shooting 4x5 using an 8x10 body is the bellows.

They're not designed to collapse enough to focus the shorter focal length lenses used for 4x5.

This is not just an issue with the bellows themselves, but also with the lens support structure and the body thickness.

- Leigh

Using a recessed board solves that

Pere Casals
26-May-2017, 15:09
I have a Wisner 4.5 and have just bought a Chamonix 8x10. I noticed they sell a 4x5 adapter for the Chamonix.........is it worth getting one.

Neil


It is a good idea if you go around with the intention to shot both, 8x10 and 4x5 the same day, if hauling a 8x10 is not heroic enough just add a 4x5.


Also you will have a luxurious 4x5 framming, it can be great to see a wider scene to seek the ideal composition, or perhaps the boundaries are to distract you.

Bob Salomon
26-May-2017, 15:12
Do you really want to haul around the weight and bulk of an 810 camera, tripod and head just to take 45 pictures? Why?

Leigh
26-May-2017, 15:21
Using a recessed board solves that
Comparing the 4x5 and 8x10 Tachihara field cameras as good examples:

Minimum distance lensboard to film:
4x5: 75mm
8x10: 135mm

The shortest lenses in my database that would achieve infinity focus at 135mm FFL are
150mm, thus eliminating all wide-angle options for the 4x5 format.

I've never seen a lensboard recessed 60mm.

- Leigh

John Kasaian
26-May-2017, 15:23
I've got a 4x5 reducing back---handy if you need more bellows than your 4x5 camera can provide.
I used to use it for Polaroid Type 55 p/n film, but truthfully.
I haven't used it in about 20 years.
Far more useful would be an 8x10 back that handles splitters---two 4" x 10" or two 8" x 5" on a single sheet of 8x10 film.

Leigh
26-May-2017, 15:29
WD-40 is wax (paraffin) in a solvent carrier.

Depending on how and why it's used, there are two very different outcomes.

The solvent carrier works to displace grease and similar contaminants, and flushes them away.
If you're trying to clean something, it might work quite well.

A thin film of paraffin is left after the solvent evaporates.
That can serve as a lubricant, but with a very short service life.

- Leigh

Pere Casals
26-May-2017, 15:45
Comparing the 4x5 and 8x10 Tachihara field cameras as good examples:

Minimum distance lensboard to film:
4x5: 75mm
8x10: 135mm

The shortest lenses in my database that would achieve infinity focus at 135mm FFL are
150mm, thus eliminating all wide-angle options for the 4x5 format.

I've never seen a lensboard recessed 60mm.

- Leigh


Yes... it can be guessed that standard recessed were amde to allow 4x5 wides in 4x5 cameras, so in fact a DIY recessed board would be necessary.

In this 3D printer era this is straight if one is used to Soidworks or the like. But you are right, with reducer shot beyond 135 or make DIY your recessed gadgets...

Pere Casals
26-May-2017, 15:54
Do you really want to haul around the weight and bulk of an 810 camera, tripod and head just to take 45 pictures? Why?


Hello Bob,

No... I'd haul a 810 to shot 810, and I'd add a 45 reducer if I would also shot 45, to save an additional 45 camera. But as Leigh pointed, with reducer we need a DIY recessed board to shot under some 135mm focal.


Regards.

cowanw
26-May-2017, 16:14
WD-40 is wax (paraffin) in a solvent carrier.

Depending on how and why it's used, there are two very different outcomes.

The solvent carrier works to displace grease and similar contaminants, and flushes them away.
If you're trying to clean something, it might work quite well.

A thin film of paraffin is left after the solvent evaporates.
That can serve as a lubricant, but with a very short service life.

- Leigh
Good to know:confused:

Luis-F-S
26-May-2017, 16:23
Do you stay up late nights to find silly questions?

Jac, this applies to a lot of posters, but esp this one! Plus he asks the same things on Apug. Guess it gets lonely on that rig and he wants to make sure we're consistent. You'd only use a 4x5 back on an 8x10 if your 4x5 didn't have enough bellows. In that case, I'd get a different 4x5! Sure, get that 4x5 back and a 5x7 too if they make one! L

ndwgolf
26-May-2017, 16:32
Do you stay up late nights to find silly questions?Only to read silly answers :) :) :)

Bob Salomon
26-May-2017, 16:35
Jac, this applies to a lot of posters. You'd only use a 4x5 back on an 8x10 if your 4x5 didn't have enough bellows. In that case, I'd get a different 4x5! L

Not really, in the days when studios were shooting 810 for testing they would frequently put a 45 reducing back on the 810 to make Polaroid tests as well as 45 chrome tests rather then waste 810 film for testing.

Luis-F-S
26-May-2017, 16:39
Not really, in the days when studios were shooting 810 for testing they would frequently put a 45 reducing back on the 810 to make Polaroid tests as well as 45 chrome tests rather then waste 810 film for testing.

So how many studios you figure are doing that today? For for the past 10 years lets say?

Jac@stafford.net
26-May-2017, 16:43
Jac, this applies to a lot of posters, but esp this one! Plus he asks the same things on Apug. Guess it gets lonely on that rig and he wants to make sure we're consistent.

He also pesters the Leica User forum regularly with "think for me" posts.
.

Bob Salomon
26-May-2017, 17:00
So how many studios you figure are doing that today? For for the past 10 years lets say?

Probably none. And I think for longer then 10 years. Linhof used to put a serial number on their 810 backs and if the user gave us the serial number when ordering a 45 or 57 reducing back Linhof would guarantee that the film planes would match so once the shot was set up and focused on on the 810 back it would also be in focus on the smaller format backs. They stopped doing this more then a decade ago.

Alan Gales
26-May-2017, 17:57
I've got a 4x5 back for my Wehman 8x10. I bought it used at a good price off Ebay. The reduction back is great for the occasional 4x5 color image. Color 8x10 film is expensive! I shoot 8x10 b&w.

I guess it all depends upon how much it costs and how much you will use it. If I were shooting a lot of 4x5 though I'd rather have a 4x5 camera in addition to my 8x10. Like said earlier, an 8x10 camera is pretty big to carry around to shoot 4x5.

LabRat
26-May-2017, 17:59
A problem with some reducing backs is that it is often hard to insert/replace the holder & darkslide on the back, because they are very close to the back for an easy reach to it...

Another issue is that larger format bellows are thicker/stiffer and with larger pleats than smaller format bellows, so they won't sag as much on the larger camera, but also tend to flex less, so it is harder to get the bellows to bend much when using complicated movements on the smaller format, as well as total compression when used more compressed... So tougher to use with smaller format...

Expect to refocus most reducing backs from the regular back as there will be some (major or minor) differences between them...

Steve K

xtmevolution
27-May-2017, 04:51
wow, this is nice to know, i almost order the intrepid 8x10 with 4x5 back. How about film holder that fit 4x5 film but the size of 8x10, does anyone make that?

N Dhananjay
27-May-2017, 05:35
One reason for the 4x5 back is that it is a good way to extend the reach of your lenses. If you have a framing that requires a very long lens, longer than anything your camera can accommodate, a reducing back serves the same purpose as a lens of twice the focal length. Cheers, DJ

ndwgolf
27-May-2017, 05:48
He also pesters the Leica User forum regularly with "think for me" posts.
.
What has a adding a 4x5 to 8x10 got to do with "Think of me". With 3 pages of feedback (not including yours) it seem to me like a normal question for someone who is new to LF photography??

xtmevolution
27-May-2017, 08:15
so... how about film holder that fit 4x5 film but the size of 8x10, does anyone make that? Some one is suggest taping 4x5 on the 8x10, but if there is one that proper load 4x5 on 8x10 would be nice.

Vaughn
27-May-2017, 08:30
I think it would be sweet for still life work. In the field...not as efficient as a dedicated 4x5, but doable.

I carry a modified darkslide to get two 4x10s on an 8x10 sheet of film -- an easy and light way to have two formats. Perhaps something similar to get two to four smaller images on an 8x10 sheet? I have seen modern 8x10 holders user-modified to hold smaller film sizes -- and historically it was done all the time. I have some old wood 8x10 holders with inserts for anything from 3x4 to full-plate (for both film and plates).

Alan Gales
27-May-2017, 09:16
I think it would be sweet for still life work.

It's also real nice for portraits. As you well know most 4x5 cameras have short bellows. If you want to use a long lens like a 300mm for head/head and shoulder shots then the reduction back comes in handy. Don't have to worry about any stiff bellows problems either since portraiture does not require serious movements.

tgtaylor
27-May-2017, 09:31
One reason for the 4x5 back is that it is a good way to extend the reach of your lenses. If you have a framing that requires a very long lens, longer than anything your camera can accommodate, a reducing back serves the same purpose as a lens of twice the focal length. Cheers, DJ

Ditto. My 610 Apo Nikkor is 35mm equivalent to a 100mm on 8x10, 200mm on 4x5, 300mm on 6x7.

Thomas

Jac@stafford.net
27-May-2017, 12:53
so... how about film holder that fit 4x5 film but the size of 8x10, does anyone make that? Some one is suggest taping 4x5 on the 8x10, but if there is one that proper load 4x5 on 8x10 would be nice.

Darn you for planting another idea in my head. :)

Jac,
compulsive builder

Jim Jones
27-May-2017, 18:23
I agree with N Dhananjay, Alan, and Thomas above. I improvised backs for 4x5, 2x3, and 35mm for a long rail 5x7. After loosing a 5x7 enlarger in a darkroom fire the 4x5 back got a lot of use. The other two backs remain unused.