LF Camera Recommendations

[rpagliari]

Hi All,
I'm interested about LF photography. I have got vast exposure to full frame and medium format; never done LF before.

What would be a good 8x10 camera to start with? I've heard about Intrepid and Sen Hao so far, but I'm not sure if there are other not too expensive alternatives as well.

[Jac@stafford.net]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/
is a good srart

[Ted R]

Older models are often less expensive however some repairs are often needed and not everybody has the tools and skills for this. For a beginner in LF the front and rear movements are perhaps not so important. Deterioration of the bellows can sometimes be a problem due to light leaks.
You don't give your location, in the US a good place to look is ebay.com

[B.S.Kumar]

LF starts at 4x5. You might do well to dip your toes before jumping into the deep end.

Kumar

[Greg]

LF starts at 4x5. You might do well to dip your toes before jumping into the deep end.

Kumar

Agree but with reservations. 4x5 is a good format to start off with but you can easily acquire a 4x5 enlarger and enlarge your negatives as you would for 35mm and 120 film. I personally think the leap into shooting LF starts with 8x10. Actually probably more accurately starts with Whole Plate, but Whole Plate cameras are a whole lot harder to find than 8x10. For me, my personal definition of LF is contact printing the negatives. When I was a student at RIT in the late 1970s, LF was defined as shooting 8x10. Shooting 4x5 was the norm and equated with shooting 120.

[B.S.Kumar]

When I was a student at RIT in the late 1970s, LF was defined as shooting 8x10. Shooting 4x5 was the norm and equated with shooting 120.

But micro 4/3rds wasn't invented back then :)

Kumar

[Luis-F-S]

What would be a good 8x10 camera to start with? I've heard about Intrepid and Sen Hao so far, but I'm not sure if there are other not too expensive alternatives as well.



A 4 x 5 camera would be good to start with.

[docw]

Learning large format and its idiosyncrasies can burn up a lot of film. 8x10 film is very expensive so unless you have a lot of money to spend on film, 4x5 is a good place to start. Also, you can contact print 4x5 negatives until you get an enlarger or until you think you have enough knowledge to go 8x10, in which case you don't need an enlarger.

[Jim Jones]

An 8x10 contact print is no more impressive to most people than a bigger enlargement from 4x5 film. 4x5 cameras, Film, and enlargers are less expensive than those for 8x10, and are more plentiful. A 4x5 is much more convenient when travelling. I used a variety of 4x5 cameras for years before buying an 8x10, and rarely see an advantage of using the larger camera.

[agregov]

There are many in the forum who believe that 4x5 is not “large format.” I've seen these questions come in again and again and reps from each of those camps will come out with “8x10 is no big deal” or “start with 4x5 first.” Having shot 4x5 for years now and just spinning up on 8x10, starting with 4x5 is an order of magnitude simpler than dealing with 8x10 as a newcomer to using view cameras and sheet film. 4x5 cameras are easy to find, can be cheap, film holders are way less money, your existing camera bags can likely hold the equipment, film is way cheaper and easier to find labs to develop film.

I think your first objective should be to see if you like shooting with view cameras and workflow you'd like to use to develop film (yourself or lab) and how to make prints (darkroom or digital). That should easily keep you busy for the next year. In terms of equipment, while I love what the Intrepid folks are doing, I'd favor a camera with smoother movements and control. The Chamonix 4x5 cameras are hard to beat for price and quality workmanship. Then pick up a cheap lens from KEH that's close to whatever you consider “normal” in your other camera systems, and you're off to the races for under $1,500. Good luck.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

[Bruce Watson]

First off, welcome to the LFP forum. It tends to be a somewhat rowdy group with individuals having varying degrees of experience from novice to expert, but they all seem to have strong opinions. As has already been demonstrated in this thread. :rolleyes:


I'm interested about LF photography. I have got vast exposure to full frame and medium format; never done LF before.

Most of us start this way. What you'll find out fairly quickly is that your prior experience with photography is of limited help. This is because LF typically means separating the lens plane from the film plane. That's what the bellows part of an LF camera is for. It's really a pretty simple concept, but it creates some interestingly profound challenges.

The way you learn camera movements (moving the lens plane separately from the film plane) is by making photographs. You try things, evaluate your results, and try again. I spent many a happy hour doing exactly that early on, as have most of the participants here. Just don't let that discourage you; indeed, it should be encouraging since you'll know you aren't alone in climbing those learning curves.


What would be a good 8x10 camera to start with? I've heard about Intrepid and Shenhao so far, but I'm not sure if there are other not too expensive alternatives as well.

The reason you get so much pushback on this request is that 10x8 isn't the "normal" starting point. That would be 5x4. Compared to 5x4, 10x8 is bigger, heavier, the film is more expensive, processing is harder, etc. But just because most people start with 5x4 doesn't mean you have to. People are just worried that the size, expense, and work behind 10x8 will discourage you, and you'll quit before you get good at it. Feel free to prove them wrong!

That said, it is easier to learn on 5x4. The biggie as far as I'm concerned is the film and processing costs. Because the way to get good at LF is to make a lot of photographs. And you're less likely to shoot enough film, and process enough film, to get good at it if it overruns your budget.

To answer the question you actually asked... the Shenhao line is a more or less traditional starting point. They are reasonable cameras, not too expensive, not too limited, not too heavy, not too light. They should be good cameras to learn on, and then maybe keep or maybe trade for something that fits your workflow better (but you have to learn what your preferred workflow is before you can make that decision). I would say that's a reasonably good choice starting out.

Regardless of the camera and format you decide to buy, you'll need a lens. Most people coming from 35mm and medium format avoid the so-called "normal" lens, because they seldom used them on the smaller formats. But... I advise you to make a "normal" lens (by that I mean a 150mm lens for 5x4, or 300mm lens for 10x8) your first choice when starting out.

Why? Because in order to learn camera movements, you need to see the effects of the movements on the ground glass. And that's easiest with a normal lens. Also, most of us find that we actually us a normal lens a fair amount in LF where we didn't use it at all on smaller formats. Different way of working means different tools, what can I say?

Again, welcome to LF. Don't be afraid to try things. Don't be afraid to come here to search the archives (you're likely never going to be the first to encounter your problem), or ask questions. And don't be afraid to have fun, because LF done right is seriously fun. :cool:

[Bob Salomon]

There are many in the forum who believe that 4x5 is not “large format.” I've seen these questions come in again and again and reps from each of those camps will come out with “8x10 is no big deal” or “start with 4x5 first.” Having shot 4x5 for years now and just spinning up on 8x10, starting with 4x5 is an order of magnitude simpler than dealing with 8x10 as a newcomer to using view cameras and sheet film. 4x5 cameras are easy to find, can be cheap, film holders are way less money, your existing camera bags can likely hold the equipment, film is way cheaper and easier to find labs to develop film.

I think your first objective should be to see if you like shooting with view cameras and workflow you'd like to use to develop film (yourself or lab) and how to make prints (darkroom or digital). That should easily keep you busy for the next year. In terms of equipment, while I love what the Intrepid folks are doing, I'd favor a camera with smoother movements and control. The Chamonix 4x5 cameras are hard to beat for price and quality workmanship. Then pick up a cheap lens from KEH that's close to whatever you consider “normal” in your other camera systems, and you're off to the races for under $1,500. Good luck.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

You left out that lenses are far more common, smaller and lighter as well as less expensive. Tripods are also smaller, lighter and less expensive.
One of the benefits of large format is control over the subject, not just a larger negative.
With a view camera you can control the shape of the subject with back movements, the plane of sharp focus by front or back movements, the apparent camera position by front and back direct or indirect displacements.
Starting out with a camera incapable of these benefits far reduces the tremendous benefits and reasons to use large format.

[Tin Can]

5X7 is my favorite format.

Film IS available, cameras are cheaper and smaller. Many can shoot 4X5 with an extra back. Some covert to clumsy 8X10. Not recommended.

Contact prints look nice and a 5X7 enlarger is not much bigger than a 4X5.

[Bernice Loui]

There is more to LF imaging than camera, lens, tripod. Size-weight difference between 4x5 to 8x10 is about four times the size, four times the weight, four times the bulk. Add to this film cost and consider how will exposed film be processed? Ready to spend $10 and much more per sheet of 8x10 film? Add to this film processing.

Lens selection for 8x10 is limited and can easily get pricy really fast.

A sturdy and stable tripod is a must, this enforces weight and bulk. While the camera might be low weight, the tripod can easily equal then exceed the weight of a lightweight field camera.

Add to this 8x10 film holders, dark cloth, light meter, tape measure, focusing loupe, filters, cable release, case and other non-optional accessories.

If optical printing in a wet darkroom is the post processing is the desired method of print making, 8x10 enlargers are not small or light weight.
One can do contact prints which can be OK to really excellent, but the print size is limited to 8x10_ish.


Essentially, 8x10 carries a HUGE penalty with IMO, not a lot of benefits unless contact prints are to be the resulting prints.

Step on size down to 5x7 (IMO, the ideal LF format unless larger contact prints or alternative process prints are to be made) and most of these problems are very significantly reduced. Further down to 4x5 is easier still with lower cost and THE place where anyone interested in LF should begin for many, many, many reasons.


Bernice

[Chris Chow]

There is more to LF imaging than camera, lens, tripod. Size-weight difference between 4x5 to 8x10 is about four times the size, four times the weight, four times the bulk. Add to this film cost and consider how will exposed film be processed? Ready to spend $10 and much more per sheet of 8x10 film? Add to this film processing.

Lens selection for 8x10 is limited and can easily get pricy really fast.

A sturdy and stable tripod is a must, this enforces weight and bulk. While the camera might be low weight, the tripod can easily equal then exceed the weight of a lightweight field camera.

Add to this 8x10 film holders, dark cloth, light meter, tape measure, focusing loupe, filters, cable release, case and other non-optional accessories.

If optical printing in a wet darkroom is the post processing is the desired method of print making, 8x10 enlargers are not small or light weight.
One can do contact prints which can be OK to really excellent, but the print size is limited to 8x10_ish.


Essentially, 8x10 carries a HUGE penalty with IMO, not a lot of benefits unless contact prints are to be the resulting prints.

Step on size down to 5x7 (IMO, the ideal LF format unless larger contact prints or alternative process prints are to be made) and most of these problems are very significantly reduced. Further down to 4x5 is easier still with lower cost and THE place where anyone interested in LF should begin for many, many, many reasons.


Bernice

I recently transitioned to 4x5 from MF last fall. I concur to learn the 4x5 before deciding to utilize an 8x10 as it's less of a financial burden to take on when you're messing up on exposures, etc.

There is a lot to learn in the beginning from focusing the camera and using movements. I have messed up also in forgetting to shut off the lens' viewfinder when pulling the darkslide out from the film holder. Don't be surprised to be screwing up in the beginning, it's all a learning process and extremely rewarding.

[Paul Kinzer]

5X7 is my favorite format.

Film IS available, cameras are cheaper and smaller. Many can shoot 4X5 with an extra back. Some covert to clumsy 8X10. Not recommended.

Contact prints look nice and a 5X7 enlarger is not much bigger than a 4X5.

I agree with Randy (as I usually seem to do, even when I don't post about it). For me, it's not just that images are significantly bigger than 4x5 (nearly twice the area: 20 square inches [nominal] for 4x5; 35 for 5x7) without adding too much to the size of the camera, but that I just like the aspect ratio better. 4x5 and 8x10 are too square for me. Another advantage is that lots of (abundant) lenses that work for 4x5 will cover 5x7, too.

But, of course, that's just my personal preference, and I have nothing like the experience of most posters here when it comes to actually using LF equipment, though I've bought, repaired/refurbished and sold lots of it.

[William Whitaker]

The perennial question...

Here's a suggestion. Find a workshop to attend which would give you an opportunity to not only see and try a number of different cameras, but will also allow you to chat with classmates and your instructor about possibilities.
There are so many variables to this question. Most solutions are going to entail a large cash investment. Money spent on a workshop/travel/lodging would be well-spent and should give you a return many times over.

[John Kasaian]

How much money is burning a hole in the OP's pocket?
The more prudent course would be to take William Whitaker's advice above.
Or connect with a local LF photographer and see how it all works.
If that's not possible maybe get a used 4x5 monorail for not much $$ and figure it out for yourself with guidance from the LF Homepage, books like Simmons Using The View Camera, and you tube

[Thalmees]

Hi All,
I'm interested about LF photography. I have got vast exposure to full frame and medium format; never done LF before.
What would be a good 8x10 camera to start with? I've heard about Intrepid and Sen Hao so far, but I'm not sure if there are other not too expensive alternatives as well.

Hello rpagliari and welcome to the forum.
All posts above worth really much, please read them thoroughly.
Photography is not just producing photos.
Most professionals earning their income from photos that does not mean much.
Xerox can copy, even color, Iphone can produce beautiful photos, at digital era the blind can take photos.
Photography as I understand, is to craft all steps toward the final gelatin silver PRINT, on the top of possession of a photographic eyes and heart.
Just ask your self: how much of that steps, and how thorough you fulfilled so far?
Process of LF photography maybe the most important cause for non-professional artist photographers to continue as is, then the quality of larger format size, of course.
Please feel free to start 8X10 at any time regardless any advice, I'm sure you will find most 8X10 used cameras cheaper than any new full frame professional Digital SLR. But the later does not require much thought, craft or process.
8X10 format retains image quality much more than 4X5 format, but at its expense.
But at the same time, contact print of 11X14 format, is much superior to a contact print from 8X10 format.
Not due to image quality only, but due to more meaningful print size.
As for camera types, most LF photographers will not agree on my typing here.
Cameras with which you can perform image manipulation with clear methodology, precision and systematically. And,
Cameras with which you can perform image manipulation with trial and error, only.
The former are mainly metallic and heavy, the later are more portable and smaller for the same format size.
Hope this may help.

[jim10219]

If you really want an 8x10, I'd recommend a Sinar 8x10. They are a modular system so you can buy a Sinar F2 or P2 with an 8x10 bellows and back, and buy a 4x5 back and bellows to go with it. That way you can still shoot an 8x10 when you want, and have the 4x5 available for practice, experiments, enlargements, or when you just want a cheaper option or don't want to mess with all of the weight. But be sure to buy a Sinar 8x10 camera set and get the 4x5 back and bellows separately. Finding 4x5 bellows and back are easy. Finding an 8x10 bellows and back without the rest of the camera will be pretty hard and not any cheaper than buying an entire 8x10 camera set.

I do a lot of contact printing with my 4x5's. So for me, 8x10 doesn't offer an advantage there. Usually, when I contact print, I like to scan the negative into a computer and apply color curves to the scan to make an easier negative to print from. Now, to be fair, I don't contact print silver gelatin. I contact print alternative process, and while I've don't straight contact printing from a negative, I find it a lot easier and I get better results from running everything through the computer and printing from an inkjet negative. But that's just my workflow.

To me, 8x10 isn't worth the cost or hassle. I'd rather skip 8x10 and jump straight to an ultra large format if I'm going to go that route. 8x10 is a pretty small print these days. Everyone's into large prints now. And making a 16x20 or larger print is a lot easier with a 4x5 due to the availability of 4x5 enlargers. So in my mind, the only practical advantage to 8x10 is increased detail from flatbed scanning at home. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Jim Noel]

There are many in the forum who believe that 4x5 is not “large format.” I've seen these questions come in again and again and reps from each of those camps will come out with “8x10 is no big deal” or “start with 4x5 first.” Having shot 4x5 for years now and just spinning up on 8x10, starting with 4x5 is an order of magnitude simpler than dealing with 8x10 as a newcomer to using view cameras and sheet film. 4x5 cameras are easy to find, can be cheap, film holders are way less money, your existing camera bags can likely hold the equipment, film is way cheaper and easier to find labs to develop film.

I think your first objective should be to see if you like shooting with view cameras and workflow you'd like to use to develop film (yourself or lab) and how to make prints (darkroom or digital). That should easily keep you busy for the next year. In terms of equipment, while I love what the Intrepid folks are doing, I'd favor a camera with smoother movements and control. The Chamonix 4x5 cameras are hard to beat for price and quality workmanship. Then pick up a cheap lens from KEH that's close to whatever you consider “normal” in your other camera systems, and you're off to the races for under $1,500. Good luck.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

I don't know when 4x5 and 5x7 stopped being considered medium format, and suddenly became large format. I do know that when I was learning during the 30's and 40's this was true.