I'm not sure if it's a popular size, but can I get some 5x7 camera recommendations?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

I've been shooting 4x5 for a number of years now and I absolutely love it, however, I'd like to make the jump to shooting larger negatives. After seriously considering going the 8x10 route, I found that a 5x7 might very well be my ideal camera, especially in terms of size, cost of film, and level of detail rendered. Since I'm fairly undereducated with all things 5x7, what are some things I should consider before purchasing a 5x7 camera? Can you guys recommend some quality 5x7 cameras that cost under $3K that will last for, say, a lifetime?

If it helps, I'm primarily a landscape/architectural photographer who uses color negative and transparency almost exclusively. The 4x5 camera I currently use is a Linhof Technikardan 45S. That said, it'd be nice if my potential future 5x7 camera would accept the Linhof-style lens boards that are used with my LF lenses. While I don't drum scan, I use my Sony a7R IV to pixel-shift "scan" my 4x5 negatives in 3 passes (in 3rds) and stich the 3 pixel-shifted files together in Photoshop, creating one massive 2gb "scanned" negative file that, in my humble opinion, rivals a drum scan. I'd likely be doing the same with any 5x7 negatives.

Many thanks!

[Tin Can]

Deardorff

not a perfect camera, but mine is from 1938, I think it was the last good deal on eBay

It has wear, but somebody renewed it with new bellows, a new aluminum base, new GG, adjusted GG and polished, nobody was bidding 2 years ago

then I got it with front assembled wrong, just a matter of switching the hardware to correct, no parts needed

It has no front swing as designed and made, fine with me

[Willie]

Second on the 5x7 Deardorff. You can get a Linhof board adapter. Can get a 4x5 back as well.

They work well and last a long time.

[Oslolens]

Does your price rule out the Gibellini P57

I saw an eBay sale a bit above, and new it must be more expensive. I have seen a metal Gibellini 8x10" in action, and it was nice and stable.

[djdister]

Canham MQC 5x7, available new and used. Made in the US. https://www.canhamcameras.com/

217133

[Vaidotas]

Choices of this format cameras are well discussed here in this forum. I was on the same route few years ago, so I invested in to 5x7 and building up 7x11, “jumping” over 8x10. If you considering older wooden field cameras keep in mind there are few types of construction - flatbed (Kodak 2d, Korona, Conley, Agfa Ansco etc) and folding (Deardorff, Thorton, japanese, etc), tailboards are out of consideration to me. Each type has strong and weak points. Cameras kn production now are mainly folding type.
I ended up with Sinar 5x7 for studio and heaver lenses and Deardorff Special for longer hikes.
Deardorff Special with front swings has significantly more weight than Deardorff without front swings, so called V5 OS.

[neil poulsen]

Second on the 5x7 Deardorff. . . .

Good for landscape maybe, but not if you want to photograph architecture.

I've owned a Deardorff 5x7, and it would be my last choice. You'll get very little rise using the bellows, for either a 90mm SW or a 120mm SW. So, you have to rely on the rising front, which gives you only an inch of rise.

Another problem, the bellows is so tightly compacted at those focal lengths, it's close to the film. So for me, flare could be a problem with light reflecting off the bellows. But then, the interior of my camera, the bellows weren't the blackest of black. So, maybe that was the source of the problem. But still, the bellows was closer to the film than I liked.



Canham MQC 5x7, available new and used. Made in the US. https://www.canhamcameras.com/

217133

Much better, in my view. You have the choice of interchangeable bellows for super wide lenses.

[John Kasaian]

Howsas abouta Linhof Color Kardan?

[Greg]

I'd seriously consider a 5x7 Sinar Norma. It is just a pleasure to work with. When I was looking for one, several 5x7 Norma's were going for more than buying a complete 4x5 Norma and then also a 5x7 conversion for it. Never figured that one out....

[Chuck Pere]

Are you planning to shoot color with the 5x7? If so make sure you look at the 5x7 film options.

[Jim Jones]

5x7 was a logical choice for me when getting serious about LF many decades ago. At that time, many were moving to 4x5, and 5x7 cameras, enlargers, and other accessories were cheap. A 5x7 print seems small when hanging on a wall, and most 5x7 enlargers are beasts. However, those large negatives scan well. I found the ubiquitous Burke & James adequate, both in flat bed and monorail. The 5.25"x5.25" lens board would accommodate almost any lens. Boards and adapters for smaller boards are easier to fabricate than for the proprietary boards of many other makers. Of course many other cameras are better and usually more expensive, but over several decades I never saw a need to upgrade.

[Bernice Loui]

5x7 tends to be widely neglected in the USA, 13x18 cm was very common in Europe for many good reasons.

IMO, this is the best trade-off sheet film size for B&W and other sheet film related images. The most common rational negative with 5x7 or 13x18cm has been film availability, reality is film availability is no where near as awful as any project it is. Overall, image quality has the potential to better 4x5 and 8x10 for various very real reasons. But, 5x7 or `3x18cm is not without problems or challenges no different than any other image recording format.

That said, image goals dictate lenses, lenses dictate camera choice and the rest of the image making process. Given you've been at 4x5 for a while, consider the kinds of images made, how and where they have been made with the lens set used to create these images. This reality will drive camera choice most. The outdoor and hiking folks would be biased towards a lightweight field folder, Others will demand the maximum capability and flexibility from their camera system.

Given there is zero interest in outdoor adventure hiking or similar, and maximum capability of the camera with stable and predictable precision and accuracy a fixed-given. The choice defaults to Sinar. Norma is preferred as a field_able camera with very few trade offs. Sinar is format interchangeable and much more interchangeable often limited by modular Sinar bits on hand or imagination.

Possibility of your current 4x5 lenses will do good on 5x7, negating the need for new lenses, just new lens boards for mounting.


Bernice

[grat]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, but the Chamonix 5x7 is right at the top end of your budget. They're very nice-- lightweight, well built, and Hugo does a nice job supporting them.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you mainly want to use wide and normal lenses, then the Walker 5x7 might be a good choice.

https://www.walkercameras.com/XL5x7.html

[Jeff Keller]

I also recommend the Canham MQC 5.7. The bellow allows very wide-angle lenses to be used but will also give you about a 24" extension. Canham has an adapter that will get you from their lens board size to the techika board size, so you won't have to remount any lenses you have.


Canham MQC 5x7, available new and used. Made in the US. https://www.canhamcameras.com/

217133

[Greg Y]

Are you planning to shoot color with the 5x7? If so make sure you look at the 5x7 film options.

I use BW film exclusively, but the last time i looked there were fewer options for colour films in 5x7 than 4x5. I used a 5x7 Deardorff for years and it suited me perfectly. I also had a Chamonix 57n (horizontal) as a back up....but as it happened it was never needed. At the risk of starting a fist fight, since you are scanning digital anyway.....what is it you hope to improve/achieve that your 4x5 won't do? I've seen lots of fine prints from Bruce Barnbaum, Craig Richards, and some Ansel Adams.....from 4x5....& as photographs and pieces of art they lacked nothing. I've used Keith Canham's 5x7 and 8x10....& given that you mentioned architecture, I agree the MQC 5x7 would be a good choice. As for the Gibellini, i'd check out all the threads to see some of the issues people have had with the company.

[Eric Leppanen]

It's not as flexible as a monorail, but a Chamonix 57Fs-2 is an excellent landscape camera and a decent architecture camera. While it does not support front base tilt or rear shift, it has front shift and a fair amount of native front rise and supports an optional bag bellows. I've used lenses ranging from a SA72XL to Fuji 450C (the latter with a mildly extended lens board for better close focusing) on my 57Fs-1 with no problem, all mounted on Technika style lens boards. It is a Phillips design, which means the front standard must be screwed into place which slows setup slightly, but this trade-off enables a goodly amount of extension and stability in a relatively light weight package. And as already noted Hugo provides excellent support.

Keith Canham also makes fine cameras and offers good local support. Definitely some nice options here.

[Eric Woodbury]

I have a Deardorff 57. Had it since the late 80s. One of the last ones that Jack pushed out the door. I love the format and have shot with lenses from 72mm to 800mm. Works fine for my work, which is all field work: landscapes, abstracts, but no true and strict architecture. It is easy to use. Never fails me. I did have to reposition the ground glass. I had to do this with my Deardorff 8x10, too. Always a good thing to check.

I had the 4x5 version of the MQC Canham, but I found it a puzzle to open and adjust. Not my cup of tea. I am impressed by the traditional Canham wooden version 5x7. It was my friend's camera and he had replaced his Deardorff with it. It is slightly more solid than a Deardorff and is well supported should the need arise. If I were to replace my D'orff, that would be my choice. I like my Chamonix 4x5, but I don't find the 5x7 an attractive choice.

[Two23]

Even though I have an 8x10, I find I've been using my 5x7 the most so far this year. I think the first question you should be asking yourself is how important color film is to you. There is no 5x7 color in regular production. I'm mostly doing wet plate with mine, with some dry plates and FP4 b&w film too. It is a nice size.


Kent in SD

[Chester McCheeserton]

I switched from 4x5 to 5x7 and grew to love the format. It's great to be able to mix it with full frame digital and not have viewers be as distracted by the aspect ratio change. I've gotten so used to it that 4x5 and 8x10 look too square for me now. I had deardorff and mostly liked it. I used a 150 lens the most, and never felt limited by the camera's design for getting front rise, I would simply aim the camera up and straighten the standards to vertical. I did have some issues with flare and the bellows being too tightly compacted (this thread (http://https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?142083-5-x-7-Deardorff-Bellows-velcro-solution)) but I enjoyed how pleasurable the camera was to use. I used to have a Canham metal 8x10 and while I think it looked super cool, I was never happy with tightening down the standards - it always seemed a little floppy to me. If I go back to large format I'd probably try a Chamonix. Or if I win the lottery an ebony non folding. 5x7.:cool:

[Thad Gerheim]

Get in touch with Keith Canham he is able to get large orders of 5x7 color film from Kodak.

Even though I have an 8x10, I find I've been using my 5x7 the most so far this year. I think the first question you should be asking yourself is how important color film is to you. There is no 5x7 color in regular production. I'm mostly doing wet plate with mine, with some dry plates and FP4 b&w film too. It is a nice size.


Kent in SD

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have three 5x7 Sinar Normas in my studio, if that says anything. Ezra Stoller, Balthazar Korab, Heidrich Blessing, Julius Shulman, Reinhart Wolf and multitudes of others.....
They used Norma for lots of good reasons.

A camera for the Architect/Machinist

https://www.wbur.org/npr/173140765/the-photographer-who-made-architects-famous

[William Whitaker]

5x7 may well be underappreciated. But it is well represented even on the "new" market alone. When you consider the used market, there are lots of options. Two that I've had (the wood Canham and the Sinar Norma) I deeply regret selling yet to this day. But I can't keep 'em all! I was fortunate to find a lovely 5x7 Gandolfi several years ago. It is a delight and lovely to look at, too! I changed out the front standard to one dedicated to Technika lens boards. "Heresy!" say many. But it works for me as my 5x7 lenses are for the most part all on Technika boards.
5x7 is my favorite format. Well, my favorite "small" format, as I am in love with 12x20 and 14x17. But that is a different world altogether. 5x7 just suits me so well that if I had to, I could be very happy just making 5x7 contact prints for the rest of my days. It's a lovely format. By all means, jump in with both feet and support the format! :-) :-)

Oh, and were I to purchase a new 5x7 camera, it would surely be the Canham wood 5x7. A little quirky, perhaps. But it's just muscle memory, so like your piano, practice, practice!
Keith is terrific to work with. And that means SO much! And his product is bullet proof. Reliable and able. My 2¢, with change!

[Gord Robinson]

I obtained a 5x7 Super Technika V a few years back and it goes with me anytime I am heading out to shoot. I normally use a 210mm or 120mm SA. It is heavy, about 13lbs + with a lens and film holder. I also have a Plaubel Peco Profia 5x7 kit that I really like but for some reason is not popular in North America. This kit has lenses ranging from a Grandagon 90 f4.5 up to a Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 420mm f9. I love the format and have a Durst L138S to print with. With the Plaubel I have up to a meter of bellows availble as well as wide angle bellows and rails.

[AA+]

I got my first Canham 5x7 wood in 1999 and my second same in 2014. I am pleased with how it works. It easily accepts lenses from 72mm Super Angulon XL to 800mm Nikon T*ED. The 1200mm Nikon T*ED is too long. I mostly use it for scenic photography with Ektachrome film. Its weight renders it transportable in the forest.

Best wishes --- Allen Anway

[manfrominternet]

Whoa, thanks for all these great responses!

It looks like there are a lot of good options. Among the choices I've read so far are the Deardorff, Gibellini, Canham (MQC57 & traditional wood), Sinar Norma, Burke & James, Chamonix, Walker, Gandolfi, and Linhof Super Technika 5x7s.

Truth be told, before I even posed the question, I was actually considering the Chamonix 57FS-2, the Canham MQC57 or traditional wood 5x7, the Linhof Super Technika V or IV, and the Stenopeika Hyper Camera 5x7 Mark II.

The Linhof Super Technika V looks pretty solid, but, at 12lbs, it may be a bit too heavy for me to trek with. I still really like it (or perhaps the idea of it), but I don't know how suitable the Linhof Super Technika V would be for landscape and architectural photography. The Stenopeika Hyper Camera Mark II also looked promising, but after reading about the light leaks on the similarly designed 4x5 version as well as the very questionable customer service, I'm not sure that this would be a good contender. I've also read similar things about the Gibellini cameras. I'd consider the Deardorff, but every available one that I've seen online has looked quite a bit run down. :/

I guess that really leaves me with 2, err 3, of my original options - the Canham MQC57 metal, the Canham Traditional Wood 5x7, and the Chamonix 57FS-2. I'd still consider the Linhof Super Technika V (or IV?) 5x7, especially since I'm a huge Linhof fan, but I don't know too much about it. If anyone else has any good information on it, I'd love to hear it.

[Two23]

I guess that really leaves me with 2, err 3, of my original options - the Canham MQC57 metal, the Canham Traditional Wood 5x7, and the Chamonix 57FS-2. I'd still consider the Linhof Super Technika V (or IV?) 5x7, especially since I'm a huge Linhof fan, but I don't know too much about it. If anyone else has any good information on it, I'd love to hear it.


You are really being pulled in two directions. A camera that's best for architecture would be a monorail because of it's massive movements. However, they are heavy, bulky, and less desirable to hike any distance with. For landscapes few movements are needed and lightweight and compactness are valued. I have two types of cameras. My 4x5 is a Chamonix 045N, which is lightweight and compact. It does have enough movements with the "universal" bellows and either a 75mm or 90mm lens to do the kind of small town architectural photos I take (no skyscrapers), and excels at general purpose photography. My other two cameras are vintage 1920 field cameras--Kodak 2D 8x10 and Gundlach Korona 5x7. These do well for general purpose but are not designed for architecture other than barns and small town buildings. I mainly bought and use them because they are very sturdy and can hold the heavy 19th C. lenses I use for wet plate. I also like their beautiful wood & brass.

I think you first need to decide which is your priority: lots of movements for architecture or ease of carry & use for hiking. Once you decide that it's really not going to make a lot of difference which one you select from that group. I will say I bought my Chamonix 4x5 about 13 years ago and it does everything I want so well I have never "upgraded" it. If I were to replace it I would be looking at another Chamonix, Ritter, Canham, or Gibellini. If you regularly use a camera outdoors in all weather conditions eventually you will need a part or two, and a maker with good customer service then becomes a high priority.


Kent in SD

[Bernice Loui]

Goes back to image goals primary, lenses required to achieve these image goals then what camera supports the demands of image goals and lenses.

IMO, too many focus on camera as primary only to discover the camera chosen cannot properly support the lenses required to achieve the image goals.
That said, Been and done the Linhof 5x7_13x18cm Technika journey, never again. While the Linhof Technika IS a precision, very nicely made view camera, it remains a field folder with very real camera limitations that can bite bad when combined with short or much longer than normal focal length lenses. Movement of the rear standard is essentially zilch and the camera is heavy. Due to the fixed tripod mounting, balancing the camera-lens-set up can be a real challenge for the tripod and supporting system. With a Sinar Norma, slide the set up until balanced on the tripod. This aids in stability lots and reduces the camera-lens supporting system lots.

Of the 5x7 field folders on the market, Keith Canham's metal field folders remains the fave. Personal and all time Fave remains the Sinar system with the Norma as the portable, and P excellent as an indoor-studio camera.

Worthy of repeating again, a good 5x7 camera like KC's field folders can deal with lens focal lengths from 75mm to past 450mm as delivered. Point being, 5x7 _ 13x18cm has the broadest lens selection and ease of lens availability of the common sheet film formats. Add to this, a Durst 138 enlarger is no where near as huge as a Durst 184 or similar 8x10 enlarger allowing a reasonable sized darkroom with a maximized sheet film size to print from.


Bernice

[Greg Y]

Goes back to image goals primary, lenses required to achieve these image goals then what camera supports the demands of image goals and lenses.

Worthy of repeating again, a good 5x7 camera like KC's field folders can deal with lens focal lengths from 75mm to past 450mm as delivered. Point being, 5x7 _ 13x18cm has the broadest lens selection and ease of lens availability of the common sheet film formats. Add to this, a Durst 138 enlarger is no where near as huge as a Durst 184 or similar 8x10 enlarger allowing a reasonable sized darkroom with a maximized sheet film size to print from.


Bernice

Absolutely right Bernice. The OP shoots exclusively in color & is scanning with a digital camera & stitching. Kodak (through Keith Canham) has 3 color negative emulsions available (for bulk orders!)and no transparency films. I'll ask the question again....realistically what will 5x7" do for him that his current 4x5" won't. BTW I do love my Durst 138.

[Greg]

Been and done the Linhof 5x7_13x18cm Technika journey, never again. While the Linhof Technika IS a precision, very nicely made view camera, it remains a field folder with very real camera limitations
Bernice

I had a probably circa 1960s 5x7 Technika once for a very short time. Excellent plus condition and amazingly acquired for only around $200 at a multi-dealer Antique store in western Massachusetts. More than a bit too heavy for my tastes. (On page 36 of my Linhof General Catalog there is a picture of a man in a suit climbing up a metal ladder with one hand on the ladder and the other holding a Super Technika... the photo had to be staged). Workmanship was excellent but operating the camera was its Achilles heel for me, I just had a hard time using it in the field. Definitely more on my part and not on the camera's.

[Jim Jones]

W. . . I've also read similar things about the Gibellini cameras. I'd consider the Deardorff, but every available one that I've seen online has looked quite a bit run down. . . .

There may be a very good reason for that: Users may have found them to be great for making photographs. Pretty cameras often sit in a closet because they can't compete with that.

[Luis-F-S]

Good for landscape maybe, but not if you want to photograph architecture.

I've owned a Deardorff 5x7, and it would be my last choice.........

Yup, just awful.....guess that's why I own 6 of them! If you want to photograph architecture, get a Sinar F. Only own 3 of those!

[paulbarden]

I'll ask the question again....realistically what will 5x7" do for him that his current 4x5" won't.

Aspect ratio.

[Daniel Unkefer]

If he is shooting color exclusively and stitching, 4x5 will surely be easier from a logistical standpoint. As an exclusive B&W Guy the answer is "real estate" and aspect ratio. Also perfect size for contact printing

https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/julius-shulman?all/all/all/all/0

https://www.wbur.org/npr/173140765/the-photographer-who-made-architects-famous

The Norma is the choice of many Architectural Photographers

[Luis-F-S]

Give him a 1.75 times larger negative. L

[djdister]

Since the OP is in Los Angeles, there should be any number of opportunities to rent or borrow some 5x7 equipment to see how it goes...

[Greg Y]

Aspect ratio.

Since he's already scanning & stitching with a digital camera.....he could change the aspect ratio as well..... non?

[Greg Y]

Give him a 1.75 times larger negative. L

just asking to what end? I've got a Durst 138...so i know what it does for me. But what real advantage is there for an exclusively colour photographer who is scanning and stitching with a digital camera?? (really not trolling, but asking why someone would choose to move up to 5x7 with this hybrid method in mind)

[Luis-F-S]

For the same reason I went to 8x10. Four times the real estate and I do have both a Durst 138 and a DeVere 5108.

[Greg Y]

Luis ....to clarify my ignorant question..... how much real difference will it make for the OP? since he's scanning & stitching negative with a digital camera and not printing billboard size? BTW 5x7" is IMO a wonderful size. I do by the way understand the premise for darkroom printing.... & really my question is about the output for the original poster ..not the negative real estate.

[Dan6077]

Hello
Not camera recommendation but just as important for 5x7 format
Be careful when you go to purchase film holders
For some reason 5x7 film holders come in three different sizes internally
We have 5x7 American, 13x18 European and 12x16.5 Half Plate
All three sizes of film holders are the same dimensions outside, but will only properly fit one size film.
Because of an ebay transaction, I have been shooting 12x16.5 film for a number of years now

Dan

[Jim Andrada]

My first view camera was a 5 x 7 Linhof Kardan Bi bought new around 1970. Still happily using it although it's been joined by a few other 5 x 7's. it's in nearly perfect condition - the only problem with it is a slight bend in the rear fine focus shaft - I fell down a slope when I took the Ansel Adams workshop in 1973 (IIRC) and dinged the focus knob a bit. I could have it fixed, but it's a sort of souvenir of the experience. I use 5 x 7 Ektar 100 from the Keith Canham special order.

[manfrominternet]

So I met with Hugo from Chamonix today and he gave me a splendid tour of his Chamonix 57Fs-2. It was an absolute pleasure meeting him. Incredibly nice and very generous guy. The camera was marvelous, and I learned how to use it almost instantaneously. The operation was as smooth as butter. The kicker was that it felt even lighter than my Linhof Technikardan 45S. I would definitely be happy with this camera, undoubtedly. I did find out that Chamonix makes a horizontal-only 5x7 (57N3), which is obviously less expensive. Since the 5x7 has a narrower aspect ratio than the squarish 4x5, I wonder if I'd ever really use the groundglass in portrait orientation all that much. It sure is a nice option to have, but since 80% of my large format work is in landscape orientation, I'm not so sure that I require it. Perhaps the horizontal-only 5x7 might make more sense?

I also got in contact with Keith Canham and he was nice enough to describe his cameras in detail and said I could stop by his shop to check out his cameras. I haven't seen the MQC57 or the Traditional Wood 57 yet, but they are also contenders that I'll be driving out to see next.

One very small difference that I noticed between the cameras is that the MQC57 has a fresnel and the Chamonix 5x7 line doesn't (although the standard ground glass does a terrific job). Hugo explained that I could put a fresnel on without any problems, I just would need to get screws with more "breathing room" to hold the ground glass with the additional fresnel on top of it in place. Or I can get one of the one-piece ground glass/fresnel combos and just swap out the standard Chamonix ground glass for it. Does anyone know any good options for 5x7 fresnels or fresnel/groundglass one-piece combos?

At the same time, some of the posts on this thread did make me rethink of what real benefits would I get out of 5x7 over 4x5. Yeah, the negative is almost twice as big, and I do like the elongated format very much, but are 5x7 negatives really that much more sharper and detailed than 4x5 negatives? It's definitely some food for thought for me. While I'm not drum scanning, a do have a system that I think is just as good. To quickly recap, I do three passes over my 4x5 negatives (in 1/3rds) with my Sony a7r IV on pixel shift mode (each of the three passes being 200mp). I then combine the three 200mp files into a "panorama" and I'm left with an ultra-high res "scan" of my 4x5 negative with a massive file size between 2gb and 3gbs. I'd ostensibly be taking 4 or 5 200mp pixel-shifted passes over a 5x7 negative instead of 3, like I do for my 4x5. The file size would be enormous, to say the least, but I think I could get the subsequent prints to be as large and detailed as anything by Struth, Ruff, Gursky, or Burtynsky. I'd like to also think the addictive hypnotic effect of looking at an extra large ground glass, larger than 4x5, would also really help inspire me to get out there and go photograph in a way that the 4x5 never has. Might this also be a reason to get a 5x7?

[Peter De Smidt]

1 in 5 of your LF photos is vertical. Why would you get a horizontal only camera?

[Eric Leppanen]

...are 5x7 negatives really that much more sharper and detailed than 4x5 negatives?

....the addictive hypnotic effect of looking at an extra large ground glass, larger than 4x5, would also really help inspire me to get out there and go photograph in a way that the 4x5 never has. Might this also be a reason to get a 5x7?I faced these same questions when I sold off my 8x10 kit. My initial inclination was to go with drum scanned 4x5 only (I don't contact print). Here is my thought process that led me to using 5x7 in certain cases:

- Like you, most of my images are shot in landscape orientation. In addition, many benefit from a more rectangular aspect ratio than 4x5. The comparison for me was therefore cropped 4x5 versus full frame 5x7, which increased the resolution disparity.
- All else being equal, larger formats require stopping down more to achieve similar depth of field. Stopping down degrades resolution due to lens diffraction; a 5x7 negative shot at f/64 would be so resolution limited due to diffraction that a 4x5 negative would be just as good. Switching to a larger format makes sense when the intended image requires relatively limited depth of field or benefits from optimal focus plane placement via tilt and/or swing, in either case eliminating the need to stop down heavily. Enough of my images fell into this category to justify consideration of a larger format.
- With 4x5, I don't like to print larger than 4-5x, even with drum scanning, as to my eye I start losing detail and tonality. This is just a personal thing heavily influenced by subject matter, others are very comfortable enlarging more. I sometimes like to print 40 inch wide panoramas, hence my interest in a larger format.
- For me, the benefit of the larger ground glass is very real. I see more details and can visualize a resulting print better. Also 5x7 wide angle shots have a less pronounced ground glass "hot spot" than 4x5 due to longer lens focal lengths. Personally I don't miss having a fresnel on my 5x7, whereas I have a wide angle fresnel on my 4x5 wide angle camera.

On a separate note, I offer one testimonial on the ruggedness of the Chamonix 5x7 plastic ground glass: it can survive the ground glass frame making a deep fall onto a pile of rocks. I have empirically demonstrated this. :cool:

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51298959049_f86c064d21_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ma7zic)New 5x7 Norma 210mm chrome Schneider Xenar Sinarsix (https://flic.kr/p/2ma7zic) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Here's my newest Sinar Norma 5x7 (assembled from parts) with 210mm F4.5 Schneider chrome Xenar. This lens is great for portraiture on 4x5. FOBA ALFAE tripod is a level above Gitzo and Manfrotto. Rock solid yet lightweight. 5x7 Sinarsix offers incredible TTL ambient exposure accuracy with all Norma formats for many good reasons.

"Construction Unit" design means configure exactly what you need for the job at hand. They made nearly a hundred accessories for this thingee, I own most of them. No other monorail is even close when comparing availability, sometimes price, and sheer number of accessories.

[manfrominternet]

Can someone explain resolution, diffraction, and depth of field between 5x7 and 8x10 formats?

I've read that 8x10 is great for contact prints, but if you want everything to be in focus and are enlarging (as I'm already doing with my 4x5), then 5x7 is really the best way to go.

If my goal is the ability to make high-res extra large prints, wouldn't the extra real estate of an 8x10 negative be better than a 5x7, or would diffraction, film flatness, etc. be an issue that negates any benefits of a larger negative size?

[Bernice Loui]

Larger sheet of film is not always better, there are specific trade-offs as the film size goes up or down. Each film size works best for specific image making needs. Think of film size as one aspect of special tools needed to do a particular job.

At infinity, DOF is much the same for ANY film or imager format by definition. Once the image reproduction ratio is not longer at absolute infinity is when DOF becomes a factor. What is rendered by DOF is in apparent focus, NOT what is on the lens plane of focus. Larger the film size, more difficult this problem becomes.

Diffraction can be very roughly approximated by the concept-idea of dots of a fixed size used to make up an image to be recorded. The dots pass an entrance before they can be used to make up the image to be recorded. If the entrance is large (large aperture lens) there can be lots of dots available to make up the image. If the entrance for the dot is small (small lens aperture) , the amount of dots available to make the image becomes reduced.

Some relevant examples can be found in a previous post. This is a section of 5x7 Ektachrome transparancy made in the 1990's with a Goerz APO artar process lens in barrel built in the 1950's. These have a "reputation" of being old, obsolete and less than most modern "multi-coated", not for images at infinity and all those marketing moniker slogans, yet it is easily capable of resolving down to the color film grains.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164451-5x7-Ektachrome-Epson-4990-scanner-vs-Wild-M420-microscope

This lens test image was made using 5x7 Ektachrome, 5x7 Sinar C, Sinar shutter, Goerz APO artar in barrel at f16.
The STOP sign viewed with the Epson 4990 scanner at it's highest resolution and maybe not ideal focus results in just enough information to make out the STOP sign letters. Expect this or lesser results using a digital camera of any MB and maco lens combo to digitize a sheet of film as there are a ver long list of problems and challenges that force reduced resolution of what is on film.

The STOP sign image made using a Wild M420 macroscope is an example of what film is capable of resolving and the image information on film. Note the lack of color grains used to make up white and the red/white color edges of the STOP sign letters. The magnification or enlargement ratio of the STOP sign would be about

~260x or multiplying the actual 5x7 image area of 4.8" x 6.8" would result in a print size of 1,248 inches/104 feet x 1,768 inches/147 feet.~

Keep in mind, this result demands a GOOD accurate, precise camera (wood folders do not meet this requirement), film flat in holder, proper exposure, proper E6 processing, accurate-precise lens mounting on equally accurate-precise lens board, low vibration shutter, VERY stable camera support and proper technique.


Bernice






Can someone explain resolution, diffraction, and depth of field between 5x7 and 8x10 formats?

I've read that 8x10 is great for contact prints, but if you want everything to be in focus and are enlarging (as I'm already doing with my 4x5), then 5x7 is really the best way to go.

If my goal is the ability to make high-res extra large prints, wouldn't the extra real estate of an 8x10 negative be better than a 5x7, or would diffraction, film flatness, etc. be an issue that negates any benefits of a larger negative size?

[manfrominternet]

Larger sheet of film is not always better, there are specific trade-offs as the film size goes up or down. Each film size works best for specific image making needs. Think of film size as one aspect of special tools needed to do a particular job.

At infinity, DOF is much the same for ANY film or imager format by definition. Once the image reproduction ratio is not longer at absolute infinity is when DOF becomes a factor. What is rendered by DOF is in apparent focus, NOT what is on the lens plane of focus. Larger the film size, more difficult this problem becomes.

Diffraction can be very roughly approximated by the concept-idea of dots of a fixed size used to make up an image to be recorded. The dots pass an entrance before they can be used to make up the image to be recorded. If the entrance is large (large aperture lens) there can be lots of dots available to make up the image. If the entrance for the dot is small (small lens aperture) , the amount of dots available to make the image becomes reduced.

Keep in mind, this result demands a GOOD accurate, precise camera (wood folders do not meet this requirement), film flat in holder, proper exposure, proper E6 processing, accurate-precise lens mounting on equally accurate-precise lens board, low vibration shutter, VERY stable camera support and proper technique.


Bernice

Thank you for all this great information, Bernice! Is this why you prefer the Toyo 8x10 over a folding wooden 8x10?

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, and why 8x10 film stopped decades ago. IMO, unless contact printing not a lot of advantages to 8x10 with a very long list of dis-advantages including enlarger size, film cost, limited lens options and more.


Bernice



Thank you for all this great information, Bernice! Is this why you prefer the Toyo 8x10 over a folding wooden 8x10?

[tdicorcia]

K.B. Canham is putting together a bulk order right now for Ektachrome 100 in 5x7 -- 50-sheet boxes. https://www.facebook.com/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc-131324393576850/

[tdicorcia]

My Toyo-View 57G with bag bellows. Added a 5x7 rear standard to my Toyo-View 45G. It took a while to locate the 5x7 parts. Toyo (Sakai) discontinued 5x7 some time ago. The format was never very popular in Japan and film choices here are even more limited than in the U.S. or Europe. But, as I have no enlarger, and I like contact prints, 5x7 suits my needs. The Toyo-View is very solid, very flexible, and very precise, but not very portable. So, I have an old B&J box camera, fixed focus, wide angle camera that is 5x7. And I have two native half-plate (4.75x6.5 inch) cameras that I hope to convert to 5x7 -- a Toyo Sakai metal field camera and an unmarked Japanese wooden field camera. Pictured is my Toyo-View 57G
217547

[manfrominternet]

Has anyone ever shot 5x8? Since 8x10 film is so readily available, it seems as though it would be easier to purchase any of the available 8x10 film, cut it in half to 5x8 (or even 4x10) with a rotatrimmer and shoot it that way.

On a piece of paper, I drew out the various film sizes - 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 - and noticed that 5x7 isn't really that much bigger than 4x5. Even though it's only 1" wider than 5x7, 5x8 really starts to feel like a larger negative.

I guess what I'm really asking is what is the biggest bang for your buck (or rather what is the largest film size I can use per dollar).

[manfrominternet]

Also, is the Linhof Super Technika V 5x7 really that bad of a camera for landscape photography? I know someone who is selling one and is willing to give me a pretty good deal for it.

I know the camera is heavy, but is it easy to set up quickly? Can I leave the lens on the camera when it's folded?

[Delfi_r]

The Linhof Super Technika V 5x7 it's a great camera. If you chose lenses that can be folded (some need to be reversed to close the camera) you can put a camera on your tripod and have it on infinity in seconds. You can mount a 72 mm lens and a 450 mm lens with the internal focusing rail and the triple extension of the main rail. Wen extended you should fix it to the tripod by the main bed so it's better handled. I have one, my first large format camera, and it's my all purpose camera, even I have other cameras.

[manfrominternet]

The Linhof Super Technika V 5x7 it's a great camera. If you chose lenses that can be folded (some need to be reversed to close the camera) you can put a camera on your tripod and have it on infinity in seconds. You can mount a 72 mm lens and a 450 mm lens with the internal focusing rail and the triple extension of the main rail. Wen extended you should fix it to the tripod by the main bed so it's better handled. I have one, my first large format camera, and it's my all purpose camera, even I have other cameras.

Thank you for this info!

So it looks like I'm down to 4 cameras. I hope I'm not annoying the LF community to death with this, but if someone can help me narrow this down, it'd be much appreciated.

1.) Chamonix 58N (5x8) - It's a horizontal format only. I like the idea of a 5x8 camera because 8x10 color film is more readily available. I suppose I can cut 8x10 film down to 5x8 with a rotary trimmer. The aspect ratio looking too much like a 35mm camera's and the fact holders are $200 is of concern, but hey, it's 5x8!
2.) Linhof Super Technika V (5x7) - It's heavy, but I move my camera gear remotely on a wheeled backpack. I can apparently leave a lens on it while closing/opening it, meaning I can take a photo relatively quickly, which is a huge plus. The rear easily converts to portrait from landscape orientation as well. I'm already in the Linhof ecosystem with my Technikardan 45S and all my lens boards are Technikas.
3.) Chamonix 57N (5x7) - Horizontal only. This is the least expensive. 5x7 color negatives might be difficult to get, but the camera looks great.
4.) Chamonix 57Fs-2 (5x7) - This one is by far the most expensive option. Has both portrait and landscape orientation for the ground glass. It's also pretty light and easy to use.

In all honesty, I'm leaning towards either the Linhof Super Technika V (5x7) because the person I know who is selling it is giving me a really great deal for it or the Chamonix 58N (5x8) because of how readily available 8x10 film is. While I haven't seen either camera in person, they both look great. If anyone can nudge me a bit further towards one of these cameras (or the other two that I mentioned), that'd be extremely helpful. :)

[rfesk]

I would make sure the Super Technika V has front swing. Older Technika's didn't.

[Roger Beck]

"My Deardorff doesn't have enough swings/tilts/bellows/rise/shift and its too heavy and too big" said no one ever.

[paulbarden]

"My Deardorff doesn't have enough swings/tilts/bellows/rise/shift and its too heavy and too big" said no one ever.

I rarely take my 8x10 Deardorff out anymore, precisely because it is too heavy to truck up and down steep terrains.

[John Kasaian]

I rarely take my 8x10 Deardorff out anymore, precisely because it is too heavy to truck up and down steep terrains.

But a 5x7 'dorff is the same size as a 4x5 'dorff---only the back is different, except for one rare model, IIRC, built to skirt some restriction imposed by a World's Fair. I wish Ken Hough's Deardorff Historical Website was still up!

[Delfi_r]

The Technika 1318 V has front and rear swing on the front standard and shift and rise and down. You have an intern al rail for focusing with short focal lenses. And a lot of indirect movements to overcame limitations of the bed cameras. With the geared raíl and the bed movements you have a lot of options.

It’s not as technically advanced as some modern cameras (rear focusing, asymmetrical movements) but it’s really a great and versatile camera

For the weight you need to spare lenses and holders to stay on the same league of new flatbed cameras but few are so rigid

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51204469626_11a3be60e3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2m1LhTd)5x7 and 4x5 Sinar Norma TLR's (https://flic.kr/p/2m1LhTd) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

"Construction Unit Design" allows me to upsize the camera to 13x18/5x7. Nice to have the larger format, I am just getting going with 5x7 and 13x18. 240 Componons on the left, 250 Imagon pair on the right. BTW I bought one of those Luland Norma copy Pan Tilt Heads, it's OK in my opinion. After all, how many new things can you buy for the Norma? :)

[jnantz]

if you get lucky, you might find a Szabad !
Find a friend in Sweden, you might be able to find the metric equivalent, I think they
take imperial measure film holders ...

Good luck with your camera search.
John

[esearing]

Has anyone ever shot 5x8? Since 8x10 film is so readily available, it seems as though it would be easier to purchase any of the available 8x10 film, cut it in half to 5x8 (or even 4x10) with a rotatrimmer and shoot it that way.

On a piece of paper, I drew out the various film sizes - 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 - and noticed that 5x7 isn't really that much bigger than 4x5. Even though it's only 1" wider than 5x7, 5x8 really starts to feel like a larger negative.

I guess what I'm really asking is what is the biggest bang for your buck (or rather what is the largest film size I can use per dollar).

I did the same thing when going bigger but did it with prints so I could actually hold them. 5x7 still felt small as a contact print - 5x8 was leading me more toward 8x10 - 4x10 made me realize I like Pano - 11x14 and 7x17 were fabulous but I'm getting old and thats a lot of gear to carry not to mention the price jump for everything. Then I printed 5x12 after seeing some images online, and ended up with Chamonix making a 5x12, it is perfect for me, with built in cropping to 5x7 and 5x8 and 5x10 if desired. One other format that Jim Galli pushed but is rarely used any more is 7x11 and it is an amazing size, I also like 9x12 prints. 5x12 still has size,weight, and packing issues when hiking but I can carry it and my 4x5 in same pack with careful planning. If you go with 5x7 and 5x8 horizontal only then get a sturdy head that can turn 90 degrees for the rare verticals you want.