Why is 8x10 so expensive over 4x5 ?

[lukaszwojcik]

Hello everyone!
I am thinking about buying my first LF. I'm very decided on the 8x10 but I'm wondering why there are such huge price differences between these cameras ? I can find 4x5 Sinar, Wista or Toyo in good condition on ebay at prices of 200-400 euros. 8x10 models are already priced at 2000-4000 euros.
I can understand 4x more expensive films because of the size but 10-15x more expensive bodies is a bit much. Or do you recommend other places than ebay ?

[John Kasaian]

I'm unfamiliar with the market in Europe, but I'll offer that fewer 8x10 cameras were built overall, so scarcity probably has something to do with it.
There are a lot more 4x5 cameras around.
After 30 days here you can access the sales subforum with the likely chance of connecting with realistically priced used stuff.

Most people will advise to start with a 4x5 on account of the cost, not only for the camera and the film, but also the film holders, lens, and tripod (an 8x10 wants a substantial tripod that can handle the weight!) But you've probably already heard that.

Have fun! It's an extraordinary adventure whatever the size format.

[Tin Can]

Look at Intreped Camera in England

New is cheaper and I have one

[lukaszwojcik]

I've seen quite a few videos on Intrepid and it looks very bad. Poorly built, unstable, bad knobs, and all made of poor plywood.

[lukaszwojcik]

I'm unfamiliar with the market in Europe, but I'll offer that fewer 8x10 cameras were built overall, so scarcity probably has something to do with it.
There are a lot more 4x5 cameras around.
After 30 days here you can access the sales subforum with the likely chance of connecting with realistically priced used stuff.

Most people will advise to start with a 4x5 on account of the cost, not only for the camera and the film, but also the film holders, lens, and tripod (an 8x10 wants a substantial tripod that can handle the weight!) But you've probably already heard that.

Have fun! It's an extraordinary adventure whatever the size format.

As for buying from a market other than Europe there is no problem, I am only surprised by such a disproportion between prices.

[Tin Can]

The Spruce Goose did fly, Howard Hughes

https://www.evergreenmuseum.org/


I've seen quite a few videos on Intrepid and it looks very bad. Poorly built, unstable, bad knobs, and all made of poor plywood.

[Rick A]

I will give up my 8x10 when they pry my cold dead hands from it. I don't care what it costs, it keeps me out of bar rooms.

[rfesk]

The Intrepid is about the best way to begin in 8x10. The price is not that high and you can always sell it if you find something you like better.

Another advantage - the weight is less than many alternatives. This means you can get by with a somewhat lighter tripod.

IMHO, I would start with a 4x5 and move up.

[bmikiten]

I'd focus on lens pricing....

[paulbarden]

I've seen quite a few videos on Intrepid and it looks very bad. Poorly built, unstable, bad knobs, and all made of poor plywood.

I have a 1935 Deardorff (8x10) and a current model of the Intrepid (8x10) as well. Guess which one gets far more use? The Intrepid. It may be made of less expensive materials, and its not flawless, but if you're unhappy about the price of 8x10 cameras, then there's no reason not to consider the Intrepid. If you're unwilling to try the Intrepid yourself, then get the Chamonix and find a way to afford it.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Over the years I have bought a LOT of gear in Europe (and wherever) and surprisingly prices are often LOWER than in the USA. As proof I now have twelve different Normas in my studio.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52217232332_73e1e3945f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyfXXb)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2nyfXXb) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I built this new to me 8x10 Norma (my second one) which I configured from pieces I recently acquired. An F Front Standard, and a Norma 8x10 Rear Standard. A great location combination. I got this idea when my Wife and I went to the Wexner Center at O.S.U. and see Annie Leibovitz's photos on exhibition. This camera was shown in a photo Annie snapped was a wall-sized B&W, of Richard Avedon's equipment closet. I thought it rather strange at the time, an F front attached to a 8x10 Norma. I think it will make a very good field camera. Shown with the 360mm Schneider Symmar in Norma Iris mount, and the Norma Shutter. So a 60's era speedy location camera. I've tested the camera in the studio and it's a winner. BTW the 8x10 Norma Rear Standard came from a very nice gentleman in France. It needed some work but unless completely busted any Norma can be fully restored. Keith at Custom Bellows makes wonderful Norma bellows any way you want them. Did you know he made bellows for all Sinar Norma at the time?

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm. Interesting. I sure like the original Norma bellows better than the later Sinar bellows. Keith made a replacement bellows for my Durst 8X10 enlarger a few years ago. As far as the whole camera thing goes, there seems to be plenty of affordable 8X10 cameras out there. But someone starting out can have difficulty deciding what they really need, and what they don't.

I'm very very glad that I never myself began with the premise of buying any kind of marginal quality of "starter" camera, but in fact began with a 4X5 Sinar F camera which proved highly versatile and held up many years with a few component changes. All of that interchanges with my now preferred Norma. But 8x10 Sinars of any variety might get too heavy for realistic field use. Avedon certainly wasn't anything remotely resembling a fit outdoorsman, and had assistants.

Anyway, I ended up with an 8X10 Phillips folder back when they were just about the cheapest choice around (only the 9th one he made). But it was still darn solid. I dunno about today's entry level choices. ...Think I'd look for something a little more seriously built. People often spend more for all kinds of things they don't really need than what a Chamonix costs; so it's just a matter of priorities. But's the camera itself is where 8X10 photography expense just begins; and it can be addicting.

[jp]

In the US, Sinar, Calumet, Burke & James (B&J), Kodak all have used budget camera options for 8x10. Midrange is some Kodak Commercial, Deardorf, and more premium might be Canham.

[Fred L]

Can't speak to current Intrepids, but the only reason I got the v1.0 8x10 was for the weight (my Zone VI costs and weighs substantially more). While the Intrepid is easy as heck to carry in a pack, mine is nowhere near as stable as the Zone VI (or likely any other similar modern wooden folder). Work within its limitations and a new world opens up, but from my experience, temper your expectations. This, depending on your finances, might be a case of pay now, or pay later.

An alternative would be 5x7, which I shoot more of, as I've basically stopped shooting 4x5.


Good luck, big negatives are really something else !

[Michael R]

Hello everyone!
I am thinking about buying my first LF. I'm very decided on the 8x10 but I'm wondering why there are such huge price differences between these cameras ? I can find 4x5 Sinar, Wista or Toyo in good condition on ebay at prices of 200-400 euros. 8x10 models are already priced at 2000-4000 euros.
I can understand 4x more expensive films because of the size but 10-15x more expensive bodies is a bit much. Or do you recommend other places than ebay ?

Consider it a sign. You’ll most likely be better off with a 4x5 anyway :)

[Tin Can]

Perhaps you don't know your 1/2 of paradise did not use standard USA, 4X5 and 8X10

You may want a Metric camera and film

https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/foma-fomapan-100-18x24-cm-708x945-inch-50-sheets.html

I have this size and it requires matching DDS

Buy in EU

[Daniel Unkefer]

I don't go out with an 8x10 to do exploratory photography. I only take out the 8x10 when I have "worked over" a subject with 4x5, and created something strong enough to justify the weight and expense of returning to re-do with 8x10. Then I will go out with the right film, and the right lens, and I know in advance what I want to accomplish. Usually, I leave the camera on my wooden tripod, put a pillow under my shoulder, and balance the rig as I hike. I am not alpine mountain climbing, we don't have that in Ohio. LOL. A bag of 8x10 holders (heavy and a LOT of weight), meter, and small stuff, that's it. I did that for decades and sometimes I hiked for miles and sometimes miles this way. A Norma 8x10 is not THAT heavy, the only way to verify that is to actually USE ONE for a while. When I got to where I was going, I was always delighted that the 8x10 Norma was with me :) Actually the reason I bought the first 8x10 Norma Back, was that Fred Picker was using his out in the field. I figured if he could make it work, so could I. Back then the only Normas I ever found were on Glenn's printed out sheets (no internet back then).

During Covid I decided to acquire more equipment, seems like interest was low (prices sometimes too). A 4x5 Norma could be around the price of Calumet C400. What a NO BRAINER!

Nowadays I WILL take out an assistant depending on the situation. With that monster 1000mm rig I will probably want TWO assistants. I'm not a spring chicken anymore :) Fun Ahead!

[Daniel Unkefer]

Perhaps you don't know your 1/2 of paradise did not use standard USA, 4X5 and 8X10

You may want a Metric camera and film

https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/foma-fomapan-100-18x24-cm-708x945-inch-50-sheets.html

I have this size and it requires matching DDS

Buy in EU

Yes!! Cheaper than buying from the USA usually and they have the selection. I buy a big quantity to justify the shipping. Winter is THE time to order, so the film doesn't roast in delivery trucks. Lots of cool emulsions available in metric sizes. I buy 9x12cm, 13x18cm, and 18x24cm from Photoimpex. Ilford in metric I buy from a warehouse right up the road from the Ilford factory, trucks deliver there daily.

[nolindan]

All other things held constant, prices will follow the cube of the linear dimension.

Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is a 2x increase in the linear dimension, a 4x increase in the planar (square/film) dimension and an 8x increase in the volume (cube/camera) dimension.

[Drew Wiley]

My pack actually weighs more with my Pentax 6X7, and a set of lenses including some long teles in it, than with my 8x10 Phillips folder and a few petite lenses in it. And one doesn't need many sheet film holders for a daily outing. One or two really good shots is plenty. Just how many are you going to find time to print anyway? I chose the 6X7 yesterday afternoon due to the wind conditions. But in the darkroom, 8x10 negs are a real joy to print. And just studying the world and composition on that large opalescent ground glass is a reward in itself. I find the whole 8X10 experience distinct from what I get shooting 4X5, which does have its own advantages, however. When someone who works at a photo lab recently asked me about the practical difference, I told him, "Cost-wise, 4X5 is the new 8X10".

[Robert Opheim]

My recent belief is that 8x10 is less flexible than 4x5. I would enjoy a discussion by forum members of where 8x10 works best or better than 4x5. I have been using the 4x5 format for 49 years - principally for marketing my architectural practice and my own artistic projects. I purchased a Calumet 8x10 - 12 years ago and find it a lot more limiting than the 4x5 in most cases. First off is the perception of images with 8x10 - the depth of field that you are able to work with is a lot more limiting. If you are using a 150mm-165mm lens on 8x10 the depth of field is just the same as as it would be on a 4x5 camera. This carries through with all of the lens lengths. My successful 8x10 images have been: flatter subject compositions, distance subjects, subjects where out-of focus areas are taken into consideration as part of the image - such as portraits. There is also the need to either contact print the negative or enlarge it. I am still working on getting the correct increased negative densities for enlarging with my cold head enlarger. On the plus side the negative is larger so it should show more clarity and detail.

[Joseph Kashi]

Although there are more film availability problems, perhaps 5x7 inches (13x18 CM metric) would be a workable compromise. There are many affordable wooden field cameras and also metal cameras like the Rittreck available in 5x7 at reasonable prices, the majority of 4x5 lenses cover 5x7 / 13x18, and that level gear generally remains readily transportble.

Personally, 8x10 seems like the odd format out, with 4x5 and 5x7 remaining reasonably affordable, portable and fairly easy to enlarge, with 11x14 retaining an edge for contact prints.

[Drew Wiley]

It's way easier to get 8X10 film than 5X7. Often people have to cut down 8X10 sheets just to get the particular 5X7 film they prefer. If you like a longer rectangle, then 5x7 makes more sense than either 4X5 and 5X7. Cameras like the Deardorff Special and the Canham 5X7 were designed with dual-format 4X5/5X7 usage to begin with. And many 8X10 cameras have format reducing backs down to 5X7 or 4X5, but then you've still got most of the original bulk and weight of an 8X10. But composing with 5X7 feels more like doing it with an oversized 4X5 than with full 8x10. Whatever. I think 5X7 is a lovely format, but at this point in my life I just can't justify yet another format, especially since I already have three 8X10 enlargers, and plenty of 8X10 and 4X5 holders on hand. It's getting difficult to find new or even relatively clean 5X7 holders.

[Axelwik]

I've seen quite a few videos on Intrepid and it looks very bad. Poorly built, unstable, bad knobs, and all made of poor plywood.
Obviously you've never used one. I have a 5x7 Intrepid and it's a fine camera for what it is, and it's delightfully lightweight! All else being equal only a fool or a klutz with no common sense couldn't take fine pictures with one.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm seriously skeptical how long something like an Intrepid would hold up out in the wind and weather. My Phillips is still going strong after more than three decades of outdoor torture, and will probably outlive me.

[John Kasaian]

I can't remember the last time I plugged in my 8x10 enlarger.
For me, B&W 8x10 contact prints have a special charm all their own although
the worse my vision gets with age, the more I appreciate the 8x10 ground glass, negatives and contact prints.
I must enjoy it because the 'dorff V8 gets used the most, followed less frequently by the Gowland 8x10 Aerial. A 5x7 Speed Graphic is a distant third and the 5x7/4x5 Agfa Ansco and 4x5 Graphic View 2 seem to never get any fresh air.
The 12x20 F&S has practically become a fossil.
For value, that old 'dorff has actually been a bargain for me although I couldn't quite believe I was parting with so much cash at the time when I bought her compared to the GV2, which was almost a give away but sadly never gets used.

[Axelwik]

I'm seriously skeptical how long something like an Intrepid would hold up out in the wind and weather. My Phillips is still going strong after more than three decades of outdoor torture, and will probably outlive me.
The Intrepid is lightweight, but also pretty rugged. Don't let the price fool you - just the weight savings alone is worth twice what they go for.

[lukaszwojcik]

Obviously you've never used one. I have a 5x7 Intrepid and it's a fine camera for what it is, and it's delightfully lightweight! All else being equal only a fool or a klutz with no common sense couldn't take fine pictures with one.

That's how it usually is when you choose a product you want to buy that you suggest reviews and user feedback from, for example, youtube and after watching a few of those Intrepid doesn't convince me.

[lukaszwojcik]

I wasn't here over the weekend and I see lots of responses. Thank you for all of them! I will still be thinking about the 4x5 in that case. The 8x10 format convinces me with the very high detail of the scan/print. If I'm going to choose a 4x5 it will probably be the Sinar, where you can change the bellows and back later, modularly switching to 8x10.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52435012271_cc2f8c22ae_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nTv9kH)Old Man's Cave Falls (https://flic.kr/p/2nTv9kH) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Old Man's Cave Falls 8x10 Sinar Norma 240mm Norma Symmar, 8x10 HP5 (not +) D76 1:1 fibre 8x10 print Fortezo Dektol

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52266296092_7167804e59_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nCAqU5)Cuyahoga Falls 8x10 HP5 PMK 240 Symmar Ektalure R (https://flic.kr/p/2nCAqU5) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Late 1980s Cuyahoga Falls 8x10 Sinar Norma 240 Symmar HP5 (not +) PMK+ Ektalure 8x10 print Ektanol Print Developer. Using a lot of tilt correction. Focus on the far, then tilt until the near is sharp.

[paulbarden]

I wasn't here over the weekend and I see lots of responses. Thank you for all of them! I will still be thinking about the 4x5 in that case. The 8x10 format convinces me with the very high detail of the scan/print. If I'm going to choose a 4x5 it will probably be the Sinar, where you can change the bellows and back later, modularly switching to 8x10.

If all you're going to do is scan and possibly enlarge your negatives, then there's no compelling reason to move to 8x10. If, however, you plan on making contact prints of your negs, then 8x10 becomes an asset.

[willwilson]

Paul, I disagree. 8x10 can also be simply joyful. It is more challenging and requires me to think more carefully about not just process but all aspects of photo making. Assembling and building the gear and darkroom capabilities to enlarge 8x10 has also brought me great joy.

It is more of everything: time, money, learning curve, but an expertly crafted 8x10 enlargement of a meaningful photograph is so satisfying to me. I often find myself wishing a particular image was on 8x10 that I have taken on 4x5. Would anyone other than me be able to tell a difference...no? It would just be awesome, and I do photography to feel that rush, that passion for an image. 8x10 is one way for me to get that.

When I started LF in the early 2000s, I got an 8x10 in addition to my 4x5. I did not have the experience to make it fun. It was just hard and expensive and I could not get the results I wanted. 20 years of 4x5 later and 8x10 is a joy (most of the time).

A well crafted and executed photograph, on an 8x10 negative, is the ultimate photography experience for me.

-=Will

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

[paulbarden]

Paul, I disagree. I often find myself wishing a particular image was on 8x10 that I have taken on 4x5. Would anyone other than me be able to tell a difference...no?

Of course you disagree! That's what powers discussion forums! LOL

Your comment about being able to discern whether an image you've printed was made on 4x5 or on 8x10 is telling. Nobody but you will ever know the difference. As you've stated, when you first got an 8x10 camera, you didn't have enough experience with large format to make it enjoyable. We need to remember that the OP is new to large format as well ("I am thinking about buying my first LF.") and this inquiry is to help him make a decision appropriate for a first time large format user, so 8x10 may be more than he's ready for. Whether or not someone else is going to "find joy" in working with a huge camera that costs $8 or more every time they click the shutter is something none of us can possibly know. We just need to explain to the person exactly what it is they are getting into and what to expect.

That said, 75% of the work I do is on 8x10 film. I do not enlarge those images, I contact print them, and that is the sole reason I work in that size. In fact, I don't enlarge my 5x7 and 4x5 negs either (but I scan them) - the largest negs I actually enlarge are the 6x9cm negs and smaller.

[Axelwik]

That's how it usually is when you choose a product you want to buy that you suggest reviews and user feedback from, for example, youtube and after watching a few of those Intrepid doesn't convince me.

I think that some of those reviews are ego-driven. It's human nature to justify paying far too much for something that might have a nicer fit and finish and a few "gadgets" that aren't really necessary (and heavier than an Intrepid). I seriously doubt that one could tell the difference between photos taken by a skilled photographer using an Intrepid vs. any other camera.

I couldn't care less about the appearance or "ego-factor" of what I'm using as long as it works properly and helps me make good photographs. To me the Intrepid has what is needed in a field camera, and nothing more - perfect.

With a couple lightweight lenses it has allowed me to put together a 5x7 kit containing everything I need, including the backpack, that weighs less than 10 pounds (not including the tripod). Lenses I use are a 180mm Fujinon A and Nikkor 300mm f9. My less than 10# kit consists of camera, lenses, filters, loupe, dark cloth, spot meter, a couple cable releases, two or three film holders, a few odds & ends, and even a modified dark slide for panoramics.

Having just turned 60 it enables me to hike much further without much of a load on my back.

[Drew Wiley]

Ten lbs?? My Ries tripod for the 8x10 weighs more than that, though I also have a sufficiently rigid CF tripod half that weight if needed. I thought the whole point was to carry enough weight to stay in shape. At 73, I've discovered it takes more effort to get into summer backpacking condition than when I was younger. Of course, on those trips, at my age, I now carry either a little Ebony 4x5 folder or even a Fuji 6X9 RF. The Sinar and 8X10 are now just used for day hikes.

I've got an 8X10 color neg in the enlarger right now. I'll start out with a 20X24 print; but it's crisp enough to easily hold extreme detail even in 40X60 print size. But this season, the biggest I've been printing color is 24X30 inches. 4X5 will easily enlarge that big too, or up to around 30X40, and hold detail wonderfully. But there's just something special about doing it with 8x10 film, including the fun factor. And I've done my duty as a competent packrat to stash away a reserve of 8X10 film in my freeze to tide me through these expensive times, until I've gone the way of all old gray packrats.

[Axelwik]

Ten lbs?? My Ries tripod for the 8x10 weighs more than that, though I also have a sufficiently rigid CF tripod half that weight if needed. I thought the whole point was to carry enough weight to stay in shape.



Yes, 10 pounds. And my current tripod weighs about 5 pounds with its head, and I can use a lighter one by hanging a bag of rocks underneath. In my opinion the point of reducing weight is the ability to go further and work longer, or in other words the ability to do the same now as when I was younger.

Sometimes I'll bring a large lens of a shorter or longer focal length which pushes the weight over 10 pounds. I only use the 5x7 on day hikes, and will use a lightweight medium format camera on overnight hikes.

Before adding camera gear the base weight of my overnight pack is around 15 pounds (base weight is everything except consumables, which varies depending on the length of the trip, so 20 to 30 pounds with food, fuel, water, etc.). There's been a lot of progress in terms of reducing pack weight in the last 20 years. For instance a 20-degree rated backpacking quilt can be less than half the weight of a sleeping bag of the same construction. I've also replaced my freestanding tent with a one-pound bug net tent and lightweight tarp made of very light "silk-nylon," making the shelter weigh less than 2 pounds; my trekking poles or trees are used instead of tent poles. Modern sleeping pads are a fraction of the weight of the old Thermarest pads used to be, and are more comfortable. A Pocket Rocket stove that weights a couple ounces replaced the old MSR white gas stove (or I go without a stove for one or two nights in nice weather), a lighter backpack without an internal frame is feasible with the lighter load, and trail running shoes or light boots can be used instead of heavy boots with a light load. All adds up (or should I say it subtracts down?).

This all contributes to the enjoyment of traveling in the wilderness. It's enabled me to keep going with my tired old knees and back.

[Drew Wiley]

8x10 flatbeds require quite a bit more torque-resistant support and torsion control than most 5X7's. And then there's the extra bulk and weight to the film holders. I'm waiting to hear the TV weather forecast in a few minutes to see if it will be "8X10 weather" mid-week, and not so windy as it's been lately. I always coveted a Canham wooden 5X7, the sweet spot in his lineup, in my opinion. I would have been dead long ago if I traveled through the mountains ultra-light style carrying a LF gear load. I know all about going ultra ultra light from my teenager days - had to move fast and often long distances to get back below timberline. But my adult mode typically involved an 85 lb pack, or 75 in my 60's. Now? Dunno. I'm trying to get accustomed to 50 lb; but that means shorter trips. A ideal tent equated to a real Bibler. Those will hold up in 100mph winds. I've either personally experienced or seen lesser tents shredded to bits, or, in one case, I had one literally shatter after it accumulated two inches of freezing rain ice rime. I would have died if a good snowfall hadn't occurred later that night. Powder snow is a good insulator (I was wearing rain gear INSIDE my soaked and frozen goose down bag). A rite of passage; but now the old stubborn mule that I am is moving slower and slower. But my knees are better than they were in my 40's due to using shock-absorbing (internal spring) Leki and Komperdell trekking poles.

[Axelwik]

8x10 flatbeds require quite a bit more torque-resistant support and torsion control than most 5X7's. And then there's the extra bulk and weight to the film holders. I'm waiting to hear the TV weather forecast in a few minutes to see if it will be "8X10 weather" mid-week, and not so windy as it's been lately. I always coveted a Canham wooden 5X7, the sweet spot in his lineup, in my opinion. I would have been dead long ago if I traveled through the mountains ultra-light style carrying a LF gear load. I know all about going ultra ultra light from my teenager days - had to move fast and often long distances to get back below timberline. But my adult mode typically involved an 85 lb pack, or 75 in my 60's. Now? Dunno. I'm trying to get accustomed to 50 lb; but that means shorter trips. A ideal tent equated to a real Bibler. Those will hold up in 100mph winds. I've either personally experienced or seen lesser tents shredded to bits, or, in one case, I had one literally shatter after it accumulated two inches of freezing rain ice rime. I would have died if a good snowfall hadn't occurred later that night. Powder snow is a good insulator (I was wearing rain gear INSIDE my soaked and frozen goose down bag). A rite of passage; but now the old stubborn mule that I am is moving slower and slower. But my knees are better than they were in my 40's due to using shock-absorbing (internal spring) Leki and Komperdell trekking poles.

I stopped embarking on the serious mountaineering and ski-mountaineering trips in my late 30s after shattering my leg descending a mountain in Switzerland. Now "fat & lazy" I do backpacking trips when the weather is halfway decent, and usually below treeline. The vast majority is day hiking, although last week I spent three days in the Gila Wilderness in Southern New Mexico carrying my little dog across about 20 stream crossings! Lots of water this year! The pack weighed around 25 pounds, and I only carried a Rolleiflex with a small carbon tripod.

[Drew Bedo]

The overall cost is exponential. Moving rom 4x5 to 8x10 is one step. Moving into ULF format. the curve is even steeper.

With a LF format shift, every component is more costly, camera, lenses, flm, processing . . .all of it costs more than the jump in formmqat size.

Part of tis is due to the increase in the size of each component, even the amount of consumable processing materials. Another aspect of this jump in cost is due to the reduced demand for each physical component. Not that many folks need a les that will cover a Queen sized bed sheet, or a film holder that will hold square feet of sheet film or glass plates.

[Mal Paso]

I've always thought the proper way to pack large format was a 3/4 ton 4x4 truck. I've had 3 over the years. 2 Fords, now a Dodge diesel. Don't have to leave the 1200mm home because it weighs too much and if I want to bring lighting and a generator, no problem. I have vague memories of backpacks and tents but nothing good. I've never seen a tent with a decent thermostat. A local guy, Edward Weston, in later life developed a technique of not working too far from the car. In later life myself, I find his observations prophetic.

[Axelwik]

I've always thought the proper way to pack large format was a 3/4 ton 4x4 truck. I've had 3 over the years. 2 Fords, now a Dodge diesel. Don't have to leave the 1200mm home because it weighs too much and if I want to bring lighting and a generator, no problem. I have vague memories of backpacks and tents but nothing good. I've never seen a tent with a decent thermostat. A local guy, Edward Weston, in later life developed a technique of not working too far from the car. In later life myself, I find his observations prophetic.
Light is right, especially as I get older.

Bigger is rarely better, unless one's goals are to impress the simpletons among us. Ed was stuck in his ways of contact printing, and his own limitations. AA went to smaller and lighter cameras later in his career doing some great work. He had no qualms about using an enlarger.

[Drew Wiley]

Not necessarily. The bigger the format, the slower and more contemplative one tends to become. The sheer expense of the film might well cause one to think twice before carelessly tripping the shutter. Less film holders can be carried at a time, and less film developed per session. Conversely, as film formats get smaller, and the equipment faster to use, there's more temptation toward machine-gunning : shoot first, and look at the carnage afterwards. If I don't think a shot is worthy of an actual print, or at least valuable in terms of learning purposes, I just don't trip the shutter. It doesn't mean I advocate others doing so. The more machine-gunners there are out there, the more sheet film will continue to be made in volume. But certainly not many of us can afford to be wasteful of it anymore. It's those coming from a digital upbringing who seem to think 10,000 random shots are more valuable than one good one, and whose expectations are only as high as what people see on the web. But a number of those types become converted to LF and MF film workflow once they see actual competent prints, and soon realize it's a very different kind of ballgame.

[Drew Wiley]

Mal - 4x4 trucks are meant to get you to where you begin walking. But not this summer. Even the paved roads to the dirt roads and 4WD routes are washed out in the mountains due to this past season's storms. Big snowblowers must await the old dozer style plows to get the snow down enough for them to work, which must in turn wait till the snow has thawed enough that the extreme avalanche and slide hazards subside, if they can even get across the washouts this summer. Moral of the story : either walk or there's no way in. And if you do walk in, you're not going to walk back out. Extreme stream flow is an even greater hazard. Tiny little creeks are like rivers at the moment, and shall continue to be until late summer. If I'm lucky, Spring in the high country will begin in September.

Axelwick, I vividly remember my teenage days carrying my favorite black hound dog up slippery waterfall slabs. Once he followed me on a deep, steep canyon trip so strenuous that he couldn't walk for a week afterwards once we got back home. And that was a fit dog accustomed to roaming the hills. But when he once locked jaws with a badger, that was one lesson he never forgot!

I don't frequently contact print. But it might be a path forward if premium printing paper keeps dramatically going up in price. I still have plenty of 8x10 film in the freezer, and lots of small scraps of museum board to mount contact prints on - something else that has gone way way up in price.

[Axelwik]

Mal - 4x4 trucks are meant to get you to where you begin walking. But not this summer. Even the paved roads to the dirt roads and 4WD routes are washed out in the mountains due to this past season's storms. Big snowblowers must await the old dozer style plows to get the snow down enough for them to work, which must in turn wait till the snow has thawed enough that the extreme avalanche and slide hazards subside, if they can even get across the washouts this summer. Moral of the story : either walk or there's no way in. And if you do walk in, you're not going to walk back out. Extreme stream flow is an even greater hazard. Tiny little creeks are like rivers at the moment, and shall continue to be until late summer. If I'm lucky, Spring in the high country will begin in September.

Axelwick, I vividly remember my teenage days carrying my favorite black hound dog up slippery waterfall slabs. Once he followed me on a deep, steep canyon trip so strenuous that he couldn't walk for a week afterwards once we got back home. And that was a fit dog accustomed to roaming the hills. But when he once locked jaws with a badger, that was one lesson he never forgot!

I don't frequently contact print. But it might be a path forward if premium printing paper keeps dramatically going up in price. I still have plenty of 8x10 film in the freezer, and lots of small scraps of museum board to mount contact prints on - something else that has gone way way up in price.

Agree. And no vehicle will get you into the really nice wilderness areas.

I contact print 8x10 because I don't have an enlarger that size, which is fine. That camera doesn't venture far from the vehicle and is getting less and less use. However I just got a call this afternoon to pick up a print from a gallery show - an 8x10 contact print.

I have a 5x7 enlarger and very much like the results, and print as big as 16x20; sometimes 20x24 - those sizes don't need an 8x10 negative in my opinion. 5x7 is my main path nowadays.

[Drew Wiley]

I use my 5X7 Durst 138 enlarger for all formats smaller than 8x10, unless I need a big 30X40 inch print from 4X5. And 5X7 is a wonderful proportion. But I can't justify another format, especially at my age. I'm gradually drifting more and more into 6X9, at least for serious distances, and alas, even the definition of that is changing for me. And old work companion warned me in advance, You not only grow older, but grow older faster. But I hope to be doing at least some fashion of backpacking with serious camera gear until I'm at least 80. But then? One begins by wearing diapers and later picking up a 35mm camera, and I guess one goes out in diapers and shooting 35mm. But I hope to forestall that as long as possible, even though I shoot a Nikon several times a year just for the fun of it. So I'll be prepared, if it comes to that.

[rfesk]

I use 35mm only for snap shots these days. If you can handle a 35mm Nikon you should be able to shoot 6x9 roll film - which is not a huge step down from 4x5 up to 16x20 or so- IMHO. A Pentax 6x7 with several lenses would be heavy but my miniature Crown Graphic weighs little and the lenses are all small and light.

It seems that a light weight 4x5 outfit such at used by Axelwik has real merit. I always wondered why Ansel Adams didn't go to a lightweight 4x5 or 6x9 setup in his later years.

[lukaszwojcik]

The weight of the equipment certainly doesn't scare me. Initially it will definitely be a film scan and print. So I was guided by the size of the film and further by the size of the scan, the detail you can get and further by the print. I have only bounced around on price where with 4x the film size the equipment costs 10x-15x as much. I wonder if it's worth it.

[Tin Can]

I spent $6K on this Deardorff 11X14 Commecial camera, 1/2 that was new DDS, $500 per

It has 6 feet of bellows, weighs over 500 lbs

Really hard to steal!

Can easily carry 20 lb lens

5 members have the same

[Axelwik]

I use my 5X7 Durst 138 enlarger for all formats smaller than 8x10, unless I need a big 30X40 inch print from 4X5. And 5X7 is a wonderful proportion. But I can't justify another format, especially at my age. I'm gradually drifting more and more into 6X9, at least for serious distances, and alas, even the definition of that is changing for me. And old work companion warned me in advance, You not only grow older, but grow older faster. But I hope to be doing at least some fashion of backpacking with serious camera gear until I'm at least 80. But then? One begins by wearing diapers and later picking up a 35mm camera, and I guess one goes out in diapers and shooting 35mm. But I hope to forestall that as long as possible, even though I shoot a Nikon several times a year just for the fun of it. So I'll be prepared, if it comes to that.
Circle of the photographer's life - 35mm to medium format to large format to medium format and back to 35mm!

[Drew Wiley]

My medium format episode was very brief, only about two years, and then I went exclusively LF for the next 20 yrs. But I'm glad I kept my MF gear because I'm getting a lot of use out of it now. For about a decade, I loaned it to my older brother, who was developing eyesight problems due to a heart condition, and having trouble with LF ground-glass focusing. When he passed away, I took it back. And once I'm done making large color prints this summer, I'll use any remaining little 8X10 portions cut for sake of test strips to print a few choice 35mm color negs. It's all fun and rewarding.

But oh my gosh, when I land a great 8X10 shot, that takes the priority in the darkroom every time. Just did one yesterday I've waited over 30 yrs to print, an 8X10 Provia chrome that never did get printed on Cibachrome. But I had already masked it and generated a precision duplicate with all the corrections built in. Then more recently, I generated an 8X10 Portra 160 contact interneg from that; and that is what I actully printed on Fuji Supergloss yesterday, 20X24. I'll make a slightly scaled up 24X30 inch version in a day or two. But if I wanted to, it would hold extreme detail even up to a 40X60 print. My processing system only goes up to 30X40 inch prints. The color is incredibly clean and vibrant.

[John Kasaian]

My itsy-bitsy bottle of Nitroglycerine tablets adds about 10Mg to my 8x10 kit :rolleyes:

[GuillaumeZuili]

My medium format episode was very brief, only about two years, and then I went exclusively LF for the next 20 yrs. But I'm glad I kept my MF gear because I'm getting a lot of use out of it now. For about a decade, I loaned it to my older brother, who was developing eyesight problems due to a heart condition, and having trouble with LF ground-glass focusing. When he passed away, I took it back. And once I'm done making large color prints this summer, I'll use any remaining little 8X10 portions cut for sake of test strips to print a few choice 35mm color negs. It's all fun and rewarding.

But oh my gosh, when I land a great 8X10 shot, that takes the priority in the darkroom every time. Just did one yesterday I've waited over 30 yrs to print, an 8X10 Provia chrome that never did get printed on Cibachrome. But I had already masked it and generated a precision duplicate with all the corrections built in. Then more recently, I generated an 8X10 Portra 160 contact interneg from that; and that is what I actully printed on Fuji Supergloss yesterday, 20X24. I'll make a slightly scaled up 24X30 inch version in a day or two. But if I wanted to, it would hold extreme detail even up to a 40X60 print. My processing system only goes up to 30X40 inch prints. The color is incredibly clean and vibrant.

30x40 that what is all about 8x10 and it shines

[Drew Bedo]

In the end, there is a saying I first heard applied to yachts: "If you have to ask, you can't afford it!"

[Vaidotas]

You can squeeze it in to 1K pr even less with some luck and patience.
Kodak 2D, Fujinon 250/6.7, one holder and some film.
And you can spend tenfold for elaborative 4x5 setup.
The real expense is time you need to gain some experience.
That is not much related to specific format.

[Drew Wiley]

I see people every day of the week walking around with some recent model DLSR and the latest and greatest zoom lens, that together cost more than a decent 8x10 starter system. 4-wheelers spend more for a set of tires they'll burn up in a single season. You pay more for a Mecedes Benz bumper.