PDA

View Full Version : 4x5 vs 8x10 camera



Shailendra
7-Sep-2007, 18:36
I've recently posted some threads on here asking for advice on different camera styles (6x24 to 8x10) and I am came to some dilemma's that I'm hoping you all can help with.

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?

Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.

I have used a 4x5 camera before (Toyo 45AX), but am considering an 8x10, only if it is worth the quality upgrade. I realize that cost and development increase, as well.

Any help is appreciated.

David A. Goldfarb
7-Sep-2007, 19:02
I think there's a big difference between 8x10" and 4x5", though the logistics of enlarging 8x10" make things more interesting, whether you're scanning or enlarging by projection. For instance, if you are going to use a flatbed and make your own scans, a bigger transparency gets you more information. If you're going to send out for drum scans, it's usually more expensive to scan 8x10", so it's worth pricing it out first, and deciding what's in your budget.

There are other aesthetic issues, like whether you might be interested in classic portrait lenses, that often work best with larger formats, and less enlargement. You might also prefer composing on the larger groundglass. On the other hand, you might want a smaller camera for travel.

Dedicated panoramic cameras are interesting if you really do a lot of panoramas, or if you need to be very compact, otherwise, if you have an 8x10" camera, you can always crop to 4x10 or 3x10 or 5x10 or whatever size suits the scene, and the same would be true for 4x5". Note that there are now 6x17cm expansion backs for 4x5" cameras. They have some limitations, but so do dedicated 6x17 cameras.

If sheet film is made, I'm not worried about being able to find 8x10". It's much more popular than 7x11, 11x14, 6.5x8.5, 2.25x3.25, 4x10", 7x17", 8x20", half-plate, 20x24", and many other sizes that are available by special order (and in some cases as regular stock).

gregstidham
8-Sep-2007, 05:42
I was in your position a year ago. I have a project I want to photograph in color and exhibit with large prints at 50 inches. I really like the 8x10 format and I wanted to shoot it with the Cooke XV convertible. I eventually decided to stick with 4x5 for a couple reasons.

1. Self funding this project in 8x10 color would be incredibly expensive. 3x the cost of 4x5. This is probably the biggest reason for me. Sucks to be a poor artist, but I have to work within my financial limitations.

2. Some may disagree, but I think 8x10 color is going to be gone in 2 - 3 years. B&W film in my opinion will survive because it has a larger following. When I have a darkroom again, I will enjoy contact printing 8x10.

3. 6x17 Canham back on a 5x7 body was also a possibility for me, but after much thought, the panoramic format was not how I see. I prefer the crop of 4x5 or 8x10.

4. 50 inch prints made from 4x5 drum scans do look quite wonderful. I still think 8x10 would give me that extra mirror like quality I am wanting, but I need to refer to reason #1 for now.

Ken Lee
8-Sep-2007, 06:51
For 4x5 versus 8x10:


What subjects do you plan to shoot ? (depth of field, shutter speed, aperture, lens selection and availability, coverage)


Do you need to travel or hike with the camera ? (size, weight, portability, tripod)


Do you plan to shoot color of b&w ? (cost, convenience, availability, processing)


How do you plan to enlarge/scan the film/negatives ? (cost, availability, convenience)

If your only consideration is the look of the final image, when printed, framed, and displayed, then only you can decide about the difference in image quality between photos made using different film formats. What looks perfectly fine to one person, might be unacceptable to another - and vice versa. As they say, that's what makes a the world go 'round.

Turner Reich
8-Sep-2007, 09:08
It's pretty easy to answer these questions. You require both 4x5 and 8x10 formats to fully fulfill your strict needs for quality control and exact size requirements. Select as many lenses as you can that will work on both formats.

John Kasaian
8-Sep-2007, 09:16
Issue #1---I'd think in terms of fidelity rather than quality. 8x10 film can record more information. I have seen some enormous enlargements made on 4x5 that were very nice. My issue with large enlargements is that now a days they are nearly all digital and the viewer dosn't have to stand very far away to "enjoy" a pixel mush :rolleyes: . IMHO traditional materials and either 4x5 or 8x10 negatives will yield better results with 8x10 having an 'edge' with increased sizes.

Issue #2 ---Use the sliders as found on many Deardorffs and Ansco large format cameras and save film. My personal tastes in panoramas tend toward swing lens cameras.

Issue #3---If there is 4x5 there will certainly be 8x10 film since both are cut from larger rolls. It becomes a matter of making the cuts and packaging. As long as there is a market there should be fim in any size format that the market will support. 8x10 In color is brilliant stuff but the cost is very high.

If you think shooting 8x10 color will give you something with an edge over 4x5 color, I'd have to agree, but it comes with a price tag, not only for film & chemicals (8x10 uses a lot more chemicals than 4x5) but in bulk and portability of your gear, since you'll need a tripod that can supprt an 8x10 and the film holders are quite a bit larger and heavier that 4x5 (remember, no grafmatics or readyloads!)

If you can deal with that, I'd say go for it!

Bruce Watson
8-Sep-2007, 10:59
Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

LF lenses deliver the sharpness they deliver, whether to 5x4 or 10x8 film. In other words, sharpness doesn't scale particularly well. Also, DOF requirements for 10x8 often require the use of smaller apertures which acts to reduce sharpness (you may find yourself diffraction limited most of the time). The counter to this is that for the same size print, 10x8 requires half the enlargement of 5x4.

But... for your workflow you also get the limitations of today's scanners, drivers, operating systems, and photo editors. The bottom line is that it's very difficult to work with files bigger than about 2.0 GB.

I use 5x4 and do my own drum scans. I've made some excellent (to my eye, your opinion may be different) very sharp and grainless large prints (125 x 100 cm). The files to do this were 1.5GB -- 125 x 100 cm, 16 bits, 360 ppi output resolution. (10x8 film is 4x bigger, so scanning 10x8 at this same resolution would result in a 6.0GB file).

That's really about the practical limit on file size. Photoshop is seriously slow in just about every respect at this size (I'm talking 3.5-4 minutes to write the file to disk here). You could probably do 2.0GB or maybe even 3.0 GB if Photoshop and your computer can handle it, and if your scanner can deliver it. But you'll have to have mythical levels of patience and lots of non-computer work to do between operations. And you can forget completely about using any layers.

So... if you are scanning both 5x4 and 10x8 to the same file size (that is, the scanner resolution for 10x8 is much lower) you'll still likely see some improvement in the final 125 x 100 cm print, but it will mostly be tonally smoother, not really much sharper at all.

So no, I don't think you gain enough going from 5x4 to 10x8 with your workflow to make it worth while.


Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?

You could. Many people do. This is what I do shooting panos with my 5x4. I shoot instead 5x2 and take a slice right out of the middle of the frame. It's difficult to visualize to some degree but you could solve that by marking your ground glass.

You could also do the split frame thing - using darkslides cut in half so you can make two different exposures on the same piece of film. This tends to keep your exposure out of the "sweet spot" and more towards the outer edges of the image circle though, which will tend to degrade sharpness more or less depending on the lens in question.

Plus, you'll be carrying a 10x8 camera around which typically weighs some to considerably more than a smaller dedicated-to-a-smaller-format camera.


Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.


It seems silly to me that any manufacturer of film would make 5x4 but not make 10x8. They already have the cutter dies. I'm not saying that it won't happen. Just that it would be silly. And if it does happen, it's not going to happen for decades. You can't let a fear of what might or might not happen in the future make this decision for you. If 10x8 is right for what you want to do, then do it and don't look back. Film will be available for a long time to come.

scott_6029
8-Sep-2007, 11:30
For me, 8x10 is easier to 'paint' the ground glass. So visually i think you would enjoy it immensly. An 8x10 contact print is something to behold. Not just in sharpness, but in tonality...don't worry about 8x10 film either, it will be around for a long time imho.

i own both 4x5 and 8x10 and use 8x10 almost exclusively. IF you are strictly color....well, that is a different story.

Chris Strobel
8-Sep-2007, 12:32
Being relatively new to 4x5 and 8x10 (about 2 years now) one thing I find is I fumble allot
less with 8x10.From loading sheets, to working camera controls, to processing, everything is just bigger and easier for me.I find I can scan the 8x10 on my relatively cheap Epson 4990 and get great 16x20's compared to 4x5 on the same.I get all my film from freestyle, badger, and B&H.Very easy quick and painless transactions.Every couple months I buy more film and stockpile it in the garage freezer so I'll be set for years to come.

Scott Squires
8-Sep-2007, 13:49
I shot with a Fuji GX617 camera for many years, decided to sell the camera and later regreted it! I bought a Canham 8x10 wood standard with the 4x10 back and it has worked well but can be a big package for hiking. I decided to buy the Canham 4x10 camera and it has been a dream to carry and use!! The only problem now is I love using the 8x10! The size of the ground glass and the Transparencies or B&W Negatives are so beautiful. So I have pretty much gave up my 4x5 after 12 years. There is a reason so many guys here shoot using ULF cameras. I don't even want to look under the dark cloth of one, it could ruin my marriage!

Scott

www.scottsquires.com

David A. Goldfarb
8-Sep-2007, 14:37
A half darkslide mask for 4x10" on an 8x10" camera is a lot less bulky than a 4x10" back and additional holders for the occasional pano, and you get two frames on one sheet.

Shailendra
8-Sep-2007, 14:46
A half darkslide mask for 4x10" on an 8x10" camera is a lot less bulky than a 4x10" back and additional holders for the occasional pano, and you get two frames on one sheet.

Where can I find a half darkslide mask? and will it fit all film holder types?

Dan Schmidt
8-Sep-2007, 15:10
I started with a 4x5 and lenses at 90mm and 150mm. I moved up to 8x10 because I wanted to make larger contacts. I realized that the 8x10 is so much easier to compose on and feel what is happening. I gave the 4x5 and lenses to my parents.

Now what is amusing is that some of my favorite new prints are 4x5 or 5x7 contacts done on a reducing back. But i could not have used a 24" inch lens on my old 4x5.

Vaughn
8-Sep-2007, 15:48
Where can I find a half darkslide mask? and will it fit all film holder types?

Bender (the maker of th e LF camera kits) sells (or sold) them.

I've made a few using spare darkslides. I like the recent one I made using a metal darkslide. An earlier plastic one got damaged (I am sort of rough in how I store them) and the metal one is holding up well.

I used a hacksaw blade and touched it up with a file. I used a black marker pen to blacken the cuts. I mark the handle of the darkslide to show which half is missing (and to remind me which slide I have it -- the half or the whole one!)

Two points to remember, 1) Leave enough slide to completely fill the light trap at the top end (end of holder you insert slide into) 2) Cut a little less than half the darkslide away -- you want to have some overlap that will seperate the two 4x10 negs on the sheet of film.

Vaughn

Nick_3536
8-Sep-2007, 16:03
A half darkslide mask for 4x10" on an 8x10" camera is a lot less bulky than a 4x10" back and additional holders for the occasional pano, and you get two frames on one sheet.

OTOH some days you'll want to shoot only 4x10. 4x10 film holders are a fair bit smaller then 8x10.

audioexcels
8-Sep-2007, 16:04
I started with a 4x5 and lenses at 90mm and 150mm. I moved up to 8x10 because I wanted to make larger contacts. I realized that the 8x10 is so much easier to compose on and feel what is happening. I gave the 4x5 and lenses to my parents.

Now what is amusing is that some of my favorite new prints are 4x5 or 5x7 contacts done on a reducing back. But i could not have used a 24" inch lens on my old 4x5.

I think this is the major thing going for the 8X10 format. It has a lot more bellows extension which makes shooting 4X5 and even 5X7 lenses a lot less prone to lens flare AND it allows you to use very long lenses that you would not otherwise feel comfortable or even be able to use on a 4X5 period. This is speaking for field type cameras as a monorail and even some specific field cameras in 4X5 can have very long bellows extension. Then again, that's still nothing compared to the equivalent 8X10 monorail or field w/extra extension possibility.

And you get to use reducing backs for "any" size that can fit into a holder properly and of course, is less than 8X10...so 4X10, 5X7, 4X5, 5X8, 6X8, 5X10, you name it...

I will have 8X10 very soon and will also have the 4X5 reducer on it, so I will be able to comment on the differences in quality between the two, but IMHO, I don't see how the 8X10 image would not be "significantly" and not just "edging" out the 4X5 be it color or black and white. It doesn't make sense to me that 4X larger film will look similar at even 11X14, but definitely at 16X20.

I know others can chime in here with what I feel is the most critical thing of all, final print size and the differences in color between the 4X5 and 8X10 print, for example, at these sizes/enlargements:

8X10, 12X16, 16X20, 20X24, 24X30, etc.

I bet I can see a difference in an 8X10 image...but I can also see things others question how I could see them...bad hearing, but good sight!

Here I am voting for the 8X10 when my primary use of my camera will be whole plate;)))

Maris Rusis
8-Sep-2007, 16:46
If you only have one camera pick the 8x10. It can do everything the 4x5 does but it also opens up the whole world of non-silver photographic processes that require contact exposures with a large negative.

Bruce Watson
8-Sep-2007, 16:56
I think this is the major thing going for the 8X10 format. It has a lot more bellows extension which makes shooting 4X5 and even 5X7 lenses a lot less prone to lens flare AND it allows you to use very long lenses that you would not otherwise feel comfortable or even be able to use on a 4X5 period. This is speaking for field type cameras as a monorail and even some specific field cameras in 4X5 can have very long bellows extension. Then again, that's still nothing compared to the equivalent 8X10 monorail or field w/extra extension possibility.

The penalty you pay for the bigger and longer bellows is weight. Sometimes, a lot of weight. A 10x8 camera has to be bigger and beefer, has a ground glass that's 4x the area of a 5x4 ground glass, has the bed sections to let you make that bellows extension, etc. And a bigger camera demands a bigger tripod and a bigger ball head....

If it's worth it to you fine. But if you are hiking long distances and/or with large elevation changes, weight is a consideration.

Dan Schmidt
8-Sep-2007, 18:39
The penalty you pay for the bigger and longer bellows is weight. Sometimes, a lot of weight. A 10x8 camera has to be bigger and beefer, has a ground glass that's 4x the area of a 5x4 ground glass, has the bed sections to let you make that bellows extension, etc. And a bigger camera demands a bigger tripod and a bigger ball head....

If it's worth it to you fine. But if you are hiking long distances and/or with large elevation changes, weight is a consideration.

Hiking around with my Wehman 8x10 is certainly more effort than with a 4x5 system.

In the end the weight is just a bit more since the Wehman is one of the lighter 8x10s, so i probably skimp on the tripod compared to most 8x10 outfits. But I can bring only at most 5 holders.

This seems all right since I usually settle on bringing 3 holders.

MIke Sherck
8-Sep-2007, 19:27
I've recently posted some threads on here asking for advice on different camera styles (6x24 to 8x10) and I am came to some dilemma's that I'm hoping you all can help with.

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

Of course there's a difference: a piece of 8x10 film has 4x (400%) the area of a piece of 4x5 film. How could there not be a difference? You've asked the wrong question. What you want to know is, is there a difference which matters to you, given what you intend to do with them. Only you can answer that question, with experience. The best we can do is guess. I choose to guess 'yes' because this is America, darn it, and size does matter!


Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?


If it's easier you want, get a dedicated 617 camera, such as one of the excellent Fuji's. The right tool for the right job and all that sort of thing. When I choose to use my 4x5 over my 8x10, it's because I think I'll want a print larger than 8x10 and I don't have an 8x10 enlarger. "Easier" isn't a consideration. Frankly, if I want "easier", I'd pull my 35mm out from its dusty case and fire it up. As for your original observation, you don't need anything special to compose for some other aspect ratio or size on the ground glass and ignore the rest of the image. Some folks mark on their ground glass with a pencil for their favorite. You don't need special holders or anything, although at one time there was a required permit you had to get from Kodak.


Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.

How can we possibly know the answer to that one? Those of us who use any particular format obviously believe that the materials will still be available for a reasonable time into the future -- or perhaps we're just stupid. No, I'll go with the first option. But, there are no guarantees. You rolls the dice and takes your chances, same as you do every time you step out your front door. Just realize that, whatever you do, the Great Yellow Father will do the opposite as soon as it identifies the most inconvenient moment to do so.


I have used a 4x5 camera before (Toyo 45AX), but am considering an 8x10, only if it is worth the quality upgrade. I realize that cost and development increase, as well.

Any help is appreciated.

You know, what you need to do is spend a weekend with an 8x10 and see what you get out of it and then decide what to do. If you're in New York or LA you have rental options. If not, post the city you live in and see if anyone there will spend a day or two shooting something bigger than 5x7 with you. Then you won't have to guess before making such a large investment: you'll know!

tim atherton
9-Sep-2007, 13:12
The biggest difference imo is "feel"

The way to see with the camera in, my experience using 8x10 vs 4x5, is very different.

Viewing the 4x5 GG is always a squinty, pokey little experience. Looking at the 8x10 GG is like looking at a framed picture or painting (or even a monitor...) - for me it's a significant enough difference.

as scott said


For me, 8x10 is easier to 'paint' the ground glass. So visually i think you would enjoy it immensly.

Your lenses also tend to give a different feel - using say 300mm instead of 150mm

All the rest can be overcome. It takes a bit of practice to get used to setting up the bigger camera. It can be a touch (or a lot) heavier to schlep around - although my 8x10 setup isn't significantly heavier than my 4x5 Technikardan ( though the Toyo 45 is a bit lighter and more compact). And it's only a little bulkier.

As for enlargements, Burtynsky has been using 4x5 rather than 8x10 for some years now. The last show I looked at (and I looked very close), it was pretty hard to tell on 50" prints which was which. In addition, the 50" prints didn't suffer significantly enough for that to be a major factor. (but bear in mind he's using the latest and best super sharp XL/HM/APO/XXL whatnot lenses). The only real way to tell was to be experienced in how 8x10 will render the same scene just very slightly differently than 4x5 in a number of subtle and hard to pin down ways. And there were probably only 3 people who saw the show who would notice that...

In most other case, I usually can tell the difference, but it's not generally as significant as some would make out and certainly not at 16x20.


In the end the weight is just a bit more since the Wehman is one of the lighter 8x10s, so i probably skimp on the tripod compared to most 8x10 outfits. But I can bring only at most 5 holders.

This seems all right since I usually settle on bringing 3 holders.

I find 10 holders is a minimum... (I was out for an hour this am and shot 10, could have really done with 12 or 15 with me). Which is a pain unless you can find smaller lightweight ones. 10 are only 2.5" thick and not too heavy. But you probably need to see if Shin is really going to make new ones again.

Put simply, if I take 4x5 and 8x10 with me on a trip, unless it's straight architecture (and work) I use the 8x10 92% of the time

lenser
9-Sep-2007, 14:36
Re: Bruce Watson's suggestion about the split frame dark slide. It works well, but be sure you consider this as an accessory. You've still got to have the full dark slides for each holder, then once they (the holders) are in the camera, you use the modified slide and once both exposures are made, return the full sized slide to the holder. It also helps to use a Sharpie or some sort of extremely thin black tape to bisect the ground glass for reference and composition on your pan shots.

I don't know if it's still available, but back in the dark ages of printing shops, there was a border or edge tape that office supply stores stocked that was about 1/8 inch of clear matrix with about a 1mm black line down the center. Perfect for marking crop areas on ground glass and if you wanted to change your crop refernce, just peel it off.

Jay W
10-Sep-2007, 08:39
I've shot 4x5 for years and would love to try 8x10 but....

I'm sure I would shoot quite a bit less film with 8x10 and not be able to hike nearly as far with the extra weight, so I'd still be bringing two systems in the car (4x5 and 8x10). As it is, I bring 120 gear to shoot if I get tired of hauling the 4x5 or if I'm "scouting" a new location. I feel that if I shoot more film, I have a better chance of hitting a great image. Sometimes great images are simply "shoot a lot of quality scenes" and then get lucky with the lighting. I still haven't figured out why some shots turn out spectacular when they look only ok on the glass and why some shots seem spectacular on the glass and only turn out pretty good on paper.

Another thing to consider is if you're doing any moderately close work or if wind is going to be a problem in your shots. I would think (but don't know since I haven't shot 8x10) that 8x10 might present some problems with a lack of depth of field and longer exposures.

On my last trip, I shot a few panorama 4x5 with the idea of stitching them together in Photoshop. That's another alternatvie if you're thinking about pano cameras and large film.

Jay

Dennis Witmer
12-Sep-2007, 20:35
I've used both formats, but for the past 20 years have worked predominately in 8x10 (I use 4x5 ONLY when I can't travel with the 8x10)--the reason being that I can see better with the 8x10--I can make better compositions... As best I can figure, the 4x5 ground glass is so small--like a snapshot--I always just put one thing in the center, and call it good--whereas the 8x10 is bigger--like an enlargement--and I can make pictures that fill the frame. The technical challenges of 8x10--vibrations, diffraction, depth of field, etc, make the technical negatives about the same--but I prefer the 8x10

Donald Miller
12-Sep-2007, 21:20
I have used both 8X10 and 4X5. My most recent film camera is a 5X7 Wisner. I find that this format is the best of all worlds for me. I can do contact prints if I desire...also can do some very nice enlargements if I desire.

Carsten Wolff
12-Sep-2007, 22:23
Going with Donald here. Have decided to stick to 5x7 for most purposes. I travel a lot and there is a lot of flexibility in that format and 8x10 seems to impose a few limits: Weight, darkroom (e.g. there seem to be far more Durst 5x7s than 8x10s on the used-market) handling, cost and lens coverage wise. I've split my use of colour and b/w by format: 4x5 in E-6, 5x7 in b/w, 6x17 both; no confusion between holders/film types now either ;) and one not too bulky camera does it all. Lenses: of 75, 108, 159/165, 210, 254, 300, 450 handle everything... other than the 75 all are under 320g ea. Often I just take the 108, a 254 and the 450 perhaps...., 4 4x5 holders and 4 5x7 holders, all, apart from the holders, in an Omni-Trekker case that's airline carry-on legit and not that mugh bigger than a laptop case (just thicker :)). I would go 5x7 in colour as well, but I've stopped short of cutting 8x10 Astia to size.....I sometimes wish there was a modern, small, bright 165mm that does 5x7 though.

Nick_3536
13-Sep-2007, 03:49
.....I sometimes wish there was a modern, small, bright 165mm that does 5x7 though.


150mm too wide?

AVCHD
14-Sep-2007, 20:29
I vote for 8x10. I own 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. I used to shooting 4x5 for 10 years and switched to 8x10 in recent 5 years. Reasons? Better picture quality and the feelings in the composition with 8x10 groundglass.

On the way to build up the 8x10 lens, I found it was not so expensive except the Super Angulon 210mm which costed me nearly $2,000 and it is huge and heavy. All other are relatively light and less expensive. So, I got 300mm, 450mm, 600mm and 780mm lens to my system. Of course, I would not get them in my backpack in one time.

I shoot with Sinar 8x10P outdoor. So, it would be heavy. Planning is essential prior the actual taking. Normally, I would visit the site without my camera gear at least one time to make sure the right timing and logistics.

Next about the availability of film. I shoot slide. I get a steady supply of 8x10 Velvia 50 film. In my inventory, I get 45 boxes of it at the moment. It takes about 3 months of ordering lead time.

One thing about 8x10 is I shoot less films than I did with 4x5 film. Simply because the cost of film and developing are much more expensive for 8x10 film. Then I shoot with max thinking before I fire the shutter. Result is better photo.

John Kasaian
14-Sep-2007, 20:54
I have 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 12x20. Of the four formats, I shoot 8x10 more than the other three formats combined. A good light 8x10 field can go just about anywhere. The limitations I find are with the tripod and film holders----both items are far more bulky and heavier than the 4x5 equivalents. If that presents a problem I just leave the tripod at home and shoot handheld, either with a 8x10 Gowland Aerial (which has its limitations---no moves, infinity focus & non folding) or downsize to a 5x7 Speed Graphic (which isn't all that much larger or heavier than it's 4x5 brothers) YMMV

Ole Tjugen
15-Sep-2007, 03:54
...I sometimes wish there was a modern, small, bright 165mm that does 5x7 though.

Something more modern than an Angulon, you mean?

I prefer 5x7" unless I have good reasons to use a different size. And the 165mm Angulon is one of my most used lenses. :)

walter23
16-Oct-2007, 14:26
I've had 4x5 for about a year and I love it. However - I just got an 8x10 field camera (needs some minor restoration work) and I'm really looking forward to shooting it.

I did not buy the 8x10 because I wanted more resolution. My 4x5 gives phenomenal resolution even scanned on my (high end) consumer flatbed epson V750-M. I don't have the budget for drum scanning, so I print digital prints from my V750-M and do enlargements in my darkroom for B&W. The major limitation I face is limited DR capabilities of my scanner and matching colour exactly - even with profiles it can take some tweaking to get a good scan of velvia, and you'll always lose a bit of dark shadow detail. This is format independent - 8x10 would be just as bad.

I bought the 8x10 for the option of doing larger contact prints, especially for alternative processes for which this is required (very low sensitivity materials requiring strong UV exposure, so enlargement is not possible). I also bought it because of the different optical qualities. As you probably appreciate, your depth of field can become much narrower for a given composition as you move up in format size, and the quality of focus falloff can change depending on format and lenses. At 8x10 a head-shoulders portrait is almost a macro photograph so you've got some interesting possibilities for extremely narrow DOF and wicked bokeh. Just look at Jim Galli's website for example (though of course that's Jim's skill as much as any equipment). Anyway, I look forward to checking the enormous resolution of my 8x10 scans, but that's not why I bought it. 4x5 already yields a fantastic amount of detail.

Michael Roberts
17-Oct-2007, 06:09
A bit late, but maybe you are still debating...

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

I have found a quality difference in 40x50 prints from 8x10 versus 4x5. With 4x5 enlargements at this size, they are not as sharp as I would like viewed close-up (1 to 2 feet); they are fine from 6 to 8 feet away. In general, I won't enlarge more than 8 times if viewers are going to be able to walk right up to the print. So, for me, max print size from a 4x5 is 32x40.

Another consideration for me is how far away the most distant subject is. I shoot a lot of mountain landscapes and I find that using a lens with twice the focal length on 8x10 versus 4x5 renders the distant subject much sharper--even on the slide/neg, which of course translates to a much sharper image on the final print. OTOH, if you are shooting portraits or if everything in your image is w/i a few hundred feet, this shouldn't be much of an issue.

Shailendra
17-Oct-2007, 12:04
Thanks for all the feedback, I decided to purchase a Wehman 8x10 from a member of this site. And based on some feedback, I've also purchased a 240mm Sironar N lens from KEH. As soon as time allows, I'll be going to Yosemite for the first BW shoots.

Michael Roberts
17-Oct-2007, 15:18
Good for you! If I had to choose one format, I would go with the 8x10 for several reasons, but mainly for its versatility. I can shoot 8x10, 4x5, 4x10, etc., and have the longer bellows and lenses for both far off subjects and macros. Hopefully, you have or can add a 4x5 reducing back and at least a 4x10 splitter. Have a great time!

Shailendra
18-Oct-2007, 11:26
From my understanding, I can get a 4x5 reducing back custom made from Bruce Wehman. As for a 4x10 splitter, though I would like to, I'm not certain how to do that.

jetcode
18-Oct-2007, 11:34
Thanks for all the feedback, I decided to purchase a Wehman 8x10 from a member of this site. And based on some feedback, I've also purchased a 240mm Sironar N lens from KEH. As soon as time allows, I'll be going to Yosemite for the first BW shoots.

I really like that 240mm on 8x10. Wait 'till you view an image on the ground glass. It's breathtaking. I have the Caltar version for my 4x10. Great lens.

Dan Schmidt
18-Oct-2007, 13:01
From my understanding, I can get a 4x5 reducing back custom made from Bruce Wehman.

Last time i looked into this you got the back and then you sent it to Bruce. He then mounts it on a blank back.

You can also buy a blank 8x10 back from Bruce and adapt your reducing back on your own. This is what I did (but I have access to a machine shop)

I setup the blank so that it could be used both with the 4x5 and 5x7 backs I had. I find I am more partial to the 5x7 back right now.

Shailendra
18-Oct-2007, 13:57
I really like that 240mm on 8x10. Wait 'till you view an image on the ground glass. It's breathtaking. I have the Caltar version for my 4x10. Great lens.

I must admit, the ground glass is a thing of beauty to look at once the lens is wide open. Like looking at a small TV monitor.

Michael Roberts
20-Oct-2007, 18:19
From my understanding, I can get a 4x5 reducing back custom made from Bruce Wehman. As for a 4x10 splitter, though I would like to, I'm not certain how to do that.

There are two ways: the simplest (and perhaps only option for a Wehman, I'm not sure) is to cut a spare 8x10 dark slide. There are discussions of how to do this on this site, but in general you need to cut an L-shape out, leaving an inch or so of the slide all the way down the handle so the light trap is fully engaged. The other option (at least for Deardorffs and 2-Ds and some other brands) is to buy a 4x10 or 5x8 splitter made of wood that fits into slots in the inside of the 8x10 back. Both methods achieve the same goal, i.e., to block half the sheet of 8x10 film to allow two images to be made on one sheet of film. If you get a 4x5 reducing back from Bruce, you might ask him about 4x10 and 5x8 options.
Best,
Michael

Darcy Cote
22-Oct-2007, 18:13
Quoted by Mike Sherck:
Of course there's a difference: a piece of 8x10 film has 4x (400%) the area of a piece of 4x5 film. How could there not be a difference? You've asked the wrong question. What you want to know is, is there a difference which matters to you, given what you intend to do with them. Only you can answer that question, with experience. The best we can do is guess. I choose to guess 'yes' because this is America, darn it, and size does matter!

Sorry Mike, this is an international forum. :-)

Clay Turtle
6-Jun-2008, 04:29
Bender (the maker of th e LF camera kits) sells (or sold) them.

I've made a few using spare darkslides. I like the recent one I made using a metal darkslide. An earlier plastic one got damaged (I am sort of rough in how I store them) and the metal one is holding up well.

I used a hacksaw blade and touched it up with a file. I used a black marker pen to blacken the cuts. I mark the handle of the darkslide to show which half is missing (and to remind me which slide I have it -- the half or the whole one!)

Two points to remember, 1) Leave enough slide to completely fill the light trap at the top end (end of holder you insert slide into) 2) Cut a little less than half the darkslide away -- you want to have some overlap that will seperate the two 4x10 negs on the sheet of film.

Vaughn

Oh, thanks for the tip . . . I have been considering reformating a holder to roll (medium format) to give the 5x7 aspects of the 4x10 is to the 8x10.Problem is I have too few 5x7 now but I did pick up some wood ones when I bought some 8x10 holders off a guy. Turms out, they were speciality holders he had made (or made himself) to fit the 8x10 & therefore thicker than the standard 5x7 holder . . .