4 x5 or 5 x7

[Robin Campbell]

Hi

Could i have some advice please on the advantages and disadvantages of the 4 x 5 versus the 5 x 7 format.

Thank you.

Robin

[jotloob]

Robin

I give you the three main reasons , why I got a 4x5 (ARCASWISS) camera .

a) A 4x5 camera weighs less than a 5x7 . Lenses are smaller and cheaper .
b) There are more different films available on the market for 4x5 than for 5x7 .
c) Using a JOBO 2500 tank system , you can develop the 4x5 films in the same manner
than you did with your MF films in the past . You can even use the same developing
times .

Additional , a 4x5 piece of film can be scanned quite comfortable on many scanners .

Regards Jurgen

[Matus Kalisky]

This depends entirely on your requirements.
- For color - 4x5 is better (you can get a reducing back fo 5x7 too) - too few color 5x7 films out there.
- 4x5 is lighter - the backpackers choice (mostly).
- 4x5 tends to be cheaper (not a general statement) - more used cameras available.
- 4x5 lenses are cheaper (those with reasonable coverage) - especially true for wide angle lenses.
- 4x5 is too small (according to my opinion) for contact printing - 5x7 might do the job, although 8x10 could be even more appealing.
- 4x5 enlargers are much more common and more compact.
- 4x5 does not really look a like a LARGE FORMAT (at least my Tachi ;) does not)
- 5x7 is a bit more "panoramic" if yu like it.
- scanning from 5x7 for medium sized prints requires less performance from the scanner (having the consumer fladbed scanners in mind) in the terms of resolution
- both are small and cheap when comapred to 20x24 :p
- both are just black boxes to hold the film one one side and lens on the other side ( in theory ... )

- I have 4x5 tachi - small and light - I love it. But will get one day something more substential for contact printing (8x10, 7x11, 5x12, or even 7x17 ?)

[Ole Tjugen]

Weight: Not much difference, really. No 5x7" camera is as lightweight as the really lightweight 4x5" cameras, but otherwise there's not much difference. Some manufacturer's 4x5" cameras are really 5x7" cameras with 4x5" backs.

Colour film: True, there are more colour films for 4x5" than for 5x7". But there is quite a good selection for 13x18cm - which uses the same size holders as 5x7".

Lens availability/price: Most lenses can be used on either. A 90mm f:8 is a relatively inexpensive superwide for 5x7", or a not-so-wide for 4x5". Most 150mm plasmats just barely cover 5x7". It seems to be quite easy to find a 210mm at a reasonable price.

I use both 4x5" and 5x7" - and 9x12cm and 13x18cm film in those cameras - as well as 18x24cm/8x10", and 24x30cm/9.5x12". Each format has its strengths and weaknesses, but for black&white I prefer 5x7" or bigger. I have a 5x7" enlarger, so I can choose whether to contact or enlarge my 5x7"s.

[Ted Harris]

Let's look at the aesthetics of using 4x5 v. 5x7 instead of the more technical differences described very well, above.

Assuming you print the full frame, many argue that the proportions of 5x7 are more pleasing to the eye than those of 4x5.

You can also argue that viewing a 5x7 gg opens up vistas to view in a way that is ot possible with 4x5, simply because of the larger area of the glass, thus allowing more/easier freedom of expression.

[John Kasaian]

4x5---the availability of color films, grafmatic holders, quickloads (and type 55 until Polaroid stocks run out)& cheap enlargers.
5x7---a more pleasing size for contact prints & alternative processes, less "square" & more of a chick magnet than 4x5 (though not as much of a chick magnet as 8x10!)

[Skorzen]

I am new to large format but my reasoning for sticking with 4X5 is:

Smaller and lighter than 5x7 or 8x10
If I want to contact print, personally I would want at least 8X10
you will find 50 4X5 enlargers for next to nothing for every 5x7 enlarger you can find.

So even though I just picked up an 8X10 for a good price, I am going to resell it because I cannot justify the expense of another format when I am already setup for 4X5 (anybody looking for a Calumet c-1?). At some point I would like to find a cheep 8X10 to do some contact prints with but at the moment my budget and time do not allow for it. Basically I would say (as long as you are doing traditional printing) find what enlarger you will be using, if you can find a 5X7 enlarger locally cheap than maybe go for 5X7, but for me I think I would still stick with 4X5 because in general film and lenses are cheaper IMHO.

[Ken Lee]

You'll never know in advance, and it may not be an either/or decision. Different photos call for different formats, and sometimes, you see things differently, according to the tools you have at hand. It's a circular process, not a linear one.

Thus, if you get a camera that lets you change the back, you are not locked in to one size, or one look. A second back is generally smaller and cheaper than a second camera. If you choose lenses with adequate coverage, your normal lens for the larger size, can be used as a portrait lens for the smaller size... etc. 5x7 contact prints are at the small end of the spectrum, but can be exquisite nevertheless. With modular cameras, if you feel like moving up to 8x10, you just get a back for 8x10.

I purchased a used Sinar P for the price of a new low-end wooden field camera. As a modular system, I can never outgrow it. Later I purchased a 5x7 back, and now my field cameras sit on the shelf. The Sinar has virtually no limitations of movement or adjustment, and isn't too heavy unless you plan to climb mountains with it, or have a physical limitation. My only regret is that I didn't get one sooner.

One advantage of 5x7 over 4x5 is that even low-end scanners like the Epson 4990, are adequate for making large prints (or cropped images) of truly outstanding quality. That's true, even if you only get 1800 ppi out of the Epson. With 4x5, some of us wonder if we shouldn't have paid more and gotten a drum scan, or a high-end scanner.

I can't recall hearing that question often asked, by people who scan larger negatives. It's the 4x5 shooters that seem to be stuck in that awkward place.

[George Hart]

Robin, you have had some excellent answers, but we would be able to help you more precisely if you tell us what you want to do with your camera, whether you want to buy used or new, which lenses you would aim for, and so on. In a large measure, it's horses for courses!

[Ron Bose]

I like 5x7 becuase I like to hold prints in my hands to look at them. A 5x7 contact print is simply beautiful.

4x5 IMO is a touch too small to contact print and therefore excels by enlarging.

So, if you don't have a 4x5 enlarger and don't want such a huge beast, go 5x7 and make contact prints !

[Brian Ellis]

Now that you can scan 5x7 rather than needing a 5x7 enlarger the only real downside to me is the lack of a wide selection of films and my own highly personal (i.e. please don't flame or argue) belief that as different films disappear from the market the formats that go will be those that have the fewest users and 5x7 is far less popular than 4x5. When I owned a 5x7 camera I was doing contact printing exclusively. While 5x7 prints occasionally worked well for a particular photograph, in general I found it too small for most of the things I did. But a 5x7 contact print of the right photograph is a beautiful thing.

[Dan Fromm]

Robin, I believe you're contemplating moving from 6x7 to a larger format. A. A. Blaker's advice, published in his book Field Photography, may be of interest.

He opined that a move up that doesn't at least double both dimensions of the frame isn't worth the trouble. Nominal 6x7 is actually 56 x 68-72; following Blaker's rule, the next size larger would have to be at least 112 x 136-144. That's larger than 4x5.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Schmidt]

I like having a lightweight 8x10 with 4x5 and 5x7 reducing backs. I would have started this way if I had to do it over again.

I can make contacts over a range of sizes and the subject dictates the format. It is so nice to use a 4x5 or 5x7 back on an 8x10. Plenty of bellows extension and ample movements.

But I tend to like longer lenses, if your view is wide than you might be too scrunched up on the 8x10. Even though I used wide lenses in the smaller formats, It turned out that I liked longer lenses when I started large format.

[Nick_3536]

When I got a 5x7 a couple of things helped.

All my 4x5 lenses still worked.

The format looked better to my eyes then the boxier 4x5.

I don't think 8x10 really fits into this question. It's really just a bigger 4x5. An 8x10 makes larger contacts then a 4x5 but it's still boxy like a 4x5 print.

You have to decide what looks right to you.

FWIW my 8x10 with the 5x7 will go wider then any lens you'd want to use on 5x7. Which just shows different cameras will have different strengths and weaknesses.

[Dave Aharonian]

I went from 4x5 to 5x7 about 1.5 years ago. The main reason was that I like the proportions of the frame better, and I wanted to start doing platinum printing and you can make beautiful little 5x7 contact prints. I found 4x5 to be just a little too small. The cameras are only a bit larger and all my lenses from the 4x5 work on 5x7 - but I realize that's not always the case. I only shoot b&w so colour film is not an issue for me. I still have my 4x5 but it hasn't been used at all since going to 5x7.

[jetcode]

Robin, my personal favorite is a 4x10 camera with a 5x7 back. I have found though that I rarely shoot 5x7 because the 4x10 is SO much more pleasing aesthetically for the kind of work I do. The 4x5 is the smallest of the LF cameras and there are a lot of well established resources available for this format. 4x5 is the most economical path.

[audioexcels]

6.5X8.5 should be considered. It is not much larger than 5X7, but it is a LOT larger, at least to my eyes (looking through the GG and the contact print). I have a 6.5X8.5 camera that weighs 5lbs. Find a 5X7 that weighs 5lbs...I think there is one=Nagaoka.

I don't see the problem with color emulsions and 5X7 film. Just buy expired 8X10 film and cut it to 5X7 size.

I disagree about the lenses being cheaper on 4X5. For example, to get the same view as you would on an 8X10 using a Nikkor 120/8=$650 (Just sold one for this price), you need to buy the 47XL=about $1000+ and don't forget the center filter which many do not use with the Nikkor on 810. After that, lenses and their resolution really don't mean squat and you can get great lenses on the cheap where film surface area begins to dominate as far as resolution is concerned.

But back to 5X7, as mentioned, pretty much all the lenses from 4X5 fit the format, you have almost 2X the surface area, so all that amazing color film emulsion from 4X5 becomes a mute point with almost 2X more resolution on the sheet.

And lastly, as mentioned already, looking through a 5X7 GG is way nicer than getting out the dark cloth and trying to see this mini view of the 4X5 GG.

And lastly, lastly...there's always a 4X5 back for that 5X7 camera, so you can shoot both formats.

Cheers!

[sparq]

Since I've gotten 5x7 and 8x10 cameras, my 4x5 rig does not see much action any more. For me, going super wide is easier on 5x7 than on 4x5, and 4x5 is too small for my soft focus lenses. My 4x5 and 5x7 cameras are comparable size wise (two Linhof Technikas), the 8x10 is in a different league as it is WAY bigger and requires much bigger everything (especially a heavy duty tripod).

[John Kasaian]

I've got a 5x7 Agfa Ansco "Universal". It takes both 5x7 and 4x5 backs plus it has sliders on the 5x7 for 7"x2-1/2" panoramas and 3-1/2"x5" The possibilities of such an old camera---an antique really---just blow me away.

[paulr]

5x7 = cooler
4x5 = more practical

i always used 4x5, but in my next life i think i'll pick up a 5x7 and live a little.

[Turner Reich]

Will you be enlarging or contact printing? A contact print from a 4x5 inch negative is, well small, while a contact print from a 5x7 inch negative is, well jewell like. Enlargers for 4x5 are available without much pain. A 5x7 enlarger will more difficult to find and will the cost of lenses and negative carriers etc. will be high and harder to find.

Get a 4x5 setup, then consider the move up.

[Robin Campbell]

Thank you to everyone for such helpful and informative replies. I have managed to look at and hold some cameras. I am going to go for a 5x7 format. I really like the format and the look of the gg and it opens up panaromic opportunities. I realise that there are difficulties with this format vis a vis 4 x 5 but i am going to buy some expired 8 x 10 film and try to get some holders. I am seriously considering the Ebony57SUE, abiet there is no rear shift and i dont know if that is a problem. Any other suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thank you all again.

[Jiri Vasina]

Robin, I also would choose (and have chosen :) ) a 5x7 camera.

But your idea of cutting 8x10 film, well I don't think it's very wise. It would mean 2 cuts, too much hassle IMO. Too much can go wrong. Either, buy 5x7 film, get 13x18cm holders (to be found on European eBay) with 13x18cm film.

Or if you think that 8x10 film is more available, if you think it would be more available in the future, if you don't mind cutting the film, then I'd also suggest to check out Chamonix 5x8" camera (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33183) - that was the route I chose in the end... You can use 5x7"/13x18cm film, and also cut 8x10" into 5x8" film and use that too. This way you have the most choices...

[Clay Turtle]

Hi
Could i have some advice please on the advantages and disadvantages of the 4 x 5 versus the 5 x 7 format.
Thank you. Robin
I went with th 4x5 (rail) format & now refurbishing a 5x7 (field) format . . . why because I am going to use a reducing film holder to shoot 4x5 while still retaining the ability to shoot 5x7. Field have less movement but I want to know the limitations of this style of camera & shooting 4x5 in the 5x7 will tend to extend the lack of movement. All things considered any format or system has their good & bad aspects but the 5x7 with a reducing back, would seem to have the best of both worlds.

[Ron Marshall]

I shoot both formats.

Plusses or 4x5: Greater selection of film types; Lenses generally somewhat lighter weight; somewhat lighter weight cameras.

Plusses for 5x7: Easier to compose; some images are better suited to a more elogated format; slightly greater enlargement possible (although the film area is almost twice as large, the width is only 25% larger than that of 4x5).

I use both, but 5x7 only close to the car.

[Jiri Vasina]

The best way - have a light field 5x7" camera with a 4x5" reduction back. The weight would not be significantly larger than most 4x5" cameras, and this way you would have the most positives in the setup.

And my Chamonix 5x8 is light enough to walk with for a while too...

[Nick_3536]

i am going to buy some expired 8 x 10 film and try to get some holders. I am seriously considering the Ebony57SUE, abiet there is no rear shift and i dont know if that is a problem. Any other suggestions would be much appreciated.



You're considering one of the more expensive cameras and expired film? :confused:

If you're trying to save money buy one of the cheaper choices [new or used] and fresh film. Unless you're looking at colour film why are you cutting film at all?

[Carsten Wolff]

I started with an old 4x5 Arca. I then expanded by lucking out on a s/h 5x7 rear standard and a w.a. 5x7 leather bellows for the same camera system. I finally added a 6x17 Canham panorama back. So you can start with 4x5 and go further on the cheap, but you have to be lucky, too.
I now do color mostly in 4x5 and 6x17 and b/w in 5x7. I went for the upgrade since I managed to get hold of a 5x7 Durst enlarger for only 200$ and I liked the panorama option plus the aspect ratio and (minor) size advantage of the 5x7.

[Chuck Pere]

Don't forget to check out the price of 5x7 holders. They are much more expensive than 4x5 on the used market. If I had to cut film all the time I'd get a light weight 8x10 system. But plenty of B&W film in 5x7.

[Clyde Rogers]

I really like the shape of the 5x7 format much more than 4x5. Despite that, I shoot more 4x5 these days---I can get away with a smaller, lighter camera, and hence a smaller, lighter tripod and holders (5x7 holders are, quite naturally, about twice as big and heavy as 4x5 holders). And with 4x5, I can go readyload if I really need to go light. A small 4x5 with a couple lenses, a box of readyloads, and a few other niceties makes a shockingly light pack after hauling around the 5x7 for some years.

I'm really enjoying the feeling of freedom my 4x5 is giving me, but I'll likely be back to 5x7 at some point. When the light is right, you always wish you had a bigger camera.

Later,

--clyde

[Clay Turtle]

You're considering one of the more expensive cameras and expired film? :confused:

If you're trying to save money buy one of the cheaper choices [new or used] and fresh film. Unless you're looking at colour film why are you cutting film at all? Hmm . . . as I posted else where I like to shoot any film for a while to learn the emulsion chacteristics . . . which means I take some really bad shots but then I want to see how the film does handle the bad situations => low light to strong bright light with dark shadows.

[Clay Turtle]

I shoot both formats.

Plusses or 4x5: Greater selection of film types; Lenses generally somewhat lighter weight; somewhat lighter weight cameras.

Plusses for 5x7: Easier to compose; some images are better suited to a more elogated format; slightly greater enlargement possible (although the film area is almost twice as large, the width is only 25% larger than that of 4x5).

I use both, but 5x7 only close to the car.
yes, I think I know what ya are saying bought this field camera as I wanted into the 5x7 format by clipping it to the tripod form extending it's capacity. It shipped at 9lbs 14oz. :eek:
Now for the crux . . . the camera is still with the wood working shop and I am already seeing some of the limitations of the field design. I figured that I could clip on the field use an adapter booard to slide into the front standard giving it a longer extension. The mere weight of the thing has me considering more drastic measures. By making it a permenent attachment I can get rid of the base plate & some other weight reductions while producing better shift & rise capacity . . . thing is this was to be an intermedate step toward the 8x10 format. From the little handling I got before I put it into the shop, I don't feel it will be suitable & will probably be resold when I get the 8x10 produced. I had to have lens boards & back plate which would go with it at any rate but I am a little shy about making drastic changes due to the temperary nature of the beast. Any opinions?

[sanking]

6.5X8.5 should be considered. It is not much larger than 5X7, but it is a LOT larger, at least to my eyes (looking through the GG and the contact print). I have a 6.5X8.5 camera that weighs 5lbs. Find a 5X7 that weighs 5lbs...I think there is one=Nagaoka.



My 5X7 Nagaoka weighs 3.5 lbs. It has fourteen inches of bellows draw, and the following movements: swing, tilt, rise and fall on the front, and swing and tilt on the back.

At the time of purchase I also bought a 4X5 back so I can use either 4X5 or 5X7 format with the camera. Given the choice I much prefer the 5X7 format, primarily for the aesthetics of the longer rectangle. In the more than two decades I have owned this camera I have only used 4X5 for testing film. Why would one shoot 4X5 when 5X7 is available on the same camera?

Two decades ago 5X7 was less attractive than it is today. The format seemed to be disappearing as many professional portrait studios shifted from 5X7 to MF, and 5X7 enlargers were much harder to find, and a lot more expensive, than 4X5 enlargers. Also, very few new cameras in 5X7 were being made at the time. Everybody I spoke to back then recommended a 4X5 camera over 5X7 but I liked the latter for aesthetic reasons and went with my intuition rather than my logic and am very glad I did.

Now many photographers are scanning and printing digitally rather than with an enlarger so that advantage of 4X5 over 5X7 has virtually disappeared, and the popularity of 5X7 appears to be increasing rather than decreasing, and most B&W emulsions that are available in 4X5are also available in 5X7. Today I can think of only two good reasons for 4X5 over 5X7, 1) the greater number of color emulsions, and 2) readyload packs are not available in 5X7, which makes it possible to assemble a slightly smaller travel kit with 4X5 than 5X7, even when using a camera with both backs.

Sandy King

[Vaughn]

I was using a 5x7, but then someone stole it. I use the insurance money to help buy an 8x10 system. Can't see going back to 5x7, but I do like the proportions...and I still like working with those negs occasionally. 7"x17" is what sounds the most interesting.

But I am keeping my 4x5. When the bigger cameras are too big for a good long hike, it will be nice to have the Gowland Pocketview. With the lens (150/5.6) on it, it weighs just less than 2.5 pounds. Of course, one has to add on the film holders. If one needs the advantages of redi-loads, then 4x5 capability is needed. To carry the same number of sheets of film in the field, you are about doubling the weight and space required for the holders going from 4x5 to 5x7. One of my 8x10 holders weight as much as the aforementioned 4x5 and lens...especially one of the 8x10 holders that have the metal darkslides!

Vaughn

[sanking]

I was using a 5x7, but then someone stole it. I use the insurance money to help buy an 8x10 system. Can't see going back to 5x7, but I do like the proportions...and I still like working with those negs occasionally. 7"x17" is what sounds the most interesting.


Vaughn


I agree with you about the 7X17". Of all the ULF formats it is the most distinctive to my eye. 8X20 has about the same aspect ration but the size and weight difference between 7X17 and 8X20 is more than one would think. IMO using a 7X17 is only marginally more difficult than using an 8X10. Biggest problem is optics since when you get into the size there are not a lot of lenses that cover with some movements.

But for those big redwood trees a 7X17" camera in vertical orientation would be the cat's meow. Just think what a nice carbon transfer print would look like of one of those big boys in 7X17!!

Sandy

[Vaughn]

Stop that Sandy! Man-O-Man! a 7x17 would be sweet! I have done some 4x10 verticals, and 4x10 is basically the same proportions as 7x17. There are several trees I'd like to revisit with an 7x17!

Would my 19" RD Artar cover a 7x17 if I happened to stumble and fall on a 7x17? I have a few hundred sheets of 14x17 X-ray film in the fridge that I could slice in half, too!

Vaughn

[sanking]

Stop that Sandy! Man-O-Man! a 7x17 would be sweet! I have done some 4x10 verticals, and 4x10 is basically the same proportions as 7x17. There are several trees I'd like to revisit with an 7x17!

Would my 19" RD Artar cover a 7x17 if I happened to stumble and fall on a 7x17? I have a few hundred sheets of 14x17 X-ray film in the fridge that I could slice in half, too!

Vaughn

Vaughn,

The 19" Red Dot Artar will cover 7X17 nicely. It would correspond more or less to a normal lens for this focal length.

Sandy

[Mike Castles]

If you like the aspect ratio of 5x7, but do not want to go larger than 8x10 you could try 6.5x10 (or even better 7x11). The camera set up would be much like 8x10, and the older wood holders are not as heavy as the 8x10's mentioned.

But yes 7x17 is a nice format (though have been thinking 8x12 would make a nice contact print).

[John Bowen]

I've got the 7x17, not I just need some redwood trees. Does anyone know where to find redwood trees in VA? ;-)

[jetcode]

Hmm . . . as I posted else where I like to shoot any film for a while to learn the emulsion chacteristics . . . which means I take some really bad shots but then I want to see how the film does handle the bad situations => low light to strong bright light with dark shadows.

I think it's best to learn emulsion characteristics on the film you intend to use in the field or studio

[jetcode]

I've got the 7x17, not I just need some redwood trees. Does anyone know where to find redwood trees in VA? ;-)

John I wish you could spend a couple days here in Northern CA -I could take you to some amazing groves along the coast

[jetcode]

Stop that Sandy! Man-O-Man! a 7x17 would be sweet! I have done some 4x10 verticals, and 4x10 is basically the same proportions as 7x17. There are several trees I'd like to revisit with an 7x17!

Would my 19" RD Artar cover a 7x17 if I happened to stumble and fall on a 7x17? I have a few hundred sheets of 14x17 X-ray film in the fridge that I could slice in half, too!

Vaughn

4x10 is my camera of choice - it is closest to the portability of a 5x7 and the proportions of a 5x12, 7x17, 8x20 - better choices of film too

[Clay Turtle]

I really haven seen any answers to my question which in the end be my decision made related to how well it works with temporary clipping & to begin with I will try shooting it as a stand alone article. I guess one thing that bothers me is that I usually shoot outdoors in the rough country. Most of the shots were pretty strait forward but in the city most of my shots have been used swing to align with buildings, streets, as well as shift in the rear standard. So I am worried that as is it won't give the adjustment I need. So far about 5 degrees is pretty much to normal for city work?

[Turner Reich]

4x5 or 5x7; go with 4x5, everything in 5x7 is expensive and getting hard to find.

Vaughn, get a dozen film holders for the camera and your RD will cover nicely.

[Nick_3536]

Is anybody making 4x5 holders? How high will the price for new 4x5 holders be? If anybody even fills the market.

[Clay Turtle]

yes, I think I know what ya are saying bought this field camera as I wanted into the 5x7 format by clipping it to the tripod form extending it's capacity. It shipped at 9lbs 14oz. :eek: Any opinions? Well, I got the camera back from the shop, a friend had made up some lens boards & adapted the cg/film holder plate to the rear standard. (See prrevious post photo) I had gotten some Gekko B&W paper just for checking the build out so I broke the seal & extended to the longest reach. I lined sides ofthe bellows with sheets of paper then layed a double layer lengthwise along the bottom. I used a film holder to shut oof the end afteer I had stood a sheet upright at that end. Mounted the camera on the tripod & let it set inmorning sun for over an hour rotating it so that both sides recieved direct sunlight.
The end sheet was a definite light fog but I hadn't covered it with a dark cloth & had it set to the verticle format; the other end wasn't nearly as bad. But both the top sheet on the bottom layer & 1 side sheet showed about a half inch of black after processing. I had noted earlier that the front standard board might be a problem as it slides up & down. Still haven't found the GG so I haven't shot it yet . . . but I am shaffing at the bit.
I am going to have to do something on those end plates?

[Clay Turtle]

Took the 5x7 otu yesterday afternoon, I was shocked at the ease of the field design. My 4x5 (monorail) is a real load as I use an large plastic container to pack it in but it weight is far less than the field. Yet the neat little package that the field folds down to although much heavier is a breeze to carry & set up. I usually take at least 10 to 20 minutes to set up & get the mono ready. In 20 minutees I had not only taken the shot but packed up & headed back to the car. Of course I was traveling light, one film holder with my accessories, camera with/ lens attached & my tripod which would increase by at least a separate bag of holders loaded with multiple film types.