Zone vi 4x5 to zone vi 8x10

[shadow images]

Wanted to get a few opinion from people who have moved up to an 8x10 from 4x5. weight difference, amount of 4x5 shot to 8x10( will be getting a 4x5 reducer back of course), and the overall difference in the use of the two formats.

[Bruce Barlow]

Consider a Ritter 8x10. Weighs about the same as your Zone VI 4x5, and half the Zone VI 8x10. Richard will make a 4x5 reducing back for you, or alternately, the Zone VI reducing back fits. Or alternately, Richard will make a conversion kit that replaces the 8x10 bellows and back with a 4x5 bellows and back. Or 5x7. Or 11x14, or... You get the idea. It takes Zone VI or Sinar boards - let Richard know.

8x10 holders are bigger and heavier. Quantity of exposures made is directly related to number of holders owned. I have 30 4x5 holders and 22 8x10 holders, so I'm in the ballpark.

8x10 takes more time to set up, compose, etc. But that's part of the fun. I guess I make fewer 8x10 exposures than 4x5, but I tend to be really fast working 4x5.

[John Bowen]

Ever since I got my Zone VI 8x10, the 4x5 has pretty much been a dust collector. I recently purchased a Ritter 8x10 since it weighs about 1/2 what the Zone VI 8x10 weighs.

You'll love 8x10 contact prints. Just read Michael Smith's articles and check out the Azo forum over at Michaelandpaula.com If you are serious about 8x10 get yourself 100 sheets of the Lodima paper that Michael Smith has recently introduced and the chemicals to mix Amidol. It is all on the Azo forum, check it out and.....

HAVE FUN!

PS Bruce Barlow wrote an interesting article about Azo, it is posted on Bruce's website listed in the post above.

[Ralph Barker]

I still take both 4x5 and 8x10 on trips with me, but decide which I'll use on that particular day. If you shoot wide on 4x5, the reducing back may have limited utility, as the minimum draw on the 8x10 probably won't handle those lenses. Like many others, I find that I'm more frugal with the 8x10, and spend even more time considering the image, composition, etc. than with 4x5. I have maybe a dozen 8x10 holders, and have never run out during a typical day in the field.

On the camera side, rigidity and such are significantly more important, I think, than with 4x5, since the larger bellows are a much larger "sail". Although budget tends to trump everything else, due consideration to the lighter models which still have good rigidity is worth the time, and may be worth saving up for the really-right camera.

[shadow images]

You'll love 8x10 contact prints. .

Already have the 8x10 enlarger just need the camera now. Would love a Ritter camera but more than double the one I currently have my eye on. If I can't make a deal on that one may have to save more money before I buy anything.

[John Bowen]

Already have the 8x10 enlarger just need the camera now. Would love a Ritter camera but more than double the one I currently have my eye on. If I can't make a deal on that one may have to save more money before I buy anything.

I too have an 8x10 enlarger, the Beseler modification for a 4x5 enlarger. I've just never bothered to set it up. :eek: You'll LOVE 8x10 contact prints :D

[G Benaim]

There are only 2 drawbacks to 8x10, price of film and weight of gear. Other than that, it's head and shoulders over the rest. I also don't enlarge, and plan on printing on Lodima exclusively once I get some. Get a good tripod and head, preferably a Ries. It's a totally different experience from 4x5, much easier to use and thus more enjoyable.

[Bruce Barlow]

Would love a Ritter camera but more than double the one I currently have my eye on.

You're worth it, dontcha think??:)

A former Jesuit monk once gave me grief years ago for buying the mid-size Cuisinart. "What's the difference in price with the big one spread over your lifetime?" He was right. My dad aslo used to say "It doesn't cost that much more to go first class." Right again.

No financial interest in your decision, but Ricahrd is a good friend, and he's got a run of 8x10's underway.