PDA

View Full Version : Thinking of "stepping down"



Daniel Stone
20-Aug-2010, 11:25
hey all,

need some advice, please understand I'm not looking to start a "this camera is better than this camera" thing here, just looking for some information.

Basically, I've been using my Kodak Master view while here in Iceland assisting M+P, and I've come to have a love/hate relationship with it...While having 8x10 negatives is great(whether b&w or color), I've really started to hate the bulk and weight of the 8x10 system(even with just one lens, a convertible 360/620 symmar).

so.... Having recently fondled a Linhof Master Technika, I've really been considering just moving down to 4x5 for LF, since I don't make huge enlargements(after scanning color, or b/w enlargements), and the system is very quick to set up, and very high quality(similar to the Kodak Master View).

Having used the 4x5 reducing back on the KMV about 75% of the time is also somewhat of an incentive to just stick with 4x5 anyhow.

I know it sounds like my mind is made up, but I'm somewhat at a stand-still right now, and would like some advice from people who shoot 4x5 AND 8x10, whether currently or in the past.

I'm really into shooting color, whether it be 4x5 fujiroids(which I've been shooting a LOT of on this trip in Iceland), or 4x5 film(mostly because its cheaper than 8x10).

need some help here....

oh... and since HIGH quality 4x5 lenses are much more available, and cheaper than their 8x10 counterparts, that's another reason, for me...

thanks

-Dan


p.s..... anyone interested in a swap? Master technika for a KMV? Just wondering :-).

Kirk Gittings
20-Aug-2010, 11:28
A couple of times over the years I bought an 8x10, and then went back to 4x5. Personally I just didn't love the hassle of the larger camera and was satisfied with the quality of 4x5.

Daniel Stone
20-Aug-2010, 11:31
Kirk,

quick question: I'm planning on investing in a drum scanner if my budget in the next year can stretch to allow it, so being able to handle 8x10 and 4x5 film on the same scanner is important. When you refer to "quality", are you optically enlarging, or scanning your film?

thanks

-Dan

jp
20-Aug-2010, 11:33
I'm a bit envious you are in Iceland.

Seems reasonable if you have to tote it all around.

I use 8x10 so I can use lenses I can't put on my 4x5, and to a lesser extent so I can contact print or have bigger negatives to scan.

If you like your lens selection for 4x5, then use it. It's easier to optically enlarge, more film choice, more lens choices, more portable cameras, more camera choice, more developing system options, excellent image quality, lots of things to like about it. I can go shooting sometimes with a couple film holders in my pocket, carrying a speed graphic, and monopod or tiltall, and get some nice results. I mostly use 4x5 but appreciate 8x10 for some uses.

Kirk Gittings
20-Aug-2010, 11:36
Kirk,

quick question: I'm planning on investing in a drum scanner if my budget in the next year can stretch to allow it, so being able to handle 8x10 and 4x5 film on the same scanner is important. When you refer to "quality", are you optically enlarging, or scanning your film?

thanks

-Dan

Both, but I don't print large, only occasionally over 16x20. I print the odd 20x24 and very rarely any larger than that-like once in the past 30 years for a special show.

Daniel Stone
20-Aug-2010, 11:39
Kirk,

thanks. Same for me. Very rarely 20x24, generally 16x20 paper is my max.

I'm using 35mm more and more these days for b/w, and 4x5(and 8x10) for color work.

my RZ is not getting much use unfortunately.... She's just sitting there all lonely like....

-Dan

Daniel Stone
20-Aug-2010, 11:44
I have a 4x5 reducing back for the KMV, but my main reason for wanting to keep the KMV is so I CAN shoot 8x10(and 4x5) on the SAME camera. But since 8x10 film is soooooooo expensive(especially for a college student like me), and I despise credit cards(well, debt in general), this is the primary reason for me to use 4x5 over 8x10...

Bill_1856
20-Aug-2010, 11:48
The reasons for shooting 8x10 are if you routinely make contact prints or do huge enlargments. It would appear that neither criteria applies to you. Go for the 4x5.

Ken Lee
20-Aug-2010, 12:03
Not exactly what you asked, but for B&W especially, there's 5x7: a pleasant compromise which may not necessitate the purchase of a high-end scanner.

Perhaps money and time are no object for you, but for many of us, there is the initial cost of the scanner, and the ongoing issue of having maintaining a (possibly obsolete) computer, operating system, and device drivers - as well as servicing the actual scanner, finding parts, etc. In other words, it's an investment.

From 5x7, an 11x14 is only a 2X enlargement: within the capacity of even a consumer-grade scanner.

Henry Ambrose
20-Aug-2010, 12:12
I really miss my KMV, but it was a chore to haul it and its stuff.

I'm sticking with 4x5 because "4x5 stuff" is readily available and reasonably priced and especially because I have a very nice 4x5 enlarger.

Ken's suggestion of 5x7 might be a great idea if you were -only- scanning or had a 5x7 enlarger. I've thought about that but I'm locked on my current darkroom which is limited to 4x5 max. But if I started from scratch I'd sure look at 5x7 real hard.

If you're doing mostly color, a 4x5 and a high end scanner is about as fine as anyone could want.

Vaughn
20-Aug-2010, 12:14
My thoughts are along the same as Ken's -- 5x7, but with the optional of a 4x5 back. Linhof 5x7's aren't very common, but they are out there. 5x7 makes for good intimate alt process prints, and one track down a 5x7 enlarger eventually.

Ken -- just checking on terminology -- would 5x7 to 11x14 actually be a 4x enlargement (thinking of area)?

AgentX
20-Aug-2010, 12:50
If you're enlarging, and not to massive sizes, I don't see much of a reason not to use 4x5.

If you're doing a mix of enlarging and contact prints, and you have access to a big enough enlarger, 5x7 is probably a great choice...

A 5x7 (or whole plate?) camera with a 4x5 back is a great suggestion, too.

IanG
20-Aug-2010, 13:11
I shoot both 5x4 & 10x8, but there's practicalities. So I mainly shoot 5x4, as I've been doing for my personal work sink the mid 80's, much longer for commercial work.

No way will I stop using my 10x8 cameras but I'm more choosy as to when & how I use them, I won't backpack 10-15+ miles with them 2-3 maybe :D

Ian

Kirk Gittings
20-Aug-2010, 13:15
Actually Ken's 5x7 suggestion is a great choice for many, especially if you contact print or scan. I've never shot it but many friends do. The negative is like a third larger but a tight 5x7 is not much larger than say a 4x5 Deardorff. Most of my 4x5 lenses will cover a 5x7 with room.

Andrew Plume
20-Aug-2010, 13:26
hey all,

need some advice, please understand I'm not looking to start a "this camera is better than this camera" thing here, just looking for some information.

Basically, I've been using my Kodak Master view while here in Iceland assisting M+P, and I've come to have a love/hate relationship with it...While having 8x10 negatives is great(whether b&w or color), I've really started to hate the bulk and weight of the 8x10 system(even with just one lens, a convertible 360/620 symmar).

so.... Having recently fondled a Linhof Master Technika, I've really been considering just moving down to 4x5 for LF, since I don't make huge enlargements(after scanning color, or b/w enlargements), and the system is very quick to set up, and very high quality(similar to the Kodak Master View).

Having used the 4x5 reducing back on the KMV about 75% of the time is also somewhat of an incentive to just stick with 4x5 anyhow.

I know it sounds like my mind is made up, but I'm somewhat at a stand-still right now, and would like some advice from people who shoot 4x5 AND 8x10, whether currently or in the past.

I'm really into shooting color, whether it be 4x5 fujiroids(which I've been shooting a LOT of on this trip in Iceland), or 4x5 film(mostly because its cheaper than 8x10).

need some help here....

oh... and since HIGH quality 4x5 lenses are much more available, and cheaper than their 8x10 counterparts, that's another reason, for me...

thanks

-Dan


p.s..... anyone interested in a swap? Master technika for a KMV? Just wondering :-).


hi Dan

I use all of these three formats, out of them, I probably prefer 5x7 and really recommend that, sadly there's little readily available choice (if at all) when it comes to colour in 5x7

andrew

Eric Biggerstaff
20-Aug-2010, 13:30
I used a 4X5 for many years (and still do) but a couple of years ago went for a 5X7 and it is my favorite by far. The camera is as light as my 4x5 (4X5 is a Zone VI and 5X7 is an old Conley), the cost of the camera is low (can find nice used ones), all my 4X5 lenses work well with 5X7, the negative gives me the option of contacts or enlarging (I have a 5X7 enlarger), the ratio is great for lanscape (I prefer the 4X5 for abstracts, portraits, etc) and the film cost is not much more than 4X5 (100 sheets of Ilford Delta 100 is about $140). FIlm choice in color is limited but there is plenty of B&W choices and film holders are easy to find used and not horrible in terms of cost if you shop a bit. For me, having the choice of both 4X5 and 5X7 is great and I wouldn't give up either.

Andrew Plume
20-Aug-2010, 13:36
I used a 4X5 for many years (and still do) but a couple of years ago went for a 5X7 and it is my favorite by far. The camera is as light as my 4x5 (4X5 is a Zone VI and 5X7 is an old Conley), the cost of the camera is low (can find nice used ones), all my 4X5 lenses work well with 5X7, the negative gives me the option of contacts or enlarging (I have a 5X7 enlarger), the ratio is great for lanscape (I prefer the 4X5 for abstracts, portraits, etc) and the film cost is not much more than 4X5 (100 sheets of Ilford Delta 100 is about $140). FIlm choice in color is limited but there is plenty of B&W choices and film holders are easy to find used and not horrible in terms of cost if you shop a bit. For me, having the choice of both 4X5 and 5X7 is great and I wouldn't give up either.

Hi Eric - your 5x7 Conley 'featured' in your Aspen shots from Colorado (in VC Mag) - good work - I much enjoyed it

andrew

Curt
20-Aug-2010, 14:02
The 5X7 format is in my opinion the best combination of ease of use in the field / negative yield. After I obtained a 5X7 camera I almost immediately started searching for an enlarger. I found a Durst 138 within months. In more recent time I started to learn the Carbon process and a 5X7 negative is really a fine size for a print. Naturally I choose the largest size I can handle in the field and that size is diminishing with the years but I would say that if I can take a 4X5 out then the 5X7 isn't much harder to use. Don't forget that a 4X5 back can be fitted if color film is only available in that format. It's a versatile format.

I like the format of 5X7, an often forgotten feature other than where it fits in to the size chart. All of this discussion has to take into account the working habits and work flow of the individual. Are you making contact prints, in which medium, scanning and printing or scanning and making digital negatives or enlarging with a conventional enlarger. You have to find the combination that fits you.

Curt

Daniel Stone
20-Aug-2010, 14:52
hey guys,

thanks for the recc on 5x7, but after using a friends 5x7 for a month(and putting about 50shts of film through it), I just couldn't seem to jive with the format for my work.

since I'm mostly shooting color for my photographs of people, 4x5 is readily available off the shelf almost everywhere(however, most places in 10sht boxes, :mad: instead of the 50sht boxes, 160NC....)

so thanks, but no thanks.

my budget is pretty limited(I know, I'm thinking of a Linhof...), but I want to buy/swap a camera that will last me for the rest of my life if possible(and if film is available that long).

for my b/w work, I usually scan, or make enlargements at my local photo center. For color, I make color proofsheets at school, and then scan them(usually by drum scanner, a friends).

-Dan

Curt
20-Aug-2010, 15:02
Some times it take a trip around the loop to get the thinking going and it sounds like you have made a choice, congratulations.

Curt

Eric Biggerstaff
20-Aug-2010, 15:02
B&H sells 160NC 50 sheet boxes in 5X7 size and is a normal stock item for them I believe. You can easily find 5X7 cameras for under $500 (way under).

Daniel Stone
20-Aug-2010, 15:24
B&H sells 160NC 50 sheet boxes in 5X7 size and is a normal stock item for them I believe. You can easily find 5X7 cameras for under $500 (way under).

hey Eric,

just looked it up, B&H has a minimum order of 30 boxes. And at $5/shot, I can't afford 5x7 160NC anyhow :(.

so yeah....

-Dan

Sal Santamaura
20-Aug-2010, 17:38
hey Eric,

just looked it up, B&H has a minimum order of 30 boxes. And at $5/shot, I can't afford 5x7 160NC anyhow :(.

so yeah....

-DanHow about $4.40 per sheet with a minimum order of one box?

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=264

Frank Petronio
20-Aug-2010, 17:45
I think working with a 4x5 Technika after a 8x10 KMV will be a joy, it will be a lot tighter and satisfying, even if it feels tiny.

Just leap in. But note that trying the sell (or trade) your KMV is hit or miss. Lots of people will tell you what a great camera you have but if only they had the cash...

Likewise, the good prices on the Technika may go on holiday once you're ready to buy... so go slow and be patient. Good luck.

You can always swap back ;-) If you are patient you can break even swapping your camera gear. But even if you lose a little, just consider that the rental fee.

Sirius Glass
20-Aug-2010, 18:54
Hi Daniel,

Check out the FreeStyle prices, they are usually the lowest.

Steve

John Kasaian
20-Aug-2010, 23:01
For color 4x5 is seriously more practical than 8x10 IMHO simply for cost. As far as wieght goes, if you can find a Gowland pocket (I think thats the model) 8x10 I think you'll find it much lighter than any Linhof (but of course you'll still be carting around 8x10 film holders, won't you?)
The KMV is a very nice camera. What exactly is it that you don't like about it? 8x10 is certainly more of a "production" to haul around, but you're not exactly doing candids, are you? And for portraits the lack of movements aren't exactly dealbreakers so why not medium format? An RB-67 or Rollei TLR, perhaps? You might get a hold of one just to play around with before committing to a sheet film format change.

Mark Sawyer
20-Aug-2010, 23:59
If your doing it for the love of doing it, just do what feels right. No wrong answers.

Hmmph. Big help that was... :P

Daniel Stone
21-Aug-2010, 02:28
hey guys(mark s., john K., and Frank),

I've been shooting with an RZ67 for about 3 years now, and loving it. Its such a great camera, but for me, having perspective control is almost imperative now, rather than just stopping down further. I've also come to find that I prefer to use sheet film, simply because my ham-hands seem to always crush 120/220 film :(. Not that I'm clumsy or anything, but to me, shooting LF is a different way of working. I use 35mm when I want to blast away quickly, or don't have time to set up the RZ or 4x5(or 8x10),but when I have the ability to set up, LF is where I like to be, even if its a tad more expensive per shot, but since I'm waiting for the right moment to shoot, rather than blasting away, my keeper % of shots is much higher than with rollfilm.

candids? No... here in Iceland I've been taking photographs of people I've been meeting while traveling(mostly on FP-100C45 instant film), but the times when I've felt inclined to actually shoot a piece of film, its usually 4x5 anyhow, since I have the back already on the camera.

John K: Its not that I don't "LIKE" the camera, its just that its too big for most of my purposes. But so far, having 30+ inches of bellows, and the more rise/fall than a sinar 8x10, its a very versatile camera I must say! And being able to fold into a rather small-ish package is the cherry on top :). Its a great camera, just too bulky most of the time.

Sal: thanks for the link to Badger, but I'm going to skip the 5x7 for now, and just consider 4x5.

Frank P: thanks for the tip. Yes, the only reason why I have decided on the M.T. is because of the build quality. I'm willing to wait to find one cheaply/ or as a trade for the KMV. I have a Cambo SCX I can use in the mean time, however, its neither small or light, rather the opposite in both cases :).

thanks all!

-Dan

Brian Ellis
21-Aug-2010, 13:38
I had no practical reason for using an 8x10 camera, I just really enjoyed composing on the big screen, using big holders and big lenses, etc. IOWs, it was fun for me, more so than 4x5. If the hassle is outweighing the fun for you as it sounds like it is then it's probably time to forget it because it doesn't sound like you have a practical reason for 8x10 either.

boris
21-Aug-2010, 14:49
a toyo 4x5 field is a very precise camera, it can be found for around 650$ in exellent condition.
boris

Bill Burk
22-Aug-2010, 21:29
Keep your 8x10 outfit and take it where ever you are privileged to go. If you look at one of your contact prints under a 30x scope and then compare it to an enlarged 4x5, you will see degraded image quality in the enlargement. I believe the fovea can tell the difference. I'm beginning to believe the eye is stimulated by barely perceptible details and this is what makes LF BW such an effective illusion of reality.

John Bowen
23-Aug-2010, 19:54
Daniel,

I put my 4x5 on the shelf once I experienced working with an 8x10. The larger viewing screen is like watching a blu ray DVD, vs a VHS tape. If the weight is an issue then consider a jogging stroller to transport your gear. I picked up a Ritter 8x10 a couple years ago it weighs about 6.5lbs. With it, I could use a lighter tripod and lighter tripod head compared to the Zone VI 8x10 I had been using.

YMMV,
John

PS can't wait to see some of your Iceland images.

Peter De Smidt
23-Aug-2010, 21:04
For most landscape subjects, I prefer working with 4x5 over 8x10. Working with what you prefer is what's important.

mortensen
25-Aug-2010, 02:36
I've also considered a master tech for quite a while now. I shoot 4x5 (mostly architectural and urban landscapes) and have also considered 8x10 - but apart from the bulk it will take me some years to afford the glass I want and a Ritter.

But, having all this 5x7 talk in mind, have you considered a Linhof Technikardan 45/45S? It's about the same size and weight as the master tech, it's Linhof quality, it has much more versatile back movement allowing you to do diptychs in 8x5 (not really usable for portraits though... but anything that doesn't move) with for instance a SA120 f8, Sironar-S/W 150, Sironar-S210 and 240 to name a few... PLUS it goes for USD1500-2000 on ebay instead of closer to USD3000 for a good condition master tech.

cons: not built as tough as the tech and some people complain about the folding mechanism... but for me - the TK45S is the plan.

Daniel Stone
25-Aug-2010, 04:01
hey guys,

I've considered the Technikardan, but after using one(a friends), it wasn't really for me. Very nice and light, and with the extra-long bellows, it was very nice to use. But to me, it was too fiddly. The master tech just feels solid, and no-nonsense. Everything(for me and my hands) falls right into place. This for me is important, since I love to photograph people, and focusing/composing quickly and efficiently is of the utmost importance.

For right now, I have an SCX cambo 4x5 that I'll be using it until my KMV gets shipped back by M+P after their vehicles get returned from this trip. The SCX is the exact opposite of what I really want in a 4x5, but it just seems to work very well. And its extremely solid as well.

John: thanks, I'll be working to get my negs processed asap. If I feel that I can have a concise-enough body of work, I might decide to print a portfolio. Since I'm really new to 'fine' printing, it might take a while, but I think I'd like to do it. Iceland's been great so far, I'm spending this last week on a farm working(the farmer's daughter is quite good looking too :)), that was my primary reason for coming here. But I've found that a small project (documentary style, 35mm) might be a possibility. I'll have to look at the film after I get home to see if its consistent enough for a portfolio itself. Who knows. I've barely shot just over 80 sheets of film(8x10), with some 4x5 as well, so not nearly the same as Ryan M.(200+ sheets supposedly). I can't understand how he got the time. Its just been "go,go,go" with M+P, to me. But then again, I don't just photograph TO PHOTOGRAPH. I like to wait for the right light, if possible. But generally M+P are photographing at that time anyhow. And only having really (1) 8x10 lens (360/620 convertible symmar) is very limiting, to say the least....

-Dan

rguinter
25-Aug-2010, 09:15
A couple of times over the years I bought an 8x10, and then went back to 4x5. Personally I just didn't love the hassle of the larger camera and was satisfied with the quality of 4x5.

I'm in the same position as Kirk. Although I'm only a hobby photographer and don't plan to ever go beyond that... I started with 4x5-inch photography in the late 1980s. At that time I also bought a beat-up old 8x10 field camera and shot a few boxes of Fujichromes. One taken in Chicago attached.

Given the hassle of carrying it around and setting it up I quickly back-tracked and stuck with 4x5-inch since then. The old 8x10 was sold or given away at the time... I really don't recall.

But I did keep the few film holders and lenses that went with the kit and my intention is to again (some day) dabble in 8x10, just a bit, once again. I admit: the transparencies are indeed a beautiful sight to behold.

Until then 4x5 and medium format will continue to be my primary hobby tools as my 3-backpacks are already full and I only have 1 aging back (and no pack animals) for carrying stuff.

Cheers. Bob G.