Advantages of 5x7 over 4x5 - flexability?

[Michael_4021]

I have been an avid amature photographer for over 20-years, using 35mm and medium format cameras (Canon AE-1 Programs and Hasselblads) to shoot a great variety of subjects. Living in New Hampshire, I enjoy close proximity to the White Mountains and photograph a lot of mountain scapes, macro shots of plants/foliage, and star trail photography (follow link to great example of this as shot by photographer Bill Proud: http://forums.naturephotographers.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=8306088241&f=7086090941&m=5026011941). I want to step up to large format but am not sure of the camera size I should be looking for. I expect that I will mostly shoot 4x5 sheet film and am considering the Arca-Swiss F Metric, but do I understand correctly that a 5x7 camera with a reducing back, would allow broader camera adjustments across the larger ground glass, easier focusing and the ability to shoot the occasional 5x7, or should I just stick with the 4x5 model for its lighter, more compact frame? Though I backpack into many locations, I would be comfortable carrying up to 12 or 13 pounds of camera equipment (I know I'm going to regret putting that in writing) on those occasions, if I will have greater freedom in other aspects.

[John Kasaian]

Michael,

5x7 Rocks! No polaroids, fewer choices for films, but It Rocks!

---Cheers!

[Ernest Purdum]

To me, a major advantage of the 5X7 + 4X5 reducing back combination is that it makes fuller use of your expensive lenses. The same lens that provides worthwhile user of movements on 4X5 provides a truly wide angle view on 5X7.

[John D Gerndt]

As you mentioned you own a Hasselblad I will assume you were won over by the superior optics afforded you by that choice. A 5x7 is 75% larger and thus 75% sharper at a given enlargement. At 5x7 you can also enter the beautiful world of contact printing, from there, there is no looking back.

There isn’t really a reason NOT to buy into a 5x7 outfit. Many 4x5 cameras are 5x7s with a “reducing” back. The added weight is not really much in material, the options afforded are important. Yes DO go 5x7.

Sincerely,

[N Dhananjay]

In general, the weight difference between a 4x5 and a 5x7 is minimal. Many cameras use the same basic frame - for example, most Deardorff 4x5s are really just reducing backs on a 5x7 frame. Deardorff did make a special 4x5, typically referred to as "The Baby", which was lighter and more compact but the weight difference is nothing like going up to 8x10. I don't know about whether movements are greater with 5x7. Within a particular model, I think you would find a similar range of movements.

5x7 provides a bunch of advantages. Most people feel 5x7 is the first truly viable size for contact prints i.e., 4x5 is too small. And you get contact printing without the weight and bulk of an 8x10. Second, as mentioned already, 5x7 probably provides you the most range of options for lenses. Third, 5x7 typically will have a longer bellows and will allow you to use longer lenses than most 4x5s. 5x7 also has a distinctly different aspect ratio from the more square 4x5 and 5x7 formats. Ignoring debates about the merits of different aspect ratios, it is nice to have both since i tgives you the flexibility to deal with a wider variety of subject matter. The one disadvantage is probably the fact that 5x7 enlargers are a little rarer and more expensive than 4x5 enlargers but in the larger scheme of things, I think that is a trivial disadvantage. And if your logic for working with 5x7 is for contact prints plus enlarging 4x5s, there is probably no issue there.

Cheers, DJ

[Bruce Watson]

Michael,

You are going to be carrying quite a bit more than 13 pounds of camera equipment no matter what large format size you pick. I've done a fair amount of work getting my "kit weight" down. I'm using a 4x5 Toho, carrying four lenses (three from Kerry Thalman's lightweight list). Ten film holders (hey, if Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji would give me an ISO 400 B&W film in readyload/quickload format I'd be all over it - it would save a bunch of weight, not to mention dust). Pentax spot meter, filters, stepup rings, etc, and a Gitzo tripod and Arca-Swiss ball head. Fully packed, that's 13.5 kg - just under 30 pounds.

As to which format from an aesthic standpoint, the two formats give you slightly different aspect ratios (1:1.25 vs. 1:1.4). With the quality of today's films, you can enlarge either of them to wall size with excellent quality.

If you are going to mostly use 4x5 anyway, I guess you have to ask yourself what you really gain by having a 5x7 camera. If that gain is worth the higher cost of the film/processing, and the incremental weight (which shouldn't be more than 10% more), then go for it.

What I'm wondering is, why not commit to a format and use it pretty much exclusively for a while so that you can get used to LF in general, and that format in particular? If you do that for either 4x5 for 5x7, I suspect that in the end you won't change over to the other. But, that's just me. Your milage may vary.

[jnantz]

just to repeat what others have said ...

you won't be sorry if you get a 5x7 - the pro's definitely outweigh the cons ...

best of luck!

[steve simmons]

There are several things I like about 5x7

the proportions of the format. It, to me, is much nicer and more useful than the squarer 4x5/8x10. It works for the landscape, architecture, and portraits.

A 5x7 is nice for a contact print. I've always liked smaller prints but 4x5 is too small. It still feels like a proof print.

steve simmons

[Gem Singer]

Hi Michael,

Take a look at Jack Dykinga's book, "Large Format Nature Photography". He uses the 4X5 Arca Swiss. The book has excellent photos, diagrams, and explainations. It may help you to make your decision.

The Canham T645 Woodfield is a nice folding field camera that can be furnished with either a 4X5, or a 5X7 back. It's fairly light weight, and it will match the type of photography that you described.

[e]

As you get older your eyes will like the 5x7 screen MUCH better than 4x5. My 5x7 Anba Ikeda comes in at 3.8lbs so not any extra weight there.Sometimes I wonder what an Ebony 5x7 would be like but when I see the photos from the Anba I don't think there would be any difference except ease of function but not of weight. That said I don't think you will go wrong with either format. But...if you are going to take the time to hike with it and put it on a tripod why not have the camera with the most negative area.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have found two main disadvantages of getting a 5x7 and using it with a 4x5 reducing back. First, using extremely wide angle lenses (< 90mm) with movement is difficult. Second, while the weight may well be the same, the bulk will not be. This may not be a big deal for many of you, but it has been a concern for me, but then again I am more of a flyer than a hiker.

That said, I have been happily using a wooden 5x7 Canham for several years now. Buying a camera is a matter of compromise, just make sure you make the correct compromises for yourself...

[David Vickery]

5x7, 5x7, 5x7-----The best choice by far. With a 4x5 you can always do 4x5 but you can never do 5x7. With a 5x7 you can easily do both, and there is a big difference between the two.

[Jay DeFehr]

And if you're considering 5x7, why not 8x10? A few 5x7 contact prints are all that it will take to start you thinking in this direction. All of the arguments for going 5x7 over 4x5 apply equally to going 8x10 over 5x7. Larger than 8x10 and you'll pay dearly for lenses with enough coverage, filmholders, and the cameras themselves, but up to and including 8x10, everything is fairly equitable. The longer bellows of an 8x10 camera will come in very handy for your macro work, and eliminate the possibility of bellows flare. Having no enlarger, an 8x10 contact print would seem especially appealing. I hope you enjoy whatever you end up with. Good luck. Jay

[Ralph Barker]

We all have our preferences, Michael, and will pound our fists on our film holders with varying degrees of enthusiasm (or, restraint) when extoling the benefits of our personal preference. Truth is, there are a whole bunch of trade offs, most of which are highly subjective. Thus, my suggestion would be to carefully consider the technical aspects of the alternatives, consider your shooting style, and make choices accordingly. To emphasize a couple of points made or alluded to already, I'll add my 2¢ regarding my choices and experience.

First, 5x7 on its own is a wonderful format with a highly pleasing aspect ratio. But, as others have mentioned, the 5x7 film choices are very limited, and enlargers are hard to come by used. New, 5x7 enlargers will be an order of magnitude more expensive than a 4x5 enlarger, used. Ouch.

If your primary objective is to actually shoot mostly 4x5, remember that the adapter will add at least a 1/2" or so of additional effective minimum bellows draw. Thus, shorter focal lengths may not even focus at infinity, let alone allow for movements when the bellows are totally compressed. Oops. ;-)

My choices for field use settled on a 4x5 field camera with a reasonable balance between rigidity, functionality, weight, and expense - a Toyo 45AX. But, I also shoot 8x10. In the field, I use a Tachihara double-extension, and also carry an adapter down to 4x5. That allows me to use wide angle lenses (110mm or less) on the 4x5 body, moderate focal lengths (150mm to 300mm) with good coverage on either, and longer focal lengths on either 8x10 or 4x5 with the adapter. All of my lenses are mounted on 110mm Toyo boards, and I made a lens-board adapter for the Tachihara. I carry both formats in the vehicle, but only pack one setup on short hikes from the vehicle, as needed at any given location. Being able to mount a 450mm lens on the Tachihara, and then use the 4x5 adapter has been fantastic (the new favorite word in California since Arnold was elected as governor).

Your style, preferences, and objectives, however, may be completely different. Whatever those are, you should expect your field kit to be more like 20-30 pounds on the back, though. Trimming it down to 12 pounds or so will typically result in considerable gluteal bruising and chiropractic expense from kicking yourself in the butt 5 miles down the trail. ;-)


http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Photo-gear/ReducingBack04-550c.jpg

Toyo 8x10 to 4x5 reducing back adapted to Tachihara

[Bob Salomon]

"With a 4x5 you can always do 4x5 but you can never do 5x7"

Perhaps that is why Wista makes the 57 adapter back for their 45 cameras. Or Linhof, Sinar, etc. offer conversion kits for some of their cameras to convert 45 to 57 or 810. Or 57 and 810 to 45.

[Nick Morris]

Hello Michael, I have and used for a number of years a 4x5, and now use an 8x10. I have a 5x7 back for the 8x10, but haven't used it yet. I will say that there is a big difference in the field load of 4x5 and 8x10. I carry two lenses, camera, about ten holders, meter, filters, and dark cloth in a backpack; and carry a 3021 bogen tripod, with 3047 head for my 4x5 field kit. My camera is a Super Graphic with a 207mm Ektar; and I carry either a 100mm or 135mm WF Ektar in the pack. It a very compact outfit. The 8x10 outfit is quite a bit more cumbersome. The Eastman 2D with 13" Wollensak Triple is in a small pull-along suitcase, with extension rail, spot meter, filters, dark cloth, and a small bag with reading glasses, level, and tape measure. Six 8x10 holders, another meter, 9 1/2" Dagor, and note books are carried in a backpack, and the then there is the tripod. I forget the model, but it is heavier than the one I carry with the 4x5. I think that most who participate in this forum would consider these minimal field kits. But, the 4x5 kit is very light, and compact. I feel I could go most any where with it. But I have used the 8x10 outfit exclusively for the past year and half. I think if I go to a kit smaller than 8x10, I'll get a 5x7, with both 5x7 and 4x5 backs. I would probably add the 9 1/2" Dagor to the kit, carry 6 each 4x5 and 5x7 holders, and only enlarge the 4x5 film. So many choices...

[Frank Petronio]

One technical advantage of using a 4x5 back on a 5x7 camera is that the larger bellows helps minimize internal "flare" - resulting in slightly (in theory) sharper, contrastier images.

My 4x5 Linhof Technika folds up into a 7x8x4.5 box. My old 5x7 Rittreck was about 50% larger and heavier. There are far more films and accessory backs for 4x5, and the prices for used 4x5 equipment are lower because of the larger supply. For backpacking or long-distance field work, 4x5 wins hands down.

If you plan to make only contact prints, or have access to a 5x7 enlarger or an Imacon scanner (the largest model takes 5x7) then 5x7 makes sense. If you work for publications or commercial subjects, 4x5 is far more practical.

[David Vickery]

Well, Bob is right of course. There are plenty of camera systems that will allow you to go up in format size as well as down. The fact is, there is a trememdous amount of variability and versitilty in the world of large format cameras. Since you have expressed an interest in 4x5 and 5x7 then I would suggest that you go ahead and get something that will allow you to do both(of course, as others may have already stated, once you get into large format you will be wanting to go larger and larger). I would suggest that you start looking at your camera choices and then come back here and ask specific questions about each of your choices.

[Christopher Condit]

If weight is truly important to you, like it is to me, yes, it is possible to put together a perfectly usable kit 4x5 under 15 lbs. With my Gowland, readyloads, only one lens, and a very small tripod, I once left the house with only 8.5 pounds on my shoulder (that's right, in a shoulder bag designed for 35mm). Just stick with a reasonably light camera, go with readyloads, and be satisfied with 2-3 moderately sized lenses.

The only fatal flaw I see in reducing backs, as mentioned by others, is that they eliminate the possibility of using ultrawide lenses. I regularly use a 65mm, that very few 5x7 cameras will let you focus, let alone perform any movements. If you are a wide angle guy, you may find this restriction pretty serious; otherwise, by all means go for the 5x7. My personal sequence was 2x3, 4x5, 8x10, then 5x7, and the 5x7 is my fave.

[Rory_3532]

I'd suggest that you go ahead and buy an Arca-Swiss 4x5 and consider whether the Discovery model, which costs quite a bit less than the F-Metric, would suit your needs, perhaps with an extension rail for your macrophotography. To respond to your specific question, the Arca-Swiss 4x5 ground glass works just fine. There is no reason to shoot 5x7 unless you have a strong preference for that aspect ratio or want to contact print. If you want to contact print, you meed to think about whether what you really want is 8x10. A 4x5 camera and associated gear, compared to 5x7, is lighter and less bulky. If you take the time to work through and compare the cost of buying and operating 4x5 equipment and 5x7 equipment, together with the associated gear and darkroom equipment (assuming that you are going to do your own printing) you are going to get a real eye-opener.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Michael, you have really brought out the 5x7 enthusiasts, and then started a lively debate. Most of the things I would say have been already said, so I will mostly try to answer some of your specific questions that seem to have been passed over.

"but do I understand correctly that a 5x7 camera with a reducing back, ...., easier focusing....". I don't see any way that a 5x7 camera used with a 5x7 back or with a 4x5 reducing back enables easier focusing than a 4x5 camera. A 5x7 back will give you a larger ground glass that will aid you in composing the photograph.

"but do I understand correctly that a 5x7 camera with a reducing back, would allow broader camera adjustments across the larger ground glass, ....". By "adjustments", do you what are usually called "movements" in LF photography? Most view cameras have more of the angular movements, tilt and swing, than most photographers, esp. landscape ones, will ever use. You might need substantial tilts for the closeups that you mention, but most cameras offer plenty even for this. 5x7 cameras will tend to have larger amounts of the linear movements, rise and shift, than 4x5 cameras because to do the same thing with a larger format requires larger linear movements in proportion to the format size. I say "tend" because there are exceptions. Another tendancy is that possible range of linear movements rarely increases in portion to the format size, e.g., 8x10 cameras almost never have twice the front rise of 4x5 cameras. So using a 5x7 camera with a reducing back may give you a larger amount of front rise, but on the other hand, for the type of photography that you mention, most field 4x5 field cameras have sufficient rise.

Since you seem mostly interested in 4x5 ("mostly shoot 4x5 sheet film"), and only slightly in 5x7 ("occasional 5x7"), and are concerned by weight -- 12 to 13 pounds is very light for a LF kit -- my opinion is that you would be better off with a 4x5 camera. There are 4x5 cameras lighter than 5x7, and using a 5x7 will push up the weight in other ways, e.g., heavier holders and lenses. If you were considering doing both 4x5 and 5x7 on the same outing, think about the weight of carrying both types of holders. For the same field-of-view, you will need a longer focal length for 5x7, and, unless you move to a slower max aperture, that lens will tend to way more.

In addition to the lighweight cameras already mentioned, you might want to consider the Canham DLC.

[Øyvind Dahle]

The low priced Epson-scanner with back-light takes up to 4x9", but with the 5x7", you will have to pay three? times more.

Go into LF for the right reasons: slower way of working and movements. I'm thinking of doing 11x14" with a box camera and 8x10" with a home-built add-on to my 4x5" Bender. I'm not sure of the reason to go up to 8x10", but I sometimes find the 4x5" GG a bit small and making the picture too easy, so I'm hoping for fewer, better pictures

Øyvind:D

[Michael Chmilar]

I think the most significant difference between 4x5 and 5x7 is the aspect ratio, and you should use that as your primary decision point.

As far as using a 5x7 with reducing back most of the time, and occasional 5x7, I would personally not bother with that. Here is why: you end up with extra equipment (reducing back), and redundant equipment (two sizes of film holders, two boxes of film sheets, and maybe redundant darkroom gear and lenses).

Pick one format, and stick with it. Then, you can concentrate on using one format, and become expert with it, instead of being wishy-washy with two. Simplify.

[Rory_3532]

One of the more amusing things about discussions among large format photographers is the complete disregard for cost. Let's assume that you buy an Arca-Swiss, a camera that I happen to own and love. Do you know what it will cost for a 5x7 back and bellows? Try US$2400. Somebody should start a thread about why there is no apparent connection, when it comes to some cameras, between cost of production and price of components. Indeed, somebody should start a thread about how choice of camera is just the beginning of how much you're going to get hosed for :)

[QT Luong]

The new Epson 4870 ($450) scans 5x7. Since many have emphasized the advantages of 5x7, I'll only point to the disadvantages that I find significant: heavier than a similar 4x5, absence of preloaded film (holders also contribute to more weight), more difficult to find film/labs, longer focals needed for the same angle of view.

[QT Luong]

One more word about flexibility. If you want to carry less than 20 lbs of cameras, you will have to keep your 5x7 kit to the absolute minimum and won't have any flexibility. 5x7 is indeed very flexible, as it let you shoot 4x5, and 6x17 as well, but like Michael says, to shoot all formats is burdensome and distracting.

[John Kasaian]

How true! Its best to keep things as simple as possible when starting out but the beauty of the 5x7 with a 4x5 back is it's ability to grow with you. You can start getting instant feedback with polaroids. With a little confidence you can practice loading holders under a red safelight with APHS until you are confortable with loading panchro or in the dark, or switch to color readyloads and have a lab soup 'em. When you're ready to move on, theres the 5x7 back, alternative processes, panoramas and home made dry plates to play with too if you want to. Sure there are limitations to 5x7 and you'll have to stay focused on learning one format/process at a time to keep from going nuts but man how much fun can one camera give you for the money(especially if you luck out and find an old agfa or one of her sisters for like $70?)

"If its gonna fly--its gotta be flexible"-----DaVinci

Cheers!

[Erec Grim]

I was a TLR guy for years; I finally switched to LF about 18 months ago. I have a "half-plate" (5X7) Gandolfi with a 4X5 reducing back, and no regrets.

You really will learn to see differently with LF than with medium or small format. When I had the TLR, I usually wished for a wider lens. Now I use just one lens (though I have two, 150mm and 229mm), and switch backs to get the picture I want.

Yeah, the LF kit is heavier than the TLR kit, but it's worth it. Go ahead, pull the trigger on a 5X7 with a reducing back.

E., Spokane

[Frank Petronio]

Instead of getting a $2500 Arca, why not get a cheap 4x5 ($500 for a Sinar Norma or a nice Super Graphic) to learn on? Later on get a decent 5x7 like the early metal Toyo Field. Once you get comfortable, buy the ultimate camera of either size, sell the one you don't need, and keep the other for limited use in the other format. It'd be cheaper than buying an Arca reducing back.

[R.Hageman]

A Sinar Norma may be "cheap" to buy but it certainly wasn't built that way. In any case I started with the 4x5 version, later added a complete 8x10 and finally "filled the gap" with a 5x7.

To my surprise the 5x7 became the favorite, primarily because of the proportions of the negatives; suddenly the 4x5 and 8x10 looked too "square", which is odd because I love the "true square" of the Hasselblads. Personal taste I guess.

[Michael_4021]

Thanks to all who replied to my post. I have received some great advise and a lot of information to digest. Initially, I expected that I would be shooting 4x5 primarily, but after reviewing several of the comments posted, I am now leaning toward 5x7 as my "standard" format, and will probably contact print most of my work with the occasional enlargement being performed at a local camera shop. This was a great forum to "clear my thoughts" and give my new found interest in LF photography a clear direction to follow.

Thanks again,

Michael Noetzel

[ppisczak]

I've wrestled with the same philosophical discussion as I have shot a 4x5 press camera for a number of years. I thought it would be a good idea to have a 5x7 camera for contact prints and which I could enlarge for galley prints. Just can't seem to easily find a 5x7 enlarger with all the creature comforts of my Beseler 4x5 for which I have both condenser and color heads. So I'm safely ensconced in the 4x5 world. btw - don't be discoured about film availability. If you really wish to go 5x7, film could always be had by trimming down 8x10 sheets into two 5x7. More steps, a little bit of waste, but as long as we have a good selection of 8x10, we can always find a way to get the rest of the smaller formats. I would be curious to know how you made out with your camera selection and enlarger if you elect to get one. Best of luck.

PJ

[Brad Rippe]

Michael,

I use a toyo carbon fiber 4 by5 for backbacking (3.5 lbs), and though it has limitations (No rear tilt, although there is a funky way around this), its light and works easily. The weight of everything is around 10 pounds including tripod and two lenses. If you went to 5 by 7, you would increase that load to perhaps 15 lbs. It depends how far you go, and for how long.

When I'm carrying that stuff very far, I start thinking of what could have been left behind. I also start thinking about chocolate milkshakes, but the point is to really lighten up as much as possible.

I try to balance my backpack needs, ie bear canister, stove etc, with the 4 by 5 stuff. I'd love to have a larger format out there, but its not practical for me to go any larger.

For very local hikes, I do carry a sinar 8 by 10. The rest of the time I use an Arca Swiss 4 by5 field camera. I love it.
Good luck,
-Brad

[Doug Dolde]

Here's another option:

I have been doing stitching on my 4x5 Arca Swiss by shooting two sheets, one with the back shifted 50mm left and the other 50mm right. I get a panorama somewhere around 1:2.25 aspect. If I wanted to orient the frame vertically I could get a 5x7 or slightly bigger image.

For the most part I find 4x5 sufficient but like having this option. It does push the image circle limits on some of my 4x5 lenses though. So I get a 4x5, 5x7 and 4x10 (almost) all in one camera.

If I had to load sheet film instead of using Quickloads I'd probably lose interest in large format altogether. :)

[Tim Hyde]

"I think the most significant difference between 4x5 and 5x7 is the aspect ratio..."

That is a factor but hardly the most important factor--at least for me. I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, but mostly 5x7. It has the best of both worlds: mobility and large image size. The image on the 5x7 ground glass, compared to the 4x5, is big enough to crawl into walk around in. For my vision at least, it is the perfect size for composition. And the chromes--my god!--they are beautiful. This is what I migrated to LF for. I love the chromes and contacts from the 8x10 too, but the images is almost too large on the ground glass to compose with; the 5x7 is about as large as one can go and see the entire image at once under the dark cloth.

The ease of composition (and those huge, luminous chromes!) make the difficulties of finding or cutting 5x7 film and carrying the extra weight worthwhile.

[Capocheny]

Michael,

Are you firmly decided on a monorail as opposed to a field camera?

Your question related to 5x7 versus 4x5 so I've restricted the majority of my comments to these two formats.

FWIW, I started out in 4x5 and enjoyed doing it for the past 8 years or so. Then, when the time came, I had to decide between 5x7 and 8x10. I chose 5x7 and haven't looked back since.

For me, the big thing was the aspect ratio. After shooting with the 5x7 for the past little while I've come to really appreciate its capabilities and similarities to 35mm. I would equate the 4x5 aspect ratio as being closer to that of a Blad.

Secondly, the nice thing about the camera I ended up with is that I can buy one or the other "back" down the road at a fairly reasonable price. It just so happens that both format backs came with the camera I bought. The camera itself is the same size and weight for both of these formats.

In regards to using a reducing back... you really have to "decide" that you want to use them. In other words, using a reducing back is a "conscious decision." I've enjoyed using mine but I made up my mind to do so when I first bought the camera. :)

I've just recently gone 8x10 and am now looking for a 5x7 back for it. That's how much I like the aspect ratio of this format.

BTW, the weight is significantly different between my 8x10 and my 4x5/5x7. And, the weight of the holders is also significantly different too. Oh, my cameras are both field cameras... Deardorffs! :)

As for films available, although the other posters are correct in saying that it is more limited... I've found a number of films that I really like and have stocked up on them. So, film types (for me) have not been a big issue.

Anyway, long and short of all this... I'm very happy with my 5x7 and think it's a great format to use out in the field!

Good luck on a tough decision... it wasn't easy when I had to make my choice either! :)

Cheers

[Ken Lee]

One issue that has not been mentioned is focal length - and depth of field. As we move up to larger formats, we can expect a commensurate decrease in depth of field.

Moving from 4x5 to 5x7, a 150mm "normal" lens becomes a moderately wide lens, and a 240mm "portrait" lens becomes "normal". For portraits on 5x7, you might want a 300mm lens - and you will notice that depth of field starts to become an issue.

Everyone has to find their own "sweet spot", where size, weight, and availability of equipment converge harmoniously with image quality and affordability. There is a reason why 4x5 is a popular format.

[scott_6029]

Michael, I will take a different aproach...I shoot 4 x 5 in color transparencies and scan them...I make 30 x 40's that work. BUT, for B & W, I have NO enlarger, frankly NO room for one....and prefer the wet look in a darkroom to digital printing. So, I had to contact print. This I think should be your question. BTW I own a 4 x 5, 8 x 10 and 7 x 17. I use the 4 x 5 for color transparency ready loads (MUCH more convenient than loading and carrying holders). The 8 x 10 and 7 x 17 are strictly B & W and contact printed in a wet darkroom. If I wanted to scan the b & W and print digitally, I would probably not have purchased the 8 x 10 and most likely would not have purchased the 7 x 17.

So, I think your decision is, black and white, or color, digital, or wet darkroom, contact print in wet, or scan (smaller 4x5) and go digital printing...

If you decide to go wet darkroom B & W - I would look at either 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10.

If you are strictly color....I would lean towards a 4 x 5 arca swiss discovery, scan and print digitally.

B & W - contact printing....5 x 7 or 8 x 10....and I think you may like the bigger size eventually. But no matter.

[Eric Leppanen]

I hope everyone realizes that this is one of those "returned from the dead" threads (Michael posted his question over two years ago, and has not posted to this forum since). Interesting responses though...

[Capocheny]

I hope everyone realizes that this is one of those "returned from the dead" threads (Michael posted his question over two years ago, and has not posted to this forum since). Interesting responses though...

Hi Eric,

LOL... shades of APUG!!! :)

It seems to happen quite a bit over there too. People go through all the threads and, instead of looking at the initial posting date, they contribute a comment and, Voila, here it is again!

[I know I didn't check the initial posting date when I posted my comment! :)]

But, I agree with you... there are some very interesting comments! :)

Cheers

[robc]

just to add a couple of things not mentioned.

A 5x7 camera allows use of 6x17 roll film back such as the canham.

A major consideration for the future is film availability. How many quickloads are there in 5x7? none. Why? Because the market is too small. Which manufacturers are still producing 5x7 film holders? I heard that Fidelity stopped manufacture.

Which film format will disappear next? My guess is 5x7. For black and white I think there will be no problem, but for colour watch out. Fuji stopped selling 5x7 film in the uk a long time ago. If its B+W you want to use it for then I wouldn't worry about it. If you use colour then just maybe its not the best option unless you want 6x17 with movements available.

[Ted Harris]

With due respect I think that the last post is crying "wolf" a bit too loudly. 1) Quickloads are not available in any sheet size EXCEPT 4x5 so 5x7 is in good company. 2) Both Fuji and Kodak manufacture a wide variety of color emulsions in 5x7 and the metric equivelent 13x18. Most of these films are available in Europe and Japan. From many conversations with Fuji US reps it seems that the rationale for NOT distributing the films in the US or UK has nothing to do with demand but everything to do with internal company politics. Too see all the emulsions currently available you can check the file here http://www.viewcamera.com/archives.html or download the pdf I have attached. 3) The information on the street is that Calumet, the owner of Fidelity, has already ceased the production of holders in all sizes but that they have a vast supply of parts and will be assembling holders from the parts supply for several years. The info is that they have no intention of going back into production and that the company MIGHT be up for sale. None of this has been confirmed by Calumet but the same information comes from a variety of very reliable sources indicating it has at least some validity. However, again it is not specific to 5x7.

[robc]

Crying wolf? I think not. I have merely pointed out that colour 5x7 is not as freely available as B+W. The fact all Fuji 5x7 has to be directly imported, i.e. Fuji do not sell it in the US(or UK), bears that out. Whether the reason is politics or insufficient sales is irrelevant just as any reasons a rep gives are irrelevant. Fact is that, if they don't sell it, then they don't sell it. It's as simple as that. The PDF confirms that. So its Kodak unless you can find a supplier willing to import direct or you are willing to import your own Fuji 5x7.

In a nutshell, supply of 5x7 colour is not what it could be and relies on suppliers making direct imports of Fuji. I don't want to start another argument over this but being in denial over availabilty of film is not constructive. Those suppliers will drop it as soon as it is not profitable for them. So I stand by my original post which suggests that if you are looking at 5X7 for colour sheet film then be warned.

N.B. we are not talking about B+W where the story seems to be different with other suppliers apart from Fuji and Kodak in the market.

[Tim Hyde]

Thanks, Ted. I agree with your observation. My impression is that the popularity of 5x7 is GROWING not declining. I have no trouble buying color print and slide film for my 5x7, including Fuji Velvia (50 and 100) and Provia--and if that ever did go away, I could always cut down 8x10 (the way Tuan, the founder of this forum does) or use the metric equivalents. Film availability is a problem, but it is a profession-wide problem not a format problem.

[Gordon Coale]

Can 13x18 film be used in 5x7 film holders?

[Rick Moore]

The longer bellows of an 8x10 camera will come in very handy for your macro work, and eliminate the possibility of bellows flare.

The reduction in bellows flare can result in noticable improvements in exposure range. I had an opportunity to take the same shot with my Canham 8x10 with the 4x5 reducing back and my Tachihara 4x5 using the same lens and film/developer combination. Upon examining the negatives (TMY developed in Rollo Pyro), the ones taken with the 8x10 had considerably more detail in the deep shadows.

[Ron Marshall]

Can 13x18 film be used in 5x7 film holders?
No, but the reverse is possible.

[Ole Tjugen]

No, but the reverse is possible.
Sometimes possible, please. 13x18 in 5x7" holders is also sometimes possible.

The 13x18 film has a nominal size of 12.7x17.8cm, which coincidentally is equal to 5x7 inches. 5x7" film is a few mm smaller along both sides.

The holders are made to fit those sizes, with a little tolerance. There is also a little tolerance on the actual size of the film sheets.

So there are a few cases where a sheet of 13x18cm film will fit in a 5x7" holder without bowing out too much. Most of them will bow out so much that you won't be able to insert the dark slide after shooting, if you manage to squeeze the film in at all.

Conversely there are a few cases where a 5x7" film will be just large enough to stay in place in a 13x18 holder. Many of them, however, will flop out and land in the bellows when you pull the dark slide.

SOmetimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I have two sets of holders - one set 5x7", one set 13x18cm. It's cheaper than all the wasted film would be.

[Ted Harris]

I agree with Ole and have the same setup ..... one set of each flavor holder. BTW, the OUTSIDE dimensions of the holders are the same.

[cotdt]

5x7 enlargers are hard to find, and they would be even bigger than 4x5 enlargers! If not enlarger, I don't see the point in making 5x7 contact prints neither. There is simply no difference between enlarged 35mm and contact printed 5x7, in part due to the resolution limitations of paper relative to film. And if you are scanning, the 4x5 might actually give you more resolution as it allows for more movements and you don't have to stop down as much. And movements are one of the key advantages of large format.

4x5 is also far cheaper. 5x7 makes no technical sense other than the aspect ratio. With 5x7 you'll probably be shooting B&W since it's hard to find color 5x7 films. If you can find them they will be expensive, and I bet such things will be discontinued eventually anyway.

[Nick_3536]

5x7 enlargers are hard to find, and they would be even bigger than 4x5 enlargers! I don't see the point in making 5x7 contact prints. There is simply no difference between enlarged 35mm and contact printed 5x7, in part due to the resolution limitations of paper relative to film.

The Beseler 8x10 is a 4x5 with a bigger head so it's not really any bigger then a 4x5. The Elwood 5x7 is smaller then my Beseler 4x5.

I can tell the difference between a 645 enlarged to 5x7 and a 35mm. That's just from a 645.

[cotdt]

The Beseler 8x10 is a 4x5 with a bigger head so it's not really any bigger then a 4x5. The Elwood 5x7 is smaller then my Beseler 4x5.

I can tell the difference between a 645 enlarged to 5x7 and a 35mm. That's just from a 645.

An Elwood? Aren't those things prehistoric? If they are no longer being produced, then they don't count as there is no guarentee that you can find them in good condition. What if somebody goes along with 5x7 and after a couple years decide contact prints are too small and that they need a 5x7 enlarger? Then they will be screwed as such things would no longer be obtainable. They would have been hookwinked.

And I bet whatever 35mm you've seen was not Kodak Technical Pan. From everything I've seen, 35mm Technical Pan film with a good lens is indistinguisible from large format until you go past at least 11x14. If I'm only going to do 5x7, I'd rather use cheap 35mm film than expensive 5x7 contact prints.

[Ole Tjugen]

Another old thread revitalised?

I have no problem finding 13x18cm colour film to use in my 5x7" camera - with 13x18cm holders.

My enlarger is a Durst L138S - not at all impossible to find in Europe, maybe a little more difficult in the USA. That lets me enlarge any size negative from 35mm to 13x18cm through 6x6, 6x9, 6.5x9, 6x12 and 6x17, 9x12, 4x5", 5x7" and so on to 13x18cm - although I find it easier to use my Opemus 6 for 35mm to 6x6.

4x5" is not "far cheaper" than 5x7". The price per area is pretty much the same.

The difference between a contact print and an enlargement has to be seen to be understood. A 4x5" enlarged to 5x7" looks different from a 5x7" contact print - even using the same film, development and paper.

[cotdt]

The difference between a contact print and an enlargement has to be seen to be understood. A 4x5" enlarged to 5x7" looks different from a 5x7" contact print - even using the same film, development and paper.

you sure about that? i don't see any difference at all, even under the loupe. the limitation seems to be my paper which is limited to around 16 lp/mm relative to my film's 50+ lp/mm and also the paper's lower dynamic range. contact printing seems to be overkill as the film's resolution is so far beyond what the paper can capture. under the microscope the difference in quality between the film and the contact print is just huge.

in fact, i don't see how even 8x10" contact prints are any sharper than enlarged 35 mm TechPan film. they seem to look the same. am i missing something here? to me, it seems like modern enlargers do perfect enlargements as long as the resolution is there in the film, and TechPan film captures huge amounts of resolution. Check out the TechPan 35mm versus the TMAX100 67 Medium Format:

http://www.nealcurrie.com/t-comp2.html

This shows that in terms of image quality, smaller formats at wider apertures can equal that of much larger formats at smaller apertures (with same DOF), so long as the film can hold that information (like TechPan).

[Nick_3536]

An Elwood? Aren't those things prehistoric? If they are no longer being produced, then they don't count as there is no guarentee that you can find them in good condition. What if somebody goes along with 5x7 and after a couple years decide contact prints are too small and that they need a 5x7 enlarger? Then they will be screwed as such things would no longer be obtainable. They would have been hookwinked.

And I bet whatever 35mm you've seen was not Kodak Technical Pan. From everything I've seen, 35mm Technical Pan film with a good lens is indistinguisible from large format until you go past at least 11x14. If I'm only going to do 5x7, I'd rather use cheap 35mm film than expensive 5x7 contact prints.

Is techpan still being produced? I could build a 5x7 enlarger far easier then I could make any sort of film.

A lousy MF can and does look much better then the best 35mm setup. Using the same film 645 at 11x14 looks far better then 35mm at 5x7 to me.

There is more to a print then resolution.

[audioexcels]

you sure about that? i don't see any difference at all, even under the loupe. the limitation seems to be my paper which is limited to around 16 lp/mm relative to my film's 50+ lp/mm and also the paper's lower dynamic range. contact printing seems to be overkill as the film's resolution is so far beyond what the paper can capture. under the microscope the difference in quality between the film and the contact print is just huge.

in fact, i don't see how even 8x10" contact prints are any sharper than enlarged 35 mm TechPan film. they seem to look the same. am i missing something here? to me, it seems like modern enlargers do perfect enlargements as long as the resolution is there in the film, and TechPan film captures huge amounts of resolution. Check out the TechPan 35mm versus the TMAX100 67 Medium Format:

http://www.nealcurrie.com/t-comp2.html

This shows that in terms of image quality, smaller formats at wider apertures can equal that of much larger formats at smaller apertures (with same DOF), so long as the film can hold that information (like TechPan).


For the first shots, the larger film is much sharper than the TechPan. For the second shots, the Techpan looks the smoothest, but not necessarily the sharpest. It also looks much "flatter" and less dimensional. All IMHO...I will say the TechPan is way better than the regular 135 w/out TechPan.

[cotdt]

TechPan is my favorite film! I have secret reserves of it in my freezer! TMAX is for wankers!

Just kidding... but you guys really should try TechPan. It's really awesome film.

[John Kasaian]

An Elwood? Aren't those things prehistoric? If they are no longer being produced, then they don't count as there is no guarentee that you can find them in good condition. What if somebody goes along with 5x7 and after a couple years decide contact prints are too small and that they need a 5x7 enlarger? Then they will be screwed as such things would no longer be obtainable. They would have been hookwinked.

Prehistoric?
They're quite cheap when they are available (like give away cheap)

Good condition?
With a few wood screws and some gaffer's tape and baling wire and just about any Elwood can be in good condition.

If you luck out and find one with an intact diffuser, the light they give is absolutely lovely. If you don't have a diffuser you can make one out of ground glass and the light----well, it's still lovely.

[Thierry Schreiner]

Hi to all out there,

Maybe a bit late my contribtuion, but I thought it might give ideas to some.

I definitely prefer 5x7 to 4x5. First for its ability to provide nice contact prints, really nice negative ratio, and above all, a still reasonable portability with the required flexibility, talking of large format, of course.

The pictured camera is in fact a Linhof Technica II 5x7 of 1948, modified by yours truly to accept modern Technika lensboards and modern filmholders, plus a few accessories you probably all know.


Best regards from the old continent.


Thierry

[John O'Connell]

in fact, i don't see how even 8x10" contact prints are any sharper than enlarged 35 mm TechPan film.

Not really true in my experience. I have a Watson with about 80' of TP left in it relatively cheap to a good home, because I seem to be able to get better contact prints than enlargements.

5x7 enlargers are a lot more common, it seems, than 8x10 enlargers. And I don't hear about 5x7 users cutting holes in their ceilings to fit their enlargers very frequently, or mounting geared tracks on their floors. I'm not a fan of the 5x7 format---I see in TV proportions---but I am jealous of the 'Goldilocks' nature of the format sometimes: big enough for many but not too cumbersome.

[Clay Turtle]

Seems to be a lot being said about enlargers? Recent experience, Wanted to photograph a local building, theproblem being the street is only so wide limiting how far away I can be from the subject. I took the shot with a 4x5 rail camera (Cambo) using my shortest lens (150mm) which basically covered the extension of the building.
As I was setting up I thought "Wish I had that 5x7 I am refurbishing ready! Then having found the 4x5 format didn't cover then I could have used the 5x7 . . . then again, I thought of a pet project to build an 8x10 then I thought if the 5x7 still didn't cover the need, I could have gotten out an 8x10 holder & got the whole thing in one shot.