Shooting 4x5 on an 8x10 field with reducing back

[Amfooty]

Good afternoon all,

How many of you shoot 4x5 film on an 8x10 camera on a regular basis? I'm trying to figure out if I should try and find a more usable 8x10 or 4x5. As I have a larger stock of 4x5 film and don't have to sell a kidney to get color film developed. The Burke and James reducing back I currently have won't fit a Grafmatic or polaroid back,which is what I tend to use most.

With a specialized 8x10 field camera like a Chamonix or Deardorff, is it much of a hassle to shoot 4x5 or roll film?

I need a tripod for both of my cameras anyway so that isn't a deal breaker (I'm no weegee). Also still having small problems and inconsistencies with my 8x10 processing, where as I have 4x5 pretty much down. Remounting my lenses isn't a big deal either.

Thanks for your input.

[Alan Gales]

It's like anything else. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Shooting 4x5 portraits on an 8x10 is nice because you have plenty of bellows draw. If you are a wide angle fan you won't like it because you are so limited on how wide you can go. It varies from camera to camera.

I tried shooting 6x7 with a roll film back on a 4x5 but I didn't like it. It was much easier using my old RZ67. Some people do it though.

[vinny]

I've done it a lot. It's fine on my camera but anything shorter than my 135mm starts to get a bit tight. I built my 8x10 so that I could use my 90mm but there's not much room for movements and depending on the camera, you can photograph the bed if you aren't careful.

[Michael E]

I don't know what you shoot, but I tend to be outside with my camera and carry it around a lot, sometimes all day. Carrying and setting up a 8x10" is (for me) a much bigger fuss than 4x5". I would buy a simple and light used 4x5" field camera instead of a reducing back.

[Tin Can]

Get a 4x5 camera.

[Amfooty]

Get a 4x5 camera.

Already have a 4x5 monorail, and something of an 8x10 one. Just wanted to know the experience people had working with an 8x10 field camera and reducing back, since that seems like it would be the best of both worlds.

[Mark Sampson]

Well, it's a bulky setup. In the studio it would be fine; I've done it. On location or in the field, not so much. Kinda like using a Chevy Suburban as a single-passenger commuter vehicle. Millions of people do it every day but there are better ways, like using your 4x5.

[StoneNYC]

I have a 4 x 5 reducing back on my 8 x 10 Chamonix, it works just fine. However after using it for quite a while it seems kind of silly to bother caring around such a big camera for shooting a much smaller format. I've been working through most of my 4 x 5 film and when I'm done I'm probably going to keep it only for Rollie IR film, and just shoot 8x10 going forward.

If you want to shoot a 4x5 just get a 4 x 5 camera

[Wayne]

Its sooooo much more work to lug around my 8x10 it never even occurred to me to shoot 4x5 on it. I honestly don't think I've ever even used the 4x5 back for it...

However I probably should at least keep in mind that I can, because I've probably missed some opportunities. In fact since I love closeups I've probably missed out on a lot of bellows draw that I can't get on my 4x5...but going back to Point A I think it would be very cumbersome in practice.

[jose angel]

No, I never shoot 4x5" on the 8x10", even on a 5x7". It is not worth it to me. Too much hassle.
Time ago I used to shoot roll film on a 4x5", just to get 6x9 negatives. After that, I also prefer to use a 6x7 reflex.
To my taste, reducing backs are for just in case occasions. I`ll be wasting today some 4x5" sheets shooting 6x9, just because I only have access to a 4x5" camera and a medium format enlarger. I`m missing my Mamiya or at least the roll film adapter I left at my office.
Agree with others... to shoot 4x5", you`d be better using a 4x5" camera.