Adding a 4x5 back to a 8x10 body......is it worth it

[Alan Gales]

I've got a 4x5 back for my Wehman 8x10. I bought it used at a good price off Ebay. The reduction back is great for the occasional 4x5 color image. Color 8x10 film is expensive! I shoot 8x10 b&w.

I guess it all depends upon how much it costs and how much you will use it. If I were shooting a lot of 4x5 though I'd rather have a 4x5 camera in addition to my 8x10. Like said earlier, an 8x10 camera is pretty big to carry around to shoot 4x5.

[LabRat]

A problem with some reducing backs is that it is often hard to insert/replace the holder & darkslide on the back, because they are very close to the back for an easy reach to it...

Another issue is that larger format bellows are thicker/stiffer and with larger pleats than smaller format bellows, so they won't sag as much on the larger camera, but also tend to flex less, so it is harder to get the bellows to bend much when using complicated movements on the smaller format, as well as total compression when used more compressed... So tougher to use with smaller format...

Expect to refocus most reducing backs from the regular back as there will be some (major or minor) differences between them...

Steve K

[xtmevolution]

wow, this is nice to know, i almost order the intrepid 8x10 with 4x5 back. How about film holder that fit 4x5 film but the size of 8x10, does anyone make that?

[N Dhananjay]

One reason for the 4x5 back is that it is a good way to extend the reach of your lenses. If you have a framing that requires a very long lens, longer than anything your camera can accommodate, a reducing back serves the same purpose as a lens of twice the focal length. Cheers, DJ

[ndwgolf]

He also pesters the Leica User forum regularly with "think for me" posts.
.

What has a adding a 4x5 to 8x10 got to do with "Think of me". With 3 pages of feedback (not including yours) it seem to me like a normal question for someone who is new to LF photography??

[xtmevolution]

so... how about film holder that fit 4x5 film but the size of 8x10, does anyone make that? Some one is suggest taping 4x5 on the 8x10, but if there is one that proper load 4x5 on 8x10 would be nice.

[Vaughn]

I think it would be sweet for still life work. In the field...not as efficient as a dedicated 4x5, but doable.

I carry a modified darkslide to get two 4x10s on an 8x10 sheet of film -- an easy and light way to have two formats. Perhaps something similar to get two to four smaller images on an 8x10 sheet? I have seen modern 8x10 holders user-modified to hold smaller film sizes -- and historically it was done all the time. I have some old wood 8x10 holders with inserts for anything from 3x4 to full-plate (for both film and plates).

[Alan Gales]

I think it would be sweet for still life work.

It's also real nice for portraits. As you well know most 4x5 cameras have short bellows. If you want to use a long lens like a 300mm for head/head and shoulder shots then the reduction back comes in handy. Don't have to worry about any stiff bellows problems either since portraiture does not require serious movements.

[tgtaylor]

One reason for the 4x5 back is that it is a good way to extend the reach of your lenses. If you have a framing that requires a very long lens, longer than anything your camera can accommodate, a reducing back serves the same purpose as a lens of twice the focal length. Cheers, DJ

Ditto. My 610 Apo Nikkor is 35mm equivalent to a 100mm on 8x10, 200mm on 4x5, 300mm on 6x7.

Thomas

[Jac@stafford.net]

so... how about film holder that fit 4x5 film but the size of 8x10, does anyone make that? Some one is suggest taping 4x5 on the 8x10, but if there is one that proper load 4x5 on 8x10 would be nice.

Darn you for planting another idea in my head.

Jac,
compulsive builder