4x5 to 8x10 increasing back?

[aly324]

Is there such a thing?

I am looking at this and wondering what it does: https://www.ebay.com/itm/8x10-inch-i...w/401782118292

[Tin Can]

It is a 5X7 to 8X10 increasing back for only a 5X7 Rittreckview.

Not the best way to shoot 8X10.

I have Rittreckview 5X7 and would never consider buying that adapter.

[David Schaller]

The bellows would vignette the larger image area, for example. A 5x7 reducing back on an 8x10 camera would be quite nice, but not vice versa!

[Luis-F-S]

The short answer is no

[LabRat]

Basically, a proper back would be like another camera that would connect it's "FS" to the rear of a smaller camera, then it's bellows would extend for normal focusing distances for the 8X10, and provide a larger back for 8X10... This means that both cameras would have to be held together steady to balance and use...

So this contraption would be larger than just using an 8x10 in the first place, and certainly an adventure to operate... ;-)

Steve K

[Chauncey Walden]

The Rittreck 5x7 to 6.5x8.5 adapter works great and I have no reason to question the function of the 8x10 adapter. Surely there is someone on the list who has one and can tell us if it adapts from 5x7 or from 6.5x8.5. By the way, IMO the 6.5x8.5 format is much nicer than the 8x10 and the Rittreck 5x7 to 6.5x8.5 adapters (which are for Rittreck cameras, of course) are quite reasonably priced and I see they are being offered with the excellent Rittreck film holders.

[Oren Grad]

Surely there is someone on the list who has one and can tell us if it adapts from 5x7 or from 6.5x8.5.

They attach to the same camera body, in place of the standard 5x7 back.

Simply because of the geometry relative to the required focal lengths, the 8x10 expander back for the Rittreck View is necessarily going to be more constrained as far as usable focal lengths and bellows extensions than the 6.5x8.5 expander. If the Rittreck expansion backs (there's also a ~6x10 one) were conceived at the same time the camera was designed, it's possible they gave themselves a bit more wiggle-room by designing the body to minimize obstruction of the rear body opening. But there's still no getting around the geometry.

Note that unlike the Rittreck expanders, the 6.5x8.5 expander for the Toyo half-plate field camera included its own rails and bellows, which allows more flexibility in achieving an unobstructed bellows/body taper over a wider range of extensions, at the cost of a more complex, more fragile and bulkier attachment.

[Daddyo]

This is based only on what I've been able to observe; if there are factual errors, my apologies in advance!

With that said, I believe it's not too uncommon for some of the more modular systems (Toyo, for example, that I'm familiar with, and a number of others) to permit the use of a purpose-built 8x10 standard and back on the same rail as the 4x5 front standard. It requires the use of a tapered bellows - so basically you're interchanging rear standard, back, and bellows.

Sometimes you'll run into the 8x10 standard and back separately, or you'll see an 8x10 rail camera with issues that may serve as a donor.

The whole idea of modularity is to permit you to mix and match, building the camera you need for the particular situation.

As ever, large format is about intentionality, that is, doing things on and with a purpose!

Enjoy!