I'm not sure if it's a popular size, but can I get some 5x7 camera recommendations?

[Jim Jones]

5x7 was a logical choice for me when getting serious about LF many decades ago. At that time, many were moving to 4x5, and 5x7 cameras, enlargers, and other accessories were cheap. A 5x7 print seems small when hanging on a wall, and most 5x7 enlargers are beasts. However, those large negatives scan well. I found the ubiquitous Burke & James adequate, both in flat bed and monorail. The 5.25"x5.25" lens board would accommodate almost any lens. Boards and adapters for smaller boards are easier to fabricate than for the proprietary boards of many other makers. Of course many other cameras are better and usually more expensive, but over several decades I never saw a need to upgrade.

[Bernice Loui]

5x7 tends to be widely neglected in the USA, 13x18 cm was very common in Europe for many good reasons.

IMO, this is the best trade-off sheet film size for B&W and other sheet film related images. The most common rational negative with 5x7 or 13x18cm has been film availability, reality is film availability is no where near as awful as any project it is. Overall, image quality has the potential to better 4x5 and 8x10 for various very real reasons. But, 5x7 or `3x18cm is not without problems or challenges no different than any other image recording format.

That said, image goals dictate lenses, lenses dictate camera choice and the rest of the image making process. Given you've been at 4x5 for a while, consider the kinds of images made, how and where they have been made with the lens set used to create these images. This reality will drive camera choice most. The outdoor and hiking folks would be biased towards a lightweight field folder, Others will demand the maximum capability and flexibility from their camera system.

Given there is zero interest in outdoor adventure hiking or similar, and maximum capability of the camera with stable and predictable precision and accuracy a fixed-given. The choice defaults to Sinar. Norma is preferred as a field_able camera with very few trade offs. Sinar is format interchangeable and much more interchangeable often limited by modular Sinar bits on hand or imagination.

Possibility of your current 4x5 lenses will do good on 5x7, negating the need for new lenses, just new lens boards for mounting.


Bernice

[grat]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, but the Chamonix 5x7 is right at the top end of your budget. They're very nice-- lightweight, well built, and Hugo does a nice job supporting them.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you mainly want to use wide and normal lenses, then the Walker 5x7 might be a good choice.

https://www.walkercameras.com/XL5x7.html

[Jeff Keller]

I also recommend the Canham MQC 5.7. The bellow allows very wide-angle lenses to be used but will also give you about a 24" extension. Canham has an adapter that will get you from their lens board size to the techika board size, so you won't have to remount any lenses you have.

Canham MQC 5x7, available new and used. Made in the US. https://www.canhamcameras.com/

Attachment 217133

[Greg Y]

Are you planning to shoot color with the 5x7? If so make sure you look at the 5x7 film options.

I use BW film exclusively, but the last time i looked there were fewer options for colour films in 5x7 than 4x5. I used a 5x7 Deardorff for years and it suited me perfectly. I also had a Chamonix 57n (horizontal) as a back up....but as it happened it was never needed. At the risk of starting a fist fight, since you are scanning digital anyway.....what is it you hope to improve/achieve that your 4x5 won't do? I've seen lots of fine prints from Bruce Barnbaum, Craig Richards, and some Ansel Adams.....from 4x5....& as photographs and pieces of art they lacked nothing. I've used Keith Canham's 5x7 and 8x10....& given that you mentioned architecture, I agree the MQC 5x7 would be a good choice. As for the Gibellini, i'd check out all the threads to see some of the issues people have had with the company.

[Eric Leppanen]

It's not as flexible as a monorail, but a Chamonix 57Fs-2 is an excellent landscape camera and a decent architecture camera. While it does not support front base tilt or rear shift, it has front shift and a fair amount of native front rise and supports an optional bag bellows. I've used lenses ranging from a SA72XL to Fuji 450C (the latter with a mildly extended lens board for better close focusing) on my 57Fs-1 with no problem, all mounted on Technika style lens boards. It is a Phillips design, which means the front standard must be screwed into place which slows setup slightly, but this trade-off enables a goodly amount of extension and stability in a relatively light weight package. And as already noted Hugo provides excellent support.

Keith Canham also makes fine cameras and offers good local support. Definitely some nice options here.

[Eric Woodbury]

I have a Deardorff 57. Had it since the late 80s. One of the last ones that Jack pushed out the door. I love the format and have shot with lenses from 72mm to 800mm. Works fine for my work, which is all field work: landscapes, abstracts, but no true and strict architecture. It is easy to use. Never fails me. I did have to reposition the ground glass. I had to do this with my Deardorff 8x10, too. Always a good thing to check.

I had the 4x5 version of the MQC Canham, but I found it a puzzle to open and adjust. Not my cup of tea. I am impressed by the traditional Canham wooden version 5x7. It was my friend's camera and he had replaced his Deardorff with it. It is slightly more solid than a Deardorff and is well supported should the need arise. If I were to replace my D'orff, that would be my choice. I like my Chamonix 4x5, but I don't find the 5x7 an attractive choice.

[Two23]

Even though I have an 8x10, I find I've been using my 5x7 the most so far this year. I think the first question you should be asking yourself is how important color film is to you. There is no 5x7 color in regular production. I'm mostly doing wet plate with mine, with some dry plates and FP4 b&w film too. It is a nice size.


Kent in SD

[Chester McCheeserton]

I switched from 4x5 to 5x7 and grew to love the format. It's great to be able to mix it with full frame digital and not have viewers be as distracted by the aspect ratio change. I've gotten so used to it that 4x5 and 8x10 look too square for me now. I had deardorff and mostly liked it. I used a 150 lens the most, and never felt limited by the camera's design for getting front rise, I would simply aim the camera up and straighten the standards to vertical. I did have some issues with flare and the bellows being too tightly compacted (this thread) but I enjoyed how pleasurable the camera was to use. I used to have a Canham metal 8x10 and while I think it looked super cool, I was never happy with tightening down the standards - it always seemed a little floppy to me. If I go back to large format I'd probably try a Chamonix. Or if I win the lottery an ebony non folding. 5x7.