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

[Dan6077]

Hello
Not camera recommendation but just as important for 5x7 format
Be careful when you go to purchase film holders
For some reason 5x7 film holders come in three different sizes internally
We have 5x7 American, 13x18 European and 12x16.5 Half Plate
All three sizes of film holders are the same dimensions outside, but will only properly fit one size film.
Because of an ebay transaction, I have been shooting 12x16.5 film for a number of years now

Dan

[Jim Andrada]

My first view camera was a 5 x 7 Linhof Kardan Bi bought new around 1970. Still happily using it although it's been joined by a few other 5 x 7's. it's in nearly perfect condition - the only problem with it is a slight bend in the rear fine focus shaft - I fell down a slope when I took the Ansel Adams workshop in 1973 (IIRC) and dinged the focus knob a bit. I could have it fixed, but it's a sort of souvenir of the experience. I use 5 x 7 Ektar 100 from the Keith Canham special order.

[manfrominternet]

So I met with Hugo from Chamonix today and he gave me a splendid tour of his Chamonix 57Fs-2. It was an absolute pleasure meeting him. Incredibly nice and very generous guy. The camera was marvelous, and I learned how to use it almost instantaneously. The operation was as smooth as butter. The kicker was that it felt even lighter than my Linhof Technikardan 45S. I would definitely be happy with this camera, undoubtedly. I did find out that Chamonix makes a horizontal-only 5x7 (57N3), which is obviously less expensive. Since the 5x7 has a narrower aspect ratio than the squarish 4x5, I wonder if I'd ever really use the groundglass in portrait orientation all that much. It sure is a nice option to have, but since 80% of my large format work is in landscape orientation, I'm not so sure that I require it. Perhaps the horizontal-only 5x7 might make more sense?

I also got in contact with Keith Canham and he was nice enough to describe his cameras in detail and said I could stop by his shop to check out his cameras. I haven't seen the MQC57 or the Traditional Wood 57 yet, but they are also contenders that I'll be driving out to see next.

One very small difference that I noticed between the cameras is that the MQC57 has a fresnel and the Chamonix 5x7 line doesn't (although the standard ground glass does a terrific job). Hugo explained that I could put a fresnel on without any problems, I just would need to get screws with more "breathing room" to hold the ground glass with the additional fresnel on top of it in place. Or I can get one of the one-piece ground glass/fresnel combos and just swap out the standard Chamonix ground glass for it. Does anyone know any good options for 5x7 fresnels or fresnel/groundglass one-piece combos?

At the same time, some of the posts on this thread did make me rethink of what real benefits would I get out of 5x7 over 4x5. Yeah, the negative is almost twice as big, and I do like the elongated format very much, but are 5x7 negatives really that much more sharper and detailed than 4x5 negatives? It's definitely some food for thought for me. While I'm not drum scanning, a do have a system that I think is just as good. To quickly recap, I do three passes over my 4x5 negatives (in 1/3rds) with my Sony a7r IV on pixel shift mode (each of the three passes being 200mp). I then combine the three 200mp files into a "panorama" and I'm left with an ultra-high res "scan" of my 4x5 negative with a massive file size between 2gb and 3gbs. I'd ostensibly be taking 4 or 5 200mp pixel-shifted passes over a 5x7 negative instead of 3, like I do for my 4x5. The file size would be enormous, to say the least, but I think I could get the subsequent prints to be as large and detailed as anything by Struth, Ruff, Gursky, or Burtynsky. I'd like to also think the addictive hypnotic effect of looking at an extra large ground glass, larger than 4x5, would also really help inspire me to get out there and go photograph in a way that the 4x5 never has. Might this also be a reason to get a 5x7?

[Peter De Smidt]

1 in 5 of your LF photos is vertical. Why would you get a horizontal only camera?

[Eric Leppanen]

...are 5x7 negatives really that much more sharper and detailed than 4x5 negatives?

....the addictive hypnotic effect of looking at an extra large ground glass, larger than 4x5, would also really help inspire me to get out there and go photograph in a way that the 4x5 never has. Might this also be a reason to get a 5x7?

I faced these same questions when I sold off my 8x10 kit. My initial inclination was to go with drum scanned 4x5 only (I don't contact print). Here is my thought process that led me to using 5x7 in certain cases:

- Like you, most of my images are shot in landscape orientation. In addition, many benefit from a more rectangular aspect ratio than 4x5. The comparison for me was therefore cropped 4x5 versus full frame 5x7, which increased the resolution disparity.
- All else being equal, larger formats require stopping down more to achieve similar depth of field. Stopping down degrades resolution due to lens diffraction; a 5x7 negative shot at f/64 would be so resolution limited due to diffraction that a 4x5 negative would be just as good. Switching to a larger format makes sense when the intended image requires relatively limited depth of field or benefits from optimal focus plane placement via tilt and/or swing, in either case eliminating the need to stop down heavily. Enough of my images fell into this category to justify consideration of a larger format.
- With 4x5, I don't like to print larger than 4-5x, even with drum scanning, as to my eye I start losing detail and tonality. This is just a personal thing heavily influenced by subject matter, others are very comfortable enlarging more. I sometimes like to print 40 inch wide panoramas, hence my interest in a larger format.
- For me, the benefit of the larger ground glass is very real. I see more details and can visualize a resulting print better. Also 5x7 wide angle shots have a less pronounced ground glass "hot spot" than 4x5 due to longer lens focal lengths. Personally I don't miss having a fresnel on my 5x7, whereas I have a wide angle fresnel on my 4x5 wide angle camera.

On a separate note, I offer one testimonial on the ruggedness of the Chamonix 5x7 plastic ground glass: it can survive the ground glass frame making a deep fall onto a pile of rocks. I have empirically demonstrated this.

[Daniel Unkefer]

New 5x7 Norma 210mm chrome Schneider Xenar Sinarsix by Nokton48, on Flickr

Here's my newest Sinar Norma 5x7 (assembled from parts) with 210mm F4.5 Schneider chrome Xenar. This lens is great for portraiture on 4x5. FOBA ALFAE tripod is a level above Gitzo and Manfrotto. Rock solid yet lightweight. 5x7 Sinarsix offers incredible TTL ambient exposure accuracy with all Norma formats for many good reasons.

"Construction Unit" design means configure exactly what you need for the job at hand. They made nearly a hundred accessories for this thingee, I own most of them. No other monorail is even close when comparing availability, sometimes price, and sheer number of accessories.

[manfrominternet]

Can someone explain resolution, diffraction, and depth of field between 5x7 and 8x10 formats?

I've read that 8x10 is great for contact prints, but if you want everything to be in focus and are enlarging (as I'm already doing with my 4x5), then 5x7 is really the best way to go.

If my goal is the ability to make high-res extra large prints, wouldn't the extra real estate of an 8x10 negative be better than a 5x7, or would diffraction, film flatness, etc. be an issue that negates any benefits of a larger negative size?

[Bernice Loui]

Larger sheet of film is not always better, there are specific trade-offs as the film size goes up or down. Each film size works best for specific image making needs. Think of film size as one aspect of special tools needed to do a particular job.

At infinity, DOF is much the same for ANY film or imager format by definition. Once the image reproduction ratio is not longer at absolute infinity is when DOF becomes a factor. What is rendered by DOF is in apparent focus, NOT what is on the lens plane of focus. Larger the film size, more difficult this problem becomes.

Diffraction can be very roughly approximated by the concept-idea of dots of a fixed size used to make up an image to be recorded. The dots pass an entrance before they can be used to make up the image to be recorded. If the entrance is large (large aperture lens) there can be lots of dots available to make up the image. If the entrance for the dot is small (small lens aperture) , the amount of dots available to make the image becomes reduced.

Some relevant examples can be found in a previous post. This is a section of 5x7 Ektachrome transparancy made in the 1990's with a Goerz APO artar process lens in barrel built in the 1950's. These have a "reputation" of being old, obsolete and less than most modern "multi-coated", not for images at infinity and all those marketing moniker slogans, yet it is easily capable of resolving down to the color film grains.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope

This lens test image was made using 5x7 Ektachrome, 5x7 Sinar C, Sinar shutter, Goerz APO artar in barrel at f16.
The STOP sign viewed with the Epson 4990 scanner at it's highest resolution and maybe not ideal focus results in just enough information to make out the STOP sign letters. Expect this or lesser results using a digital camera of any MB and maco lens combo to digitize a sheet of film as there are a ver long list of problems and challenges that force reduced resolution of what is on film.

The STOP sign image made using a Wild M420 macroscope is an example of what film is capable of resolving and the image information on film. Note the lack of color grains used to make up white and the red/white color edges of the STOP sign letters. The magnification or enlargement ratio of the STOP sign would be about

~260x or multiplying the actual 5x7 image area of 4.8" x 6.8" would result in a print size of 1,248 inches/104 feet x 1,768 inches/147 feet.~

Keep in mind, this result demands a GOOD accurate, precise camera (wood folders do not meet this requirement), film flat in holder, proper exposure, proper E6 processing, accurate-precise lens mounting on equally accurate-precise lens board, low vibration shutter, VERY stable camera support and proper technique.


Bernice

Can someone explain resolution, diffraction, and depth of field between 5x7 and 8x10 formats?

I've read that 8x10 is great for contact prints, but if you want everything to be in focus and are enlarging (as I'm already doing with my 4x5), then 5x7 is really the best way to go.

If my goal is the ability to make high-res extra large prints, wouldn't the extra real estate of an 8x10 negative be better than a 5x7, or would diffraction, film flatness, etc. be an issue that negates any benefits of a larger negative size?

[manfrominternet]

Larger sheet of film is not always better, there are specific trade-offs as the film size goes up or down. Each film size works best for specific image making needs. Think of film size as one aspect of special tools needed to do a particular job.

At infinity, DOF is much the same for ANY film or imager format by definition. Once the image reproduction ratio is not longer at absolute infinity is when DOF becomes a factor. What is rendered by DOF is in apparent focus, NOT what is on the lens plane of focus. Larger the film size, more difficult this problem becomes.

Diffraction can be very roughly approximated by the concept-idea of dots of a fixed size used to make up an image to be recorded. The dots pass an entrance before they can be used to make up the image to be recorded. If the entrance is large (large aperture lens) there can be lots of dots available to make up the image. If the entrance for the dot is small (small lens aperture) , the amount of dots available to make the image becomes reduced.

Keep in mind, this result demands a GOOD accurate, precise camera (wood folders do not meet this requirement), film flat in holder, proper exposure, proper E6 processing, accurate-precise lens mounting on equally accurate-precise lens board, low vibration shutter, VERY stable camera support and proper technique.


Bernice

Thank you for all this great information, Bernice! Is this why you prefer the Toyo 8x10 over a folding wooden 8x10?

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, and why 8x10 film stopped decades ago. IMO, unless contact printing not a lot of advantages to 8x10 with a very long list of dis-advantages including enlarger size, film cost, limited lens options and more.


Bernice

Thank you for all this great information, Bernice! Is this why you prefer the Toyo 8x10 over a folding wooden 8x10?