Nobody's using the Intrepid 5x7 camera...Is it that bad?

[nitroplait]

Yes.

I see them as well.

Thanks. Turns out you have to be logged in for the search link to work.

I agree - beautiful work, @paulbarden.

[Certain Exposures]

I bought the 5x7 Intrepid in June 2021. I saw the CatLabs review and found my own experience with the camera to be quite different from theirs. (in fact, I think the CatLabs review is far more harsh than the camera deserves.)

Yes, you may need to take extra care inserting and removing film holders, but the stability of the rear standard is quite satisfactory. You'd have to be a real oaf in removing/inserting the the film holders to push the rear standard out of position. I think the CatLabs demonstration of this is grossly exaggerated.
Bellows extension is quite sufficient. I use my 5x7 for close-up still life type work and found it perfectly capable of close focus.
I don't miss the bail arm back. The spring clips are firm without being overly stiff to use.

I 3-D print my own lens boards as needed, so the odd size isn't an obstacle. I did buy one of Intrepid's own boards and its made of nice material and has an attractive finish. Its far better than the lens boards they were printing 3 years ago.

My only complaint about the camera pertains to the base board/tripod mount design: long tripod mounting screws WILL conflict with the focus mechanism and you won't be able to rack out the focus. Intrepid is aware of this issue and they state this in the product description, I believe. (We discussed it in private emails) The remedy is to either get a shorter tripod screw to mount it, or add some washers between the base of the camera and the tripod. I found it simpler to use my smaller Manfrotto tripod (normally for the Hasselblad and TLRs) which has a short mounting screw. As the camera is very light, its not a problem using it on this lighter tripod.

I would not hesitate to recommend the Intrepid 5x7 camera. I'm enjoying using it and find it entirely satisfactory in functionality, design/build quality, and ease of use. If you don't have $2K to spend, this is a perfectly good option.

You can see a few photos I have made with the Intrepid 5x7 here. (Not all of these are made with the Intrepid, but Flickr tagged all of them as relevant, so read the descriptions to see which ones are made with the 5x7 Intrepid)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your work, Paul. I like "The Last One." I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you find it challenging to get edge-to-edge sharpness throughout an entire photograph because of the Intrepid's design? Or do you experience issues with focusing in general because of the camera? For example, in "Drowning, not waving" there are still apples out of focus at F11. I assume that this was intentional, so how much harder would your job have been if you had aimed to make everything sharp?

2. Did you purchase Intrepid's fresnel or do you find the ground glass sufficiently bright?

3. Do you use Intrepid's 4x5 reducing back on the camera? What's that experience been like for you?

[paulbarden]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your work, Paul. I like "The Last One."

Thank you very much. And you're welcome.

I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Do you find it challenging to get edge-to-edge sharpness throughout an entire photograph because of the Intrepid's design? Or do you experience issues with focusing in general because of the camera? For example, in "Drowning, not waving" there are still apples out of focus at F11. I assume that this was intentional, so how much harder would your job have been if you had aimed to make everything sharp?

Its not difficult to get "edge to edge" focus with that camera, no. If I had wanted to apply movements and a smaller aperture, I could easily have achieved sharp focus on all of the elements in that photo, but that was not my goal. Remember, this is an f5.6 lens used, and as such, its only stopped down 2 stops when used at f11, which is barely stopping down at all. It would have been very easy to bring all of the elements into focus, and the camera's features would have helped make it a simple job.

2. Did you purchase Intrepid's fresnel or do you find the ground glass sufficiently bright?

I did not buy the fresnel lens, and I find the ground glass perfectly adequate as-is. I have no intention of adding a fresnel to the camera. Your experience is going to depend on how bright your lenses are: if you are working with a lens that has a maximum aperture of f7.7 for example, you might find the ground glass image dark enough to be difficult to work with. In that case, you might want to add the fresnel.

3. Do you use Intrepid's 4x5 reducing back on the camera? What's that experience been like for you?

I don't have the 4x5 reducing back, no. I already own an Intrepid 4x5 (I won it in a photo competition in 2018) and so if I want to do 4x5, I use that camera. But I see no reason to think the reducing back wouldn't be a good solution if you want one camera that can do both formats.

[Certain Exposures]

Thanks, Paul!

[Bernice Loui]

Better question, why is 5x7 or 13x18cm no where near as popular as 8x10 or 4x5, given all the sheet film trade offs involved 5x7 being the near ideal trade-off sheet film format?


2x3/6x9 or 5x7/13x18cm film size centric,
Bernice

[bob carnie]

We just used an Intrepid 8 x 10 camera for a ongoing project and I really liked the camera. not as sturdy as a Toyo but for my simple needs it is a perfect camera.

[paulbarden]

Thanks. Turns out you have to be logged in for the search link to work.

I agree - beautiful work, @paulbarden.

Thank you very much!

[paulbarden]

Better question, why is 5x7 or 13x18cm no where near as popular as 8x10 or 4x5, given all the sheet film trade offs involved 5x7 being the near ideal trade-off sheet film format?

2x3/6x9 or 5x7/13x18cm film size centric,
Bernice

I'm mystified by this as well, since 5x7 is so much more pleasing an aspect ratio - at least to me. Its like 35mm or 6x9, but much much larger.

[Joseph Kashi]

Better question, why is 5x7 or 13x18cm no where near as popular as 8x10 or 4x5, given all the sheet film trade offs involved 5x7 being the near ideal trade-off sheet film format?


2x3/6x9 or 5x7/13x18cm film size centric,
Bernice

+1

[Ari]

Its like 35mm or 6x9, but much much larger.

That's why I dislike the format. I don't like shooting squares any more, I prefer slightly rectangular formats now, 6x7, 8x10, etc.
IMO, 5x7 isn't a good format for portrait work, which is what I mostly do, but I can see why landscape shooters enjoy the format.
I can't speak for anyone else, but that's why I never stuck with 5x7 when I had it many years ago.