Chucking it and going to DSLR?

[dh003i]

I use an Olympus E-3; it is a great camera. It is unfortunately looked down on by some, but I really don't care about that. It is an excellent complement to a 4x5. Having the 4/3rds format sensor, it will have more reach and less weight/bulk than Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLRs with lenses with equivalent angles of view. The Olympus E3 has an articulating LCD and is very rugged and weather-resistant, as are the pro-lenses.

Lenses for the Four-Thirds system are exceptionally sharp; but of course they need to be due to the smaller sensor. I have the Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54/2.8-3.5, 50/2, and 70-300/4.5-5.6 lenses; as well as a Minolta Rokkor-MC 58/1.2 (which I'm now selling on eBay), and a Minolta Rokkor-MD 50/1.4.

Sine buying a 4x5, when I have both cameras with me, I'll generally leave the 4x5 on a tripod and hand-hold the Olympus E-3 (it's too much work unmounting and re-mounting he 4x5, even with a QR plate). If I find a shot I really like with my E-3, I'll take an equivalent with my 4x5. I have 90, 135, 150, 203, and 305 focal lengths for 4x5; although right now, I usually leave the Xenotar 135/3.5 (for portraiture) behind, and also leave the Symmar 150/5.6 convertible behind. I find myself using the Nikkor 90/4.5 and G-Claron 305/9 the most, although the Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 is also a fine very sharp lens, which certainly has its place for when I want a more "normal" focal length.

I've found that having a 4x5 has "slowed" me down on my Olympus E-3 as well; I spend more time looking through the viewfinder to find excellent shots before taking them. This saves time deleting sub-par shots later.

Shots I definitely will take with my 4x5 are ones where there is a lot of depth, but it can be captured by movements; or where there isn't so-much depth necessary. I am more hesitant photograph shots on the 4x5 where there is much depth, and the foreground is close and very 3D (not planar in any way), as then I'll need to stop down to f/64 (equivalent to more if I'm in he macro-range), which erodes much of the advantage of 4x5 over my Olympus E-3. Although the tonality and lack of grain is still there.

Thus, if you decide to keep you 4x5 and get a complementary system, I recommend the Olympus E-3. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and will fetch you advantages in being able to obtain extreme depth in your shots, albeit with some diffraction at f/22 (f/22 on 4/3rds is equivalent to f/45 on 35mm). The 4/3rds system also provides tremendous reach, with a 70-300mm lens being equivalent for AOV to a 140-600mm for 35mm. You can also use it as a light-meter for your 4x5 (that's what I do).

If you decide to sell your 4x5, then of course the benefit of the E-3 being complimentary to the 4x5 isn't there; but it is still a great camera. You can also go with an APS-C camera from Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Pentax. Or a "full-frame" 35mm sensor-format camera from Nikon, Canon, or Sony (there are of course much more expensive than smaller sensor cameras). Both the kind of photography you want to do and your budget determine your preference here.

[timparkin]

.... But I only shoot black and white in 4x5. If I were a color photographer, I would shoot digital and never look back. Digital is great for color.
...

I found this to be the opposite. Colour on a digital is bloody awful. Mushy greens and yellows, the bayer array screwing up any fine detail (think 5Mp camera instead of 20Mp if you want pixel perfect colour), screwy colour because of infra-red.


I use a 5Dmk2 and a 4x5 system and am happy to use the 5D as a 'finder', snapshot camera, occasional backup in case 4x5 is unfeasible (and for my needs a video camera).


I take about 100 shots per year on my large format camera at the moment and maybe 500 shots per year on my 5Dmk2 of which maybe 200 are real shots

[redrockcoulee]

I am another D200 shooter who mainly shoots film (more MF than LF or 35mm). However one of the more affordable way to have both is go with a Pentax. The reason I am suggesting Pentax is no other brand has the variety and some say quality, of their prime lenses.It is not full frame which is the disadvantage but I think the IQ and lenses, especially their limited lenses, more than makes up for it.

As I said above I shoot mostly film, and more so now than even a year ago, and hardly use the D200 but then it is only a loaner as the owner upgraded, and my wife shoots mostly digital with her Pentax K10D but she also uses the Hasselblad and the two large format cameras and we are building some cannister pinhole cameras as well. There are few reasons that it has to be an either or situation as many have already pointed out. I think it is more in the printing that the choice is harder as in having to make a decision on equipment. We cannot print larger than letter size paper digitally at the present time but there is no limit on the size of film that we could print all we need is larger trays. Those who print digitally it is easier to have the two systems. The downside of having more than one system there are always times that you wished you had the other one(s) with you but the upside of that is that you could do so and even better you have choices.

[Ken Lee]

Do mirror-based cameras make sense any more ?

Money aside, if I were going digital, I might chuck the whole idea of a DSLR - and get a Leica M9.

[jp]

Sitting on my counter at home is :
4x5 speed graphic
Nikon f4s loaded with TMY
Nikon d300
Nikon d100 infrared only
Nikon d50
Flip ultraHD video cam

Each have their strengths. If I want some nice 5x7's of my wife holding the baby, the 35mm B&W film is perfect, especially with the quick autofocus. If I want to put some stuff online or have high shooting volume requirements or want color, the d300 or d50 is fine. If it's a puffy cloud day and I want a science fiction look, I take the IR camera. If it's something I might want big, or need some DR, or need a traditional timeless look, it's the graphic with B&W film. Nothing wrong with 4x5 color film, I just don't like color darkroom work.

[Richard M. Coda]

Don't do it!

One day, and we may read about it here, you will regret not having that big camera around.

I have a D300, Arca 4x5 Field, Arca 8x10 and hybrid Arca-Canham 11x14. Do you know what I use the D300 for? Some small product photography, but mainly for my wife's scrapbooking habit! It's an expensive snapshot camera.

[David Luttmann]

Borrow or rent a 5D2, and make some comparison shots with your 4x5 rig. Make some prints at 16x20 and check what differences you see, and if any, see if they matter to you.

I use both because I enjoy the feel of 4x5 gear and the style of shooting it forces one to take. That said, with good processing, the difference betweent he latest DSLRs and 4x5 at 16x20 may be small enough that you no longer care. It's not just about resolution, but dynamic range, tonality, and the character of the film used.

[Ron Marshall]

Do mirror-based cameras make sense any more ?

Money aside, if I were going digital, I might chuck the whole idea of a DSLR - and get a Leica M9.

Money aside, Leica S2!

[Ken Lee]

You're right !!!

What was I thinking ?

OK - The mirror is back... whatever !

[photographs42]

Not a lot has been said about this, but for me it is more about the experience. For my job as an Architectural Photographer, I just upgraded from a D200 to a D700. Big improvement! But I’m still peeking through a little hole to compose and, while it suits the purpose of my current work, it isn’t very satisfying.

Taking the 5x7 out for a day or a weekend is such a totally different experience for me that there is really no comparison. Working with a potential image is, for me, the joy of large format. Thirty years ago I switched from 35mm to 4x5 and that first experience working with the large camera, before I ever saw a LF negative, sold me. I get that same thrill today and I don’t even have to expose any film. Sometimes I get everything set up and decide it’s not good enough and I walk away……..But I still enjoy the experience.

Go digital if you want but think about what you miss before selling your LF.
Jerome