Isn't 4x5' too small?

[Vincent Malaud]

This question keep coming back! and the worst is that I only started recently shooting 4x5!! Well I am not completely new to sheet film as I started by shooting 3,25x4,25, a format that I really appreciate.
When I was shooting 3,25x4,25, I was always dreaming of 4x5, thinking that it would be bigger, better, nicer etc... but now that I have it, I wonder if for all the effort it takes to make a shot why shouldn't it be done on an 8x10 and enjoy all the benefits of the bigger format?

I see several advantages (for me at least) :
- larger neg, more info recorded, possibility to print large if desired or contact print
- better rendering of volumes and tones in general, good for architecture photography (what I do)
- slower operating mode, make me think more (never hurts
- 2 film holders in the backpack, 4 photos per session - good enough for me

One disadvantage that is keeping me away: price!! for everything!! 8x10 kit for my Arca Swiss camera, lenses, film holders, films... Well I can still work on my 4x5', get better and better so the day I ll take the plunge I ll be ready...

My thoughts..

[CarstenW]

What about weight? 8x10", all else being equal, should weigh 8x as much (2^3). Personally I speculate about 5x7 or 5x8, but 8x10 could not replace 4x5 for me. The weight and bulk just kill that idea.

[Kevin Crisp]

If you shop the kit well, you can move up to 5X7 with one of the lighter cameras and the weight and hassle of carrying it around doesn't increase much. With 8X10...not so much. I'm not knocking 8X10 even though I've decided after three ventures into it to stick to 5X7 and 4X10.

[Vincent Malaud]

I don't see weight as an issue really for me, I am still fit and I always shoot in already visited locations

[Chris Strobel]

I don't see weight as an issue really for me, I am still fit and I always shoot in already visited locations

Just stitch 4 4x5 frames and you'll have your 8x10

[mrladewig]

There are other reasons for 4X5. If you shoot color there is a much greater variety of material available for the 4X5 format. Its a lighter kit (generally). Gear is less expensive. Less trouble with exposure times and moving stuff. Aside from contact printing, I think there is a definite case of diminshing returns.

[Walter Calahan]

When I look at the ground glass of my 4x5 Arca-Swiss I feel like I'm looking through a viewfinder.

When I look at the ground glass of my 8x10 KB Canham (which weighs about the same at my 4x5 Arca) I feel like I'm looking through a window.

[BrianShaw]

Aside from contact printing, I think there is a definite case of diminshing returns.

What more can I say?

[Ron Marshall]

I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7 and still am tempted by 8x10, but I don't print large enough to justify the weight or expense. Though I may go to 8x10 someday, but only a studio portrait setup. I really appreciate the size of the GG with 5x7 compared to 4x5, and the tonality appears smoother.

[dsphotog]

8x10 & 5x7 enlargers are not as common as 4x5.
I found the 8x10 Durst enlarger first, then had a good reason to buy the camera!