Thinking of "stepping down"

[Daniel Stone]

hey all,

need some advice, please understand I'm not looking to start a "this camera is better than this camera" thing here, just looking for some information.

Basically, I've been using my Kodak Master view while here in Iceland assisting M+P, and I've come to have a love/hate relationship with it...While having 8x10 negatives is great(whether b&w or color), I've really started to hate the bulk and weight of the 8x10 system(even with just one lens, a convertible 360/620 symmar).

so.... Having recently fondled a Linhof Master Technika, I've really been considering just moving down to 4x5 for LF, since I don't make huge enlargements(after scanning color, or b/w enlargements), and the system is very quick to set up, and very high quality(similar to the Kodak Master View).

Having used the 4x5 reducing back on the KMV about 75% of the time is also somewhat of an incentive to just stick with 4x5 anyhow.

I know it sounds like my mind is made up, but I'm somewhat at a stand-still right now, and would like some advice from people who shoot 4x5 AND 8x10, whether currently or in the past.

I'm really into shooting color, whether it be 4x5 fujiroids(which I've been shooting a LOT of on this trip in Iceland), or 4x5 film(mostly because its cheaper than 8x10).

need some help here....

oh... and since HIGH quality 4x5 lenses are much more available, and cheaper than their 8x10 counterparts, that's another reason, for me...

thanks

-Dan


p.s..... anyone interested in a swap? Master technika for a KMV? Just wondering :-).

[Kirk Gittings]

A couple of times over the years I bought an 8x10, and then went back to 4x5. Personally I just didn't love the hassle of the larger camera and was satisfied with the quality of 4x5.

[Daniel Stone]

Kirk,

quick question: I'm planning on investing in a drum scanner if my budget in the next year can stretch to allow it, so being able to handle 8x10 and 4x5 film on the same scanner is important. When you refer to "quality", are you optically enlarging, or scanning your film?

thanks

-Dan

[jp]

I'm a bit envious you are in Iceland.

Seems reasonable if you have to tote it all around.

I use 8x10 so I can use lenses I can't put on my 4x5, and to a lesser extent so I can contact print or have bigger negatives to scan.

If you like your lens selection for 4x5, then use it. It's easier to optically enlarge, more film choice, more lens choices, more portable cameras, more camera choice, more developing system options, excellent image quality, lots of things to like about it. I can go shooting sometimes with a couple film holders in my pocket, carrying a speed graphic, and monopod or tiltall, and get some nice results. I mostly use 4x5 but appreciate 8x10 for some uses.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,

quick question: I'm planning on investing in a drum scanner if my budget in the next year can stretch to allow it, so being able to handle 8x10 and 4x5 film on the same scanner is important. When you refer to "quality", are you optically enlarging, or scanning your film?

thanks

-Dan

Both, but I don't print large, only occasionally over 16x20. I print the odd 20x24 and very rarely any larger than that-like once in the past 30 years for a special show.

[Daniel Stone]

Kirk,

thanks. Same for me. Very rarely 20x24, generally 16x20 paper is my max.

I'm using 35mm more and more these days for b/w, and 4x5(and 8x10) for color work.

my RZ is not getting much use unfortunately.... She's just sitting there all lonely like....

-Dan

[Daniel Stone]

I have a 4x5 reducing back for the KMV, but my main reason for wanting to keep the KMV is so I CAN shoot 8x10(and 4x5) on the SAME camera. But since 8x10 film is soooooooo expensive(especially for a college student like me), and I despise credit cards(well, debt in general), this is the primary reason for me to use 4x5 over 8x10...

[Bill_1856]

The reasons for shooting 8x10 are if you routinely make contact prints or do huge enlargments. It would appear that neither criteria applies to you. Go for the 4x5.

[Ken Lee]

Not exactly what you asked, but for B&W especially, there's 5x7: a pleasant compromise which may not necessitate the purchase of a high-end scanner.

Perhaps money and time are no object for you, but for many of us, there is the initial cost of the scanner, and the ongoing issue of having maintaining a (possibly obsolete) computer, operating system, and device drivers - as well as servicing the actual scanner, finding parts, etc. In other words, it's an investment.

From 5x7, an 11x14 is only a 2X enlargement: within the capacity of even a consumer-grade scanner.

[Henry Ambrose]

I really miss my KMV, but it was a chore to haul it and its stuff.

I'm sticking with 4x5 because "4x5 stuff" is readily available and reasonably priced and especially because I have a very nice 4x5 enlarger.

Ken's suggestion of 5x7 might be a great idea if you were -only- scanning or had a 5x7 enlarger. I've thought about that but I'm locked on my current darkroom which is limited to 4x5 max. But if I started from scratch I'd sure look at 5x7 real hard.

If you're doing mostly color, a 4x5 and a high end scanner is about as fine as anyone could want.