Why no love for the 5x7?

[Shootar401]

I have a 5x7 speed graphic and a AGFA/Ansco 5x7 (currently under restoration) that I've shot a few times. I'm not a big fan of it because I only have one lens and that's on the long side. But why is 5x7 the bastard child of the LF world? So far it seems like a good compromise between 4x5 and the more expensive 8x10. Why did it never catch on?

On a side not, how well will 4x5 lenses work on a 5x7? I expect some vignetting and lack of movements but overall?

[paulr]

5x7 is my favorite format. But I've never had a 5x7 camera or used one. In the end, the advantages never outweighed (for me) the increased cost of film, film holders, lenses, enlargers, etc., and the reduced availability of film. But part of me wishes I'd made that plunge.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, is nearly the ideal format for a host of reasons. When one considers the limits of optical design, film resolution / grain size finished print size, hardware size/weight, the dark room requirements and ....

5x7 / 13cm x 18cm is very much the ideal film size.

Unless one is making contact prints which 8x10 or larger is more suited to doing.

There is partly a bigger is better ideology that some get caught into and don't find their way out of.


Bernice

I have a 5x7 speed graphic and a AGFA/Ansco 5x7 (under restoration) that I've shot a few times. I'm not a big fan of it because I only have one lens and that's on the long side. But why is 5x7 the bastard child of the LF world? So far it seems like a good compromise between 4x5 and the more expensive 8x10. Why did it never catch on?

On a side not, how well will 4x5 lenses work on a 5x7? I expect some vignetting and lack of movements but overall?

[Ron Stowell]

Been shooting 5X 7 for the last two years and find it to be close to ideal.
I also shoot a Mamiya RB 67, which weighs a ton, but does give some fantastic negatives and I have an Ansco 8X10, again weighs a ton, but is fun to shoot.
Thus the 5 x7 is the camera of choise and there some other fans of the 5x7 that hang out here on the forum.

[Shootar401]

I've been shooting 4x5 for less than a year now and before that 120 with my RZ67. But I'm already thinking of taking out the 5x7 more and more. I now have tanks and racks so developing is no longer a problem and with Arista film costing what it does I can't see a reason NOT to shoot it. I'm just wondering how my 4x5 lenses will work with a 5x7.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

... I'm just wondering how my 4x5 lenses will work with a 5x7.

It depends on the lens. A regular 70 degree 150mm f5.6 plasmat will barely cover, but a 210mm f5.6 or longer would be fine. Wide angle is harder, the modern 90mm f4.5 lenses generally cover with some movements, while the f8 (except the Nikkor) are pretty tight. All of the modern 120mm f8 lenses do fine.

[Ken Lee]

Click here for a few years worth of 5x7 images posted on this forum.

[Michael Clark]

5x7 enlargers are now a little harder to find and are pretty big, also with the newer and finer grain films of today and the availability of inexpensive 4x5 enlargers 4x5 format has a lot of advantages over 5x7. That being said I myself still like using 5x7 and like the smoothness of the older lens. The modern 4x5 lens that I have are the 120mm super Anglon and 210mm nikkor W are some of the lens that cover 4x5 and 5x7 with good movements. The older ones are 159mm wolly,10' Com. Kodak , 300mm Paragon and 14" apo f/10 Raptar. I'm sure there are others from the 4x5 family that have the large IC to cover 5x7. Check the home page of this forum to get more info on lens coverage.

Mike

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thought about it in the past but, quickly forgot about it when I started contact printing 8x10 negatives for alt processes. It is a nice format, though.

[Michael Clark]

OOP's should have waited to post,Ken hit the nail on the head with that post.