My recent belief is that 8x10 is less flexible than 4x5. I would enjoy a discussion by forum members of where 8x10 works best or better than 4x5. I have been using the 4x5 format for 49 years - principally for marketing my architectural practice and my own artistic projects. I purchased a Calumet 8x10 - 12 years ago and find it a lot more limiting than the 4x5 in most cases. First off is the perception of images with 8x10 - the depth of field that you are able to work with is a lot more limiting. If you are using a 150mm-165mm lens on 8x10 the depth of field is just the same as as it would be on a 4x5 camera. This carries through with all of the lens lengths. My successful 8x10 images have been: flatter subject compositions, distance subjects, subjects where out-of focus areas are taken into consideration as part of the image - such as portraits. There is also the need to either contact print the negative or enlarge it. I am still working on getting the correct increased negative densities for enlarging with my cold head enlarger. On the plus side the negative is larger so it should show more clarity and detail.
Bookmarks