Medium format vs. 4x5 vs. 8x10

I'm no tsure I am contributing much new to an already long thread but here

goes:

 

1) On a $2500 budget forget about 8x10. You will find used camera and lens

combos that JUST coem in at that price range but both will be old designs and

not necessarily in good condition.

 

2) Forget about 8x10 unless you really lust for something that large .. .gotta

admit here that I shoot 8x10 about one third of the time .... untill you get used

to the weight amd movements and bulk of 4x5. 8x10 is a lot heavier and

bulkier, the bulk being even mroe forboding thena the weight. I do backpack

8x10sometimes but I am limited to a camera 2 lenses and 2-3 film holders

and that is a fairly substantial rig int erms of both weight and bulk.

 

3) Listen to allthe advice of MF's virtures and then think of combining the two.

Either get a lower priced MF camera and/or a MF back for your 4x5. I carry a

Fuji GW690 II with me msot of the time when I am also shooting 4x5 or 8x10.

The Fuji frequently saves my bacon wehn the perfect shot/lighting/etc. comes

along when the LF camera is either still packed away, impossible to get setup

in time, etc. I ferquently enlarge the chromes from the Fuji 6x9 format to

16x20 and 20x30 using drum scans and lightjet printing or iris giclee printing.

You can buy a used Fuji ... and that IS what I would recommend because of

the 6x9 size, the rangefinder focusing and light weight and supurb optics ... for

around 500-600.

 

In your case I would stay away from older lenses. If you want to give either

MF or LF the best shake you should start with the best equipment so you can

properly judge the capabilities. To me that means get a multicoated or single

coated lens of fairly recent vintage and a reasonably recent vintage used field

camera. I am not a Graphic fan, they are just too old and can have too many

things wrong with them unless you are absolutely sure of your source. Since

you are unsure of what you will do long term I would suggest spending your

$$ in such a way that you cna recoup a good bit of the value if you change

your mind. Having said all that, here is my highly biased personal opinion of

how I would recommend a newcomer sped that $2500:

 

1) Call either Jeff at Badger Graphics or Jim at Midwest Photo and tell'em

what you have to spend and what your photo goals are. They both have great

prices and both are extremely knowledgable on LF and MF, Badger is not

particularly strong on used gear and Midwest has the best used selection

around but not much of a selection in new gear.

 

2) If you want to go new either one can sell you a Shen Hao or Tachihara field

cameara for ~600 (less for the Shen Hao without rear movements), put

together a two lens outfit for you from top quality lens for ~ 1200-1500 for a

135mm/210 or 240mm combo and add eitehr a 6x7 or 6x9 back or maybe a

used Fuji GW 690ll or 670ll. Add another few bucks for some film holders and

a dark cloth. I am assuming you already have a sturdy tripod and a good light

meter. If you need those too then you need to drop back to used for sure.

 

3) If you are willign to buy used and there is no reason not to, you can put

together a great system. My recommendation, if all the 2500 were going to

camera and lenses would be:

 

--Horseman HD (no rear bellows/movements) or FA for between 1000 and

1400 or a new Shen Hao or new Toho.

 

--for lenses I would pick from among the best available at the moment fro the

big four manufacturers wtih a slight pereference for a 135/150 from Schneider

or Rodenstock and at the other end I would get a 210 or 240 although this

time my absolute favorite would be a Fuji 240 A.

 

--no matter how you slice the above selections you should have enough left

for either a 6x7 or 6x9 back or a Fuji GW690/670. For example you should be

able to put together a new Shen hao low price body, two lenses and Fuji MF

and still avhe a bit of change from your 2500

 

--IF you need a tripod and light meter count on laying out another 200 for

them at the rock bottom ... you can get away with a solid reflective light meter

such as a Luna Pro and a Tiltall tripod for most rigs.

 

Good luck and no one throw rotten fruit please.

Ted,

 

My sentiments exactly. That's the route I'd choose.

 

Andy

"In your case I would stay away from older lenses. If you want to give either MF or LF the best shake you should start with the best equipment so you can properly judge the capabilities."

 

Ted, nothing aginst you, but I have to disagree. Older glass can be increadably sharp and contrasty. I just got back from the lab, and am looking at the first images of what will eventually be a series on historic churches of Virginia. I'm doing the project for my self, and it will probable take several years to complete. I'm shooting 60's era Wollensak Raptars, and the images are very crisp, with good color and excellent contrast. When compairing the same shot done with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 the difference in contrast is negligable. All shots done on the same film. While modern shutters are more reliable, the difference in lens sharpness only shows up at the very edges of the image, and then you need to be looking at the images made with the two lenses side by side to even begin to see the difference. A properly shaded single coated lens will deliver images of virtually identical quality as a modern multi-coated lens.

 

No flame war please, it is just a different set of experience talking, and your milage or decision may vary. This ones just mine.

The approach to taking photographs with medium format and large format is usually different. While it is possible, with practice, to take LF photos quickly, most of the time a more deliberate and careful approach is used, obtaining fewer exposures but a greater fraction of "keepers". The hassle factor with LF is higher -- for your type of subjects, a tripod must be used. You should think about your goals and how you like to take photographs. Renting to see whether you like the approach is a good idea.

 

Except in rare cases, a new LF photographer should start with 4x5. If your goal is large prints, beware that quality 8x10 enlargers are still expensive. On rare occasions bargin 8x10 enlargers turn up; always they are big. This might not matter if you intend to scan the negatives and make digital prints. One case to choose 8x10 over 4x5 is for making contact prints, especially with alternative processes like platinum.

 

What is the maximum size print from a 35 mm negative that you find of high quality? Apply the same enlargement factor to 6x7 cm and to 4x5 inches to obtain a good approximation to the largest prints obtainable with those formats.

 

Any current or recent lens from the big four (Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider) will deliver a high-quality image within the parameters of coverage and taking aperture specified by the manufacturer.

 

Regardless of money, if I could have only one format, it would be 4x5.

 

There are plenty of films available in 4x5. I have used several LF cameras and all have had correctly registered ground glasses. If you buy a new camera or a non-abused non-antique camera, and the same for holders, you shouldn't have any difficult with the ground glass being in the same position as the film.

 

Be sure to check out the information at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/. Also http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/, http://www.butzi.net/ and http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html

Consider this another vote for shooting medium-format with a view camera ... in my case, I use a Toyo 23G (and when the mood strikes, I'm able to replace the 2x3 rear standard with a 4x5 version, neatly turning it into a 4x5) and even though it's not exactly light at ~9lbs, my three-lens outfit still weighs about the same as the three-lens Bronica SQ-Ai outfit I owned previously and surprisingly, it's not all that much bulkier, either.

 

As for the resolution differences between MF and LF lenses, remember that while LF lenses may not have as much resolution overall, when you shoot 6x9 with them, you're only using the center of the image circle, which is usually the sharpest part. When you compare apples to apples this way, the apparent resolution advantage that MF lenses seem to enjoy is greatly reduced. Add in the benefit of movements, so that you can orient the plane of focus to suit your needs from one photo to the next, and the MF resolution advantage is reduced even further.

 

While I did have to sell my Bronica outfit to finance my purchase of a view camera outfit, I don't regret this much because, for what I shoot these days (mostly urban landscapes/abstracts), I wouldn't be using it very much even if I did still own it.

9 lbs! My 8x10" Gowland is about 6.5 lbs. (but it more than makes up for the weight difference in filmholders and the tripod).

If it's any consolation, my (modified) Galvin weighs only 2.5 lbs. It doesn't have geared movements, though, and I've come to appreciate them so much that I'm usually willing to put up with the Toyo's extra weight for all but the most rugged hikes.

Answer to Question 2: Very few landscape photographers will trek with an 8 x 10 because of the added weight of the system (film holders, heavier tripod, etc.). One of those who does is Michale Fatali. You can see his images online. I suggest you search here for Bob Salamon's comments of April 15, 1999 regarding choice between 4 x 5, 5 x 7, and 8 x 10.

Answer to Question 3: For an individual portrait, the 240 to 300 mm lens for the 4 x 5 probably is most widely used. For pictures on valley floors where you want to capture the peaks and edges of cliffs rising 2000 to 3000 feet above the valley floor, you likely would need a 110 to 120 mm focal length lens with enough coverage to provide adequate lens rise. For near-far wide angle compositions, anything between 47 mm and 135 mm focal length might be your preference for use with a 4 x 5 camera. The wider the lens, the greater the recession and diminution of the distant objects. Architects most often choose the 65 mm to 90 mm lenses. Front filter size may affect your preference among the wide angle lenses and brands. I rid myself of a heavy 115 mm focal length lens for which I had to switch to a bag bellows and 82 mm front filter for a 135 mm focal length lenses with 49 mm front filter size for which a standard bellows allowed ample rise. For all-around utility, the 210 mm focal length is likely to be your favorite lens. The price variations among 210's likely reflects the variations in coverage rather than lens resolution quality. Check out the new f/5.6 210 mm Apo Symmar L at Badger Graphic Sales (available after January 1, 2003), Schneider's competition to Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S's 210 mm focal length lens, each with 75 degree coverage, but the Schneider requiring a larger front filter than does the Rodenstock.

Question 4: I think you should wait to check out the Shenhao 8 x 10 camera made of titanium and wood. Badger Graphic Sales is likely to be importing it about March 2003, if not before. There are images posted at this website. The estimated price is $1700 USA.

My apologies to Bob for misspelling his surname. It is Salomon, not Salamon.

...

In researching information attributed to Bob Salomon, I came across this bit of Bob's advice, which I found personally to be enlightening: Sharpness may be affected by whether you misuse a focussing loupe. It is crucial that you remove the camera lens, place the loupe against the glass plate, and then adjust the focussing loupe until the grain on the ground glass is in focus. Error occurs if you were to focus on the back of the glass nearest the eye.

Mamiya 7II 6x7 will enlarge to 24 x 30 lightjet with excellent results. 4 x 5 is not only capable of greater enlargements, but it picks up subtle variations in texture, tonality and color. It is hard to explain unless you do a side by side comparison. 4 x 5 captures everything you see and more, you are never disappointed with the image. I am shooting almost exclusively 4 x 5 for landscape. If you have not had a lot of experience, I would suggest starting with the medium format and shoot for a year or two until you have trained your eye to be selective about your shots. You can go through quite a few rolls of 120 at a fraction of what it would cost you in 4 x 5. If you do have the experience than skip up to 4 x 5, you actually see things differently when composing the image upside down and focused on the ground glass. For me it is a different feel and less of the snap shot feel of the 6 x 7, more in touch with the scene.

David

 

You mention that Michael Fatali carries and uses an 8x10 camera. He may be a fine photographer but I still wish he were carrying his 8x10 around the exercise yard of a federal prison, where he belongs.

The pentax 67 with the 55mm lens is really a killer in the sharpness department. I've worked with 4x5 in the past and 6x7 is mightly close with a lot less hassel. I own close to 20 cameras and if I could only keep one, the pentax 67 and the 55mm wins hands down!

Indeed -

 

�...the main reasons for going to 4x5 rather than medium format have little to do with sharpness...� -- Don Wallace is quite right. -- It is primarily the smooth rendition of tones associated with reduced enlargements of huge negatives which supresses film granularity and provides �quality� of LF systems.

 

Good quality 35mm and MF lenses with covering power fixed for small formats must be inherently sharper than lenses with large covering power for 4x5 and larger.

 

(Don, I am surprised, if not impressed that you can see anything through Super Angulon 8. For me 5.6 are still inadequate and am looking for a 4.5 Rodenstock)

 

-- Jeffrey Goggin claims:

 

�...you're only using the center of the image circle, which is usually the

sharpest part. When you compare apples to apples this way, the apparent resolution advantage that MF lenses seem to enjoy is greatly reduced...�

 

Strongly disagree!

 

May I suggest the following, simple experiment:

1.Make a print, not even terribly large, say 8x10 inches from a selected 4x5 negative.

 

2. Change the enlarging lens in the enlarger for a 50mm lens and without changing the hight of your extension make another print 8x10.

 

Compare with your top quality 35mm prints of the same size. You will be unpleasently surprised!

 

 

Of course we are talking about state of the art equipment. I am using Componons and Rodagons.

For the 35 mm taking lenses: Zeiss Contax RTS, 18mm, 28mm, 80mm, 200mm

 

For the medium format: Pentacon Six with Zeiss Flektogon 50mm, Biometar 80mm, Sonnar 180mm, Sonnar 300mm, etc.

Film Panatomic developed in Microdol.

 

For the 4x5: Apo Sinaron 5.6/150, Grandagon 58mm, S. Angulon, and other up to 360mm, but I have compared only the two first this way.

 

Please note: I am not interested in counting the number of lines resolved by any optical system!!!

 

However, you are welcome to read and look at this:

 

http://users.nac.net/wieslaw/zeisstessar/tessar.html

 

Caution: There is a java aplet with 16 images, but not all browser corectly zoom in and out.

waz