Do any of you nature photographers shoot both 35mm and 4x5?

<p>If so, I'd like to hear your take on it. If you tried it and went back to just one format, I'd be interested in hearing about that too. I've been hemming and hawing about adding 4x5 for a long time and am reluctant to just spend the money and give it a go. I just got the opportunity to borrow a monorail 4x5 which I can already tell is too heavy to carry very far beyond wherever I've parked the car, much less carry *with* my 35mm gear. But I'm looking forward to seeing some big transparencies pretty soon, nevertheless.</p>

<p>Nature? Do you mean "landscape"?</p>

<p>I did research documentation (nature?) shots in both 4x5 and 35mm (and often 6cm too). But we always did transparencies in 35mm and Polaroid Type-52 and Tri-X on the 4x5.<br>

Stopped doing it when the 4x5 film packs and Polaroid Type 52 went away, or I might be doing it still. <br>

I personally thought 4x5 was too small for transparencies that were to be viewed directly, and too large to be easily projected. Of course, cover photographers for magazines used large-format transparencies all the time. Imagine Kodachrome in 8x10 ! ;)</p>

<p>I used to do 5x4 when film was readily available. While LF is great for landscapes I found it was tricky to use for any macro shots as the gear was cumbersome, the exposure tricky to calculate because of the long bellows extension, and the depth of field with the long focal lengths was pretty small. So I stuck to landscape and architecture with my LF camera. The advantage of LF is the camera movements you can apply to move the plane of focus but apart from that I think 35mm has LF beaten for macro, (and birds in flight:-)).<br /> <br /> Here are a couple of brothers (Cherry and Richard Kearton) who used LF for nature photography in the early 20th c. <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Kearton<br /> Richard Kearton wrote a fascinating abnd entertaining book called 'With nature and a Camera' about a visit to the Island of St Kilda (UK) before the population were evacuated. The List of Illustrations from 'With Nature and a Camera' shows some of the problems these guys overcame top get their LF nature shots.<br /> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/keacam/keacam1102.htm#keacam336<br /> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/keacam/keacam1103.htm#keacam343<br /> http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/keacam/keacam0001.htm<br /> You can see why nature photographers have embraced smaller formats with enthusiasm!</p>

<p>Missed out this one :<br>

http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/keacam/keacam1101.htm#keacam335</p>

<p>I shoot 4x5 mainly so I can use historic lenses. The lenses I use are either from the 1840s-1850s, or from 1900-1925. I get a really cool vintage look from them that I just loved! I only shoot b&w. I also use a Leica IIIc, but that's more for general purpose type shots. A monorail is bulky and slow to set up. They aren't really designed for hauling around. I use a Chamonix 045n field camera. It's very compact, sets up fast, and is actually about the same weight as my Nikon D7100. It's a great camera! I used to shoot color E6 film in my Shen Hao 4x5, and they were great. The big drawback is you have to scan the shots, and that requires at a minimum something like an Epson v700. To really get the most out of the big negs, you should drum scan them and that's not cheap.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<p>Starting in the mid-1970's until about five years ago I shot 35mm for color and 4x5 for black and white. I printed 4x5 in my basement darkroom. Although the darkroom is still set up, the chemicals and probably much of the enlarging paper has expired. My recent efforts with 4x5 are confined to using my DSLR, a Canon 5D II, to scan my best negatives. I have described my method in the Digital Darkroom forum at: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bH3q . Although I loved using 4x5 for landscape because it really slows things down and makes you think carefully about composition and exposure, I have migrated mostly to digital for the usual reasons. However, considering the cost of digital camera equipment and setting up a digital darkroom to make quality prints, it would have been less expensive to stick with 4x5, even considering the rising costs of film, paper and chemicals.</p><div></div>

<p>I shoot 4x5. I mostly shoot landscapes and closeups of nature (usually not true macro) with it. I also use a DSLR for the same things, along with true macro, wildlife and other general purpose use. The Chamonix system is lighter than my D800E and equivalent lenses, as long as i don't count the weight of the film and holders.</p>

<p>I do not carry both systems with me at once when hiking, but I will sometimes take them both when driving around. I recommend against trying to take them both with you for both your back health and the creative deadlock that results from trying to juggle two systems.</p>

<p>I shoot 35mm digital and film and added 4x5 a few years ago. I shoot the equivalent 35mm shot as the 4x5 but I don't hike with the 4x5 system. I have a <a href="http://www.wsrphoto.com/lfbloglist.html">blog</a> on the early years about gettting started and working in 4x5, and one of the most recent entries puts it simply, don't do it unless you have money you don't plan to get back and don't mind paying for film and processing, especially mistakes with handling or exposing the film. You must love it and plan to work at it for a long time, otherwise, it's money you won't get back. But then seeing the film results is worth the work if you love it.</p>

<p>My situation was a bit different. I used 35mm for years, then moved to 6x7 and shot that for 25 years. Then moved up to a 4x5 flat bed. My conclusion; 35mm was just too small an image for nature and landscapes, although fine for birds; 4x5 was just too slow in many situations where the light was changing quickly. I missed a number of classic shots but the ones I got were so nice due to the image size. I went back to my 6x7. It has the speed of a 35mm but has 4.5X the image area. It was a compromise but a good one. </p>

<p>A good compromise might be the Fuji 680. Uses 120 film but has lens movements.</p>

<p>Kent ins D</p>

<p>Thanks for the great responses. Such a tough call. I kind of forget about the ongoing expense of film, processing and especially digitizing. I was also hoping I could carry both systems on shorter hikes where I'm really just wandering around some given area. I was just in Yosemite and found that after I spotted some great light, ran back to the Jeep to get the camera, ran back to the scene and set up the shot, the light had changed quite a bit.</p>

<p>The borrowed monorail weighs 27 lbs. including carry case, but I'm thinking about getting something like a Shen-Hao and one lens, a 135mm or 150mm, and carrying maybe just two film holders, plus dark cloth and loupe, then somehow carry that with my tripod and 35mm gear backpack. I can see the creative deadlock problem coming up, but in my mind I think I'd default to 4x5 for landscapes unless it really looked like a job for the 16-35mm lens.</p>

<p>I didn't think it would be quite so easy to make mistakes, either, but there are so many ways to mess up. Maybe that'll make the successful shots that much sweeter. I've only taken the 4x5 out to shoot twice and haven't sent anything in for processing yet. Maybe a good chrome or two will fire me up enough to tip the scales.</p>

<p>If you are just beginning, make a checklist to follow. Something like:<br /> Level camera<br /> Focus lens<br /> Take light reading<br /> Adjust aperature<br /> Adjust shutter speed<br /> CLOSE VIEWING SHUTTER<br /> Cock shutter<br /> Et C.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent has a good point, develop the same habit of setting up and using the camera to the last click of the shutter, it's the old adage about getting to Carnegie Hall. If you've shot with manual focus film cameras then the exposure, settings, etc. are the same and you only need to learn the LF camera. And something that photographers argue whether to do it or not are two things, bracket shots and/or if you like the first, take the second as a backup. Film and processing isn't cheap but it's cheaper than getting bad results. It's easy when you're standing there to just flip the film holder over, insert and take a second shot.</p>

<p>When I was visiting England for a conference in the late 70s, I looked in many of the old camera stores for a brass large format lens for my 5x7 camera. Even then (? or especially then?) the prices were pretty stiff. I am really envious of Kent's beautiful brass lens (not to mention the cat to match).</p>

<p>Don't forget a light meter in your basic kit. Although, towards the end of my carrying a 4x5 field camera on hikes, I would forgo carrying my Minolta spot meter in favor of my first decent compact digital camera, an Olympus 7070, and used it to determine exposure and check composition before setting up.</p>

<p>As far as cameras go, I started with a Linhof Kardan Standard monorail, which was light weight, but somewhat awkward to carry. Even so, I carried it in a modified back pack (with the monrail sticking out the back, protected in a fiberglass tube) on many Sierra and Rocky Mountain hikes with my one and only lens, a 150mm Schneider Symmar-S, attached. My next choice was a Linhof Technika III, version 5, which although it was more compact than the Kardan, was more difficult to set up and use. The lens needed to be stored separately and reattached to the camera after opening, and I much preferred the adjustments on the Kardan over the four arm movements of the Technika. My final choice was a Wista 45N metal field camera which solved all my complaints. I could keep a 135mm Rodenstock lens attached and the camera would still fold, a major advantage for quick set-up and for keeping dust from entering the camera interior. I still own the Wista, in hopes of reusing it some day soon. From my experience, I suggest that you look for a used metal or wood field camera and one lens that is capable of folding with the camera when closed. There are many possibilities on eBay.</p>

<p>If you're talking strictly landscape photography, 4x5 might be the way to go, especially if you're shooting only for your own pleasure. But if you're talking about nature photography (from flowers to animals and birds, with landscape along the way) and if you're doing it as a business, then 35mm was the answer (and today, digital). John Shaw covered this in his Busines sof Nature Photography book years ago. He argued that to make a full-time living as a nature photographer, which means selling stock, that you needed something on the order of 50,000 good images on file. And to have that many good ones, you needed to have shot many more. And that magazines didn't pay more for a 4x5 shot than a 35mm shot. So just by the cost of film and processing, 35 was the only thing practical. Also that there were long lenses (for shooting birds, wild animals etc.) available for 35 that were unafforable or simply unavailable for larger formats.</p>

<p>Edward Weston, with those heavy view cameras, is reputed to have said, "If it is more than 100 feet from the car it is not scenic!"</p>

<p>I think now is the time to get into 4x5. The cameras are cheap. A wisner 4x5 a couple of years ago was 2500.00. On ebay today, they are 750.00. Film is going to be available for a long time <br>

Fuji says they are in this for the long run. The drawback is the film is expensive, and the developing is getting more expensive. <br>

I also love medium format. 6x7 is a great format, and the cameras are getting cheap.</p>

<p>I still shoot both and can't give up either, so good luck !</p>