Medium format vs. 4x5 vs. 8x10

I am looking for help with the purchase of a new system. I am a

photographer on a $2500 budget and am interested in landscape and

nature photography. I would greatly appreciate any help. Here are

my questions.

 

1. How big can you make medium format prints and not lose sharpness,

lets say from a 6x7 neg?

 

2. What is the difference in weight for a 4x5 compared to an 8x10

 

3. What is a good lens for a 4x5 or 8x10? Everybody talks about the

camera but image quality is all about the lens.

 

4. If you had $2500, and could buy any system you wanted, what would

it be?

 

thanks so much

Hi Blake. I'll preface my remarks by saying that there are many here with more experience and knowledge. That being said, Question #1 is really a trick question. The technical answer is that any enlargement results in a loss of sharpness, but the practical answer is vastly more complex. To begin with, all values are apparent, and subjective. To reframe your question, How much apparent sharpness are you willing to sacrifice in an enlargement? In other words, how sharp an enlargement appears is contingent on several factors, including but not limited to; degree of enlargement, lens characteristics (taking and enlarging) film, exposure, developer time/temp/agitation/dilution, printing paper, paper developer time/temp/agitation/dilution, viewing distance and viewing lighting. The simple answer: bigger film= bigger enlargement, all things being equal. Question #2- There is, of course a wide range of weights in both formats depending on the type of camera (field (wood or metal), monorail, studio etc.), but a general answer might be related to format size. 8x10 = 4(x) 4x5, so a similar type of camera might weigh 4x as much in 8x10 as 4x5, all things considered ( film holders, lenses, tripod etc.). Question #3. Another trick question. While the premise of your question may be true, in practice there are mitigating factors in favor of format over lens quality. For example, if you intend to make contact prints from an 8x10 negative as I do, just about any lens that covers the format should be capable of sharp, detailed prints. That being said, I believe that there is an optimum lens for every shooting circumstance; ie. if you intend to shoot macro images on chrome film, you'll probably prefer a different lens than someone shooting B&W portraits. For landscape and nature photography there are an abundance of suitable lenses in either format, and I'll defer to those more qualified to elucidate the qualities of those. Question #4 If I wanted to shoot landscape and nature and make enlargements, I would buy the best 4x5 field camera that I could afford, USED. Used is my preference due to poverty, and I've had very good luck with the used equipment I've bought. As for a specific 4x5 field camera, I can't say first hand as I've never owned one, but if I were shopping for one for landscape/nature I'd want one with all the movements, no technical cameras, and I personally would value ruggedness and precision over light weight. Who cares how easy a camera is to carry if it's sloppy and won't lock down tight enough to get a sharp image. Beyond that, the camera is only one component in the scheme; when you figure the weight of your film holders, lens, tripod, light meter, loupe, filters, cable release, lens shade etc., the differences in weights between a rugged, precision heavyweight and a sloppy, flimsy lightweight, not to mention the price difference, it's no contest, in my mind. If you're worried about packing a few extra ounces around, the added effort to carry the heavier kit might cause you to drop a few pounds leaving you both healthier and wealthier. Good luck Blake, and have fun.-jdf

With a properly exposed and sharp Velvia MF slide I find that 10x enlargement is acceptable, which means 60x70 cm or 24x30".

1. a judicious lens choice would allow at least a sharp 20x30 from a properly exposed film. 2. the difference can be substantial, say the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 monorails can be several pounds, and if you want 8x10 with significant movement it will require a hefty lens addition. Field cameras would the choice here, a wooden one wouldn't be too heavy in 8x10. 3. do a search for lens quality in the Large format users group, that question almost certainly won't get the attention it deserves unless you peek in on two really experienced users talking about lens choices. I might suggest a Rodenstock APO-Symmar. Others in LF users group have espoused a lens called a G Claron. The focal length will have to wait for your film size choice. You will most certainly get alot more movement from a given lens in 4x5 versus 8x10, and that to me is the whole reason for a move to LF. 4. Umm, I might be picky but $2500 won't even buy me a top quality lens in MF (at least for my choice of system in Hasselblad, but that's not so true for other brands). My suggestion for you would be to look into the Pentax 6x7 system with their 55 mm, which is very capable for Landscape, and fairly competent for nature but a longer focal length would be preferred for animals. If i could only spend 2500, this would be my first choice. $2500 doesn't equal "any system I wanted", not even in 35.

Just to add one more monkey wrench to the dilemma - there is a much smaller array of films available in 4x5 or 8x10 than in medium format. Also, with the exception of Tmax, most of those films are "old tech" films. Currently films like PanF or Delta 100, Xp2 super, etc aren't available in large format (and Fuji Acros isn't exported to the states by Fuji). So, if you use a film like PanF in medium format you can get a really sharp print, often comparable (or better) in grain to TriX in 4x5 format.

 

As a cost saving suggestion - buy a decent speed graphic pacemaker outfit and some film holders. That should set you back NO MORE than $350. If you shop around you can get one for much less. There are reviews of these cameras on Photo.net. Also visit Graflex.org for a complete discussion of speed grahpic cameras. If you like LF you can put better lenses on the speed graphic.

 

That being said, the medium format camera is VASTLY more flexible in terms of portability and handholdability. There are many many MF's and film available. A really great Mamiya system should only set you back around $1600-$2000 USED with lenses, back, etc. The Mamiya cameras are really terrific.

 

Bottom Line - for my money, I'd Buy a Mamiya 645 and a Speed Graphic set. (which is exactly what I've done)

Blake:

 

If I wasn't hung up on 8x10 contact prints on silver and Pt/Pd paper, I would stick with MF for the reasons above: flexibility, better film choice, portabilty AND COST. LF offers the movements for focus and perspective control which MAY be important.

 

A used Mamiya RZ/RB67 with a few lenses can be had for less the the $2500 and with film such as T Max 100, Delta 100, Provia, prints up to 3ft x 41/2 ft can still be stunning, done right. Towards the end of his active shooting career Ansel Adams used MF almost exclusively.

I have seen 20x 24 in. razor sharp prints from Kodak neg film shot with a Rollei 6000 with no grain visible even close up.

 

There is no best-you exercise options.

 

Cheers

Even with the best LF lenses available, it's very difficult to get the sharpness of those lenses translated to large format film. You see the problem is that standard sheetfilm holders (DDS, or double darkslides), and many LF cameras if truth be told, aren't made to a precise enough standard to take full advantage of these modern optical wonders of lenses. Couple that with the smaller apertures and longish shutter speeds needed, and the fact that a larger, non-rigid-bodied camera is inherently more prone to vibration, and you've got a recipe for less-than-optimally-sharp pictures.<br>Sorry, fellow LF enthusiasts, but that's the truth!<p>The real advantage of LF is in the range of movements that the camera can provide, and its flexibility as a system. The larger film area only partly outweighs the disadvantages I outlined above.<p>If I was looking purely for the ultimate in sharpness, as opposed to other more nebulous image qualities like tonal smoothness, then I'd go with MF every time. Especially working outside of a studio, and in colour.<p>If I was working exclusively in B&W, then that might sway me more to LF, since sheetfilm can be individually developed.

Tor Johnson wrote:

 

"Currently films like PanF or Delta 100, Xp2 super, etc aren't available in large format"

 

Actually, Delta 100 is available in 4x5 and is listed for sale on B&H's web site. I didn't check 8x10.

For landscape and nature, I would go with a 4x5 or 8x10 system (depending on how far you plan to carry it--I carry an ultralight 8x10" on long day hikes, but would probably go with 4x5" for a trip that involved camping for several days). You get the advantage of camera movements, development of individual sheets, larger film size, and the option of rollfilm if that turns out to be more convenient for certain purposes.

 

A MF SLR is attractive if you need an SLR, perhaps because you prefer it for your style of portraiture or because you are doing the kind of work that may benefit from being able to look through the camera as you fire the shutter. Or you might like an MF rangefinder for its light weight and quiet operation. For landscape work, these are not really big issues, hence the popularity of large format among serious landscapists, with a few exceptions.

 

A compromise is a 6x9 view camera like the Arca-Swiss, Linhof, or older Galvin, but since it's so easy to add a rollfilm back to a 4x5" system, and there are so many 4x5" systems available, and a 4x5" is not that much larger, I don't really see the attraction of the 6x9 cm view cameras.

 

There are fewer film choices as you move up in format, but bear in mind that as grain becomes less of an issue, you can choose films on the basis of tonality alone. I might choose Tri-X in 35mm if I wanted a gritty, noir look, for instance, but I'll choose it in 8x10" for its good contrast and smooth rich tonality.

 

Lenses and camera systems: Start reading. There is a lot of information out there, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each system. Much depends on your personal priorities and working style. Great images have been made with all kinds of gear. A good starting point is http://largeformatphotography.info.

I'm blowing 6x9 negs up to 30x40 (well, a bit smaller with borders) and I think they look damn good. Not razor-sharp, but gorgeous color, minimal grain, no loss of detail compared to 16x20s from same negative. I use a Horseman rollfim back on an Arca-Swiss FC69 view camera with Schneider lenses.

 

Cheers,

Sandy

Blake - I think it�s critical to understand that there�s more to the equation than absolute lens resolution. Yes, Pete A. is correct about the MF glass being sharper. However, a lens can only focus on one plane at a time (Pete, correct me if I�m wrong) and typically a subject scene has multiple planes or areas which must be in focus. This is especially true for landscape work, assuming the shooter wants everything in the photo sharp. Thus the depth of field issue comes up. I shot a Pentax 6x7 for years, and thought it was a great camera, but for landscapes, it did have limitations. For one, depth of field was always a problem, something LF overcomes with movement cabablitiy. So long as the subject was relatively two dimensional, or the foreground was a good distance away, there was no problem with sharpness � I�ve got very sharp 16x20 prints off of velvia with the 67. However, often I ended up focusing based on hyperfocal distance and was constantly using F22 (the smallest aperature on my lenses). In this case, I feel the image sharpness was more a function of DOF (or lack thereof) than absolute lens resolution. In other words it was usually a compromise situation when it came to sharpness results vs. what the lens could truly deliver. Many near far shots simply couldn�t be taken and still maintain near to far sharpness.

 

Now with LF, the movements work wonders at getting things sharp near to far. In fact, I�m sure that most readers of this forum will agree that once you use a camera with movements, there�s no going back, if optimum results (not convenience and cost) are the goal. Likewise the movements let you control perspective which is super critical for many subjects, IMHO. Lastly, I think most of use would prefer our �keepers� on 4x5 vs. MF every time.

 

This is not to say LF is a walk in the park. It�s expensive to shoot (especially color, B&W ain�t too bad), heavier and slower than MF, harder to pack, etc. If you do a lot of backpacking and travel shooting, MF may be your ticket. If you go LF, I don�t think you will have regrets, especially not after seeing a good 4x5 chrome on the light box and experiencing what those tilts can do for you. If you had the bucks, I�d opt for both MF and LF, as they both have their purposes. Your budget would allow you to get a Shen Ho or Tachi, say a fuji or Nikon 125/135, and a 210 of some make, holders, etc. for under $2500. Lots of great used gear out there. Like I said, once you take the plunge into LF, there�s no going back!

 

Good luck.

 

RJ

I'd use 4x5. Here are my reasons

 

- cost. Within your budget, you could buy a decent used 4x5 large format system (camera, 2 lenses) that you can backpack with. Lenses are a lot less expensive overall than good medium format lenses.

 

- quality. 4x5 will go significantly larger even than 67 medium format. In fact the quality is superb.

 

- simplicity. I find LF ridiculously easy to use. But with 4x5, you can make it easier still with quickload and readyload holders.

 

- versatility. Movements, make a big difference in your type of work. Also, 4x5 is the largest convenient film size to scan if you want to go digital. Sure you can scan 8x10 but to get the best quality, you will need more specialised equipment.

 

Few need 8x10. It is a little too "specialised" for my taste.

 

I combine 4x5 with a digital SLR (S2), and that works well for me.

 

Quentin

I have seen huge MF prints from Lynne Davis, Richard Avedon and Craigie Horsfield. Diane Arbus's prints, especially those printed by Neil Selkirk, fill me with particular pleasure. Irving Penn's, too. There is no technological imperative. It doesn't matter what gear you buy. Buy anything and learn to use it, which means taking a lot of pictures and exploring the syntax of the system you have. Large format can be intimidating, and difficult to shoot with ease and fluidity. Avoid the gear trap. Spend some money on a small library of photo books to educate your eye.

I'm in complete agreement with Pete Andrews. I used a Pentax 67 for much of my work and sharpness with the newer multicoated lenses was phenomenal. Enlargement was never a problem.

I switched to 4x5 for one reason - the ability to use movements. Medium format cameras do not allow the same amount of flexibility as a view camera when it comes to composition, perspective, and depth of focus.

In fact - they fall short even of 35mm in the DOF department due to their need to use longer lenses for a given angle of view.

 

Guy

After years of darkroom work I've found that 4x is about the maximum enlargement from any black and white negative (T Max 100 and HP5+) for me in a traditional darkroomm. I haven't yet done enough digital printing to know whether the same holds true there or not. But with traditional darkroom prints, the loss of tonality, detail and sharpness with an enlargement beyond about 4x becomes unacceptable for me. Many people do go larger than that, but when you do your own darkroom work and can see say an 11x14 enlargement of a 6x7 negative and a 16x20 enlargement from the same negative side by side, the loss of detail and tonality in the larger print as compared with the smaller print is too visible to make the larger print acceptable to me. FWIW, if I remember correctly the largest prints John Sexton makes from his 4x5 negatives is 16x20 for the same reasons. But then Clyde Butcher makes something like six foot by eight foot enlargements from his 8x10 negatives and he's done pretty well for himself. The bigger the print, the bigger the sales appeal so if I made a living doing this I'm sure huge enlargements would quickly become acceptable to me.

 

The choice of formats comes down to what you want to do and what you like. I happen to enjoy large format (4x5 and 8x10)work much more than medium format (6x7)though I do both. Medium format for me is too much like 35 mm - little tiny viewfinder, lots of frames on a roll (I use 220) tends to encourage sloppiness, so easy to make the photograph that I make many more losers, no ability to control shapes, difficulty in getting foreground to background looking "sharp" without movements, etc. Again, just my personal preference but when I go on a trip I always take my large format equipment rather than medium format unless my wife is with me, in which case I don't push her patience by using large format.

 

Relative weight depends on the particular camera. A Phillips 8x10 weighs about 8 pounds, many 4x5 cameras weigh around 6 pounds and I'm sure there are some that weigh more. Then again you can buy a 4x5 camera that weighs about 3 pounds (Toho) and you can buy an 8x10 camera that weighs 13 pounds (Wisner) and probably more. Also, 8x10 film holders weigh a lot more than 4x5 holders so that pushes the weight of the total system way up.

 

There are hundreds of "good" lenses for 4x5 and 8x10. Any modern lens from one of the four major manufacturers of large format lenses (Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon) will be a "good" lens unless it's been damaged.

I don't feel like there's enough information in your post to give a

solid answer. The differences in the actual experience of

shooting LF is *so* different from MF. LF is a MAJOR HASSLE;

just know that going into it. Compared to say, and Fuji 6x9

rangefinder, or a Noblex. All the extra crap to carry around in LF,

versus a bag, a tripod, a camera body and a couple of lenses in

MF. I do both, and I know.

 

I almost feel if you're gonna mess with all the BS of LF, go ahead

and do 8x10 or even larger. If not, just keep it simple and do Fuji

RF, or Hasselblad, or Mamiya 7. Much less stuff to go wrong with

MF.

 

Just my opinion.

 

MT, http://marktucker.com

You will have to decide where to draw the line with image quality. I'm sure we've all heard someone rave about their grainless 16x20 prints made from 35mm, only to be underwhelmed when we see them, having grown accustomed to large format quality. You will have to look at some prints made from the different options, and reach your own conclusions.

 

As you are interested in landscape and nature photography, you will need to decide whether you require the movements and corrections that view cameras offer. If by "landscapes and nature" you mean photos of birds and distant mountains, then perhaps not. If you mean the classic near-far images where sharpness extends from 6 inches to infinity, then you'll find that non-view cameras will require you to stop down your lenses to the max. You'll wonder why you ever bothered to lay down so much money for top lenses, only to toss it away via diffraction.

 

Like they say, "Choose the right tool for the job": Get real clear about the images you want to make, see what others have used to make similar ones, and then, choose your equipment, last.

On the issue of film varieties available in 4x5 format, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Johnson. There is a wide variety of emulsions available in 4x5, in B&W, color negative and chrome. Unless you have one particular film that you cannot substitute, and it is not available in 4x5, I do not see film variety as a limitation in 4x5. Ilford's Pan F is a fine film, but in no way irreplaceable. TmaX 100 is at least as fine grained and twice as fast, and there are many other films to choose from as well, and not all "old tech". Off the top of my head, I know you can get Tmax 100, Tmax 400, Ilford Delta 100, Ilford HP5+, Fuji Acros 100, Tri-X Pan Professional 320, and Technical Pan in the "new tech" category, and the number of more traditional films is far greater still, with many quality emulsions including some that are not available in roll film, like Bergerr BPF 200. Again, I doubt that film variety will be a problem, but there's no reason you can't use roll film with a 4x5 outfit if you should find a film that's not available in 4x5 and which you cannot substitute with another film. The same is not true in reverse. I don't know how important hanhold-ability is to you shooting landscapes, but unless it will comprise the majority of your shooting, I would not deem it worthy of the scarifice of movements that a technical camera like a Graphic or Technika represent, nor do I see any significant advantage in a MF SLR over a 4x5 field camera and a rollfilm back for the type of work you're talking about. For versatility, a field camera is very hard to beat. You get the ability to shoot in formats from 6x4.5cm up to the maximum format that the camera is capable of with the proper accessories. You can use a Polaroid back for proofing or use the venerable P/N 55 film for fantastic negs, something you can't do with the 645. Most importantly, you get view camera movements, the importance of which should not be underestimated. If I was limited to a single outfit, my criteria would be; versatility, dependability, affordability. I use all of the formats mentioned, and for the money your talking about, you can put together an outfit in any one of them, with all of the required accessories if you buy used and exercise patience. Good luck, Blake.-jdf

I think robert cardon is right on. DOF is a problem with medium format. (I shoot landscapes/nature as well). But I'd highly suggest renting both LF and MF stuff first, that's what I did. I liked the Pentax 67 very much, but found that even the 55mm lens at its smallest aperture was not enough DOF. Then I rented a 4x5 camera, and thought the dim screen, weight, and upside down image were a huge pain. But I ended up going with 4x5 for the movements, the fact that I could buy sever 6x7 backs and shoot rollfilm as well, and I got over the dim, upside down image and now even relish in it. Control of DOF through movements far outweighed the portability of the Pentax. All of our thoughts are not really enough to go on, everyone is biased one way or another. You can definitely make quality images with either MF or LF, but I think you need to try both out first. And I didn't spend a ton more than $2500 for a camera, 47mm/90mm/150mm lenses, 2 rollfilm backs, and the other accessories.

Jeff at West Coast Imaging says that you can print up to 20x24

from 6x4.5 with a LightJet print. I don't know if I'd print that big

with such a small neg though. With 6x7 you should be able to

print at least 20x24 maintaining acceptable sharpness.

 

If I had $2500. to spend on camera gear and didn't have either

MF or LF I'd split the money and get both. If you look hard you

can pick up good LF lenses for decent prices. Around $300-400

for a decent 150mm lens (APO Sironar comes to mind) and

around $700 for a Shen Hao 4x5 new. Other good lenses are

the Fuji 240A and Nikkor 300M. After buying the necessary

accessories for LF (film holders, cable release, dark cloth

[unless you use your jacket]) you should have another $1000 for

MF. Fuji makes the excellent GSW690 that can be had used for

around $750-850. This will give you a big neg and excellent

image quality. It only has a fixed 65mm lens (28mm in 35

format) but is very sharp. Or if you want something lighter and

more compact, a Fuji GA645zi can be had for $900. That offers a

55-90 zoom lens in addition to many other functions. I use the

Fuji as my ultra lightweight backpacking/travel camera.

 

Ultimately, it really depends on what you like. If you have the

patience to carry and set up LF then I'd go with that. Your results

will be much better for large prints. Movements are also key for

landscape photography. As a compromise, you can get a

rollfilm back for the 4x5 or get a 2x3 view camera. I shoot with an

Ebony 23S view camera. With that camera I get the benefits of

shooting roll film (low cost, no loading sheet film holders,

compact.) plus having the movements available with the view

camera. If you process your own B&W I'd go with 4x5 so that you

can process each sheet separately for zone work.

 

Lots of choices. I think you have to analyze your shooting style

and patience level. Do you typically take lots of time setting up

and metering with your 35 or do you shoot quickly and take lots

of images? Is weight an important factor in making your

decision? Do you shoot with extreme angle lenses? (i.e. long

telephotos and super wide angles) Do you need to make large

prints? These factors should be taken into consideration when

trying to determine what kind of format you shoot.

Lots of good answers here. A BIG consideration is what will you enjoy most. I just happen to enjoy the complete "process" of LF. But I've made many 20X30 enlargements with a 6X9 Mamiya and Velvia. Had a nice lady ask if some of them had been done with an 8X10! Made my day. Weight; My 4X5 kit for walking is much lighter than the 6X9 outfit. Forget about 8X10 unless you want to do alternative process contact prints. Take a good look at the Fuji 6X9 fixed lens cameras. Light as a 35 and awesome resolution. I like the 2:3 format with color things.

Blake

 

The main reasons for going to 4x5 rather than medium format have little to do with sharpness. Medium format is a lot more portable, obviously, but large format allows two things that medium format does not: camera movements which allow for control over depth of field and perspective; and the ability to develop each negative differently (this is less significant with colour). If your main concern is resolution, then you will probably be disappointed with 4x5.

 

The difference in weight between 4x5 and 8x10 can be substantial but maybe more importantly, an 8x10 is simply one great big camera and can be quite unwieldy. It is also much more expensive. Film holders and the right tripod for example, are not cheap. Nor is the film. As I said in another recent posting, the learning curve is a lot cheaper in 4x5. Also, 4x5 enlargers can be had for not too much money. If you are just getting into large format, and contact printing is not a big issue, then stick with 4x5.

 

There are lots of good used lenses out there. I use an older single-coated f/8 90mm Schneider Super Angulon. It is a great lens and there are lots of them out there at reasonable prices. I also have a 210mm Kodak Commercial Ektar which is a terrific lens. Commercial Ektars are much less expensive than the modern spiffy lenses but are still excellent. In general, older single-coated lenses with good shutters are all you need for what you want to do. But don't take my word for it. Look at the work of your favourite photographers and see what they use. Some of the best photographs ever made were taken with lenses that are quite affordable.

 

If I had $2500, I would get the cheapest high quality used 4x5 field camera I could find (I agree with Jay on that). Something like a Wisner, if I could find one in that range. Then I would probably get the same lenses I have now.

 

My current 4x5 is a Super Graphic which, by the way, is totally different from Crowns and Speeds. The Super, although it has no back movements, has full front movements. I have not needed back movements yet so it is a good starter field camera. I use it with 90mm, 150mm, and 210 lenses. I also have 6x7 and 6x9 rollfilm backs. I also shoot 8x10 with a beat up old B&J and a 14 inch Commercial Ektar. I think my whole set up was only about $2500, without 4x5 enlarger, which was another $500.

 

Don Wallace

Two good essays on the topic:

 

PRO LF: http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/4x5.shtml

 

CON LF: http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm

 

Blake, I used a Pentax 67 before I sold it (for monetary reasons) to buy a 4x5 system. The three-lens system (90/135/300 mm) I use is lighter, about the same price, and not much bigger (especially with Quickloads instead of dual sheet film holders) than the two-lens (55/165) Pentax system I had. I also enjoy shooting one or two chromes and developing them immediately instead of waiting to shoot an entire roll of 110. The bottom line after a year or two of use is that, despite its shortcomings that have been enumerated above, I REALLY ENJOY USING LF more than MF. Together with movements and enlargement potential, it's a primary reason why I use LF.

 

-Tony

Hello Blake: On the issue of sharpness of MF vs. LF, Pete Andrews brings out a valid point which seems to have been ignored. This is the issue of registration. In MF, registration is fixed (with the only potential variable being film flatness, which some MF cameras like the Contax 645, address with a vaccuum back). In LF registration also depends on film flatness but in addition, it is subject to variables such as the depth of the septum in the film holder, the proper registration of the ground glass and finally, the thickness of the film which happens to be different from negative to positive film. In LF precise registration does not come wrapped up with your camera and holders but rather, is the product of careful and deliberate effort in the selection and calibration of every relevant component in your system. In agreement with what Pete said, the finest optics today go wasted on LF systems with sloppy systems. If you are willing to pay big $$ for the finest lenses and carry humoungous cameras simply because you want to record nature with utmost sharpness, MF may instead be the easier way to go, as registration comes with the box. But if you want maximum sharpness and are prepared for what it takes to get it in LF you have to measure and select your filmholders and adjust your groundglass settings, taking into consideration your most often used films. Better yet, have one GG carrier for negative film and another for transparency film. At the very least you want to make sure the GG is in perfect registration and that your film holders are of the best quality.

Several posters have mentioned the many variables involved in recording the upper most sharpness available from modern lenses in LF. Indeed there are many variables involved, and all have been mentioned above. Little discussions had been made on the advantages movements bring to LF that comparable weight/priced MF systems can not deliver. You may loose some degree of recordable image information due to allignment of film in the holder, or possible the ground glass. If your image is in focus on the ground glass, and it is soft on the resulting negative, then you probably have a ground glass allignment problem. It can be fixed without too much trouble.

 

The big advantage comes from the camera movements. The ability to move the plane of sharp focus has been the biggest advantage provided by LF for me. I don't think too many on this forum constantly take images of test targets, and ultimate resolution is not what LF is all about.

 

To answer your question, $2500 budget? I would buy a used Super Graphic, and a set of three used lenses. A 90, a 150, and a 240mm, but I'm biased. I own a super, so take my advice with the perverbial grain of salt.

 

You may want to read this link for info on enlargement of MF.

 

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/resolution_limits.html

 

In the end you have to decide what is important to you, how you shoot, and what you intend to do with the negative. LF may not be for you even though you can make huge enlargements, so try before you buy if possible.