4 x 5 vs. 6.3 MP Digital?

[moophoto]

I have been lurking around this forum for some years, intrigued by

the possibility of getting a 4x5 field camera for landscape work. I

am in the mid-50s, and it is time for me to decide once-for-all

whether to go with a large format camera or to upgrade my 35mm film

outfit to 35mm digital. Specifically, I am comparing a 6.3 MP camera

such as the Canon 10D with large format. I have rented a large

format camera, and I pretty quickly got the hang of using it and

even liked the deliberate nature of the photography. But to justify

the considerable film expense + extra time, etc., I need to be able

to determine that for the prints that I make large format will be a

significant improvement. I know that camera movements on the 4x5 wil

offer greater scope for composition. And I fully understand the much

greater resolution offered by the 4x5 scanned tranny as opposed to

the digital capture from 35mm, and if I were doing large prints on

an expensive printer, this would be a no-brainer. But my limited

means enable me rarely to print anything above 19x13 on my Epson

2200.

So my question is two-fold.

First, does anyone have 4x5 scanned file and 6.3 MP digital

camera file of the same scene that they would be willing to direct

me to for my own download (I am aware of the download time; but I am

a patient man).

Second, could anyone comment from their own experience on the

difference between these two scenarios, for 13x19 prints?

Specifically, what is the reaction when one compares the two? That

the scanned 4x5 print (and I will be scanning on an Epson flatbed),

a. Is obviously better to even an untrained eye?

b. Is clearly better from normal viewing distance for

anyone who takes a decent look?

c. Is barely better if one takes a really close look at

the details from less than normal viewing distance?

I realize that answers to these questions will differ

depending on the kind of scene being photographed. So it might help

to know that I typically enjoy taking landscapes with both near and

far elements.

[scott_eaton]

If you shoot slide you'll be REALLY dissapointed in the comparison in a 19x13" landscape with digital because this is not the strength of digital capture.

 

For color neg, it's more of a contest because of the easier reproduction of the digicam vs the big film area of 4x5.

[macgregor_anderson]

I have a D100 and a 4x5. I have only had the 4x5 for a month or two and don't have any scenes that I've shot with both. However, I'll be out again in the next day or two and would be happy to shoot with both for you.

 

I've got an Epson 3200 flatbed. I scan my 4x5 negs at various resolutions, so let me know what you are looking for. I can do a big file and email it to you just before I go to bed if you like. My high speed isn't so high speed but I could probably send you a decent sized file.

 

I only do b/w with my 4x5, so if this isn't of interest let me know.

 

My only thought would be that if you do get that heartbreakingly beautiful shot, you'll wish it were on 4x5. However, you'll miss a lot of really good shots if you don't go digital. Just the opinion of a rank amateur.

 

Mac

[brian_kennedy]

I've printed several files on my Epson 1270 from the 10D (not mine) and lots more from 4x5 (mine) scanned on an Epson 3200 at 1600 DPI and scaled down (and no, I don't plan on uploading them because my connection is so slow!). The 4x5 scans are much, much more detailed -- anyone can easily see the difference. The 10D files look very much like my old Nikon LS-2000 film scans of 35mm, but a little "cleaner" and slightly sharper. They are quite good, but not nearly the same level of detail as 4x5, even when the latter is scanned on an Epson flatbed. The difference is quite visible.

 

I'm not trying to discourage you from the 10D. The Canon DSLRs are great. Image detail isn't everything. And if you print smaller, the differences are smaller. Also, with the 10D you can always "stitch" files. With maybe four frames stitched together, you would get a look similar to LF, at least in a 12"x18" print. Plus, it works just like your 35mm camera (LF is pretty different). So if you really want to go digital, it's a fine choice. It doesn't compare to 4x5 when it comes to image detail, though.

[barmijo]

I've got a D60, a Wista 4x5 field, an Epson 3200 and a 2200. The two camera systems are VERY different of course and both excel at different subjects. The D60 can produce beautiful 13x19 prints under the right circumstances. Specifically, you need a shot that requires very little cropping and has near perfect exposure. Too much cropping or use of levels and curves and you'll start to see degradation in a print that size.

 

I haven't set out and specifically shot comparisons but after using both here's my list of preferences.

 

Senic shots - the 4x5 is far and away the best tool because of the detail, the movements and dynamic range. The D60's dynamic range is far less than film and any image with deep shadows and bright patches of sunlight will play havoc with exposures. I've tried bracketing exposures and combining in PS but had only mediocre results.

 

People - I pick up the D60 because the 4x5 is too cumbersome for quick shooting. However, people do seem fascinated with the old wooden field camera so I often give them a polaroid.

 

Posed portraits - It's a toss up. If the shot is color I'll probably use the D60. If I'm after B&W I might try the 4x5.

 

Architecture - the 4x5 if I have the time because of the movement. I've got Canons TS lenses which help with the D60 but movements are far more limited than good large format cameras and the 1.6 multiplier makes if tough to get WIDE. When I've got a pressing deadline I'll still use the D60 and correct perspective in PS which is alright up to 8x10 prints IMHO.

 

Macro - definitely the D60.

 

B&W - the 4x5 because no amount of PS beats the tone range of large format.

 

Best of luck,

Bert

[michael_young3]

Doug, Image-wise, there really is no contest between large format and small. You can consider DSLRs about the equal of 35mm in every way. The most important is that both are struggling at 13x19. OTOH, 35mm continues to thrive and survive despite this handicap for a number of very important and very real reasons. Most important are cost and portability.

 

Maybe the simplest thing to do is look over the photos you took in the past. Flip through your slides and albums. Do any stand out as needing restating? Are there some you would hang on your wall, if only the foreground were sharper, or the composition wider, or... Do you find many that you would like to reshoot with your field camera if you had the opportunity?

 

The other consideration is how easily you can travel with your gear. If you're already pretty well kitted out for 35mm, and comfortable traveling with a full complement of lenses, you probably have a tougher decision to make. The field camera will travel about as well as your present kit. OTOH, a DSLR can make immediate use of your lenses. If your travel kit is more modest, maybe a couple of light zooms and one or two primes, you can answer this question more easily. Will you feel seriously encumbered packing and hauling a much larger and heavier bag of gear?

 

If you still want, I'm sure I can find a reject transparency or two around here. All the better if you're already setup to scan it yourself. I've already played this game, and can tell you without reservation that there is no reasonable comparison between a 4x5 image and even the most carefully shot DSLR or 35mm frame. Here's a fun game you can try for yourself: count how many good 35mm compositions you can crop from a full resolution 4x5 scan. Let me know if you want a trannie to play with.

[todd frederick]

I agree with all of the above, except...

 

You can't compare film to digital. They produce images with a very different visual feeling. It's like comparing watercolor painting to oils. They are both excellent and they are both very different.

 

I keep saying this, but no one listens.

 

I use both.

 

Try doing a true platinum print with a digital camera! I love my digitals, but don't try to compare it with a 4x5 film camera...they are not better or worse, just different.

 

When I want to take my time, and really work a subject, and use long contemplative visual skills, my 4x5 is wonderful. When I want to quickly hike through the woods and snap some good photos, and see what I'm doing right away, I use my digital.

 

Buy both!

[kelly_flanigan1]

Get a speed graphic; 127mm Ektar <b>and</b> the Canon 10D. Have some fun with both. Part of the fun is not getting tied up with the rules; and using cameras that are interesting. It is abit sad that so much energy gets wasted on A versus B; instead of shooting photos. <BR><BR>Here is an infrared shot done with my 35 megapixel digital back on my 4x5; using an uncoated 127mm Kodak Ektar from 1941. Without the IR filter in place; the back is mostly IR sensitive. Objects that move; such as tree limbs; Jet Ski's; waves in the water; get weird trashed colors. I shot this at a clients house while goofing around. Maybe a wazoo "digital lens" would be vastly sharper? :)<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-474.jpg><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-475.jpg><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-476.jpg>

[j_o3]

I'm not sure I understand why it's one or the other, but even if it is, a cheap Calumet CC400 and an older lens with a little room for movement wouldn't cost much at all (~$300), and would make excellent photographs. Near-far landscapes would be a breeze. And 13x19 is no problem for 4x5 scans even from a flatbed.

 

I think 13x19 is more than you should really expect from the 10D unless you have very very low standards or intend to put the print in a location where no one can get within a few meters from it. I use a D70, and the results above 6.5x10 are a little questionable in quality (for me).

[jbq]

I don't think that I explicitly have such a file floating around, but the comparisons I've been able to do between my 4x5 slides (scanned on 3200) and my 10D leave no doubt: there is a massive difference in terms of detail, very obviously visible to even the least trained eye. For the sake of the experiment I printed a 4x5 on 9 sheets of letter (25.5*33) and there is no way I could get this level of quality with my 10D. Heck, even 6x6 B&W shots with a $50 TLR have more detail than my 10D.

 

The problem is that when you start to print 13x19 you'll want to print bigger. Even with a 3200, a 4x5 will want to be printed on 24x30.

[brian_ellis3]

It seems to me that you're focusing on only one aspect of large format photography, i.e. whether it produces technically "better" photographs than a digital camera. There are many reasons to use large format equipment besides the technical quality of the resulting images. Some of us need or like the movements, some of us like being able to process negatives individually, some of us believe it or not just enjoy the process of large format photography. Completely apart from the one issue on which you're focusing, there is a vast difference between photographing with a large format camera and photographing with a digital camera.

 

Apart from that, I'd suggest to you that this isn't a life-changing decision that one needs to ponder for years. If you've been lurking in this forum that long, thinking about what to do, I think it's time to stop analyzing and start acting. Forget about comparing digital camera files, forget about which format is "better" from a technical standpoint. Pick up a large format camera and related equipment used on e bay or elsewhere, spend maybe $1000 or so. See how you like it. If you don't, you should be able to sell it for about what you paid for it. If you do, great, your decision will have finally been made.

[colin carron]

I use 4x5, 35mm and a 6.3MP Digital (Canon 300D). As far as print size goes in my experience there really is no comparison. The 4x5 wins hands down. I agree though particularly with Todd that in addition to the other differences there are huge differences between film and digital renderings of the same scene.

 

Here is a link to Bert Otten's website where a comparison is made between formats from 8x10 to 6.3MP.

 

http://www.oprit.rug.nl/otten/Comparison.html

[tedharris]

You've already pretty much got agreement to go with 4x5 and there are yet other

considerations. But before I get there some points on the other side.

 

First, how large do you usually print? Sure you can go to the limits of your printer but is

that the size you most usually print or do you most often print at 8x10 or smaller? If the

answer is the latter then, while everything that has been said about the advantages of LF

still hold you are less likely to see the differences. Second, do you ever do prints, either

your self or have a lab do them for you, for exhibition? If the answer to that is no then

again you won�t necessarily ever 'use' the potential of LF.

 

I can't conceive of even doing the comparison you are doing they are so different. In my

professional work I use LF (4x5 and 8x10), Panoramic MF, MF and 5.2 megapixel digital.

When I am taking snapshots of the dogs or a chili festival, etc. it is a 3.2mp mini sized

camera that fits in my shirt pocket. I say all this because I am asking if you have asked the

real hard questions of what you are going to do with your images and what sort of and

how many images you are going to be making. Additionally, you mention limited means

and that is a real and serious consideration. Your investment for a 4x5 field camera and a

couple of lenses and the same for a 10D and a couple of lenses will be very close where

you go from there is another story. Film is a not inconsequential cost in LF. For example,

I shoot Quickloads almost exclusively in 4x5 at a cost of around $2.50 a sheet.

 

Now, if all you are going to do EVER is scan on your flatbed scanner and print on your

inkjet printer with the current state-of-the-art of these technologies you will see a

difference, a significant difference from the LF negs and chromes but I'm not sure it is

worth your investment in film or time. OTOH, that approach does not even BEGIN to tap

the potential of LF. Regardless of the printer you are already pushing your output to near

its limit with your Epson 2200. Sure, you could get a little better if a pro manipulated the

image in Photoshop and then printed it out on one of the top end inkjets but the

differences would be only marginal assuming you are a skilled worker. With a 4x5

negative or chrome you are in a very different world with many final options that go way

beyond those of the Epson 2200.

 

You can have your negative or chrome scanned on a high resolution drum scanner and

then printed on a LightJet printer with results that are usually undistinguishable from wet

processed enlargements (and often better). You can use more artistic digital outputs such

as giclee printing (a fancy name for specialized inkjet printing using pigmented inks on

watercolor paper) or, you can take the ultimate step and go analog all the way using

conventional wet darkroom processes to produce final prints. If there is a reasonable

chance that you may want to go this route, if you ever wish you had the ability make

presentation quality prints of the highest resolution for sale or as gifts or just to hang on

your walls then go 4x5 and get yourself a 2megapixel camera for snapshots. Looking at

comparisons of one v. the other online doesn�t do you any good at all. You will see breath

taking image after breath taking image online that was produced with a 6.3 mp camera

but you won�t see them on the walls of corporate offices as 20x30 prints and you won�t

see them for sale in better galleries because the image quality just doesn�t hold up. You

are also not likely to take a print from the digicam over that from the LF camera even in

smaller sizes in many instances. So, now coming all the way back to your initial post, don't

negate the movements of LF either; they make a big big difference in what the eye sees in

many final prints, especially architectural and landscape.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Jenny&Doug

 

4x5 versus 6.3 MP Digital is as many have already stated but there is more to it. The Pixelhorse is after a year old junk, a 4x5 camera is after 100 years an old camera!

You see thad part? Within 4 years I have the 3. Pixelhorse and it starts already to be old because the next generation comes out in June!

In my case it is the Fuji S2 pro wich is a very nice camera because she has the resolution of the high end Canons with 12 MP but is much cheaper and I can use all my Nikon lenses! But booth worlds has there +&- ! Doug should buy the 4x5 and Jenny the Digi or visa versa!

Good luck!

[simon_knight]

Just a comment on Kelly Flanigan's post. I think the wierd colors on moving objects is due to the fact that the digital back captures RGB colors in sequence. By the the time it starts scanning Green the object like the jet ski has moved from the position it had during the red scan so you get the effect you see in your shot.

 

On the subject of digital vs 4x5 I shoot digital with a canon 1d2, mainly Velvia with a canon 1v (35mm), mamiya 645 pro, Super graphic and toyo GX and AII view cameras. I'm getting to the point where the 1d2 challenges the 35mm film for quality, although I still prefer the character of film vs digital. Even on a 10x8 print from a scan using an Epson 4870 I find that MF and LF are vastly more detailed than digital at 8.2mp. I select my camera based what I'm trying to do:

 

digital - low light, sports, wildlife, proofing, macro, flash

 

Medium format mamiya - landscapes etc when I need to travel light or work quickly and I want high quality.

 

4x5 - landscapes or anything when I want movements.

 

Super Graphic - I enjoy getting great shots from an old camera.

 

The Super Graphic has adequate movements for most landscape work and I would concur that a 10D and a Super Graphic would be a great combination.

 

Simon

[ruslan safin]

If you have time look at this, it is less than a square inch piece of 4x5 Velvia converted in BW in Photoshop. I wonder if any digi (xept for digibacks, may be) could do that trick.:)

****http://www.photo.net/photo/2324654&size=lg

[arthuryeo]

I own 2 Linhofs 4x5, a Nikon D100 and a MF Hasselblad. And, I have used all of them whenever I go for my photo trips.

<br><br>

If you're planning to focus most of your efforts on landscape photography, I seriously doubt you can go wrong with a LF 4x5. Someone recently compared and estimated that for digital sensors to match 4x5 images, they would have to be 200 Mpixels or more to barely close to them.

<br><br>

That was just pixels comparison alone but there's the issue of gradual tonal changes which a large format media can capture. This is what a large media can afford, which smaller ones just simply cannot match. Some people cannot see the difference so it may be a more subjective issue, although I think they choose not to see it.

<br><br>

Most people compare 35mm DSLRs with film-based system by using an Epson 3200 scanner and printing it using an Epson. Well, that is <i>only</i> scratching the surface. To be fair, you should obtain a Tango or Heidelberg scan followed by a LightJet print. It is pretty safe to say that in the year 2004, there's no 35mm digital camera that can match a Heidelberg scan of your 4x5 slide, not even an 11Mpixel raw image.

<br><br>

Undoubtedly, DSLR technologies will improve and the capacity of the pixels will increase; buffers will be bigger; and, processing will speed up. But, the rate of improvements is not linear. As the low-hanging fruits of improvements get picked (in the last few years), the rate of new improvements will slow down because they will cost more in terms of time and money to find these higher-hanging fruits.

<br><br>

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with DSLRs. I use it all the time for people shots, journalistic shots, family shots, street shots and city shots. Don;t forget the almost instant feedback of the DSLR. I take advantage of this feature to do proof shots of landscapes with my D100 before I commit the time to pull out my 4x5 or Hasselblad.

[wyverndude]

I really gotta cast my vote with Todd and Brian (though others have alluded to the same thing as well) and say: you're comparing apples to oranges.

<P>

Compare a Maserati and a Peterbilt -which one is better?<P>

<P>I have a digital camera that I keep at the ready as I'm driving, and I will occasionally pick it up and grab a snapshot of something I see as I'm flying down the freeway.

<P>With my 4X5, I can sometimes spend 2 hours to take one picture.

<P>The two formats -like the Maserati and the Peterbilt- are just made for very, very different purposes; one substitutes poorly for the other.

[dave_moeller]

The last thing this thread needs is another opinion, but I'm going to throw my thoughts in anyhow. My qualifications (meager though they are): I shoot with lots of formats (film in 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10 as well as a 6.3MP Canon digital camera), and my equipment is similar to what you've got (Epson 3200 scanner and Epson 2000P printer in my case). Unfortunately, I don't have a set of the same scene in digital and 4x5 to share.

 

As others have stated, there are lots of different ways to look at this decision. Assuming that you will only have one camera, this decision isn't a simple case of "film is better" or "digital r00lz". They both have a place in my camera bag(s), but they're both there for different purposes.

 

For ultimate quality, I remain convinced that nothing beats big film. A 4x5 scanned on my Epson 3200 blows away my best shots from the DSLR. More detail, better tonal range, wider dynamic range. The amazing thing to me is that I can see this difference whether I'm looking at a 4x6 print or a 13x19 print. The film is not only better, it's in another league.

 

I can get sufficiently good results for many purposes with the DSLR. 13x19's printed from the Canon look just fine, and a few even hang on my office wall. But the prints that get the attention, the ones that people study, and the ones that people bring up in coversation later, are always the prints that started out as LF film.

 

So if ultimate quality is your quest, the 4x5 seems a no brainer to me.

 

There is, however, a significant downside to the 4x5 for me. I travel a bit on business, and therefore have the opportunity to go places that I normally wouldn't be. Next month I'll be in Europe for two weeks. I won't have the 4x5 with me. I wish I could, but I just can't justify the weight and bulk of the system, nor can I justify the time that it would take to use a view camera. My free moments will be measured mostly in quarters of an hour, not in hours or days. I'd love the chance to shoot 4x5 in Paris, but I know that I won't have the time (and they're unlikely to allow tripods in a lot of places I'd like to take pictures).

 

This has been a longer message than I'd intended, but I guess the upshot of it comes down to this: If you want "good enough" and convenience is an issue, the DSLR will probably make you happy. If you want amazing quality, and have the time to set it up, the 4x5 is a great way to go.

 

(And just to make things even more confusing: You could probably get an old 4x5 monorail with a lens plus the Canon Digital Rebel body for the price of the Canon 10D body. Although the Rebel is not in the same league as the 10D for flexibility or toughness, the sensor and processor are identical to the 10D and the image quality is the same.)

[Troll]

I always seem to be the dissenting voice. If a final inkjet print isn't going to be bigger than 13x19 (12x18 uncropped), then even at this state of digital development there's little or no advantage to the 4x5 over a 6 MP digital camera. (And it's a dammed shame, too!)

[axisphoto]

Hi everybody, I use a nikon D-100 for magazine illustration pictures, but never for a decent product shot or a professional portrait. Recently I've got scanned (in a scitex "eversmart jazz" scanner) a few 4x5 B&W Agfa Scala plates and the result is magnificent. Also got them printed in a 10600 Epson plotter and these images are in 20x24" with no pixel traces or electronic errors. I'm positive to tell you that a decent 4x5 field camera will deliver better images, more artistic and far more quality and definition. I'm making comparisons between my cameras and I feel more attached to my old 4x5", the lenses, the movements, the good feelling of being doing photography really worths the effort and the weight when you travel. You also will find more pleasing pictures working with revearsal film, with B&W you'll find that photography is a real state of the art, is some kind of alchemy and nomads work. If you have any doubt, try one and another, rent a digital SLR and scan (professionally) a fine 4x5" plate, print both in the same kind of paper and in the same printer (preferrably a plotter)and you will notice what you really want.

Best regards: Fernando Lopez / fernando_lopez_p@hotmail.com

[michael_young3]

I don't think it right to play down the high cost of 4x5. It's an easy lie to oneself to look at the camera prices on ebay, and somehow rationalize it. I went that route, and have not regretted it. Doug and Jenny, however, expressed it as a cost sensitive decision. I can BS myself all day long, but it wouldn't do them justice.

<p>

Here's what I see as a reasonable kit:<p>

Field camera: $1500+ new, $700+ used.<br>

90mm lens: forget new, $350 used <br>

150mm lens: $200 used.<br>

210mm lens: $300 used.<br>

Lensboards: $100+ new, $50 used<br>

Film holders: $50/pair * 3 new, $15 each * 6 used.<br>

Changing bag: $20 and up.<br>

Quickload or Polaroid back: $120+ new, $100 used.<br>

Ball head: $200++ new, $100+ used.<br>

Meter: $50+++ used or new, depending. <br>

Flatbed scanner: $500 new.<br>

Bag: $200.<br>

Cable releases, one per lens: $20+ each.<br>

<p>

You can spend as much or as little as you like on the following, but you'll need them:<p>

Lens wraps<br>

Focusing cloth<br>

Loupe<br>

Fresnel<br>

Filters and adapters<br>

<p>

If you buy a monorail instead of a field camera, you'll likely also need bag bellows and a recessed lensboard for the wide angle. Throw in a larger box or trunk, and a golf cart to carry it on.

<p>

Film and processing are significant ongoing expenses. Processing is $2 a sheet in Chicago. Film: B&W $25 box of 50 sheets; CN and slides $50 box of 20; ReadyLoads $70 box of 20. If you process your own, $150 for tank and reel or racks.

<p>

It adds up.

[kelly_flanigan1]

One the flip side; sometimes an entire 4x5 PRESS camera; lenses; case goes for jst a few hundred bucks; complete with film holders; filters; lens shades; cable releases. One system I got had both an oddball 3x4 and 4x5 camera in one box; with a wide angle angulon as a bonus. Sometimes the view cameras systems cost 5 to 10 times more than an entire press camera kit. A couple of times I parted out the duplicated or triplicated items; an paid little for the entire system. The correct speed graphic flash would go for hundreds on Ebay; for the StarWars light sabre groupies. One time I bought six 3x4 film holders for 6 bucks; with 5 for shipping.

[patrick_li2]

Amazing long responses from almost all perspective. I am a user of Canon 10D and a 4x5 camera.

 

For landscape, no way to compare the 4x5 slide and color stauration - I am not expert of photoshop, even I am, I would prefer to spend more time to get my shoot perspective right than working on post-digital-lab work.

 

For quick and telephoto (pople or wildlife), Canon 10D+1.6x effect+200mm IS offers me great mobility.

 

For any trail less than 3mile, I carry them both, for the most bueatiful scenic view, 4x5 is a MUST.

[dave_moeller]

Michael makes a valid point about the cost adding up as you build a 4x5 kit, but I think his numbers are a little high. Regarding some of the costs he lists:<br><br>

 

<i>Here's what I see as a reasonable kit:<br><br>

 

Field camera: $1500+ new, $700+ used.</i><br>

Shen-Hao 4x5 or Tachihara new for $600<br><br>

 

<i>150mm lens: $200 used.</i><br>

An older 127mm lens from a press camera can be had for under $100. I've been very happy with one I picked up for under $50.

<br><br>

<i>210mm lens: $300 used.</i><br>

Again, careful shopping will beat this price by at least a third.<br><br>

 

<i>Lensboards: $100+ new, $50 used</i><br>

Brand new, drilled boards for the two cameras mentioned above go for about $30. You can eaily make one from hobby plywood for a couple of bucks.<br><br>

 

<i>Film holders: $50/pair * 3 new, $15 each * 6 used.</i><br>

I would never pay more than $10 for a used holder, and they're available from many Internet retailers at that price or cheaper.<br><br>

 

<i>Quickload or Polaroid back: $120+ new, $100 used.</i><br>

If I was building a system "on the cheap", this would be the last accessory I'd consider.<br><br>

 

<i>Ball head: $200++ new, $100+ used.</i><br>

Or a pan-and-tilt head for a whole lot less. My 4x5 sits quite sturdily on my 20 year old Slik U212A tripod (a tripod that still available today for around $100 with a head).<br><br>

 

<i>Flatbed scanner: $500 new.</i><br>

I know I paid nowhere near this much for my scanner. Around $300, I think. My reading of the original message lead me to believe that a scanner was already available (an unfair assumption); I hope that Doug and Jenny have considered this cost as it's substantial.<br><br>

 

<i>Bag: $200.</i><br>

I use a $50 backpack that I picked up at a clearance sale for $25, and a thermal lunch bag to hold the film holders, meters, etc.<br><br>

 

 

<i>Cable releases, one per lens: $20+ each.</i><br>

Again, this seems very high to me. Under $10 seems much more reasonable. Also, "one per lens" is a convenience, but not a necessity.<br><br>

 

<i>If you buy a monorail instead of a field camera, you'll likely also need bag bellows and a recessed lensboard for the wide angle. Throw in a larger box or trunk, and a golf cart to carry it on. </i><br>

The need or lack thereof for a bag bellows depends on the camera and whether or not a wide angle lens is in the kit. But even so, I could easily add those things to my backpack with no need for a trunk or a golf cart.<br><br>

 

<i>Film and processing are significant ongoing expenses. Processing is $2 a sheet in Chicago. Film: B&W $25 box of 50 sheets; CN and slides $50 box of 20; ReadyLoads $70 box of 20. If you process your own, $150 for tank and reel or racks. </i><br>

The film prices stated are reasonable, but the $150 for tank can be avoided with a $25-$30 used Unicolor base and print drum. See www.largeformatphotography.info for info on processing sheet film in this setup.<br><br>

 

<i>It adds up.</i><br>

Indeed it does, but I don't think it's any more fair to play up the cost of 4x5 than it is to play it down. The $1500 mentioned for the cost of a new view camera is more than I've paid for my camera, two lenses, two lens boards, film holders, a bunch of B&W film, changing bag, cable release, backpack, and film processor. I could have easily paid a whole lot more than $1500 if I'd wanted to, but it's possible to build a good kit without breaking the bank.