Any better to start 8x10 than Wisner?

[scottelly]

I'm thinking about getting the Wisner 8x10 traditional L Mahogany

Field Camera. It seems to give great control with shift, tilt, and

swings in front and rear. Plus it has rise adjustment in front. I've

never tried large format before, but the Wisner brand seems to have a

good reputation, and I can get that camera for about $2,500 - then add

a lens for whatever I decide to afford (probably about $600). I've

heard of good used lenses for about $200, but I'm afraid to buy used

equipment (since I don't really know what I'm doing yet).

 

Does anyone have a recommendation for a system that I'd probably be

happier with? I'm trying to stay well under $5,000 for my whole set-up

(including carrying case/bag, tripod with head - I already have a

Benbo that supposedly holds 27 lbs., so I'll try that before buying a

new tripod, etc.) - I want to jump directly into 8x10, because I think

that within 2 or 3 years medium format digital will be knocking on the

door of 4x5, and I won't get the increased quality with 4x5 that I

will with 8x10. Plus, I fear that I'll want to move up to 8x10 later,

and want to kick myself for buying 4x5. Besides, I think I can put a

4x5 adapter on the larger camera, and save the money on film (with the

cheaper 4x5 film) that way if I start shooting large format all the

time. Size is not much of a concern for me, since most of my work will

be studio or close to the car. Besides I'm lugging about 50 lbs. worth

of stuff on all my shoots anyway - what's another 5 lbs. vs. 4x5?

Should I just bite the bullet and spend $2,000 more for a metal studio

camera? Didn't Ansel Adams use a wooden camera?

[mark_gatehouse]

First check out the many posts here and on www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum about Wisners poor delivery standards (buyers left for a year or two after having paid up front etc), though he claims to have turned over a new leaf recently - however, there are enough horror stories out there to remind you buyer beware. So if you are buying, buy from a reputable dealer not direct.

 

Canham makes excellent 8x10 cameras, both wooden and metal. Gandofli in the UK also makes excellent wooden cameras (Traditional and modern Variant). Ebony's are exquisite but expensive.

 

Many people are entirely satisfied with the somewhat cheaper Tachiharas

 

It sounds like you want a lot of control over movements. There are quite a few 8x10 monorail cmaeras that go quite cheaply on ebay (because no one is really using them anymore) that are very well built and give you lots of movements

 

Check some of the reviews at the largeformat site above and look at Badger Graphics or Midwest Photo for some of the above

 

$600 will get you a very nice classic 12" Commercial Ektar or such, as well as some of the more modern lenses if you like to work in the "standard" range

[donald_hutton]

Unless you intend printing substantially larger than 20x24, you will find no advantage to 8X10. I shoot formats from 4X5 out to 12x20 - 8X10 and larger is only for contact printing - there is an enormous amount of information available in a piece of 4X5 film. While MF digital may be there or there abouts in a couple of years, it's likely that that level of equipment will still run in the tens of thousands rather than thousands of dollars. I'd strongly suggest you try out 4X5 and find out if large format is really for you first - it is very different to shooting smaller formats - the complete control over every aspect of image capture makes it a far more precise, slower and contemplative procedure than shooting anything else. You should be able to find a decent 4X5 field camera like a second hand Tachihara for less than $500 and a good 150-210mm lens for another $250 - all you will need to make fabulous images and find your feet. If you get hooked, you are unlikely to loose any money when you resell the "starter oufit" to move on to something else.

[mark_gatehouse]

"I shoot formats from 4X5 out to 12x20 - 8X10 and larger is

only for contact printing - there is an enormous amount of information

available in a piece of 4X5 film."

 

Balderdash - while you can pull a lot out of 4x5, the difference between the two is usually quite obvious by the time you get to a 20x24 print - it isn't just sharpness and detail, but smoothness of tone among other things.

 

Granted, using 8x10 can be more awkward than 4x5 in terms of convenience, but it's also a very different thing using the two - a monitor sized ground glass often gives you a very different take on the same scene.

 

"There are really only two formats 35mm and 8x10. Anything else is just a variation on one or the other".

[donald_hutton]

Mark

 

I challenge you then - present a 20x24 print of a landscape made from and 8X10 and I'll produce one made from 4x5. If you think what I wrote is "balderdash", it's because you haven't tried it, or have poor technique/and/or equipment with you 4X5 set-up. Don't post a retort either - produce a print or hush up. I've heard the "smoothness of tonality crap before - I'm yet to see the evidence... A 20x24 from Tmax 100 has no visible grain (you can just discern grain with a loupe) - please fill me in with what advantages your 8x10 negative is going to have? Actually your silly statement that the only two formats are 35mm and 8X10 is actually about as far away from reality as it could be... perhaps that really sums up your narrow vision of the world...

[mark_gatehouse]

hmm - whose is bigger? Sounds like a bit of insecurity there?

 

My technique is just fine and has been for many years. I recently had an exhibition with the majority of prints 20x24. Two out of the twenty were from 4x5, the rest were from 8x10 (all iso 100 films). Despite excellent technique and the best enlarging lenses, the difference was quite obvious.

 

As for the quote - it's from one of todays foremost LF photographers -Stephen Shore

[donald_hutton]

As I said, either present a print or... BTW, I was completely expecting the "quote" to be from someone well known - it doesn't make it any less stupid. But then again, you're the same guy trying to persuade someone that his first foray into LF must be 8X10 (I think the "bigger" complex lies elsewhere).

[terrypittman]

Scott,

 

After looking at your website why do you want 8x10?

 

Save your money, keep shooting digital.

[c4-contemporary-art]

Hell - I have a LOT of time, money, effort and whatever else you can think of

invested in 4x5 - I DON'T shoot 8x10. But you can tell the difference a mile

away. The subtelty is simply jaw dropping. Once you see enough of both - or

start getting really used to one - believe me... the other is quite a different

animal!

[brian_ellis16]

There are a lot of differences between 4x5 and 8x10 besides the weight(I've used both formats for several years). The principal one for me is that close-ups (not macro, just close ups) are real difficult with 8x10. A bellows extended to say 25 or 30 inches is a sail waiting to take off in the next breeze. Trying to use front movements with the bellows extended 30 inches is difficult to impossible. With even the best of cameras stability is marginal. Viewing the ground glass can be difficult because of the distance the light has to travel. And given the focal length of the lenses compared to 4x5 depth of field really shrinks with 8x10. Between the camera, three to five 8x10 film holders,a bigger dark cloth, and the weight of the pack or case needed to carry all that plus accessories I think you're looking at a much bigger weight difference than 5 pounds from your present set up. Then there's the cost of film and processing. In general, compared to 4x5 an 8x10 set up is bulkier, harder to hand, more time-consuming, and more expensive. But it's a great format if you are willing to accept its limitations.

 

I've never enlarged 8x10 negatives in the darkroom, I either contact print or scan them, so I can't contribute any actual experience on the question of quality gains vs 4x5. However, based on my experience with 6x7 as compared to 4x5 (where I see no difference in quality between the two formats with prints 11x14 and smaller) I'd be very surprised if you would see a noticeable quality difference between 4x5 and 8x10 with prints up to at least 16x20. It's always seemed to me based on observation over the years, not scientific testing, that 4x is about the point at which quality differences between formats start to become apparent.

 

Some people begin large format with 4x5, some begin with 8x10. If you can afford 8x10 as it sounds like you can I don't know that it makes a huge difference which you begin with, both are very different from roll film cameras. 8x10 stuff is likely to be a little harder to sell if you don't like it just becaue there are fewer people using that format. You certainly can get into it for a lot less than $5000 even with a metal studio camera.

 

Based on what I've seen from medium format cameras with digital backs I think medium format with a $30,000 back is already "knocking on the door" of both formats in terms of print quality up to about 16x20. But that's $30,000 vs $1000 for large format if you go cheap or $5000 if you go real expensive. The question IMHO isn't whether medium format digital is close to 4x5 in quality, it clearly is given enough money and up to some print size point. The question is whether the price you pay to get that quality with medium format digital will ever come down into say the $5000 or less range so that costs become more comparable to large format. I have no idea on that. Small format digital has come way down in price but the market for that is vastly larger than medium format so I don't know if the same economies of scale, incentives to research and development, etc. are present with medium format digital.

[scottelly]

Thank you all very much for your input!!!

 

I believe, from my research, that SLR cameras like the EOS 1Ds Mark II will evolve over the next 2 to 3 years into 20+ megapixel cameras that are quite good, but I believe that is about the limit to "conventional" digital cameras. I also believe that it will be 5 or 6 years before we see cameras under $5,000 that can compete with the 4x5 format for quality and useable quantity of information. I believe that a 4x5 image, scanned at high resolution will remain competitive for creating large prints. My ultimate goal though, is to make beautiful fine-art images in a studio setting, and I've found that I sometimes crop my images extensively. My 8 megapixel Canon EOS 20 D is fine if I crop an image to about 40 or 50 percent of the original, but I can't go farther than that.

 

Now you are all probably wondering, "What's this guy trying to crop his images so much for?"

 

Sometimes I see beautiful images within a photo. Just parts, like the curve of a back, or the point where a leg bends, or part of a neck. I want to have the option of cropping to about 10 percent of the image, and then I want to be able to take that ultra-cropped image and enlarge it to poster size.

 

That's why I plan to shoot in large format. But who knows? Maybe I'll change my mind after shooting for a while with my 4x5 Toyo.

[ben conover]

Seems like the movements on a cheap 4x5 would be more useful than those on a 85mm pc micro nikkor and the latest 20 mp digital slr camera.