Sharpness diff between 645 and 4x5

[dave schlick]

another point.. im an ameture and i made a family shot with my mamiya 6x6.. when i looked at the slide i noticed it was discolored (probably from being old), and not a very good exposure toboot.. i had a 8x10 made of the family shot and it came out fine.. i talked to the printer about it and she said if it was 35mm i would have been in trouble, but the medium formant had enough density to give us a decent print.. so a larger format can be better in more ways than one would think.. 21/4x21/4 is 5 square inches, 4x5 is 20 sqsuare inches, 4 times the density. the printer has 4 times as much to work with, especially needed if something goes wrong .. dave.

[rich_morgan1]

I have no idea why D'Ambrosio made his statement. But I can tell you that 4x5 is far

superior to 645 for high resolution tasks. I shoot a lot of large artworks with a ton of

intricate detail (which is important for appreciating the work), where the highest resolution

available in the market isn't even enough (but you make do with the best available). I've

gone through most all the formats (analog and digital). In the end, the only format left

standing was the Betterlight large format scanning system. It is better than 4x5 film

(didn't test 8x10 or larger film) in apparent resolution and COLOR. It also has better

dynamic range than film, which is very useful if you're shooting landscape. After the

Betterlight came 4x5 film, 6x7 film, 645 film, and bringing up the rear, 35mm which made

my artwork look like cartoons compared to the other formats.

[kelly_flanigan1]

1/2 century ago film grain was far worse; and the "difference in performance" was alot more; plus 645 was mostly just a Brownie Bullet 127 format! Folks used larger film sizes for a given print size to keep the percentage of enlargement less due to film grain issues, NOT sharpness issues. 120/620 was most an hobby/amateur format, ie the "Brownie format" named after a childrens stuffed animal 1 century ago. The high end 1930's and 1940's 120/620 cameras of that were were really limited by the films of that era's much poorer grain. <BR><BR>What film are you going to use for the 645 versus 4x5 issue? this matters some too.

[steve_swinehart]

Your project involves a lot of time an money. I would suggest some testing is in order before you commit to a camera. I don't think a 645 will do what you need.

 

Without knowing your intent for the final images, it's a little difficult to make a judgement. For example, I've used a 110 camera and enlarged the images to 2-feet x 3-feet specifically to see the color blobs on the film that resolve themselves into an image when viewed at the proper distance.

 

But, let's assume that you want the best reproduction, finest detail etc. Film is a little bit like have too much horsepower in a race car, or being too rich. You can't have enough surface area on film for a big print.

 

Really, if you wanted the best reproduction, you'd need an 8x10 camera. But, good technique and a 6x7 could get you acceptable results. A 4x5, in my mind, would be a better choice.

 

But, this is where the testing portion comes in. If I were doing the project, I would not commit to a format until I tested the results of the different formats.

 

All the speculation and paper calculations in the world won't substitute for seeing the real thing. I'd borrow or rent a 4x5 and a 6x7 and shoot the exact same scene side-by-side. I'd then have 1/2 size enlargements (4'x5') made from each and compare them.

 

While this is not inexpensive it's a lot more inexpensive than getting into the project and finding out when you start printing that you're not happy with the results from a smaller format.

 

How do you go back and reshoot? Or, at that point do you just accept what you have and ignore the fact that you're not totally pleased with the results?

 

To me, testing would be the best thing to do. If you don't want to do the testing, then for me, the 4x5 with really good lenses would be a better answer than 645 for sure, and probably 6x7.

 

I own and shoot both 6x7 and 4x5 and make prints that are 40-inches in width. I can see the difference between the two formats at that size. It has to do with detail rendering and "presence." There's just more to see in the print from the larger format.

 

Let's look at it from a descriptive standpoint. If I'm taking a photo of sand dunes for example. With a 6x7 I'm aware of the sand texture, but with a 4x5 image I can start seeing grains of sand, and if the image is made with an 8x10 I can count grains of sand. That's the difference in visual content and presence. You have to decide what level of rendering you need for the subjects.

[ken_lee11]

Perhaps Professor Evens can rescue me here if I stray: Let's say we toss out the influence of the scanner: we use an enlarger with a top-notch lens. In addition, let's rule out the influence of the film. Just for simplicity's sake.

 

Now, Let's say we start with a good MF lens which delivers 80 lp/mm and a good 4x5 LF lens which delivers 60 lp/mm. (We often see higher numbers in the center, but when we average out the edge resolution, we get something a little more modest).

 

Given that critical sharpness is *roughly* 10 lp/mm, that means we can enlarge the LF image by around 6x, and the MF by around 10x.

 

What % of the original image does a fine enlarging lens typically deliver ? If it degrades the image by as much as 50%, then we can only enlarge the LF image by 3x, and the MF by 5x.

 

I suspect that a good enlarging lens delivers more than 50% of the original, but even so: a 6x6 negative, enlarged by 5x ends up somewhere around 12 x 12 inches. The 4x5 image, enlarged by 3x, ends up around 12 x 15 inches. They are about the same.

 

If the enlarging lens is better, than the max sizes are bigger, but the primarly difference seen, is in the quality of the lenses, no ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 4x5

[troyammons]

Not meant to be argumentative but....

 

An 80 lp/mm lens and a 80 lp/mm film will give you 56 lp/mm system resolution before the scanner or enlarger.

 

It would take roughly a 240 lp/mm lens to pull a true 80 lp/mm in high contrast out of film like Velvia.

[ken_lee11]

No problem Troy. I'm grateful to learn.

 

Is 80 lp/mm a typical number for film ?

[troyammons]

No its all over the board and depends on subject contrast and the film type (grain) etc,. Techpan at average contrat is around 100. Velvia around 60-80. E100G IMO is more like 60.

 

You might want to read through this

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html

 

but IMo the system formula is too low.

 

this one is more accurate.

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html

 

There is a lot more too it than reading numbers.

 

Just the fact that i can get close to the same pixel rez from an 8x10 scan as i can a Mamiya 7 scan says something.

 

Personally i go for the sharpest LF lenses I can find and after shooting MF and LF cameras the rez from the sharpest lenses, MF or LF are always usually around 40-50 lp/mm. Unless you have a spy plane lens (600) and film it wont get a whole lot better.

 

I got into a discussion with my brother in law who was in the Navy and did flight recon and later who knows what. He told me about lenses and film on 60-70's planes that could resolve a liscence plate # from extreme altitde. The most interesting part was that the film feed matched the plane speed so there was no motion blur. Simple concept but who would have thought.

Also another interestng conversation considering a blackbird from the 50's could cover 100,000 sq miles plus in 1 hour.

 

It would be nice to get our hands on that film.

 

To boot, he said by the time the pilots got into the briefing room the film was ready to view.

 

The first thing upon touchdown was to grab the film.

[robert x]

Hi Milan - I use 6x6 at the moment and have been looking at a lot of different photographers trying to find those whose work I really like and it seems all those I find, shooting landscape - and even those I don't really like, but who are successful landscape photographers - are using *at least* 5x4. Some of the real serious guys seem to use 8x10. The ones using 8x10 (look up (click) <a href="http://wwwwww.saltwater.co.uk">Harry Cory Wright</a> or <a href="http://www.christopherburkett.com">Christopher Burkett</a>) that I have found are all printing optically. It seems that with top-end digital scans and the technology these days, a 5x4 is just as good as an optically printed 8x10.

<p>

The only photographers I can speak of with any surety that are putting out pictures of the size you are talking are Jeff Wall and Andreas Gursky. They both scan their film and print digitally. Jeff Wall has a major solo exhibition at Tate Modern in London at the moment and his stuff (duratrans on lightboxes) go bigger than what you want and are truly stunning. Have a look at <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/"> the Tate's website</a>. Gursky as well is worth a look - <a href="http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2001/gursky/"> MOMA site</a>.<p>My feeling is that if I want to produce work like these guys, then I should pay attention to how they do it. I don't think you will find many people who are seriously and intentionally going out with a 6x4.5cm camera to take landscapes to be blown up to the sizes you are talking about. <p>Your trip sounds fantastic. I look forward to hearing about it's success (shame you don't have any pics uploaded for us to see!) Also I would be interested to know more about your project. <p>As for jumping in at deep end - JUMP ! <p>All Power to you - Robert

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"1/2 century ago film grain was far worse;"

 

Was it?

 

Almost 50 years ago, I was shooting Plus-X, souping in Microdol-X, and making nice 11x14s from 6x6.

 

Nowadays, I shoot Provia 100F, scan on a Nikon, and make nice 11x14s from 645.

 

Doesn't seem all that different.

 

To get back to the original question, though, I'm finding 6x7 to be a lot bigger than 645. 645 is beginning to be a stretch for making grain-sniffable 13x19s, but grain-sniffable 13x19s are like falling off a log with 6x7.

 

So my intuition is that 4x5 would be _way_ better than 645 at 16x20 and larger.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Troy; The effective aperture size and thus the resolution can be higher with a spy situation. The ground, film and plane speeds are matched. With a long exposure the object on the film will have a longer aperture; somewhat :) more resolution.<BR><BR>With the P2 Neptune guys would distroy the old magnetic tape (data) by feeding it thru the bubble sextant port. The 1/4 inch tape reel held with a pencil; letting the tape suck out of the sextant port. If let out too quickly, the tape reel would shatter due to too high an rpm. Sounds like a proper data distruction procedure? :)

[troyammons]

Interesting

[ken_lee11]

<p>After reading through the articles you recommended (thanks) I see that Chris and Kerry's test numbers, wisely include the influence of the chosen film (TMX 100). And that's where I got my numbers of 60 and 80 lp/mm for LF and MF lenses.

 

<p>But my math was wrong: Ignoring the influence of the enlarging lens, and looking for 10 lp/mm in the final print as defining critical sharpness, once can enlarge the MF negative by <b>8x</b> (not 10x), and the 4x5 image by 6x.

 

<p>A 6x6 negative enlarged by 8x gives an 18x18 inch print. A 4x5 enlarged by 6x results in a 24x30 inch print. The 6x6 print will exhibit 33% more grain, since it has been enlarged 8x instead of 6x.

 

<p>Given that the enlarging lens takes away 10 or 20%, perhaps the prints need to be a little smaller - but then again, people can't really see more than about 8 lp/mm, so we're even.

[milan_moudgill]

These pages seem to have compressed in them a well of knowledge. My

sincere thanks to you. I have been silently watching, and have gained

immensly from your views.

 

To put things in perspective, which will allow you to fine-tune your

comments, let me give you some background.

 

I live in India, and import of products is my ONLY source of camera gear.

There is a miniscule MF and non-existatant LF market here. I must depend

on sites like this for knowledge/guidance.

 

As such I CANNOT hire and tryout equipment prior to purchase. It is a

setback that I must accept. Had I half a chance, I may never have been on

this page!

 

So, I must make a choice by 'remote control', a proxy decision in which you

all will play an invaluable role. I may muck up a bit, but I suspect not by a

lot. It is an expensive route to follow, but I have no alternative.

 

Next, the project:

I travel and photograph in a remote corner of West Tibet for a book/

exhibition project of mine called "Kailash-Manasarovar, A Journey to the

Centre of the Universe".

 

This area is considered by many South Asian cultures to be the centre of

the universe. The physical manifestation of the myth of Mt Meru, if you

know of it.

 

Kailash is supposed to be the mountain of the myth, around whose axis the

universe rotates. Manasarovar is the massive lake of the myth from which

the four great rivers are supposed to originate. In reality, the Brahmaputra,

Indus, Karnali and Sutlej do not originate from the lake, but from very close.

Close enough to give believers yet another similarity between the

geography of the area and the myth.

 

A visit to the area (including a 3-day circumambulation of the mountain) is

one of the biggest pilgrimages a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Bon-Po can make

and, as such, it attracts scores of pilgrims every year.

 

The sources of the rivers were first visited in 1906 by the Sweedish explorer

Sven Hedin. Since then, there seem to be accounts of the visit of only one

other ﾖ Swami Pranavanada. I will visit the sources of the rivers in the

course of the project.

 

I have tried to keep this introduction short!! To give you a taste of the

terrain I will attach a few images.

 

Will I have the endurance and patience to lug a LF around??... yes. There

is no doubt here.

 

I would appreciate your views on a camera system in the light of the above.

What do you think. Are we talking 8x10 here? What camera do you

suggest? And lenses? Which 8x10 brands are light and portable?

 

Secondly, do you know of manufacturers who may be open to sponsoring a

system? I would need a system for the length of the project (another year

plus) after which I will be more than happy returning it? One is into creating

great images... not into amassing camera systems. Any guidance here will

be awesome.

 

Looking forward to your inputs.

 

Gratefully,

Milan

[michael_briggs2]

Some of the answers have been along the lines that the posters experience is that 16x20 or 24x30 prints from medium format and large format films are of extremely similar quality. This really doesn't answer Milan's question about whether there will be a difference in print quality for 8 x 10 foot prints. Up to some size, the medium format enlargement will be of very high quality, and above that enlargement factor, the quality will start to drop. So up to that print size, the difference between MF and LF will be small, above that print size, the difference will increase with larger print size.

 

It's mostly explained by enlargement factor. A simple experiment that Milan can try is to enlarge one of his existing films to various sizes (or a portion of the film), representing the various enlargement factors that he is considering: MF to 8x10 foot, 4x5 to 8x10 foot, 8x10 to 8x10 foot, so that he can see the sharpness, graininess and tonality. Of course he will have to ignore the different print sizes.

 

Milan: there are many previous discussions about 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and lenses in the archives of the forum. I suggest browsing some of the past postings.

 

I also suggest seriously considering whether you will be able to haul around an 8x10. The weight will depend a lot on how many lenses you take and how many film holders, which are pretty bulky. If you take a only a few filmholders, you shooting rate will be limited.

 

I also think you would make a mistake to switch to LF just before starting on your expedition. I think you should practice with your new-to-you LF system for several months so that you learn how to use it well and learn the mistakes to avoid.

 

Other advantages of LF (both 4x5 and 8x10) include the larger screen to better compose your images, and the ability to use movements such as front rise and swings and tilts. But the number of photos that you can take per day will be reduced and the cost per exposure will be higher. Most LF photographers tend to work in a slower and more deliberate manner, aiming for a higher fraction of "keepers", so that they end up with the same number of keepers despite their smaller number of exposures. These are other aspects to consider whether LF is for you. My opinion is that if you want high quality 8 x 10 foot prints, you should be using LF.

[eric_leppanen]

Milan,

 

Your latest question really amounts to a separate thread! 8x10 will be much heavier and larger, requires a larger backpack and tripod, has less depth of field, film is far more costly, and you'll have to make do with relatively less lens coverage than 4x5 to stay within your $3,500 overall budget. Folks generally do not go 8x10 as their first LF camera, as the LF learning curve is expensive due to the film costs. Having said all this, here are my suggestions for a lightweight, cost effective 8x10 field kit (I chose multi-coated modern lenses since you will be shooting color for poster-sized enlargements). Prices do not include shipping.

 

Wehman 8x10 field camera: $1,850.

The best bang-for-the-buck in a new, low cost lightweight field camera. A caveat: new cameras won't be available until March 2006 according the Bruce Wehman's web site. Alternatives are a used Canham or Phillips, but a used Phillips in particular is as rare as hen's teeth.

 

Fuji 240A: $575 used or Germinar-W 240: $??? (per my comment on your previous lens thread).

Limited movements with the Fuji, but extremely sharp within its image circle. The Germinar has move coverage when stopped down (it's basically a multi-coated G-Claron).

 

Nikkor 300M or Fuji 300C: $495 used.

Excellent performance-to-weight ratio, albeit with only moderate coverage.

 

Fuji 450C: $700 used.

Arguably the best performance-to-weight ratio available in any lens. Excellent performer and coverage despite its tiny size.

 

Used 8x10 film holders: $40 each via Ebay if you are patient.

 

Third lens board (two come with the Wehman camera): $50

 

Total cost will be around $4,000 including shipping, so you will blow your budget a bit. You can save money by going with a heavier, used camera, or by going with older, single-coated lenses, but in your application these would defeat the purpose of going 8x10 IMHO.

 

A problem with 8x10 is that modern multi-coated wide-angle lenses are large and expensive. The 240mm lenses I suggest are not as wide as the 90mm you proposed for 4x5, but there really is no lightweight WA multi-coated lens for 8x10 (except perhaps a 210mm Computar, which is extremely rare). A single-coated 210mm G-Claron, while covering 8x10 when stopped down, probably lacks the sharpness for the enlargement factors you are considering. A used SS150XL (theoretically the best choice) would cost as much as your camera. The 240 and 300mm lenses also have less relative coverage than their 4x5 counterparts, so you'll have to tip the camera up more (to compensate for limited rise) and sometimes use a combination of front and back tilt (to compensate for limited coverage for front tilt) to compensate.

 

More food for thought!

[troyammons]

<p>Milan

 

<p>sorry, this is long

 

<p>No way would I lug around a 8x10 camera in Tibet. Forget it unless you hire a sherpa. They are heavy and cumbersome and its not just the camera, its everything else like the film holders are heavy and an 8x10 tripod, you need a changing tent etc etc. Also 10 minutes under a dark cloth in Tibet, and you might get conked on the head.

 

<p>10 8x10 film holders are very heavy.

 

<p>And I own an 8x10 camera so I know what it is like to lug something like that around. Harder to set up, and a lot harder to focus than a 4x5 with a reflex viewer.

 

<p>I have gone back and forth between all sorts of rail cameras 4x5's 8x10's a bunch of MF cameras etc and this is what I think.

 

<p>For a your book, a MF camera would be fine, and my choice for a hiker would be a light Fuji GA645ZI. Just remembering that its fine for publication, but probably not enough for a wall size poster. 16X is about as big as you would want to go. Also its a mostly automatic camera, but with a very sharp zoom lens, so it might not suit everybody.

 

<p>Of all the LF cameras I have used, I have boiled it down to a few basic items that work for me that are probably worth your consideration.

 

<p>Film and holders

 

<p>Kodak E100G is the cleanest scanning film I have found, but I actually like Velvia 50 color better. E100VS is more saturated but not quite as sharp IMO. At any rate to save time and weight there is nothing that can touch quickloads/readyloads. They are lighter than any other way to transport 4x5 film. They are a lot more expensive than sheet film, but there are times when weight means a lot. Get the latest readyload holder and you have a lightweight film system that is easy, fast, no dust, convenient, and no changing tent. You could also go for the later plastic 545 polaroid holder. They work with fuji or Kodak film.

 

<p>4x5 Cameras in general

 

<p>After going through too many of these including a Sinar F2 etc, I have simplified my life with lighter weight, smaller size (means a lot when hiking), and ended up with a Graflex Super Graphic camera. Its an all aluminum folding Field camera, top mounted rangefinder, has a rotating back, enough extension to shoot a 240mm lens, and it weighs about 4.5# and folds up into a compact box about 7" x 7" x 4" and is very tough. If you strip the RF parts out you can drop them down to 3.5#. Also they have no back movements, but I dont need them. They have full front movements, with a drop bed. If you want full back movements there are some lightweight wood field cameras out there. Linhofs have full movements but are very heavy.

 

<p>At any rate one of these is what I am talking about. I really like my super graphic camera a lot and I would highly recommend one to anyone, that does not need back movements.

 

<p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Graflex-Super-Graphic-4x5-View-Camera-NR-106637_W0QQitemZ7568739088">

Graflex Super Graphic on eBay</a>

 

<p>and with 400 film it is very easy to shoot handheld. I got lucky and my RF is accurate.

 

<p>Lenses

 

<p>Get 1 or 2 super sharp small ones and be done. Personally I would go for a 135 or maybe a 150 for an all around lens and maybe 1 WA lens. A 90mm lens on a 4x5 is equiv to 28mm.

 

<p>If you have to have a 3rd longer lens go for a 210 or 240 G-Claron or other sharp schneider. The 210 and 240 G-Clarons are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used on any camera. Also the 240 covers 8x10 with room to spare.

 

<p>The lenses I like the best are the G-clarons, Nikon 90mm (not light), and super angulons (not light either). There are a lot of other sharp lenses out there, but its best to start here.

 

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</a>

 

<p>Focusing, viewing and such.

 

<p>I like the option of having a rangefinder and using the framing hoop for framing, as sometimes i dont have time to GG focus. Also nice when your GG breaks.

 

<p>For GG focusing there is nothing like a reflex viewer. Its a must have IMO. First off, the image is right side up, you dont need a dark cloth, and no loupe although I do carry one still. This is one setup for a super graphic camera like I mentioned above. I have used this type setup myself and it works very well and it is in sync with the stock GG back. This is a Cambo GG back on a super graphic with a cambo viewer. The Cambo binoc viewer is too heavy and bulky, but this type of monocular viewer is small and light.

 

<p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Graflex-4X5-Super-Graphic-w-Cambo-Graflok-Back_W0QQitemZ7568387874">

Graflex 4x5 Super Graphic on eBay</a>

 

<p>Tripods

 

<p>There are about a million of them out there.

 

<p>Gitzo is probably the best and expensive, but i ended up with a Velbon from Ritz to lighten my load. Its CF and magnesium and is rated at 25# but only weighs 3.5#. Also it only costs $260 including the head.

 

<p>So with all that,

 

<p>Camera 4.5#

 

<p>1 or 2 small lenses and boards 2# (a G-claron 150 is tiny),

(with a reflex viewer it is easy to focus a slow lens. F8-F9 lesnes are a lot smaller than fast lenses)

 

<p>Velbon tripod 3.5#,

 

<p>Mono Reflex viewer, not sure but probably 1.5#,

 

<p>small light meter, .5#,

 

<p>All that adds up to around 12# and is a very light weight package. Add to that, 8 pounds for readyload film and holder and a backpack and a few other items, and you are in under 20# and you might have enough room for some survival gear.

 

<p>Sounds like a great trip.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Another thought:<BR><BR>A 6x7 cm format compact camera with a fine lens offers quicker less weight than a 4x5" settup, with alot more surface area than a 645 camera.<BR><BR>A new camera just before a major trip is dicey. <BR><BR>If one is going to use 120 rool film why not look at a 6x7 format camera too?

[eric_leppanen]

Milan,

 

We've been flooding you with excellent suggestions here; I think I can take the liberty of summarizing a consensus as well as some recommendations:

 

- 8x10 is too bulky for venturesome fieldwork, especially for an LF beginner.

 

- Negotiate with Jim Andracki at Midwest Photo to purchase a LF camera. a Fuji 240A lens (comparable 4x5 focal length to your Contax 645 super 120 Makro), and a single-sheet Readyload holder (which supports both Quickloads and Readyloads). IMHO the Fuji 240A is the sharpest modern lens of any focal length available for 4x5. If Jim does not have one currently in stock, he should be able to find one quickly for you.

 

If you really want to be thorough, you can also try a Mamiya 7, which is the sharpest 6x7 field camera available. It will definitely be sharper than your Contax 645. But if you elect to go 4x5 with the optional 6x12 rollfilm adapter you were considering, then the 6x7 is probably redundant.

 

- Take some test shots with the 4x5 and Contax 645, and make some 8x10 inch prints using the same enlargement factor required for a 4x5 foot print (i.e., crop the negs to increase the enlargement factor of the print). Compare the prints, and decide whether your Contax is "good enough" or whether 4x5 will be necessary.

 

- If the Contax is "good enough", return the 4x5 equipment to Jim for a full refund. Otherwise purchase the remaining LF lenses and accessories you need.

 

This is the only surefire way to determine which way to go. It will also give you a feel for what shooting with LF is like.

 

How about that? :-)

[lee hamiel]

Milan:

 

I have been following this thread with great interest - a lot of information from many knowlegeable photographers. If I were you I may still be confused as there are so many options.

 

My foremost opinion: As Michael Briggs has suggested - I would not consider using 4x5 unless you have had a few months of practice before you leave for your project. It is simply a different beast than shooting with 120 and a MF camera. It takes time to learn the nuances - I am a year + into it & I still feel like a 3 year old. I have been involved in photography for 40 years & until I entered the LF world I thought I knew it all - wrong:) Some good results but still a lot to learn. It's not the quickest format to learn. Maybe you would pick it up more quickly - I do not know.

 

With that said - It's the old saying that it's better to get the shot than no shot at all - Meaning use your Contax with a fine grained 220 film & the vacuum back. Before I go further it's my understanding that the vacuum back along with the Contax 645 uses batteries pretty quickly - may want to stock up on them. Could be wrong on this one though.

 

My son has a Contax 645 & the image quality is great - has not gone beyond 16x20 yet but I feel it's capable. The 120 Makro that you have is considered a top lens. Not sure about shooting at a distance but close up it is right there.

 

As an aside to all of this - I read where you cannot buy or rent locally - Also looking for a sponsor perhaps - I would consider loaning you my 4x5 equipment for a certain period of time depending on the circumstances, etc. & also maybe others would consider doing the same. Email me offline to consider.

 

Lastly - Although the grain from a 4x5/5x7/8x10 is obviously going to be better than 120 film - if the intended viewing of your final images is for gallery viewing of up to 8'x10' prints the grain of 120 film may be an asset depending on your shooting style.

 

My gut reaction is to simply shoot 4x5 or larger - once learned - but shoot with what you know how to shoot with to get the shots you want even if it's 35mm.

 

Good Luck

[milan_moudgill]

Guy! Thank you very much for your the time you have taken in providing

detailed feedback and inputs throughout. I am indebted.

 

A bit of a boo-boo. Only one of the images i wished to upload seems to be

linked (must be a size restriction issue). It gives no idea of the terrain! The

image shows Nepali's crossing a feed to the Kali. The Indian pilgrim trail

follows the Kali river (the natural boundary between India and Nepal - on its

west edge), across the Himalayas, into Tibet, to Kailash-Manasarovar and

back, making a 28-day circuit.

 

Here is a picture of Mt Gurla Mandhatta from the Kailash foothills, looking

across the Barkha plains. This is the kind of vista that may benefit from LF??

 

I will digest your comments and get back

 

Sincere thanks

 

Milan

[lee hamiel]

Great shot Milan.

[troyammons]

Wowww,

 

Maybe I will meet you there (I wish). That is awsome.

 

Forget MF, that is LF country.

 

I take back my statement on 8x10 too. Hire a Sherpa and drag along an 8x10, but run at least 30-40 shots through it before leaving as a crash course. Thats a perfect shot for tilt and the schumlflug (sp) effect.

 

Seriously though I would go for LF or a 4x5 of some sort. If you pick one up, you can crash course it and learn movements pretty quick. I find in all actuality movement are highly overrated (IMO)for MF and 4x5. I think they are more needed more for 8x10 and it takes much longer to set up.

 

90% of my 4x5 landscape shots use only 5-8 degrees of forward front tilt max and that is it, other than framing.

 

There are some simple rules to follow, like zero your camera after every shot is one. All in all just keep it simple and you will do fine with 4x5.

 

Actually a shot like this one is made for a Nikon 90mm lens, and that lens just shooting stopped down to F32 with no movements, and focused properly everything will be in focus from 5' to infinity so tilt would not really be needed. At least not much

 

That is really an awsome photo op, and I am Jealous.

 

Wow again.

[noah]

There is probably already enough information on this thread to keep you busy for a while

thinking. But here's my summary. Yes, you will notice a difference between 6x45 and

5x4in film at the huge print sizes you mention. And yes, 10x8in film would look best. And

if you decide to go Medium Format, I would strongly agree with the people who have

suggested shooting 6x7cm. The mamiya 7 is an incredible tool that seems well-suited to

your needs. But after viewing the incredible landscape image you posted, I would LOVE to

see that shot on 10x8 film and printed the size of a wall, but I have to amit as someone

who only shoots 10x8, that it's not the most convenient format. Have you considered

shooting 5x7? The equipment is only slightly bigger than 5x4, but the film is almost twice

the surface area. And the cameras and holders are much smaller than 10x8.

 

Two other quick points:

 

One, learning LF is not as hard as some people would have you think. Read a book, look

for advice online and try it out a bit before your trip. But don't be intimidated. To this day,

my first 10x8 photograph is one of my favorites.

 

Two, if you decide to shoot MF, you might want to bring a spare camera, which to some

extent lessens the weight advantage of the smaller camera. With LF, most of the

mechanics that can fail are in the shutter, so if you bring two lenses and one shutter dies,

you have a backup. (Maybe an extra groundglass is a good idea) But the contax especially,

and all MF cameras to some extent, are more complicated and can fail. So it would be

good to have a backup. I say this as a former contax user who once had one die in the

middle of a shoot.

 

Good luck! I can't wait to see your photographs. Technical talk aside, I'm sure they will be

equally powerful no matter which format you choose.

[troyammons]

God, I can tell I am getting bored when I start posting these too long replies. I think I need to go take some photos.

 

Hmmmm, good point Noah on the 5x7. I actually like that ratio better than the too square 4x5 or the way to square 6x7.

 

Milan, now I am thinking back to past trips and how I shoot. You really dont want to schelp around an 8x10 camera 100% of the time but that location and a few others I am sure deserves the most resolution. It reminds me of this photo. This guy set up this camera just for this one shot.

 

http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html

 

Here is a thought.

 

Usually on a trip, I will carry more than one system but usually pack one or two and carry along a tiny digital too.

 

I will be out with any camera, digital, MF, 4x5 or whatever and think gees this shot deserves more rez. These are usually places I can get back to relatively easy. For areas that I know I will want high quality, but I cant return or they are not that accessible (hard hike) i will carry a lightish 4x5 and 2 lenses for landscapes and maybe my pocket digital.

 

I guess what I am saying is while I am out shooting a smaller format or digital sometimes I am doing a bit of scouting too. I ran into a place 5 years ago like that, but at the time i had not set up an 8x10 camera yet, and because of all the hurricanes down here now this one place has been closed and unaccessible almost the entire time. I hopefully will make it back there one day.

 

I guess it also depends on how you are traveling. Will your trips through the country be quick, or are you going to stay in an area for several days.

 

This is what I would take personally if I were going on this trip and I was not in a hurry. Just the basic stuff and my opinion so.......

 

A tiny light digital camera, pocketable with a big card and a storage bank with a viewer screen, just for snapshots etc. Last year just going through my digital snapshots, I found one that stood out. I drove back 3 hours just for one LF shot. Sometimes I will see something in a quick digital I did not notice in real life.

 

A MF camera of some sort for people. I think MF is an easier people camera. The lighter and faster the better. That would probably be a GA645ZI for my case. The ZI weighs about 2# and is basically a P+S MF camera with AF, AE, and autowind. the lens is limited, but at least it is a zoom although short. Also it would be nice if it was a 6x7 but what can you do.

 

A light 4x5 system and 2-3 lenses, like a 90, 150, and 240 (a 240 that will cover 8x10) and readyloads tripod etc. If its a folder you can get all that in a smallish pack.

 

The lightest stiffest most compact 8x10 camera I could find, with full front movements and at least rear tilt, use the 240 lens from the kit above, and maybe 5 film holders. Of course with this you need a changing tent etc. The 8x10 would not be something you would want to shlep around all day, but maybe keep in a safe place. And come back for it for a few special shots. They attract a lot of attention, so in that situation I would look for one that is well used. Also if you are shooting with just one lens, you can use a shorter compact setup since you would not need a 30" draw.

 

Now that I think of it I like Noahs idea too. Alternate to a 4x5 and an 8x10 you could do as Noah suggests and go for 5x7 like maybe a Canham to take the place of 4x5 and 8x10, but you loose some of the advantage of 4x5 a bit of system lightness, no rangefinder unless its an old 5x7 press camera and no lightweight readyloads either.

 

Tough decision really, but just guessing, with the ZI weighing 2# and the digital maybe 1#, my day pack setup would consist of the 4x5 kit from the post above at 20# with the pack film and everything, so add the digital in my pocket (barely noticeable) and a ZI around my neck at 2# and you would still only be around 23#.

 

An 8x10 with film holders, film and a changing tent would weigh around 20# on its own unless it was a toho or a bender, but I dont think a bender would be tough enough. Both are very light though.

 

If you did decide to go for a 5x7 they weigh probably 2-3 # more than a 4x5 folder, but no quickloads so the film holders are a heavier load than readyloads. I usually like to carry around 20-40 sheets so that would work out to 10-20 film holders and that is definitely not light. The 8x10 tent weighs in at 2.5# so all in all it would add some weight to your pack, but you would not have to drag around an 8x10 camera body and you would have the larger format with you.

 

Also you could carry a 4x5 back for the 5x7 so you could still shoot readyloads, and just carry 4-5 5x7 film holders for those special shots.

 

A lot of options really. Probably too many.