6x7 or 4x5

[ColColt]

I've been looking at the Speed/Crown Graphic cameras lately but started thinking, other than having something to walk around with that few have or have even seen before, other than TV-will it give me any better quality than the 6x7 Pentax? Many times I've read the "6x7 approaches 4x5 quality".

 

[Sirius Glass]

The improvement from 35mm to 6x6 120 is greater than the improvement from 6x6 120 to 4"x5",. However 4"x5" will allow either handheld with some movements or tripod mounted with maximum movements which 6x6 120 does not have except for the Hasselblad FlexBody or the Hasselblad ArcBody. I think that 'Many times I've read the "6x7 approaches 4x5 quality". ', is highly overrated.

 

[ColColt]

I remember well in going from 35mm to the 6x7 I was most impressed with the difference-quite a difference in fact. I actually had a hard time going back to 35mm for some time. I've never seen a 4x5 negative but in an uneducated mind about it I would surmise the tonal range and apparent sharpness should be somewhat better.

 

[juan]

Get both.
juan

 

[ColColt]

I don't know that I want or need another learning curve at this point and there surely is one.

 

[shutterfinger]

A 4x5 will weigh the same or less than a 6x medium format camera. An alternative is a 2x3 press camera with a 120 roll film holder. Common 2x3's are Crown Graphic, Speed Graphic, Century Graphic, Miniature Speed Graphic and Bush Pressman model C. 2x3's are lighter than Pentax, Mamiya, or Hasselblad and have some front movements. With a 4x5 or 2x3 you can use 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 roll film holders.
3x4 format cameras are available but 3x4 film is hard to get, usually special order/limited emulsions, and 120 roll film holders for the format are rare and expensive.

 

[markbarendt]

I've never seen a 4x5 negative but in an uneducated mind about it I would surmise the tonal range and apparent sharpness should be somewhat better.

There is a noticeable difference.

Rather than sharpness I'd use the word resolution; more silver molecules (in relation to the scene and print) means more fine detail can be resolved.

As you surmised there is also a difference in tonality, again I'd use different words, maybe "finer scale"; because the range from black to white is no different. It goes back to the resolution thing, there are simply more silver molecules involved between black and white.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

will it give me any better quality than the 6x7 Pentax? Many times I've read the "6x7 approaches 4x5 quality".

How big do you want to print? Honestly, if it's 16x20 or smaller, you won't want for quality from a 6x7 negative. I've printed tripod mounted RZ portraits that large that show threads in the fabric.

Yes, a 4x5 neg will be sharper, it will also cost more, and you'll shoot less, and slower. That may be a good thing, or it may not. If you're the kind of photographer who likes to conceptualize everything before releasing the shutter, 4x5 is great. If you prefer spontaneity and shooting from the hip, go with the 6x7.

I shoot both 6x6 and 6x7 and love them both long time. My 4x5 doesn't get much love.

 

[Richard Man]

I use 4x5 and 6x6 a lot. Definitely the qualitative difference can be seen easily. OTOH, a well done 6x6/6x7 is not so shabby either.

 

[jimjm]

As far as handling and processing of 4x5 film as opposed to 120 roll film, it is a bit more complex and you will need different equipment, if you process your own. I find the larger negative does have better tonality, but the benefit is not as great as the jump from 35 to 120 was for me.

However, there are roll-film holders that will fit most 4x5 cameras with a Graflok type back. This includes most modern 4x5 cameras and many Speed/Crown Graphics. I have a Calumet roll-film holder which shoots 6x7 frames, and fits both my field camera and Crown Graphic. Very handy if I want the advantage of movements but want to shoot a little faster than I would with sheet film. The ground glass on both cameras is marked to indicate framing for a 6x7 negative. With large format you can also shoot with lot of antique lenses which have a very unique look, so that's one big plus for me. Being able to shoot sheet film or roll film is very convenient with this set-up.

 

[LMNOP]

I have thought about this nonstop for months... And still spend most my free time thinking about this exact subject. I've shot many many rolls of 6x7 and 6x9, and this summer I started getting into large format. It's tough, because I don't even print at this time, so some people on this forum would laugh at the idea of shooting larger formats without a need for large printing, but it depends how you approach the medium.

Just about everything I want to shoot can be handled by the rz67, but trying other cameras is a lot of fun, and whether or not the quality is much greater, the qualities (or charictairticstics) are much different, and therefor give your work range or give you a new challenge. I love the excitement of learning something new. Right now, just three boxes of film into it, I find every image I shoot on large format a challenge, a thrill, and a delight. I'd say if you have the means, give it a shot. For what it's worth, my landscapes are looking pretty surreal on large format, even just scans. Not only does it force me to be more selective and meticulous about my compositions and subjects. That gives you a better end result.

 

[Richard Man]

I should mention that 17x22" (I scan and print) are the standard size I print, and after you have a couple 4x5 feet prints made, even 24"30" prints look smallish

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember well in going from 35mm to the 6x7 I was most impressed with the difference-quite a difference in fact. I actually had a hard time going back to 35mm for some time. I've never seen a 4x5 negative but in an uneducated mind about it I would surmise the tonal range and apparent sharpness should be somewhat better.

Yes you are correct that the the tonal range and apparent sharpness will be better for the same film and developer.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The first question you should be asking is not about the format, but what size printing you are going to be doing. Investing in an expensive LF system and only ever printing 6x4 prints is a waste, yet so many, many people do it, only later to throw it all in because they misjudged themselves.

Quality depends on your experience and lenswork. I have seen breathtaking work created with all of 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 formats (colour and B&W) and even 6x6, 6x7 pinhole prints beautifully conceptualised and brought to fruition in print form. I am printing up to 80x60cm (maximum of the RA-4 printer at the moment) and could easily go higher with 6x7. I have a calculation that says I can print to 1 metre+ tall on 6x7 before their is a noticeable derangement in visual quality. There is no need for the fond idealist step-up to large format if you are only ever going to print cheap-and-tiny. If you want LF, you also want to print BIG — really big (and that means not often a darkroom job unless you have a wall-mounted set up) and have quality at the forefront of the end-product (if you want to attract attention and by association, money!). Explore the upper limitations of 6x6 of 6x7 (and other formats) before leaping to the next lily pad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A 4x5 will weigh the same or less than a 6x medium format camera. An alternative is a 2x3 press camera with a 120 roll film holder. Common 2x3's are Crown Graphic, Speed Graphic, Century Graphic, Miniature Speed Graphic and Bush Pressman model C. 2x3's are lighter than Pentax, Mamiya, or Hasselblad and have some front movements. With a 4x5 or 2x3 you can use 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 roll film holders. 3x4 format cameras are available but 3x4 film is hard to get, usually special order/limited emulsions, and 120 roll film holders for the format are rare and expensive.

Yes, I had a 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" film is hard to find and I had to special order the film through Ilford. I changed to 4"x5" and the film supply problems disappeared. Also finding daylight tanks for 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" film is a problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How big do you want to print? Honestly, if it's 16x20 or smaller, you won't want for quality from a 6x7 negative. I've printed tripod mounted RZ portraits that large that show threads in the fabric. Yes, a 4x5 neg will be sharper, it will also cost more, and you'll shoot less, and slower. That may be a good thing, or it may not. If you're the kind of photographer who likes to conceptualize everything before releasing the shutter, 4x5 is great. If you prefer spontaneity and shooting from the hip, go with the 6x7. I shoot both 6x6 and 6x7 and love them both long time. My 4x5 doesn't get much love.

On the other hand the sharpness of a contact 4"x5" print is something to behold.

 

[ColColt]

From a size perspective I'd probably never get or print anything larger than 16x20. My walls are already over burdened with pictures, some large 20x24 canvas prints of Rembrandt's work like his self portrait at 35 years old and "Belshazzar's Feast" not to mention my own prints so, space is getting tighter.

I know the quality of 6x7 as I've used that format since the early 80's but the Speed/Crown Graphic just intrigue me. I'd have little use for using 6x7 film backs in a 4x5 camera(having the Pentax 6x7) and would no doubt use the 4x5 film primarily. I've tried 35mm and 6x7 and thought 4x5 would be good to branch out a little. I got interested in it years ago but, it seems I just couldn't get away from those other two formats at the time.

Some of the prints I've made with the 6x7 and FP-4 seemed to me the best it could get but, I haven't seen it all and have not witnessed what quality 4x5 with the same film could bring.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Check out the press camera work that Weegee did.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wee...X&ved=0CC4QsARqFQoTCJHCi_7w_8gCFRRWYwodcIMGWg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weegee

 

[ColColt]

That guy was quite a character. Seems he thrived on crime scenes.

 

[480sparky]

Here's a side-by-side comparison:


Mamiya RB67 with 50mm Secor:

Shen Hao 4x5 with Nikkor 65mm:

Two things to bear in mind:

The 4x5 was taken with a lens that will be slightly wider in FOV that the 6x7 was. Also, the 4x5 neg was scanned at 2400 dpi, while the 6x7 was scanned at 4800 dpi. These are both 100% crops, so that's why the 4x5 image is slightly 'wider'.

 

[markbarendt]

Some of the prints I've made with the 6x7 and FP-4 seemed to me the best it could get but, ...

Giggle...

4x5 is different; not better, not worse.

6x7 FP-4 prints so pretty.

TXP & HP-5 in 4x5 are just "different girls", beautiful, just different characters.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

6x7 is very close to 6x6, but it is not even close to 4x5.
6x7 is nothing but MF. 4x5 is the entry to LF.
Even 6x9 isn't.

But it has nothing to do with pixels produced by scans.
4x5 makes difference on real prints.

 

[Fr. Mark]

Where analog is concerned, I jumped 35mm to 4x5. And quickly went to 8x10 and 5x7 and am tempted by even bigger contact prints. I like being able to process 1 sheet of film at a time. I like contact prints and alt processes. I've not learned to do scanning or enlarged negatives yet. So, I tend to think bigger negatives are better. $100 of X-ray film keeps me in big film a long time. But there's no denying the greater portability and ease of use of the smaller formats. This sort of thing feels a little like a debate about whether painting should be done with oils or acrylics or pastels or water colors. Good work can be done with any of these media (and a bunch more) but each has its characteristics that appeal to different artists.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Rather than angle for the dated Crown/Speed Graphic, consider the Travelwide as an LF introduction, to get a feel for LF at a basic level. Invest a bit (or a lot) in a SA lens and you have the system (just add a spot meter). Or get a 4x5/8x10 pinhole and "WOW!" the market (or yourself!) with something very different to what everybody else would want to do. The herd mentality of comparisons and claim and counterclaim and me-too-'isms gets nowhere. Be different.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[Alan Gales]

Are you going to use a tripod or shoot handheld? I've owned a Crown Graphic and also an RZ67, Hasselblad 500/cm and other medium format cameras. I do have a bad back which has been fused together. Personally, I can get a sharper image shooting a Hasselblad handheld than a Crown Graphic handheld simply because I can hold the camera steadier.

The lenses that came on Crown and Speed Graphics are fine but you can upgrade to sharper lenses and different focal lengths but you can't use the rangefinder with them. Just focus with the ground glass while using a tripod.