6x7 or 4x5

[Slixtiesix]

If you already own the Pentax 67 I would say just buy the 4x5 camera. Look for a nice bargain so you could sell it again if you do not like it. I went from 35mm straight to 4x5 some 10 years ago but soon discovered it was not for me (you are restricted to only a handful of shots, awkward to use, the time and effort you need to develop every single sheet separately. Okay, I think there are drums that allow for multiple sheets but I didn´t have one.)
After that I went into medium format and used that ever since. That said, large format is really nice if you do not mind the obstacles it brings. I really miss it at times...

 

[shutterfinger]

but you can't use the rangefinder with them

Graflex Graphic press cameras came without any rangefinder, a Kalart or Hugo Meyer side rangefinder, or a Graphic top mounted rangefinder.
Kalart side rangefinders are adjustable for focal lengths from 101mm to 165mm.
Hugo Meyer rangefinders were made for a single focal length and are adjustable for the focal length variance found in production for the marked focal length. They were made for 127mm, 135mm and 152mm that I know of.
The Graphic rangefinder mounts on the top of the camera body and uses a changeable cam for different focal lengths. Factory cams http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/top-rangefinder-cams.html range from 86mm to 390.5mm (optically measured). I devised a precise method for making Super Graphic cams from scratch http://www.graflex.org/helpboard/viewtopic.php?t=4653&highlight=cams . If I had a Crown with a factory matched cam and lens I could work out the details for making Pacemaker cams.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

This.

If you want to print larger than 16x20, maybe 20x24 even with medium speed or slow film, you won't realistically see that much difference but the way of working will be different. If you print really large (or crop out smaller sections from enlargements of equally great magnifications) you'll start to see more difference. I like working with the view camera and I often like the fact it forces me to slow down and take a methodical approach where I can take a photo in 10 minutes if I hurry (though I can shoot more sheets, varying exposure and filtration if I want, much faster.) OTOH dealing with the dust issues and the tedium of loading sheet film holders sometimes tempts me to just get an RZ67 and hang up the 4x5. But then - for one thing, a decent RZ67 kit would weigh more and take up more space than a somewhat, as close as you can compare anyway, comparable 4x5 kit! And - movements, which once you learn how versatile they are you can get quite addicted to. You don't need to use much most of the time, with the exception of front rise for tall structures where I've run lenses with very generous image circules out of coverage on 4x5, but being able to use just a little tilt to get both foreground and background in focus at moderate apertures is an amazing and addictive thing. The medium format that can do that is the Fuji GX680, but as nice as it is it's a beast of a camera. As far as size and weight goes you might as well go 8x10.

Bottom line is that for very large prints 4x5 will have an edge (if used carefully) but for prints up to the above sizes the choice comes down to other factors, mainly need for movements and working style.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

And there's always this. I have a Calumet 6x7 holder that I use with my 4x5 mainly for affordable color work. The down sides are that it's much more tedious working with movements while examining only the central 6x7 area of a 4x5 ground glass, and you'll need short lenses and quite possibly a bag bellows for even moderately wide angle work and that can make movements challenging too, especially without a bag bellows.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

I don't know about this. I've shot 6x7 black and white in my roll film holder in my 4x5 and I'm sure in a blind comparison I'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference in a 16x20 print. At least that would be so with medium speed film and more modern high speed films. Maybe with Foma 400 I could tell, or more certainly if I pushed film. But then again I can get Delta 3200 in 120 and I'm quite sure I'd prefer a 6x7 neg from D3200 at 3200 to a 4x5 negative from any of the 4x5 400 speed films pushed that much.

Now I also shoot 645 and 6x6, which I often crop to 645, and I could certainly tell the difference there though 645 is much closer to 35mm, with way better quality, than it is to larger formats.

I think if I could choose just one camera and format from my aresenal it would be my Mamiya 645 Pro. OTOH I do NOT have to choose just one and for that reason it's probably the least used. Bigger, heavier and bulkier than my 35mm with (slightly) slower lenses, at least until I get an 80 f/1.9. Still bigger and way bulkier than my 6x6 TLR (though more versatile with interchangeable lenses and backs and motor grip) and considerably less image quality than my 4x5 and no movements. For these reasons I tend to gravitate toward the others, but the 645 Pro could replace them all passably well. Then again I don't print larger than 16x20 and more commonly 11x14.

 

[Ian Grant]

Shooting LF 5x4 or larger is quite a different way of working. I made the choice many years ago of moving from 645 to 5x4 for my personal photography, I already used 5x4 for work. I weighed up moving to 6x7 but felt that as I'd be using a tripod shotting 5x4 made more sense and I knew I wanted movements.

From experience I wouldn't recommend a Pacemaker Speed or Crown Graphic as your main (or first) LF camera, the limited rage of movements is less than ideal in many circumstances, earlier Speed Graphics only have front rise.

A Super Graphic (Graflex or later Toyo) though with it's rotating back and improved range of movements is a far better LF camera, another would be a Toyo 45A or a wooden Wista 45DX or Tachihara, all reasonably priced second hand.

Ian

 

[Mick Fagan]

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".

To answer your specific question, I don't believe so.

I very recently went walk about with my Razzle which is a Polaroid camera converted to take 4x5" film with either a single double dark slide holder holding two sheets, or my preferred back, a Grafmatic loaded with six sheets of film. I have had my Razzle conversion fitted with a 150 lens, which is more or less a standard lens. I can focus down to about 1.5m for portrait work, which I have done a bit with this camera.

The real difference with your current 6x7 Pentax and my Razzle or anything else similar you are thinking of, is the ability to change lenses and still see what the film is seeing via the reflex viewfinder. My Razzle is a rangefinder, accurate as anything else, but nonetheless still a rangefinder. Winner Pentax.

The ability to very quickly run off 4, 5, or 20 exposures is easily doable with roll film, quite a bit more fiddly with sheet film. Winner Pentax.

Weight and bulk. Nominal winner Pentax. It is possible to travel very light with a 4x5 rangefinder, but generally..........................

Outdoor portrait work with a tripod, no winner, unless you have a 4x5 with generous bellows which does enable you to get super close with interesting effects possible. Winner would then be 4x5. Just don't forget bellows extension factor, everyone does at some point in time.

If you disregard the portability factor a little and get yourself a wooden folder that takes a standard lens when folded up, you do have great possibility of swing for effect, not to mention rise and fall of front and rear standards to include or exclude whatever. Winner 4x5.

Studio or controlled shooting environment with a very sturdy tripod. A Grafmatic back that holds six sheets is fantastic, but no faster than a double dark slide holder. However you generally cannot tell your subject (if the subject is live that is) to hold while you wind on then take another exposure, although.....................

Go out and shoot something then realise you stuffed the exposure up when you get home, the ability to develop each exposure one sheet at a time is nice. Winner 4x5.

Looking at your pictures on apug, it would seem you have a reasonable percentage of controlled portraiture type of work. Winner neither, I consider this a draw.

One aspect not available with what your question asked is rear standard focusing. Not possible with Pentax, but possible with many wooden folder 4x5 units and most certainly with most if not all, monorail units. Winner not asked for 4x5.

Over the years I have slowly moved to 4x5 for personal work, this was something that didn't happen overnight. I used 4x5 and 8x10 in a studio environment doing product photography, stopped that about 27 years ago now. Switched back to mainly 35mm (Nikon bodies) with forays to folding 645 and fixed 645 Fuji cameras. Then had the use of an RB 6x7 for a few years, but kept coming back to 35mm. I picked up a 4x5 monorail about 15 years ago but didn't use it too much, then I picked up another 4x5 monorail in better condition and a great 215mm lens, I was off with 4x5.

Then I picked up a Shen Hao 4x5 wooden folder, best thing since sliced bread. This unit combined with a Fujinon 150 that can be kept inside the folded camera is brilliant, but one canot walk around with it hand held.

Then I picked up the Razzle, actually had it personally made with a lens I procured for the conversion. It also has a Fujinon 150 lens, identical to the first one I had. This has been a great thing to walk around with and take whatever I wish, with obvious limits on film carry capacity.

I picked up another 4x5 monorail as a spare for the first monorail for $50, another great buy. Now my cheapy monorail is great.

Early this year I stumbled upon a Toyo 45G 4x5 monorail, bought it within 2 minutes of seeing it, this has been a great thing and is now used for controlled portraiture with a 400mm telephoto lens. The ability to use this camera (as well as the Shen Hao) with focusing via the rear standard for minimal change of the image area, is something to behold, especially when really cose focusing.

I spent reasonable money for the Shen Hao (second hand) and have just spent almost 3 months on the road with this camera, loved it. Had this for about a decade now, still love it.

The Razzle was also reasonable money, but cheap in the context that I got it made specifically for me.

The first two monorails were cheap and quite cheap.

The Toyo 45G was cheap, and I don't mean maybe.

I have a very cheaply purchased super wide angle Fujinon 65mm lens with a Heliopan centre filter (bought the filter after using the 65 once then doing some fall off testing) This would be a great lens for a walk around camera. Very wide angle though. Just covers 4x5, so movements are not flash. Once I picked up the Centre filter this lens is really a go to lens for many applications, not sure about portraiture, though I will give it a go.

I have a cheap wide angle Schneider 90mm Angulon, nice, effective and great.

Then there are my two standard(ish) Fujinon 150 lenses. Brilliant coverage so all the rise and fall as well as side movements. Both really cheap, both very, very nice performers.

Cheap Fujinon 210 very nice lens with brilliant coverage, so squillions of movement if required. Very nice performer.

Not so cheap Schneider Tele Arton 250 this was bought for the Shen Hao for portraiture work, limited coverage but it works well close up in portraiture and great out in the field for pulling stuff in.

Cheap Komura 400 telephoto, this has been a sleeper of a lens. It pulls in subjects from far away on the Shen Hoa and makes it possible with the short bellows on that camera to have this drawing power. Placed on the Toyo 45G this lens is stunning close up with elongated bellows for portraiture.

To re-cap. I believe you are better off with your Pentax.

However, fiddling with 4x5 is really great and really cheap these days. Sort of like driving a very old automobile, you can flog the guts out of it and have tremendous fun yet still stay inside the limits set by the law.

One last comment, all the lenses I have for 4x5 are able to be mounted onto any of my 4x5 cameras (except the Razzle) this is the icing on the cake.

Mick.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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".

I thinkYou've resd correctly but there is probably eveb less difference between 4x5 and 5x7 but all surrounding gear gets more expensive.stick to 6x7 or go right to 8x10.

 

[removed account4]

hi colcolt

they are similar and they are different.
for me at least the usefullness of a SPEED graphic
is its in the body, focal plane shutter so you don't have to invest
a ton of $$ in expensive lenses. they are available cheap and plentiful, in barrels
( enlarger / flat field lenses, stuff from old folders old polaroid copy camears and optar-tele's and ilex/wollensak/b+l &c )
and it is much easier to expose paper negatives with a LF camera if you are low on $$ and have paper lying around
so it is like 1¢/exposure instead of 1$ ... if you like that sort of thing.
LF might be considered more of a novelty when you use it ( people walking around you
while you are using it talking like beever cleever saying: gee wizz mister can you still
get film for that old camera ? every 10 seconds ) and using a LF camera might be
considered more-funner. you can still make from the hip zone focused or RF calibrated snapshots
and expose 10 sheets in 20 seconds with a grafmatic like jimmy olson ..
using MF no matter the aspect ratio is a different experience
you can still get beautiful sharp images made with a MF system no-doubt,
but you won't have an audience ...

good luck !

 

[waynecrider]

I prefer a 6x7 as a walk around then a 4x5 Graphic even tho the camera weight for my old Graphic was lighter, the holders were bulky and added alot of weight and it took longer to set the focus. You really need to compose the shot and let it come to you if there is activity. After going out one day to a local festival and shooting about 12 shots with the Graphic in very short order (probably a couple of hours if i remember right) the 4x5 stayed as a landscape excursion camera on a tripod and the keepers went up and the film usage down.
My RB was a heavy and bukly camera with lenses and two film holders. For any bellows extension you had to compensate exposure. It wasn't untill I held a Pentax 67II thai could see the beneftit of 6x7 as a walk about. For me it wasn't a matter of better or resolution, it came down to horses for courses and if I could carry more weight or not based on how I was traveling or if I was inside or out.

 

[fotch]

With 4x5 you don't have to run the full roll thru just to get one picture. Less film waste and a different way of shooting. Regarding enlarging, size does matter. JMHO

 

[ColColt]

It seems there's many things to consider and a lot of information to digest. Could I hand hold a Speed Graphic and get acceptably sharp pictures? I don't know. I don't think there's a great deal of difference between the Pentax 6x7 and a Speed Graphic. I feel like W. Eugene Smith did about tripods...hate them. I have a Manfrotto monopod that I'll pull out if needed rather than the tripod although I will use it if deemed necessary like trying to shoot PanF in the 6x7 and you want f11. You'd be hard pressed to use that aperture with that film and be able to hand hold the 6x7.

The beauty of the 4x5, as mentioned, if you can shoot one negative at a time and expose/develop it accordingly. I find it most difficult these days getting through a 36 exposure roll of a given film and 24 exposures are taxing unless I have a specific job in mind such as street shooting or a trip somewhere. The 10 exposures I get with the 6x7 are more to my liking.

When I consider the learning curve for 4x5, the extra equipment to buy and learn, the time spent mulling over forums or books to get a better handle on what the Graphic will do and what's needed to do it the more unattractive it's becoming.

 

[markbarendt]

With 4x5 you don't have to run the full roll thru just to get one picture. Less film waste and a different way of shooting. Regarding enlarging, size does matter. JMHO

Yep.

The other places LF cameras truly shine for me are in:

• The control of the plane of sharp focus. (All in focus or selective.)
• In squaring up (or distorting) subject matter.
• Contact printing. (Yes even 4x5's can be used to make fun contact prints.)

Found example of selective.

 

[palewin]

I'm one of those who argue that, at least for 11x14 prints, the difference between 6x7 and 4x5 is negligible. I shoot both formats, although 4x5 is my favorite, more because I like the process more (i.e. the tactile feel of the big negatives, and surprisingly, tray developing!). I would say I am a decent, not great, printer, and at 11x14 both formats make prints that look great on my walls. The 6x7 (or even 6x6) has the advantage of quicker shooting, largely because it is quicker to advance film than to change holders. The 4x5 gives some movements, useful if you are tripod mounting, useless hand-held (unless you are as steady as a tripod...). But to emphasize, the argument over print quality is size dependent. I can only speak to 11x14, because that is the size I print, and I just don't see a difference in the print quality. But if you go larger, at some point the sheer square inch advantage of 4x5 will come into play. And of course I am assuming you print full frame, not by cropping some small area out of a negative.

 

[markbarendt]

Could I hand hold a Speed Graphic and get acceptably sharp pictures? I don't know.

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

These cameras were used by the press hand held ...

When I consider the learning curve for 4x5, the extra equipment to buy and learn, the time spent mulling over forums or books to get a better handle on what the Graphic will do and what's needed to do it the more unattractive it's becoming.

LF isn't for everybody.

 

[Fixcinater]

As someone who ran with a TLR, then P67, then Speed, I'd say find a cheap beater Speed and shoot a few boxes of film and then you'll not have to question your decision...whether it be maximizing the P67 or having fun experimenting with the Speed.


From another perspective: you'd know if you needed the potential quality of the larger format. Nothing in your posts has clearly indicated that to me. With that in mind, you don't need to shoot 4x5 but you may *want* to shoot 4x5, and since it is a hobby, do what you like.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

These cameras were used by the press hand held ...



LF isn't for everybody.

Press cameras, Speed Graphics and Crown Graphics, were used handheld for most of the photographs. It in now that some of use will occasionally use a tripod and the limited movements with most photographs shot handheld. Myself included.

Also any lens for the Graphics can be used on view cameras later and the Graphics can be sold for about what you pay for them. Both are a pathway into LF, but the Speed Graphic allows one to buy barrel lenses. Often I find inexpensive barrel lenses to play with.

 

[ColColt]

What are the simplest methods of developing film for these cameras? Can it be done in a tank of some sort like 35 or 120? another problem being I'd have to buy another scanner as the Plustek and V600 won't allow anything larger than 120 and I'm shy of a 4x5 enlarger so, scanning would be the initial way of seeing what that negative looks like.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What are the simplest methods of developing film for these cameras? Can it be done in a tank of some sort like 35 or 120? another problem being I'd have to buy another scanner as the Plustek and V600 won't allow anything larger than 120 and I'm shy of a 4x5 enlarger so, scanning would be the initial way of seeing what that negative looks like.

The Yankee 4"x5" daylight tank was messy and hard to use. It gave uneven results. I went the expensive way. I already had a Jobo CPP2 processor with the lift so that I could process both color and black & white 120 and 135. So I bought the Jobo 3010 Expert Drum which can process up to ten sheets at a time. With the Jobo 3010 Expert Drum I have been able get consistent and great processing every time. If I amortize the cost per sheet of processed film over many many years of use, the cost is not that high. Better yet I do not have the problems that I had with the Yankee tank or hand processing sheet film in a tray. Others speak highly of the so called Taco processor tank which came out after I bought the Jobo drum. The Taco processor tank costs less and I have heard good things about them.

I did not have an enlarger and I was scanning and stink-jet printing until I found that I was spending a lot of money on the ink and the print quality on the best print paper was not very good. I picked up a 4"x5" enlarger with a color head, power supply, foot control, timer and two lenses for only a couple hundred dollars on the local Craig's List.

 

[Fixcinater]

I used an HP Combiplan. Worked fine, I had no issues. Since then, I've just shot instant film with my Speed so haven't used the tank and recently have picked up a couple very old rubber Kodak/other tanks that I will try to use. Looks like they will take a lot of liquid but HC110 is cheap so I'm not worrying too much about it.


You can stitch scans together if you have a basic editing tool but go to DPUG or PM for more info on that.

 

[ColColt]

Wow, that Jobo 3010's not cheap. If I knew I'd enjoy and stay into 4x5 it may be a good investment but not knowing it's a bit high for such a gamble. I looked at the Paterson tank and it doesn't look like something I'd like to try in the dark trying to load more than one sheet.

B&H show the HP Combiplan discontinued.

 

[Sirius Glass]

B&H show the HP Combiplan discontinued.

I tried to buy one and could not. Those that use it will not part with it.

 

[markbarendt]

What are the simplest methods of developing film for these cameras? Can it be done in a tank of some sort like 35 or 120? another problem being I'd have to buy another scanner as the Plustek and V600 won't allow anything larger than 120 and I'm shy of a 4x5 enlarger so, scanning would be the initial way of seeing what that negative looks like.

Work essentially like Weston did.

In your bathroom, at night, pour a little developer in a 5x7 tray of some sort and slide the sheet in, slosh gently for X, rinse under faucet 30 sec, put it in a tray with fix... all the steps are the same as the rolls you've been doing. With a little larger tray you can learn to shuffle and do 4 or 6 sheets at a time.

Get a box of 100 sheets of 4x5 or 5x7 paper and some LPD.

Back to the bathroom, lights off, take a sheet of paper out of the box and close the box, lay the paper on the counter, lay the negative on the paper, flip the lights on count to 2 lights off, slide sheet into some LPD (or whatever developer you chose) for ~90 seconds, rinse, fix rinse, dry. If the print is too light count to 3 or 4 or ... print too dark count to 1 or start pulling bulbs.

Ta Dah a real print, no scanner.

 

[ColColt]

I suppose that would work but would make me a bit nervous...LPD, I didn't know they still made that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I suppose that would work but would make me a bit nervous...LPD, I didn't know they still made that.

LAPD?