Help! Please break my assumptions about choosing 4×5 camera!

GregY said:

If i were primarily doing architectural photography in 4x5.... i'd look at the Technikardan

Click to expand...

As for monorail cameras, I plan to add an Arca‑Swiss later on, so it won’t be part of my current decision. That said, you’re absolutely right — the Technikardan is an excellent camera.

Chuck1 said:

Technica are great but if you see a 47mm-75mm in your future the iv and v's are limited, the 2000 has a built-in short range focusing device

Click to expand...

What was especially tempting today was a 2000 with some of the leather covering peeling off, but with no damage to the metal parts and no functional issues at all. It was even being offered at a lower price than a Classic.
Replacing the leather covering doesn’t seem like it would cost very much.

Peter Schrager said:

Personally I would source a mint condition Kodak/Calumet all metal 4x5 off ebay and put the rest of the money into film etc. .great cameras and rock steady

Click to expand...

Although I’ve already acquired a new camera, I appreciate the suggestion and will definitely look into that one as well.

GregY said:

The subject is "church thought & history".....
So i deduce lots of architectural photos..... i've always used a field camera...so i'm not averse to them, but i wouldn't choose one for this project.
At the same time, I'm confident i could do a project like this in medium format. I'd choose 2 Hasselblads ....one of which would be the Superwide C.... & Tmax 100 & 400

Click to expand...

GregY said:

I've had 3 Chamonix, an Ebony, 3 Canhams, & 2 Deardorffs...(4x5, 5x7, 8x10).....None of them are Ford pickups and it's possible to knock any field camera out of adjustment. At the same time I got perfect photos with every single one of them. Either you live with a field camera or buy Arca, Sinar, or Technikardan.

Click to expand...

I’ve already built a solid shooting‑to‑darkroom workflow for formats from 35 mm up to 6×7, but 4×5 is still fairly new territory for me. I recently got an Ebony 45SU from a friend, and I’m curious about how to handle and use this discontinued camera with care, as well as how you normally use and maintain yours.

gbroadbridge said:

What do you mean by larger print?

Click to expand...

xkaes said:

I was wondering the same thing. What size "print" would a "documentary" use???

Click to expand...

I like working with 4×5 specifically because it allows me to print at 16×20 inches or larger. For many viewers here, a few strong, large prints communicate more effectively than an entire sequence. The larger scale pushes me to be more disciplined in my technique, and the visual presence is on a completely different level.

xkaes said:

I'm not a Chamonix user, but from what little I know, I don't think a Wista 45II would be any more stable. Perhaps some Chamonix users could explain your problem with stability. I find it hard to image that "the front standard can sometimes shift if it is accidentally touched (even when it is supposedly locked)". That does not seem plausible.

Click to expand...

Taylor K Nankervis said:

Surprising to read the Chamonix has a stability issue as there are a great many of these cameras in 4x5 used in Australia, along with the evergreen Wista cameras — in rosewood with shiny brass fittings.

Meanwhile, the Linhof Master Technika — still commanding serious cash so very many decades later, is a beast; heavy, metal, rugged, pretty much antique but indisputably reliable and with all the movements you will need. The bellows are the only issue and these would require scrutiny for pinholes. Of colleagues who own and actively use this camera, each have a reflex viewer attached for landscape work. My early dabblings in 4x5 were with a Horseman 45FA — of similar bulk and weight to the Linhof and worth looking at too if asking prices for a Linhof bring on the wobbles.

Click to expand...

xkaes said:

I guess I've just been lucky with my 4x5 field cameras. I've bumped into them several times over the decades, but it's usually the tripod or the ball head that gets out of whack, not the front standard. They've never gotten out of place if it's "touched", as he says his does -- "the front standard can sometimes shift if it is accidentally touched".

Click to expand...

GregY said:

How big/heavy a lens? & Was the front standard properly tightened?

Click to expand...

blee1996 said:

I have Chamonix F1, and kinda guess what the OP's problem might be. The front standard is metal, and the bed is Carbon Fiber. So it is a bit slippery where the two meet, even when the screw is tightened. I have a simple solution that cost less than $0.02: just add strips of rough surface gaffer tape right on the bed and along each slot that front standard will be in contact. And now once the front standard is locked, it will not shift in any direction. Better explain with a photo below.

View attachment 414721

Click to expand...

In fact, my camera has already been serviced, but there’s still a bit of movement even when everything is locked down. Because of that, I often find myself worried and have developed a lot of extra, probably unnecessary, handling habits just to be safe. For example, regarding the blee1996 issue. I’ve actually already addressed it. I even went a step further and added numbered scales to help me better understand and repeat the positions

Abraham Jason said:

I like working with 4×5 specifically because it allows me to print at 16×20 inches or larger. For many viewers here, a few strong, large prints communicate more effectively than an entire sequence. The larger scale pushes me to be more disciplined in my technique, and the visual presence is on a completely different level.

Click to expand...

You really do not need anything larger than MF to print only 16 x 20.

There is more resolution in the negative than the paper can display at that size.

gbroadbridge said:

You really do not need anything larger than MF to print only 16 x 20.

There is more resolution in the negative than the paper can display at that size.

Click to expand...

There’s also an aspect that matters to me which is more experiential than technical. When I work with large format, I usually photograph people in a face‑to‑face context, where the shutter is pressed only after a process of conversation and trust has developed.

With my Pentax 67 — and even more so with smaller formats — my approach is more about capturing moments, with far less direct interaction. At the same time, 4×5 doesn’t create the tension that an 8×10 camera often does; it’s often perceived as something curious rather than intimidating.

Because of this, the work carries a different feeling for me. I may not strictly need large format to make photographs, but when this way of working emerges naturally and remains within reasonable limits, I don’t feel a need to stop it.

That said, your point is well taken. I’ll continue to reflect on my own practice and look for a better way forward.

If you aren't planning on hiking with it, then maybe a monorail might be an option? The prices are good second hand and they seem to offer the best range and precision of movements, and are very solid.

Abraham Jason said:

I spent today visiting several places to try out different large‑format cameras in person, including Linhof, Toyo, and even Wista. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), based on my hands‑on experience, the Linhof really suited me best — it just felt right for the way I work.

Click to expand...

That's a great choice! I love my Linhof Tech V for its solid precision feel, totally trustworthy.

gbroadbridge said:

You really do not need anything larger than MF to print only 16 x 20.

There is more resolution in the negative than the paper can display at that size.

Click to expand...

The resolution may be fine, but the tonality is different from a larger negative which is enlarged less than a smaller negative. In blind tests, I found people always preferred a print made from the larger negative.

Abraham Jason said:

I’ve already built a solid shooting‑to‑darkroom workflow for formats from 35 mm up to 6×7, but 4×5 is still fairly new territory for me. I recently got an Ebony 45SU from a friend, and I’m curious about how to handle and use this discontinued camera with care, as well as how you normally use and maintain yours.

Click to expand...

I no longer have the Ebony, (went to 5x7").....i used it normally.... never gave it any particular maintenance.

Abraham Jason said:

What was especially tempting today was a 2000 with some of the leather covering peeling off, but with no damage to the metal parts and no functional issues at all. It was even being offered at a lower price than a Classic.
Replacing the leather covering doesn’t seem like it would cost very much.

Click to expand...

Seems like a great deal was found.
I got a master Technika Classic 6 months back now and I hope it’s the last camera I’ll want to buy. It really makes my Rollei and Leica feel like toy cameras

If I could do it again I’d have gone for the MT 2000. I got the Classic with 3 lenses all cammed thinking I’d occasionally do handheld, but I find it too cumbersome for that.

I recommend that you look for a 4"x 5" press camera so that it can be used handheld or on a tripod so that you are not limited in capabilities.

My primary 4x5 system for several decades was Sinar. They have by far the largest system of components, and the sheer abundance of that makes used Sinar gear quite affordable at the present. Their F2 model is excellent in the field, and yes, I have backpacked many thousands of miles with this system, generally in very rugged terrain.

But I also have a little Ebony 4x5 folder which is getting more and more desirable as I continue to age well into my 70's. It's slower to use than the Sinar monorails, and a little less versatile, but is more portable - allegedly the best crafted wooden camera line ever, but now getting very expensive even used, since they're no longer being made.

My older brother once sold Linhof gear, so shot a 4x5 Technika. But I'm glad I bought Sinar instead - way more versatile, faster to operate, way easier to properly balance atop a tripod, far easier to find parts for, or to repair yourself if necessary. The rail can be extended as far as you wish, or be contracted for wide angle work. Numerous bellows options. Components can be interchanged going clear back to the original Sinar Norma line (which is now the model I primarily use).

Having a longer rail means that if you like long focal lengths, you can choose from regular lenses, whereas, after a certain point with a Technika, you have to resort to bulkier heavier telephoto lenses; and the cumulative carry weight, including a suitable tripod, might come out distinctly more than that of a field Sinar.

MF options and 8X10 are really different topics in their own right. I shoot those too.

While my preference is towards handheld camera, Sinars and Ebony have more choices and qualities over handheld options.

Chamonix and all similarly looking LF cameras were not meant to deliver precision control and feel of rigidity. They are in good enough category, never more, at any price point. Precision / rigidity comes with smooth controls and that feedback of once locked - it stays locked. Horseman L cameras, Cambo Master come to mind as a good compromise of price / precision / stability. And with all movements one would ever need. They can still be had for low price, especially Horseman L (with added benefit of sharing some components with Sinar). They may look large, yet they break down to pieces in little time and allow for rather compact storage.

Linhof is no stranger to high quality and rugged feel. Price still matches their engineering, pedigree, and ... weight in most cases. Arca Swiss made some good stuff too.

There was an old saying that up to 10X enlargement was possible for any format and still keep its tonal qualities: so for 35mm that was 10x14, for 6x6 to go to 22" or so.... it seemed that 16" square was pretty good for 6x6 MF, so say 7X enlargement. That would put 35mm at about 8x10, which seems about right. Although 4x5 at say 3X or 4X is still pretty sweet. Or better yet, contact sheet!

In my own opinion, that "old saying" is indeed so old and moth-eaten, that it's time to throw it out once for all. Printmakers should set their own standards and not rely on generic formulas. Lenses are sharper than ever, and films finer, and I print more precisely than most. But still, if just winging a rote formula, I sorta agree with GG12, that proportionately cropped 8x10 inch is about as far as one can go with 35mm film until things start getting lossy. I don't like 6X7 or 6X9 printed any bigger than 20X24. 4x5 and 8x10 might be good for anything up to 30X40 inches; and anything bigger than that requires an exceptional original if the intended print is going to viewed up close.

"Normal viewing distance" is nonsense unless further specified. Are you viewing the image like in a book, up close, or like a billboard from a quarter mile away?