• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Invest in 4x5 equipment?

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,982
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
Over the years , I built a working set for 35mm MF and 4x5, but I have no intention of growing the 4x5 set. With 35mm and MF system cameras, I've got all I need for my photographic future. 4x5 is not better in image quality than MF. So why 4x5? What do others think?
 

BrianShaw

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
17,043
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
I'm glad you are happy with what gear you have and how you photograph. I contact print 4x5 in alternative processes. Rarely use movements with LF cameras but that would be another reason. Other than that, all I can say is that you're not wrong (for you) especially if you think camera gear is "investable".
 

Petrochemist

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2021
Messages
167
Location
Uk
Format
Multi Format
I got my 4x5 to try unusual lenses & to make use of movements. The investment has been fairly small, despite growing the kit far more than I should have.

My first 5x4 camera ended up costing only about a third of the cheapest usable interchangeable lens medium format body I've seen.

Very little of my camera gear has been brought as an investment, even if that's the impression I've given my wife on occasion. I'm a hobbyist it's brought for enjoyment rather than finance.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
27,658
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
4x5 is a format where IMO contact prints start to make sense. It's also still relatively portable compared to larger formats with good availability of equipment on the used market. In terms of sheet film, it can be refreshing and quite nice to be able to just do 1 or 2 exposures and develop those without having to wait until an entire roll is full, while also being able to tailor processing to the exposure and scene/lighting.

When enlarging or scanning, dust is comparatively smaller than on smaller formats.

Movements on 4x5" and larger are easier to manage (see) than on medium format, if they're available to begin with, which is almost standard on large format.

I have equipment to cover almost all formats from 35mm up to 8x10", but 35mm and 4x5" I use the most.
 

Alan9940

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,496
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
Personally, I use LF cameras (4x5 and 8x10) because I like the image control afforded to me via camera movements. I, also, very much enjoy "the view" of the image on a large ground glass. If you find no value in 4x5 and are totally satisfied with the results from your other equipment, then you might consider selling the LF stuff. On the other hand, though, it's not costing you anything to sit there and, who knows, you may change your mind some day.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,175
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
I have formats covered the same as kodaks above. I love 4X5 and 8X10, but to be honest I could get by just fine with medium format. I use medium format for 90% of what I do since it's easier to handle, more portable and gives adequate image quality compared to 4X5 and 8X10.
 

miha

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
3,053
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format

If the premise is that 4x5 offers no image quality advantage over 120, then we’re starting from fundamentally different assumptions and in that case there may not be much point in me trying to persuade you otherwise.

My position is quite simple: all else being equal, the larger the format, the higher the potential technical quality. That’s not sentimentality, it’s physics.

Of course, that doesn’t mean everyone needs it. 35mm and medium format are more than sufficient and far more practical. And if movements are important, then only a proper monorail camera truly delivers full control.

For what it’s worth, the only camera I ever bought new (aside from those my father kindly bought me when I was a kid ) was a Linhof monorail. It cost about the same as a new Leica M6 at the time. I’ve never questioned that decision. It remains the tool that most consistently produces my strongest photographs.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
27,658
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
miha said:
My position is quite simple: all else being equal, the larger the format, the higher the potential technical quality.
Click to expand...
It's accurate, too. Whether it's significant/relevant depends on someone's criteria, which are not the same for everybody. So I'm happy to accept that for a particular someone, 4x5 offers no benefit in IQ over medium format. I took @RalphLambrecht's statement as such. If he meant it literally, then I disagree. I have plenty of 4x5's that have just as good detail rendering etc. as my 6x6's negs - but they're much larger.
 

loccdor

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
2,908
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I recently tested a Nikor SW 90mm f/8 lens - its center resolution is on par with my ability to digitize half-frame and full frame 35mm... and it covers 5x7 so you basically can multiply that detail by a factor of at least 20.

Maybe the reason Ralph says it doesn't offer more detail than medium format is simply because he doesn't need to print/display that big. Neither do I.

I personally don't have a need to go higher than 6x9 medium format.

All the other reasons mentioned like contact printing, movements, access to old interesting lenses are more what would make large format worthwhile. And I suppose you could put a sharp wide angle on it and just crop to zoom if you wanted, and never buy more than 1 lens.
 

Franswa

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
375
Location
Central TX
Format
Multi Format
koraks said:
n terms of sheet film, it can be refreshing and quite nice to be able to just do 1 or 2 exposures and develop those without having to wait until an entire roll is full, while also being able to tailor processing to the exposure and scene/lighting.
Click to expand...

This is one major benefit for me. Treating each frame truly as it's own vs one in a roll. I tend to have more keepers this way.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
10,173
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
With Tmax 100 and 400, unless you want a very, very large size, well over 16X20 modern film in 6X9 is large enough in terms of grain and resolution. What 4X5 brings to the table is for zone or BTZS users developing each sheet for a given scene. Second is perspective control, movements. The other is price, strange as it seems, lets say it is late afternoon, the golden hour. I come across a scene and have time for only shot before the light changes. I grab by Crown set it up, get basic exposure data and get in the one shot. I'm using Foma 400, cost is less than $2.00 U.S. If it was the first or second shot on Foma 120 400 it would cost $6.40. Now if I want to wait until I shoot the entire roll no problem. But in this case I really to print this shot, only the one sheet cost is $4.00 less than than wasting the roll of film for just one shot. Of couse it could be just the opposite, it is my last shot of 120, shooting 120 is cheaper.
 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,639
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
Prime benefits to 4x5 would be movements, and that each photograph can be exposed and developed for precisely what it needs. Also easier to pin register masks while enlarging.
 

loccdor

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 12, 2024
Messages
2,908
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
2x3 sheet film is a thing, no?
 

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,277
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
loccdor said:
2x3 sheet film is a thing, no?
Click to expand...

Barely. You can get Foma 100 and 400 plus Ilford FP4+ and HP5+. the Ilford is more expensive per sheet than the same film in 4x5, at least in the US, so its only gain is potentially smaller gear to transport, or simply the fun of using some old camera, if you're into that.

To the original question--part of it for me is the process of large format, which I prefer to the MF or 35mm shooting process. I don't find 4x5 very condusive to contact printing, but I guess its doable. I feel like 5x7 is the minimum contact size for me. 8x10 is bettwe, but also noticably larger and more unweildy.
 

Sharktooth

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2022
Messages
442
Location
Canada
Format
Medium Format
My take on this is entirely different. 35mm and medium format have now been completely replaced by digital imaging. For many years, it still made sense to use 35mm and medium format film, since digital cameras were so expensive, and film cameras were cheap to use in comparison, if you didn't need instant output in high volume. Nowadays, you can get great images from your phone, or used digital camera, for next to nothing.

On the other hand, 4x5 offers things for a few hundred dollars, that aren't even possible from digital cameras, unless you mortgage your house. 4x5 also holds a massive amount of "data" compared to 35mm and medium format. It's pure physics, and it's always been easy to differentiate images. Size does matter. Just go to the Shorpy's site https://www.shorpy.com/ and marvel at the incredible detail of 100 or more year old large format images.

Investing in 4x5 is another matter. If the cost and availability of film was both stable and predictable, then I'd say you probably wouldn't lose money, but ....
 

benveniste

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
538
Format
Multi Format
RalphLambrecht said:
I've got all I need for my photographic future. 4x5 is not better in image quality than MF. So why 4x5? What do others think?
Click to expand...

I occasionally use 4x5 just for the fun and challenge of it, including using the movements. If you've got all you need, then they only reason I can think of to buy a 4x5" camera is as an object d'art.

Unless you are making money with your gear, you are spending, not investing. It's quite rare for functional photographic equipment to appreciate in value.
 

xkaes

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,205
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
RalphLambrecht said:
4x5 is not better in image quality than MF.
Click to expand...

That depends on the size of the final image you want. If you're only going to make 8x10" prints, use a 16mm camera. Since I like big prints, 4x5" is a must -- sometimes. Other times I carry a Minox.

In addition, using a 4x5 lets me crop almost with abandon! How about a 1x5" section enlarged to 1x5 feet?
 
Last edited:

isaac7

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 12, 2019
Messages
63
Location
Virginia
Format
Med. Format RF
I love the process of shooting with large format. Nothing else is like it. I love the deliberate nature of everything, how slow it is. When it comes to doing portraits the big, slow camera completely changes the vibe. That can be really useful depending on the kind of pictures you want to make.

I’ve never printed large enough to require 4x5 over medium format but there are some nice technical things that still might be useful. Others have mentioned movements, something that I rarely did outdoors and never for studio portraits. What I really did like was having complete control of development of each shot. Being able to carry multiple films was nice too. Yes, many medium format cameras have magazines but having to either wait and fill up the rest of the roll or wasting film by developing before finishing are lousy solutions to that.
 

grahamp

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
1,771
Location
Vallejo (SF Bay Area)
Format
Multi Format
Barring disasters, I probably have all the equipment I need (famous last words!). One thing I do know, using 35mm and similar small finder cameras are really awkward with my vision, and rarely get used. So I have MF, 4x5, and 8x10. I do have a 2x3 view camera, and roll film backs for the 4x5, so I can do any combination that seems right for the work/transport/mood.

All I really need is more time, and fewer obligations!
 

stevenje

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
54
Format
Multi Format
Well said isacc7. I could not agree more.

I have been shooting 4x5 film for over 30 years. It is the most fun I have behind the lens. Some people love it. Others avoid it like the plaque. To each their own. I haven't upgraded my 4x5 equipment since I bought it in the early 90's. Sinar F-1, a couple of Scheider lenses, ten film holders and of course a Schneider lupe. Call me old school.

Don't get me wrong. I still love to shoot with my trusty old Canon F-1.
It has it's purpose too. But shooting with the old Sinar is way more fun.
 

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,689
Location
Portland OR
Format
8x10 Format
If you work in still life you really need LF for perspective control, Preferably 8x10. If you are working in landscape then it depends on how old you are. If you are young and healthy use LF while you can carry all the stuff including tripod. If you are up there in age and aches and pains are getting real then use a smaller format.
 

Kino

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
8,021
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
To me, 4x5 and larger formats takes the pressure off of "finishing that roll" and allows me to concentrate on as few as one exposure an outing.

Don't know why, but roll film makes me antsy and I feel I have to take more shots which wind up being mediocre.
 

cliveh

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,831
Format
35mm RF

How can you say 4x5 is not better in image quality than MF. The fact that it has more grains per square inch, gives it better image quality in terms of resolution of detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register