Invest in 4x5 equipment?

[RalphLambrecht]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Gotta love those LF contact prints, especially larger than 4x5! Yum!

 

[John Wiegerink]

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]

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?

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Gotta love those LF contact prints, especially larger than 4x5! Yum!

Yes, 8X10 shines in a contact print! 6X6 or 6X9 just doesn't really do it when it comes to contact printing. They are better than 35mm contacts, but "oh my!" 8X10.

 

[koraks]

My position is quite simple: all else being equal, the larger the format, the higher the potential technical quality.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

2x3 sheet film is a thing, no?

 

[abruzzi]

2x3 sheet film is a thing, no?

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]

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]

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?

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]

4x5 is not better in image quality than MF.

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?

 

[isaac7]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.