Not expensive entry into 8x10?

[vyshemirsky]

I am very happy with my 4x5 gear and what I can achieve by using it. At the same time I am somewhat interested in larger formats. I don't think I need to go larger, but I still wonder what I can get nowadays on the cheap side.
My concern is that lenses will be out of my reach for a larger format.

I would really appreciate your opinions on what 8x10 system can be put together on a budget under $2000?

 

[tomalophicon]

Check out the Cambo monorails.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There are a very wide range of 8x10 cameras that can be had used for under $1K. Look on Ebay, and at KEH, for options. Tailboard and "field" cameras will be your best bets. Kodak 2D's, Anscos, Burke & James and Calumet all spring to mind. You MIGHT be able to find a Tachihara or similar in that price range, but that would require time and patience to find one that cheap. A lot of recommendations will depend entirely on what you want to shoot with it, which you didn't say. If your plans are to never go more than 100 feet from the car, there are lots of cameras and lenses that would fit the bill. If you plan to hike 50 miles into the back country with it, that's a very different kettle of fish. If the camera will sit in the studio and never leave, yet another bunch of options will be good for you.

I'd start with just one lens until you get used to the deal because going up from 4x5 to 8x10 is a quantum shift - once you use 8x10 for a while, 4x5 will feel almost as small and quick and easy to shoot as roll film. Using 1 lens as a guideline, it is very easy to get a good lens for 8x10 for under $500, and the rest of the accessories with the possible exception of the tripod will also fit in that remaining $500. If you don't already have a tripod (and head) designed to handle 8x10 and larger cameras, you will need to get one. Lenses to look for? The "normal" lens for 8x10 is a 300mm. There are scads of small (relatively), light (relatively) 300 mm lenses that cover 8x10 out there. You may be able to find a modern 300mm f5.6 plasmat in that budget, or look around for a slightly slower lens like a Fuji or Nikkor 300mm f8 or f9 (it sounds painful, but the big lenses like that are actually reasonably bright on the ground glass) or a Kodak Commercial Ektar 12" or 14" f6.3.

 

[Richard Raymond]

For that kind of money one can put together a lot of different systems. One could buy a Burke and James or Kodak 2D or similiar 8x10 for under $300USD. A couple of film holders for under $100USD. A 240mm lens for about $400 or less and a 450mm lens for around $600. And finally a box of 8x10 film for under $100 USD. Buying a kit that includes a film holder and a lens or two will bring the cost down. Maybe you should start with just one lens to see how it goes and then add as one goes along (another initial saving).

Ric

 

[Daire Quinlan]

This was my inexpensive entry into 8x10. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dairequinlan/4300741225/

Of course all it did was start to whet my appetite for something a little more ... robust ...
The big expense though seems to be film more than the hardware. The film is (logically I guess) about 4 to 5 times more expensive than 4x5. I was exclusively shooting on paper negs, both B&W and colour.

 

[degruyl]

I was going to suggest a Calumet C-1, which can typically be found for under $300 in good to great condition. They work and are built like tanks.

At the same time, you'd need a tripod, head, filmholders, lenses, lens boards, and whatever filter system you use for those lenses (you are in luck if you already use Cokin or similar). And film. And a darkroom (I don't know any way to develop 8x10 that does not require a darkroom). Can it be done for under $2K? Sure. Absolutely. In fact, I would have used $1K as a lower limit, especially if you already have a darkroom and filters and don't need a $100 dark cloth.

To be honest, the tripod & head was my biggest investment (including individual lenses, not lenses taken as a group).

Buy a 240mm lens which covers 8x10. You can use it on both the 4x5 and 8x10 and won't regret it.

 

[jp498]

I'm happy with 4x5 too, like the OP. I have 8x10 gear too though. I have Burke and James cameras, though Kodak and Calumet are also good common budget options.

Shuttered lenses are commonly $400 and up. Certain lenses are made too long or big for 4x5 and you need a larger camera to mount them and use them, though you can also put a 4x5 back on the 8x10 camera and have the benefit of the smaller cheaper film. My first lens for 8x10 was the practical 300/5.6 plasmat I bought for $300 with a dented filter ring. Overkill for a nice sharp contact print.

My main interest in 8x10 is the lens options. There's lots of cool old lenses that won't fit a graflex. You need that 8x10 with the big lensboard for the packard shutter (budget another $100 for a used packard if you don't get a modern shuttered lens) You can get an old Tessar that will cover 8x10 for $100 sometimes and will make very nice photos; it's not expensive because people who want old lenses want something rare, and it isn't as convenient as newer lenses built for shutters.

Processing involves a darkroom and trays, or the btzs tubes or jobo drums. I do trays, but if I were a high volume users, I would want something mechanized like the Jobo.

I use a surveying tripod which is cheap and good, but not as nice as the ries/berlebach/majestic sort of thing. People like to debate tripods on the lfinfo forum if you want more details about tripod options.

 

[k_jupiter]

You just have to be lucky and keep your eyes open. Three or four years ago I bought a 8x10 Deardorf in excellent shape with two lens (12 in and 190mm Ektars) a 4x5 back, sliders for the backs, case, and a couple of OK film holders for 1500.00. A 175 more for a 5x7 back, 100 for a used heavy duty tripod with a gitzo head. 100 bucks for a CLA on one lens. Pretty much my last Ebay purchase. Nice camera, love the movements, love the quality. You can easily do as well by carefully putting systems together yourself.

tim in san jose

 

[Toffle]

Lots of good suggestions already. Being familiar with 4x5 should give you a very good idea of what to look for in an 8x10. Unless you are looking for "magic bullet" gear, $2000 should give you more than enough for a kit that will not only work, but can deliver the results you are looking for. I don't know what sort of 4x5 you have. If you are coming from a smaller, folding camera, just about anything in 8x10 is going to look and feel huge and unwieldy, whereas a monorail 4x5 already gives you an idea of what it's like to handle a truly large camera in the field.

You are also aware of the presumed trade-off between portability and stability, with the flatbed cameras' reputation for wobbliness as opposed to the precision of a monorail. I say "presumed", as a well-built flatbed trumps a sloppy monorail every time. In my case, I lose on both counts. I have a heavy and wobbly 8x10 monorail. But... it is a joy to use. It suits me, and once I learned its strengths and weaknesses, I found I could make pictures the way I wanted.

With $2000 you have enough for a basic body in good functional condition with enough left over for a really good lens in a reliable shutter. This is the most important part of your kit. My budget was considerably lower than yours and it took me far too long to fit my camera with a lens with adequate coverage.

8x10 is not just big, it is BIG. It is a different kind of beast. If there are errors you have not made on your 4x5, you will discover them sooner or later on your 8x10. It astounds me how I can be so careful with every detail and still screw up a shot because I forget to stop down/close the shutter before pulling the darkslide/calculate reciprocity/add bellows compensaton/add filter factor etc.

Yeah, it's fun. Good luck with your search, and please keep us posted on your progress.

 

[vyshemirsky]

Thanks very much to everyone for your suggestions! I am pretty surprised with what I found. It all looks very tempting now.
I do already have most of the side equipment to work with large format film, so that part is covered. A new tripod is something I didn't consider, but yes, I should think about it too. I am also very envious how much more choice there is in US Ebay compared to the UK one.

 

[Jerevan]

You should also look at ebay.de for cameras, if you don't already do that.

 

[CollinB]

I got both of mine off Craigslist.
You can shop it nationally using the Craigspal application on your pc.
The Eastman 2D cost me $400 and came with its original Protar VII lens.
The Wista 4x5 was a bit more, but came with lenses & other things that I didn't want.
So I sold off most of it and ended up with a nearly-free camera, including backpack.
Be a patient and wise shopper. Bargains appear here and there.

 

[Roger Cole]

What do you plan to do with the negatives? I shoot 4x5 and occasionally have thoughts of 8x10 but enlargers are dauntingly big, often available cheap IF you can manage to get them and install them (not likely) and I'd rather shoot 4x5 that I can easily enlarge than 8x10 that I can only contact print and scan. Lucking into a Zone VI or Beseler enlarger with one of the 8x10 heads might be ideal but they seem pretty rare.

 

[derwent]

I could have bought an 8x10 enlarger the other day at a pro lab closing sale...but the 4x5 I did buy is big enough!!!
8x10 enlargers are BIG...

 

[CollinB]

Here's another consideration, and it goes to Roger's question but with a twist. What *can* you do with the negatives? 8x10 contact prints are nice, but as stated I (like many others) cannot enlarge them. And 8x10 is not the best size for display. 11x14 is much more suitable.
Sometimes I think that, if I were to start over, just a Blad or RB67 plus an 11x14 camera would be the most practical. Enlarge a Blad b&w to 11x14 and a 4x5 and the difference is minimal. No movements on the medium format, but still awfully sharp. 11x14 is to me the perfect format -- it is ready for display. But it is sooooo expensive. And big.
All this to get back to 1 point: 4x5 is *really* the perfect size. You can add roll film for convenience. The negs are easy to enlarge. And you can get really sharp lenses for a modest price.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd dispute the 8x10 contact print size as being not ready for display. I LOVE my whole plate negatives (6.5 x 8.5) matted to 11x14. I'd probably take 8x10 negs up to 12x16 mats to give them a bit more breathing room, but a true 8x10 contact print is a thing of beauty. I like the whole plate size better than 8x10 even because it's big enough to view on a wall OR in the hand, and the camera is small enough to handle and transport easily in the field. I got out of 8x10 because even with the Zone VI weighing in at only 9.8 lbs, it was a size threshold that everything else needed was bigger and heavier, and hauling around 10 8x10 holders plus the bigger tripod, the heavier lenses, and the camera meant that I was using a wheeled dolly instead of a backpack or over-the-shoulder bag. But printing the 8x10 negatives is still a joy, and it's big enough to be seen from across the room but small enough that it encourages people to walk up to it and engage intimately. The 14x17 I shoot is gorgeous, and the prints are mind-blowing, but they're almost into wallpaper territory. They're no longer intimate, which I think loses something.

 

[removed account4]

i agree with theflyingcamera ..

8x10 contact prints display wonderfully well, as do smaller ones ( 6x6, 3x4, 4x5, 5x7 &C )
sometimes photographs that you have to actually look at and be intimate with can be wonderful ..

there are lots of 8x10 cameras available these days for less than 2000$ ..
look for a triple convertible lens ( i have a wollensak 1a ( 13,20,25 ) and it is a beautiful lens
and bought for not toomuch $$$.
the main obstacle with 8x10 is the price of feeding it ... unless you opt to shoot paper negatives
( which i do an awful lot of ) its inexpensive and a lot of fun !

for a nice lens that won't break your budget, look into
one of reinhold's wollaston lenses. they are well made
have a nice signature wide open, and are sharp stopped down.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

have fun !
john

 

[jp498]

Reinholds lens is indeed a good thing to have. I haven't tried it with 8x10, but it's fun with 4x5. It's as fuzzy as his beard wide open, and pretty sharp stopped down. 5.6 is a nice mix of softness. It flares easier than a $1000 lens, but that's acceptable for the cost.

 

[vyshemirsky]

It is all quite tempting, but indeed, I see 4x5 as a more universal format. You still get all of the benefits of using a viewcamera, while having so much more convenience when printing.
My only problem is enlarging negatives for alternative processes, but that step may be much simpler and cheaper than shooting a larger format.

Conclusion: 8x10 is tempting, but I have to wait and see how I feel about it.

 

[Brian Legge]

How quickly does the cost of film/developing/printing exceed the cost of the camera?

 

[X. Phot.]

Since you're still thinking about it. . . nothing says you can't approach 8x10 from the bottom, as I did. Not too many years ago I started with an old rickety 8x10 holder found in an antique store for a buck. A little research and I discovered that a B&L lens from an old Kodak folder covered 8x10. Some pine wood, some basic plans for a bellows, and I was off and running. Over several months I fabricated three 8x10 cameras around that humble combination. Even today I still use the same lens and holders, albeit on a manufactured camera. What can I say . . . I love the look that only an imperfect lens can produce. Of course I have accumulated other items since, but for the most part everything serves double-duty for other formats. . tripods, film, lenses, etc. Most of the adventure is in just getting there. (the voyage)

Besides . . . "You'll never be truly satisfied, 'til you've killed that rat."

 

[k_jupiter]

It is all quite tempting, but indeed, I see 4x5 as a more universal format. You still get all of the benefits of using a viewcamera, while having so much more convenience when printing.
My only problem is enlarging negatives for alternative processes, but that step may be much simpler and cheaper than shooting a larger format.

Conclusion: 8x10 is tempting, but I have to wait and see how I feel about it.

Of course it is your choice and it's good to see someone not running with the herd but...

There is a measurable difference between 4x5 blown up and 8x10 contact prints. Flying Camera had it pretty much nailed. 8x10 prints are displayable but hand held, examining the print (which you will want to do) reveals all the intimate details that film can produce. There is a living depth to the image that isn't apparent in 4x5 enlarged.

Shoot a nice 50-100 speed B&W film in 8x10 and you will think you have walked into the scene. Literally walked in.

Best of luck. Get your 4x5 because you will then use it. Nothing is worse than an 8x10 sitting in the closet.

tim in san jose