Please help, I can't decide! 7x17 or 8x20

[Richard Wasserman]

To make a long story short I am planning on modifying an 8x10 Sinar P to use either 7x17 or 8x20 film. I originally was going to do this work myself, but my life is going to be a bit complicated for a while so I am having Richrd Ritter do it for me. I spoke to him today and he had a number of good ideas, including an easy way to shoot verticals, but of course he could not choose a size for me. A couple years or so ago I did shoot 8x20 with a wobbly Korona. I never got comfortable with the camera and gave it up. Using 8x20 everything seemed BIG and cumbersome, but I loved the prints when everything worked properly. My question I guess is: in practice how much smaller is 7x17 than 8x20. Are the prints large enough to view from a bit of a distance or are they best close up? The numbers don't sound too different, but in reality are they? Am I making sense? I did cut paper in both sizes to compare and 7x17 did look a lot smaller to me-help I'm so confused!!! I have a lot more experience now with large format, including 8x10 than I did when I last tried 8x20 and I'm thinking that will help. I'm sorry for rambling, but it does reflect my state of mind. Should I mention that there is a little voice in the back of my head saying just go to 12x20 and get it over with? All advice and opinions are welcome.

On a related note, Richard Ritter told me that he is workking on 7x17 and 8x20 cameras that weigh less than 10 pounds and should sell for less than $3000.00. I think he will start building them shortly.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Jorge]

12x20.....

 

[Oren Grad]

To me they're qualitatively different - 7x17 is more of an intimate view, something you can hold in your hand, while 8x20 is BIG, and really wants to be on a wall.

Practical considerations: Taking into consideration lenses and holders as well as camera, 8x20 is, of course, more bulk and weight to lug around. Also, there are many more lenses that will cover 7x17 comfortably than will cover 8x20.

I think 12x20 is in many ways a more comfortable proportion for most pictures than the very elongated 7x17 and 8x20, but it's way more than I can handle. 7x11 is a very nice alternative.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

7x17" cameras seem very portable and less of an ordeal to carry around. Lois Connor strapped hers to the back of her bicycle in China. It seems like a format that can go anywhere.

8x20" seems like it would be a great format for full-length portraits. I think of it as the Whistler format.

I'm kind of always on the lookout for the right deal on a 7x17" outfit. Still haven't found it yet.

 

[sanking]

OK, everybody has an opinion on this.

I have 7X17 and 12X20 cameras, both of the same make, and a home-made back that allows use of 8X20 film. The 12X20 is a *grand* format but the camera and a few holders take up a lot of room, and this is not a camera you can backpack easily. 7X17 and 8X20 have almost the same aspect ratio, but a 7X17 camera and holders is really much easier to port and use when compared to the 8X20. In fact, if you are still young and reasonably healthy you could backpack a 7X17 outfit for a few miles and survive. You won't be able to do that with either an 8X20 or 12X20.

Course, if you are working out of the back of the car or SUV, weight is not really much of a consideration.

Having said all of that, my favorite format is the 7X17.

Sandy

To make a long story short I am planning on modifying an 8x10 Sinar P to use either 7x17 or 8x20 film. I originally was going to do this work myself, but my life is going to be a bit complicated for a while so I am having Richrd Ritter do it for me. I spoke to him today and he had a number of good ideas, including an easy way to shoot verticals, but of course he could not choose a size for me. A couple years or so ago I did shoot 8x20 with a wobbly Korona. I never got comfortable with the camera and gave it up. Using 8x20 everything seemed BIG and cumbersome, but I loved the prints when everything worked properly. My question I guess is: in practice how much smaller is 7x17 than 8x20. Are the prints large enough to view from a bit of a distance or are they best close up? The numbers don't sound too different, but in reality are they? Am I making sense? I did cut paper in both sizes to compare and 7x17 did look a lot smaller to me-help I'm so confused!!! I have a lot more experience now with large format, including 8x10 than I did when I last tried 8x20 and I'm thinking that will help. I'm sorry for rambling, but it does reflect my state of mind. Should I mention that there is a little voice in the back of my head saying just go to 12x20 and get it over with? All advice and opinions are welcome.

On a related note, Richard Ritter told me that he is workking on 7x17 and 8x20 cameras that weigh less than 10 pounds and should sell for less than $3000.00. I think he will start building them shortly.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far. Weight is not really much of an issue for this camera. I am not young (55) but will be working near a vehicle most of the time. I am going to use this camera primarily in the city and if I have to go very far from the car will use a Sherpa Cart to transport my gear. The 12x20 proportion seems to be whispering in my ear a bit more loudly tonight-can anyone recommend a slightly wide lens for it? Thanks again.

Richard

 

[Donald Miller]

355 G Claron...I used a 450 Nikkor M on mine...it was about the same as a 210 on 8X10

12X20 is a big step up...I am older then you and got away from 12X20 after about a year.

 

[sanking]

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far. Weight is not really much of an issue for this camera. I am not young (55) but will be working near a vehicle most of the time. I am going to use this camera primarily in the city and if I have to go very far from the car will use a Sherpa Cart to transport my gear. The 12x20 proportion seems to be whispering in my ear a bit more loudly tonight-can anyone recommend a slightly wide lens for it? Thanks again.

Richard

For moderate wide angle on 12X20 try the 270mm or 300mm Computar, if you can fine one. The 270mm just barely covers, the 300mm gives about two inches of movement. But these lenses have become very pricey recently, ($1800+ for the 300mm).

The 355mm G-Claron also covers ($600-$800 dollars) , but offers less movement than the 300mm Computar. Also, the old 355 f/5.6 Schneider Symmar convertible also covers 12X20 as well as the G-Claron and is seen often at bargain prices ($400-500).

Sandy

 

[scootermm]

I also love 7x17. I built an 8x20 pinhole at first and after seeing the negatives from each (just from proportion wise) I much prefer the 7x17 format over the 8x20.

in my mind 8x10, 7x17, and 12x20 cameras would make for a very nice and well rounded trunk filler

the 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar covers the 7x17 format fairly well... not alot of movement but plenty for modest movements and to second what sandy said, the 355 G claron is a nice lens all around (even when its not in a shutter)

might be best to make some 7x17 and 8x20 enlargements and just use those to sort of look at the proportions and see how each works for you.

 

[jimgalli]

I have 717, 820 and 1220. The 12X20 is the only one I haven't fallen in love with yet. Part of the problem is I haven't gotten a good neg from it yet. (Dave is grinding me a new GG for it as we speak.) It is just overwhelmingly large. I'm 53 but age hasn't become my issue yet. I had the 12X20 with me last Labor Day and saw a shot to play with. It was only an 1/8th mile from the pickup....but everything is so big, it took 3 trips to get everything I needed in place. With 7X17 it would have only been 1 trip. There is a difference. The 717 doesn't really take any more huff and puff than the Deardorff 8X10. I think of them as equivalents as far as logistics. The 820, though it doesn't sound much bigger, it really is an entire magnitude bigger. It's equivalent to hauling the 11X14 around. I enjoy the 8X20 and have gotten some very nice negs from it this year. Verticals. I feel like the 8X20 (It's also a wobbly old Korona) would tear itself to pieces if I tried it. The 12X20 seems like it will tear itself to pieces doing horizontals. There's just not much wood for all that real estate of bellows and glass. Ahhh, the 7X17, I stand at about 50-50 with it as far as verticals and horizontals. I don't hesitate to tip it on it's side. It truely is a joy to use. If you're going to do Empire State Building shots where you want vertical with lots of rise (like how are you going to accomplish that sideways) the 8X20 will only aggravate the coverage issues. Just a few thoughts.

 

[David]

Several years ago I modified a Sinar P to hold my wobbly 8x20 Korona as you are envisioning and I haven't looked back. It is a great combination in every way. I don't think I'd go larger than 8x20 on a Sinar P base as it is getting to the limits of stresses it could hold. There are some pictures of it on the Mamut site should you be interested. And...verticals are a piece of cake as the entire camera rotates on the rail making small but sure work of the orientation.

 

[Jimmy Peguet]

I have some 8x20 prints hung on the wall, and use 7x17 myself. I like the 8x20s, in fact I think I prefer the format, but I don't see a really big difference, 7x17 is only a bit more smaller and more intimate, and it's easier to work in the darkroom. When I bought my 7x17, I wondered which format I was going to choose. I had lenses to cover the formats, that was not an issue. 7x17 is lighter and less cumbersome of course (I now carry easily the camera in Scooterm's Mountainsmith backpack, good and not-too-expensive bag, with only 30$ shipping to France . A good reason to choose 7x17 is that I can process the film in 40X50 (16x20") trays and use smaller trays for my pd prints. It makes a difference because of my small darkroom. Another good reason is that I know more people using 7x17, it could be easier to share an order.

Jimmy

 

[vet173]

After looking thru Sandys 12x20 last summer, I have nothing but lust for that camera. After this thread though, I am going to have to give some more thought to 7x17

 

[Dave Wooten]

I ll put in a vote for the 7 x 17, not a problem to pack even for an apprentice geezer, however, I have not used the 8 x 20 and I certainly do like Michael Smiths compositions, my 7 x 17 weighs just about the same as my Wista 8 x 10. I do like the "look" and proportion of the 17.....if weight was not a factor and I was wanting to move larger and was resigned to the added suffering, I would just go to the 12 x 20, take a look at Dick Arentz's 12 x 20 photographs, I have been priviledged to see them up close and on the table at his home, incredible....

Lenses - Pretty much if a lense covers 11 x 14 it will be ok for 7 x 17

Also run the numbers for cost of say 200 sheets of film ( for the learning curve) exposing developing printing, and take a look at the bottom line number comparisons, might help you make your decision.....

welcome to the Circle of Insanity

Dave in Vegas

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One attraction of 8x20" is that you could crop to 4x20" and not waste as much film as Art Sinsabaugh did with his 12x20" camera.

 

[George Losse]

A while back this same kind of question came up on another forum. I don't remember who, but someone had a great idea. Through a negative into the enlarger and Make some quick prints to 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20. See which print looks right for your way of working. Then think about what is the best camera for that format.

I had a wobbly old Korona to start with in 8x20 and it almost made me give up the format. A couple of years later, I got a conversion back for my 8x10 to make it an 8x20 and that camera is a completely different experience.

 

[Jorge]

Several years ago I modified a Sinar P to hold my wobbly 8x20 Korona as you are envisioning and I haven't looked back. It is a great combination in every way. I don't think I'd go larger than 8x20 on a Sinar P base as it is getting to the limits of stresses it could hold. There are some pictures of it on the Mamut site should you be interested. And...verticals are a piece of cake as the entire camera rotates on the rail making small but sure work of the orientation.

What do you mean by the stresses it could hold? I am planning on modifying it to hold 12x20 and in fact I am using your pictures as guide... Seems to me the rail should be able to hold the weight, what would be the problem?

 

[Allen Friday]

You might take a look at your darkroom and figure how much you will need to expand it for each format. In my case, the print washer and trays I was using were adequate for 7x17, but I had to get new trays etc. when I moved to the 12x20 format.

Also, you might consider how images of different size work together. Personally, I think 8x10, 11x14 and 7x17 compliment each other while 8x20 seems out of scale with the smaller formats, but it works very well with 16x20, 14x17 et al.

Allen

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Thanks again to everyone for your great ideas and suggestions especially to David for suggesting 8x20 as being more economical than 12x20 when cropped. You made my day! After giving all this a lot of thought I am leaning heavily towards building a 12x20 camera as I find the shape much more appealing than the other sizes. If I was to listen to reason I would go with 7x17, but I'm not sure that this is an area where reason applies. The little voice is saying "it's a beautiful proportion and size, and if you don't do it now when will you?" So, if I don't have a flight into sanity in the next few days it's going to be 12x20. Thanks again to all who replied.

Richard

 

[sanking]

Is Wilmette, Illinois a large city? If not, strange things going on there as I just sent out the first three of our new 12X20 walnut holders to someone in your town.

Sandy

Thanks again to everyone for your great ideas and suggestions especially to David for suggesting 8x20 as being more economical than 12x20 when cropped. You made my day! After giving all this a lot of thought I am leaning heavily towards building a 12x20 camera as I find the shape much more appealing than the other sizes. If I was to listen to reason I would go with 7x17, but I'm not sure that this is an area where reason applies. The little voice is saying "it's a beautiful proportion and size, and if you don't do it now when will you?" So, if I don't have a flight into sanity in the next few days it's going to be 12x20. Thanks again to all who replied.

Richard

 

[Dave Wooten]

must be a convention

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Sandy,
Wilmette is a suburb north of Chicago with a population of about 27,000. Could you send me the name of the person who bought the holders- privately of course? I didn't know that there was anyone here using ULF and I'd like to contact them. Maybe there's something in the water.... Thanks

Richard

 

[David]

stress

What do you mean by the stresses it could hold? I am planning on modifying it to hold 12x20 and in fact I am using your pictures as guide... Seems to me the rail should be able to hold the weight, what would be the problem?

You're right, you could do chin-ups on the rail. I was referring to the standard itself (the part that does all the movements). If used carefully it would probably hold up (be sure to get the 8x10, not 4x5 standard) but depending on the sideways pressures such as when inserting a filmholder or removing a balky darkslide you just have to treat the things carefully. Since the 12x20 is 50% larger than an 8x20 I thought it might be gtting to the practical limits. I don't speak from experience. The Sinar P handles the 8x20 and an 11x14 with aplomb.

 

[sanking]

Richard,

PM sent.

Sandy

Sandy,
Wilmette is a suburb north of Chicago with a population of about 27,000. Could you send me the name of the person who bought the holders- privately of course? I didn't know that there was anyone here using ULF and I'd like to contact them. Maybe there's something in the water.... Thanks

Richard

 

[Jorge]

You're right, you could do chin-ups on the rail. I was referring to the standard itself (the part that does all the movements). If used carefully it would probably hold up (be sure to get the 8x10, not 4x5 standard) but depending on the sideways pressures such as when inserting a filmholder or removing a balky darkslide you just have to treat the things carefully. Since the 12x20 is 50% larger than an 8x20 I thought it might be gtting to the practical limits. I don't speak from experience. The Sinar P handles the 8x20 and an 11x14 with aplomb.

Thanks David, I bought the 8x10 P so all I have to do is modify the back and add some extension to the front standard, heck the camera was a beat up and I paid only $450, so I have nothing to loose at this time...