Trying to get into 8x10 from 4x5..

[xkaes]

If you are only scanning the 8x10 neg, really you won't see much difference between that and 4x5, except for cost.

The truth, the hard truth, and nothing but the hard truth.

 

[Vaughn]

If you pay a good price of any 8x10 equipment, you should be able to recoup a good portion of it if you decide the format is not for you, or if you want to up-grade (or down-grade equipment. One or two lenses is all one needs for 8x10 for long while.

For alt printing direct from negatives, 8x10 is a great size. Actually so is 5x7. Holding a 5x7 alt print can be magical. 4x5 is okay, but composing is tough for such a small image size and still have the image sing.

Just stay away from TMax 100 film if directly printing from negatives -- its anti-UV layer makes printing times veeeerrrrrrry long (TMax400 is fine).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Having done a lot of work in both formats, there are logistical pros and cons either way. But simply composing with the bigger opalescent image on an 8x10 ground glass has a thrill to it, and might make you even more contemplative than when working with 4x5. The somewhat more stringent depth of field management strategies also set 8x10 apart. I personally enjoy those kinds of challenges. And that extra special something in prints can be especially rewarding. But if you're just going to scan the results, what's the point in upsizing?

Logistically, more bulk and weight, and higher film expense per sheet. Unless you're rich, you learn not to waste film. Lens-wise, it's not going to cost anymore. There are plenty of affordable, even lightweight, lenses appropriate for 8x10 work.

 

[mshchem]

Deardorff V8, 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5 backs

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I’ve had Dearforff (in very good condition), Canham and Lotus. The Lotus is definitely the sturdiest and best built of the 3, almost a luxury item compared to the others. You can also buy it with a fresnel screen, which now is a non-negotiable must for me. The Canham is the lightest, but I prefer a solid build to lighter but flimsier. The Lotus is about the same weight as the deardorff, but the latter is much bouncier and jiggles all over the place.

The only minus to the Lotus is that it doesn’t fold as flat as the other cameras, but again it’s much more solid and the movements are easier to use. The front rise and tilt are separated as well. I do wish it didn’t have canvas bellows though.

For me, I skipped 4x5 and went straight to 8x10. If the view process is going to be slow and clunky anyway, why settle for its smallest negative? Provided you’re reasonably sturdy yourself.

J

 

[diawjddnr1]

I’ve had Dearforff (in very good condition), Canham and Lotus. The Lotus is definitely the sturdiest and best built of the 3, almost a luxury item compared to the others. You can also buy it with a fresnel screen, which now is a non-negotiable must for me. The Canham is the lightest, but I prefer a solid build to lighter but flimsier. The Lotus is about the same weight as the deardorff, but the latter is much bouncier and jiggles all over the place.

The only minus to the Lotus is that it doesn’t fold as flat as the other cameras, but again it’s much more solid and the movements are easier to use. The front rise and tilt are separated as well. I do wish it didn’t have canvas bellows though.

For me, I skipped 4x5 and went straight to 8x10. If the view process is going to be slow and clunky anyway, why settle for its smallest negative? Provided you’re reasonably sturdy yourself.

J

thanks! excited to start 8x10,, hahahaha

 

[OrientPoint]

The Intrepid 8x10 may not be the most durable option, but it's light, small (for an 8x10) and about 1/8th the price of a Chamonix last time I looked. I can fit an Intrepid, a light tripod and a few holders in my bicycle basket. Lens, dark-cloth, light meter and loupe go in a knapsack. For this format, I don't think you can get any more portable. And if/when I manage to destroy the camera, I still have funds for 7 more

 

[DREW WILEY]

I bought a serial no. 9 Phillips Compact 8x10 back when it was considered an odd ugly duckling entry level, highly affordable 8x10 option. Now they sell for five times as much as what I paid, if one can find one. Mine just keeps going.
The Chamonix is the closest thing to that being made today, functionally, but prettier.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I’ve had Dearforff (in very good condition), Canham and Lotus. The Lotus is definitely the sturdiest and best built of the 3, almost a luxury item compared to the others. You can also buy it with a fresnel screen, which now is a non-negotiable must for me. The Canham is the lightest, but I prefer a solid build to lighter but flimsier. The Lotus is about the same weight as the deardorff, but the latter is much bouncier and jiggles all over the place.

The only minus to the Lotus is that it doesn’t fold as flat as the other cameras, but again it’s much more solid and the movements are easier to use. The front rise and tilt are separated as well. I do wish it didn’t have canvas bellows though.

For me, I skipped 4x5 and went straight to 8x10. If the view process is going to be slow and clunky anyway, why settle for its smallest negative? Provided you’re reasonably sturdy yourself.

J

Being a Canham fanboy, take this with a grain of salt, but while you can criticize the cameras for various things, I don't think the word "flimsy" applies at all. I've shot Canhams in various sizes from 5x7 to 14x17, and I've hauled mine around the US and to Argentina and Mexico. They have not let me down once. Yes, they can be a little springy when you insert your film holder in the back if you have the bellows at significant extension, but if you wait just a couple of seconds, they settle right down where they're supposed to be. I've never had a loss of focus from it. But that's true of many cameras - rack the bellows out and put the rear standard at a far remove from the tripod mount/base plate and they'll jiggle when inserting a film holder too.

I don't doubt your assessment of the Lotus- I haven't ever had the pleasure of using one but I've heard nothing but good things about them. They may be more affordable in Europe, but here in the States they're quite rare and the prices have never been a bargain. At 8x10, I agree, the weight difference isn't a huge issue - that wouldn't sway me significantly between a Lotus and a Canham. What would sway me (and has swayed me, beyond the cost difference) is customer service. I can pick up the phone and call Keith and talk directly to him and get support if I have an issue. And his warranty is second to none - when I bought my first Canham, a 5x7, I got it used. It has a very low serial number - under 100, so it was an early production model. I was probably the third or fourth owner of the camera. The early models did have a design flaw in the back, and my back broke before I was going to take it to Argentina. Keith shipped me a new back with the redesigned feature that solved the problem with the sole requirement being that when I got back from Argentina, I should ship him the broken one in the box the new one arrived in.

Later on, I wanted to use a soft focus portrait lens on the camera, but the flange for the lens was bigger than a Linhof Technica board would fit. I called Keith, we discussed solutions, and the Toyo 110mm boards would handle the lens, so he sent me a replacement front standard that was made to take the Toyo boards. I had to pay for that one, but he got it out the door the next day, before he left on vacation, and I had it in my hands two days later. There's tremendous value in customer service like that. Knowing I can call him on the phone and ask him a question, or discuss a customization, or order parts, that has significant value. I don't know that that would be true for Lotus, certainly not from here in the US where they are a good six hours plus ahead.

 

[diawjddnr1]

Being a Canham fanboy, take this with a grain of salt, but while you can criticize the cameras for various things, I don't think the word "flimsy" applies at all. I've shot Canhams in various sizes from 5x7 to 14x17, and I've hauled mine around the US and to Argentina and Mexico. They have not let me down once. Yes, they can be a little springy when you insert your film holder in the back if you have the bellows at significant extension, but if you wait just a couple of seconds, they settle right down where they're supposed to be. I've never had a loss of focus from it. But that's true of many cameras - rack the bellows out and put the rear standard at a far remove from the tripod mount/base plate and they'll jiggle when inserting a film holder too.

I don't doubt your assessment of the Lotus- I haven't ever had the pleasure of using one but I've heard nothing but good things about them. They may be more affordable in Europe, but here in the States they're quite rare and the prices have never been a bargain. At 8x10, I agree, the weight difference isn't a huge issue - that wouldn't sway me significantly between a Lotus and a Canham. What would sway me (and has swayed me, beyond the cost difference) is customer service. I can pick up the phone and call Keith and talk directly to him and get support if I have an issue. And his warranty is second to none - when I bought my first Canham, a 5x7, I got it used. It has a very low serial number - under 100, so it was an early production model. I was probably the third or fourth owner of the camera. The early models did have a design flaw in the back, and my back broke before I was going to take it to Argentina. Keith shipped me a new back with the redesigned feature that solved the problem with the sole requirement being that when I got back from Argentina, I should ship him the broken one in the box the new one arrived in.

Later on, I wanted to use a soft focus portrait lens on the camera, but the flange for the lens was bigger than a Linhof Technica board would fit. I called Keith, we discussed solutions, and the Toyo 110mm boards would handle the lens, so he sent me a replacement front standard that was made to take the Toyo boards. I had to pay for that one, but he got it out the door the next day, before he left on vacation, and I had it in my hands two days later. There's tremendous value in customer service like that. Knowing I can call him on the phone and ask him a question, or discuss a customization, or order parts, that has significant value. I don't know that that would be true for Lotus, certainly not from here in the US where they are a good six hours plus ahead.

I would love to have canham wood camera; but it seems like discontinued at the moment and not sure where to get second hand...

 

[MTGseattle]

For Sale - K.B. Canham wood & metal 8x10 in as new condition.

I picked this baby up 2 years ago at Mr. Canham's place close to Phoenix and have used it lightly (2 trips) up to a few months back when nature caught up with me and I realized I better avoid lonely hikes with heavy equipment. All data about it is to be found here...

www.photrio.com

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I would love to have canham wood camera; but it seems like discontinued at the moment and not sure where to get second hand...

There are often one or two for sale on Ebay. I would pick one up if you can - I love mine so much I have four of them (in different formats).

 

[Neil Poulsen]

After having several 8x10 cameras and the 8x10, VC head for my Zone VI Type II enlarger, I FINALLY realized that, I'm just a 4x5 type guy. That and MF are my favorite formats. For one thing, I rarely print above 8x10 paper size, so I don't need the larger negative.

It was fun having some of those 8x10 cameras, because I proffered up some really neat enhancements to a few of them. For me, that's part of the hobby, optimizing equipment.

But, I recently shed myself of all that equipment, including the 8x10 Zone VI head. I still have on 8x10 camera to sell. Soon, it will be Gone. Gone. Gone. Gone.

 

[jimgalli]

Having been an 8X10 shooter now for a quarter of a century, I don't understand why people inflict a huge self limitation on themselves by the "must have" new modern camera. If you flip through Shorpy dot com ask yourself, how did the guys a century ago possibly make all those incredible 8X10 images without a KB Canham or Chamonix or Alpa Swiss camera? They must have been a race of super humans. Dinosaurs that roamed the earth with wooden drop bed cameras. WE couldn't possible achieve what they did. With better film and other things.

I began 810 with a Deardorff which is arguably a bridge camera to modern cameras. But then I went backwards and landed at the ubiquitous Kodak 2D. The reason may be one you would never share, I enjoy big heavy antique lenses that have a non modern signature, and the Kodak has a front standard that can bear up under the weight. But what I learned in the process is that these old dropbed cameras that no one in the "camera club" here thinks is viable are cheap and wondrous as to their capacity to make all those images you see from 100 years ago right up through the "California Ansel Adams / Edward Weston F64" era.

My 4X5 system is Chamonix, so I DO live in both worlds. Yet most of the 4X5's laying around get shot with an old Speed Graphic with a curtain shutter.

You guys who live on this site can poo poo me, but to the OP, don't rule out the cheap old cameras that got all those amazing images done a century ago. 8X10 doesn't have to be expensive. An old Kodak 2D with a 240mm G-Claron lens is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Jim Jones]

Yes, indeed! My first LF camera was a 4x5 Newton New-Vue in the 1970s. Many decades and several cameras later my cameras are still more capable than me.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

It all depends on one's value set. I'm going in the opposite direction.

I've had several 8x10 cameras, including Sinar, quite a nice Deardorff, and Arca Swiss (older style). For years, I had a nice 8x10 Zone VI enlarger, which I hardly ever used. Besides, film and lenses are expensive and cumbersome to work with.

But quite frankly, I'm a 4x5 person and MF person, and that's that!

 

[Kino]

Personally, I find my 1909 Gunlach Korona Whole Plate camera relatively easy to transport and shoot with than my Calumet C1 8x10. Yeah, it's unfair to compare a wooden field camera to a metal studio camera, but that's what I wound-up with, so that's my experience.

I just HAD to have an 8x10, but now think I don't miss those small slivers of film from the cut-down 8x10 as much as I thought I would.

For now, the C1 remains indoors or for very accessible roadside images and the WP can pack about anywhere a 4x5 camera can at about the same effort.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As a hiker and backpacker, I am indeed appreciative of the newer design 8x10 folders which put an emphasis on lighter weight, yet without compromising rigidity.

 

[xya]

I've come to 8x10 a different way. Shooting 4x5, I bought a Rittreck 5x7 with a full 4x5 equipment. I was surprised how small it is, hardly bigger than my Graflexes and certainly much lighter than my Linhof.

When I wanted 8x10, it was for the Polaroid 8x10 instant film. So I found out that there was a light 8x10 back made of plywood for my Rittreck. Nearly no movements, but it worked. Enough bellow length for standard and very moderate wide. So for very little money that got me going.

8x10 Polaroid is scarce now, hard to get and very expensive. So I still have the gear, but I don't use it. I tend to leave the scanning and enlargement work for my few nice 4x5 shots to professionals.

 

[Pioneer]

Careful. Someone will give you an old 11x14 field camera and suddenly you will find out that 8x10 is not nearly as expensive as everyone thinks!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the older cameras. Buy one if you can. I have two of them that are nice but I am now seriously considering buying an Intrepid. The older I get the more I appreciate lighter weight especially when I am trying to climb up onto some ridge here in the Rubies or any other part of Nevada with all that gear on my back.

No matter what camera you decide to buy or use, do yourself a huge favor and buy a seriously heavy duty tripod. A light camera can work just fine if you have a solid support. You can get away with a much lighter tripod with 4x5 but don't make that mistake when you start working with 8x10.

The best money I ever spent for my 8x10 photography was on a carbon fiber Gitzo tripod with leveling base and Majestic geared tripod head. It was expensive but I have never regretted it. I use a nice ball head with my 4x5 and whole plate cameras but it only took a couple of trips with my first 8x10 for me to decide to buy that Majestic head to go with the tripod. Even if I buy that Intrepid camera I will still keep using this tripod and head.

 

[Ai Print]

If I were to do 8x10 over again, I would get a Chamonix Alpinist. But I won't do it over again because I have no way to enlarge it, don't want to go through the process of locating a top quality 8x10 enlarger and get great images from 4x5. 8x10 works for some people but did not for me as I am all about the resulting impact of the image and for me, 4x5 is far easier to accomplish that with, especially when hauling it up into the high country.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's not so much the weight of the camera as the difference in the cumulative weight of the film holders. And you need a more solid tripod too. For twenty years I took almost exclusively a Sinar 4x5 system on my many backpacking trips. My Phillips 8x10 folder actually weighs a bit less, but needs a significantly more rigid tripod.

But now in my mid-70's, I'm glad I also acquired a nice little Ebony 4X5 folder too. On long-haul treks in the mountains, I often combined that with 6x9 roll film backs. One can also tote just a few full 4x5 holders if they wish, in case you run into some subject especially deserving a big enlargement.

 

[Wyno]

I have recently bought a new Stenopeika 4x5 camera to replace my Tachihara triple extension 8x10 as I am finding it too heavy for me to do long hikes with.
****{Moderator's deletion of "For Sale" offer - we require that offers for sale be limited to threads started by paid subscribers, and only in the Classifieds.}