Wanting to try 5 x 4 large format

[Chrishuddersfield]

Hello all,

I’ve just finished my first year at uni (part time).
For much of the course I’ve been specialising (well trying..) in analog/darkroom and most of my photos were taken with the Mamiya 7ii, which I have been very impressed with, apart from the focusing which proved difficult.

I’ve posted many questions here over the last year and the feedback and help has been great, so thanks to everyone that helped me out there. Appreciated.

For my second year I’m wanting to migrate( or try) to 5x4” large format and I’m considering purchasing an intrepid camera when I’m more flush.

Does any one have experience with the format ?
Is it worth trying? In terms of description is it a big leap from 7x6? I’ve not yet witnessed anything yet ( in the physical) with large format, however some people on the course said it’s amazing. I gather it will be better in terms of quality, but what about the latitude? I remember when I migrated from 35mm to 7x6 and I was very impressed by medium format and the description/tonality etc. What are the pros and cons? Any advice, information, experiences would be appreciated.

Thanks

Chris

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I would suggest LF forum

Large Format Photography Forum

A discussion forum on large format phtography http://largeformatphotography.info

www.largeformatphotography.info

They may be able to provide a lot of ensight from them. Lot of kind and helping people there.

Format is quite different from 6x7. Won't say it is amazing but definetly different. Perhaps the most sigficant difference is the image taking process. If rangefinder focusing was difficult, perhaps focusing a view camera will take some time adjusting. Each image will take more planning and thinking.

Camera movements is the big plus of the view camera so I suggest delving into camera movements to see what you can use them for.

Cameras like the Intrepid are great to use. They are quite portable. Construction quality is great.

Don't disregard monorails. They aren't as portable but great to use as well. Also, I own a Horseman 720 camera which give you the LF experience on a smaller format.


Hope you enjoy your LF trip.


Marcelo

 

[awty]

Of bigger is better film image (pending on lens), its also more expensive, time consuming, more cubism, longer learning curve.
If you have the time and money to dedicate to it, then do so, if not stick with what you have. You already have a very desirable camera, get more lens, film and go using. All the gear wont make your pictures any better if you dont put in a huge amount of work.

 

[FotoD]

If I started over today I would:
- Go straight to 5x7. This is the goldilocks format IMO; good for contact printing and alternative processes, portable and not too expensive. And you can find enlargers that aren't huge.
- Get one fast normal lens with a decent shutter and stick to it. Get a coated f/5.6 plasmat if you like contrasty and everything in focus. Or an older f/4.5 Heliar / Xenar if you like gentler contrast and smooth backgrounds.

To me 4x5 is like medium format but slightly larger. You pretty much need to enlarge it to make a print. I'm not sure you would see a lot of difference from your 6x7 images. Maybe if you'll use a lot of movements.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Of bigger is better film image (pending on lens), its also more expensive, time consuming, more cubism, longer learning curve.
If you have the time and money to dedicate to it, then do so, if not stick with what you have. You already have a very desirable camera, get more lens, film and go using. All the gear wont make your pictures any better if you dont put in a huge amount of work.

Agree on time consuming. You need to make every shot count since it a)more expensive that 35mm/120 and b) Too much time invested on every picture.

You can get by with LF with one or two lenses (probably a "normal" 150 and a wide angle like a 75-90). and get very decent results.

Also, forget about street phography

 

[gone]

Everything is much bigger, heavier, more expensive and slower to shoot once you get to 4x5. As to whether the pics would be better, that depends on your expectations. The tonality will be smoother, but keep in mind that 35mm and MF lenses are about sharpness, while LF is more about coverage. So the pics won't be as sharp, all things being equal, but the tonality and grain will be smoother.

If I wanted to ck out LF I would go straight to 8x10. Things get pricey and big at that size, but you can contact print the negs. Have you ever priced the enlargers and lenses one would need to print 4x5 negs? Whoa, not cheap.

 

[McDiesel]

How to evaluate large format lenses? Due to the smaller LF userbase, online information is not as rich. Google any 35mm lens from any major manufacturer and you get samples, MTF curves, etc. Large format lenses are more mysterious to me. Some are $300 while others are over $1K and no easy way to tell why. Just like the OP I am toying with the idea, and it's not clear what to look for when browsing this page.

Some descriptions describe the image circle ("covers 5x7") while others do not. Does this mean the lens covers 8x10? If there the default image circle they all have?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Consider a 4"x5" press camera which will let you shoot hand held and still has limited movements. Look at graflex.org in the forum and informational pages.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Also, lens trademarks like Calumet Caltar relied on different manufacturers and sometims is confusing what lens are you getting.

On the other hand, on LF there are other factors that affect image quality besides lens, Movements, perspective, film and developer, etc. plays bigger role than lens. Like stated before, there is other factors besided sharpness that goes into a LF lens design.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

How to evaluate large format lenses? Due to the smaller LF userbase, online information is not as rich. Google any 35mm lens from any major manufacturer and you get samples, MTF curves, etc. Large format lenses are more mysterious to me. Some are $300 while others are over $1K and no easy way to tell why. Just like the OP I am toying with the idea, and it's not clear what to look for when browsing this page.

Some descriptions describe the image circle ("covers 5x7") while others do not. Does this mean the lens covers 8x10? If there the default image circle they all have?

Take a look at :

lenses for 4x5 in

lenses for 5x7 in

lenses for 8x10 in

Large-Format Lens Specifications

www.graflex.org

 

[Craig]

If you're at university, see if there are cameras you can rent. I did that when I was in university the communications and media department had various audio/visual equipment available for rent to students and faculity at very reasonable prices. Might be worth getting a camera for a weekend and try it out without having to buy anything.

That being said, I'd rather master B&W with your Mamiya first before going to a larger format. Large format is expensive, and there are far more ways to screw it up than with medium format.

 

[Craig]

If I wanted to ck out LF I would go straight to 8x10. Things get pricey and big at that size, but you can contact print the negs. Have you ever priced the enlargers and lenses one would need to print 4x5 negs? Whoa, not cheap.

Depends on where your are. I've had 4x5 enlargers given to me, and the lenses are not that bad to obtain.

I have both 8x10 and 4x5 cameras and I actually prefer 4x5. The film is cheaper, the camera is much lighter and easier to transport. I find the phrase "if it's more than 100 feet from the car, it's not photogenic" really applies to 8x10.

I also find contact prints are not that impressive in 8x10, I'd rather shoot 4x5 and enlarge to whatever I want.

 

[awty]

Cameras are all about the lens and you need to spend up big to better a Mamiya 7 ii lens.

 

[btaylor]

How to evaluate large format lenses? Due to the smaller LF userbase, online information is not as rich. Google any 35mm lens from any major manufacturer and you get samples, MTF curves, etc. Large format lenses are more mysterious to me. Some are $300 while others are over $1K and no easy way to tell why. Just like the OP I am toying with the idea, and it's not clear what to look for when browsing this page.

Some descriptions describe the image circle ("covers 5x7") while others do not. Does this mean the lens covers 8x10? If there the default image circle they all have?

Oy. Catlabs, yes confusing. I encourage you to head over to the Large Format Photography Forum “info” page. There is lots of lens information there that is easy to digest. MTF curves and such that have meaning in smaller formats are not that relevant to LF. The differences between modern lenses are not very significant. $200 should get you a nice, sharp, normal or wide angle lens for 4x5 in shutter. I like the look of older lenses, they can be even less expensive but I would not consider them lesser- as Bernice at LFPF often says, start with your image goals first, then select equipment to get you there.
If you don’t mind older gear a Calumet or Graflex Graphic View monorail would get you started cheap. I collected a couple of Linhof Kardans for a couple hundred $, the build quality would be far superior to an Intrepid.

 

[Oren Grad]

I’ve just finished my first year at uni (part time).
For much of the course I’ve been specialising (well trying..) in analog/darkroom and most of my photos were taken with the Mamiya 7ii, which I have been very impressed with, apart from the focusing which proved difficult.
...

Is it worth trying? In terms of description is it a big leap from 7x6?

As usual, it depends.
What film are you using?
How big are you enlarging?
How closely do you view your prints?
Do you have any interest in contact printing?

 

[McDiesel]

@btaylor my image goal is to experiment with high resolution landscape photography. I would start by re-visiting a few locations nearby and re-shooting my favorite 645 and 6x6 images on large format. Naturally, I would expect the results to contain far more detail vs my Hasselblad 6x6 glass.

When I browse LF lenses, I am not sure what "modern" means in this context. Looks like nobody makes them anymore, aren't they all old at this point? This may not be obvious for experienced folks, but I can't tell a 50s lens apart from something made in the 00s (did they still make LF lenses in the 00s?). The only clue is seeing "APO" in a name, which I interpret as apochromatic, i.e. as "new".

Thanks.

 

[Craig]

When I browse LF lenses, I am not sure what "modern" means in this context.

Multicoated generally means modern, and usually in a Copal shutter.

If you are shopping for LF lenses, I would stick to Nikkor or Fuji. Schneider or Rodenstock with a caveat - meaning that they have been made for so long there are many variants. Some good, some not so good. Also be aware of "Schneideritis" as it's called, which is the cemented lens pairs delaminating. Schneider lenses in particular are known for that, but other brands can do it too. I don't think I've seen it on a Nikkor though.

The angle of coverage is important, the larger the angle, the bigger the image circle. In generally, the 6 element ( and greater) lenses have greater coverage than a 4 element Tessar design. Image circle also varies with aperture, as you stop down the image circle gets larger. Coverage is usually quoted at F16 or 22, if you are in a situation where you have to use a larger aperture and your lens has marginal coverage you might get vingnetting at the corners of the film as you run out of coverage. It can be hard to see on the ground glass, but very obvious after processing the film!

Quite a few APO lenses are actually process lenses for reproduction etc, they are typically optimized for close up distances and don't have nearly as much coverage as taking lenses.

 

[abruzzi]

When I browse LF lenses, I am not sure what "modern" means in this context. Looks like nobody makes them anymore, aren't they all old at this point? This may not be obvious for experienced folks, but I can't tell a 50s lens apart from something made in the 00s (did they still make LF lenses in the 00s?). The only clue is seeing "APO" in a name, which I interpret as apochromatic, i.e. as "new".

What people seem to mean in the LF world when they say modern is a bit fuzzy, but it usually entails plasmat lenses, single or multi coated, post war (i.e 1945 or later.) Add in other lens types where appropriate--the wides are usually (from what I've read) biogon derivatives--the Super Angulon, Nikkor SW, Grandagon, then you'll have a lot of tessars, and some oddball dialytes that were still made, but not so much the older designs (are the last, multicoated Dagor's "modern" lenses? I'm not quite sure.)

(given that an LF camera can shoot 150 year old lenses, modern is usually a bit further back than 35mm.)

There are more modern lenses that are APO, and yeah, theose would be the last 30-40 years usually. But a 60's era Symmar-S is usually still considered modern. But is my Ektar 203? Maybe. Its sharp though. I might not quite agree with Craig to place it at multi-coating--though if its multi coated its definitely modern--because there are quite a few Fujinon single coated lenses that are very good. But there are a lot of reasonable places to draw the line.

 

[McDiesel]

Thank you!

 

[Oren Grad]

When I browse LF lenses, I am not sure what "modern" means in this context. Looks like nobody makes them anymore, aren't they all old at this point? This may not be obvious for experienced folks, but I can't tell a 50s lens apart from something made in the 00s (did they still make LF lenses in the 00s?). The only clue is seeing "APO" in a name, which I interpret as apochromatic, i.e. as "new".

There's a vast amount of information about LF lenses available on the web, including many complete manufacturer catalogs of many different vintages. There are also serial number dating references for Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. Start with the extensive list of resources compiled by Dan Fromm, linked here:

https://www.largeformatphotography....to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses

Once you start studying this literature, you will see soon enough that it's generally easy to distinguish between a '50s LF lens and an '80s-00's LF lens.

"Modern" is in the eye of the beholder. Some use it to mean post-WWII; I think of anything from early 1980s onward as "modern" for my large format purposes.

"Apo" in a lens name doesn't guarantee "new" - for example, the Apo-Ronar series goes back a long way - nor does it guarantee apochromatic performance in the technical sense. In this context, best to think of it as just a bit of marketing hype that became more popular over time.

 

[Oren Grad]

But a 60's era Symmar-S is usually still considered modern. But is my Ektar 203? Maybe. Its sharp though. I might not quite agree with Craig to place it at multi-coating--though if its multi coated its definitely modern--because there are quite a few Fujinon single coated lenses that are very good. But there are a lot of reasonable places to draw the line.

The Symmar-S series started around 1972, continued into the 1980s and eventually picked up multicoating before it was superseded by the Apo-Symmar series.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello all,

I’ve just finished my first year at uni (part time).
For much of the course I’ve been specialising (well trying..) in analog/darkroom and most of my photos were taken with the Mamiya 7ii, which I have been very impressed with, apart from the focusing which proved difficult.

I’ve posted many questions here over the last year and the feedback and help has been great, so thanks to everyone that helped me out there. Appreciated.

For my second year I’m wanting to migrate( or try) to 5x4” large format and I’m considering purchasing an intrepid camera when I’m more flush.

Does any one have experience with the format ?
Is it worth trying? In terms of description is it a big leap from 7x6? I’ve not yet witnessed anything yet ( in the physical) with large format, however some people on the course said it’s amazing. I gather it will be better in terms of quality, but what about the latitude? I remember when I migrated from 35mm to 7x6 and I was very impressed by medium format and the description/tonality etc. What are the pros and cons? Any advice, information, experiences would be appreciated.

Thanks

Chris

The quality improvement from 35mm to medium format is much higher than the quality improvement from medium format to large format. Don't expect the same jump in the image quality. Also be aware that you most likely need a new enlarger capable of the larger format. Other than that 4x5 is an exciting format and very much worth it.

 

[otto.f]

I’m a happy owner of a Chamonix F2 field camera, but I regret having sold my Mamiya 7 ii with 65mm. It’s a great landscape camera and you’re not always able or in the mood to bring the 4x5. Do not forget if you want to switch to instead of add 4x5, you will miss the quick response to that happy little cloud coming over the mountain top which gave that special light to the situation.

 

[Ian Grant]

Chris, go and join the UK Large Format website, the moderators are Yorkshiremen, and there are a lot of members quite local to you. So you could meet up with some and see what's what.

Ian

 

[abruzzi]

The Symmar-S series started around 1972, continued into the 1980s and eventually picked up multicoating before it was superseded by the Apo-Symmar series.

whoops, well, the convertiable symmar would have been 60's then...