MenacingTourist said:
I'm still pretty new to all this and wondered what makes the 7x17 format more appealing than other ULF formats like 4x10 and 12x20?
Thanks in advance for the education
There are currently four different 4x10 cameras on the market. Plus, as David mentioned there are ways to shoot two 4x10 images on a sheet of 8x10 film without resorting to a dedicated 4x10 camera. So, probably not a big market for a 4x10 kit (although, if it's priced right, I'm sure it would sell).
7x17 is more appealing to those who want to produce contact prints directly from in-camera negatives (no need to scan the film and make an enlarged digital negative). This assumes you are shooting black and white. There are no color films currently available in 7x17, nor are there any 14x17 color films that cam be sliced down to 7x17. For color, 4x10 makes more sense. Any film that's available in 8x10 can be sliced in half (or shot two-up 4x10 in-camera), which makes 4x10 the largest practical "banquet" format for shooting color. This is what I use it for. I can scan my 4x10 transparencies on an inexpensive desktop scanner and produce very nice 12x30 prints on an affordable desktop inkjet printer. And, since this is APUG, I will point out that it is possible to make conventional wet darkroom prints from 4x10 originals using an 8x10 enlarger. A 4x10 outfit is much more portable, but if your goal is contact printing in some form, 7x17 makes a lot of sense.
Compared to 12x20, a 7x17 outfit is much smaller and lighter. Also, there are a lot more lenses capable of covering 7x17 than 12x20. I like the 12x20 aspect ratio and think it's a beautiful format, just bigger, heavier, more expensive and harder to work with than 7x17. A 7x17 camera and holders looks downright petite next to a 12x20.
So, my vote on this one is with the majority. I'd love to see a 7x17 kit. I already have my 4x10 for color. I have a nice selection of lenses capable of covering 7x17 and two holders on the way. They only thing I'm lacking is the 7x17 camera.
Kerry