Working within a budget to get started

[lee_brooklyn]

Hey all!

A couple years back I had an Intrepid 4x5 II which I hated, it was too flimsy and I hated the graflok back -- felt like I was always getting minor light leaks from doing it wrong or not squeezing it tight to keep it sealed. ANYWAY, I'm still really want to get into large format and integrate into my practice (I work primarily in medium format B&W), but I'd love to find a 5x7 with both 57 and a 4x5 reducing back so i have some flexibility? I'd love to find a Rittreck View 5x7 for example, that feels like a good solid camera, but they're hard to find! Any other ideas? I'm trying to get the whole kit set up (minus the tripod and head, which I have) for under $1k which feels tight but doable.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi Lee. You'll be getting plenty of feedback but here's mine. Before buying gear it pays to very clearly and realistically explore the real requirements. For example, will a rail camera or a field camera best serve your needs; what other asociated gear will you want/need, etc. Even more important might be to clairify your photographic goals as the type of images to be produced often implies gear selection.

From what you've said so far, I see flexibility is a goal yet to me that often impies that the photographic goals are either unkown or not well thought through. I'd steer clear of buying a 5x7 in the interest of flexibility as there is very little 5x7 film available and if that kind of flexibility is truly needed I'd opt for an 8x10 with a reducing back. Go big or go home, so to speak.

Your comment on the Intrepid doesn't surprise me yet there seem to be some very avid Intrepid supporters.

As far as cost goes, it would be a good thing to monitor the completed sales on a high-volume platform like eBay to see what's realistic in the various options being considered. While some seem to freqeuntly suggest buying gear to try out and sell later if not the right option I tend to do it in a more systematic way (as you might have noticed) of determining what the needs are and buying for the long haul. I still use the same gear I bought in the 1980's when I started in photogprahy seriously and have no regrets, although as I get older hauling a rail camera into the field is becoming a bit more of a challenge... mostly because of the size/weight of the tripod.

Good luck in the process!

 

[lee_brooklyn]

I appreciate that Brian, thank you! Definitely looking for a field camera, sorry I should have stated that originally. While I love doing portraiture work, I think I'll be using it even more on hikes in nature and around the city doing streetscapes. I would love to get an 8x10, but the cost of 8x10 film feels prohibitive...maybe an 8x10 with a 4x5 reducing back is the way to go...but hiking with an 8x10 also would be a lot...that's why I thought 5x7 might be a happy medium. I know it's not as popular as the other two formats, but as a B&W photographer I'm still seeing 5x7 b&w while out there that's available, one just has to look a bit harder! Any 8x10 users out there who go hiking with their camera? Should I just go big or go home, as Brian is suggesting?

 

[koraks]

Welcome active posting, @lee_brooklyn!

I've not tried the 4x5 mkII Intrepid; I do have an 8x10 mkI and never had any issues with light leaks. It's also the first time I hear of light leak issues involving the back. The mechanism is simple, but appears to work quite well. It is a lightweight camera - which is both good and bad. Good: portable. Bad: flimsy, shaky and more prone to wear & tear than more solid cameras. Every camera is a compromise.

I agree with @BrianShaw that 5x7 film availability is limited. I honestly think you're better off with 4x5", unless you want to do contact prints from in-camera negatives. In that case 5x7" and larger can be worth the extra hassle. That hassle also translates into bigger everything - bigger lenses, bigger film holders, so more volume + mass to lug around.

If you're bent on 5x7 - sometimes Burke & James cameras pop up here and there. I doubt you'll find a Rittreck 5x7 within your budget esp. if the $1k also has to cover at least one lens and one or two film holders. 4x5" is a different story; film holders are relatively easy to get and not too expensive, plenty of choice in lenses as well as cameras and $1k will buy you a decent kit.

What's your process (scanning, enlargement, contact printing) and intended print size?
How important is agility in composing etc. for you? Keep in mind a view camera is fairly static. It translates in the kind of photos you'll make. For some styles that's fine and not a limitations. It depends.

Any 8x10 users out there who go hiking with their camera?

Sure, but not me and I frankly think it's insane. There will be a few who chime in though.
Evidently, everyone will tell you what they are doing is great and worth it. That's why we do it.
I have both an Intrepid 8x10 and a Sinar Norma 8x10. Neither I consider suitable for hiking. If only for the limited number of captures I could do. So I'd go on a multi-hour hike and be limited to like 4 photos on 8x10? What if I see a fifth image I would have wanted to capture? Smaller formats are just more suitable. Medium format is nice for hiking. Why not keep using that?
You mention planning on doing hikes, cityscapes etc. You must be a masochist to want to do that on large format. Bigger ain't better.

PS: you mention the intimidating cost of shooting 8x10. If you're very cost/price-sensitive, large format may not be the most obvious choice. Having said that, take into consideration the following:
Fomapan 4x5" 50 sheet box ca. $85
Fomapan 5x7" 50 sheet box ca. $125
Fomapan 8x10" 50 sheet box ca. $175
Adorama price point. You're cost-sensitive so you will end up shooting something like Fomapan anyway.

 

[BrianShaw]

More importantly, Lee... would YOU go hiking with a big field camera? There's a member here who regails us with his tails of doing such things but he seems to be a bit in a minority. For me, hiking with a 4x5 (Speed Graphic) is as adventurous as I get in that regard.

 

[lee_brooklyn]

I scan at home using a Lumix S1R and print at a nearby darkroom...though I'm building a darkroom in my basement this year. I was hoping to make contact prints with the neg at home..if I had a need to enlarge I could go to one of the darkrooms (in NYC I'm blessed to have 3 that I use to varying degrees!). Honestly, the reason I want to go large is because printing from large negs is just so much fun! And I really have enjoyed how slow the process is. I'm drawn to it, but of course you might be right, I might just be better off sticking with medium format. The other reason I was thinking of 5x7 is because the difference between 4x5 and 6x8 or 6x9 medium format isn't THAT big, whereas 5x7 feels like a big enough jump to justify the investment, if that makes sense? But maybe I'm delusional here and just have a serious case of GAS.

 

[koraks]

The other reason I was thinking of 5x7 is because the difference between 4x5 and 6x8 or 6x9 medium format isn't THAT big, whereas 5x7 feels like a big enough jump to justify the investment, if that makes sense?

I understand why you might think that, but I disagree.
The difference between medium and large format in practice is fundamental. It's not just about film size. With large format, you're working with a view camera. With medium format, you're working with essentially the same box-type camera system that you'd be working with at smaller formats and digital. Again, there are pros and cons to that difference.

There's a reason why the line for "large format" is generally drawn at 4x5. That's where a different ecosystem starts. And of course...one may argue that there's 9x12, or the use of 6x17 or 6x12 on a view camera. There's a grey area sometimes. But generally speaking, 4x5 and upwards is LF and that's just a different world. You must have noticed when you used the Intrepid.

For enlargements, you'd have to go pretty big before the difference between 4x5 and 5x7 becomes meaningful. For contact prints, it's a different matter.

If you're going to build a darkroom: esp in the US a 4x5" enlarger should be fairly easy to get hold of. 5x7" and larger is a different story, so is the question whether you can fit it in your basement without resorting to breaking a big hole in either the floor or the ceiling. You set your budget to $1k for the camera system - how much are you willing to spend on the enlarger, enlarging lenses etc?

I think currently you're not really looking past the edges of the negative. Try to grapple with the fact that you're not simply buying a camera - you're stepping into a system with an ecosystem behind it. It's not just about one more inch on the short edge and two on the long edge. The choice which system/ecosystem fits depends not so much on "but a large sheet of film feels so nice." It depends on what the intended output is, what your style of composing is, and whatever practical limitations (besides budget) are. I presently see very little awareness of this shine through in your questions.

 

[AnselMortensen]

You could probably find a decent Burke & James or Kodak 5x7 and a Wollensak lens for a bargain price, 4x5 reducing backs are available.

 

[blacksquare]

I really like the 5x7/13x18 format. Nice aspect ratio, easier work on a larger focusing screen, still a large selection of suitable lenses, better work with 6x17 back.
And here it makes more sense to me to occasionally use 4x5 backs than to put them on an even larger 8x10 camera.

There are fewer 5x7 films, but I shoot mostly on Fomapan and there is no problem.

 

[tcolgate]

Matt Marash has a video that discusses some of the downsides of going too large and relying on reducing backs ().
If you haven't really gone with LF, 4x5 is probably the most sensible, and cheapest approach. If you want to use a reducing back you may struggle with wide angles, you're also carrying a bunch of camera around you don't need. Glass for 5x7 is going to cost you more, and it's that weird spot where an enlarger would be huge and probably expensive, but contact prints aren't going to be as satisfying as an 8x10.
If you're only scanning then are you really going to see any advantage over 4x5? 4x5 enlarging is sort of /vaguely/ practical (I use the intrepid kit), and a contact print can still looks alright in a frame.
There's enough to learn in 4x5 with movements and process, more "versatility" isn't really high on the list of things I need in my LF life.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm going to start from the large end and work back. I jumped to 8x10 for the express purpose of a particular alternative format.

I do "hike" with it, but so far, it's been cumbersome and throwing the kit into a backpack just gives me a hands-free way to get from the car to my subject.

One person on youtube who seems to have it dialed in (hiking with 8x10) is Ben Horne.

I too would suggest not lugging an 8x10 around to simply then reduce down to 4x5. While it would force you to keep learning the 8x10 camera, it's a lot of extra weight and you may be able to find a 4x5 camera that has more advantageous features than the reduced 8x10.

When you said 5x7 with a reduction back the first thing that came to my mind was also a Rittreck. I haven't been watching sales for a while, so I have no idea what they're trading for these days.

Mat Marrash has a ton of useful videos for large format on youtube.

 

[xkaes]

Another option, which I don't think has been mentioned, is that there are some 4x5 cameras that have 5x7 backs. A few of these are field cameras, and they are probably hard to find and expensive -- and probably finding the 5x7 back is close to impossible.

I'll also add to what has been said. Much depends on how you want to handle your images. Are you going to get a 5x7 enlarger, or are you only going to scan the negatives? What size prints do you plan on making, or are you only going to do contact prints? Answer those questions, and you'll have made the right decision.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You said a$1k budget. Does that include lenses? How many? How many film holders?

 

[djdister]

I have a Canham 5x7 MQC (metal) with the 5x7, 4x5 and the 6x17 roll film backs. I hardly use the 4x5 back - if I haul that camera around I want to shoot either 5x7 and sometimes 6x17 on 120 roll film. I bought the Canham so that I could shoot 5x7, not so that I could also shoot 4x5, even though I can. I have a separate 4x5 camera (Chamonix 45H-1) that is tremendously fast and easy to setup as it is a non-folding camera. I'd suggest your camera buy will be dictated more by what comes up for sale in your price range (you'll need lenses and film holders as Alan Klein notes) so just pick one to start with. Film choice and processing options are also driven quite a bit by format choice.

 

[Vaughn]

5x7 is a wonderful format. One's gear weight is not much more than a 4x5...the exception is the film holders, but a 5x7 holder weighs 10.5 oz and a 4x5 weighs 6 oz. I carry 5 at a time, so that is about a pound and a half more in weight...not significant.

5x7 is a great size for contact printing in alt processes. I am making 4x5 carbon prints right now...the 4x5 was the easiest for me to travel with on a recent Japan trip. My 5x7 is a 100+ year old wood and brass machine and was afraid I would not be able to keep up with my sons. I took it to Chile for a month a few years ago before my heart got so wonky. But I do find the 4x5 to be a little small. It takes more care in choosing subject and composition, I find detail becomes a little less important than form over-all...there is not much space for one's eyes to move around in the image.

I am slowing down (I'll be 72 in July). I still carry an 8x10 or an 11x14 in the field. Around 60 pounds of equipment. I can not carry it all day -- especially if the ticker is on the blink, but I can put in a few miles. But I weigh 230 pounds (6'3") so it is easier for me to carry the weight. I use to carry 60 to 90 pound backs down into the Grand Canyon and up the mountains, and worked in the wilderness and all that stuff, so I am use to it. Was use to it!

 

[Kino]

I have 4x5, 5x7, Whole Plate and 8x10 cameras. Love them all, but in the end if I had to settle on just one, it would be my 4x5 field camera.

It's the largest size I can enlarge easily and still large enough to make dainty contact prints.

Depends on what type of prints you want to make; alternative processes demand larger negatives.

It's all good.

 

[Ardpatrick]

I’ve been shooting 4x5 for 30 odd years, which isn’t much around here. For much of that time I’ve had an itch to go bigger in format as I’ve owned an 8x10 enlarger for about 22 years. I’ve also got 4 or 5 lenses for 4x5 that would also cover 5x7 at least. But I’ve never made the jump.

I’ve weighed up the factors cited above, and for me it’s a marginal call. A maybe. Given all the investment I’ve made in gear over decades, picking up a 5x7 plus holders wouldn’t add much more to my spend. But just because I can doesn’t mean I should!

For your situation it seems like a clearer call to me. With the utmost respect I suggest you need to outgrow 4x5 before moving up in format. It’s a fantastic format that more or less gives you everything you need - movements / resolution / processes etc whilst remaining quite useable and affordable, especially if you process your own B&W negs. There is far greater choice of affordable cameras & lenses & accessories. And film! Plus I second those who are skeptical of the reducing back if you’re backpacking. Not a good solution.

I’d hazard a guess that anyone working with 8x10 or 5x7 who knows why they’re doing it(!) has previously put in plenty of time with 4x5. And they probably still own and shoot 4x5 from time to time. So I’d suggest to get the 4x5 and enjoy a wonderful format that you may never outgrow. If you do eventually outgrow it, you’ll know that. And you’ll probably then add a larger camera rather than trade the 4x5. That’s my take.