4x5 or 8x10 (enlargements or contact prints): experience?

[E. von Hoegh]

I read your very helpful comments, went for a walk and now that I came back it is clear to me that it makes more sense for me to choose 4x5 instead of 8x10. No matter how I look at it, all the significant benefits of 4x5 win over the single advantage (for me) of 8x10, contact printing.

4x5 will still give me great advantages over MF, namely lots of available lenses and movements, not just quality.

I appreciate your help, it saved me both a good amount of money and I stopped worrying, too.

If you get a 4x5 Deardorff Special, you'll have the option of 5x7, as it's a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back. Great camera for hiking either way.

[Aron]

If you get a 4x5 Deardorff Special, you'll have the option of 5x7, as it's a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back. Great camera for hiking either way.

I considered field cameras, but right now I think a monorail is better value for me. Thanks for the suggestion, maybe later, when my tired back will want something lighter, I'll consider it.

Developer's brought to 20 degrees, it's time to start printing.

[SMBooth]

I have both, if I had to choose one it would be the 4x5, it just more flexible system to use.

[Ian Grant]

I considered field cameras, but right now I think a monorail is better value for me. Thanks for the suggestion, maybe later, when my tired back will want something lighter, I'll consider it.

Developer's brought to 20 degrees, it's time to start printing.

My first 5x4 camera was a monorail, I switched to a Wista 45DX field camera in 1986 and haven't looked back it has all the movements I need and is far more practical.

I still have a monorail although not the first one which was very heavy/cumbersome but it only gets used if I'veleft my Wista abroad, it's fra less practical outside a studio despite being a great camera and the truth is the Wista's more than enough movements for studio work.

Cost wie there's been some great field cameras for sale on APUG for very little money $200-$500 over the past year or so, and all great value for their sale prices

Ian

[Tom Stanworth]

5x7 all the way.

I found 5x4 a touch small. 10x8 was a little big (film handling, film holders included). 5x7 is just right. It feels more like 5x4 in use and offers a usefully larger negative for enlargements and is now IMO just big enough for an intimate contact print.

Now I have to persuade Mike Walker to make a 5x7 Harman Titan pinhole...

[Aron]

Thanks everyone for your help, by now I've got a clear idea, what to expect from the different systems. I'll try them out, before purchasing.

[Colin Corneau]

I've been using 5x4 since 1976 although it wasn't until 1986 that I began using one for personal work, it's a great format and most of my prints are on 16x12 paper ut I'm happy with the quality of a 24x20 or larger.

For about 8 years I've also been shooting with 10x8 cameras, I much prefer enlargements to contact prints purely because contact printing dictates the print size. Yes there is an increse in quality but it's not as significant as the jump from 35mm to 120, or 120 to 5x4.

However 10x8 cameras aren't as portable and 5x4 allows me greater flexibility and significantly lower film costs so it's a balance, plus I shoot some hand-held work with a 5x4.

Ian

Other than the time frames, this is my experience as well. I do love the look and quality of 8x10 contact prints, but I like the flexibility of 4x5 shooting -- I can hand print those negs.
I shoot a lot more medium format, and as you say the enlargments from those are terrific (when properly shot and processed) but if it's a matter of these two formats...that's my experience.