I shoot a 5x7" Press Graflex (when I'm not shooting 4x5, 8x10, or something else) because it's the largest size SLR that's not impossible to come by and is relatively portable and even handholdable, and it produces a negative that makes a decent sized contact print. In their day, these cameras were quite popular among press photographers.
I'm not going to read this thread anymore.
I'm excited about my new 4x5 Super D. I'm excited about 4x5. I'm excited about 4x5. I'm excited about 4x5. I'm excited about 4x5. Yes, I made the riiiiight choice. I'm not second-guessing myself at all. I will like 4x5 contact prints just fine. I'm excited about 4x5. I'm excited about 4x5. I'm excited about 4x5.
I really don't need another camera. I value my marriage. I really don't need another camera. I value my marriage. I really don't need another camera. I value my marriage. I really don't need another camera. I value my marriage...
The intimacy of the print is the big winner for me. Sure it's nice that my camera was less expensive and lighter than 8 X 10 and film is less expensive. But people get close to my 5X7 contact prints prints and look in a way that they didn't with my 8X10 enlargements. I guess it's because they have to. You either look at a 5X7 print or you don't see it. I'm considering getting an 8X10 for panoramas but I think I'm going to try my camera's splitter and make some 2 1/2 X 7s first.
4x5 is OK! 4x5 is OK! 4x5 is OK!
Now, I wish I had an 8x10 but... I value my marriage. I value my marriage. I value my marriage!!
Long live Ed "Big Daddy" Roth!!
"I don't care about Milwaukee or Chicago." - Yvon LeBlanc
Yeah. I can always build a 5x7 back for my 8x10, but it wouldn't be a cool SLR like David's.
Eh, a 4x5 SLR is still pretty durn cool... besides, I suppose I could break down someday and get an enlarg... wait:
I value my marriage. I value my marriage. I value my marriage. I value my marriage. I value my marriage. I value my marriage...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
just a thought... Why not build cardboard 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14 pinhole cameras and play for a few days to see which format suits you. Cheap alternatives and the wife won't kill you.
Now if only I could find plans for a 4x5 cardboard enlarger....anyone?
Now that's an idear! Find me a 5x7 film holder and make a pinhole camera for it.
Originally Posted by esearing
I went through some 120 fuji chromes I took last spring using a 120 Ilford POC converted to a pinhole camera... I am amazed how sharp a pinhole can be.
I agree, the main reason to go 5x7 over 4x5 is contact printability. Don't get me wrong, I love my 4x5 speed, but if I ever wander upon a 5x7 deal, it's all over.
Marraige is overrated *G*
tim in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
5x7 is a great format as you have already heard. My Anba Ikeda comes in at 3.8 lbs, about as light as you can go. It fits great in a laptop backpack and really is a perfect ultralight 5x7. That said the 7x17 is also a great format still being fairly light at 12 lbs but with a giant neg to go with the added weight. Good luck! Emile. www.deleon-ulf.com
I've taken the opposite approach to the "twice the neg area of 4x5 and much lighter than an 8x10" that seems to be the standard answer to the question. I shoot with a heavy Sinar P2 5x7 as a field camera and really like it compared to the orders of magnitude lighter Canham wood 5x7 that I used for about a year. It's a good, stable platform that handles a wide range of lenses and, since I use lenses intended for 8x10, any possible camera movement is well within the image circle of the lenses. I use three lenses, a 150mm wide angle, a slightly long 300mm used as a normal, and a 600mm telephoto. My most used lens is the 300, my least used the 150. So, here are my reasons prefering 5x7 over any other large format:
1. I have a 5x7 enlarger and print to 10x13 on 11x14 paper. Meaning, I don't consider 5x7 a large enough size to contact print, 8x10 would be the minimum for me and even that seems small. If you don't plan to enlarge 5x7 negs, I wouldn't consider the format.
2. Having used 35mm for many years the aspect of 5x7 seems right 4x5 and 8x10 are maddingly "square".
3. I can generally shoot 5x7 at 2 to 3 fstops wider than 8x10 for the same depth of field, i.e., f22 - f45 rather than f64 to f90. With a modern lens, this results in a sharper negative. With an 8x10, I always seemed to be fighting for adequate depth of field.
4. the 5x7 groundglass is much larger than 4x5. Meaning, I find the 4x5 too small to use comfortably; the 5x7 is much better.
5 Cost of film - I've been shooting more color neg film lately. My 8x10 film costs were brushing 10 dollars a sheet, 5x7 Portra 160 NC can be bought at Badger Graphic for 3 dollars a sheet.
6. The negative size allows you to pick a film for its tonal range (most important consideration) rather than for film grain or resolution concerns. I sum it up as "I shoot 5x7 tri-x so I don't have to shoot 4x5 tmax."
Originally Posted by Max
Tell your wife how lucky she is that you don't collect cars
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist