HARMAN TiTAN 10 x 8

[darkosaric]

For pinhole - maybe it is not a big problem to make some kind of holder for 5x7 on 8x10 back by yourself? If it is couple of millimeters closer to hole - it is not a big deal for pinhole.

[Bruce Robbins]

The thing that held me back from getting or making a pinhole camera is the lack of sharpness. Most of the pinhole pics I've seen are just soft. I know that's part of the appeal but it's a level of softness that I think detracts from most images rather than enhances them. I'm not a Leica-type stickler for sharpness -I use a 1924 lens from a folding camera on my Rollei SL66 - but there surely has to be a minimum level of sharpness. Is a 10x8 pinhole camera likely to provide greater sharpness than smaller formats and, if so, what is it equivalent to? How would it compare to, say, a 400 ISO 35mm negative enlarged to 10x8?

[TheToadMen]

The thing that held me back from getting or making a pinhole camera is the lack of sharpness. (...) Is a 10x8 pinhole camera likely to provide greater sharpness than smaller formats and, if so, what is it equivalent to? How would it compare to, say, a 400 ISO 35mm negative enlarged to 10x8?

@Bruce: there is a nice review of the 4x5" Titan pinhole camera. See:
http://ueberlicht.com/2012/harman-ti...featherweight/
You'll find some images from the Titan 4x5" there so you can check it for (lack off) sharpness yourself
I think that some of these images are very sharp (for pinhole) and not too soft. I suppose the 8x10" will be able to create the same sharpness.

Greetings from Bert from Holland
--------------------------------------
Pinhole Photography & Cameras on LinkedIn, see: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup

[Bruce Robbins]

Thanks, Bert. I enjoyed the review. Very useful.

[BradS]

Rather than make a dedicated 5X7 camera for a limited number of users. Why not an accessory 5X7 adapter back?

That would be the hot ticket.

[Bob Carnie]

When are the 8x10 Titans ready to ship??

[Bertil]

About 8x10 and 4x5 in view of 5x7
Things could have been different!

The main virtues of LF compared to 35 and middle format are cameras with movements and high picture quality. 8x10 quite expensive and clumsy to work with compared to alternatives like 5x7 and 4x5; thus few cared to work with 8x10. Now, 4x5 ok to work with, but middle format cameras (normally without movements) much easier to work with, and cheaper, and picture quality not very much worse than 4x5; thus few cared about 4x5 compared to middle format and in view of a better LF alternative: 5x7 have movements and potential for extremely high picture quality, not as expensive and clumsy as 8x10 and roughly as easy to work with as 4x5. Thus, most LF fans choose to work with 5x7, lots of equipment and film available and 5x7 enlargers not very expensive and not very hard to get!
So, why aren’t things different?

Summicron1 and Roger Cole may be right in their analysis: (in free interpretation) things aren’t different due to historical coincidence, and given that things are as they are, not enough incentives to change.

For some reason 5x7 seems to be, or has been, more popular in Europe than in US; and AFAIK only European companies make 5x7 film today (Ilford, Foma, Adox/Efke). The popularity of 8x10 in US is perhaps due to American photographic icons like Adams, Weston, Evens et al (?))

/Bertil

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Kodak makes 5x7 Tri-X, Bertil. But at 2X the price of HP5+, which supports your notion that 5x7 is less popular than 4x5 and 8x10 here in the United States.
I was not aware that 5x7 was a more popular format in Europe. That's interesting.

About 8x10 and 4x5 in view of 5x7
Things could have been different!

The main virtues of LF compared to 35 and middle format are cameras with movements and high picture quality. 8x10 quite expensive and clumsy to work with compared to alternatives like 5x7 and 4x5; thus few cared to work with 8x10. Now, 4x5 ok to work with, but middle format cameras (normally without movements) much easier to work with, and cheaper, and picture quality not very much worse than 4x5; thus few cared about 4x5 compared to middle format and in view of a better LF alternative: 5x7 have movements and potential for extremely high picture quality, not as expensive and clumsy as 8x10 and roughly as easy to work with as 4x5. Thus, most LF fans choose to work with 5x7, lots of equipment and film available and 5x7 enlargers not very expensive and not very hard to get!
So, why aren’t things different?

Summicron1 and Roger Cole may be right in their analysis: (in free interpretation) things aren’t different due to historical coincidence, and given that things are as they are, not enough incentives to change.

For some reason 5x7 seems to be, or has been, more popular in Europe than in US; and AFAIK only European companies make 5x7 film today (Ilford, Foma, Adox/Efke). The popularity of 8x10 in US is perhaps due to American photographic icons like Adams, Weston, Evens et al (?))

/Bertil

[Roger Cole]

The thing that held me back from getting or making a pinhole camera is the lack of sharpness. Most of the pinhole pics I've seen are just soft. I know that's part of the appeal but it's a level of softness that I think detracts from most images rather than enhances them. I'm not a Leica-type stickler for sharpness -I use a 1924 lens from a folding camera on my Rollei SL66 - but there surely has to be a minimum level of sharpness. Is a 10x8 pinhole camera likely to provide greater sharpness than smaller formats and, if so, what is it equivalent to? How would it compare to, say, a 400 ISO 35mm negative enlarged to 10x8?

The size of the pinhole has some effect on that but you'll never get it truly sharp. If that bothers you but you want to work in large format, just get a regular large format camera and cheap lens. It needn't cost much at all these days. Of course you CAN spend money on a brand new Ebony, or even a new Linhof (if you're insane - Linhofs are built like tanks, get a 20-30 year old one for less than half the price and never know the difference. My 1957 one is definitely a "user" and has things to work around, but is still quite usable.) A lens can cost a hundred bucks or less. You can probably get a usable 4x5 outfit used for less than these Titan 8x10s new.

[summicron1]

Some sharpness is nice, some is not -- I have a ZeroImage 2000 that gives me really nice images that are actually pretty sharp, but soft in a pleasing sort of way. This is in a 10 by 10 inch enlargement.

A lot depends on whether the pinhole is really round and also whether the pinhole is the right size for the lens/film distance you are using. Too small a pinhole gives you distortion, too large and you get too fuzzy. It can get quite complex if you let it. The image itself can also sometimes look sharper just because of what sort of image it is.