I currently have a Nikon for quick work and a Hasselblad which I use mainly for landscape and the proverbial 'rocks and trees' sort of stuff.

I love the hassie but the cost of adding new lenses - even used ones - is a bit much for me right now and I'm feeling that the difference between MF and 35mm isn't all that great in terms of image quality, at least great enough for me to justify the cost of adding accessories to my hassie.

So I've been thinking seriously about moving up to a 4x5 field camera and selling the hassie. On the plus side, I like the idea that I can buy any brand or make of lens and it would work - I wouldn't be beholden to one brand. I like the idea of working one exposure at a time in the darkroom. I like the idea of really slowing down even more than I do with the hassie.

On the other hand, my current enlarger is only good up to 6x7 so I'd eventually have to buy a new (used probably) enlarger but that isn't really a big deal since I can contact print.

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions, experiences? I'm not interested in starting a format jihad but I'd like to hear from anyone who's moved up to LF and has some thoughts on the matter.

Thanks

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), May 21, 2001

Answers

Before moving up, you should beg, borrow, steal, rent, or (ugh) buy a large, heavy tripod and make yourself use it for a month for every picture you take with your present cameras. No exceptions. If you can tolerate the agrivation, and the missed picture opportunities, then you are a candidate for Large Format. This is not a joke, nor a smart ass suggestion. Good luck.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), May 21, 2001.

I agree with Bill. LF requires a different approach, it isn't a quick fix for improved image quality. In fact, I'm surprised that you find very little difference between 35mm and MF. There's a world of difference IMHO, and I find the image quality difference between MF and 5x4 isn't as great as the gap between 35mm and MF.
Of course, if you use Tmax100 in 35mm on a tripod, and Tri-X in MF handheld, then you won't see that great a difference.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), May 22, 2001.

I already lug a tripod with me everywhere I go for the hassie. I even lug it on family vacations. And my wife fumes while I set up shots. So maybe I'm already there.

What I meant by the difference between 35mm and MF was in the approach not in terms of objective image quality. MF just feels like a slower 35mm to me without any further control over the final image like you would get from LF.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), May 22, 2001.

If your wife fumes while you set up for MF, she may file for divorce if you get started in LF. Kidding aside, while LF offers the greatest degree of control on a shot by shot basis, it also imposes limitations on mobility, flexibility, and spontaneity. I jumped into LF several years ago directly from 35mm. I must admit that I liked the totally manual process and the frame by frame control. I learned a lot about how (bw) film behaves. The smoothness and detail from lots of square inches is somewhat addictive. But traveling with a 4x5 setup is a chore and has its challenges. Airport security people don't seem to like little boxes they can't open, even if they do say Kodak on them. A couple of years ago I bought a 6x9 MF rangefinder camera. When traveling with my wife, this is the camera I take. When scouting for locations and subjects, this is the camera I take. When I travel specifically for photography, I take the 4x5 (or both). Actually, for prints up to 11x14 from medium speed, fine grain film, it's hard to tell the difference between the two. At 16x20, the 4x5 definitely holds together better. The rule of thumb I use to get the look I want is no more than a 6x linear enlargement with medium speed, fine grain film. At 3x-4x enlargements, LF permits using faster, grainer film. I guess my point is, don't get rid of your MF setup to go to LF. Each format has its own set of capabilities. Choose the tool you need/want for the purpose at hand and your frame of mind.

-- Jim Snyder (jim.snyder@uaa.alaska.edu), May 22, 2001.

It sounds to me like you are a candidate for LF. Anyone who is already using a tripod might as well benefit from LF. I don't find LF significantly slower than MF, I'm just a slow photographer.

You could rent, or borrow, but if you buy a good used view/field camera you can probably sell it for what you pay for it if you find you don't like it. They just don't depreciate quite the way other formats do.

Another possibility is to go to your local camera shop that sells LF and try a "dry shoot" in the store.

That said, you don't have to give up your 35mm camera. Nor even your hassie (unless $$ is is the issue). You can use all 3 formats.

As far as image quality, I find 4x5 much superior to 35mm, and the smaller 120 formats. A 6 x 4.5 image is just a 2x enlargement from 35mm, so I'm not surprised you don't see a big difference. If you crop 6x6 to fit the 4x5/8x10 ratio, your image is 6x4.5! Others may feel differently, but that's my impression.

Good luck.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), May 22, 2001.

Just do it ; using a 4x5 camera is actually less to do with relative quality compared to MF, but more about control and understanding of both the technical and aesthetic aspects of photography, which are not always fully understood by smaller format users (no flames, please). A secondhand field camera, with a 90mm or 180mm lense and a few filmholders, is not expensive, will give you an excellent introduction, and can always be sold again if you decide it's not right for you. I wouldn't sell your Hasselblad just yet - it may end up complementing your LF.

-- fw (finneganswake@altavista.net), May 25, 2001.

I shoot all four formats. Actually 5 counting my Minolta subminiature. Each format has it's advantages over the others. (or disadvantages if you're a pessimist). I use my 4x5 for 75% of what I shoot. I even use my old Speed for hand held 4x5. But mostly I like the controls I have with LF. The ability to move the plane of focus and radically change subject perspective. The ability to control the exposure to the enth degree. The flexibility through developement strategies inherent in individual sheet film processing. The beautiful tonal range/gradations with the larger film area. The questions I get to answer when the local point and shooters gather round my 8x10 set up. But I would never sell my MF system. Too flexible a system. And light weight compared to my LF systems. Try finding someone who shoots LF and see if you like it before you buy. I already know the choice you'll make. But try before you buy. And enlargers capable of 4x5 are pretty inexpensive. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), May 26, 2001.

Just a quick thanks to everyone for their thoughts. It's clarified a lot for me.

I've been scouring eBay for Wisners and Wistas and the like. Hopefully I'll start putting together a set-up later this spring.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), May 28, 2001.

I think Osakas go for about $500 new. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), May 28, 2001.

re: the Osaka or the Tachihas.... how good are they for the money? sounds like a good deal to me but will it last me for a while? will it give me at least most of the movements a more expensive camera would give me? and how is the stability and construction? will putting the film holder in knock the camera out of focus?

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), May 30, 2001.

David,

I own a Tachihara and have found it to be rigid in all situations that I have used it in (I only have a 90 and 150 mm lens at the momment). There is more than enough controled movement on it for the landscapes that I usually photograph. As others have said, if you like the considered approach to photography, go the large format route - you wont regret it.

When you start producing beautiful images that compliment your decor or even make money for you, your wife won't grouch so much! (I gave a picture to my wife for her birthday and she loved it!)

-- Graeme Hird (goldeneyephoto@hotmail.com), May 31, 2001.

Like David, I would also like to move up to LF. I'm interested in using it mostly for urban landspaces and architecture. What used camera and lens will be good to learn and progress on? I'm looking at a 4 year learning period.

-- Bong Munoz (bong@techie.com), June 22, 2001.

David, you've gotten a lot of good advice here. I agree, if you can afford to hold on to your Hasselblad, then keep it. On the other hand, I don't feel there is huge difference between well crafted 35mm prints and 2-1/4", but there is a dramatic difference in detail and micro tonality comparing 4x5 to either of these formats.

The other major advantage with sheet film, which I'm surprised to see no one addressed, is individual sheet processing. That is a tremendous advantage. You can use different films, EI ratings and contrast controls with sheet films, custom fitted to each scenario. You'll also discover a whole new world as you learn to fit your vision to Zone system exposure and development.

Of course this all comes at a price. As others have suggested, this is a very contemplative approach. Moreover, you will have to learn new techniques *after* exposure. Like how to develop your film-- trays, tanks, tubes or rotary? They've all got advantages and disadvantages. And if you ask a dozen photographers how they do it, you'll get as many recommendations. I suggest you get a set of 5x7 trays and begin developing one sheet at a time. This way you'll establish a fundamental benchmark to which you can compare the options.

As for cameras, if you want a field camera, it's hard to beat the Canham camera. I don't think there is any 4x5 that is faster to setup or which offers more flexibility. For example, you can use the same bellows for all lenses from 65mm to 450mm. That's a tremendous convenience. Of course Canhams are not cheap, even used, and some users complain that they are not the most rigid. A monorail offers added movement range, greater rigididy and geared adjustments, at the expense of additional weight and slower setup. The Arca Swiss f-line is a beauty. The Horseman LE is a nice camera, too, and not too expensive. Toyo G model is a workhorse and a personal favorite for the studio. The monorails weigh about 10-12 pounds vs. 4-6 pounds for the field cameras. That seems dramatic, but when you consider that you'll be carrying film holders, meter(s), lenses, filters, and maybe some other gear like a Polaroid or lens shade, not to mention a good sturdy tripod--all packed into a suitable backpack--you can figure on at least 25 pounds, which can easily reach 40 pounds. So unless you are planning on some serious hiking, whether your pack weighs 30 or 35 pounds doesn't make all that much difference. I say buy whatever camera you get a good deal on. The great thing about view cameras is you can keep the lenses you acquire and change cameras. After you buy your first camera and use it for awhile, you'll learn what to look for when you buy your second one. This is information no one can give you. You have to learn your own preferences. Have fun. You'll love the adventure!

-- Ted Kaufman (writercrmp@aol.com), July 06, 2001.