4x5 or 8x10? What should I shoot? 

Don't know if you read these comments, but here goes. Age 76. Been photographing since or about 1960. I am very comfortable with film. Since that is all we had back then anyway. I still use film now. I was using a Nikon F6, and a Hasselblad 503cw and found a bellows and Hasselblad 135mm bellows lens on ebay. The results are spectacular. So after about 5 or 6 years I sold off all my H equipment and went to a Canham 4x5 field camera, which I have just gotten. The problem is the focus. I open the shutter to let the light in so I can focus on the rear screen. The problem is I am not getting a focus of landscape images at all, even when I use my loop. I can focus up close (3 feet or so), but further away no. I am quite used to using bellows and even applying front swing, but right now this camera is not operational because I cannot move the front or rear standard enough to bring X into focus. Using a Schnider 150mm lens. Even with the shutter open I tried bringing the F/stops down to f/8 thinking that it might sharpen the image. A little but not enough to take the photo. What the heck am I doing wrong?????

I landed on 5x7 after starting with 4x5. A good option IMO.

With my Chamonix 4x5 F2, I used their reflex viewer and love it. First for composition and initial focus. Easy to remove to use the loupe for fine focus.

I use 4 x 5 more than I do 5 x 7 or 8 x 10, but it is possible, with a little careful shopping, to acquire the equipment (incl. developing) for all three. Sometimes it's the subject or the effect you're seeking that makes the choice for you. In other words, I don't see these formats as alternatives; they're complementary. Inspiring video, Tony, as always. Thanks.

When my friend first looked at the landscape through the frosted glass of an 8x10" camera, he exclaimed: "Why take pictures?! You can just watch and enjoy the beauty!"

Very thoughtful and informative video. One point I might add is that anyone thinking 8x10 is simply twice as hard as 4x5 should really think, again! It's an exponential equation! 🤪

Thank you Tony. This is an excellent video. I own, and greatly enjoy, a 4x5 Chamonix. For me the extra cost/weight/headaches of 8x10 would not be worth it despite the very real image quality advantages. Nevertheless I am jealous... For someone who REALLY wants to reduce weight/cost consider a 4x5 pinhole camera! A wildly different experience, lots of fun, but of course, very limiting. However the limitations sometimes lead to creative thinking which is transferable to more traditional photography. It's all fun else find something else to do!

I have a 4x5 Intrepid and bought the Enlarger back also. It all seems just right for a hobby guy and the camera works really nice. For me an 8x10 would be to heavy, bulky and expensive to use. I use my phone a lot for family photos.

Great video as always, Tony! Keep em comin

Really good evaluation of cost vs total value... Although I like my Deardorf 8x10 and my 4x5's ; I have settled on the 5x7 which in black and white gives me the best "bang for the buck' or resolution per total cost; also can use the 8x10 and some 4x5 lenses. The compromise is always limited selection of film... a little color film which I do not use anyway. Also my 6x17 Fuji keeps me in the general 5x7 look anyway. You know it is getting tough when you start really re-considering Foma and Seagul and prepare for long healing brush sessions in lightroom. .

No question: 5x7 !

For me, a 5x7 monorail with 4x5 reducing back for when colour or long view/macro/huge movements is a must. Choosen three years ago, no regrets. But, all depends on what you want to achieve... Good luck and enjoy!

I decided to go for the 4x5 format on a lot of reasons you mentioned that are more positive for the 4x5 format. I think one reason is also important and that is the extra trouble when you want to scan your negative with a camera. A 4x5 image i can scan with completely only 3 shots with my camera in combination with a good macro lens.With Capture One it is easy to stitch it to an full image.

Tony, another advantage of 4x5 is that the dof is thicker than that on 8x10, so focussing is easier, as any bump of movements gives less effect, so is less touchy so for people with less dexterity, due to arthritis, etc. this would also be a factor, and the fact the camera is smaller, there is less chance of a light leak due to flex of the frame during dark slide removal, as some say.

Very good video, you covered nearly everything I can think of! I would only add that scanning could be a major difference, that also contributes to the cost aspect. With 4x5, "camera" scanning is a viable option (for most use cases, even for moderately large printing) if a high-resolution digital camera is already at hand (like an older Olympus m43 with 80 MP pixel-shift hi-res mode, which gives around 60 MP "real" resolution), and when using a decent video-light with very even light distribution as a light source (I found light tables to be too uneven for 4x5). Not so easy with 8x10 - there I would always opt for a flat-bed scanner (or resort to contact printing as the go-to printing option ;-)).

one other point with portability Tony, is that 4x5 also can take 120 film backs, so you end up with less gear, and the 120 rolls take up less space than the box of film and holders, and the "film bag" is smaller, and easier to 'check' at the airport.

t video and many thanks! When you say 8 X 10 is must more cost, for me it may not be. I would be happy with 8 X 10 contact prints which hugely dimplifies the darkroom equipment basically to a light bulb and paper/neg holder, a metronome and a few trays for neg developing and printing. Ansel Adams preferred sheet oil in tray processing and looking at a video on Edward Weston's darkroom, to me, says wow look how simple this set up is. I'm in a part of the world (Newfoundland) that doesn't even have a proper camera shop in the entire province and finding an affordable but decent 4 X 5 enlarger and getting it shipped her is as much as the enlarger IF I could find a seller that would ship which so far I haven't. No, I'm not interested in the Intrepid "enlarger" which looks like auto much of a compromise. So, wouldn't the cost of an 8 X 10 set up possibly be less than a 4 X5 set up taking having to find and purchase a 4 V 5 enlarger with a colour or Cold Light head? I only take B&W images and again would be happy with 8 X 10 contact prints. No enlarger to align, lamps and other electronics to deal with, etc...I do realize the difference in film cost but I'd be taking less images with 8 X 10. The other cost consideration is the tripod. Some say you need a 2,000 wooden Reis tripod. Will this is probably not true (please comment or give recommendations) an 8 x 10 tripod would need to be larger, more expensive and heavier than a 4 X 5 tripod (especially if went with an intrepid or ONDU Eiken being released soon? I would go 8 X 10 IF I can find a tripod that works and isn't $500 or more and I felt I could manage it at age 67 with some arthritis issues. I think the only way to know if I can handle it is by trying it but that could be a bit of a risk. I most I would carry any camera or hike without a camera now is about 30 Minutes from the vehicle. I've even though of adding a platform on my SUV as AA did. I realize you are into extremely large prints which I'd love to see. Are there any others out there with 8 X 10's just doing contact prints today? Many Thanks, Stephen

Even more things to keep in mind people might forget: Developing 8x10 needs some pretty special tanks/drums if you are going to do it yourself without trays. In general any darkroom type work you want to do will need bigger fancier gear as mentioned. The physical size of the film also matter for scanning, I'd imagine many of the cheaper flatbeds will be hard pressed to fit 8x10. It seems to be an almost universal rule that the bigger you go the harder it gets, I should call kodak to tell them to just start making 35mm film with the quality of an 8x10 sheet.

sorry about the typos!

tony, at 21:26, this issue was somewhat fixed by Linhof, using a vacuum back, a bulb and hose was connected to the holder, which sucked the film to the septum, presumably to fix this issue. in mf Mamiya rb67's had this 'curling' due to the nature of roll film, staying in the one place for a period of time, and even their own manual suggests shooting quick, and winding the film off within an hour or two, to stop this becoming a problem, even though, my recent roll in a 6x4.5 hasselblad H1 had no show of this missed focus, and I shot the 17 frames over 3 weeks.

I use a reflex viewer because my eyes are not as good as they once were and because at my age I find it difficult to get on my knees for low angles, getting up from my knees problem too.

you also didn't mention in the video the shutter size, as 4x5 normally uses copal 0 or 1, and 8x10 is copal 3 which is less available, and to mount a lens, both the shutter and lens board need this same size, so the more available, the cheaper the options are, in consideration of the total spend in the supplies required to shoot LF film.

8x10 is too costly for me and I prefer to put money into lenses for my 4x5 stenopeika camera. This is where I need a guide about antique, vintage, brass lenses for portraits. And if it worth it to downgrade quality.

8x10 lenses usually do not offer as much movements as 4x5. And as you mentioned, way more expensive.

64x17

only reason i want to shoot 8x10 is polaroid 8x10 film 😋

4x5 is better for me because my darkroom is able to handle 4x5 easier than 8x10.

4 x 5 and 5 x 7 here. 8 x 10 is just too big and heavy for a lot of uses.