Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-24-2010, 09:51 PM   #31
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by rhodopsin Quote
Just so somebody says it (I too assume you are well aware):

Besides the costly lenses, 4x5 film is more expensive to buy and process, and more difficult to use, than 6x7 120/220 roll film. 6x7 uses roll film; simply operate the winder to move a new frame into picture-taking position. Assume here you know the drill with 4x5 film...
There is no arguing the cost element. Four sheets of 4x5 have the same surface area as a roll of 120 film, so it is reasonable for the cost for materials to follow. What I don't understand is paying $2.00+ per sheet for C-41 processing.

In regards to the time for 4x5 film handling, switching out the film holders between exposures is not too bad once you get the flow down. About six seconds total out of the 20 seconds or so that it takes do actually do an exposure. The time element in LF work is the effort to set up and take down the camera before and after the shot. It takes me about 8 minutes minimum to do a shot, start to finish. The exposure itself is anti-climax.

Back to the film...what I find cumbersome is having to load the film holders and the limited number of holders you can realistically carry into the field. Now that is a pain. That is the main reason why I shoot both 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets with the 4x5 camera. Good things from both worlds.


Steve

07-24-2010, 10:00 PM   #32
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
...I really wanted a Zone VI camera when I bought, but couldn't afford it.
I really wanted a Canham DLC45 or an Ebony, but again could not afford it.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-24-2010 at 10:06 PM.
07-24-2010, 11:33 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Deep Forest
Posts: 630
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I picked up some of my 4x5 lenses cheaper than my P67 lenses and most certainly much cheaper than my Hasselblad lenses. Expensive? And per square inch of film you're buying, 4x5 sheet film is about the same price as roll film with some brands.
Clever and lucky folks can spend less money on equipment, certainly...I'm not particularly clever or lucky & my 6x7 kit with 7 lenses from 55-200mm all in excellent condition cost me only $1300 and some significant time searching for and waiting for bargain deals.

Right, film costs the same per unit area. Compare how many photos and how much processing costs per photo...the quality and capabilities of 4x5 cost significantly more. No free lunch.

4x5 costs more for processing because handling cost is much higher; loading a roll of 12 or more photos vs single photos...
07-25-2010, 08:12 AM   #34
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by rhodopsin Quote
Clever and lucky folks can spend less money on equipment, certainly...I'm not particularly clever or lucky & my 6x7 kit with 7 lenses from 55-200mm all in excellent condition cost me only $1300 and some significant time searching for and waiting for bargain deals.

Right, film costs the same per unit area. Compare how many photos and how much processing costs per photo...the quality and capabilities of 4x5 cost significantly more. No free lunch.

4x5 costs more for processing because handling cost is much higher; loading a roll of 12 or more photos vs single photos...
I would consider you both clever and lucky to have a 6x7 kit with seven lenses for $1300

As for the per exposure cost of LF, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. The matter, including the dollar figures, was covered in other comments. It is all a trade-off. As for the processing expenses...I understand that the 4x5 stuff has to be hand-loaded onto hangers as opposed to machine-loaded onto reels (my lab has a Refrema system), but I would expect the cost to be about 1/2 what they are charging. Niche market, I guess, but then again, so is 120 roll film.

As for quality...6x7cm vs 10x12.5cm (nominally) is a pretty big difference. There is also the matter of the camera movements. It is a series of trade-offs all-round.


Steve

07-25-2010, 08:54 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,158
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote

As for quality...6x7cm vs 10x12.5cm (nominally) is a pretty big difference. There is also the matter of the camera movements. It is a series of trade-offs all-round.


Steve
That quality won't start to show up until you hit 11x14 or larger, presuming slow speed film is being used.
I have 11x14s from Ilford PanF off the 6x7 beside 11x14s from Pan F 4x5 side by side on my walls, and quite honestly can't see all that much difference between the two.

My 4x5 kit consists of the Tachihara, 65mm, 90mm, 150mm and 210 mm lenses along with 25 or so film holders, gel filters and holder, a Zone VI digital spot meter, cable release, and some other tripe.
It weighs in significantly less than my entire 6x7 kit, and probably not all that far off from the 6x7 if I cut the lenses back to equivalent angle of views for each kit.
The 6x7 lenses are very large and heavy compared to my 4x5 lenses, and the camera is much heavier as well.
This makes up for a lot of the weight of film holders.
I have a Tamrac pack that is pretty much designed specifically for carrying a 4x5 field kit, so it's an easy carry.
07-25-2010, 01:58 PM   #36
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
That quality won't start to show up until you hit 11x14 or larger, presuming slow speed film is being used.
I have 11x14s from Ilford PanF off the 6x7 beside 11x14s from Pan F 4x5 side by side on my walls, and quite honestly can't see all that much difference between the two.
Won't argue with you there. The break point is at about 11x14. It is for that reason that I almost bought a 2x3" view camera setup with roll-film holder instead of the 4x5. Another thing to consider is that few of us have room for a 4x5 darkroom setup.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
My 4x5 kit consists of the Tachihara, 65mm, 90mm, 150mm and 210 mm lenses along with 25 or so film holders, gel filters and holder, a Zone VI digital spot meter, cable release, and some other tripe.
It weighs in significantly less than my entire 6x7 kit, and probably not all that far off from the 6x7 if I cut the lenses back to equivalent angle of views for each kit.
The 6x7 lenses are very large and heavy compared to my 4x5 lenses, and the camera is much heavier as well.
This makes up for a lot of the weight of film holders.
I have a Tamrac pack that is pretty much designed specifically for carrying a 4x5 field kit, so it's an easy carry.
I was going to mention the weight comparison, but since I don't have a 6x7 setup, I figured it better to keep my mouth shut and fingers still. My Chamonix weighs just slightly over 3 lbs. Add both my lenses for another 1.5 pounds and throw in meter and a half dozen film holders and other stuff and the total might go to six pounds.

One big consideration when looking weight is that a Pentax 6x7 does not require a tripod. With a view camera, the tripod is as essential as a lens as part of the kit. My Giottos with head adds another 6 pounds for a kit total of 12 pounds.

BTW...how is shooting with a 65mm on the Tachi? I did not know that you could go that short with that camera. Bag bellows?


Steve
07-25-2010, 05:12 PM   #37
Senior Member
guidoanselmi's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: LA, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Won't argue with you there. The break point is at about 11x14. It is for that reason that I almost bought a 2x3" view camera setup with roll-film holder instead of the 4x5. Another thing to consider is that few of us have room for a 4x5 darkroom setup.
FWIW, I bought some cheap tupperware and process my 4x5 BW in a walk-in closet. It's worked pretty well for me and hell of a lot cheaper than a light-tight processor.

Also, I bought a cheap 4x5 Calumet w/ a 160 mm lens for $150 at a camera show. Works just fine with almost all movements. I figure if someone is making a plunge for a LF camera having a cheap one to start with is not much of an expense.
07-25-2010, 06:47 PM   #38
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by guidoanselmi Quote
FWIW, I bought some cheap tupperware and process my 4x5 BW in a walk-in closet. It's worked pretty well for me and hell of a lot cheaper than a light-tight processor.
The negative processing is not too much of a problem. B&W for 4x5 requires about the same amount of effort and space as 35mm. In fact, I could use the same $20 daylight processing tank that I use for 4x5 for both 120 and 35mm. The issue with a 4x5 darkroom is the space taken by a 4x5 enlarger. My 6x7 enlarger is relatively light and stores in the closet of the spare room. A 4x5 is much larger and heavier and would require a permanent home.

The compromise I have made is to scan my 4x5 negatives on a higher end consumer-grade scanner. Those scans can be used to do a pretty good sized print, but not with the same quality as I might expect from an optical enlargement. If there is a photo that I particularly like, darkroom rentals are available locally and I can take that route. Alternatively, I can find someone to do the printing for me ($$$).


Steve

07-25-2010, 09:22 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,158
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote


BTW...how is shooting with a 65mm on the Tachi? I did not know that you could go that short with that camera. Bag bellows?


Steve
I honestly don't know how the 65 is. Its in my bag, but I haven't taken a single picture with it yet.
I had actually forgotten that I had bought it.
I need to start shooting LF again.
You say you are getting decent scans off a flatbed?
07-25-2010, 10:11 PM   #40
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I honestly don't know how the 65 is. Its in my bag, but I haven't taken a single picture with it yet.
I had actually forgotten that I had bought it.
I need to start shooting LF again.
You say you are getting decent scans off a flatbed?
I bought the Epson V700 for that purpose and have been pretty happy with the results so far. Max resolution is about 2400 dpi, but that is a pretty huge scan with a 4x5 negative. In fact, it is too big to import into Lightroom 1.x

Here are a couple links to low-res scans from 4x5:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/4784855910/in/set-72157623918913177/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/4784144545/in/set-72157623918913177/

The reason why I asked about the 65mm is that the Tachi minimum bellows extension is right at 65mm and I was wondering how well the movements worked.


Steve
07-26-2010, 07:32 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,158
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I bought the Epson V700 for that purpose and have been pretty happy with the results so far. Max resolution is about 2400 dpi, but that is a pretty huge scan with a 4x5 negative. In fact, it is too big to import into Lightroom 1.x

Here are a couple links to low-res scans from 4x5:

Columbia Gorge, Backwater Inlets II on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Tumbling Stream, III on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The reason why I asked about the 65mm is that the Tachi minimum bellows extension is right at 65mm and I was wondering how well the movements worked.


Steve
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out. I expect I'll end up making a recessed lensboard for the 65mm lens.
I know with my 90, the movements are very limited.
07-26-2010, 11:12 AM   #42
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,502
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out. I expect I'll end up making a recessed lensboard for the 65mm lens.
I know with my 90, the movements are very limited.
Or you can send that worthless 65mm to me...


Steve
07-28-2010, 05:38 PM   #43
Senior Member
guidoanselmi's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: LA, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 131
I bought my V500 before I got into 4x5. Sadly, that means I have to scan twice and then PS auto-merges.

A pain, but it works.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
67ii, camera, flash, lf, macro, medium format, pentax, sports, studio
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 67II Ole Pentax Medium Format 2 04-20-2010 06:17 PM
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax 67 or 67ii superbass Sold Items 0 03-31-2010 01:56 PM
K10d on a 4x5?? atracksler Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 03-10-2008 06:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top