Is bigger always better?

[Rick58]

The dilemma:

60 year old 135 Optar hanging on a 4x5 view vs. RB67 stock 90mm
Both cameras and lenses minty.
Print size limited to 8x10
B&W

Which camera will yield the best print? You have the inherited flaws of the 60 year Optar, but the smaller footprint of the RB negative with its (in my opinion) fantastic glass....but he print size IS limited to 8x10. Any thoughts?


I know I could, and will, do some testing, but I'm just looking for opinions and discussion

[Ads]

[Mike_E]

I would guess (guess) that the 4x5 would do better simply because you are only enlarging 2x.

I've never shot a 135 Optar but it's being 60 years old shouldn't be an issue for a LF lens.

[chris]

I have no direct experience with 5x4 but I used a RB67 with standard 90 mm lens for many years and was always amazed at the quality of the results.

I did quite a lot of monochrome work usually printing to 10"x8" - no problem at all, even with fast film. With Pan F and a fine grain developer the grain was all but invisible in the print.

The very best results were with the camera on a tripod of course but I also did a lot of hand held shots (I do have big hands though).

If you are limiting yourself to 10x8 printing then the only reason to go to 5x4 would be for tilt/shift corrections.

[compur]

No contest: The 4x5 will make a better 8x10 print

That's assuming the Optar is clean and free of haze (observe the glass while shining a flash light through it).

[Rick58]

Optar is near mint. I have a soft spot for good, clean lens/shutter combo's from the 40's and 50's. Showing my age I guess. I got this close >< to buying a 135 Ektar on a Synchro Compur shutter last night on ebay, but I sneezed and when I opened my eye's it was gone

Well, that's two for LF and one for MF. Chris is right, the standard 90 on the RB is a beautiful peice of glass. Very good point regarding the swings and tilts but they are very limited with the 135 on a 4x5 view. It's fine on the limited movements on my Crown Graphic, but the C400 can't be used to it's fullest potential.

[compur]

What's the eBay item number on that?

[Rick58]

@ Compur: I went back to my "didn't win" list and found it, but apparently they don't display the item number after the auction ends. My memory is fading as fast as my hair line. This one was a 127mm in a Supermatic-X shutter. Sold for $77.01 Very clean. Of course my highest bid was $76.01. I had intentions of riding it to $100 but got distracted. I shouldn't have played games and put $100 in the pot from the start. I have a beautiful 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Crown Graphic I intended to put it on.

[compur]

I'm guessing it was # 230814813716 , the Ektar 127/4.7

Looks like a nice lens and it's coated too ("L" in circle logo). The Ektar 127/4.7 and the Optar 135/4.7 are very similar. Both are 4-element Tessar type lenses. The Ektars were said to have better quality control.

[Rick58]

That sounds like it. I watched that lens for a long time, then dropped the ball with seconds to go. The Ektars are also known for having better contrast over the Optar's

[christopher walrath]

My question is, at 8x10 who's gonna notice a difference? I've shot both. Love both. You get more information in a larger neg. But above 35mm you won't notice much difference until you start printing poster size.

Keep it light.
ChrisW

[Rick58]

Very good point Chris. That's exactly why I specified 8X10. I wasn't sure if there would be noticeable detail loss. There obviously will be more detail in the 4x5, but I generally don't view at my finished prints through a loupe while hanging on the wall.

[Marcelle]

you mention 8x10 prints, both cameras will deliver great quality for that size (I use a sinar F, a RB and RZ) but the choice would rather be based on what you want to shoot, the 4x5" still has advantages on that level

[Rick58]

Very true. I definitely should have added that to the perimeters. My main interests are B&W landscape and still life which are geared towards LF, but print clarity is the same if it's a weathered door hinge or Little Tommy smiling face.

[Marcelle]

personally I would work on 4x5 to be able to use the tilt and swing or Scheimplflug especially in landscape

[maris]

Marcelle is right. The availability of Scheimpflug movements on the 4x5 delivers a difference visible even on an 8x10 photograph if the subject has enough front to back depth. I've shot an 80 year old 135mm Tessar (similar to Optar) lens on 4x5 and it and the Mamiya RB67 lens both are capable of delivering detail finer than the eye can see on 8x10. It's the depth of field control that makes the difference. By the time you have stopped the Mamiya lens down to f32 diffraction is starting to eat sharpness .