OzWizard

The Intrepid 4x5 sheet film camera, made in England, using using 3D printing technology along with other aluminium/ wood or heavy duty plastic parts, https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/
Cameras of this format are still,very expensive and heavy. This Intrepid, is light affordable ($500.00 avg). And has sparked some interest in many serious old school film photographers.
I'm sure someone here, has purchased and used this camera. I am interested in purchasing one, but I would like to know more information on acquiring a lens , and how the camera holds up with frequent use. And any other information you think is useful.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Well, 500 pounds is not $500, but it looks interesting. I used to do medium format film, always thought about going bigger but too expensive!

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I have their 8x10 Mk II camera. I really love it. It is super light and folds down compactly. Never thought I would be able to shoot 8x10 but here we are.

tcthome Loc: NJ

[quote=Retired CPO]Well, 500 pounds is not $500

$630.99

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

[quote=tcthome]

Thank you, I've always been math challenged!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That should be fun to use. I saw a used 4X5 for sale in a camera store, and I wisely resisted it.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

That doesn't look like it includes a lens. And of course a big 'ole tripod....

MrPhotog

Check ebay for a lens. A ‘normal’ lens would be 152 mm, but the common lens used was about 135 mm. There are many different brands and models available, and some are excellent deals.

Typical maximum aperture is f/4.5. A ‘fast’ lens would be f/3.5, and more expensive. Longer focal lengths (and wider) tend to be f/5.6 or even f/8.

Older lenses used on press cameras may not have a PC flash fitting, but rather a ‘bi-post’ (2-pin) flash connection. Adapters to fit standard PC connectors are available. Some very old lenses do not have any flash synchronization at all. These are sometimes very inexpensive.

For studio use, including portraiture. a slightly longer focal length, 180 mm or 210 mm works well.

For a quick and dirty approximation to compare these to focal lengths used with 35 mm full frame cameras, use a factor of 3.

For example: A 90 mm lens on a 4x5 is similar to a 30 mm lens on a 35mm camera. And a 135 on a 4x5 is about 45 mm—pretty close to a 50 mm ‘normal’ with 35 mm format.

An excellent addition to a 4x5 camera is a roll film adapter allowing the use of 120 (or 220) film. These are available in different formats, including 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 cm formats. The 6x7 shape comes closest to matching the proportions of a 4x5.

Sometimes these are referenced not by the image size, but by how many pictures you can get per roll of 120 film. An ‘RH12’ would be a roll holder for 12 exposures, and those would be square 6x6 (nominal) images. A 10 exposure back would give 6x7 images, and you would get eight 6x9 cm images (same proportions as 35 mm film). Graphlex also called those 2x3 or type 23 backs, referring to the images being roughly 2” by 3”.

While shopping for a lens, you might want to look at some used view cameras on ebay. You might find a better camera for about the same price. I’ve seen used Sinar field cameras offered at $500 or less.

I don’t suppose you happen to already have an enlarger that holds 4x5 negatives? Scanning the larger negatives is an option.

stevefrankel

The tripod isn't necessary. Remember, these were the original press cameras. For two years I took thousands of photos with a 3 ¼ x 4 ¾" Crown Graphic and the results were exemplary. Load it up with Tri-X sheet film and you were off to the races: sports photos, portraits, landscapes, and news photos. All in black & white of course.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Steve, there is a considerable difference between a view camera, such as the one in this thread, and a press camera. This one would require a tripod.
--Bob

therwol Loc: USA

According to the web site, this camera uses a 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch tripod mount. The tripods shown in the pictures on the web site look like they're not the "big 'ole" variety. From personal experience, my old Tiltall tripod handled my Crown Graphic perfectly well, and I'm going to guess that it was as heavy as or heavier than this camera.

stevefrankel

Sorry, I was referring to press cameras (either 4x5" or 3.25x4.25"), in saving a tripod wasn't pessary for most uses. I agree that a view camera is an entirely different animal.