I've used someone elses a couple of times. They are a little lighter than the other clamshell like the KMV. It's a little smaller than the wooden B&J field camera, it's less expensive than the new choices like Chamonix and Canham. THe big metal plate on the bottom works nicely with tripods with a big top like the Ries A series heads. I liked it but don't lug around an 8x10 enough to warrant trading up from the B&J I have to save a couple of inches.
It is said that Jack Deardorff notices many lensboards through the years had been dropped and the square corners chipped, dented and rounded from that happening. That is why he went with the rounded corner.Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer
” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
Lads, we haven't done a very good job of addressing the original question. There is a certain mystique to the thing. It's the Eames chair of cameras. The Harley Davidson of the photo world. Just accept it. Whether you like it or not changes nothing. They are beautiful things. Superbly made. In a time when most of the west coast school was using old Ansco's or 2D's the Deardorff had all the moves. Up front.
I've had 3. I settled on a Kodak 2D that isn't worth $300. Alas the Deardorff front standard does not like old heavy brass petzvals. And you can't put a Packard inside, like the Kodak. But I still am tempted often by the siren of the Deardorff. I have 5X7 and 11X14 and love them both. Neither is for sale, unless you wish to pay mystique prices.
I have 6 at present from 4x5 to 11x14. I think that folks who don't understand or appreciate them should certainly use other capable cameras and leave the Dorffs for those of us who do. L
But try putting the Korona boards on the Deardorff...
Or you could not drop your lenses...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
In a perfect world all cameras would take the same boards and no one would drop their lenses. That is not the case. Back to the original question. I think the mystique of the Deardorff really boils down to the fact that they are beautiful, functional and have been used by many famous photographers over the past 90 years.
Deardorff, image making tool of personal preference. No more, No less. if a given image maker is comfortable with a Deardorff and does what is required, there can be zero wrong with that choice. Much the same a painters favor certain brushes, paints, oils or technical folks who favor specific brands to types of instrumentation.
Mass acceptance of a given item does not always mean that item is ideal for any given individual, in this case, the image maker.
Bernice
Leica M camera, Nikon F2, Hasselblad 500CM, Deardorff 8x10
always wondered why they were thought of so highly until I got one
I'd like to try one. But I always figure my $250 Kodak 2D, or Seneca Improved were 80% as good as a $1800 Deardorff, so pass on them. If mystique is worth a thousand words, it's not going to make your pictures a thousand times better. I have shot Leicas too (used one last weekend), but a good Canon or Nicca rangefinder is always as good....or better....and cheaper.
Garrett
flickr galleries
When I was young I dreamed of owning a Hasselblad 500CM. I eventually acquired one in trade. It was a very nice camera and everything I had hoped it to be but I couldn't understand the mystique behind it. I actually preferred shooting a Mamiya RZ67 but I think most would be happier with the smaller and lighter weight Blad.
Certain cameras have a loyal following because they are great cameras to use. I think mystique is just something imagined.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks