True cost of digital vs. LF...starting out?

[Tony Flora]

Everyone seems to think that digital is the way to go but, I just don't see it.

Is it really about saving money with no film costs or is it more about workflow and instant gratification? I have been putting together a portfolio www.tonyflora.com (critiques requested) using a Nikon D70 and I love the camera but my goal is to be shooting for architects and interior designers...The images look good on the website but I don't think they will hold water compared to 4x5 or high end digital. But I don't have the big bucks to buy the high end $3K plus cameras....and $3K is the low end. Even if I did.....why would I want to? In two years (or less) a $5000 D2x has dropped $2000 (ebay prices)........factor in programs to run it all and massive amounts of storage.....I just don't think it's cheaper or smarter for me. (considering god only knows how long before I can earn enough to make it worth it)

I'm just starting out and the idea of buying a camera for $1000 (LF) that will produce results on par or better to a $25K digital camera appeals to me. If I had money to burn and really wanted to stay on the cutting edge of technology I could see it but I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone just trying to break in to the business. Results are what matter for me. Anyway it's decision time and I need some clarity...(that's where you come in).....do I bite the bullet and buy the D200 or D2x and make do with quality that I believe to be sub-par to a 4x5 or do I buy the 4x5 and continue to shoot digital for the detail stuff? Sorry about the rant, my medication is wearing off, and thank you for the feedback.

[QT Luong]

There are advantages and drawbacks in both workflows, but eventually it all depends on volume. For instance, in 35mm I expose easily 10,000-20,000 frames/year, so digital makes sense. On the other hand, in LF, it's less (recently way less) than 1,000/year, so digital is still not competitive.

[Frank Petronio]

Tony, you have first class work regardless of the equipment and most people don't need to look at anything beyond the superior photos on your website to see that you are a skilled and talented photographer. So why don't you get into the market and let the paying jobs take you in the most appropriate direction? Having the job pay for your gear always is better than buying a bunch of stuff in anticipation. I know lots of "professional" photographers, including myself, who have gone on gear buying binges only to find they didn't need it all.

But... then again, getting a new D80 with a quality wide lens (which may be the hardest part) gets you all the quality of the D2X/D200 in a less expensive but still very nice package (I went from a D2X to a D80 without feeling anything but relief). And I just picked up a second Sinar F with a bag bellows for under $400... quality gear has never been such a good bargain.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am a thirty year professional arch photographer and I primarily use a modified 50 year old Calumet Wide Field (about 150 bucks) with C2N roll film backs, color negative film and a $400 scanner. Of course I have about 10 thousand in lenses, but you could get around that with careful shopping.

[Jim Rice]

Kirk makes a fine point. A $200~300 CC-400 or Graphic View II will do anything you want to except fold up or be elegant. I'm partial to reasonably modern German glass (insert your preference here). Multi-coating is a good thing, so budget five bills for your first lens (you'll probably get it for less in carefull ebaying). A handfull of holders and there you are. If you find that you don't care for LF, you can back out with minimal loss of skin. You might even like it.

[Kirk Fry]

I also recommend a good CC400 calumet. They are going for $50-100 for good ones. They do it all except bag bellows or fold. 210 mm lenes are about $300 for really good ones on ebay. Older ones like a Fujinon 210L can be had for $100...

[roteague]

For instance, in 35mm I expose easily 10,000-20,000 frames/year, so digital makes sense.

Hmm.. if I shot that much 35mm a year, I would see the volume as a reason to keep shooting film, not a reason to switch to digital.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am talking about a Calumet Wide Field not a CC400. They haven't been made since the 60's. It actually has only three different parts than the 400, but those parts transform it into a different camera. The Wide Field was designed for architecture. It has a special, very flexible bellows, not bag but as good. It will take a 47mm on a flat lense board with full movements.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Funny that the guy that is considered anti digital is giving you this advice, and certainly Kirk would be a better resource than I am, but in my expereince (limited as it is) architectural work for publication no longer requires an 8x10 camera and trannys.... From your web site I think you are doing very well and I would encourage you to stay with digital, it will make your submission and delivery of photographs much more easier and from what I have heard, most architectural magazines/architects want a file rather than a slide.

While there are some growing pains, I think your work in digital with a middle range camera and your current experience will give you more work than if you get a LF camera.

Bottom line, I say stick with it, do what you know how to do well and grow from there. Working in LF is a far different animal that might not suit your way of work and photographing.

[PViapiano]

Tony...

Great work on your website! If you're using a D70, how are you holding your verticals together like that? Are you photoshopping the skews/perspective to keep them straight?

Great job!

Paul