Luxurious Cameras vs. Plain Jane Cameras and your Camera of Choice!

[Gordon Moat]

I am sort of with Emmanuel on his views, though I am German and not French. I too wear a Swiss watch, since I cannot yet afford a German watch. Of course, it gets even worse that I own an Italian motorcycle. At least my choice of shoes is mostly German.

Anyway, the Linhof Super Rollex I sometimes stick on the back of my Shen-Hao might be worth more than the camera. If I thought of my camera as luxury, there is all that nice teak construction . . . other people tend to notice that. I suppose the camera makes some sort of impression, yet that is not why I use it . . . it's just an effective tool that (as someone else put it) doesn't get in my way. Recall that outside of large format enthusiasts, and some professionals, most people will simply be impressed by a big camera on a tripod . . . and probably in some circles even bigger is even more impressive.

At the end of the day/week/month/year, it is what you can do with it, and not the impression the gear makes upon others. The Shen-Hao is considered a bargain, and maybe why some look down upon it, but it is a luxury to people who do not know it relative to other large format choices. Last year I attended a seminar put on by APA, featuring a prominent advertising photographer. The speculation prior to the seminar was that with all the big name clients, and likely big payouts, he must have some pretty impressive gear. In reality, he shot nearly everything with an old Crown Graphic and a 135mm Xenar lens . . . seriously, I have better gear than this dude. It was at that point that I decided that the gear is not that important; it only needs to not get in your way.

Okay, so to be perfectly honest, I would really like to get an Arca Swiss Misura, specifically the one with the leather bag. To me, this camera is the height of luxury, despite that it seems extremely functional. Oh well . . . maybe some day.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

For someone who uses the camera extensively, there is no more improtant feature than transparency. There is nothing worse than having to come out of the dark cloth to see what is it you need to do with the camera, or missing a shot because you know the camera cannot do what you require. In the end it comes down to usage. If you use your $1000 once a month then you can live with the faults, if you use your $5000 camera 15 times a month then you got what you needed for your work.

I had a middle of the line camera and absolutely hated it, I have a top of the line now and I now know what I have been missing all these years. There is nothing more inducive to takeing pictures than knowing you won't have to fight with the camera, being able to set it up in a couple of minutes and knowing that if you missed the shot it was because of you and not the camera.

[Jeremy Moore]

There is nothing more inducive to takeing pictures than knowing you won't have to fight with the camera, being able to set it up in a couple of minutes and knowing that if you missed the shot it was because of you and not the camera.

That's how I feel about my 5x7 Deardorff.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

A lot of the reasons for owning an expensive camera are the same as why one owns an expensive car or watch. Sure, the expensive solutions look great and will get you there in style, but the performance is often not that much different from their more pedestrain counterparts- economy car, cheap watch, inexpensive camera- especially these days. My friend has a $5,000 Rolex, and the time kept by my $50 Timex is just as good.

I think a lot of the attraction to expensive cameras is as status symbols- objects of conspicuous consumption to show off to other photographers. I'm always amazed by all the other LF photogs I see gawking at someone's new Ebony or Linhoff, and how the proud new owners enjoy showing it off. Funny how many of these people actually seldomy take photos with their expensive new cameras. This is not surprizing, though- I suppose if I had just paid five grand for a 4X5 I would be pretty hesitant to take it out where it might get damaged!

Although many expensive cameras may be built better, sturdier, or easier to use than the inexpensive ones, such is not always the case- expensive cameras can be flimsy, and cheap ones can be real sturdy. Many of the expensive cameras offer all kinds of extra movements and/or capabilities that the vast majority of photographers, especially landscape photographers, are never going to use.

[Darren H]

How about an Arca Swiss Discovery? "Luxury" brand at modest price new and down right a steal used. Love mine.

That said, once you find the right equipment for you, then buy it no matter the price.

In medium format that was a Mamiya 645E, I think it was the cheapest MF SLR out there. I tried the folding field cameras but for the small increase in cost to get a AS Discovery got me a much better camera for me, so I think it was money well spent.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

There is nothing more inducive to takeing pictures than knowing you won't have to fight with the camera, being able to set it up in a couple of minutes and knowing that if you missed the shot it was because of you and not the camera.

Amen Brother Jorge!

I've used a great many cameras over the years. Some that were/are my own and others that I have reviewed for magazines and web sites. I have yet to use a camera that couldn't, with enough effort, do everything I needed it to do. However, it is the amount of effort that that is often the difference between getting that great shot in the fast changing light or going home empty handed and frustrated.

And it's really not about luxury vs. plain Jane. There can be elegance in simplicity - to a certain extent. It's really about finding the best camera that meets your needs and feels comfortable and intuitive to operate. I think it's better to get one camera and really learn how to use it, so that the location and operation of all controls becomes intuitive, rather than to try camera after camera in search of your own photographic holy grail.

I started out with a Speed Graphic, and used it extensively and long enough to now what it could and couldn't do. That made selecting my second camera that much easier. The point is, if I wouldn't have bought the Speed Graphic I might not have ever got started in large format in the first place. So, in that way it was the "best" camera for me at the time when $200 was considered a substantial investment in something I wasn't sure I'd enjoy or stick with long term. Better to get something and get shooting than to remain forever on the sidelines fondling and dreaming of equipment rather than actually using it.

In this regard, the "best" camera is the one you currently own and use. You will learn more about that camera's abilities (and your own) and limitations (and your own) by actually taking it out and using it than you will from reading every equipment related post on this entire forum.

If you learn its limitations are getting in the way of your work, then at least you'll make an informed decision the next time. Or, maybe you'll learn it works just fine for your needs. In either case, you'll be getting out and taking photographs, which should be the end goal of this whole exercise.

Regarding "transparency" of use, I agree with everything that's been written. Having a camera you can use on autopilot without stopping to think about which knob does what is extremely liberating and frees you up to concentrate on the image, not the equipment.

However, that "transparency" varies from user to user. Different people have different needs (I NEED a cameras I can operate with ease outdoors in sub-freezing temperatures), but more importantly, different people think differently. What seems totally intuitive to me, may seem completely illogical to someone else. Nobody else can, or should, tell you what THE best camera is for YOUR needs. That should be totally up to you.

For years, I personally used classic folding wooden field cameras. They did the job I needed them to do. After all, I was shooting landscapes and that's what they were designed for. To me, at the time, the thought of using a monorail outdoors seemed totally counterintuitive. In my brain, monorails were for studio use. It wasn't until I tried using them outdoors that I learned just how much better they met my needs and allowed me to set-up and work faster in the field.

Of course it helps that the folks who designed the monorails I use/used intended for them to be used outdoors. Still, if I wouldn't have opened my mind to the possibility I would have never discovered how much better these cameras meet my needs and how well they fit my shooting style.

The brand I use may be considered by some a "luxury" item, but that's not why I bought it. Yes, it is oh so smooth and precise to operate, but the main reason I use it is the versatility. I love being able to shoot all formats from roll film up to 7x17 (and soon 14x17) with one system where the location and operation of all controls is consistent. I can step-up and tear down the camera faster than any other I've ever used. All the controls are easily accessible (even with gloves on) and logically (to me) located. This system has, no doubt, increased my productivity and enjoyment by not having to fight with (or even notice) my equipment when making photographs. Transparency really is a good word. When you no longer notice the equipment during use it starts to become more than a tool. It becomes a natural extension of the photographer that enables him to devote all his attention to capturing the image and not worrying about if he bought the right camera or what others think about his equipment.

Thats a lot of words for something that's really just a light tight box with wiggles. I really believe you're over-thinking this. Get something you THINK will meet your needs. Use it regularly for at least sixth months (a year would be better), make some beautiful photographs and then decide if it's lacking in any way. If not, great. If it is, sell it and try something else that you think will be a better fit for you based on your first hand experience.

Kerry

[Captain_joe6]

I think there also enters into the equation an element of affordability.

I, as many other college students, do not have much money to my name. Add to that the fact that photography is no the cheapest habit to support (somewhere right around cocaine, I think), and what you've got is a group of people who, no matter their equipment, treat it like gold.

I go to school with a lot of people who are dedicated handheld digital users and they all seem to be using the lower-middle range of each manufacturer's lineup. In much the same way, I use the following equipment:

I started with a Pentax K1000, as did most everybody else in the photography world. It has served me well to this day.

When I was 16 my mother bought me a Nikon FE and a 105mm f/2.5 lens, and for my birthday a year later I recieved a 50mm f/1.4. I cherish this entire kit not only for its emotional value, but because it allowed me to use a camera that, while at the very bottom of the Nikon lineup, is very flexible. Once I mastered it and it became a part of me, my photography improved in a like manner. I still am amazed at the images that it can provide me.

My first delve into large format was a 1913 Speed Graphic that I got off eBay for less that $75 in decent condition. It's got a nice little Ektar lens and the focal plane shutter is one of the most accurate devices I own. I have made some fantastic images with this camera, and with it alone I completed a semester's worth of work at my college, except where 35mm was required by the instructor.

Finally, I wanted to skip the enlarging process entirely, so I bought a Calumet C1 8x10 from a member here, and spent a few unemployed weeks refurbish and repainting it. It weighs more than I ever want to think about, is big enough to frighten small- and medium-sized children, and is almost completely devoid of any precision movement mechanism. I paid $325 for it, and it is the best camera I have ever owned. Setup and takedown is a pain in the cold, and it doesn't have but basic movements, but is is still the best camera I own because it is 100% mine, there is no other like it. I have it fitted with a Turner-Reich triple-convertible lens that I also love dearly.

What I'm getting at here is that I don't use anything near the most sophisticated equipment. My gear is crude by Deardorff standards, but it is the best that I can afford, and it allows me to make the pictures that I imagine. When money is definitely an object, the best you can afford is the best there is, and you're willing to deal with some aches and pains in the process to achieve what you need to, in order to continue doing what you love.

I wouldn't mind rear rise, though. I can simulate it well enough, but every now and then, it would be appreciated. Who cares, though, I'm making pictures that are absolutely my own.

I'll finish with a summary quote from Edward Weston, possibly the ultimate photographic minimalist: "...denying myself every luxury - indeed many comforts too - until with eleven dollars in my pocket I rushed to town - purchasing second-hand a 5x7 camera - with a ground-glass and tripod! And then what joy! I needed no friends now - I was alone with my love." from the Daybooks, Vol. I

[audioexcels]

That's a very cute quote!

So many wonderful posts as usual. I know the Deardorff has fine movements, but I wasn't aware of it having movements like a Wehman/Philips/Toho/Ritter, etc., or does it? Weighing 5lbs+ vs. the Wehman and Philips, to me, makes the Deardorff a behemoth when we're talking about 8X10 cameras that have almost 1/2 the weight differential, and both wood based cameras meant for field use, no? Even the new Ritter design will be at 7lbs-ish and has incredible movements, at a price that is close enough to a very nicely refurbed Deardorff.

Thanks again for so many wonderful posts. From my time with cameras so far, I did not like the Speed Graphic. Sure, it's kinda a point and shooter, but it's rough to me. Field cameras have been anywhere from good to bad. I actually do not like the thickness of the rear standard on the Tachihara. Movements wise, it is good, but no different than an old field type.

The very best I have had is the Arca. It's like having all these bits and pieces that fit together so neatly and provide so much flexibility. Almost like solving the puzzle of the image, you have a neat little puzzle of parts, so easily assembled, and ready for action. One thing about the Arca I have not liked entirely is the knobs that are excellent, but feel a bit rough. However, I prefer the feel of them to the feel of the metal type knobs of a wood field. From my experience so far, the Arca has been the most simplistic system I have used and if I needed anything more, it would be more money for future living in Europe!

Cheers all!!!

[mark edward randle]

Jorge echo`s my own thoughts, whatever camera I use it has to stay out of my way when I`m working. It`s all about staying in the groove, being in synch with the scene and I can`t do that if the camera is difficult. The first large format I bought was a Sinar monorail ( an F1 ), mainly because of the price. I find it heavy, and slow and awkward to use. It has good movements, but taking landscapes how much movement do you really need ? Personally, I found I don`t need that much.
My Gandolfi 8x10 field camera is completely different. When it`s on my back it doesn`t feel appreciably heavier than the 4x5 Sinar. It`s one of the most rigid large format cameras I`ve come across, and most of all it stays out of my way, it just doesn`t make it`s presence felt, which to me is a huge plus. Other ( cheaper ? )cameras for me nearly always have some kind of irritation factor. I need a camera that allows me to transcend technique and equipment and operate on intuition alone, to lose the sense of self in the Tao and the genius loci. Then I can take pictures. Oh yeah, and it looks pretty as well.

[Tom Perkins]

Most of them do about the same thing as long as you can lock them down and they have some tilt and an adequate bellows. After that it's a matter of what you need, size and weight, swing, shift, longer (or shorter) extensions, levels, geared movements. Except for its weight and the small contact prints, the Walker Titan has the best things that I need, and unlike what I learned during my brief and unpleasant experience with the Wisner 8x10, I have found that it does not shatter when you fall down and smack it on a rock. I can see the appeal of a precision instrument, and there is no doubt that any tool that does not require you to fight it is a good thing. If a photographer can afford a fine piece of equipment and get some good use out of it, more the better. To answer the question, I wish I had a Walker 7x17 and someone to carry it for me.