This is one serious enlarger. I'm impressed.
ebay # 310309656905
This is one serious enlarger. I'm impressed.
ebay # 310309656905
Looks an awful lot like a re-purposed process camera.
Strangely enough, that is (or rather was) a regular catalogue item...
I like his statement that $18,500 is not much more than the price of two view cameras. He must use different view cameras than I do.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
if you're talking two 4x5 or 8x10 Sinar P2 cameras from 15-20yrs ago, that might be the price of 1 system(and not a "full" system either).
I remember seeing a catalog from the 80's, and the 8x10 P2 was like $10k+, no lenses. Just the camera. But they paid for themselves hand over fist for a busy studio, so the upfront cost was negligible at best for a hard-working(and thusly compensated) photographer with heavy-hitter clients.
Today its all about stretching out the dollar/yen/yuan as much as possible, but no skimping on quality. $50k digital back systems are the "norm" these days, but a lot of people rent, rather than buy, due to the huge investment in the technologies, not to mention the computers to work the files
-Dan
If you bought a Sinar back in the days, you knew you could use this camera for decades. If you buy a $50k digital back today, you know you have to replace it in very few years. Or is anybody here using (professionally) a digital camera 5 years old or older?Originally Posted by DanielStone
Michael
Michael,
thats IF you plan on upgrading. Many people I assist for are having trouble finding clients who WANT MF digital files. With the files delivered by today's 35mm hi-end cameras(1dsIII, D3x, 5dII), they're able to get faster shooting capabilities(great for people-shooters), and less external hard drives to buy to back up jobs. A lower buy-in price is nice too. A nice 3-4 lens setup and a pro body or two can bring one in under $20k. MF digital, you're looking at potentially double that price, or more. Of course there's trade-offs, you get a "sharper" file, and can blow it up bigger with less pixelation when using a MFDB, but usually, posters in stores are hung up on walls where you can't get closer than 4-5 feet away from them. So the pixels in the print can be big(ger)
Horses for courses. If I had 50K in loose change to blow, I might be convinced to purchase a few more lenses for my Hassy(503) kit and a 50-60mp back. But I like shooting rollfilm occasionally, and it has a MUCH lower rate of turnover, and its cheaper to store all those "files" I shoot
I agree on the Sinar issue. Someone I used to assist for here in LA had purchased his P2 Sinar(4x5 and 8x10 kits, 1 of each) back in the 80s when they were introduced. He owned the P in both sizes before that. His lenses were all purchased with the P2 cameras(db mounted, he was studio only, still life/product stuff, occasionally cars), and he used them up until 5-6 years ago when he went fully digital in capture. Since he shot close to 50% of his finals on 8x10 chromes, it was hard for HIM to switch, since he invested in a drum scanner and a film recorder(to record edited(in PS) final shots to), but his big clients demanded results faster than film could allow. So he sold off his 4x5s, but kept the 8x10 and lenses in anticipation of potentially shooting some more film. Never happened. He's now doing the majority of his work on a D3X with T/S lenses. And for a heck of a lot less $$$... Maintaining a studio big enough to shoot a lineup of cars in(he has a 50' cyc of his own) ain't cheap. But he's getting work. His LF cameras purchased in the earlier 80s served him for over 20 years, and helped him generate millions of dollars in income over that time. Now that's what I call a return
He rents out a Leaf back when he needs to shoot big stuff, and uses a rental Linhof digital view camera w/ digital HR lenses. Nice setup, but when you're used to the size of an 8x10 g/g, that 60x45mm sized screen looks puny(his words)...
-Dan
Why do you have to replace the digital back every few years?
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
DeVere has one too:
Arguably resolution and bit depth aren't changing that fast in the large back field. But in a commercial studio setting, speed does matter - each generation does deliver the same resolution and bit depth faster than the one before. Over half a decade that tends to accumulate to more than 50% difference, which is rather too much of an advantage for the competition, unless you have specialized in some niche market with unusually low time pressure...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks