Time to Get a View Camera?

[John Kasaian]

To paraphrase a smart fellow:
"If you want to shoot a view camera then stop being a nancy and shoot a bloody view camera."

[Bill_1856]

View cameras are a PITA. You should rent one or attend a viewcamera workshop before committing.

[sanchi heuser]

Try a view camera.

Carry only the basic equipment with you (Camera, tripod head, one lens only, 2-3 film holders, light meter, simple lupe, dark cloth)
Shoot less but better.
See the results

[chuck94022]

Why do I need it: Just for hobby, landscape, portrait, what else?
Format to consider: 4x5, like Sinar

I still can't decide if I should get a view camera. It is not necessary, since I have a lot of MF equipment (Bronica 6x7). The camera is already very cheap and will probably get even cheaper. My main concern is the cost and sources for the film. It seems it is about $2 for a shot. That is costly for a hobby. And the large format films will be even harder to get.

There may be more cost to get the processor (for color). I already have a 4x5 enlarger (Omeage D5-XL/Prolab II).

Some considerations on the positive side:

1) Each sheet can be developed individually. If you want to learn and use the zone system, being able to process each sheet with different push/pull timing, and even different chemistry, is possible. With roll film you commit the entire roll to the same development process. (You can designate different backs to different development plans, but that is more of a hassle.)

2) Similar to the above: you don't have to wait until an entire roll is exposed before you develop. You can go out, shoot one image, come right in and develop it. This is especially valuable if you are doing this as a hobby, and aren't banging through many rolls in one shoot, but instead are really just shooting a few shots at a time.

3) Larger film surface. Obvious values of resolution and smoothness of gradation between tones. Less obvious is it gives you more cropping options, while retaining a lot of image detail.

4) Very shallow DoF possible relative to smaller formats. You're going with longer lenses for even your normal lens. You can get a shallower DoF for a normal lens, or even a wide lens (eg, 90mm wide lens) than you would get with a lens of comparable angle of view in smaller formats.

5) Camera movements. Once you've experienced the image control you get with movements, it is tough to go back to cameras that can't do it. Amazing focus control in landscapes, wonderful perspective control in architecture, and incredible precision in product/macro photography.

6) Ground glass composition and focusing. Seeing your image on ground glass, under a dark cloth, is an indescribable experience for a photographer. There's just something about that big ground glass view that is completely unlike a viewfinder.

7) Simple, all mechanical operation. No electronics. No batteries. No distractions.

8) The rich learning experience all the above will give you regarding photography and image making.

9) Oh yeah, the chicks! I forgot to mention the chicks!

Edit: Regarding color processing: The only special equipment you need is a .2 degree accuracy glass thermometer. You can easily process C-41 in a wash tub that you preheat to the proper temperature simply by mixing hot and cold water together. It is not that hard.

[ramon]

View cameras are a PITA. You should rent one or attend a viewcamera workshop before committing.

And view camera ACCESORIES are more PITA.

Do you have spot meter? Add $100 ~ $150 USD
Development trays (jobo 2509+2521, paterson orbital)? Add $100 ~ $150
Film holders? Add 5x $10 ~ $20
Your new bargain LF lens has a non-compatible lens board? Add $20
You already have lupe, cable release and focusing cloth (a big one)? Add ...

Maybe you already have a good tripod and head, so you don't need to add ~ $400.

And because you already has a 4x5 enlarger I am not going to talk about $95/photo drum scans, or second-hand-twenty-years-old junkdrumscanners, or no-longer-supported-$20k-high-end-flatbeds.

Sorry, I have found too many "just do it" messages.

Borrow/rent a LF camera and also trying MF view cameras was a good idea.

If you don't mind about money and want to try ... well ... just do it, like everyone else in this forum

[welly]

Why do I need it: Just for hobby, landscape, portrait, what else?
Format to consider: 4x5, like Sinar

I still can't decide if I should get a view camera. It is not necessary, since I have a lot of MF equipment (Bronica 6x7). The camera is already very cheap and will probably get even cheaper. My main concern is the cost and sources for the film. It seems it is about $2 for a shot. That is costly for a hobby. And the large format films will be even harder to get.

There may be more cost to get the processor (for color). I already have a 4x5 enlarger (Omeage D5-XL/Prolab II).

Just get one. They're cheap as chips these days and they're the most fun you'll have under a sheet of dark material.

[Cletus]

Slows you down. I.e.:
35mm film - 108 frames shot, 6 mediocre keepers, 1 portfolio keeper - can print to 8x10
120 film - 24 frames shot, 5 keepers, maybe 1 portfolio keeper - can print to 16x20
Large Format - 6 frames shot, 5 keepers, probably 2 portfolio keepers - can print a billboard (8x10)
DSLR - 1,196 frames shot, 2 keepers, no portfolio keepers - 12 hours in front of the computer to find this out.

[Jim Jones]

Anyone considering moving into LF photography will benefit from much homework. This site is the best place to start. There are several useful how-to books that give a more complete overview than browsing here. The several films on Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and others are tempting.

Cletus is right. LF photography need not be expensive. New cameras that cost the masters of a few decades ago a month's income now sell used for a few day's wages, and can work as well as ever. Completed transactions on auction sites and this site's "For Sale/Wanted" forum are a good indication of equipment values. Patient shopping should provide equipment that can be resold for little or no loss. The knowledge gained online and from books will help protect you from unwise purchases. Film is expensive per shot, but I spend more on gasoline travelling to a shoot than on film.

[Bill_1856]

Three of the greatest LF photographers (Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, and Brett Weston) gave up on their big cameras and switched to 6x6 reflexes for the last several years of their lives.

[Cletus]

I better clarify, for those who might take my remarks too literally - My post about "format vs. keepers" was absolutely a joke - with just a grain of truth thrown in for good measure. I shoot Medium Format too, when the situation calls for it, and even still a little 35mm now and then. Sometimes the subject absolutely dictates the format.

The generalization is true though, Large Format does force you to slow down and think about what you're doing. The time and expense per frame can give you pause when thinking about just "burning a few frames to see what happens" too and the BIG negative does make for much more detailed prints that can be enlarged to just about as big as you want.

I KNOW that almost everyone here knows this already (with the possible exception of the OP) I just don't want to deal with the fallout from those who think I'm being completely literal in my comments...