What Sorts of Features Differ Across The Wide Range of Price Points?

[JLeeSaxon]

Noob to large format (not to photography), thinking about dabbling a little. I'm looking for general knowledge here, not a specific recommendation for my needs.

I've read the "intro to LF cameras" articles, and I understand the basics like the various sheet sizes and the basic difference between a monorail and a field. But even within a given size/type of camera, prices can range from not-even-$200 to well into four figures, and other than basic stats like bellows draw and tilt/shift range I have no idea what the differentiators might be.

[Alan Klein]

Welcome to the forum. What's your budget?

[Gabe]

But even within a given size/type of camera, prices can range from not-even-$200 to well into four figures, and other than basic stats like bellows draw and tilt/shift range I have no idea what the differentiators might be.

- General quality of the construction
- Folding vs non-folding designs
- Materials (wood, metal, carbon fibre, plastic)
- Weight & size
- Rigidity & strength
- Precision of movements and which are available, their range, type (base vs axial tilts, symmetric vs asymmetric), gearing and so on.
- Maximum and minimum bellows draw
- Size of lens boards (most will be of the Linhof design)
- The range of available accessories

I wouldn't recommend something like an Intrepid as your first camera, as I think the imprecision inherent to that design is not ideal when learning the process. Something top end (Arca Swiss, Linhof) is probably overkill too. It all depends on your budget and requirements.

[Doremus Scudder]

There are some differences within the two broad categories you mention.

There are press cameras that fold, are usually metal and have more limited movements. Many of these have viewfinders and handles for hand-held use. Example: Speed Graphic.

Also metal and folding are the "technical" cameras, so-called because they have more movements and are very precisely engineered: Linhof Technika is an example of this type. They are usually more expensive, even used, due to demand and "cult status."

There are "bottom-of-the-line" wooden folding cameras that are kind of clunky, have more limited movements and may not be as nicely finished as others, but are very usable. The Intrepid fits into this category.

Full-featured field cameras, usually wooden folders, include the Chamonix, Wista, Tachihara (all still made) and a host of others, both new and used. Perhaps the priciest in this category was/is the Wisner Technical Field camera (only available used now). These are very in-demand cameras, which makes them more expensive, even used. They have varying features, but all have tilts and swings on both standards, shift on at least one standard and front rise. The Chamonix boasts lots of movements and a "universal" style bellows that is longer than most field cameras, making the use of longer and shorter focal-length lenses than usual for field cameras practical.

Entry-level monorail cameras like the Calumet and the Graphic View cameras are less in demand, but still very serviceable machines with a full range of movemnts. They can be had for cheap these days mostly because people don't like lugging heavier monorails around in the field. Those that use monorails for studio work only usually go with...

Full-featured monorails that are system cameras like Sinar cameras. They have interchangeable standards, bellows and rails that can be added together to make a very long camera or configured to make the camera very short. These have very precise geared movements and, often, tilt-angle indicators, asymmetrical and yaw-free movements (makes applying movements faster and easier) as well as a full range of accessories like viewfinders, etc. These are also expensive.

And, of course, there are lots of hybrid cameras that try to combine features. Larger wooden folding cameras that have long bellows and lots of movements are a portable compromise between the classic field camera and a monorail. On the other hand, there are lightweight monorails with less-precise (but lighter) construction that are meant to be carried more easily in the field (Sinar Alpina).

IM-HO, the best thing you can do before purchasing an LF camera is to really consider what kind of photography you plan on doing, do some research, and decide what style of camera best fits the kind(s) of photography you want to do. That will point you in a certain direction.

Then there are lenses: Heavy vs. light, bright vs. dim, big vs. small, more coverage vs less. But that's a topic for another thread :)

Best,

Doremus

[Oren Grad]

Tachihara (all still made)

Tachihara is long out of business.

[Vaughn]

...
IM-HO, the best thing you can do before purchasing an LF camera is to really consider what kind of photography you plan on doing, do some research, and decide what style of camera best fits the kind(s) of photography you want to do. That will point you in a certain direction...Doremus

Excellent. There are features on cameras that works great (or are just plain needed) for extensive architectural photography that can increase the price, weight and usefulness of a camera...but are not needed for a very functional landscape camera (which can still be used, perhaps, for occasional architecture pleasure.)

[paulbarden]

I wouldn't recommend something like an Intrepid as your first camera, as I think the imprecision inherent to that design is not ideal when learning the process. Something top end (Arca Swiss, Linhof) is probably overkill too. It all depends on your budget and requirements.

I disagree entirely. I find the Intrepid perfectly usable and it's designed to be a capable first-time-user camera. I still have my first edition 4x5 Intrepid (which left a lot to be desired, I will admit) and still use it, without any difficulty. The OP states that he is "thinking about dabbling a little" which suggests to me that he wants to know what 4x5 is like, but isn't committing to anything. Seems to me that spending $$$$ to "test the waters" isn't wise. That makes the Intrepid a perfectly viable option.

[Gabe]

That makes the Intrepid a perfectly viable option.

Viable, sure. I never meant to imply otherwise, and the price and weight are certainly in its favour. Nonetheless I think the somewhat crude nature of the Intrepid's movement controls introduce the potential for additional frustration and sources of error in what is already quite a steep learning curve for the initiate. In that respect it could be counterproductive and turn someone off the whole endeavour, for want of a more forgiving tool.

[Jim C.]

Doremus has covered it nicely, I think that if you're interested in 'dabbling' set a budget you're
willing to spend ( camera, lens, film holders, film developing chems and equipment ) and proceed from there.

[Jim Andrada]

My first LF camera was a monorail (Linhof Kardan Bi 5 x 7.) I carried it a lot of places and was never unhappy with it and 50 years later am still happily using it. The 4 x 5 Linhof Color is available 2nd hand for a couple or a few hundred dollars and is a perfectly usable camera. The general feeling that monorail cameras aren't suitable for field work is because the monorail makes them awkward to walk around with. When I got the Linhof I had a local machinist make up a short monorail, just long enough to allow the camera to be mounted on the tripod - problem 90% solved IMHO because I could carry the camera on the short rail and then attach a rail extension when I was setting up in a new location.

[Vaughan]

All cameras have limitations; the limitations differ between cameras, and some cameras have more limitations than others.

IMHO start with 4x5. Leave larger formats particularly 8x10 until later, if ever.

First decide your budget. A reasonable starting budget would IMHO be US$1000 for everything like camera, one normal-ish 135mm to 180mm lens, three film holders, focussing cloth, carbon tripod and head, and a hand-held light meter.

Second, decide whether you want a new camera or used. If new: Intrepid, no choice really for the budget. If used, choose between a metal field camera like the Wista 45 or Toyo 45A (the budget is not enough for a Linhof Technika but they aren't functionally better anyway) or wood like a Tachihara, Nagaoka etc.

If you are prepared to do some repairs, particularly replacing the bellows, you can pick up some bargain cameras. Regarding the lenses, an unreliable shutter is a large format photographer's bane.

[Gabe]

The general feeling that monorail cameras aren't suitable for field work is because the monorail makes them awkward to walk around with. When I got the Linhof I had a local machinist make up a short monorail, just long enough to allow the camera to be mounted on the tripod - problem 90% solved IMHO because I could carry the camera on the short rail and then attach a rail extension when I was setting up in a new location.

Worth mentioning that there are a few 4x5 monorails that are designed to be compact when stored: the Toyo VX125, the Linhof Technikardan S 45, or the Arca Swiss F-metric field C.

All are very expensive new, but do sometimes crop up second hand for substantially less money. Just food for thought.

[Doremus Scudder]

Tachihara is long out of business.

Of course :( - I constantly confuse Tachihara with Shen Hao (some kind of neural short circuit there I suppose).

Tachis are great and available on the used market - Shen Hao cameras are still made and quite good as well (if you're still listening, OP).

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

Monorails can be wonderful in the field. I've been well over 10,000 miles on foot in rugged terrain with Sinar 4X5 monorails. One just needs to learn how to sensibly pack them. If you gravitate towards longer focal lengths, like I do, a monorail system can be the ideal way to go. They're certainly faster to set up and operate than folders. However, I do use folders too, for when sheer compactness is a priority, like in an airline carry-on.

[Havoc]

Wista is often overlooked but a perfectly usable camera for a reasonable budget. They are a bit like Mamiya in the medium format field. Not cult status but decent cameras the get the job done without breaking the budget. Serms like they are not liked much in the US for dome reason.

[JLeeSaxon]

Thanks folks for all the great info to get me started!

[AuditorOne]

I think a 4x5 Intrepid is probably the BEST large format for a first time user. I have a Kickstarter first generation Intrepid. I have moved past that camera for the moment to a monorail so I can work on camera movements and focusing technique. But it is still there if I decide to seriously head into the field again with a backpack. The entire camera is still in very usable condition after a number of years. It hasn't been used much lately but back when it first arrived it was packed around all over. I moved away from large format for awhile but it had nothing to do with the Intrepid being good or bad.

It is new, with a warranty, and people who are more than happy to answer lots and lots of newbie questions. What more would a first time dabbler want? And the newer 4x5 Intrepid cameras are literally generations better than that first kickstarter version.

[Jim Jones]

The first view camera for many photographers might well be one of the older ones. Mine was a Newton New Vue, bought used in the early 1960s. I learned a lot from it, including to never buy another one. The Newton camera was produced just after WWII, when civilian camera production hadn't caught up with demand. My next LF camera, and my most often used one, was a flat-bed Burke & James 5x7. It was the most compact, and weighed just 7 lbs without the bed extension. It was also fairly inexpensive second-hand in 1972, when many photographers were downsizing to 4x5. It uses the versatile 4" square lens board, still my favorite size. Adapting a 4x5 back from an ancient Speed Graphic was a simple task with a few carpentry tools. My second choice would be a Graphic View. The post war model has on-axis front tilt, but the pre-war version has a little neater styling. They include a pan and tilt head and weigh 8.25 lbs. In comparison the 4x5 Kodak Master View is bulky and weighs 9.75 lbs, mostly due to the revolving back. It does not include a tripod head. One nice feature of view cameras: they don't have to be new. A pre-war Graphic View will do almost everything a knowledgeable photographer needs.

[George Losse]

Best advice I ever got was not to spend a lot of money on the first camera. Buy something used that has the movements you need for the photography you want to do. Spend more money on the lens for that camera. If you like working with large format, the lens will work nicely for the next camera body. If you end up not liking large format work, then at least you didn't tie up a lot of money in the camera body.

I still work with my first lens I bought. On the third camera body with that lens.

Like a number of others have said, stay small with your first camera, 4x5 is a great place to start.

Don't jump right into the larger sizes until you feel you need something the 4x5 negative can't give you. As the format size increases, so does the cost and the frustrations. Learn about large format photography with the smaller format, so the mistakes don't cost as much.

[xkaes]

Noob to large format (not to photography), thinking about dabbling a little.

Here's a tip, about FORUMS --not just this one.

There are lots of people that love to spend other people's money.

But several people, like George (above), have suggested that if you want to "dabble", don't spend a lot of money. I can't agree more. You can buy a good 4x5 camera for well under $200. That's a lot less than an Intrepid. Using a "bare-bones" camera will not only inform you about whether you want to "jump into to lake", it will tell you what you want in your NEXT LF camera -- after you've sold your "test" camera for more money than you paid for it.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a tip, about FORUMS --not just this one.

There are lots of people that love to spend other people's money.

But several people, like George (above), have suggested that if you want to "dabble", don't spend a lot of money. I can't agree more. You can buy a good 4x5 camera for well under $200. That's a lot less than an Intrepid. Using a "bare-bones" camera will not only inform you about whether you want to "jump into to lake", it will tell you what you want in your NEXT LF camera -- after you've sold your "test" camera for more money than you paid for it.

The OP asked for differentiators between low and high prices for cameras. His final post thanked everyone for their info. Why are you assuming that his budget is low? He never gave one even though I asked him to give one in the second post. So all recommendations are fair play and should be considered. No one recommendation is better than any other.

[Vaughn]

Here's a tip, about FORUMS --not just this one.

There are lots of people that love to spend other people's money.

But several people, like George (above), have suggested that if you want to "dabble", don't spend a lot of money. I can't agree more. You can buy a good 4x5 camera for well under $200. That's a lot less than an Intrepid. Using a "bare-bones" camera will not only inform you about whether you want to "jump into to lake", it will tell you what you want in your NEXT LF camera -- after you've sold your "test" camera for more money than you paid for it.

Or buy as much camera (and good quality lens) as one can afford and fits with what one wants to do -- then as you suggested, sell it "...for more money than you paid for it." if it does not fit the bill...but probably less money considering shipping...consider it a small rental fee. Buy the first one with a bunch of bells and whistles -- then figure out which ones you don't need on your next camera (hard to do the opposite...it's tough to know what you're missing if you never had it).

[xkaes]

Why are you assuming that his budget is low.

Why are you assuming I have that assumption? I don't. My suggestion is that a good approach to "dabbling" is not to jump in the lake. Stick your toe in instead - K.I.S.S!

[JLeeSaxon]

I've always been a bit of a glass hound, so I probably agree with the advice that I don't need to spend much at all on a camera...but that's probably just more money to spend on glass :D


There are lots of people that love to spend other people's money.

Haha very true. I've got over 3,000 posts over at Fred Miranda so I'm sure I'm guilty of helping more than a few people spend their money :D


He never gave one even though I asked him to give one in the second post. So all recommendations are fair play...

Sorry Alan! I intentionally wanted to make sure I got the full spectrum of options, as you say!

[Alan Klein]

I've always been a bit of a glass hound, so I probably agree with the advice that I don't need to spend much at all on a camera...but that's probably just more money to spend on glass :D



Haha very true. I've got over 3,000 posts over at Fred Miranda so I'm sure I'm guilty of helping more than a few people spend their money :D



Sorry Alan! I intentionally wanted to make sure I got the full spectrum of options, as you say!

If I can, I always try to spend slightly more than I budgeted. Otherwise, I kick myself for not getting more, missing this feature or that. This way, I can at least say I did buy more than I intended and don't feel like a gypped myself. :)