Reccomending a first LF camera

[erie patsellis]

Just a rant, so if you're not one to sympathize or constructively contribute, there's nothing to see here, move along....

Why is it everytime the question comes up, is there that group of people that insist on telling someone who is just starting out to go spend $1000 or more on a field camera, brand new glass, etc.?

It boggles my mind that as we sit here an bemoan the death of traditional photography on the one hand, yet tell people starting out that to play they have to ante up big money?

What happened to the speed graphic/calumet/toyo 45d starter camera with a decent older used lens to see if you like it? While I admit it's not all of us, though there are some who espouse this nonsensical "gotta buy the best first time around" philosophy.

Personally, regardless of what camera I've owned (and there have been alot) there was always something that I wish it did better or differently. Hell, I have a really nice, inexpensive field camera, looks just like a B&J press camera (it is, actually), though missing the rangefinder and top finder, and cost all of $75. Do I miss rear movements or front swing? No, as a matter of fact, it make me think a little harder about camera placement and lens choice.

When I was shooting for a living, my P2 was wonderful, but I still had my toyo monorail to take out in the field. (of course now, I have several toyos and I'm keeping an eye out for a clean P2 for the studio, as I'm slowly getting back into tabletop photography again, it never ends).

Am I the only one here that sees this as being counterproductive to getting more people involved in LF photography?


erie

[Rafael Garcia]

Erie, you have my wholehearted agreement. I ranted about this about 6 months ago, but from the perspective of a newcomer to LF. I have old equipment bought on eBay on the cheap, and it can do a LOT more than I have learned to do well. No need for a $1,300.00 camera when my girls keep my hands full and I am having so much fun. In my opinion it is another manifestation of the ridiculous consumerist culture we have stupidly become. Professionals need the high-end equipment for it's durability and it's dependability because they make a living at it. Amateurs like me are better off learning the hard way. That way you really learn. A comparison is all the computerized, motorized astronomical telescopes amateurs can buy now; when I used my old Dobsonian I had to navigate the sky with charts and knowledge. I bet I learned a whole lot more that way than someone today typing M42 and watching the scope do all the work!

[erie patsellis]

I've been in and around photography since I was 11, and I've assisted some pretty big commercial shooters. Most of the people who go on about this and that would be shocked to see what these pros use, my favorite was a commercial shooter I worked for who had a plaubel and linhof 8x10 camera, each on high dollar stands. 95% of his 8x10 shooting was done with the nastiest looking 2D you will ever see, using older barrel lenses and a packard shutter, this camera sat on an old 2 column studio stand and he loved using it.

erie

[leab95825]

Howdy All
I have been considering getting a large format camera. I appreciate you
info. I have a D200. after I got it I read an article on its inability to do good
landscapes. I looked at one of my landscapes and immediately saw a
problem.. trees looked pixels.. Using 4x5 film or transparencies sounded
good in that article. Is there a difference between the 4x5 field camera and
the 4x5 view camera.. Foresthill Bob

[Dave Parker]

I have long wondered this and have been involved in photography since I was 13, so that is 32 years of doing it, I started out as the photographer for our School newspaper and went on from there, I have owned several new cameras over the years, but the only actual brand new one I have bought myself is my Maxxum Digi wonder, even my canon gear is pretty much on loan, didn't buy it, and will give it back after a certain amount of time..But to become a photographer, does not require the latest greatest, but there is a certain sector of this business that only want the best, which of course helps keep the companies in business...I always figure, the camera is a tool, it allows me to do what I want and what is required to put the money in the bank and eat, I don't care if it is a 75 year old graphic or a brand new ebony...

But very good question..

Dave

[Rory_5244]

Well I believe in doing things right the first time round. There is enough information on the internet now to make informed purchases in new equipment. Strangely, people don't seem to complain too much about spending big bucks for digital cameras. Manufacturers of traditional photography equipment NEED people to buy new cameras, so it's nice to reward these companies from time to time for persevering in a tough digital climate. What I find weird (at least on some other forums) are people who want to try out the cheapest LF camera "to see if they like the medium" but who own $3000. DSLRs. Weird. Did they buy a $10. Walmart disposable digital camera to try out first? Nope. It's almost as though buying an expensive large format camera is an indulgent sin; a point of view which doesn't seem to carry over into the digital realm. In any case, a large format camera is a lifetime investment so that $1000. spent now won't seem so bad when you pass that camera down to your children.

[andy bessette]

I'm afraid this is another vote for the nice gear. If we can afford it, and it thrills us, why not?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[erie patsellis]

IF one truly understands that a view camera is nothing more than a light tight box, than in what way does starting out with an inexpensive, used camera to see if you like it any way less than doing it right?

I know myself, for one, doesn't have $1500 in discretionary income over the course of 6 months, maybe not even in a year. In fact, my entire LF outfit, including 3 4x5 cameras (2 toyo monorails, a B&J Press/Field camera) , an 8x10, several lenses, holders, etc. cost far less than $1000. The new, nice stuff is great, but I can't, and it really doesn't affect the negative quality whatsoever. I for one would rather spend a few hundred dollars on film than having the latest and greatest camera and no $$$ left for film or chemistry.


erie

[Frank Petronio]

It really should a matter of what you can afford and nobody should be looking down on you for using a $100 beater. I've had a lot of cameras and in the end, I can't remember whether it was the expensive one or the cheap one that took most of my photos. And I know I've been trumped photographically by thousands of photographers using far worse gear than I have.

If some retired Dentist wants to induldge in an Ebony or Arca with a rack of new XL lenses then more power to them. They're keeping the film and darkroom manufacturers going. I might find their beginner photos boring but who knows how'll they'll evolve? Very few good photographers started out as good photographers -- everyone makes some mistakes.

[Scott Rosenberg]

Very few good photographers started out as good photographers -- everyone makes some mistakes.

frank, that's one of the most insightful things i've read in a long time. i'm going to have to try and remember that each time i'm reviewing a new batch of film thinking 'what the hell was i thinking when i tripped the shutter'

[Neil Purling]

Well, I started with a Crown Graphic with 127mm Ektar after a teacher of a photography course at college showed me some 4x5 transparencies. I thought "i'm having some of that".
I do regret I didnt buy a Speed Graphic with the focal plane shutter.
Yes a proper field camera would be better, but I didn't have the disposable income to lay out on a Linhof Technika and a lens. I have made a few mistakes on the way, learnt a lot and had a lot of fun too.

[Dave Parker]

When it comes to LF gear, I defy anyone to show me they can tell which camera took what picture...and really unless you are using really wacked out lenses, I think you would have a very difficult time telling me which lens took what picture...

Hell I guess it is like cars, you can get from point A to point B in a Ferrari or a Hundai, but the Ferrari is sure going to get more attention..but the Hundai, will get ya there!

If you can afford it, then by all means, have at it...

Dave

[Rory_5244]

Of course if one can't afford to buy a new camera, buy used instead! No big deal. Of course there is no difference between negatives made with cheap gear and expensive gear. Expensive (new) gear can sometimes make the process of taking the picture easier, though, not always. I don't know about simply buying expensive new gear for "brand prestige" as 99.99999999% of the world's population are clueless as to what a view camera is anyway, leaving precious few to impress. Maybe my "vibe-meter" is in need of tuning, but, I rather get the feeling that buying new is viewed by a few here in a slightly derogatory way. I'd like to remind those 'used' buyers that there wouldn't be any used market if no one bought new gear to begin with. As to photographic skill being indirectly proportional to camera worth, I'll be the first to plead 'no contest'. Just be happy I bought my camera new so that you can buy it used some day.

[Rafael Garcia]

Howdy All
I have been considering getting a large format camera. Is there a difference between the 4x5 field camera and
the 4x5 view camera.. Foresthill Bob

A view camera can be a monorail design, which is not as portable as a folding design, which is what a field camera is. Most field cameras are wooden for lightness. Monorail cameras generally can do more in terms of movements. Hope this helps.

As for the other, again, it's simple: It's not the camera, it's the photographer!

[Ted Harris]

erie,

There is very little your Toyo monorails won't do. Your B&J Press cameras (like Speed Graphics) does have some significant limitations in movements but if that doesn't impede the way you work then no problem. With limited funds I always tell someone to invest the money in the best possible optics first.

Now, having said that there are a lot of things you can do faster and better with the mor eexpensive equipment. Geared movements can be important for architectural and some tabletop shooting. Compact rail cameras such as the Arca or the Toyo VX125 can be a joy in the field. Something compact like a Horseman FA or a Toyo AX make it possible to carry-on your LF gear on a plane. None of these are necessary but all offer some advantages for some people.

Finally, for me ( and I suspect for you) LF photography is about the image. That is not true for everyone though. For many LF photography is about the fine wood of the cameras and the smooth red leather of the bellows ... different strokes.

[Ron Coleman]

As a newbie to the LF forum (my first post) I really appreciate everyones efforts to recommend typical entry level equipment. I also know the recommendations are probably tempered by different likes and dislikes for particular types and brands of equipment and the areas of photography they are into.

As for me I'm just a hobbiest with an interest in photography. In the past I've done a lot of 35 mm work and even had a darkroom back in the early 70's.

Recently I fell heir to a very large collection of family photos that date back to 1861. In the collection are some fantastic images of family members that I know had to be taken with some type of large format camera. All these images from the past has rekindled my interest in photography, especially large format black and white.

I recently bought an Epson 4990 scanner to archive some old 35 mm slides and the results are amazing to say the least. I'm also amazed at the ability to scan in old negatives. The scanner may be my big downfall, I've been looking at an Epson R2400 color printer to add to the wants list.

So far I haven't done anything about a camera. I'm still reading and looking. I might even try building something, got a whole woodworking shop full of equipment waiting for the next project and I'm fairly good at metal working. I'll be retiring in a few months so there will be plenty of time for doing my thing.

I should mention that I live less than a mile from MidWest Photo, haven't even stopped in yet. It's a good thing they're closed when I drive by at 7 each morning on the way to work, otherwise I might not ever get there. :D

Thank you all.

Ron

[steve simmons]

For years I have suggested that when people recommend a camera, frequently the one they are using, that they tell us what they photograph and why they like that camera. Too often the advice is along the lines of buy this camera it will be great for you. Rarely does anyone give any context for their suggestions.

I agree, a view camera - folding or monorail - is just a light tight box with a lens at one end and film at the other. The most important consideration are the features - bellows length and compressability and having the basic movements. Beyond that it is gravy.

I wrote a piece called Gettng Started in Large Format that I put on the View Camera web site several years ago. It is not about which brand to buy, it is about helping people decide what features they need in a camera in order to help them decide which model, brand and style fits their needs. This article has helped hundreds of people make a good start into large format.

Getting Started in Large Format is in the Free Articles section of the View Camera site. There are other articles to help people get started as well.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

[John Kasaian]

I agree---the most important thing about a camera is that it works! A light-tight used camera with good bellows and good lock-downs is the best place to start. With all the undervalued good used stuff out there, spending thousands on a first kit just isn't neccesary.

[erie patsellis]

erie,

There is very little your Toyo monorails won't do. Your B&J Press cameras (like Speed Graphics) does have some significant limitations in movements but if that doesn't impede the way you work then no problem. With limited funds I always tell someone to invest the money in the best possible optics first.

Now, having said that there are a lot of things you can do faster and better with the more expensive equipment. Geared movements can be important for architectural and some tabletop shooting. Compact rail cameras such as the Arca or the Toyo VX125 can be a joy in the field. Something compact like a Horseman FA or a Toyo AX make it possible to carry-on your LF gear on a plane. None of these are necessary but all offer some advantages for some people.

Finally, for me ( and I suspect for you) LF photography is about the image. That is not true for everyone though. For many LF photography is about the fine wood of the cameras and the smooth red leather of the bellows ... different strokes.

Ted,
The toyos are interesting, I have a 45D (for sale), a 45E and enough parts to buiild another D or E (though it will be a 8x10 E front standard/D rear standard variant). My 45E with the 16" bag bellows I made for it and a 14" rail can pack pretty compactly, and I take it hiking frequently, and can focus a 90mm to 210 without swapping out bellows (non interchangable bellow, 24 screws and lots of swearing). Unless you take a field camera out with one lens, there's not a whole lot of difference in weight or bulk. All in all, they offer a lot of bang for the buck, and if you're somewhat handy (or in my case, over the top insane), an excellent platform to modify. ( I have also built a 6x7 rotating back for mine, and am finishing an RB lens mount, giving me the option to shoot with a 6x7 roll film back, or with my RB lenses and still have full movements for architechtural/ tabletop work ( and surprisingly several of the RB lenses cover 4x5 (though with minimal movements), including the ridiculously inexpensive SF 150mm) without having to start over and hunt down a rather expensive Hassy flexbody and equally expensive lenses) I dont' think that many people would even consider doing such mods, although I have an awful lot of RB equipment lying around (and it has long since paid for itself in print sales), and this at least lets me maximize the use of what I do have.

As I've said previously, when I shot for a living I used a P2, and at some point I will be buying another, as for tabletop use they are the fastest approach to getting your movements nailed I've ever used.

I started with inexpensive glass, and have upgraded to prety much all MC Symmar-S's with the exception of my 90f8 Caltar W-II. (a Super Angulon in Calumet clothing) I'll be the first to admit I'm a true bottom feeder and have more than a few shutters and lenses around that need work, and I supplement what little funds I can spare by buying cheap, repairing ( I have a nice old school repair person that will help out if I feel I'm over my head, as well as sell me parts, and he often calls me for parts he can't find and knows I have stashed) and reselling what I dont' need, so far it's allowed me to keep shooting, and I've managed to garner a few commisions, and have a show coming up in May. Hopefully print sales will help me squirrel enough away to replace the T-R 12" triple with a 300mm Symmar, as I prefer shooting 8x10 and contact printing, and while the 210 Symmar-S does a nice job, sometimes you don't need wide, and the 12" just loses seperation in the low values, due to it's lack of coating. Without going the compensating development route, which would just throw another curve into my standard processing routine, an MC lens would be the easiest way to go. I do love the look of the old glass, but with the subjects I'm shooting right now, it just doesn't do what I need it to.

I bought the B&J press specifically because it has some front movements (rise, tilt and shift) I can pack it, a few lenses and a dozen filmholders in a pelican case and take it with me when I travel. No to mention that at a time when Speeds and Crowns regularly fetch handsome prices, a B&J can be had for less than $100 (sometimes a lot less) While not a true field camera, I have found that I rarely use more than a little front tilt and rise on my landscape work, or front fall, by dropping the bed and tilting the front standard level. I can focus a 90 to 210 with ease and once I get around to taking the silly focusing hood off, there's little difference to me between a field camera with movements I'll never use and a press camera that does just what I need. Don't get me wrong, I didnt' start this thread to disparage those who can afford (or choose to afford) the latest and greatest, but more to ask "why are we telling people who indicate the MAY have an interest in LF photography they need to spend $1000 or more, or they will be discouraged"

Reminds me alot of many of the pilots I've spoken to over the years, before I started flying (something I've wanted to do since I was about 6). All I heard was you want to fly a Piper Arrow or bigger at $100 an hour rental or more, and how expensive training is. I funded my training by working odd jobs at the airport, and I fund my limited flying time by maintaining a Cessna 150 for somebody, in exchange for unlimited use of the plane when it's not needed, all I pay for is fuel. If you really want to do something, a small detail like money won't stand in your way.

I'm afraid that a great many people don't get past the how can I do it stage when they hear how expensive it can be. Instead, maybe we should be thinking more along the lines of Edward Weston, most of what he used would be scoffed at by LF photographers today as being of poor quality, and limited usefulness, other than gracing the shelf of a collector. Yet few of the LF photographers I know don't consider Weston to be one of , if not the greatest photographers ever.

Enough rambling, the coffee is calling me, and it's gonna be a long day....

erie

(edit) I might also add that regardless of what camera you buy, you will find something that another does better/easier, like potato chips, you never can get just one.

[Lazybones]

I recommend starting out with nothing less than a brand-new 8x10 P2, and a used vintagey lens that gives swirly bokeh. Best of both worlds. If you have to go cheap, I'd spring for a 5x7 Kardan Master GTL-AMS, and a pinhole "lens." Then you could go out to eat at Buca with the leftover cash.


Just my $0.05 USD.

[bartf]

I'm stil a newbie and I've had some of the most rude, surprising answers (not here however)

I actually got yelled at when I asked about rangefinder useage and cams (at a camera show)

I also got some strangely dismissive answers when asking about fast lenses useable on a 4x5.

So now I'm shooting handheld, rangefinder focused out of spite, with a press camera :D

On a serious note, it's really the constraints of the cameras I'm starting with that allow me to understand movements (due to the lack of movements on my current cameras)

**and I'm still not particularly good, but I may as well do mediocre as large as I can LOL

Bartolome Feliciano
http://bfeliciano.com

[Vaughn]

frank, that's one of the most insightful things i've read in a long time. i'm going to have to try and remember that each time i'm reviewing a new batch of film thinking 'what the hell was i thinking when i tripped the shutter'


When one gains experience, one will avoid that. Instead, I'll spend an hour or so setting up the camera, composing and recomposing..then finally think, "What in the world was I thinking of?!" At least one eventually learns to save some film.

It is difficult to make equipment recommendations -- budget restraints and working habits are important to know. A machine that is awkward to use could frustrate someone right out of the format...yet be fine with someone of a different temperment. One person might learn well with a Crown Graphic and use it for years, but another might want to move beyond its inherent limitations within months.

Vaughn

[Michael Graves]

II might find their beginner photos boring but who knows how'll they'll evolve? Very few good photographers started out as good photographers -- everyone makes some mistakes.

Ain't that the truth. I didn't start out as a good photographer. Heck, it's taken me twenty years to become a mediocre photographer. I only dream of one day being a good photographer. And to tell you the truth, I'm like a lot of others in here. I buy older used gear that I get on the cheap.

I can claim that's why I'm mediocre, right? After all, even though my old speed graphic with its old 120mm Angulon is virtually the same outfit that Morris Wright took on his trip around the US that resulted in "The Inhabitants", his was a Graphic View, and not a Speed Graphic. So it was all those extra movements that he rarely used that made him so much better than me.

Now if only I could come up with a similar excuse as to why my spiffy Toyo 57G-II isn't taking better photos that the ones Ansel took with his rickety old Korona 5x7 up on Yosemite. It's probably because of those two extra zones he refused to tell us about in his books.

Personally, I love shooting with the old beaters. For one, I'm not afraid to haul them around over my shoulder. If I was carrying around a 5x7 Ebony with a spanking new Cooke Convertible on the front, I'd be so scared of dinging it or dropping it or getting it stolen that I'd wind up making it a shrine in my den and never taking mediocre photos.

[Ole Tjugen]

At the moment I have two 4x5" cameras. Both bought second hand, both very usable. They're at the extreme opposite ends of the scale with regards to both movements and price. Yet they are both very useful, and I wouldn't really recommend the expensive one as a first camera - except perhaps to an architect.

They're a $56 Anniversary Speed Graphic, and a $2000 Carbon Infinity.

The lenses I use are everything from nameless $20 Rapid Rectilinears to a 150mm Germinar-W; and they are all capable of making pictures. Probably good pictures too, with a bit of experience and a lot of luck. :)

[raucousimages]

In truth I see very little difference in the Toyo 45GX ($1000.00+ used) I use in the studio and the Toyo 45E ( less than $50.00 on ebay last week) I take out in the rain other than interchangeable bellows. So a 45E with Caltar 150, a few holders and good tripod will have you shooting for 3 to 5 hundred. If someone has a problem with that they can give you their gear or shut up. Some of the greatest images ever made were taken with gear most of us would think of as junk. On the other hand I have some of the best cameras and lenses money can buy and along with some fine images I still produce alot of total crap. It's the shooter not the gear.

[Andy Eads]

Frank,
Your insight about good photographers will be the quote-of-the-week in my high school photo classes.
Andy

[Lee Hamiel]

Erie:

I really don't feel that the general opinion is to tell people to spend a lot of money - at least over the last year or so - in order to get into LF

I see a lot of answers that suggest getting into it on the cheap to determine whether or not one may like it or not.

Often I see people asking "I'm a new LF user & have an Ebony ... - what lens should I get" kind of questions. I don't have that kind of money to experiment but will admit it would be nice.

I also feel that a lot of confusion comes from a number of people being frustrated by certain limitations with a given camera after using it & when someone asks "Which LF camera to buy?" a lot of people either suggest what is the answer to their frustration or is the camera they would buy someday to resolve these issues.

I will suggest that for people that do not want to buy & use 5 different systems until they land on the one that works - A play on your posting question:

Recommending a last LF camera:)

However - for me there is a lot of fun in discovering all of the odd nuances of Linhof & other makers.

At this point I have no working cameras in LF & need to make two bellows & one back before I get back into shooting again. Cheaper? Not really but gratifying in an odd way.

Regards