PDA

View Full Version : Luxurious Cameras vs. Plain Jane Cameras and your Camera of Choice!



audioexcels
30-Jan-2008, 06:25
I know many have jumped onto the Chamonix bandwagon and from what I see in terms of price/weight/performance, it's a no brainer. Of course, there's always the longing that so many seem to have for the behemoth weight Deardorff 8X10 that has far less features/movements than the Chamonix/Ritter/Canham/Wehman/Arca Swiss/Ebony/and even the Tachihara/Nagaoka/etc. type cameras.

So really, on the marketplace right now, one can find an excellent "used" Deardorff for about $1.5-$2K. For that same amount of money, one can find an excellent Wisner/Wehman/Ritter/Philips/etc. etc...

Many have commented about movements used with their cameras and from what I gather, it sounds like the majority (maybe can even say ALL) could easily use a Tachihara/Nagaoka/Wista/etc. type camera that doesn't have much for movements, but has enough for the primary movements used, and the occassional use of another movement.

I have seen many describe their qualms/issues with particular cameras. Davidb, as a recent example, got rid of most of his stuff to keep only his Chamonix and Toyo. Flesher also sold off some very beautiful cameras and uses the Chamonix. Of course, the Chamonix is much more versatile than a Tachihara from what I can see/tell. And maybe those that have the Chamonix wouldn't consider touching a Tachihara due to its issues that the Chamonix does not have...not that there isn't any issues a user has with the Chamonix, but just that there is less issues for users of the Chamonix.

So we have all these very luxurious cameras from Arca Swiss to Ebony to pick you choice. Then we have what seems to be the middle field=Chamonix, Wehman (by price), Ritter (by price), etc. And lastly, we have the basic models such as the Cambos/Calumets/Tachiharas/Ikeda-Nagaokas/B&J/Gundlach/Deardorff/etc. etc.


And in the end, it's all just the most simplistically built camera ever designed and just so happens to have the ability to record the most information of the world around us.


I know many have multiple cameras, but I would like to try and exclude multiple in this discussion, and attempt to keep things to one that each person seems to find the most fondness towards.


The questions:

1) What do people that use the upper tier (price wise) feel about their cameras and do you feel that you could easily live with a lower tier camera OR do you feel that there are things missing and do not work for you with the lower tier camera?

2) For those with a lower tier camera, I ask the opposite-Do you long to have one of the upper tier cameras? For those with money being no issue, what is it about the lower tier camera you prefer over any other potential camera you could use?


3) Lastly, what is it that these luxury cameras buy that the plain jane ones do not and if we were to compare every camera on the market and forget about weight, price, etc. etc. and just choose any camera...do you feel that you would be able to get the same performance out of the plain jane camera or do you feel that the luxury types will give you the best image when all is said and done?

I emphasize the last question most because I have read comments by users of all sorts of very expensive cameras say that their best images came from their use with a Shen/Tach/Graphic/etc.

Hopefully this is not too congested a post and can make for some interesting discussion about LF cameras, personal feelings, and then some:)

Alan Rabe
30-Jan-2008, 06:33
The camera captures the image. The photographer takes the photograph. The camera with it's various movements allows the photgrapher to capture the image he/she is looking for. I don't think a specific properly setup lf camera regardless of the cost takes a "better" picture that another one. Now if you want to talk about lenses thats another ball of wax entirely and sort of a pandoras box as discussions go.

Scott Davis
30-Jan-2008, 06:48
With the camera itself, the reason to use "higher end" cameras is that they have some certain feature that meets a need you have, be it light weight, greater bellows extension, geared movements, etc. I think it also has to do with how easily the camera gets out of the way of you making the image you want. The less time you spend fiddling with the camera to get it to do what you need, the better the fit. When I'm in the field, the camera I want to have in my hands is my Canham 5x7 (or as the case requires, the 5x12 configuration). It lets me do exactly what I want, with a minimum of fuss on my part. The controls are intuitive, it is very light weight, and it doesn't have any features that get in the way of me making an image. In my studio, the camera of choice is a Century Master portrait camera. It lets me use those big brass cannons that would never fit on the Canham. It also cost a fraction of what the Canham did. I would never take it in the field, as it would be totally impractical.

Ole Tjugen
30-Jan-2008, 07:22
"Getting out of the way" is the same as I think of as "transparency". A good camera is "transparent" in that it lets you work directly with the image without the camera getting in the way.

I was spoilt rotten to begin with, since I started with a Linhof Technika 5x7". When I got a Gandolfi 5x7" I found the same precision, stability and "transparency", and a lot lower weight. so I got a 8x10" too...

My favorite 4x5" camera is the most "transparent" of all, the Carbon Infinity has no limitations that I need to be aware of and stays locked in any position until I want something to move - and moves smoothly at the lightest touch.

The Speed Graphic is more of a conscious effort to use, and requires quite a bit more aforethought. But it's got that neat focal plane shutter...

Michael Graves
30-Jan-2008, 07:30
I got rid of a Deardorff because it just wasn't me. I found it difficult to work with and clumsy. Everybody else in the world loves them. I have several cameras now, and I use them all from time to time.

Toyo 810M: A bit klutzy, but useable. I would like it better if it had a wider range of movements and a longer bellows. However, it's VERY solid and smooth.

Toyo 4x5 monorail. Not sure of the model, but it has geared movements and interchangeable everything. Love it. The only thing negative I can say is its not too good in a backpack.

Toyo 5x7 monorail. Not sure of the model, but it's identical to my 4x5 in every way but size. This is my absolute favorite camera, except when backpacking.

4x5 Crown Graphic. My backpacking 4x5. Damn short bellows anyway. But I love the camera.

5x7 Korona. My backpacking 5x7. Looking for something better. But all of the above cameras have one thing in common. The sloppiest part of each one of them is the nut that operates the focusing mechanism. If I could fix that, each one of them would be a much better camera.

audioexcels
30-Jan-2008, 07:38
"Getting out of the way" is the same as I think of as "transparency". A good camera is "transparent" in that it lets you work directly with the image without the camera getting in the way.

I was spoilt rotten to begin with, since I started with a Linhof Technika 5x7". When I got a Gandolfi 5x7" I found the same precision, stability and "transparency", and a lot lower weight. so I got a 8x10" too...

My favorite 4x5" camera is the most "transparent" of all, the Carbon Infinity has no limitations that I need to be aware of and stays locked in any position until I want something to move - and moves smoothly at the lightest touch.

The Speed Graphic is more of a conscious effort to use, and requires quite a bit more aforethought. But it's got that neat focal plane shutter...

Talk about reverse psychology on the poster above you regarding lenses;)...sure, single coated lenses are excellent, but many would argue in favor of modern APO Rodenstocks over the single coated wonders. So you started and ended with luxury based cameras, but all of your lenses except the one we are waiting on an image with (you know the MC one you picked up) are single coated!:) I wonder which one would choose, the 121 Super Angulon or the Nikkor 120/Schneider 110XL/Rodenstock 115 Grandagon:)

Cheers and thanks for letting out the infinity carbon of sheer amazing quality, along with your endless lens collection:)!!!

audioexcels
30-Jan-2008, 07:39
Looking for something better. But all of the above cameras have one thing in common. The sloppiest part of each one of them is the nut that operates the focusing mechanism. If I could fix that, each one of them would be a much better camera.


Heheheehe:):):). Silly nut you cameras!

Steve Hamley
30-Jan-2008, 07:44
I think you're asking the wrong question.

Upper tier cameras are usually a bit more solid and smoother, look nicer. Considering only functionality, a good solid monorail is my choice, and good used studio monorails can be had for far less than a kilobuck. Now once you need or want something beyond functionality, you're into weight, appearance, size, portability, etc.

In 8x10, I've owned Agfa, Deardorff, Canham, Linhof, and Ebony. In 4x5 and 5x7, Ebony, Tachihara, Crown Graphic, and Sinar.

The Deardorff is not a "behemoth weight" 8x10, it is about average and maybe a pound or pound and a half heavier than the mahogany Ebony SV810. If you think the Deardorff has less features or movements than the Ebony or most other cameras, you probably haven't owned or used one. The Deardorff easily competes with modern cameras in terms of features and movements, and is better suited for short lens use than almost any other camera.

I prefer the Ebony because of the more conventional controls versus say the Canham or the Deardorff. For large lenses, the Agfa's 7"+ lensboards make it useful where other cameras won't work. The Agfa can also have movements and features competitive with new field cameras depending on the model.

I also prefer the camera that's suited to what I'm doing; hiking, large lenses, or working out of the car. I have no preference for one camera over the other based on the camera alone.

Finally, Ole has the same opinion I do; whatever you use should allow you to concentrate on the photograph and not fiddling with the camera. What he didn't say is that the camera that does this may well be different for different people.

Cheers,

Steve

Jim Galli
30-Jan-2008, 07:48
Perhaps I would fall in both camps. My new Chamonix 5X14 would draw a crowd at a workshop of fussy photographers, but my most used camera is a very tired looking Kodak 2D that is probably down to 60 percent of it's original finish. When I set it up at a group function people keep a wide swath so as not to be associated with it. About 60 feet away is enough.

If you wander around in my web site, probably 80 - 85 percent of the images have been made with that Kodak. My interest isn't the cameras, it IS the lenses. With the Kodak I have a packard shutter living inside that's always ready and it's just stout enough to hold up some really abusively large brass lenses. On my darkroom wall is a reminder to myself......"it's the picture stupid". For my kind of working the Kodak is the most versatile camera I've found so far. I could care less what it looks like.

Emmanuel BIGLER
30-Jan-2008, 07:55
Being a French patriot, and taking into account that the industry of luxury goods brings so many euro (and about 1.5 times more USD those days) to our economy, I have a "support our troops" approach with respect to luxury items.

My diet is on only on Foie Gras and Champagne wine. Sometimes I make an exception for Sauternes wine (nobody is perfect).
My suit & trousers come from the best (& rich) parisian tailors.
My violin comes from the best crafstmen in Mirecourt.
My pianos are a Pleyel and a Gaveau (serious pianists need at least two pianos, preferably Made in France)
My watches come from of the most luxurious shops at Place Vendôme, Paris, and so far I ignore the tiny 'swiss made' engraving.
Of course, I only drive luxury French cars, and it is a torture that German cars are more luxurious than ours.

So it is not a surprise if my view camera is a luxury camera made in France with some Swiss design & spirit inside, exactly like for my Place Vendôme watch.

(post scriptum : one of my favourite "faux amis" is the "luxury" word, do not translate it into French as : luxure !!)

Ron Bose
30-Jan-2008, 08:23
My name is Ron and I'm a cameraholic ...

For LF:
Sinar F2 with a ton of accessories and cases.
This was my first LF and would love to sell it but it isn't worth anywhere near as much as I paid for it.

Wisner 4x5 Traditional.
Lovely, lovely camera, but I knew that maintaining it would be too hard (in the long-run) so I sold it to help pay for something more versatile.

8x10 Agfa-Ansco.
This was one of those gray painted beasts which someone had spent a lot of time cleaning off the paint to reveal the wood below. Unfortunately during shipping the front standard got damaged due to poor packing. It's a lovely old thing, I'm waiting for the right barrel lens to come along for it.

Linhof Technikardan 45s.
This is a great camera, I have no problems folding and unfolding. Strong, and versatile.

Phillips 8x10 Compact-II.
After waitng 2.5 years (Dick thought that I wanted an Explorer so my name went from one list to another) I finally received this black beauty. This is the Porsche 911 of 8x10 cameras.

Gandolfi 4x5 Variant II in Black MDF.
I kinda missed the old style field camera. So when a fellow forumer was selling this Gandolfi I jumped at it. This is surprisingly a nice camera, it's heavy, boy is it heavy, but it's rigid and strong. I have no fears about long term maintenance as I did with the Wisner. It's a bit more fiddly, lots of controls. BTW did I mention that it's heavy ?

8x10 to 5x7 Reduction Back for the Phillips.
I wonder if this is the only such beast in the world. It's a Canham 5x7 back mounted on a Phillips compatible black back.

Chamonix 45N-1.
I originally intended to sell the Gandolfi and replace it with the Chamonix, but I found that I couldn't let the Gandolfi go. I bought the Chamonix initially for myself and then decided to give it to the girlfriend so we could shoot together.

Canham Wood 5x7.
I got this because the 5x7 reduction back on my Phillips Compact-II was not going to cut it. I have officially fallen in love with 5x7, it's not even funny.

With the exception of the Phillips, everything was bought used and with the exception of the Sinar I couldn't let any one of them go.

btw anyone want to buy a beautiful black Leica M5 ?????

Alan Davenport
30-Jan-2008, 09:01
Cameras do NOT take photos. Lenses take photos. All the camera does is allow the photographer to position the lens, relative to the film, prior to releasing the shutter.

You've heard it before, now hear it again: a camera is just a box with a lens at one end and a piece of film at the other end.

Admittedly, my LF camera experience is limited to a non-geared monorail and a Tachihara, but I stand firmly on the tenet that, once a camera has sufficient movement and rigidity to do the job, everything else is bells and whistles. The entry-level field cameras such as the Tachihara and Shen Hao meet that standard.

And no, I don't lust after cameras from the other end of the price spectrum; I'd rather save my money for a lens that can make a better photo.

Ole Tjugen
30-Jan-2008, 09:10
Cameras do NOT take photos. Lenses take photos. All the camera does is allow the photographer to position the lens, relative to the film, prior to releasing the shutter.

It's neither: Photographers take photos. A camera and lens that allows the photographer to get the photo he/she wants with a minimum of interference is a good one.


You've heard it before, now hear it again: a camera is just a box with a lens at one end and a piece of film at the other end.

And a photographer behind it. And just as some lenses are "better" than others, so some cameras are "better" than others. But since the really important bit is the photographer, opinions will always differ on the definition of "better".

BrianShaw
30-Jan-2008, 09:26
It's neither: Photographers take photos. A camera and lens that allows the photographer to get the photo he/she wants with a minimum of interference is a good one.

Photographers create imagery... cameras and lenses just make it easier to share the imagery with others. (You ought to see some of the imagery I carry around in my head!)

Brian Ellis
30-Jan-2008, 10:18
The Deardorff doesn't have "far less features/movements" than the Tachihara/ Nagaoka type cameras, it actually has the same movements - front swing (most Deardorffs), tilt, rise, and fall and back swing and tilt. As to the other cameras you mention, we could quibble over how much less is "far less" but in general the only movement the Deardorff lacks that some of the other cameras you mention have is some form of shift (not important to me, maybe important to others). Also, the Deardorff weighs about 12 lbs, not what I'd consider a "behemoth" for an 8x10 camera.

I've never owned a Canham, Ritter, or Wehman. But in 4x5 I've owned two Ebonys, two Linhof Technikas, a Linhof Technikardan, two Tachiharas, and a Chamonix over a period of about 15 years. In each case I discarded one and bought another because of the changing importance over time of different aspects or features of different cameras (except for the Technikardan, which I just plain didn't like) or because my way of "seeing" changed (for example, starting out using predominantly longer lenses to my present use of wider angle lenses). As to what I got with "luxury" cameras (Ebonys, Technikas) vs the economy models (Tachihara and Chamonix), with a Technika I got a huge amount of pleasure of use because everything that was supposed to move did so easily and smoothly, everything that wasn't supposed to move didn't, the build quality was great, and the cameras were very simple to set up, use, and take down. With the Ebonys I got back movements that were easier to use than the Technika backs. With the Tachiharas/Chamonix I got a much lower price, movements that were perfectly adequate for me, lower weight, and cameras that were well-made if not really in the Technika/metal camera class.

Ebay has made it much more feasible to sell equipment at a retail price than it used to be so switching around hasn't involved a major financial loss. I still think that Technikas are the finest 4x5 cameras made in terms of build quality and smoothness and ease of operation but as I've done less 4x5 work those qualities became less important and as I've aged weight became more important. I'm not an Ebony fan, I was disappointed in both of the ones I owned considering all I had read about them and their price. The Tachihara/Shen-Hao/Chamonix cameras are great bargains IMHO and are perfectly adequate for everything I photograph.

Ease of use and simplicity of operation are very important to me. I don't like "fiddly" cameras or cameras that are a pain to set up. With the exception of the Technikardan (for me, maybe not for others) all of the cameras I've owned met those two criteria.

I've also flirted with 5x7 (Agfa-Ansco) but abandoned it because I didn't have a 5x7 enlarger and thought 5x7 contact prints were too small for most of the things I photograph (this was pre-scanning/digital printing). And 8x10 too with two Deardorffs and a Kodak 2D. I have a love/hate relationship with 8x10 and got rid of each of my 8x10s during "hate" phases but I loved the Deardoffs. The 2D was a nice camera as well, especially after Richard Ritter added front tilt for me, but it wasn't as easy to use as the Deardorffs.

Dan Fromm
30-Jan-2008, 10:58
Ah, Emmanuel. Calme, luxe, et volupté.

I had no idea that you were so well-paid. I don't think, though, that the original poster would recognize your cameras from Besançon as what he calls luxuries, even the pretty little reflex.

Thinking of cameras that aren't luxuries, have you noticed the 13x18 Ilko on eBay.fr? It seems a tiny bit crude but appeals. I'm safe, we just paid the vet quite a lot of money to repair our parrot, but it tempts anyway.

Cheers,

Dan

p.s., good to see you back

Brian Ellis
30-Jan-2008, 11:05
"Cameras do NOT take photos."

Right

"Lenses take photos"

Wrong

timparkin
30-Jan-2008, 12:38
Photographers create imagery... cameras and lenses just make it easier to share the imagery with others. (You ought to see some of the imagery I carry around in my head!)

Wrong :-)

Photographers imagine photographs, cameras realise photographs. The imagining is art, the realisation is craft.

The tools that allow realisation should not inhibit the imagination.

My choice in camera ended up as an Ebony 45SU - not because it was the best tool for the job (how could I know?) but because from the information I had at hand made me fairly sure it wouldn't stop me making great pictures if I had it in me to do so. It also satisfied my 'functional design beauty' criterion. I'm sure that if I were budget limited I would definitely choose a Chamonix - mainly because I've now had one in my hands (a friend has bought a 4x5 one) and they're extremely good value for money. If I weren't so fussy about weight and beauty, I probably would have bought an Arca Swiss F line or a Linhof Technikardan.

Tim

Richard M. Coda
30-Jan-2008, 12:58
Started out with a hand-me-down Speed Graphic. Moved "up" to a new Omega 45D after college. Then bought a B&J 8x10, and then a Kodak 2D, and then a Kodak MasterView 8x10. All served their purpose - to make me a better photographer.

Later, after I could afford one I bought an Ebony SV45U. It was like a Rubic's Cube (to me). Got rid of it and am now an Arca Swiss man... 4x5 Field, 8x10 F Metric, and now a Canham-Arca custom 11x14 back on order. I believe they are the best-made cameras out there and I don't envision having to but another camera again, save for a disaster. I still have the MasterView if anyone's interested in it.

Ron Marshall
30-Jan-2008, 12:59
My first LF camera was a Sinar F1. I purchased it mainly because it had a solid reputation and I got an excellent deal. It is easy to use, smooth, has lots of available accesories. However it has one major drawback for the type of photography I like to do: weight. So I bought a Toho 4x5. Small, light, takes lenses from 55mm to 450mm (with extension board), well made, sturdy. Does everything I want.

I probably would have been just as happy with a Phillips; but that is the only other camera I can think of at any price that would suit me. If there was a "better" camera available at twice the price it wouldn't interest me, because the Toho is good enough.

Gordon Moat
30-Jan-2008, 13:08
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 (http://www.alange-soehne.com). :D Of course, it gets even worse that I own an Italian motorcycle (http://www.ducati.com). :eek: At least my choice of shoes (http://www.puma.com) is mostly German. :cool:

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. :p

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 (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=20), 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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Jan-2008, 14:25
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
30-Jan-2008, 14:39
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
30-Jan-2008, 14:55
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
30-Jan-2008, 14:59
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
30-Jan-2008, 16:20
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
30-Jan-2008, 21:45
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
31-Jan-2008, 07:10
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
31-Jan-2008, 08:35
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
31-Jan-2008, 18:38
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.

Paul Fitzgerald
31-Jan-2008, 19:52
I have to agree with Captain_joe6,

"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."

It does weigh enough to hold the tripod down, locks-up tighter than a bank vault, has the finest focusing of any camera made, can easily hold any lens that can fit a 6x6 board with no movement, 34 inches of bellows draw, movements only limited by the bellows, virtually bullet-proof.

www.cameraeccentric.com (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/calumeta/calumeta.html)

Not for everyone but I think the word got out:

ebay Calumet C-1 #1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110218064689&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001) :eek:

ebay Calumet C-1 #2 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Calumet-C1-8x10-View-Camera-Light-Magnesium-Version_W0QQitemZ310016415230QQihZ021QQcategoryZ15248QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) :D

Eric Rose
31-Jan-2008, 20:15
What I love doing is taking the cheapest, crapiest LF camera out when I'm with camera snobs and then taking (or should I say making) better photos than they do. I have a Linhof Tech as well but to me it's just a tool, not a status symbol. It's missing leather, it looks like it's been thru a war and it works wonderfully.

Wayne R. Scott
31-Jan-2008, 20:41
I have to agree with Captain_joe6,

It does weigh enough to hold the tripod down, locks-up tighter than a bank vault, has the finest focusing of any camera made, can easily hold any lens that can fit a 6x6 board with no movement, 34 inches of bellows draw, movements only limited by the bellows, virtually bullet-proof.

www.cameraeccentric.com (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/calumeta/calumeta.html)

Not for everyone but I think the word got out:

ebay Calumet C-1 #1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110218064689&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001) :eek:

ebay Calumet C-1 #2 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Calumet-C1-8x10-View-Camera-Light-Magnesium-Version_W0QQitemZ310016415230QQihZ021QQcategoryZ15248QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) :D

I have to agree also!! My C-1 holds my Vitax No. 3 with ease and the C-1 almost weighs more than the Vitax!!

I figure if the C-1 was good enough for Yousef Karsh it is good enough for me.

Wayne

CP Goerz
31-Jan-2008, 20:43
I have THE ugliest Dorff on the planet...I may also have the prettiest Wisner...which photographer am I?

CP Goerz

David A. Goldfarb
31-Jan-2008, 20:54
My Tech V probably falls into the "luxury" class, but I don't really think of it that way. It's versatile (rangefinder press camera or view camera), solid and precise, and sets up quickly. It's not perfect for everything, so I have other cameras as well for other purposes.

The 8x10" Sinar P is a luxury camera I bought for pennies on the dollar. Thankfully, digital has made some luxuries affordable. The same could be said of my APO enlarging lenses, which I couldn't have afforded years ago.

John Kasaian
31-Jan-2008, 23:05
A photograph dosen't know beans about the camera that took the picture. My "shooters" are:
12x20 Folmer & Schwing
8x10 Deardorff and Gowland Aerial
5x7 Speed Graphic and Keystone F-8(currently undergoing a bagmag reconstruction)
4x5 Graphic View II
plus a brace of 5x7 AgfaAnscos for instruction & the children's use(when they get old enough)
All of 'em except the Gowland are antiques, none of 'em except the Graphic View even approach "minty" condition---these bad boys are experienced to the point of being downright mangey, but I love working with every one of them---especially the old 'dorff.

Patrik Roseen
1-Feb-2008, 02:20
The cost of a camera and lenses can have an influence on which type of situations one is willing to get into (or try to get out of). It's much easier for myself to stand in a wet slippery waterfall during rainfall with my Linhof Technika III, and a Symmar 150mm or 6.8/90mm Angulon than with an expensive equipment that cost me a fortune.

It's like when I as a teenager got a new tennis racket for birthday, a wonderful wooden Slazenger, sleek as a puma, weighing almost nothing, really amazing actually. It made me play worse than ever for my fear of scratching it against the ground.

I also own a Linhof Kardan Standard from the 70's.This was sort of the cheapest they could bring to the market in those days. It has no geared movements, the shift and swing is loosened with the same knob, as is the rise and tilt etc. I have understood that a professional photographer would not survive physically using this for a longer time due to the very bad ergonomics using it.

I also have a CAMBO system, where one of my biggest concern is the large lensboard that need to be packed away together with the lens.

Vaughn
1-Feb-2008, 03:02
I have a Zone VI 8x10...probably not upper tier...middle tier, perhaps? Certainly not the perfect camera, but it matches the photographer.

It was in excellent shape when I bought it used...definitely a user now. I'll put up with its faults because it puts up with mine and I can't afford to get anything better -- and if I could I'd go bigger instead. It is no lightweight but what is 5 or more pounds...I'd still would carry around 60 pounds even if the camera was lighter.

I suppose it is "transparent" -- that is more of a state of mind rather than a quality of a piece of equipment.

Vaughn

John Bowen
1-Feb-2008, 04:14
I too have usd a Zone VI 8x10 for the past few years. I also have a Zone VI standard (ie HEAVY) tripod I use with it. Just this week I've ordered one of Richard Ritter's new 8x10 carbon fiber cameras. It weighs about 1/2 as much as the Zone VI. (7 lbs vs 13) BUT, the lighter camera means I can use a lighter tripod (Ries J-800) and lighter tripod head. I figure the total weight savings is way over 15 lbs.

I anticipate the lighter weight will permit me to get a little farther from the SUV when photographing. I know my sherpa will certainly appreciate it.

evan clarke
1-Feb-2008, 07:51
My Arca 141mm 4x5 F-metric/Orbix. It just runs on automatic for me, seamless....EC

Jim Rice
1-Feb-2008, 09:27
Another vote for the C-1.

Scott Davis
1-Feb-2008, 10:47
I used to have a C-1. I found that I was wanting to take it out in the field more often, which caused a problem, because it's just too heavy and clunky to drag around. I ended up replacing it with a Zone VI Ultralight 8x10, which is a dream. Not quite as swanky as a Canham or an Ebony, but it comes in at under 10 lbs, takes Sinar-sized lensboards, has almost as much bellows as my 11x14 (about 33 inches!), and can focus a lens as wide as a 90mm to infinity. I'm not using 8x10 so much anymore, so it sits for now.

Monty McCutchen
1-Feb-2008, 12:39
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.


What I love doing is taking the cheapest, crapiest LF camera out when I'm with camera snobs and then taking (or should I say making) better photos than they do. I have a Linhof Tech as well but to me it's just a tool, not a status symbol. It's missing leather, it looks like it's been thru a war and it works wonderfully.


With ya'lls permission I'll continue to use my 20 x 24 Ebony on the rare occasion I take it out to actually make mediocre pictures with it, instead of the more common usage I give it which is to feel good about myself by compensating for certain how shall we say physical shortcomings!:D

All kidding aside I chose ya'lls quotes because they seem to represent how many photographers feel about their tools of the trade and I've never quite understood why photographers are so quick to relegate the artistry/craftmanship in utiltarian objects as wasteful. That way of thinking could be extended into 'why anyone could go to those spots and take that picture, its just photography', without too much of a leap, which we all know isn't the case at all. Yes of course it's just a light tight box, but having an appreciation for someone elses passion in creating doesn't necissarily have to lump someone in as a low talent, low self esteemed shadow of a real photographer. Photography has many positive influences on a life, some of which even fall outside the realm of 'the final product'. I've met some of the greatest additions to my life recently through photography in the way of new friendships and yes some of those came about not based on how great my pictures were in the end but because they didn't relagate my passion or lunancy if you will to he just wants to show off. Camera's are tools, having a desire or the wheretoall to own nice tools shouldn't have to be an affront on one's abilities or their motivations and/or character.

By the way both of ya'lls work is really quite stellar and far beyond my reach. I say that geniunely.

best,

Monty

Mike Tuomey
2-Feb-2008, 14:52
first post here. have really enjoyed the banter on this thread as i'm trying to get my head around what might be the right first LF (4x5) camera for my purposes. which are a bit of everything: scapes, stills (esp flowers), portraits, architecture. my friend says sinar p for its geared movements and flexibility. hardly mentioned on this thread. i think i'll continue listening ...

Ole Tjugen
2-Feb-2008, 16:30
A short summary for (the benefit of new LF'ers): :)

NO camera is everything to everyone. Some people have very specific demands of a camera, which are only fulfilled in a very few cameras. It might be weight, it might be movements, it might be "beauty".

Some of us seek "transparency", i.e. a camera you don't have to think about but just does whatever you want it to do. I believe everyone has mentioned a different camera with this criterion in mind, and it will indeed be different for every photographer. My own suggestions are uncommon to the point of being rare collector's items, but it's taken me years to find them. Years, cameras and money have all been consumed by the search.

The best way to find out what you need is to buy a camera. Any camera. That will allow you to learn what your next camera should be like. Fortunately second-hand cameras are quite stable in price, so you can expect to sell a camera for about what you paid for it.

Glenn Thoreson
2-Feb-2008, 17:51
I once took a photo with a paper sack. At least I think you could call it a photo, but I proved my point - it worked. I'll stick to my Speed Gaphics and home made field cameras, though. They don't wrinkle so easily or blow away in the wind. :D

Mark Carstens
2-Feb-2008, 20:36
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 Linhof, and how the proud new owners enjoy showing it off. Funny how many of these people actually seldom take photos with their expensive new cameras. This is not surprising, 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.

What Brian said. :)

Whatever gets the job done...for you. It may sound trite, but nothing else matters, really.

I also agree with Eric...in that, even if your camera looks like crap, if the unit works and your images sing, then roll with it, baby. :p

~MC

Sass Quatch
5-Feb-2008, 17:57
To answer your question I will compare my 5x7 Lotus with the 5x7 Osaka which I had. You cannot tell from the pictures which camera was used for which photograph. Results from both were equal and perfect. The Lotus has all movements, even a rear rise. The Osaka has limited movements--no shifts, no rear rise and a very limited rear swing. They are both made of cherrywood. The Osaka has a shiny and beautiful finish, but it might scratch with careless use. The Lotus has a waxed natural finish. The Lotus has a much longer bellows and it is heavy duty. It has a built in rail extension. It works more smoothly. Focus is accurate on both. The Lotus is lighter. It has front and rear extensions and top focus, the ability of the back to come forward to focus wide lenses. The Osaka has top focus too. Lotus has easily interchangeable bellows, and a good wide bellows. The Osaka bellows is fixed. Lotus has spirit levels. The Lotus costs $4750. The Osaka $1350. I much prefer the Lotus because it is much smoother and more capable. It is also more beautiful. It is expensive, partly because of an inflated Euro, partly because they are so carefully made. The Osaka is an underpriced brand, whose 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 cameras are very good.

Turner Reich
5-Feb-2008, 18:41
If a camera is needed that is bullet proof and has "everything" in movements, the Calumets have it. The C1 is to cameras as the Iron Horse is to trains. So another vote for the venerable Calumet C1 8x10 camera. I have the 5x7 reducing back also, a real plus.

Bill_1856
5-Feb-2008, 19:37
I got my first camera in 1950, a 9x12cm WW2 liberated Rosewood beauty, and have shot Large Format with one camera or another ever since. I can honestly say that (except for some Polaroids shot with my 4x5 Graflex) I've never made a single LF image that wouldn't be better off consigned to the darkroom trash barrel.

But even knowing that, I still get a great pleasure from hauling one of my big beasties into the field (or even onto my patio), setting it up on the tripod, sweating under the cursed dark cloth, choosing the lens, defining the composition right there upside down on the ground glass, metering and setting the exposure, carefully teasing the film holder into the back, pulling the darkslide, and making what I'm sure at best will be a "near miss."

From my little 2.5 pound Japanese Nagaoka with a 6" Dagor (convertible to 10"), a quartet of American press cameras, or the elegant 40 pound German tooled leather camera case with fitted Technika and six coupled lenses, (with their filters and backs, and digital exposure meters, and all that crap), I feel like I'm doing something important for myself. Making a real photograph with a real camera!

I can no longer walk more than a few feet from the truck, and my old knees won't allow standing at a darkroom sink, and I still get occasional great images with the latest digital Vunderwhizbang, but the great emotional satisfaction from shooting in Large Format will always be unique, and always be there. At least I hope so.

Sass Quatch
5-Feb-2008, 20:00
There is a detailed comparison of the budget Osakas with Ebony, Lotus and other expensive cameras on my camera store site http://stores.ebay.com/brucesfieldcamerastore. It is at the bottom left of the page. If you judge a camera by the pictures it makes the Osaka is just as good as the expensive cameras. But an Ebony or Lotus, Linhof or Arca are better made cameras with more features and flexibility. They usually have interchangeable bellows with a wide angle alternate available. They work more smoothly and are more enjoyable to use. They have more movements and the movements go further. Usually the screen is brighter. There are levels. They have front or rear focus. They are made better, will last longer and have higher resale value.

alec4444
5-Feb-2008, 20:38
First off, Emmanuel, no jokes about Sauternes here! A fine Sauternes is really hard to top, and I'm still in shock about how incredible the 2001 vintage is. For Gorden, you may be German but you've got Trockenbeerenauslese up there!

To the original poster's question: Having a nice camera (to me) is about more than the "transparency" and features. I own two Wisners, a 5x7 and an 11x14. They have every movement in the world, and I know I'll never use most of them. They're also rigid as hell, which is nice. They also weigh a ton, which is not that attractive, and causes me major fits of jealousy when these lighter than air Chamonix's (and I'm sure to see some Ritters soon too) appear at LF outings.

But I'll say this: Every time I examine my Wisner I have an immense sense of joy. The craftsmanship is truly stunning. I love the grain of the wood. I love the gleaming gears and metalwork. I like the high gloss varnish. I love the feel of the kid-leather bellows on the 5x7. I like the feel of the solidness of the camera. I love the tongue & groove joints. I love the brass bubble levels. All of this makes me feel downright happy when I shoot my camera, and to me, that makes a difference.

None of that will make a better picture, but it's important to me regardless. In general, I have a hankering for handcrafted items made by people that take pride in their craft. I asked for a Swaine Adeney Brigg umbrella this year for xmas. (Didn't get it, btw) Here's a company that takes a lot of time to make a simple item (umbrella) an everyday luxury. A garbage bag will keep you dry, but a Briggs umbrella makes a miserable rainy day a damn near joy.

So there's my two cents, and I'm not ashamed to admit it! :)

--A

seawolf66
5-Feb-2008, 20:52
I am new to this Large format stuff, But I do enjoy your comments about the cameras Ya'll have used over time and your advice is also very fine ,thats when one post's a proper question! :) I my self have been lucky in buying my Linhof Techna III which has a triple extention on it which goes to sixteen inchs:? Now someone was very nice to me and allow me to buy a Newer 4x5 which is my size for me, so I now have a calumet [cambo] 45NX and when I set it up looking into the ground glass its so much briter which is good enough for me and my old eye's and will Probly never reach the status of some of your folks here , but in my small way I will enjoy it: Heck who knows what will come down the road some day! Thanks for all of your help here: Lauren

sultanofcognac
18-Mar-2010, 07:31
Alec,

You obviously are unaware of white Châteauneuf-du-Pape wines. I have three in my chai and won't share with anyone. A Sauterne is great, but…

Today I received my luxurious/plain jane Shen Hao HZX45II-A. . . I'm accustom to my Plaubel Peco Profia 8 x 10 and Arca Swiss Basic A. Both plain but certainly beauties in their own right. Only now I will be able to stomp the fields with a backpack and tripod instead of having to drag my Eckla Multi-Rolly laden with 600 kg of gear (slight exaggeration on the weight but not by much):p

I find the Shen Hao a bit complicated compared to the Arca or Profia, but with the small size I can understand the knobs had to be a bit closer together. The black walnut wood is beautiful and has been machined wonderfully. Plastic knobs are the only drawback, but once it's out in the field I'm sure that will become academic.

I was planning on selling the Arca when the little Shen Hao arrived, but something tells me that this idea is but a dream!

Sunshine - we need sunshine!

P.S. The Swiss Valais wines are quite exceptional - forget about the Trockenbeerenauslese - if you like the sweetness go for an Eiswein or visit the Valais!

Cheers,

Johnny
:cool:

ki6mf
18-Mar-2010, 09:47
Let me start by saying I use a Shen Hao Field camera for 99% of my work. My other cameras in order of use are Speed Graphic and a Cambo View camera. If I were to look for a rail style view camera I would consider a used Sinar F2 due to the precision system for aligning the front and rear camera standards. I would not pay to much for these. That said My Shen Hao does everything I need and has all the movements my style needs.

Stephanie Brim
18-Mar-2010, 10:39
If I could have any large format camera in the world I'd most likely choose a Canham metal field with 5x7 and 4x5 backs. Lots of movements (that I may never need, but you never know...), still light enough to backpack, and built like a tank.

Will I end up with one? Probably not. I'll never say never, but my pocketbook doesn't usually read that many thousands of dollars.

What would I end up with if I bought new? That's a good question. The Shen-Hao 5x7 with the long bellows extension appeals. I like doing close-ups and still life shots. I'd like to be able to use a nice, long lens for head shots.

At the moment I have the new-to-me 5x7 Burke & James view and a very beat up Speed Graphic. They meet my needs if not my wants. I have all the lenses I really need. I'm not really *wanting* for anything except time and a real darkroom.

I guess that, in the grand scheme, using what you can afford to make the best images you can has appeal as well. Yeah, most of the cheaper cameras are a bit clunky and most of the cheaper lenses are not as sharp as their modern, more expensive counterparts. This isn't the most important thing to me, though. What's important is that I like the images I make and that I have fun making them. The equipment I use is just an extension of my own body...and this body sometimes feels just as clunky as the cameras I use. ;)

jp
18-Mar-2010, 11:12
2). I use lower end LF gear in relation to what was discussed for the question. Graflex, B&J. I'm not sure where to rate my Gowland aerial camera I paid $150 for.

Your answers depend on how you intend to use it.

I am not a gentle camera user. Part of the appeal of low end camera gear is that I worry less about it. My Speed Graphic can be tossed into my backpack or sit on the back seat of the car.

Nobody would steal my car either; it's a 20 year old Saab which has a cult subculture just like some of the classic cameras. I use my car every day and I like it for what it is. I also have a taste for nicer cars and have a shiny E-type in the garage, but it's not for everyday use due to it's costs, risks, abilities. I take fanatical care of that car that the Saab will never see. I've had other cars worthy of coveting in the past; modern cars that would do 155mph no sweat, but those speed capabilities are wasted if it stays in the communities which I live.

Firearms are the same way. A $300 stoeger shotgun is going work just as good (transparent) at shooting clay for Dick Cheney as a $25000 collector shotgun.

A high end camera could appeal to me too. I'd kinda like a metal Canham. The military ruggedness of it's design is very appealing to someone who doesn't baby his cameras.

In 35mm, I have done high end. I spend my whole summer pay in 1989 on my third camera; a Nikon F4s. I'd had two olympus's prior which were very practical simple cameras, but I wanted something fast, something AF capable, and something that wasn't a dead-end system. It was definitely a smart purchase and it served me well. My needs at the time were sports and the olympus wasn't going to cut it. With digital now, high end is kind of ambiguous. a 50mm 1.4 isn't high end expensive, but it's rugged and capable low light prime suitable for pro use. Any DSLR can help make nice images in the right hands, regardless of megapixels. Cheap $100 lenses like the nikon 18-55 AFS are stunning in optical quality, but I cracked the plastic on mine the first day I took it out, and it's manual focusing ergonomics are an afterthought.

Here again, you have to understand your own specific needs to determine what should constitute a need for high end.

Jack Dahlgren
18-Mar-2010, 13:10
There are probably a few factors which determine what "luxury" is. Situational factors would be constraints like money, time and other environmental factors. Functional factors would be things like tilt, shit, bellows length, precision, weight... Luxury can probably be defined as having function in excess of what is required, but I think that would be an incomplete definition.

The biggest missing factor and one which really drives personal choices is the experiential factor, what is the quality of the experience. At some level the nature of experience is personal. Some enjoy fiddling with knobs, others enjoy simplicity. Some enjoy a connection with tradition, others love innovation. Some enjoy the process and some enjoy the results.

I used an old mono-rail which met most of my functional and situation needs (free - on loan, tilts, swings etc. ) but it just was not much fun. My speed graphic met more of my experiential needs - who doesn't like pressing a hidden button and seeing a camera pop out of the box? Who doesn't like intricate old wood, leather and brass mechanisms? But of course it lacks some functions.

Now I just got an ebony. It meets functional requirements - light, plenty of movements, compact, bright focusing screen, but it is also fun to use and has a delightful lack of irritations. For me, the experience of using it is on the positive side. That is worth something to me. And different people will have different experiences with the same camera. Some may love gears and micrometer movements, or the smell of a musty red leather bellows so luxury is a very personal thing when experience it taken into account.

Curt
18-Mar-2010, 19:45
I have a 4x5 Shen Hao but found the knobs too small for me. Now my Kodak 2D 5x7 is just right all around. I have an 8x10 Kodak 2D also which is nice and a Seneca 5x7 and 8x10 but the knobs are a little too small for the fingers on the Seneca cameras. While my Calumet 4x5 cameras are very good they are heavy. My Calumet 8x10, new bellows and completely restored, is a very fine long extension camera with no stability problems but the weight is wow, too heavy to carry far.

My criteria for a perfect camera is the controls, the knobs must be easy to use and the locks secure. An Ebony or Canham 5x7 or 8x10 would be a first choice but I can take my Kodak anywhere and if it is raining or someone should happen to "lift it" I can live to photography another day. If someone lifted an Ebony 8x10 I'd tend to be depressed for a long time. My other criteria is to be comfortable in the field. Now stolen lenses are another matter. When I stay at a motel I may leave the camera in a locked suitcase but my lenses go with me to dinner.

Shen45
18-Mar-2010, 20:46
Perhaps I would fall in both camps. My new Chamonix 5X14 would draw a crowd at a workshop of fussy photographers, but my most used camera is a very tired looking Kodak 2D that is probably down to 60 percent of it's original finish. When I set it up at a group function people keep a wide swath so as not to be associated with it. About 60 feet away is enough.

If you wander around in my web site, probably 80 - 85 percent of the images have been made with that Kodak. My interest isn't the cameras, it IS the lenses. With the Kodak I have a packard shutter living inside that's always ready and it's just stout enough to hold up some really abusively large brass lenses. On my darkroom wall is a reminder to myself......"it's the picture stupid". For my kind of working the Kodak is the most versatile camera I've found so far. I could care less what it looks like.

I must also be one of the unfortunates Jim that have been infected with old camera virus. When I saw your 2D for the first time I confess I "wondered", as you say it is not the prettiest wombat in the burrow but the practicality of it hit me immediately. It allowed older longer lenses because of the bellows. I had a Shen which is a truly wonderful camera but I couldn't use a 19" RD Artar with it. My old Korona allows me to use 90 mm to 485 mm without consideration. It is very light, it has swings and tilts on the rear but no front swing or tilt. I don't miss them because I don't have them. I also have an Eastman Kodak Empire State 5x7. I also have a long rail Calumet 400 if I want full movements front and back. But I'm not that good at photography :)

To me the most importnt consideration is that the GG register is EXACTLY the same as the film holders. Old or new, if that is not correct it is nothing more than a pretty piece of furniture.

Alan_Gage
19-Mar-2010, 17:34
Whenever I start a new hobby I start off with cheap stuff, want something better, and then try to find that magically mid-priced equipment that's as good as the top of the line stuff only to be disappointed again. Eventually, if I'm serious about my hobby, I'll find myself with something high end and wish I'd have just started with it in the first place, it would have been a lot cheaper.

One thing high end gear does (other than work wonderfully) is take away all your excuses. There's no more, "if I only had a better camera/lens/tripod/etc I'd take so many better pictures." If your pictures suck there's no one to blame but yourself. At least for me it makes me focus on the task and quit wishing I had something else.

When I knew I could no longer blame my binoculars I had to become a better birder. When I could no longer blame my kayak I had to become a more fit paddler. When I could no longer blame my DSLR and lenses I had to become a better photographer. And now I'm making the same discoveries on my return to 4x5, but I'm not quite there yet.

I'm still pretty tight with my money though and only buy the good stuff when I can find good deals on used gear. Amazing what you can find if you look hard enough.

Alan

Ivan J. Eberle
19-Mar-2010, 18:06
Never has been a better time to take photographs with fine used LF gear.

There's certainly less economic necessity to put up with clapped out junk these days when perfectly serviceable and terrific as ever Sinars and Rodenstocks can be had for a fraction of what they were selling for just a few short years ago. I just picked up a really clean and smooth, light-tight 4x5 Norma with both a tapered AND bag bellows last week-- for less than the cost of a dinky entry-level DSLR!

Prices have been scraping along the bottom for so long that even the user/collectible stuff has been dragged along. Expect the better stuff is likely hold it's present value or even rebound a bit when the economy turns around.

Drew Bedo
20-Mar-2010, 07:17
I use a Kodk 2D in 8x10 and an early ZoneVI in 4x5. The 2D is good looking old mahogany with signes of careful usage and "patina. It has no front movements bot Rise/Fall. It cost me $300 twenty years ago without lens. I wish I had a more versitile 8x10, but I still get the shots I want . . .so maybe I dont really have to have a new camera.

The Zone VI is an early Wista based model with single extension (12"total). It also is beautiful cherry with brass hardware. This camera has every movement front and back. I bought it ten years ago as a complete shooting outfit in a LowePro backpack for $1200. I love it!

I'd like to have any Deardorff for the tradition and history associated with them. I'd like a Kodak Masterview for the same type of link to Adams. What I NEED is a big empty room and some lights!

Brian Ellis
20-Mar-2010, 08:41
I use a Kodk 2D in 8x10 and an early ZoneVI in 4x5. The 2D is good looking old mahogany with signes of careful usage and "patina. It has no front movements bot Rise/Fall. It cost me $300 twenty years ago without lens. I wish I had a more versitile 8x10, but I still get the shots I want . . .so maybe I dont really have to have a new camera. . . . !

Drew - Just in case you don't know, Richard Ritter can add front tilt to your 2D. He did it to mine for about $250 and did an excellent job. A lot less expensive than buying a new camera.

John Jarosz
20-Mar-2010, 09:29
For photographers, cameras and lenses are tools. If they accomplish what you need accomplished that's all that's needed to be said. Now if we are talking about jewelry or toys then maybe your questions are valid. Much of my stuff is homemade or altered, if I bought jewelry then I couldn't modify it because future potential purchasers would not want it as it would be altered jewelry. I want my tools to work the way I want them to work. Jewelry is nice to look at, but in many cases, function is compromised for appearance. I have no problem with camera junkies, but their wants & needs are completely different than mine.

eli
20-Mar-2010, 12:51
I agree that cameras are tools but it is the different ways that a tool might be perceived and used that determines its appropriateness for a particular user.

Take hammers for a slightly complex example. Basically designed to deliver a blow and perhaps to remove a nail, some folks here have one hammer which they use for every possible chore, from tacking brads into molding or frames to freeing a frozen bolt on an old car on to knocking together a picnic table or roofing shingles, one tool for many jobs.

No consider that there are others among us whom have and use perhaps a dozen or more hammers for a range of work; for example, one shaped and magnetized for tacking fabric to furniture, several ballpeans in a range of weights for metal work, small brass hammers for delicate work on firearms, and heavy brass ones which are non-sparking, several styles of claw hammers, small ones for putting up hangers for picture frames and other light household work, larger ones for general carpentry and framing. There are roofing hammers and there are deadblow hammers for driving home non-metallic materials. There are also hammers for masonry work, for rock-hounds and geologist, hammers for sheet-metal forming, hammers with changeable faces of rubber and plastics for non-marring work, Warrington pattern hammers for fine woodworking, both rounded and flat-faced wood and composite mallets for driving wood gouges, Japanese hammers for adjusting wooden planes, more Japanese hammers for driving Japanese chisels, and don't forget planishing hammers for silver-work, blacksmithing, etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there are long handled War Hammers for burglars and chipmunks among the day-lilies!

Now any 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 camera can expose those sized films,etc, however while some photographers might want a minimum amount of features and could care less how the camera feels to operate so long as it does the job well, others demand full featured cameras that exhibit fine craftsmanship in build and finish, making very personal connections to their tool and the 'feedback' they feel it delivers, which perhaps even inspires more creative and frequent use from the sheer pleasure the user derives from its use!

Personally, while most of my experience has been with basic studio cameras, mostly Toya and Sinar, as well as a few 4x5 press cameras, if I were able to afford a quality camera, a full featured Ebony in 5x7 with a 4x5 back would be my first, best choice, even well used.
While in the long run, it's just a tool, tools are often at their best when the user enjoys working them.

Eli

Robert Hughes
22-Mar-2010, 08:46
If your pictures suck there's no one to blame but yourself.
Agreed. But I don't think that high end gear is necessary for that. If you can find or build a box that holds your lens and film in reasonably parallel fashion, and is dark in the middle, you've got the potential for great pictures - or sucky ones, depending on your taste in photography. I've got enough of both to seriously question my own taste... :p

anthony marsh
22-Mar-2010, 09:07
I have a Graphic View with a 7 1/2 in. anastigmat f4.5 No.3 Acme Synchro and 4 1.2 in Wollensak 6.6 Rapax.Being new to LF my question is if this outfit is good for landscape photography and what is the quality of the lenses? I bought it recently but haven't used it.

Robert Hughes
22-Mar-2010, 09:22
what is the quality of the lenses? I bought it recently but haven't used it.
Heh... it's the best LF camera you've never used! Incredibly optical quality of lenses that have never seen a photo! :rolleyes:

Errr, why not try it and tell us what the quality is?

anthony marsh
22-Mar-2010, 09:40
Robert,are these lenses the right length for landscapes? As I said I,m new at LF and have heard that certain lenses cover certain formats but I don,t know if these lenses are correct for 4x5.Without knowing I don't want to waste film.

























l
f

Robert Hughes
22-Mar-2010, 10:01
7 1/2 in. anastigmat f4.5 No.3 Acme Synchro 7 1/2 inch is 190 mm, a medium telephoto for 4x5. Try portraits with this one.


4 1.2 in Wollensak 6.6 Rapax. 4 1/2 inch is 115 mm, considered a medium wide lens for 4x5. This should be a perfectly useable landscape lens.

Both of these lenses are within the normal range of lenses for this format. Try and see how they look - you don't even need to expose film. Just look at the ground glass and see what you get.

That anastigmat may give you some interesting out-of-field focus effects that some photographers really like. Good luck.

Michael Jones
22-Mar-2010, 10:29
... there is no more improtant feature than transparency.

IMHO, this the only issue to be determined. Chamwow or Phillips or Kodak is irrelevant; how the camera fits the photographer is critical. They are just tools.

Mike

anthony marsh
22-Mar-2010, 10:43
Robert,I also bought a Crown Graphic 2x3 with a Kodak Ektar 105mm f 3.7.Would I be able to use this as a wide angle lens on the 4x5?

Wade D
22-Mar-2010, 11:12
I guess my cameras would be of the plain jane variety. Both are older than I am, a Crown View and Speed Graphic Anni. Both suit my needs quite nicely.
Would I upgrade if I had the funds? Of course. I like to try new cameras. Getting used to new equipment and making it function as a part of me would be the only challenge.
The cameras I have now require very little thought and don't get in the way of my seeing.

Robert Hughes
22-Mar-2010, 11:29
Robert,I also bought a Crown Graphic 2x3 with a Kodak Ektar 105mm f 3.7.Would I be able to use this as a wide angle lens on the 4x5?Wide angle lenses differ in their ability to cover the entire 4x5 frame. You may find that the center of your photo is bright, in sharp focus, while the corners get dim and out of focus, particularly when shooting wide open at long distances or infinity. Again, try it out and see what happens - you won't break anything, and even if the whole frame isn't covered you may find the effect is useful for some subjects.

Example: Optar 101mm from a 2x3 camera, used on 4x5. Note the vignetting:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4443441802_4c96f707c2_m.jpg

anthony marsh
22-Mar-2010, 14:09
Robert,in my post I didn't mention that the 7 1/2 in.lens is an ILEX.I've heard of WOLLENSAK but not ILEX.Would it be a decent lens?

Robert Hughes
22-Mar-2010, 14:47
...ILEX.Would it be a decent lens?
Yep - Could be. Ilex was one of those Rochester NY manufacturers, known mostly for shutters, but also for lenses.

Oftentimes the current condition of the lens is more important than the manufacturer.

Dan Fromm
22-Mar-2010, 15:48
Robert,I also bought a Crown Graphic 2x3 with a Kodak Ektar 105mm f 3.7.Would I be able to use this as a wide angle lens on the 4x5?Anthony, PMFJI. The 105/3.7 Ektar was sold as a normal lens for 2x3. It just barely covers the format. This based on two examples, one that I used to have and another that I acquired after hearing other people rave about how wonderful the lens is and wondering whether I'd been mistaken. I wasn't mistaken.

I don't know how large a circle it illuminates, but its circle of sharp definition is no more than 100 mm in diameter.

Few inexpensive 100 mm lenses will cover 4x5, lucky steals excepted.

dperez
28-Feb-2012, 14:36
During the Per Memorial Gathering at Oceano Dunes last weekend I was fortunate enough to handle Robert Oliver's Chamonix 045N-1, and examine Hugo Zhang's 16x20 and whole plate Chamonix cameras. I have to say I was very impressed. I own an Arca-Swiss F Classic in 4x5, which is pretty heavy compared to the Chamonix. I plan on eventually picking up a Chamonix 045N-2 to use in the field. I will keep the Arca because it just has a ton of movements, and geared rear focus which comes in handy for macro and still life shots. The only thing that I don't like about the Chamonix 045N-2 is that it does not have an independent locking front rise and tilt mechanism.

I think Chamonix cameras represent great value and quality, plus they seem to have an extensive line of formats, and accessories.

I also own an Ebony RW810 and will be posting a review of it after I use it a bit longer. I really enjoy this camera. It is a pure joy to use. The ground glass is very bright and everything is well made and well thought out, so I have no regrets at all about paying a bit more for the camera. I equate it to owning a fine guitar.

I purchased my Arca-Swiss used with three lenses, standard and bag bellows, a compendium shade, gel filter holders and a pelican case for $2,000. So I don’t think of it as an upper tier camera (Although a new Arca-Swiss 4x5 camera will easily cost over $4,000). New Arca-Swiss accessories are also really expensive. I find that the camera is too heavy for backpacking any serious distances, but it is rock solid and very precise (I must say, the F-Line Field camera with the 6x9 front standard and collapsible rail is much lighter and more compact than my model). The modular design of Arca-Swiss cameras is a plus, especially if one is able to find pre-owned accessories, so one has the ability to go to or from 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 formats quite easily, albeit not cheaply. (My Ebony was only slightly more expensive than the Arca-Swiss 4x5 to 8x10 format kit)

The main attributes I look for in a view camera are rigidity and ease of use. The Arca-Swiss is actually quite a simple camera to use, but is also a precision instrument. I don’t think I would have a problem using a Chamonix or other brand as long as the camera stays where I locked it down, and is easy to use.

-DP

Edward (Halifax,NS)
29-Feb-2012, 08:56
I have a clunky, heavy CC400. I don't take a lot of pictures because is it a production to get out in the field with it. There are many $600-1000 cameras that would be a joy to use and would greatly increase my productivity. In a perfect world, where I have won the lottery, I would buy an Ebony SW45, one of the expensive multi-format 6X12 backs, a 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N and a 150mm f/5.6 Sironar-S.

In the real world I will likely trade my 210mm f/5.6 Sinaron-S for a sharp 90mm lens and mount it on a Wanderlust 4x5 P&S. Eventually I would break down and buy a Day-Yi 6X12 back.

Brian Ellis
29-Feb-2012, 09:32
[QUOTE=audioexcels;314684] . . . So really, on the marketplace right now, one can find an excellent "used" Deardorff for about $1.5-$2K. For that same amount of money, one can find an excellent Wisner/Wehman/Ritter/Philips/etc. etc.../QUOTE]

Would you let me know where I can find a Phillips 8x10 for $1,500 - $2,000? And please do it by private email so others don't discover this remarkable source.

Nobody in their right mind thinks a more expensive camera will, by itself, result in better photographs. I've paid a lot for several large format cameras, not because I thought the photographs would be better but because I enjoy using well-engineered, well-made, precision instruments that are a real pleasure to use. I've also owned relatively inexpensive cameras. They were o.k. too but some lacked features I wanted (e.g. front tilt on a Kodak 2D, a shorter bellows than I wanted on a Tachihara) and others just weren't as enjoyable to use for one reason or another as the more expensive ones. I figure it's my money, I spend it on a lot of different things that give me pleasure in one way or another. Cameras are one of them.

I didn't read all the preceding messages. Hopefully what I say in this one doesn't contradict something I said back when this thread first started. : - )

Kirk Gittings
29-Feb-2012, 09:43
FWIW, Both the DavidB and Jack Flesher mentioned in the OP are only shooting digital now.

John Kasaian
29-Feb-2012, 10:01
A zombie thread, but a nice zombie thread.
The advice given to me (on tennis racquets, not cameras but I think its appropriate) is "What (camera) do you see yourself using?" Thats the one, ideally to start out with. Anything else is going to serve to provide excuses for "equipment malfunction"

premortho
29-Feb-2012, 13:00
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

Amen, brother--Amen!

premortho
29-Feb-2012, 13:12
I found what to me was the holy grail of view cameras. Why? because it did everything I wanted it to. And it was a bargain (in retrospect). Although it was a stretch to afford it at that time 60 years ago, sixty years ago, I paid $75.00 for a 5X7 Ansco/Agfa with matching tripod, with a lens and Packard shutter and three sheet film holders. I lost that camera 5 years ago in a house fire, and I'm still crying about it!!:mad:

evan clarke
29-Feb-2012, 14:17
The camera I use most is a nice, fully loaded, 141 Arca F Metric with orbix..It'll do everything and is , as Ole says, completely transparent. I never have to think about the camera part of the photographing..Evan Clarke

P.S. I hope to jave it buried with me..ec

ashlee52
29-Feb-2012, 23:12
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread EBay has made it possible to try many cameras and pass on those you fail to bond with. And boy have I tried MANY LF cameras over nearly 40 years of doing this... Deardorff, Linhof, Calumet, Ebony, Tachihara, Chamonix, Horseman, Wista, Kodak, Walker, Graflex and a few I must have forgotten. Where do I now find myself? My absolute favorite to work with is the Ansco 5x7. It sets up in seconds, and every control is just where it ought to be. Heavy as hell and thus solid. For color I need to use 4x5... current favorite is the Sinar Norma. Much smaller than the F series, with every capability I could ever ask for. So much easier to use than a field camera, and barely bigger in a back pack or case. Construction quality Leica only dreams of. Finally for backpacking when I want minimum size and weight, a Chamonix 4x5.While I guess these are folding field cameras, they really operate much more like a monorail. And so rigid for being so light. I do miss the Ebony. But it is the only super expensive camera that has really worked for me. The ones I use most... the Ansco, the Norma, and the Chamonix were all complete bargains... the Ansco was $240, the Norma $400, and the Chamonix something like $800.