-
Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I wanted to open up a can of worms I've seen both here and many other places (not even related to photography).
When someone enters a field, either as a trainee planning to start their career, or an established professional, or a hobbyist, there's always the question of what tools to get for the job.
Do you get something cheap and simple, figuring that as you learn and improve, you'll upgrade and replace your "starter set" with more professional level gear? Or do you get professional level tools, learn to take care of them, and grow into them as you learn and improve?
When I lecture university students (on non-photography related subjects), I am very clear on following the second path - despite the cost, it's better to cry once than fool oneself into thinking it's cheaper to buy cheap tools and upgrade later (in many cases ending up spending much more than what a good quality tool would have cost in the first place). That applies pretty clearly to engineering, to music (you get the best instrument you can afford), mechanics (cheap tools often make the work that much more difficult and time consuming), and many other fields. We don't recommend that people go out and buy the cheapest second hand computer they can find to see if they like computers and would like to learn programming :-p.
Now photography isn't engineering (although it seems to me there are an awful lot of gear-focused engineer types practicing photography), and there are many approaches and ways of working, as well as sub-fields (landscape, architecture, portraiture, etc), which is something a little bit different than in many other disciplines. I also recognize that the vast majority of the people here, everyone shooting LF, are amateurs (myself included), which in my opinion muddies the debate somewhat. I'm not sure amateurs need professional grade tools.
So I'd like to hear people's views on this.
For someone who's been shooting film for a while and knows their way around a light meter, developing B&W/C-41/E6 and using a darkroom, but is new to LF - there are used Intrepids, Wistas, Sinars and the like for a few hundred dollars, or things like Ebony's and Arca Swiss' for many thousands of dollars, and that's just for the camera, not the lenses or anything else. What would the arguments be to aim for one end of the scale vs the other?
Looking forward to learning more, and hearing peoples opinions and experience.
Thor
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Having been the Linhof, Wista and, long ago, the Sinar distributor, always go with the best that you can afford.
There can be big differences on how large format cameras perform. Maximum extension, without accessories, ease of movements, amount of movements, type of movements, ease of setting up and taking down, range of accessories, parallisim or lack of parallaisim - especially if that changes while focusing or moving the standards, range of lenses, range of boards, etc., etc., etc..
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
The difference is that many import hand tools will not be made well, or even work, and fall apart/break, where better tools just do the job...
The good news with cameras is about all were made well and completely usable to tackle the photo job at hand... So the cameras, lenses, etc were well made enough...
The problem is more about what age, use/abuse, storage environment , inital materials used, and was it made to withstand these factors...
Many are using gear over a hundred years old here, and with proper care, repair, restoration it keeps going...
There is very little bad gear as most of it has died over time, but as all of it is used and getting older, everything needs to be attended to...
Brand new gear from now might not age as well, so consider the future it will have to endure (I suspect the designers of today use the modern materials available without consideration of what age and conditions will do to it, such as some plastics, etc)...
Don't assume it has been thought through, make good informed choices...
Steve K
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
In general I'm in the "buy the best you can afford" school, because well-made equipment is more fun to use, and more likely to satisfy your requirements. However LF cameras are a bit different, since they are all compromises of a sort. Almost all LF cameras optimize one characteristic over another: they may have more movements, or longer/interchangeable bellows allowing for a greater variety of focal length lenses, but then they may be heavier or less "packable." Unless you know in advance which features mean the most to you, it is difficult to define "best."
My first LF camera was a Sinar F, the most transportable in the Sinar line, and one of their least expensive models. (Aside, Sinars are Swiss-made precision cameras, the equal of their Swiss cousins, the Arca-Swiss; you are incorrect to assume a quality difference between the two brands.) The Sinar excelled in flexibility: it was a monorail with generous movements everywhere, and part of the Sinar system which meant that with all parts interchangeable, it could be modified to do anything. But it was not the lightest of field cameras, and not very easy to pack compactly. An excellent camera, but not the best for the backpacking and field use I enjoyed most.
My second was a Wista wooden field (actually one of the early ZoneVI cameras with the strengthened base plate). It was light, easy to fold and put in a backpack, but limited in its movements and not as rigid as the Sinar. Neither of these was a show-stopper, but with a fixed bellows it was limited in terms of either very short lenses, or longer ones. I enjoyed using it, but was aware of its limitations.
Ultimately I traded both in and got a Canham DLC (upgraded to a ^2 model later) which is a metal folder with interchangeable bellows. It is lighter than the Sinar, heavier than the Wista, with flexibility in-between the two. It is my favored compromise, and handles both my Schneider 80mm and my Fujinon 300mm, my personal extremes. It is precision-made out of alloy, but is somewhat idiosyncratic in design; I love mine, but some dislike theirs.
I use my history to show how "best" and "highest quality" are somewhat independent. In terms of sheer engineering quality, I would place the Sinars, Arcas,and Linhofs at the top, but you still have all the trade-offs to work through. And you may well find that a Wista, a Canham, a Chamonix or other is the best fit for your needs. So to go full-circle (and end this post!) I would still go for the highest-quality enlarger you can afford, or tripod, or any other equipment where the design doesn't have to include the variety of compromises as LF cameras. But for cameras, there is no way that I'm aware of of knowing what you really want without some experience.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I've always bought the best available. That includes other categories besides tools.
An excellent item will do what it's supposed to do every time.
If the results are not what you expect, the reason is obvious.
- Leigh
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Pay now, or pay later. I also belong to the school of buy the best you can afford. Whether it's power tools or cameras, it will, in the long run, imo, make a difference.
re:large format cameras, the Intrepid is a decent and very affordable camera, I have the 8x10. But I also have Zone VI and Canham cameras and for the heavy lifting, I'll always use those cameras first. While the Intrepid fills a very specific niche (lightweight packing camera for many), I don't believe any photographer would consider the Intrepid equal in any way to the Zone or Canham (other than it can be used to make photographs).
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
When I was getting ready to start building my darkroom I bought a new track saw, MFT table, sander and dust vac from Festool. Great tools made the process really enjoyable. On the camera side, my 8x10, 4x5 & 6x9 are Arca Swiss, plus an Ebony 4x5 and a Chamonix 4x10. So yeah... I'm on board with the best equipment you can manage.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Lewin
In general I'm in the "buy the best you can afford" school, because well-made equipment is more fun to use, and more likely to satisfy your requirements. However LF cameras are a bit different, since they are all compromises of a sort. Almost all LF cameras optimize one characteristic over another: they may have more movements, or longer/interchangeable bellows allowing for a greater variety of focal length lenses, but then they may be heavier or less "packable." Unless you know in advance which features mean the most to you, it is difficult to define "best."
My first LF camera was a Sinar F, the most transportable in the Sinar line, and one of their least expensive models. (Aside, Sinars are Swiss-made precision cameras, the equal of their Swiss cousins, the Arca-Swiss; you are incorrect to assume a quality difference between the two brands.) The Sinar excelled in flexibility: it was a monorail with generous movements everywhere, and part of the Sinar system which meant that with all parts interchangeable, it could be modified to do anything. But it was not the lightest of field cameras, and not very easy to pack compactly. An excellent camera, but not the best for the backpacking and field use I enjoyed most.
My second was a Wista wooden field (actually one of the early ZoneVI cameras with the strengthened base plate). It was light, easy to fold and put in a backpack, but limited in its movements and not as rigid as the Sinar. Neither of these was a show-stopper, but with a fixed bellows it was limited in terms of either very short lenses, or longer ones. I enjoyed using it, but was aware of its limitations.
Ultimately I traded both in and got a Canham DLC (upgraded to a ^2 model later) which is a metal folder with interchangeable bellows. It is lighter than the Sinar, heavier than the Wista, with flexibility in-between the two. It is my favored compromise, and handles both my Schneider 80mm and my Fujinon 300mm, my personal extremes. It is precision-made out of alloy, but is somewhat idiosyncratic in design; I love mine, but some dislike theirs.
I use my history to show how "best" and "highest quality" are somewhat independent. In terms of sheer engineering quality, I would place the Sinars, Arcas,and Linhofs at the top, but you still have all the trade-offs to work through. And you may well find that a Wista, a Canham, a Chamonix or other is the best fit for your needs. So to go full-circle (and end this post!) I would still go for the highest-quality enlarger you can afford, or tripod, or any other equipment where the design doesn't have to include the variety of compromises as LF cameras. But for cameras, there is no way that I'm aware of of knowing what you really want without some experience.
You do know that Arca has been French for several Years and that Sinaris now owned by Leica?
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
You do know that Arca has been French for several Years and that Sinaris now owned by Leica?
Bob, I'm aware that Sinar is owned by Leica, but thought the digital LF cameras (which is all I'm aware of them manufacturing any more) were still made in Switzerland? Same for Area-Swiss, the ownership may be French (I did not know that one) but is the manufacturing still done in Switzerland? And while you are keeping me up-to-date, is Broncolor (which used to be part of Sinar) still Swiss, and also owned by Leica?
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Lewin
Bob, I'm aware that Sinar is owned by Leica, but thought the digital LF cameras (which is all I'm aware of them manufacturing any more) were still made in Switzerland? Same for Area-Swiss, the ownership may be French (I did not know that one) but is the manufacturing still done in Switzerland? And while you are keeping me up-to-date, is Broncolor (which used to be part of Sinar) still Swiss, and also owned by Leica?
Peter, yes, Sinar is still made in Switzerland. Arca is made in France. Broncolor is still Swiss and was never part of Sinar.
Originally Sinar, in the U.S., was imported by Paillard who were in Lower Linden, NJ. Paillard also distributed other high end, primarily Swiss cameras, like Bolex, and Hermès office machines.
At the same time EPOI distributed Plaubel LF cameras.
Then EPOI became the Sinar distributor and dropped Plaubel. They also became the Broncolor distributor which had been distributed by Interstate, the Miranda distributor in the U.S.
They also had an informal arrangement with Foba and fairly quietly sold Foba.
As EPOI was about to close Sinar, Broncolor and Foba formed a new importing and distributing company in Edison, NJ called Sinar Bron as they both had an interest financially. So both factories owned the U.S. company. But Sinar and Bron and Foba were always separate companies. And that should also explain why Leica didn’t end up owning all 3 companies but only Sinar who had bounced around between a few companies, including their Swiss distributor, before Leica finally became the current owner.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Having been the Linhof, Wista and, long ago, the Sinar distributor, always go with the best that you can afford.
There can be big differences on how large format cameras perform. Maximum extension, without accessories, ease of movements, amount of movements, type of movements, ease of setting up and taking down, range of accessories, parallisim or lack of parallaisim - especially if that changes while focusing or moving the standards, range of lenses, range of boards, etc., etc., etc..
For a change I have to agree with Bob. I always buy the best and strive to be able to afford it. My Arca-Swiss and Technorama cameras has never been a source of complains, not even when I bought them for dear money. An excellent camera holds its value much better than a crappy one and what is more, gives you space to grow and learn as you go higher and higher.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
"Fine tools contribute to fine work."
-Alexander Calder
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
My most esteemed camera is a Sinar Norma 4x5. Before me it was owned by 2 Pro photographers. The first one used it intensively for 17 years for commercial photography until he retired. The second one used it also intensively for 19 years more making most of critical forensic photography in a 3 million people city until he died.
And that camera it's still like new. A rookie amateur like me is not wearing it much, compared to my predecesors, but +50 years after it was manufactured it's still a refined piece of gear that can survive an additional number of hard shooters in a row, delivering nice negatives that were 300 mpix worth since the 1960s. Some would not belive it...
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
In my opinion there is no simple single rule to this question because the use for tools varies over a wide range from things that will be used only once to things that will be used everyday. The thing that will be used once must not break and must do the job but wear is not an issue, so the inexpensive version may be appropriate. Things used everyday will wear. Sometimes they can be "sharpened" or otherwise refurbished, and here the wise choice is often the well made tool for which replacement parts are available. For both reasons it is unlikely to be the cheapest choice.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pfsor
For a change I have to agree with Bob. I always buy the best and strive to be able to afford it.
Do you have photographs you wish to make again but you cannot because they require a 'better' camera?
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
Do you have photographs you wish to make again but you cannot because they require a 'better' camera?
Funny you ask - I used to wish to take pictures I could not, because at that time I did not have a good camera for it. It's not the case any more - I built cameras DIY way for just such cases.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
You have received some great advice from others with far more LF experience than I. I include my own experience here as a reference, in case it may also be of help.
In 1973, I fortuitously acquired a Rolls Royce of 35mm rangefinders, a Leica M4, in excellent condition. I'm still using it, which is great, because today, I couldn't afford even a decent used one. About 15 years ago, I got a loan to buy a used 645 Mamiya, because I really needed it for the commercial portraiture I was doing at the time, requiring large prints without much grain. I still have that, too. About two years ago, getting back into LF, I found it increasingly difficult and unwieldy to haul my monorail 4x5 around, and was moving into location portraiture, so I sold a whole bunch of other equipment in order to afford a Tachihara, which someone on this forum was selling for about $475, a price I couldn't pass up, even though I really wanted a Shenhao. I had to get it serviced, and it works perfectly well for the work for which I need it. I wish it were a bit more solid -feeling and had another feature or two, but the design and materials have a good reputation. I have no doubt that it will last far into the future, doing what it is meant to do.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pfsor
Funny you ask - I used to wish to take pictures I could not, because at that time I did not have a good camera for it. It's not the case any more - I built cameras DIY way for just such cases.
Please show us the cameras and outcomes.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
Please show us the cameras and outcomes.
No interest in it, sorry.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pfsor
No interest in it, sorry.
If you have no interest in sharing your builds/inventions and outcomes then we should have no interest in your claims: a good argument for the ignore filter.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Much like chisels (maybe not the best parallel), the more you spend, the better metal you acquire and as a result less sharpening is needed; therefore, reducing the level of productivity and frustration. not to mention ease of use. Indeed, good "R scale" metal rating tends to raise the prices accordingly. Although similar things can be done with both, more exotic woods require better chisels, since the cheap ones tend to dull quickly. Usually, you get what you pay for. Yet, most of us have to pay attention to personal economics, as well.
Les
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
there are used Intrepids, Wistas, Sinars and the like for a few hundred dollars, or things like Ebony's and Arca Swiss' for many thousands of dollars
I don't know. Ten years ago, maybe, but today it seems like the price spread for LF gear is pretty narrow. In fact because of the great time involved and the fixed cost of fresh paper, chemicals and film, the final cost of a fine print is going to be about the same for everyone; cheapskate, student or lawyer.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I have always believed i should obtain the best tools I could afford whether in photography, woodworking, golf or flyfishing. Have they made me better? Maybe not, but they have certainly made the experiences greater.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
For some of us, besides the obvious task of making images, or perhaps even art, as it were, there is a secondary function of a certain romance of using tools that were considered the best by the artists that used them historically. Some of the machines that are considered to be the best, classic machines, legendary tools, and have proved themselves over and over for an extended time, at least for me, have a difficult to define without sounding corny, it's just a pleasure to be using them. It's a double pleasure. It's a pleasure when you hang beautiful negatives up to dry, but it's also a pleasure to have used classic machines that are still considered by some to be the best. Often large sums of money have little to do with what I'm talking about.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Regarding LF gear, I get great satisfaction using older cameras, a Crown Graphic or an Ansco, can make an image as good as a Linhof, or Deardorff....
Spend your dough on the best glass, that levels the playing field.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
I'm not sure amateurs need professional grade tools.
Not to be contrary, but I don't think it matters anymore. We're in a global race to the bottom in manufacturing, because who wants to make tools that last several lifetimes when you can make more money making garbage and having repeat buyers? Almost no one makes good tools anymore (I know some members here will vocally disagree), they're mostly all made by a few companies in factories in Malaysia or Vietnam or wherever they can pay people $0.20 a day, and they just put different names on them. If you buy a Snap-On instead of a Kobalt, you're paying 5-10 times as much for a marginally better quality of tool likely from the same factory - possibly better steel, finish and qc, but you're mostly just paying extra for the name and bragging rights. That might translate into pride of ownership and taking better care of the tool, but that's what's going to make it last longer than the Kobalt or Craftsman. 30 or 40 years ago, it did make a difference, but even then 50% of the price was for the name.
In LF? The lens tests tell us the big name lenses perform nearly as well as each other, differences are more due to their being misused and abused since manufacture than any difference in their initial quality. Same goes for cameras. I would rather buy a well-maintained cheaper camera than an Ebony that was left out in the rain and stored in a plastic bag in someone's basement. A tool is a tool; my personal philosophy is to invest the smallest amount I can to get a decent tool to do the job at hand. If I can buy a Fujinon-W lens for 1/2 the price of a Nikkor, and differences in performance are due to condition and past abuse, why would I insist on buying the Nikkor rather than looking for a good Fujinon? And given that I'm more interested in image aesthetics than line pairs/mm, the whole question of lens quality is moot anyway because I'm looking for rendering, not accuracy in reproduction. Shutters and light meters are about the only LF gear that I would pay extra for, because of the need to reduce variation in process from elements beyond my control.
I tend to buy my LF gear exactly like my tools: I shop for bargains on used pro gear if the tool is in good condition. Pro gear partly for resale value if I decide I don't need it anymore, because someone else paid the depreciation, and partly because I don't have to worry that the tool is capable of doing the job. I'll never buy just for the name or because I want it to last 50 years. I won't last 50 years.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I trained as a farrier and started with a set of Diamonds for cold shoeing, but it had already been the established custom that when you're trained in traditional hot shoeing you'd make your own tools on the forge in order to prove your mettle. Of course you still need a cross peen as well as tongs and a punch to build those tools. I assume you'd borrow those from the Master.
Fixing cars, my first tools were Sears Craftsman back when the brand meant something (and I still have the set.)
When I worked on aircraft I splurged and bought a set of Snap-Ons (definitely Pro quality) Of course they got promptly stolen!
With photo gear I find there is a different dynamic. I have a lot of used Pro quality gear (Pro quality as in 1940's Pro quality) because it was affordable but even more because I enjoy using the stuff.
Using good quality tools, even old ones, is a joy,
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I began photography in the 1940s with a folding Kodak with meniscus lens. It was quite limited. In 1951 I upgraded to a Mercury II half frame, a cleverly designed and reliable camera with little versatility, but a good introduction to 35mm photography. Based on this experience, next came a Minolta rf with a fine 45mm lens, but an unreliable body. A Nicca with a f/1.4 lens opened up new opportunities in the days of ASA 10 Kodachrome. Finally, based on what some experts were using, I invested in a new Leica IIIF with the lowly Elmar 50mm. I might still be using this little beauty if it hadn't got bashed in. Not even Leicas can survive some treatment. The last 35mm film camera was a Leica M4 in 1970. After much hard use it was still working fine a few years ago when digital became more practical for me. SLR photography followed a similar train: Praktica FX3, Miranda, Nikon F, DSLR. Each of these cameras was a valuable learning experience and a foundation for well-informed upgrading. Large Format gear followed a similar path. A 5x7 B&J monorail still suits me better for some photography than more elegant cameras that cost many hundreds or more. An Anniversary Speed Graphic made from 1940 to 1946 is still the most practical body for some applications. It's a rare craftsman who knows now what tools he will most need several decades later.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I recently bought a really nice pair of metal cutters. It was about $25. The cheap $5 tools would dull immediately or just not cut through anything larger than 14 or 16 gauge wire. If I was a professional using those tools in the field, on a job, I'd look like a fool. That's a hand tool though.
When it comes to cameras, anyone well-versed in how the camera operates can get the same photo with a $200 Intrepid as with a $10000 Linhof. They are fundamentally the same basic light-tight box. One could extol the Linhof for having better build quality, more precision, etc., but with careful use the Intrepid could perform similarly for most people shooting popular LF subjects like landscapes. And the cheap Intrepid is fantastically light and therefore most would be able to carry it further and make more images with it than the Linhof.
There's certainly a time and place for the Linhof, but IMO anyone who says that the Linhof, or Arca-Swiss, or Ebony cameras take "better pictures" than the Intrepid is deluding themselves, or defending a purchase. This comparison is not the same as a "tool" like a screwdriver or wire cutters, with different quality of materials, durability, etc.
It reminds me of someone who insisted no one should buy used film holders, implying that they all leak or have problems, and instead should buy brand-new ones that cost 20x more. Despite such silly claims, many of us have shot with used, second-hand film holders just fine for years. In fact, I have one and only one film holder I bought "new," and it leaked light right out of the box. The cost of the tool does not necessarily correlate with the performance.
The most important thing IMO is just to get to work and make photographs with whatever tool you think is right, and stop all the hand-wringing about cameras.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I've got a garage full of cheap and expensive tools. I think price is a bad way to look at it. Sometimes, something is more expensive because it's better made. Sometimes something is more expensive because it has a better name on it. And sometimes something is more expensive because it's overly complicated in production or design, and actually functions worse than the cheaper option. I prefer to look more closely at the tools I buy, and not worry so much about the price or brand name.
For instance, I have a bunch of multimeters. Some expensive, some cheap. They both have their uses, though I use the cheap ones 95% of the time. I rarely need the precision of the more expensive ones, and the $10 DMM's can get lost or destroyed without making me upset. Just this weekend I was working on a circuit was expecting to read around 800 volts at a point on the board and wound up reading 1,200 volts before my meter fried. Had I fried my Fluke or Keithley, I would have been pissed! But I fried my Harbor Freight $10 meter (with a 1,000 volt max DC input), so I threw it away and grabbed a high voltage probe and another cheap meter.
I've gone through tons of jewelers screwdrivers. It doesn't matter what brand. None of them last long. Snap-on, Kobalt, Stanley. They all go about 1-3 years. And the lifetime warranties are great, but a broken tool still sets you back half a day or more while you're trying to get your tool replaced. Same with soldering irons. Eventually the tip holder gets so corroded that the tips can't be replaced.
And sometimes I may not even matter. Has anyone looked at drill presses recently? Do enough research and you'll see that most brands are just rebadging the same drill presses from the same factories with different options and color schemes. Look at Grizzly's 8" drill press and Wen's 8" drill press and tell me they're not the same! Maybe Grizzly's higher end drill presses are better made, but maybe they're just priced like they are. Honestly, I wouldn't buy one without being able to get a good look at how it's made.
So I usually just try to observe the quality of tool first before I pass judgement on it's value. I agree that buying the cheapest one available is usually a false economy. But so is buying the most expensive. The middle of the road usually provides the best bang for the buck. But even then, there are no guarantees. You just can't buy blindly based on brand reputation or price. As the old saying goes, "buyer beware". And that's why it's best to either know what you're buying before you buy it, or enlist the help of someone who knows a lot about those tools to help you.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Well, I have to admit up front that I recently retired from a role setting up one of the most successful tool distributorships in the Western half of the US, both in terms of sales, profit margin, and most importantly, the positive effect it had on the success of the clients themselves; and it was completely centered around very high quality product, mostly German. People willing to invest in the best up front left the toy addicts in the dust right off the bat due to far higher productivity. Good gear pays for itself fast. But I'm speaking of pros, who depend on tools to make a living. The exceptions would include poorly monitored jobsites where things get stolen on a daily basis, or where idiots instantly break things; but hiring those types would reflect badly on the judgment of the person in charge. With cameras, there a just so many good ones out there that it's almost the opposite kind of problem. You can overthink and overspend without any significant advantage. Better to consider system versatility and maintenance issues relative to your personal applications.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I'm with Jim10219. For long hard service, quality tools, equipment, and are cost effective. For occasional casual use, I sometimes use Harbor Freight stuff. Cost cutting should be done only by people who understand the tools that productive people should be using. In 1960 President Kennedy lured Robert McNamara from Ford to become his Secretary of Defense. McNamara was concerned about military spending. I was a Navy electronics repairman at the time. Gradually our fine Techtronics oscilloscopes were replaced by crap provided by low bidders. I've owned my own Techtronics and a Hewlett-Packard scope, and they were tops. I've also owned three lesser scopes that fell far short. I use one of those now, made in England under Techtronics license. It's like using some of the miscalled "Vice-Grip" pliers that are not made in Dewitt, Nebr. I also occasionally use a Stanley plane made perhaps in the 1870s. The wood body is nearly worn beyond hope and the blade suffers from rust, but it is still useable. Compare that with today's Stanley items.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
When I was less than half the age I am now I was a home building framer. Do you know anyone who breaks his main tool, a hammer in my case, at least once a month? And I bought the best.
Then the nail gun came upon the scene, and I left.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
When I was less than half the age I am now I was a home building framer. Do you know anyone who breaks his main tool, a hammer in my case, at least once a month? And I bought the best.
Then the nail gun came upon the scene, and I left.
That's strange. Yesterday you wrote (Lounge) -"I spent fifty years in computers. I'm retired now". Did you hammer the keyboard of computers??
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I’m still not convinced that the analogy between tools and cameras is the appropriate one. The design of a box wrench or a hammer is pretty well defined, the differences are size and quality. With view cameras, as I tried to show in my early post, there are many design differences (and compromises) in addition to quality, which must be taken into consideration in making a choice.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
In my field, I buy the best, but the best is often certainly not the most expensive.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Lewin
I’m still not convinced that the analogy between tools and cameras is the appropriate one. The design of a box wrench or a hammer is pretty well defined, the differences are size and quality. With view cameras, as I tried to show in my early post, there are many design differences (and compromises) in addition to quality, which must be taken into consideration in making a choice.
This. Often, the "best" camera for a given usage isn't the most expensive, or the most overbuilt, or the most prestigious, or the most whatever. And judgment of "best for purpose" typically involves complicated and subjective tradeoffs among competing or even conflicting attributes, not simple situations where all the options offer exactly what's needed, with varying cost and construction quality but all else equal.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Best? I don't even know what that means. There are photographers here on this forum (Austin for instance) who could shoot more creative images with an empty cigar box, some expired film, and a roll of black tape, than I could shoot with the most expensive, well made 4X5 camera and lens(es).
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Well, in general the way in what we spend money should optimize the value of what we obtain globally. This is well documented in economics literature.
It doesn't make sense to buy a too expensive camera is later we cannot buy film or glass.
So at the end it depends a bit on the budget we have and market situation.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pfsor
That's strange. Yesterday you wrote (Lounge) -"I spent fifty years in computers. I'm retired now". Did you hammer the keyboard of computers??
Pfsor, I worked two jobs simultaneously; one daily hours on construction and 7PM to 3AM as a computer programmer. That was possible because I did not require a lot of sleep. There is a story in that fact.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
Pfsor, I worked two jobs simultaneously; one daily hours on construction and 7PM to 3AM as a computer programmer. That was possible because I did not require a lot of sleep. There is a story in that fact.
Now I understand better why you were breaking your tools during your day time job..:)
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pfsor
Now I understand better why you were breaking your tools during your day time job..:)
In that time I was a physical monster. I'm an old man today who can hardly walk. I hope you fare better. Peace and health to you.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jac@stafford.net
In that time I was a physical monster. I'm an old man today who can hardly walk. I hope you fare better. Peace and health to you.
At least you can now sleep sweetly the whole night (I hope)! Cheers!
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Jac, ya should have used a bigger hammer.
Kiddn aside, one gets tools what one thinks are good for their use ("best" ?). I bought a hammer (Made in Germany) that even has a built in magnet to hold a nail for a strike....handy (gimmick) while holding onto a ladder at the same time. Never used it for that. Hmmm, 38yrs later and hundreds of projects, bla bla later....and this thing is still functional. But, I also bought, more recently, a Vaughn hammer made here in US....and was able to do two remodels. Anyway, they are different....one is for framing...and both hammers survived.
I was going to add something about table saws, but I'll leave it for another time.
As I mentioned before, much depends on personal economics and one can research what works "best" for them. With the age of internet, it's not difficult.
Les
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Galli
For some of us, besides the obvious task of making images, or perhaps even art, as it were, there is a secondary function of a certain romance of using tools that were considered the best by the artists that used them historically. Some of the machines that are considered to be the best, classic machines, legendary tools, and have proved themselves over and over for an extended time, at least for me, have a difficult to define without sounding corny, it's just a pleasure to be using them. It's a double pleasure. It's a pleasure when you hang beautiful negatives up to dry, but it's also a pleasure to have used classic machines that are still considered by some to be the best. Often large sums of money have little to do with what I'm talking about.
There is another whole class of tools, the antiques, that people take pride in owning, restoring and using. I've had the pleasure of owning and using such tools as a Deckel pantograph and a Boley watchmaker's lathe. Did I need them? No. Would I have paid a fair market price for either? No. But I enjoyed using both for the short time I had them. Currently looking for a small-ish shaper. Do I need it? Of course not.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Thank you to everyone for replying and weighing in. A lot of excellent information and sound advice here. I'm not sure I'm any wiser, but it's definitely been educational.
I completely agree with many of you as far as tools go. I too have a stack of Festool gear, Facom and Snap-on in the garage, a set of Lie-Nielsen hand planes, etc., and expect it will outlast me and be of value to my offspring. I'm not rich by any means, but prefer paying for something once (assuming it's something I use regularly or is important in my day to day) rather than multiple times. Sometimes you can't help it, of course.
When I put "tools" in the subject line, I was specifically referring to cameras, although it could apply to enlargers, light meters, and other items as well.
For a lot of things, the quality of the gear (IMHO) definitely makes a difference. For other things, like this, I think the influence is less clear. As Randy pointed out, a lot of it depends on the photographer. Some people can get amazing images with any gear, while others struggle to get anything usable even with the best kit money can buy. That said, it's nice to have quality tools so you can focus on the actual work, and have gear that allows you to realize your vision.
I see people making wonderful, compelling images with a very wide range of gear. I have a Graphlex (inherited), which I'm not very fond of, and spent a day recently using an Arca Swiss F-line, it was amazing, but very pricey. I plan to rent a setup from Samy's for a weekend (I'm not sure what they have, Cambo perhaps?) and try working on my own with a camera to get more experience using it in practice. I've seen many people recommend Sinar as a very solid camera, I'll look into them (F and Norma I think were the ones mentioned as being usable in the field).
I'm still considering if I need LF, or why, and what exactly I want to use it for, but sometimes you just have to jump in and figure it out as you go. I've been shooting MF for 20+ years, and mostly bring it along on trips, walks hikes in case I find something interesting to photograph, although I do take trips specifically to take pictures (downtown at night, mountains, sunsets at the beach, wildflower blooms, portraits, etc). My MF rig is around 12-15kg (from memory), I would hope for a light weight setup with a few lenses that I can carry along in much the same way. From what I've seen and read so far, it seems like a monorail would be a more flexible and adaptable setup than a folder/field camera for what I want. Through some people I know the topic quickly settled on Arca as the best solution, although I'm not 100% convinced.
There's always the question of "is it good enough"? Good enough for what?
I spoke with an Arca reseller recently, who suggested I forget about an Arca and instead buy a used Wista or similar, and come back in a year or two when I had more experience using the system. Because "that's how everyone has learned LF, it's a proven method". He may be right. I could find a used Intrepid, Shen Hao or Chamonix for very little on eBay, I'm sure any of these would be a fine camera to learn on. Although I've never had any problem learning new things on professional level gear, and tend to take hobbies to a professional level anyway.
So I'm still on the fence about how I want to approach this - buy a used camera for a few hundred $ along with a nice lens or two and play with it for a while before selling it and getting something else, or going directly to something like the Arca Swiss F-line, which will be an awful lot of money, but probably do everything I ever need and more. There is no right answer, but I appreciate the input, advice and experience of all the contributors here.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
I spoke with an Arca reseller recently, who suggested I forget about an Arca and instead buy a used Wista or similar, and come back in a year or two when I had more experience using the system. Because "that's how everyone has learned LF, it's a proven method". He may be right. I could find a used Intrepid, Shen Hao or Chamonix for very little on eBay, I'm sure any of these would be a fine camera to learn on. Although I've never had any problem learning new things on professional level gear, and tend to take hobbies to a professional level anyway.
There's nothing *un*professional about a Chamonix or similar. I've easily pushed 1,000 sheets of film through my Chamonix 45n1, and it's my camera of choice for hiking due to it's weight. I have a Linhof Master Technika, and while I occasionally take it out on the trail, it's not very common (and I don't hike very far). Some people might prefer to shoot their Linhof, or Arca, or whatever over a Chamonix, it's just personal choice. What's more important is having a camera that does what you need it to do, and a good lens.
From your description of your MF rig, my Chamonix, a few lenses, CF tripod, and 12-18 sheets of film weighs way less. You're right, you just "have to jump in and figure it out as you go." Everyone has their own opinion, their own subject choices, etc. I bought a few different cameras used before ending up with the Chamonix. And LF cameras can be resold for what you paid for them, or close to it, if you buy used - so there's very little money tied up in them if you resell them, as opposed to digital gear especially.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
You BUY the cheapo Harbor Freight Multimeter? I've got at least 5 of those floating around the house that I got with the "free with any purchase" coupons! Like you, I use them when there's a chance it might get fried. I've given them away to people who wanted to borrow a DMM rather than my Craftsman getting killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jim10219
I've got a garage full of cheap and expensive tools. I think price is a bad way to look at it. Sometimes, something is more expensive because it's better made. Sometimes something is more expensive because it has a better name on it. And sometimes something is more expensive because it's overly complicated in production or design, and actually functions worse than the cheaper option. I prefer to look more closely at the tools I buy, and not worry so much about the price or brand name.
For instance, I have a bunch of multimeters. Some expensive, some cheap. They both have their uses, though I use the cheap ones 95% of the time. I rarely need the precision of the more expensive ones, and the $10 DMM's can get lost or destroyed without making me upset. Just this weekend I was working on a circuit was expecting to read around 800 volts at a point on the board and wound up reading 1,200 volts before my meter fried. Had I fried my Fluke or Keithley, I would have been pissed! But I fried my Harbor Freight $10 meter (with a 1,000 volt max DC input), so I threw it away and grabbed a high voltage probe and another cheap meter.
I've gone through tons of jewelers screwdrivers. It doesn't matter what brand. None of them last long. Snap-on, Kobalt, Stanley. They all go about 1-3 years. And the lifetime warranties are great, but a broken tool still sets you back half a day or more while you're trying to get your tool replaced. Same with soldering irons. Eventually the tip holder gets so corroded that the tips can't be replaced.
And sometimes I may not even matter. Has anyone looked at drill presses recently? Do enough research and you'll see that most brands are just rebadging the same drill presses from the same factories with different options and color schemes. Look at Grizzly's 8" drill press and Wen's 8" drill press and tell me they're not the same! Maybe Grizzly's higher end drill presses are better made, but maybe they're just priced like they are. Honestly, I wouldn't buy one without being able to get a good look at how it's made.
So I usually just try to observe the quality of tool first before I pass judgement on it's value. I agree that buying the cheapest one available is usually a false economy. But so is buying the most expensive. The middle of the road usually provides the best bang for the buck. But even then, there are no guarantees. You just can't buy blindly based on brand reputation or price. As the old saying goes, "buyer beware". And that's why it's best to either know what you're buying before you buy it, or enlist the help of someone who knows a lot about those tools to help you.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
I was having lunch yesterday with an old friend who now makes scale architectural models from wood using mostly lovely Japanese hand tools, but wants to sell off his construction gear. By golly, there was one of those high-end wheeled compressors I designed nearly forty years ago to efficiently run on dicey circuits. They don't often turn up for sale, and generally go for more now than they did new. Around here, builders generally require carpenters to own their own tools. Anyone who shows up with something like DeWalt is likely to get fired on the spot, with the remark, "how are you going to get any work done with that thing?" If it was Harbor Freight, they'd probably get lynched with an extension cord - not the cord on the tool itself - that would probably break trying to hang a mouse! Reminds me of certain times I've attended weddings, and the "official photographer" showed up with a nearly toy camera. Sure wasn't the case with marriages in my family. Between my brother and me, we had Technika and Sinar 4x5's, Rollei and Pentax MF SLR's, plus 35mm, basically lifetime quality gear. A couple of the 35mm cameras finally wore out, and my heavily-used Sinar equip has had certain components replaced, and other components reincarnated into other Sinar configurations. But it just keeps chuggin' along.
-
Re: Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?
In a more camera related example, I almost bought a Canon 85/1.4 L until I got my hands on a Samyang 85/1.4. The bokeh was considerably smoother and the sharpness and contrast was close enough not to bother me. Plus, I prefer manual focus and don't have any issue with manual exposure settings. The autofocus Canon wasn't as easy to focus manually. That's an example where a $230 lens out performed a lens that costs almost 7x's as much, at least for my needs and tastes.
And that's not the only example I have. I also prefer my Pentax K 50/1.4, Super Takumar 85/1.8 over any of the more recent and expensive offerings. I also like my pre-ai Nikkor 55/3.5 micro lens more than most of the other macro lenses for Nikon that I've tried, at least for DSLR scanning film.
And I prefer my Soligor Digital Spot Sensor over the more well respected Pentax Digital Spot Meter because it's just as effective, and uses easy to find 9v batteries.
I quickly sold off my Ilford 500h Multigrade enlarger head. But perhaps that's not a fair comparison because that head made me realize how much I prefer condenser heads over diffuser heads.
The list goes on and on. Though for large format, I do tend to gravitate towards the higher end stuff. Though I do like some old lenses for their characteristic look, and my favorite 4x5 is my Graflex Speed Graphic (small, rugged, focal plane shutter, hand hold-able, and a rangefinder make it incredibly versatile when large movements aren't required).
So you can't accurately judge a product by it's price. That would be too easy.