The Ultimate Camera, Lens, etc., etc.

[neil poulsen]

Contrary to the husband and wire at Olden, one doesn't purchase the "ultimate" camera off the shelf. To really find that one camera (if it exists), one has to have experimented with many. And of course, a camera system can be the ultimate for one application, and terrible for another.

I've tried a few large format cameras and many non-LF cameras. I had a Deardorff 4x5/5x7 and a Linhof Color (Technika on a rail), each of which I used for a few years. Then in '94, I stumbled across an Arca-Swiss F at a swap meet for $450. With the experience that I had already gained, and after use, I knew that this camera was hitting my sweet spot for the type of work I like to do. I've since made accommodations and adjustments to this camera over the years, and if there's an "ultimate" camera for me, this is probably the one.

But, look how much time and experimentation it took to come to that conclusion.

[Jim Galli]

Since I make a living in photography it is not uncommon for folks to walk in my shop here at work and ask me to recommend which camera to buy. I tell them, they're like japanese cars. You can't really buy a bad one these days.

That said, I don't make any apology for owning cameras and lenses in the mid five digits. Combined. It makes me happy, and I've made a few keepers.

[Ron789]

It's this one:
http://newatlas.com/worlds-most-expe...auction/22534/
Just imagine you would own this and then sell it for US$ 2.77 million.......
And then you can buy yourself any camera you want, a superb darkroom, a life time supply of film, paper, chemicals and after buying everything you want you would still have millions to spend on other things.

[Ulophot]

too many people think some camera and lens and boutique developer or film will somehow turn
someone who can't see allegory or metaphor or translate what might or might NOT be in front of them
into solid gold
This is a very important observation. The subject of great art is never, in my view, what is "stated." As in poetry, the true subject is that which is unstated -- "what might not be in front of them" -- but which resonates in the mind and emotions. David Kachel, for one, speaks to this energetically in his blog. W. Eugene Smith spoke of the difficulty of tapping into the power of photography to "reach through the emotions to stir the brain," another way of expressing a similar idea.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Consider ultimate (which is imaginary) as contrasted with the rest. The scope of differences among adequate view cameras is not great enough to make a difference compared to the operator of the 'worst camera' to the best camera. The view camera is the essence of simplicity, the great equalizer.

The better operator makes the difference.

[AuditorOne]

Nice tools do not make a great photograph...
...
...
...but they certainly don't stop you either.

[denverjims]

Since I make a living in photography it is not uncommon for folks to walk in my shop here at work and ask me to recommend which camera to buy. I tell them, they're like japanese cars. You can't really buy a bad one these days.

... Combined it makes me happy, and I've made a few keepers.

If you make a living with a tool and understand the nuances of what it can do, you don't buy the least expensive one that can do the job. You buy one which will hold up to daily use, is reliable and can perform outside the 'normal' range when called upon to do so. Usually that means spending more. And if it makes you happy, so much the better.

As far as the 'keepers' are concerned, as Han Solo once said: "Don't get cocky, kid." :>)))

[Fr. Mark]

The guy in the line at the Nikon exhibit OBVIOUSLY needs a good macro lens and bellows...AND...a fish eye lens. He probably also needs some off camera flash equipment, a motor drive and a large capacity back that pre-flashes the film for the ultimate in film speed and a back up camera body. Only then will he be fulfilled.

I've seen some work I admire that was made with humble, home built pinhole cameras. Mine seldom make me happy, however, at least not at first. I've got a 5x8 print from a pinhole camera in my office I'm glad I have now even though I was not at all sure about it when I first printed it.

It was also a revelation to see how much easier it is to get a good 8x10 print from a 120 6x6 negative than from a 126 instamatic or an OM-1 and a further revelation to realize what camera movements could do.

I'm always tempted to join the arms race/gear acquisition syndrome herd, but the more of the LF work I do the less sure I am want to get into the computerized scanned side of it (Epson or DSLR as scanner either one) or optical enlargement being required for all my pictures. I'm finding that some pictures work at 4x5 and 5x7, but I really want to do more at 8x10, I think. So, my next move is probably to make a conversion kit for my Sinar P, then maybe a field camera in 8x10. All that said, I still really like the Rollei TLR's, too. So, I'm not getting rid of my LF enlarger just yet.

The best camera is going to depend on what you want to do.

[IanG]

The ultimate camera is the one that never lets you down, does everythig you need. In my case it's been a Wista 45DX for about 30 years. I doubt it was the best I could have bought, however it'd never let me down, I've never needed the extremes of it's movements. It's been heavily used and abused and needs some TLC and rstoration.

I'd buy another to last me into my last 60-100 yearfs using LF

Ian.