Tools: Cheap and disposable vs. the best you can find/afford?

[Leszek Vogt]

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

[ic-racer]

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.

[Jim Noel]

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.

[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.

[dsphotog]

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.

[Jody_S]

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.

[John Kasaian]

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,

[Jim Jones]

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.

[Corran]

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.

[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.