A while back I was interested in trying LF and bought a Super Graphic. I has b een great fun and with my main interests in landscapes, I think it has even allo wed me to see things in a different way. I can almost loose myself in an aftern oon of photography. I would like to pursue this more and have even entertained delusions of making money at it. Im now wondering what a nicer camera would o ffer (I have accumulated a decent but not great lens assortment). Yes, Ive rea d through the numerous reviews here and there several times, and even think a To yo 45A might be fun to try. I suppose some would even think the advantages to b e obvious from the reviews, but perhaps I'm slow. What advantage the investment will return. The Super has modest front tilts, rise, swings, fresnel screen, a nd rotating back. I would say that the tilts seem cumbersome and dropping the b ed to get a little more tilt adds to this awkwardness. Pulling the ground glass shade off for focusing gets a little old. I understand that back movements are not great advantage for landscape work and at least at present the bellows on t he graphic will handle all my lenses.

You seldom see the likes of John Fielder with a Super Graphic. So I would assu me there are advantages in terms of ease of use or flexibility for unusual situa tions. Yet Im not certain what these are? If Im missing something significan t, I think I can afford a newer (used) field camera. If the advantages are mor e cosmetic or only cover rare situations, Id probably plug along with the Gra phic a while longer. Opinions appreciated.