Chamonix and Ebony's are gorgeous & Old Kodak 2D's are UGLY but they have their place

[William Whitaker]

Thanks for sharing your insights Jim.

Mine is an Agfa 8x10, an earlier one that uses the 7 1/2" lens boards. Amazingly, it still has a beautiful finish. These cameras, like the 2D, are workhorses and not meant to be beautiful (even though in my mind, they are). Consider that I sold off my 8x10 Gandolfi and my 8x10 Sinar Norma and kept the Agfa because of its utility with large lenses. I would have kept them all if I could, of course. But it just wasn't possible. In the end, its utility as a photograph-making tool is why I have it. And the Agfa does just about everything the others did. And it gives me the satisfaction of working with vintage equipment.
YMMV.

[ic-racer]

I think my old Century looks pretty nice compared to the new cameras out there.

[Tin Can]

I bought a new 11X14 Chamonix but sold a few years later as it WAS WAY too nice for me

A member bought and I see he has sold it, so it goes

I prefer much older gear ao I can fiddle about

and shine them

Just like motorcycles 'making it better' then moving on

Variation and change is my lot

It all costs the same and way cheaper than my 2 big mistakes

[Drew Wiley]

Well, everybody called the Phillips 8x10 ugly and under-featured when it first came out, and look what they cost now! - way, way more than what I paid for mine, and it's still works perfectly, and looks nearly the same too.

[Roger Thoms]

Of course the real question is what size Packard shutter can you fit inside the bellows and attach to the front standard.

Roger

[Drew Wiley]

I suppose a Packard is not much larger than an Oldsmobile. Either will fit inside a train tunnel.

[Monty McCutchen]

20 x 24 Ebony. Schneider 550 Fine Art Lens. Makes as good a picture as the photographer behind it. It’s all discretionary funds for the overwhelming majority of us on this site as very few of us make our living with our cameras/photography. And like most things in life there’s a wide range of what constitutes discretionary. I’m not a doctor or lawyer, but I’m always perplexed by how they get slighted for working hard and spending their money how they see fit—like they are somehow skipping steps and buying their way into great photographs. Often quoted is how you can make wonderful photographs with lesser expensive cameras/equipment. So very true. As is the inverse—bad photography can come from a wide array of gear including the beloved ugly beater. The photograph of the moment is informed by the successful and unsuccessful efforts of the past, much more so than the equipment, and as such I’ve seen lots of bad photography come out of expensive and inexpensive equipment. Some of it mine. The issue is how do you want to spend not only your discretionary money, but how do you want to spend your discretionary time. Some like the fiddling, the restoring, the building, the gear, the precision, the ease of a well made tool. None of its right or wrong as most of us are whistling Dixie and leaving boxes of prints to go through and making our kids draw the short straw to see who has to do it! The magic is under the hood looking at the ground glass and in the darkroom when the print arises from nowhere seemingly. How you get there is as varied and valid as there are ways to frame the vision. Part and parcel. Make photographs and hope at the end of it all the photographic gods dripped a few drops of ambrosia on a couple dozen of them that rise up from the mundane to grace.

We should all be so lucky to love and enjoy the process on all the hundreds or thousands that don’t do that. The time in the field. The time with friends. The hope it engendered that this is the one that the light will shine on my minds eye just so.... That would be a gift worth spending money and time on.


Monty

[Mark Sawyer]

My first 8x10 (back in 1977?) was a 2D, and I still have it and use it! But over the decades, I've stumbled into a few more, and they all have their place. It's a great basic camera for people who haven't done large format before; everything is simple and obvious in how it works. And for doing wet plate in the field, it's sturdy and light, looks the part, and does the job.

But for those often-oversized soft focus lenses in the studio, there's nothing like an old studio 8x10 on a studio stand.

[Jody_S]

I agree, I'm not going to spend my money on cameras when there's so many beautiful lenses out there calling my name. Started out with a Deardorff 8x10, sold it, got an 1888 field camera that was a joy to use but had tiny lensboards, then tried a 2D but didn't have the extension, sold that for a Korona that I made an extension for but lensboards were still too small, finally got a Burke & James with the extension that takes the same lensboards as the 2D. Now I'm happy. Looks never entered into the calculation at any point, though I am still fond of the camera I've used the most, the ultralight mahogany Rochester Universal.

I lucked out on 4x5, the 2nd camera I ever bought was the B&J with extension, and the 6" lensboards. Now have 2. I got a Zone VI last year, mounted a couple of lenses, it's just too pretty for me. It will be listed for sale soon, if I ever figure out where I put my B&J. And I have an Anniversary Speed for those few times I need the focal plane shutter. Also have a big-ass 8x10 studio camera and stand for when I want to impress the guests, but that's on hold for a few months I guess. And a falling plate 4x5 box camera, now that I think of it, and 3 or 4 5x7s. I may have too many cameras.

[Jim Noel]

I wish I had never sold my Universal. One of the really great cameras