Just joined after seeing this thread. I never buy a new car and I use cameras that are 30 years old. I prefer to put the money into the lens. I'm with most, don't need a to spend 4k on a camera without a lens. Bought my 2D with a 12" 8x10 radar in a betax 5 for $125.00. Tore it apart rebuilt it and made it my own. I've upgraded the lens and yes I'm keeping the Gundlach. Hope the pic attachment works.
![Click image for larger version.
Name: 20200401_140816[1].jpg
Views: 98
Size: 77.8 KB
ID: 202147](https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?s=1274ce1d3109aad5feab00301e7a4635&attachmentid=202147&d=1585769435&thumb=1)
Amazing bellows!!!!Originally Posted by McSnood
Just joined after seeing this thread. I never buy a new car and I use cameras that are 30 years old. I prefer to put the money into the lens. I'm with most, don't need a to spend 4k on a camera without a lens. Bought my 2D with a 12" 8x10 radar in a betax 5 for $125.00. Tore it apart rebuilt it and made it my own. I've upgraded the lens and yes I'm keeping the Gundlach. Hope the pic attachment works.
A 2D was good enough for Alfred Stieglitz. That's good enough for me.
He didn’t have near as many choices as you do.
He probably didn't have a lot of money to spare either. But, by golly, if a flintlock was good 'nuff for Daniel Boone ...
Probably because blunderblusses were scarce and matchlocks were dangerous to the shooter.
I know I am new to the forum and do not want to ruffle feathers but I have never been impressed by expensive equipment. Seen too many people think expensive equipment intrinsically makes them better, and most times that was not the case. Is the camera a tool for your eye to use? or Is your eye a tool for the camera to use? Too deep? roast one up and think about it.
Thanks Kiwi for the comment. I probably get equal stares and comments as someone using a Chamonix and all for $125.00. I still have to prove myself and that is the only thing I really know.
I have always said a camera is a tool for communication and it should not get in the way. Can I make the same photo with my Linhof 3000 as with my Canon AE-1? No. It would be different due to all the math involved in the components, but neither camera gets in my way. Simply put, my eye and my camera become one without playing semantics.
Bob, Drew, it's universally understood that Alfred Stieglitz was a better photographer than I'll ever be. He used an Eastman 2-D with a 12" Goerz Dagor for many pictures; my point being that that is still a good working combo. I have some personal and professional experience with a few different 8x10s... including a battered and ugly 2-D. Were I to go back to 8x10, that camera wouldn't be my first choice- but it would likely do the job.
As far as analogies to flintlocks, matchlocks, and blunderbusses, I'll refer you to my friends and colleagues shooting wet-plate, tintypes, calotype, and other hand-made processes....
Dar, Well that didn't take long for someone to call me on my BS. It was meant to be trick questions. The answers for each are moot and your position is as close to an answer why we do this. Thank you. I think I'll like it here. Other forums the people seem to be all about them. But I will stand behind my comment that expensive equipment doesn't make you a better photographer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks