Luxurious Cameras vs. Plain Jane Cameras and your Camera of Choice!

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=audioexcels;314684] . . . So really, on the marketplace right now, one can find an excellent "used" Deardorff for about $1.5-$2K. For that same amount of money, one can find an excellent Wisner/Wehman/Ritter/Philips/etc. etc.../QUOTE]

Would you let me know where I can find a Phillips 8x10 for $1,500 - $2,000? And please do it by private email so others don't discover this remarkable source.

Nobody in their right mind thinks a more expensive camera will, by itself, result in better photographs. I've paid a lot for several large format cameras, not because I thought the photographs would be better but because I enjoy using well-engineered, well-made, precision instruments that are a real pleasure to use. I've also owned relatively inexpensive cameras. They were o.k. too but some lacked features I wanted (e.g. front tilt on a Kodak 2D, a shorter bellows than I wanted on a Tachihara) and others just weren't as enjoyable to use for one reason or another as the more expensive ones. I figure it's my money, I spend it on a lot of different things that give me pleasure in one way or another. Cameras are one of them.

I didn't read all the preceding messages. Hopefully what I say in this one doesn't contradict something I said back when this thread first started. : - )

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW, Both the DavidB and Jack Flesher mentioned in the OP are only shooting digital now.

[John Kasaian]

A zombie thread, but a nice zombie thread.
The advice given to me (on tennis racquets, not cameras but I think its appropriate) is "What (camera) do you see yourself using?" Thats the one, ideally to start out with. Anything else is going to serve to provide excuses for "equipment malfunction"

[premortho]

I think there also enters into the equation an element of affordability.

I, as many other college students, do not have much money to my name. Add to that the fact that photography is no the cheapest habit to support (somewhere right around cocaine, I think), and what you've got is a group of people who, no matter their equipment, treat it like gold.

I go to school with a lot of people who are dedicated handheld digital users and they all seem to be using the lower-middle range of each manufacturer's lineup. In much the same way, I use the following equipment:

I started with a Pentax K1000, as did most everybody else in the photography world. It has served me well to this day.

When I was 16 my mother bought me a Nikon FE and a 105mm f/2.5 lens, and for my birthday a year later I recieved a 50mm f/1.4. I cherish this entire kit not only for its emotional value, but because it allowed me to use a camera that, while at the very bottom of the Nikon lineup, is very flexible. Once I mastered it and it became a part of me, my photography improved in a like manner. I still am amazed at the images that it can provide me.

My first delve into large format was a 1913 Speed Graphic that I got off eBay for less that $75 in decent condition. It's got a nice little Ektar lens and the focal plane shutter is one of the most accurate devices I own. I have made some fantastic images with this camera, and with it alone I completed a semester's worth of work at my college, except where 35mm was required by the instructor.

Finally, I wanted to skip the enlarging process entirely, so I bought a Calumet C1 8x10 from a member here, and spent a few unemployed weeks refurbish and repainting it. It weighs more than I ever want to think about, is big enough to frighten small- and medium-sized children, and is almost completely devoid of any precision movement mechanism. I paid $325 for it, and it is the best camera I have ever owned. Setup and takedown is a pain in the cold, and it doesn't have but basic movements, but is is still the best camera I own because it is 100% mine, there is no other like it. I have it fitted with a Turner-Reich triple-convertible lens that I also love dearly.

What I'm getting at here is that I don't use anything near the most sophisticated equipment. My gear is crude by Deardorff standards, but it is the best that I can afford, and it allows me to make the pictures that I imagine. When money is definitely an object, the best you can afford is the best there is, and you're willing to deal with some aches and pains in the process to achieve what you need to, in order to continue doing what you love.

I wouldn't mind rear rise, though. I can simulate it well enough, but every now and then, it would be appreciated. Who cares, though, I'm making pictures that are absolutely my own.

I'll finish with a summary quote from Edward Weston, possibly the ultimate photographic minimalist: "...denying myself every luxury - indeed many comforts too - until with eleven dollars in my pocket I rushed to town - purchasing second-hand a 5x7 camera - with a ground-glass and tripod! And then what joy! I needed no friends now - I was alone with my love." from the Daybooks, Vol. I

Amen, brother--Amen!

[premortho]

I found what to me was the holy grail of view cameras. Why? because it did everything I wanted it to. And it was a bargain (in retrospect). Although it was a stretch to afford it at that time 60 years ago, sixty years ago, I paid $75.00 for a 5X7 Ansco/Agfa with matching tripod, with a lens and Packard shutter and three sheet film holders. I lost that camera 5 years ago in a house fire, and I'm still crying about it!!

[evan clarke]

The camera I use most is a nice, fully loaded, 141 Arca F Metric with orbix..It'll do everything and is , as Ole says, completely transparent. I never have to think about the camera part of the photographing..Evan Clarke

P.S. I hope to jave it buried with me..ec

[ashlee52]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread EBay has made it possible to try many cameras and pass on those you fail to bond with. And boy have I tried MANY LF cameras over nearly 40 years of doing this... Deardorff, Linhof, Calumet, Ebony, Tachihara, Chamonix, Horseman, Wista, Kodak, Walker, Graflex and a few I must have forgotten. Where do I now find myself? My absolute favorite to work with is the Ansco 5x7. It sets up in seconds, and every control is just where it ought to be. Heavy as hell and thus solid. For color I need to use 4x5... current favorite is the Sinar Norma. Much smaller than the F series, with every capability I could ever ask for. So much easier to use than a field camera, and barely bigger in a back pack or case. Construction quality Leica only dreams of. Finally for backpacking when I want minimum size and weight, a Chamonix 4x5.While I guess these are folding field cameras, they really operate much more like a monorail. And so rigid for being so light. I do miss the Ebony. But it is the only super expensive camera that has really worked for me. The ones I use most... the Ansco, the Norma, and the Chamonix were all complete bargains... the Ansco was $240, the Norma $400, and the Chamonix something like $800.