Think of ditching the L glass

[Ben Syverson]

When it comes to non-telephoto primes, the L lenses are generally worse than their non-L counterparts. The main advantage of the 85L is the f/1.2 stop, not the optical performance. L lenses tend to be "extreme" lens designs with many more aberrations as a result. If you've ever looked at shots from the 24 f/2.8 vs the 24L, you'll see what I mean. All the short Ls suffer from heavy chromatic aberration / lateral fringing, and overall image weirdness.

I say all this not to dis L lenses (I own a couple), but to underscore the difference between the DSLR and LF. The 50L at f/1.2 may give you the same ballpark shallow DOF "look" as 8x10 with a 300mm process lens at f/9, but the DSLR shot will have all kinds of wonky aberrations, whereas the 8x10 will have an unbelievably objective "no-comment" neutrality. You can get the same neutrality on a DSLR by shooting with a flat-field macro lens, but you will lose the shallow DOF.

That is the reason why I love LF. But honestly, LF is so cheap that you might as well just buy a system and try it yourself. You can get an entire 4x5 or 8x10 outfit for less than the price of a cheap EF lens. I saw a 4x5 monorail with lens on CL for $150 recently, and an entire 8x10 getup with lens, camera, tripod and 10 film holders for $500. And unlike digital gear, which depreciates faster than seafood, LF gear has great resale value if you decide to ditch it.

[Marko]

You can get an entire 4x5 or 8x10 outfit for less than the price of a cheap EF lens. I saw a 4x5 monorail with lens on CL for $150 recently, and an entire 8x10 getup with lens, camera, tripod and 10 film holders for $500. And unlike digital gear, which depreciates faster than seafood, LF gear has great resale value if you decide to ditch it.

Those cheap LF outfits you are describing are cheap because they are used and one would still have to keep buying film to feed them.

If digital is indeed depreciating so fast, one could easily get yesterday's digital even cheaper and save on film going forward. Maybe even sell the scanner, redirect the funds and make the savings even higher?

[Ben Syverson]

Marko, I don't get it. The guy already has digital -- he wants to compare it with LF. My suggestion was "buy LF! It's pretty cheap." Yet you recommend... buying cheap used digital?

And yes, you can get "yesterday's" digital pretty cheap. I saw a Digital Rebel for $150 recently. Not bad for a pretty good 6 MP camera. But do you really want to compare the $150 4x5 to the $150 Rebel? Just saying...

[Marko]

Ben, no, I don't recommend anything, and I am not comparing anything. I just keep saying that comparing prices makes sense only when comparing apples to apples. I.e. New vs. new OR used vs. used.

IOW, I'm saying that it is just plain ridiculous to compare $150 monorail with lens included you mention with new digital camera and then say it keeps the value while digital depreciates. If you're really into comparing costs of various options, then you should compare the TCO, not only the equipment price.

You don't need to keep buying film to feed that Rebel and the $150 you pay is pretty much all you pay for it. Your cost per shot goes down with every shot you take with it. The cost of 4x5 film that you need to keep buying for your $150 4x5, on the other hand, is going up. Every additional shot you take increases your TCO by the cost of film and processing.

Say you take 300 shots overall with each over a period of time. Not an unreasonable amount, I think, either system, including test shots, brackets and failed shots.

With 4x5, that would cost you about $300-400 for b&w or $900-1100 for color slide film, developed. Add that to those $150 you paid for the camera and your TCO for 300 shots goes up to $1250 for 300 shots (in color).

With your Rebel, it is still $150 you paid for the camera, all color.

Shoot another 300 shots and your TCO goes up to $2350 for the 4x5. The TCO for your Rebel remains at $150.

Now reverse the math and calculate your cost per shot on each.

So, can we please stop with this nonsense of comparing equipment prices?

[Ben Syverson]

So, can we please stop with this nonsense of comparing equipment prices?

Dude, I don't know how to break it to you, but you're the one who started comparing prices. So if it's bothering you, then just stop. All I said was: LF is cheap and the gear holds its value, so why not try it out?

"TCO" is a stupid way of looking at the costs involved. You buy film spread out over the entire life of the camera (which could be 100 years), and that makes it easier to budget for than digital, where most of the costs are upfront. At the end of the day, the fact is the guy can spend $150 on a monorail, develop a few sheets, not like it, store the damn thing in a closet for two years, and then turn around and sell it, probably for more than $150. His "TCO" may only be $175, and he may sell it for $200, giving him a profit of $25. Profit would never enter into the equation with digital, which just depreciates with the regularity of a timepiece.

[rdenney]

Ben, no, I don't recommend anything, and I am not comparing anything. I just keep saying that comparing prices makes sense only when comparing apples to apples. I.e. New vs. new OR used vs. used.

The key point is that the OP already has digital and is looking for something different.

In the music world, this comes up, too. Guys go out and spend $10,000 (minimum) on a pro-grade C tuba and then get bored with it after a while. They want to try a bigger instrument, or a smaller one, or an F tuba instead of a C tuba, or even (Gawd help us) a Bb sousaphone.

There is no cost justification required. If the guy wants to try something and has the money, just do it.

And then if the experiment fails, he can sell it for what he paid for it. Sorta like renting the alternative for free with a 100% security deposit, with only the consumables out of pocket. It's such a cheap experiment that it's not worth speculating at the result--actual experience is possible.

The OP has no need to experiment with digital--he has that already and knows that outcome.

In the end, though, it isn't about what something costs in dollars, it's about the investment we make in our own enjoyment.

Rick "noting that large format requires a more significant investment in time--a pricier commodity for most of us than mere dollars" Denney

[Marko]

Whatever. Dude.

You have a very circular way of arguing, not to mention inaccurate. But if you really want to believe that nonsense, go ahead knock yourself out for all I care. I'm just saying it's nonsense, that's all.

[Marko]

Rick, I know, I was just commenting on the side note which keeps getting repeated despite being inaccurate, that's all.

If it matters at all, I was in the very same position myself a few years ago and I bought LF to try it out. In fact, I started out by paying $150 for a used 4x5 monorail in excellent condition. Ironic, isn't it?

Plus shipping and handling, plus a lens, plus a loupe, plus the darkcloth, plus a few film holders, plus the light meter, plus the case to hold it all together. Then I realized my tripod was too small for it so I bought a bigger, stronger one. Then a cart to haul all of it around.

Then I bought some film, plus the tank to develop it, plus the chemicals... Then I realized I needed either an access to a traditional darkroom or at least a scanner, so I bought a scanner...

It's been fun and all, still is. But cheap it hasn't been, despite of what people say. I find TCO to be very relevant dimension here and it is only fair to warn those who are asking for advice about it before taking the plunge.

It is fine encouraging people to try it, but saying that it would cost them only what they pay for the camera is very misleading.

[Donald Miller]

I have come to the stark realization that if it were a question of money I would have been better off playing the tuba than spending many tens of thousands of dollars for both film cameras and digital.

Money is a not a finite object. Time, as Rick stated, is.

[Marko]

Donald, I get your point and I agree with you. But for most of us, money is a finite object. A very finite object, in fact. And here's why:

The two (money and time) are connected through a very simple "Relativity of Time and Money" theory, expressed by the equation: Time = Money.

Which means the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. In fact, most of us spend our lives trading some of the one for some of the other.

Therefore, if time is finite, then so must be the money obtained through investment of time.