Cost for entry into LF

[Chuck_P]

Some may know that I have just moved into LF from MF and I am ready essentially ready---so I thought I would post what the total cost to me has been to make that move. IDK, but it may be helpful to some who may be thinking of doing the same in some similar fashion.

All I had equipment wise to transition into LF was a cable release that I used with my RB,tripod, and head. I had a budget of about $2,000. Granted, I'm sure I made some purchases that some would not have made but I did the best I could, and I discovered that I don't always have the patience needed when buying on ebay.

Items: Not including shipping:
Horseman LE w/ Rodenstock 210mm MC lens $1,185.00 ebay
4x5 film holders (5) 39.00 ebay
Polaroid 545i holder 62.77 ebay
Harrison Dark Cloth 44.95 b&h
4x5 neg sleeves 25 sleeves/4 per sleeve; 3 pkgs 23.97 ebay
Combi-Plan tanks; 3 for use in the dip and dunk method, 224.85 b&h
Genesis lens case (photobackpacker.com) 21.95
Lee gel filter holder with (#8, #11, #21, #23) 64.95 b&h
rear lens cap for the 210 lens 7.95 b&h
8 amber 16oz bottles for D-76 dev (specialtybottle.com) 7.84
backpack 31.00
T-max 100 (50 sheets) 44.95 b&h
T-mas 400 (50 sheets) 46.95 b&h

I will be getting an X-Rite 301 densitomer for just the price of shipping that is not determined yet and I will be purchasing the transmission calibration tablet for the 301 for about $52 from X-Rite.

The final kicker is the shipping charges that I have paid for the list above, which comes to $140.

A grand total of $1,998.13 and will go over a bit for shipping on the densitometer. Not bad that way I see it and all the researching and purchasing has certainly been a learning experience all by itself. There's no real question as I just thought this would be interesting to some.

Chuck

 

[kirkfry]

Chuck1,

No loupe??? Why mess with LF if you can't get it focused.

K

 

[jovo]

A grand total of $1,998.13 and will go over a bit for shipping on the densitometer.

As long as you suffer no 'buyer's remorse', it's money well spent. Good luck with it.

 

[argus]

Chuck1,

No loupe??? Why mess with LF if you can't get it focused.

K

I hardly use a loupe on 4x5" and never on the bigger formats.

G

 

[Colin Graham]

Chuck1,

No loupe??? Why mess with LF if you can't get it focused.

K

Drugstore glasses: $3. That'll put you only $1.13 over budget.

 

[Steve Smith]

Or be short sighted (near sighted). remove glasses for instance loupe effect - Free!!

Steve.

 

[Chuck_P]

Chuck1,

No loupe??? Why mess with LF if you can't get it focused.

K

At the moment, I'm using an old 75mm enlarging lens for a loupe that works great. The only inconvenience is that I can't hang it around my neck when not using it.

Chuck

 

[Chuck_P]

As long as you suffer no 'buyer's remorse', it's money well spent. Good luck with it.

No------I have no buyer's remorse. I'm finally going to be able to practice photography in a way that I use to only dream about , so no regrets at all . I'm sure, however, that a more experienced LFer might find ways to better spend my budget, but what's done is done.

Thanks
Chuck

 

[Poco]

Chuck,

For the equipment you felt comfortable entering LF with I'm sure you did well, but it should be noted that folks can get their feet wet for considerably less -- well under $500, would be my guess. The only bit of sewing I've done in my life is when I sewed a piece of elastic into an old table cloth to make a detachable dark cloth ...total cost, about 4 bucks. That doesn't mean I'm smarter or more resourceful, just cheaper. But LF can be done for surprisingly cheap.

 

[Nick Zentena]

better spend my budget, but what's done is done.

Different isn't better. What works for one won't work for others. It's the reason Ebay is full of used cameras.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Chuck,

For the equipment you felt comfortable entering LF with I'm sure you did well, but it should be noted that folks can get their feet wet for considerably less -- well under $500, would be my guess. The only bit of sewing I've done in my life is when I sewed a piece of elastic into an old table cloth to make a detachable dark cloth ...total cost, about 4 bucks. That doesn't mean I'm smarter or more resourceful, just cheaper. But LF can be done for surprisingly cheap.

If you get your feet wet, you're doing it wrong...

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

Yes, you can start in LF for VERY MUCH less, certainly under $500, and of course you can also spend far more (buy a Gandolfi for a start). I thought Chuck's analysis was very interesting as an example of one person's approach, not least because mine would be so completely different. As, it seems, was yours.

The real question is how much you can enjoy it if you are on too much of a shoe-string, and, of course, what you can afford. With a $2000 budget I'd probably go for a 5x7 camera and contact prints; if I were already processing my own MF, I'd have everything else I needed.

 

[Chuck_P]

Chuck,

For the equipment you felt comfortable entering LF with I'm sure you did well, but it should be noted that folks can get their feet wet for considerably less -- well under $500, would be my guess

It was the camera choice that was the most difficult. Believe me, I researched solid for about 2 months on what I thought would be best for me in the long run as I wanted to avoid having to purchase another LF camera for different photography. I know that there are cheaper field cameras to get started with and given that, the cost would have been certainly less taxing on my budget. But I wanted the camera that I thought represented the best compromise between field and indoor use.

Thanks
Chuck

 

[Poco]

Roger,

"If you get your feet wet, you're doing it wrong..."

Funny, my latest project has me photographing the shores of lakes Erie and Ontario from about 10 -15 yards off shore. I'm not that thrilled with the results, but the the challenges of photographing from chest deep water appealed to me.


"The real question is how much you can enjoy it if you are on too much of a shoe-string, and, of course, what you can afford."

That's very true, which is why Chuck's approach may be very valid for those who can afford it.

 

[Poco]

It was the camera choice that was the most difficult. Believe me, I researched solid for about 2 months on what I thought would be best for me in the long run as I wanted to avoid having to purchase another LF camera for different photography. I know that there are cheaper field cameras to get started with and given that, the cost would have been certainly less taxing on my budget. But I wanted the camera that I thought represented the best compromise between field and indoor use.

Thanks
Chuck

The important thing is that you ended up with proper tool for your shooting style which wouldn't frustrate you from the word go. Welcome to LF!

 

[Steve Smith]

The only bit of sewing I've done in my life is when I sewed a piece of elastic into an old table cloth to make a detachable dark cloth ...total cost, about 4 bucks. That doesn't mean I'm smarter or more resourceful, just cheaper. But LF can be done for surprisingly cheap.

I got into 5x4 very cheaply by making a camera out of whatever materials I had lying around at home and at work. I ended up with a useable but bulky, non-folding camera and I now have plans to make a lighter, folding version.

Dark cloth? I just take my shirt off and use that!


Steve.

 

[Nick Zentena]

But I wanted the camera that I thought represented the best compromise between field and indoor use.

One thing I think I've learned is you don't need to compromise with LF. Better to get two cheaper cameras that do one thing better then worry about one perfect camera.

My cameras take Linhof boards so the same lenses can be mounted on different cameras.

It's different then smaller formats when lenses tend to be tied to bodies.

 

[Roger Hicks]

One thing I think I've learned is you don't need to compromise with LF. Better to get two cheaper cameras that do one thing better then worry about one perfect camera.

YES!

In particular, in another format but related to the same argument, MF SLRs are the bastard children of photography, as they are neither as fast-handling as rangefinders/direct vision cameras nor as versatile as view cameras, and they don't deliver the convenience of 35mm or the quality of 6x9cm or larger. But they do a lot of things reasonably well and reasonably quickly, so a lot of people compromise with them.

 

[Jim Jones]

At the moment, I'm using an old 75mm enlarging lens for a loupe that works great. The only inconvenience is that I can't hang it around my neck when not using it.

Chuck

That's why many of us carry strong string and duct tape. To be really classy, use long shoe laces instead of string and gaffer's tape instead of duct tape.

 

[MenacingTourist]

I've found that in most creative endeavors keeping your momentum is vital. Pick a direction and go. As long as you're making photos you'll find your way eventually. For me, photography has so far been all about the journey.

If you decide to switch gears there is a pretty good used market

 

[Kilgallb]

At the moment, I'm using an old 75mm enlarging lens for a loupe that works great. The only inconvenience is that I can't hang it around my neck when not using it.

Chuck

I thought I was the only one using an old enlarger lens for a loupe. Works great on my 127 mm Extar. I used a small ring cut from plastic with a through hole and held in by the retainer ring so I could hold a lanyard to the lens.

With my 210 mm Sironar I have started using the 3x drugstore reading glasses.

My optometrist thought I was crazy when I asked him to specify some 8x reading glasses with correction for astigmatism in my left eye. ($70 bucks at lens crafters)

 

[Kino]

As the old trouper said, "Any port in a storm"...

Do as you can and enjoy it.

 

[Ole]

One thing I think I've learned is you don't need to compromise with LF. Better to get two cheaper cameras that do one thing better then worry about one perfect camera.

That's my take on it too, and is the reason why I have two 4x5" cameras: A Speed Graphic (takes ALL barrel lenses except the really really huge ones, but not much movements), and a Carbon Infinity (ALL movements and then some - but not so great for hand held shooting and barrel lenses). Incidentally one of them cost me $56, and one $2500...

 

[Chuck_P]

As the old trouper said, "Any port in a storm"...

Do as you can and enjoy it.

I certainly plan on enjoying it (thanks ) as I see lots of images every day in my job as a forester. I see lots of intimate details I want to put on film that, my gut tells me, are better served by a full movement camera.

But I have to admit that I don't know what that quotation is supposed to mean in relation to the discussion----------clean over my head.


Chuck

 

[DBP]

That's my take on it too, and is the reason why I have two 4x5" cameras: A Speed Graphic (takes ALL barrel lenses except the really really huge ones, but not much movements), and a Carbon Infinity (ALL movements and then some - but not so great for hand held shooting and barrel lenses). Incidentally one of them cost me $56, and one $2500...

I would have guessed that you had a lot more than two 4x5 cameras. Are all the rest half-plate, quarter plate, various centimetric sizes and such?

 

[Ole]

I would have guessed that you had a lot more than two 4x5 cameras. Are all the rest half-plate, quarter plate, various centimetric sizes and such?

No, with the exception of the two Brits (Gandolfi's) they're all centrimetric. 6.5x9, 9x12, 13x18, 18x24, 24x30, 30x40.