The running cost of shooting MF is generally quite a bit higher than 35mm.
If MF hardware pricing is a big concern I wouldn't bother about MF. The running cost of shooting MF is generally quite a bit higher than 35mm - where there are still many hardware bargains to be had.
MF is just not an area you venture into if you have economic concerns.
Ditto that. I've stocked up on 120 (and 127) and long ago learned how to develop my own.Definitely not. I have my equipment and using it is still much cheaper for me to use than digital. Besides I greatly prefer it to digital and I like holding a real silver print in my hands than a bunch of invisible '0's and '1's.
I like holding a real silver print in my hands than a bunch of invisible '0's and '1's.
This!Anyway - don't worry about the cost of medium format gear, just go straight to 4x5. You save money because it takes 20 minutes to take one photo.
You know you can print digital photos, right?
Anyway - don't worry about the cost of medium format gear, just go straight to 4x5. You save money because it takes 20 minutes to take one photo.
A print on a floppy sheet of paper on a floppy sheet of paper in no way equates to a silver print, in this universe.
With my Crown hand held, I shot 50 sheets in an hour at the Pima Air Space Museum, could have shot more if I had brought more film.
In inflation-corrected dollars, all my MF gear is worth less on the used market today. For example my mint condition 40mm Distagon in original box cost $2000 in 1993. KEH has offered $300 cash recently.
My near mint Rollei SLX cost $700 in 1985, and I only got $250 when I recently sold it.
I was joking about the 20 minutes to take a 4x5 picture. But...
Were all 50 shots worth looking at? I'm not implying they weren't, I'm genuinely asking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?