no holds barredm unlimited resources ( $$/FILM ) what camera would you own ?

removed account4 · Apr 17, 2015

there are too many fan boy, fan girl posts here on apug
and not too many that get to the point ......

if there was no limit for you ( that means no worry, film and chemistry &c would be availlable unlimitedly, and $$ no object)
what camera woudl you pick to do your thing, and why:

yeah, i know 120 and smaller are ez to use, maneuver, lf is for wannabe posers who wish they were william henry jackson or radar or curtis

would you stay at the format you are currently at? would you spread your wings? would you ..... change process ?

do tell, and why ?

frank · Apr 17, 2015

I'm really conflicted by the ease of use of roll film contrasted with the technical advantage of larger sheet film sizes.

Guess it all boils down to what your subject is.

fretlessdavis · Apr 17, 2015

frank said:
I'm really conflicted by the ease of use of roll film contrasted with the technical advantage of larger sheet film sizes.

Guess it all boils down to what your subject is.

+1

I'd like to think that with unlimited money, I'd do 5x7 or 8x10, but in reality, the amount of extra processing time is what keeps me coming back to MF than anything. With unlimited money, I could justify a Mamiya 7 and a full complement of lenses, though!

removed account4 · Apr 17, 2015

to make this a NO BRAINER ... processing would NOT be an issue
make believe you exposed the film and you closed your eyes
and YOU processed the film whichever way you like it -----
expanded, compressed, zone system, stand developed, seat of the pants ...
whatever you want its "negative'd like that"

this thread isn't about processing film, but something else ....

frank · Apr 17, 2015

Still sticking to my initial answer: depends on what I plan on shooting.

120 or sheet film

fretlessdavis · Apr 17, 2015

Same. I'd like to think I'd start taking a nice field camera backpacking and such, but I probably wouldn't. There are many other things to consider besides money!

Trail Images · Apr 17, 2015

I'll go along with it depends on what I'm shooting between using MF and LF. However, if money is no object I'll go with larger 4x5 over my 6x7.

Alan W · Apr 17, 2015

Other.I really enjoy using my widelux.I'd really like to use something like a 6x17 camera,though.In the real world I'll never do it.My enlarger can only handle up to 6x7.I have no scanner whatsoever,dream on I s'pose....

heespharm · Apr 17, 2015

Custom made carbon fiber 8x10 oh and also the gas and time off work to take pics

mrred · Apr 17, 2015

The only reason I don't shoot LF is I can't afford it. It sucks for a reason, but there it is.

BradleyK · Apr 18, 2015

Most likely I would opt for an 8x10; possibly something larger. A major portion of my limited leisure time is spent backpacking/hiking/communing with nature. As time passes, I am finding myself, more and more, second guessing my decision of several years back to sell the 4x5. I sometimes think that when shooting nature/landscape, even with the Hasselblad, I work to fast, and should slow down further and savor moment...a little while longer, consider a few more potential compositions... So equipped, I would shoot - personal predisposition, subject matter and weather dependent - a s******d of either Pan F+ or Velvia. All said, a Sherpa would be a nice accessory.

Jeff Bradford · Apr 18, 2015

Submini is fun, but my heart is in MF.

Ian Grant · Apr 18, 2015

5x4 because of it's versatility, portability, ability to work hand held, reasonable cost compared to 7x5 & 10x8 (which I do use occasionally). Another advantage is it;s easy to tank process.

Ian

pdeeh · Apr 18, 2015

I guess if money were no object for a camera, then money would be no object for anything else and I could have a whole suite of rooms, workshops and darkrooms and spend my whole time dicking about making pictures in every conceivable process. That'd keep me off the streets.

gone · Apr 18, 2015

Generally, I use the miniature roll film cameras because they're light, portable, and take wonderful photos. Having a larger negative doesn't mean a thing to me if it isn't backed up by a better pic, which it seldom is. Much of the romance w/ larger formats is just that, romance. It's sorta neat to "play photographer" on the streets w/ a LF camera. Setting the beast up, talking to curious observers, feeling like you're a "working pro", all that. But at the end of the day I don't see any meaningful differences in the images made by a LF camera and a small one. Yes, you get better tonality (sometimes) and less grain (sometimes), but do you get a better picture? Nope, you don't, you just get a larger one. So w/ me it has nothing whatsoever to do w/ money. I can make a nice photo w/o any camera at all, so that's obviously not the deal. Obviously a LF camera is potentially better suited for architecture or landscape work, and if you just need a big photo you need a big photo, but someone w/ vision isn't bound by these arbitrary rules.

What I find very informative it that 35mm shooters are way at the bottom of this poll in terms of usage. It's almost as if that nonsense about 35mm cameras being for amateurs is playing out here to be a truism. But it's most emphatically NOT true, and I still feel that a lot of the LF usage, and it surprises me to say this, is more about what you look like when you're photographing (to yourself, mostly) than the image that you actually come up with. I thought we knew better than that here. But, we don't. Let's face it, if I managed to come up w/ a digital shot that mimicked one from a wet plate camera, just to use something for an example, people here would be all over me like white on rice. There's a certain amount of smug elitism associated w/ these forums, w/ RFF being the ultimate Big Money end of it, wherein what you use is as important as what you have to say. That's patently crap.

M6F6E6 · Apr 18, 2015

which camera - not what amount of fuel or size of d/room

Well it is very fascinating to be thinking of using LF a lot more, with $ no problem.... but once you start carrying one around the whole glamour soon turns to sore muscles! Well done to the ones who can and wanna do this, but it is really very very demanding work. You gotta be good to justify the format. It is very rewarding though, but I only used other people's LF cameras.

Medium Format is the best option for general nature and people shots - just the speed of using roll film and its durability and practicality make it a clear winner for landscape and business use. The old adage of using it to impress clients on the light box is somewhat obsolete now, with schmigital's dominance. The sheer practicality of the relative size of most specs of dust on MF compared to 35mm make it more attractive. I am very happy with my SL66, with the tilt function leaving the Blad in the dust. With an unlimited budget I would just keep on buying SL66s / lenses

As for impressing people on the street with your LF $$$$$$ camera, that is more of a millstone around your neck than many would realise. In Australia nowadays more n more 'authorities' are banning tripods and anyone looking even half-professional. From Ayers Rock to the Sydney Opera House, anyone who wants a sharper than average image by using a tripod is harrassed by the 'authorities' for presumed professional image use and making millions out of a photo of a public building, or a big hunk of rock that was not made by human hands and is therefore the property of NOONE!!! The attention is just not worth going the full-hog with any MF or LF these days.

"Something is happening here and you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr Jones?" Bob Dylan

We are getting screwed for being the documenters of society and the landscape, as if we are all making a fortune out of it. Anyway, that is another topic, sorry.

The best 35mm camera to have depends totally on the type of photos you want to make. The F6 is the king of SLR film, as it is built to last forever ( a crucial factor in saving the environment ) and feels so fantastic in your hands. It kicks but in front of clients too, especially portrait subjects, helping to make them feel special. But the M6 rules for documentary / people - especially kids. I like using mine for time exposures too, so you can see thru the viewfinder during exposures. That is real helpful to see aircraft / satellites at night before they enter the frame. But the fact that the tripod attaches to the removaable bottom of the camera makes for a bit of looseness that worries me sometimes. Plus I have had the camera drift on the tripod during vertical shots too. That is annoying. The minimal battery requirements is a fantastic feature. But you can't have the perfect camera all the time!

So, really it is SL66, M6, F6 for me

removed account4 · Apr 18, 2015

i'd use a rickety old 11x14, one lens and just shoot paper negatives, so i'd need gallons of liquid emulsion and reems of thin paper and a few boxes of parafin.
so i can contact print either by bulb or by sun ... and so when i am too weak and feable to carry the camera i can make photograms.
if i realize i need something smaller i will just make a reducing back by hand
or a mask for my paper holder i won't be photographing "street" or wildlife, or surveillance, or sports events, so i won't need roll film..
i like the rectangular / boxy proportions of the 11x14 format.
its less squat than 4x5, ... and split it either way is like the golden-mean so even if the subjects i expose
are boring as heck, i won't realize it because the proportions will hypnotize me so i'll like it. i probably won't be taking photographs out a
moving car window, but it will give me the opportunity to photograph people and stuff within a few miles of where i live, so when i am old, and forgetful
i will sort of have a clue, and the print will be big enough that i would be able to see it without having to put my coke bottle glasses on i'll be wearing at that point ...

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 18, 2015

Setting aside physical limitations also, I voted 8x10 and ULF for the ultimate mural-size print quality.

EDIT: After reading a few other posts I see concerns about portability. Gosh, if I had tons of money then I could afford any type of transportation and an entourage to carry everything for me. Oh... and I wouldn't have to drink cheap booze either. Oh... and my entourage would be Playboy Bunnies.

Sirius Glass · Apr 18, 2015

The ones that I already own.

R.Gould · Apr 18, 2015

I would stick mainly with 120, but maybe I would get a bigger enlarger and use 69 rather than 66 or 645,

benjiboy · Apr 18, 2015

I've never wanted anything bigger than medium format, I'm happy with my Mamiya C330F system, If I had unlimited money to hell with photography I'd spend it on slow horses and fast women and what I had left I'd waste

bsdunek · Apr 18, 2015

One of the choices should have been "all of the above"!

gzinsel · Apr 18, 2015

all I want is a really nice 300mm. thats it.

MartinCrabtree · Apr 18, 2015

I believe I already have it. F5. Just hoping it lasts as long as I do. I honestly cannot see needing more camera.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 18, 2015

benjiboy said:
...to hell with photography I'd spend it on slow horses and fast women and what I had left I'd waste

Ben, you da' man...

Ken

no holds barredm unlimited resources ( $$/FILM ) what camera would you own ?

what would you do, money no object, and why ????????

sub mini

35mm

MF

4x5

8x10 + ULF

OTHER

removed account4

frank

fretlessdavis

removed account4

frank

fretlessdavis

Trail Images

Alan W

heespharm

mrred

BradleyK

Jeff Bradford

Ian Grant

pdeeh

gone

M6F6E6

removed account4

Old-N-Feeble

Sirius Glass

R.Gould

benjiboy

bsdunek

gzinsel

MartinCrabtree

Ken Nadvornick

no holds barredm unlimited resources ( $$/FILM ) what camera would you own ?

what would you do, money no object, and why ????????

sub mini

35mm

MF

4x5

8x10 + ULF

OTHER

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency