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

pbromaghin · Apr 18, 2015

Well, for me, money isn't as much of an object as time. So I would do about what I am doing, which is shoot whatever format or film I feel like playing with. It is just such a joy to find a subject and try to get the best image of it that my limited talent allows with whatever I am carrying. Actually, the lack of time really limits the money spent.

Hmmm. 8 years to retirement, baby. Then my wife will be begging me to go hide in the darkroom or get out of the house to take pictures, anything just to get out from underfoot.

EdColorado · Apr 18, 2015

I'd go with medium format cause my two favorite cameras are medium format. I shoot a lot of 35mm, but overall prefer playing with my RB67 and Bronica ETRSi. No real reason except I just like how they feel to work with.

ME Super · Apr 18, 2015

If money were no object, I'd probably shoot 35mm and 6x6. But I'd buy my own factory and hire some ex-Kodak Photo Engineers (and others) to make an E-6 version of Kodachrome in ISOs 25, 64, 200, and 400.

John Koehrer · Apr 18, 2015

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

With motor drive and auto exposure?...........Can't forget the underwater housing............

rorye · Apr 18, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
I'd stick with 4x5 and 35mm, same as I do now, with the same two cameras. They don't need upgrading. I'd rather use the money to quit my sickening job. As for format, any time I've had an itch to go bigger than 4x5, I've reminded myself bigger than that and it becomes mostly about the camera. A select few like Tice and Shore made/make art I love using 8x10. That's about it. Even from a purely technical standpoint, most of the work I've seen from 8x10 and ULF negatives is lacking to a degree it more than wipes out any of the potential advantages of the large film size.

Fire away. I don't care.

I think you have a great point there Michael. These days I mainly shoot 8"x10" but I'm starting to see a coldness, more of a clinical look to my work and that troubles me and pulls me back to 120. All part of the process I guess...

Theo Sulphate · Apr 18, 2015

Mostly 35mm and MF (6x6) is what I use, although I have submini cameras (Minox 8x11mm) and large format (4x5").

If money were no object: a Bolex H16 Rex-5 with a 400' film magazine and separate sound equipment.

Theo Sulphate · Apr 18, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
I'm in the US. I've never even seen a 5x4 camera. And I have no idea where to look for a manufacturer of film for one. I suppose a few manufacturers might make a special run of it, but I'm sure I couldn't justify buying it with my income level.

There's a trick you can use: get a LF camera and set it up on the wrong side of the road.

Theo Sulphate · Apr 18, 2015

M6F6E6 said:
... The F6 is the king of SLR film, as it is built to last forever...

Respectfully, I disagree. The micromotors for focusing (w/AF-D lenses), for winding and rewinding, will eventually fail sooner than you might think. The sensors, IC's, and other electronics won't be working 50 years from now.

I have fully functioning cameras from 50 years ago (Exakta, Leica M3) and with lubrication and regular use they will continue to work long past the F6's demise.

So here is my ongoing offer to today's photographers: bring me any fully functioning electronic-dependent camera (made prior to 2015) 50 years from now and I will give you its weight in gold

Arklatexian · Apr 18, 2015

I already own Leica and Hasselblad so that leaves Linhof for 4x5, I guess, fully realizing that it would not make me a better photographer. No format, camera, etc. will do that. Only moving to Carmel, CA can do that, of course. You DO understand that as far as the last is concerned, I jest. Or maybe not....Regards

EdColorado · Apr 18, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Respectfully, I disagree. The micromotors for focusing (w/AF-D lenses), for winding and rewinding, will eventually fail sooner than you might think. The sensors, IC's, and other electronics won't be working 50 years from now.

I have fully functioning cameras from 50 years ago (Exakta, Leica M3) and with lubrication and regular use they will continue to work long past the F6's demise.

So here is my ongoing offer to today's photographers: bring me any fully functioning electronic-dependent camera (made prior to 2015) 50 years from now and I will give you its weight in gold

Careful here Theo. I'd expect your safety valve on this is that you don't figure you'll be around in 50 years to have to deal with finding a pile of gold, and/or that the rest of us wont either but really, there isn't anything about electronics that makes it die at a certain point. Used hard, either mechanical or electronic devices can have issues. Taken care of I know of plenty of electronic devices that are working now and are over 50 years old. Thinking of some tube based stereo gear a friend has here.

My oldest electronic dependent camera, that must have a battery to work is a Canon A1. I have two of these both of which work fine. In 13 more years they will be 50 years old and I have no reason, especially as they don't get used often, to think they wont be working on their 50 birthday. I also have no reason to think I wont be here to enjoy them!

All that said, these days I get more enjoyment out of my older mechanical cameras. And I just love my Exakta!

Ian Leake · Apr 19, 2015

If I had unlimited resources then I wouldn't have to work for a living, and would have much more space to work in, and would have a nanny to look after my wonderful children whenever I wanted to do photography things, and, and, and... But I'd stay with the film formats I use today.

fotch · Apr 19, 2015

although I like bigger negatives, from a practicable standpoint, carting around larger gear & lots a larger accessories, is to much. I chose 35mm because there is almost nothing you cannot do with it and to duplicate that with larger format gear, you would need help in some way. Of course, since I can have lots of gear in different formats, not a logical question that has meaning.

Theo Sulphate · Apr 19, 2015

EdColorado said:
... there isn't anything about electronics that makes it die at a certain point. Used hard, either mechanical or electronic devices can have issues. Taken care of I know of plenty of electronic devices that are working now and are over 50 years old. Thinking of some tube based stereo gear a friend has here.

My oldest electronic dependent camera, that must have a battery to work is a Canon A1. I have two of these both of which work fine. In 13 more years they will be 50 years old and I have no reason, especially as they don't get used often, to think they wont be working on their 50 birthday. ...

Yes, I see your point. I'm not a luddite - in fact, I'm a firmware engineer at a well-known electronics company and work with EE's daily on systems with custom ASICs and the latest technologies. But, I'm not surprised that older tube equipment, discrete components, or low-scale integrated electronics works for decades. But when you add a focus motor, a wind motor, a rewind motor, plus the processors and circuitry to control them, plus the AF sensors, metering, buttons, displays, and their circuitry, you're increasing the chances of failure. That's why I'm not optimistic about the F6 or even my favorite: the F4.

Your A-1 probably will continue to work just fine. But I think very few fully electronically-dependent cameras made within the last 10 years will be functioning even 20 years from now.

EdColorado · Apr 19, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Yes, I see your point. I'm not a luddite - in fact, I'm a firmware engineer at a well-known electronics company and work with EE's daily on systems with custom ASICs and the latest technologies. But, I'm not surprised that older tube equipment, discrete components, or low-scale integrated electronics works for decades. But when you add a focus motor, a wind motor, a rewind motor, plus the processors and circuitry to control them, plus the AF sensors, metering, buttons, displays, and their circuitry, you're increasing the chances of failure. That's why I'm not optimistic about the F6 or even my favorite: the F4.

Your A-1 probably will continue to work just fine. But I think very few fully electronically-dependent cameras made within the last 10 years will be functioning even 20 years from now.

What you wrote is basically what I was thinking when I replied to you earlier. Motors especially, motors wear out and break. Newer discrete components as opposed to tubes... Yep, we're actually on the same page here.

Joe VanCleave · Apr 19, 2015

I'd take a KH12/Hubble telescope as my camera of choice. 'Cause I have unlimited resources!

BTW, the alternate story I heard about the Hubble's supposed " defective" mirror being the result of a polishing machine snafu is that it used a spare mirror from a classified reconnaissance satellite, but only after getting into orbit did NASA realize that spy satellite mirrors are figured for 100mile focal lengths; hence the need for corrective optics. The cover story about the defective polishing machine was to conceal the fact that the classified world already had these kinds of telescopes in orbit - pointing the other way. Could be a true story, or maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised.

~Joe

NedL · Apr 19, 2015

I don't know about secret spy mirrors! I chose "other" when this poll first opened because it made me laugh that there was something outside the range of sub-mini to ULF.
But now that I think about it, unlimited resources means hired help can haul all my gear ( including darkroom facilities! ) anywhere on earth, so I'd want camera equipment that matches the final size prints... lets say a range from 6x10 to 12x20 up to about 24x24, all with beautifully made wood plate/paper holders.

removed account4 · Apr 19, 2015

Joe VanCleave said:
I'd take a KH12/Hubble telescope as my camera of choice. 'Cause I have unlimited resources!

BTW, the alternate story I heard about the Hubble's supposed " defective" mirror being the result of a polishing machine snafu is that it used a spare mirror from a classified reconnaissance satellite, but only after getting into orbit did NASA realize that spy satellite mirrors are figured for 100mile focal lengths; hence the need for corrective optics. The cover story about the defective polishing machine was to conceal the fact that the classified world already had these kinds of telescopes in orbit - pointing the other way. Could be a true story, or maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised.

~Joe

LOL joe you would have to have an awfully big sheet of paper to make a portrait wiht the hubbabubba telescope

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

pbromaghin

EdColorado

ME Super

John Koehrer

rorye

Theo Sulphate

Theo Sulphate

Theo Sulphate

Arklatexian

EdColorado

Ian Leake

fotch

Theo Sulphate

EdColorado

Joe VanCleave

NedL

removed account4

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