• Dimitri

          I will tend not to agree with the above.

          You make it sound like one can spend very little (under £1000) for a very good LF system and this is far from the truth. What you described can be the equivalent of a Canon 300D with kit lens.

          For a newcomer to LF and in order to own a good kit, one needs to spend well over £4000 by the time one buys a good enough system and lenses & a good scanner. Never mind the film processing that will skin you alive.

          So, lets avoid telling people that LF photography costs a lot less than digital.

          On December 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm • Reply
          • Tim Parkin

            I never said LF photography costs a lot less than digital, you must have misread – I’ve just bought a 10Mp camera for a friend that cost £200 and you wouldn’t get an LF system for that. if you’re making the statement that you need to spend well over £4,000 to use large format then you are sadly mistaken. The Burke and James camera is perfectly adequate to hold the film holder and lens in a light tight box. The lenses quoted in Tim Smalley’s article are some of the best you can buy – particularly the Fujinon 240A which was used in the camera tests in these articles and if you use a modern film holder, there is no reason why you can’t get images as sharp as the ones in the article. The Epson V500 scanner will scan at an equivalent of 1800dpi which, whilst not as good as the Epson V750 is still pretty close. I’m quite happy to put some money down to prove a point** :-) In fact I’ve already done so – I used a second hand Chamonix for all the photographs taken whilst I was up in the Lake District recently and used the Fujinon 240 for quite a few photographs. Admittedly the Chamonix cost £400 but that brings the total to £960 instead of £770. I did point out that you can develop your own film if you like but if you compare this with the cost of a good three lens canon kit you end up with a good £1000 for film – that’s about 250 shots if you send off for developing. Even if we go for modern gear, a new Chamonix is £800 and then you can get a decent enough three lens kit for £600 if you shop around and light meter and accessories for another £200. Plus an Epson V750 for £400 gives you a full setup £2000.

            * I also never said the LF system would be ‘very good’ although the results from such a system will be indistinguisable from systems that cost substantially more. It would be the equivalent of a Canon 300D with a Phase One 160Mp Sensor and a Schneider tilt shift with 6″ 300dpi live view.

            ** as for the bet, if you want we can put £200 up for grabs and if I can take a critically sharp image with a camera system that cost under £1,000 you pay up? Why do I think I’ll win? Because me and Dav bought four sub £600 camera systems that clients use on our large format courses.

            On December 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm • Reply
            • Dimitri

              You said “And the results would be just as good as an expensive LF”, which is exactly the same. I will repeat myself, what you described can be the equivalent of a Canon 300D with kit lens.

              Lets see how much a good LF kit will cost someone who starts right now in LF photography. I was going to mention the name of an exceptional LF photographer but better not, just in case. Instead, I will talk about his gear, ONLY his film gear and not his digital.

              His gear:
              Ebony SV45U = £4.300
              His (at least) 4 lenses = £5.000
              His Imacon scanner = £9.000
              Total = Estimated over £20.000 including all other gadgets you need.

              Pentax MF Digital and 4 lenses = Under £10.000 and the printing (large) quality is absolutely stunning.

              To summarise, LF photography is not the best and only way for people to become good landscape photographers as many people would have us believe. It is a good way to teach you discipline but you can achieve this through other means.

              I was a LF & MF landscape photographer myself for awhile and tend not to agree with certain things that are being said from time to time about LF photography. I believe it is a bit over rated.

              One last thing, I think that from time to time (as your site is based toward LF) it is good practice to tell people all the minus of LF photography and here is just a small example: Try catching a gorgeous transient light that only lasts a couple of minutes (even less) with a LF camera, you will simply miss the train.

              On December 24, 2011 at 3:36 pm • Reply
              • Tim Parkin

                Dimitri – I don’t know what you are trying to prove but you don’t have to spend this much. It’s like saying “To get into digital landscape photography you need a Canon 5Dmk2 and tilt shift lenses”. Well, frankly, you don’t. In my last nine pictures uploaded to flickr have been two taken with a Canon A1 which cost £30 + £80 on lenses on ebay, one taken on an Olympus OM1 which cost £40 + £80 for lenses, one taken on a Mamiya 7 which cost £900 + £1000 for lenses, one taken on a Canon 5Dmk2 which cost £2000 + £800 for lens, one taken hand held on £100 twin lens reflex with £100 for lenses, one taken on a £400 Chamonix on a £250 lens and two taken on my admittedly expensive Ebony 45SU which cost £2,400 using £800 lenses and one taken on an 8×10 that cost £800 with aforesaid £250 lens. Out of these, the shot of the mist was taken in under 5 mins after running across Glencoe valley to catch the mist sweeping over the edge of the Study. One of the shots (the one of Bolehill quarry) was scanned on my Epson V750 the others were scanned on my drum scanner which I picked up for the same price as my V750.

                Of course you disagree with some things said about LF, we can’t all agree on everything. You have to agree that LF can be great value for money compared with the high end digital equivalents though. And of course you will miss the occasional light with an LF camera, but the same is true to a lesser extent for an MF film camera. Basically, unless you are using a Nikon D3X at iso 3200 hand held shooting from the hip, whatever system you use will miss you a certain percentage of shots – you just make your choice. Joe Cornish doesn’t do that bad catching those transient light rays :-)

                I stand by my quote of a £1000 system as well – do you want to take the bet on?

                On December 24, 2011 at 4:58 pm • Reply
                • Dimitri

                  First of all, I have no idea why you are insisting on placing a bet. Did I at any point challenge you on something specific? You make it sound like I have something against you, I don’t. Am I afraid on taking a bet with you? No, I am not. You have to remember that your subscribers are reading this and you do sound a bit cocky. Humility is a virtue.

                  Second, what am I trying to prove? Here it is. As this site has the tendency to support LF (your choice, I can’t judge you), the conclusions that come out of articles (in my eyes at least) is that LF is the best way and will make one a better photographer. Well, it will not. This is a very old gum that has lost its flavour.

                  Passion and determination make good photographers and not LF gear.

                  The photographer’s eye takes the picture.

                  The best camera is the one you have.

                  I would never recommend to anyone to go the LF road (emphasising low priced gear) when I know that it can be (and it is) a very expensive route. Film purchase, developing and scanning (for someone who is not familiar with the subject) can be extremely expensive and definitely, much more expensive than digital.

                  My intention was not to argue with you (or anyone else), just to state some facts that are usually not stated in these pages. I will not continue this conversation (as it will probably sound like an argument in the end) so it will be pointless asking me anything.

                  On December 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm •