Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,712   Posts: 1,514,646   Online: 1017
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Olson
    As I read posts on this forum, I consistently read opinions that the old B&J field cameras are of inferior quality and build. Why is this?
    I wonder how much this goes back to the orginal marketing. The wa it's been explained to me.

    You had Deardoffs at the top of the heap in terms of price.

    Then the Kodaks and the Anscos

    Then the B&Js.

    But personally I'm happy with my B&J. In some ways it's better then it's more fashionable competitors.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    768
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    I love the saying 'Let's sell meat and flies separately' but I disagree slightly about the pleasure of top-flight equipment. I have an alarming amount of the latter, but ONLY of equipment that I am not afraid to use. If you're afraid to use it, there's not much reason in keeping it
    Dear Roger,

    I didn't say that I'm all against the top-flight equipment - in fact, I've got some top gear too, and I enjoy it much But I have just the one principle: if the top-flight thingie falls in my hands somehow, I just gladly accept it All my "really good" cameras (Fujica G690, Rollei SL66 and TLR etc.) were bought by me for silly prices, and carefully restored to perfect operation. More, a careful tuning of cheapo stuff like Yashica-Mat EM makes them as fine-working as their brand counterparts - you should feel by yourself the film winding and shutter release on my YM after some tweaking

    The running around and the fetishistic lust for, say, Linhof or other brand is what I never do. But if somewhere is for sale an unused Linhof release cable for $5 (my recent purchase), or Linhof-selected lens (Tele-Arton 250/5.6) for $125, why not?

    Cheers, Zhenya

  3. #13
    athanasius80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Huntington Beach, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    639
    Images
    15
    Burke & James was gone before I was born, but I've heard that they specialized in being the "cheaper than the competition" photo company. I'd say its price snobbery first and a dislike of the battleship grey paint second.

    Personally, though, I like that battleship grey paint.

  4. #14
    athanasius80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Huntington Beach, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    639
    Images
    15
    Oh and I forgot something. B&J bought a quantity of unmatched Goerz Dagor cells after WW2 and sold them as marked "Berlin Dagor." Apparently those cells were originally quality control rejects...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by eumenius
    Dear Roger,

    I didn't say that I'm all against the top-flight equipment - in fact, I've got some top gear too, and I enjoy it much But I have just the one principle: if the top-flight thingie falls in my hands somehow, I just gladly accept it All my "really good" cameras (Fujica G690, Rollei SL66 and TLR etc.) were bought by me for silly prices, and carefully restored to perfect operation. More, a careful tuning of cheapo stuff like Yashica-Mat EM makes them as fine-working as their brand counterparts - you should feel by yourself the film winding and shutter release on my YM after some tweaking

    The running around and the fetishistic lust for, say, Linhof or other brand is what I never do. But if somewhere is for sale an unused Linhof release cable for $5 (my recent purchase), or Linhof-selected lens (Tele-Arton 250/5.6) for $125, why not?

    Cheers, Zhenya
    Dear Zhenya,

    We are in complete agreement.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  6. #16
    JohnArs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,068
    Images
    40
    Hi all
    As a happy owner of a B & J 8x10 grey monster field, I have to say the camera is not for everyone, because for a field she is quite heavy but she is also sturdy. I got mine in exelent condition for 480 USD the back of the camera has been never in use! And the red bellows is like m.monroe very sexy. And I can use my 610 mm Nikkor and focus it down to 3 meters and even in windy conditions I had no blur pictures heavy wight has also his pros! The camera is build like a tank and id need much space in my old tramper rucksack but I can walk 2 miles if needed but prefer not more! My Sinar P fits not in my tramper rucksack but the B&J does it perfectly.
    Every tool has its pro's and con's!
    Happy shooting, Armin J. Seeholzer
    Good light and nice shadows!

    www.artfoto.ch

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    785
    Wayne - I had a 5x7 B&J for a while. It had lots of slop in the rear standard, the focusing hood was dysfunctional, the tailboard design was a nuisance, and IMO it was way too bulky and heavy for the format. It was extremely unfun to use, and I was very happy to replace it with something else more to my taste.

    As always, YMMV. If you've fixed one up so that it works for you, that's great. Enjoy it, and don't worry about equipment snobbery or anti-snobbery.

  8. #18
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,767
    I use 5x7 B&J tailboard and monorail cameras with backs for 4x5 and smaller. Each basic camera cost less than $100 USD. Of course there are many more elegant and rigid cameras, but the B&Js work. It is also easy to adapt them with different backs and lens boards. Even the Newton Neu-View I had decades ago sufficed to hold the lens at one end, the film holder at the other, and with plenty of adjustments of both. That's what a view camera is supposed to do. Other cameras have more convenience and status, even if they can't produce better images.
    Last edited by Jim Jones; 08-20-2006 at 07:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,633
    I have a B&J 8X10 monorail that looks quite good after stripping the grey paint - wood appears to be a light colored hardwood. The bellows was glued to the standards; but now glued to plywood frame which in turn is screwed into the standards. The rear standard vibrates when inserting a filmholder, but wait a couple of 2nds after withdrawing darkslide & its fine. I put a Packard shutter on lensboard for a 305 Nikkor barrel lens. Have it mounted on Majestic studio tripod (rollers); and it functions very well in the studio. I would think a field B&J would be just as useful.
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,030
    I had a B&J and it was a fine camera. IMHO it would be rare to find an old woody that dosen't show some wear and tear and B&J are no exception (but niether are 'dorffs!) Ultimately its not your camera but what you do with it that makes or breaks the deal. Don't let anxiety about your equipment influence your photography---no one is going to be able to tell the difference between a photo taken with a B&J from one taken with an Ebony anyway, and certainly don't let anyone "put down" the tools you're comfortable and enjoy working with---thats a problem "they" have, don't let it become yours.
    Cheers!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin