Martin, you said:
"• And on the other you are bemoaning the fact that manufacturers are getting out of film and film cameras"
That's exactly what they (manufacturers) are doing, but at the moment, it appears confined to 35mm i.e. digi SLRs. Sure you can buy really good used or mint (boxed, new) film cameras but the lack of any new models and stagnation of the market has me thinking that manufacturer's will sooner or later pull the plug on film bodies. It's an unpleasant, ugly thought, I know. I do not know what sort of inroads digital is making into MF or LF, but I suspect it's not at the same ridiculous pace as 35mm. The bigger problem is that the market is being driven by a rampant consumerist, "me too" society that is computer centric and time-sensitive.
I think anybody planning on using film-based equipment for the next quarter of a century is overly optimistic. Good luck.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
You may well be right – but I hope not
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
I can see Colour (both C41 & E6) going the way of the Dodo in the next few years.
B&W I am more confident about its medium term future (10+ years).
It has already been down-sized when the mass market moved to colour film in the 60s & 70s.
We who shoot B&W do so out of choice – not because everyone else is doing it in what you accurately describe as the “me too” mindless mentality.
I do think we will be paying a LOT more for our materials though, as we become a very much more niche exclusive/elitist faction.
I've looked at the economics of D**** v film and come to the conclusion that because my vision/work requires professional level tools, I can soak up quite a lot of increased film/processing costs.
Bottom line, to equal my quality of output - shooting 35mm film and scanning negs for publication or print - I have to move to the very cutting edge of D**** and the $5K that the D**** Nikon would cost will buy a whole bunch of film and processing.
I agree. Taking this logic further, the Hasselblad d-backs for the V system run from a mere $20,00US for 16 megapixels to $50,000US for 50 megapixels. Granted those backs deliver 16 bits/color, but heck they do not cover the full field of view of 6cmx6cm more like 6cmx45cm or 48cmx48cm! And for that kind of money, I could pay for a lot of film and processing.
Originally Posted by nyoung
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
I'd spend (and will at some point) 2k for a hand held 6x9 body that would take modern lenses and 1-1.5k each for 35/38mm and 47mm lenses. I'd pay an additional 1k for one that was range finder coupled that would accept similar lenses.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Good morning, David B;
The question of how much I would spend for a film camera is not easy to answer. It is a many variable function. Other economic factors may intrude into my fun things. Who knows?
If it is at all informational for your purposes, I can tell you what I have spent in certain categories recently: 35 mm film body; $ 750. 4 by 5 kit; $ 950. Lens for 4 by 5; $ 300.
The 35 mm purchases are winding down. I have just about everything I want there. I know that I have more than I need. I agree with Eddy McDonald. But, other formats are still going.
Noting Michael Hardy-Vallee's $ 15000 (assuming that is not a typing error) and Jason Brunner's $ 45000, I am not a major player on this field.
David, of all of the people who have responded, your posting about your last purchase is quite impressive. The last four words are the most telling.
Ralph Javins, Latte Land, Washington
When they ask you; "How many Mega Pixels you got in your camera?"
just tell them; "I use activated silver bromide crystals tor my image storage media."
Regarding used pro-level gear that's common enough to not be collectible, it's entirely possible right now to cherry-pick mint condition stuff for $.10 to $.20 to the dollar v. retail new prices. There are some truly astounding bargains this year.
I'm equally astounded at some of the silly-season prices some seem willing to pay for the rarer or cult lenses, most of which would seem to have little chance of being good long-term investments given the darkening economic climate. It's reminiscent of 1988, when lots of money was pulled out of the stock market and there was a sudden run-up in luxury items from Ferraris to Arabian horse flesh-- by greenhorn buyers with excess cash they needed to invest somewhere.
I've spent most recently $500 on a Rolleiflex, and $1100 on a set of studio strobes (calumet Elite II 2400 w/s power pack with 2 heads, cables, reflectors and accessories - used). The most I've ever spent in a single drop was $3K for my Canham 5x12 with three film holders. I'm really about done with buying camera toys (well, MIGHT get a tele rollei someday), but I'm more interested now in getting lighting stuff for the studio. One of these days, I'll own Broncolor
At once, maximum 1000 Euros for body and one lens, regardless of film size. Second lens or else after some time.
Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
No things in life should be left unfinis
The amount is no different today than it has been in the past. It is the number that I figure reflects the value of the camera to me. Some have been expensive and others not. The question is a little like, "How much would you spend on an automobile today?" Bill Barber