Two Ways to Spend $5000
July 5th, 2007
Despite my recent comments about using what you are comfortable with, at the moment, I can think of two great ways to spend $5000:
- Buy an M8.
- Buy a Seitz Roundshot.
The Case for an M8
It’s fairly hard for me to justify buying an M8. I’ve gone through three digital cameras in as many years. The Canon 10D lasted 4 months before I traded it in for my first Hexar RF. The KM 7D a year later followed on the heels of the great gear purge of ought-five that saw the mad sale of my Hexar AF and Nokton 35 F1.2. The 7D fared poorly; I’m fairly certain I’d sold it within three months at least in part out of bitterness over the lost Hexar AF and Nokton. My current digital, a D80, I’ve had for almost a year, but it’s been sitting unused on the shelf for most of that time. It doesn’t know it yet, but it’s days are probably numbered.
Given this serial dissatisfaction with digital, why would I go spend almost $5K on another? Well . . . one could make an argument that all of the other digitals were discarded because what I was really waiting for was a digital M or, better yet, a digital Hexar. The M8 might just be good enough. Although I haven’t been all that impressed by most of the reviews or most of the resulting photos, Dante Stella’s recent piece on the M8, has sparked my interest again. He’s described the M8’s strengths and weaknesses in a way that makes sense to me and that runs parallels to my own thoughts on camera design. I’m intrigued again.
Intrigued or not, the M8 would essentially allow me to continue what I’m doing but without dealing with film. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing. Film has a certain rhythm that I’ve come to appreciate. And, as Colin has noted, there’s something about the tangibility of film. I know that regardless of my scanning or photoshop skills, I could go rent a darkroom and print my negs. I probably won’t do it, but it’s nice to know that I could. I also know that even in the event of a massive and multiple hard drive failure, I’d still have the negs. I’m not sure I’m ready to give that up. But with the pile of undeveloped film growing again, I can see the appeal of at least lessening the amount of time I spend with my hands in a changing bag, spotting negs, mixing chemicals, etc etc etc. It’s usually fun, but not always.
The Case for a Roundshot
Michael Reichman’s recent review of the Seitz Roundshot 28/220 came to my attention just a few days after having stumbled on “America by the Yard”, Robert MacKay’s excellent book showcasing some of the best Cirkut images from the 1900’s to 1950’s. I was vaguely aware that there had been some really, really large format panoramic photography done in the past, but the book turned out to be a revelation and potential inspiration.
The Cirkut and the Roundshot 28/220 work on the same principle; the film and the lens both rotate, but in opposite directions. The result is a photograph that can be as wide as you want - up to or even beyond 360 degrees - with a corresponding growth in the negative size as you go. The early Cirkut cameras produced negative that were literally yards long by up to 16 inches tall. The Roundshot, by comparison, uses 120 or 220 film, but the principle is the same.
In either case, the great appeal lies in the resulting images. Long, wide and fairly distortion free if you pay attention to the bubble level. The Cirkut was often used to create giant portraits of whole towns, factory floors, quarries etc. You have to see these to understand the impact entirely. The town and group portraits are particularly fascinating, being a kind of group photography that is certainly posed but almost entirely free of artifice. Do a google image search on Cirkut Cameras and you will start to get an idea of what I’m talking about.
As a modern day stand in for the Cirkut, the Roundshot has a lot of appeal. It would just be too much fun to take one of these things around to small towns, county fairs, all manner of gatherings etc. The documentary possibilities are huge even before you get to architectural photography. With a little luck, you might even be able to get a grant to do this.
This would be something entirely different from what I’m doing now. I’m not sure how much my skills would translate into something like this. I might be entirely lost, up a $5000 creek with no paddle. But it might be a hoot.
Choices, Choices, Choices
All this is working from the erroneous assumption that I’ve got $5000 to spend on camera equipment. I could do it, but it would seem kind of silly given the circumstances of my life at the moment, which perhaps isn’t a reason not to do it. 9 months ago I was thinking about spending $10K for to go to Salt’s documentary program. Heck, if that’s my yardstick, I could buy both the M8 and the Roundshot, and still be ahead of the game considering I wouldn’t be loosing all those wages by being in school full time. Hmm, see how that works? You talk yourself out of spending $5K by way of talking yourself into spending $10K.
If you had $5K to spend on photography, what would you do?
July 5th, 2007
If the choice were between the M8 and the Roundshot, I’d buy the M8, if only to see for myself what it can do. I have a Horizon 202; the rotating-lens perspective wears thin pretty quickly. Anyway, I don’t know what I’d do with the negatives from a Roundshot. They won’t fit my 4×5 enlarger, and the idea of scanning long strips of 120 film is unappealing.
July 5th, 2007
5D - $2500
17-35 F2.8L - $850
70-200 F2.8L (IS) - $1450
Decent Tripod - $300
July 6th, 2007
“They won’t fit my 4×5 enlarger, and the idea of scanning long strips of 120 film is unappealing.”
Yeah, the LuLu review suggested a flextight scanner or one of those newer epson models. The flextight is $5K if you can find one. I wonder how practical it would be to fluid mount them in one of those Epson flatbeds (V750 whatever).
“Decent Tripod - $300″
Save your money. Having owned a number of too cheap tripods, $300 isn’t nearly enough for a good legs and a good head. But the rest sounds fine.
July 6th, 2007
I wonder how practical it would be to fluid mount them in one of those Epson flatbeds (V750 whatever).
I know it’s fashionable to say that you’ll do anything for your art. But there are some things I won’t do, and fluid mounting for scanning is one of them.
PS: no, it’s not silly to buy a $5000 camera to use with one lens. If I bought an M8 I wouldn’t use any of my existing Leica lenses on it - I’d buy the 28 Summicron, and it would be glued to the camera.
July 6th, 2007
I have $5.000 to spend on photography, but frankly there isn’t anything that I would spend it on right now. I might buy a couple more Zeiss lenses that are just coming out - the 100 MP ZF and the 21 Biogon ZM for example, but as far as cameras go, I do not see any compelling products. I would willingly buy a digital FM3A with a full frame and about 20MP, I would also willingly buy a digi back for my Hasselblads, but only if it comes full frame (or very close like 50×50). Above all, I would buy any decent full frame B&W only digital camera, if it had a sensor with sufficient bit depth to challenge the tonality of film. There you are, I just want more quality and less hassle, and it isn’t easy to find…
July 6th, 2007
“There you are, I just want more quality and less hassle, and it isn’t easy to find…”
I’d probably settle for the same quality and less hassle, but that’s just as hard to find.
All this is just thinking out loud. I’m happy with my current setup, but the repetitive stress of working on a computer all day, and then coming home to develop, scan and spot negs is sometimes just too much. It seems odd that digital might mean less computer time, but scanning B&W is incredibly time consuming.
“But there are some things I won’t do, and fluid mounting for scanning is one of them.”
I’m afraid I do it once and then fling the whole mess across the room. But I am curious.
The ZM 35 would be just about right for me on the M8. The 50 perspective is what I’m most comfortable with, but that 28 F2 would be also work for me.
July 6th, 2007
Given my semi-transient lifestyle (I move, on average, once a year), I can’t be bothered buying much more gear. I’d be tempted by a Hexar RF and three or four lenses, but the fixed-lens cameras I currently own are enough for my (modest) purposes. With seven years Photoshop experience, at design school and working on magazines, I think I could make use of a good printer, but not until I settle down. This is how I’d (try to) fill your five-grand quota. (I’ll probably pick up the MF cameras and lens in Tokyo at the end of this year. Can’t wait.)
• One of Epson’s new pro flatbed scanners
• A good 6×6 twin-lens reflex
• Fuji GA645
• Sigma 30/1.4
• Macbook Pro
July 6th, 2007
Come to think of it, I just remembered what a beast that Sigma 30 is. Strike it off the list. I’ll wait for something better.
July 6th, 2007
I have more cameras and gear than I need anyway.
That said, I am thinking about a Nikon D200 - but hesitate because I have not embraced the digital, so to speak. Actually, your comments about film and its tangible quality ring true with me. I am not an anti-digital or pro-film zealot - I just don’t seem to be interested in digital workflow. Still, I keep thinking I should really give the medium a serious try, and the D200 seems ideal - compatible with my Nikon system stuff, and high quality.
I will probably settle for a few Leica M or R lenses in the end… film has to be around for a few more years (decades, I hope).
Max
July 6th, 2007
Yeah, the Sigma is a beast, but it does work as advertised.
July 6th, 2007
Don’t forget if you want to work with an M8 in colour that you will have to budget for the IR cut filter and a machine shop to cut coding indentations in your ZM lens. For mono, most people seem to leave the filter off (and not code).
I want you to get the roundshot, but only because I’d be interested in what a photographer, rather than a gearhead, would make of one.
There is a betterscanning.com glass/anti-newton holder for 120 film with the Epson v700/v750 flatbeds. That *might* mean that fluid mount isn’t necessary. They also do a ‘better than Epson’ fluid mount holder.
July 6th, 2007
I can’t shoot color worth a darn unless I get Kate to the color balance for me after the fact, so limiting myself to B&W on the M8 wouldn’t really be that big of an issue.
Colin, I’ll mark you down as voting for the roundshot. Kate and I have been spinning wild tales to ourselves about whole summer long cross country road trips and how much money we would need to make it work. This might be one of those 5 year plan sort of things, but it sounds like a lot of fun.
July 6th, 2007
I would think $7500 or so would do food, gas and misc. expenses for three months, assuming you camped out a lot.
Sounds kind of fun actually… Heh, if you saved up vacation at work for most of a year, you could go into the next summer with 40 work days of vacation, that’s a good part of the summer right there.
July 7th, 2007
“Heh, if you saved up vacation at work for most of a year”
I might go crazy if I went a whole year without taking a vacation, but it’s a thought. $7500 would probably do it.
July 7th, 2007
The M8 probably has much better resale value. Try it for a while and if you don’t like it, you won’t lose too much money by selling it.
July 11th, 2007
roundshot = gimmick