Why is Medium Format Soooo Expensive?

[markci]

<i>I see people paying $300 for equipment that is atleast 30 years old and looks like crap.</i>

<p>

Maybe they aren't out to make a fashion statement?

[claudia__]

i still am curious about which MF cameras he thinks look like crap. a hassy, a rollei? which ones? or, maybe he is saying they might have some wear showing. much better to get a very cool plastic thing right out of the box that doesn't need film. i guess it is a rhetorical question.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<i><<a href="http://4020.net/">4020.net</a>></i><p>

 

I think that with the rush to DSLRs, prices of 2nd hand MF equipment have actually

fallen.<P>

 

A few years ago there would have been no way I could have justified spending $AUD 5000

on a second hand (like-new) Hasselblad kit. A few months back I bought what I wanted

for $AUD 2800. That's a huge price drop in anyone's currency :?)

[luisarguelles]

Jordan, I'm sure you'll find digital cameras exquisitely well-priced. Now buy a pair of celular phones with built-in camera and enjoy. They are really cool, you know, with lots of entertainment. For 300$ they even make video, too!

[francois_gauthier]

You sure triggered many reactions...

 

the use market is only a mather of offer and demand.

 

The internet has made most amateur aware of the tremendous quality improvement due to the larger film. Good flatbed scanners have also pick the attention of those who won't use the wet darkroom. On the other end, the mass-migration to digital cameras has more than offset those new interests.

 

New MF gear is sooo expensive mostly because of the limited production. Some used ones still are because of their reputation but in fact only systems with changeable lenses need large investments if you want more than the basic body with normal lens kit.

 

$300 is not that much compared to digital and 30 years is not that old for high quality mechanical devices.

[bob fowler]

Expensive? I just bought yet another Bronica SQ-A with 120 back and 80mm PS lens for $200.00. I don't think THAT is expensive at all...

[jordan_f1]

Wow! I definitely did trigger many different reactions. Thanks everyone for participating. Entering into medium format, I was a bit shocked at the expensive prices, but now this thread is making it seem obvious why such the huge price climb from 35mm. Never actually putting my hands to one of these cameras didn't allow me to understand that they are very high quality machines. To clarify, I was never implying that they were crap, just looked like it, as in paint chips and stuff. I am used to buying things "new" and always thought of used as being almost dirt cheap. The one comment about how the used ones are less than 30% of the original cost also helped put things in perspective. This hobby sure can be expensive! But, I guess the reward is the superior resolution from the larger format.

 

Thanks again,

Jordan

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Brownie/MF format is over 100 years old. The vast majority of 120 and 620 cameras ever made were low cost. Bunny Yeager shot with a Kodak TLR before she got a Rolleiflex TLR. MF cameras were given away free to us kids in the 1950's; as box cameras; some with a "bulb" position too. MF cameras are actually usually inexpenxive cameras; zillions of 120 and 620 folders were made. The sad thing is that your <I> "35mm, smaller, more technologically advaced"</i> stuff of today wont make as nice a 16x20 print as a 1947 Kodak 2 1/4x 3 1/4 folder. The larger real estate makes better tonal qualities.

[OCULUS New York]

Project one 120 chrome and call me in the morning.

 

Ray Hull

[._._z]

Project one 120 chrome and you're probably the only one in a thousand mile radius to

do it that week.

[wim_van_velzen]

And so your point is? Please stop telling everyone that film is dead and digital is the only way forward.<br />

Mind you, you might be right, but this doesn't mean that film photography has no merit anymore at this moment, or does it?

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[._._z]

Quote me saying this, Wim.

 

I dare you.

[wim_van_velzen]

Well, at least you get very sarcastic as soon as someone confesses faith in the future of film. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[._._z]

I'm dubious towards people who are obtuse about the real

changes to the market and the dramatic slide in film sales and where the market is

clearly headed, and sarcastic towards those who are deliberately blinkered.

[rich_ullsmith1]

Um . . .if you look around, jordan, you can probably get into MF at the same

price I did: free. Neighbor had a 30 year old crappy looking rollei that he was

going to throw in the garbage. I'm sure there's more than one of them out

there. In fact, the crappier looking, the better! In reference to the above

skirmish: somebody count exactly how many silver halide crystals there are

on a 6X6 frame of delta 100, and then we can settle the digital/analogue thing

once and for all.

[fernando_mcsoto]

My first medium format camera (my grand father's old TLR) was free too. Since then, in the last two years, I have heavily invested on MF because I find it cheap for the amazing quality it provides and more than anything simply because I like it, point. It really pits me off people who want to oblige me to move to their medium when I am not forcing any zzzz to move to mine.