doug_herta

Yarigin,

 

<p>

 

The money you spend on a camera kit is not only for the "box of

sticks" that comes to your door. Various improvements have been

incorporated into the camera over the years, and the design has been

refined in response to user feedback. There are many who build a

large format camera completely from scratch. Many who want to build

their own camera start out by building a Bender and move on to design

their own.

 

<p>

 

The extra time it would take to design, scrounge up materials, and

assemble a camera of your design would be an order of magnitude higher

than the time to clamp and glue the Bender kit. If you feel it is a

productive and enjoyable use of your time, go for it! It is always

fascinating to see what people come up with. Otherwise, the Bender

appears to be a good comprimise in terms of price, effort, and time.

I built and have been using the Bender for almost two years. I have

taken it backpacking in Alaska, through the national parks of

southwest United States, on day hikes in Washington state, and on my

bicycle through the city (Seattle). I have used it for macro work (it

has a good bellows draw), landscape work, and for formal portraiture

at a friend's wedding. I use a 210mm for most work, rent a 90mm and

use the bag bellows for wide-angle work, and am converting a 480mm

process lens to do "telephoto urban landscape stuff" this winter.

 

<p>

 

I have designed and am presently building a set of brackets to recess

the front standard so I can go "ultra-wide". The bracket will cost me

about $8.00 in wood and hardware so if it doesn't work I won't be

upset. There is plenty of good advise about building it on this web

site, take a look.

 

<p>

 

While you can probably scrounge together a camera for the same amount

of money, the pride of ownership in a home-built camera is rewarding.

You will be able to modify it to YOUR specifications. If the only

reason you want the Bender is because of the low price tag, DON'T DO

IT. You will not build a good camera.

 

<p>

 

I do not have any connection to Jay Bender, but I like the camera and

would rather spend my money on good optics and film.

Like the posters above, I use slide film. Quickload Astia and Velvia in a Polaroid 545i back. Quickload is an expensive habit, but for backpacking and remote locations, it is lighter than individual holders and dust is not a problem. There are limited emulsions available, but it can work out well because one is forced to get to know the characteristics if a couple films and learn how to us them.

 

<p>

 

The end purpose of the images is 16 X 20 Ilfochome and Fuji Super Glossy R prints. There is the school of thought that one should shoot print film to get prints. It does not work for me because I want to be able to evaluate exposure and composition with a loupe and a light table.

Marv has given excellent advice. I use the Cokin P system with higher quality square filters from other filter manufacturers (Tiffen, Sing-Ray) that are designed for the P system. It is an inexpensive way to hold filters in place, and you are not restricted to Cokin filters. The pricing of some filter and lens shade systems appear to be out of line with reality if all you want to do is hold a filter in front of your lenses (IMHO).

I use the analog spot meter. I prefer it to the digital meter. Why? Have you ever noticed that aircraft, nuclear power plants, and other mechanical devices that require careful operator monitoring use analog displays rather than digital? It is partially because it is easier to scan and mentally process something visual than look at a digital number and process the meaning in your head. For example, it might make a BIG difference if a temperature gauge in a nuclear power plant read 1800 degrees rather than 1200 degrees. A readout that says "1800" rather than "1200" may not catch someones attention as much as a gauge that has a green zone and a red zone.

 

<p>

 

What does this have to do with spot meters?

 

<p>

 

When I read a scene for the highlight and shadow areas, I think about the latitude of the film I am using and watch the needle swing as I look at different areas. I get a more "visual" impression of how many stops of light I see and can place the exposure with ease by eyeballing the central reading on the meter after watching where the needle swings. This technique more closely corresponds to how I think about stops of light than a numeric display.

 

<p>

 

Digital may be more shock proof, less prone to wander, etc. etc. It does not correspond to how I think about light.

 

<p>

 

My 0.02 cents

I have been working with Quickloads (Astia and Velvia) and have been experimenting with very small aperatures. I adjust shutter speed with aperature to get the same exposure so I can examine the transparency for diffraction. When I get my film back I am often not able to tell which of three exposures are from which F-stop. I notice an alphanumeric code on the Quickload envelope that changes sequentially as well as a code on the top part of the transparency. Is there some type of correspondence between these two sets of codes? Can I enter the envelope code in my notes and relate it to the code on the returned transparency? (Is this making any sense?)

 

<p>

 

Any input would be great!