Me: : > The rule always was, a kit cost the same amount whether it be 35mm, MF or LF. A good body, a short, 'standard' and long lens, darkbag and appropriate film holders. David: : Huh? Never even vaguely true anytime during my phtographic life (since : 1969 let's say). MF was tremendously more expensive than 35mm, which is : why I've never really gotten into it (had a Yashicamat 124G, had a : Fujica GS645, had a Norita Graflex that was given to me). I cannot recall the name of the author who qrote this, nor the name of the book they wrote this in, but hating to simply parrot what others have written I looked into it at the time I read it, and to my surprse, it was true. Not just vaguely true, but to a very surprised me, quite accurate. The author was trying to explain away the reasons for avoiding medium and large format - something which I and many other 35mm shooters had done because we had all heard that an 'outfit' was much more expensive than 35mm. Sounds like you stayed clear for these reasons.. after reading his article, comparing prices and counting my money I jumped into both MF and LF, and both have cost me a lot less than my various 35mm outfits (which include 5 not-cheap Canon F1's of various flavours) I looked again, dragging out my price lists from 1983,84 and 1994,95 and this was what I found an 'outfit' as the author described it for 35mm generally called for a wide, a standard, a medium long and a long lens and maybe a zoom while a MF outfit called for fewer lenses - a short, standard and medium long, and a LF outfit generally meant either a wide and a standard or a long and a standard as few shooters (so the article went) shot both sides of 'normal' I dissagree with that.. Anyway, this is what I found 1983: Canon F1N list price $1400 Leica R4 list price $1900 Rollei SL2000F list price $2100 Bronica SQ-A list price $1500 so far they look kind of the same.. 1995 price lists Canon F1N $4600 28:2 $1440 50:1.4 $400 135:2 $1400 200:2.8 $1500 80-200:4 $1500 total: $10,840 (I *really* wanted to add my Tamron 200-500:5.6 $3150 to this list ! ;) EOS 1N $3800 EF 28:2.8 $500 EF 50:1.8 $300 EF 300:3.8L $10,400 EF 100-300:5.6 $900 total: $15,900 Nikon F4s $3500 include comparable lenses to the F1N above total: $12,288 OM4Ti $2500 (no lenss prices available, ie, POA) rangefinder: Konica Hexar $1100 MF: Not a lot of prices listed :( (POA's) so I'll go with the only one I have a lsit price for, the Rollei's - not a cheapie camera in their day and certainly up there with the hasseblads. Local pros used this lens kit Rolleiflex SL66E $5600 50mm $3300 80mm $1890 150mm $3596 total $16,886 LF: Cambo SCN $1500 Linhof Technorama 6x12 PC-11 $3295 Linhof Kardan GT45 $3100 Add the following lenses as suitable: Grandagon 90:6.8 $$1640 Sironar 150:5.6 $896 Apo-Ronar 240:9 $1500 to me it still today looks as it did back then when I first read this and looked into it - sure, I'm comparing apples with oranges, but if you take the idea that a good 'outfit' can be comparably priced and consider how many lenses 35mm shooters use compared to MF shooters, or LF shooters (both who generally do NOT aspire to own the whole lens range!) it kinda does come out even if not cheaper for a LF 'kit' than for a 35mm 'kit' It's also worth bearing in mind that MF and LF camera lenses are pretty limitted. There's not so much the 'L series' syndrome 35mm shooters are faced with. I note on this price list Canon has (1995) over 54 lenses listed, with no less than 20 L series lenses. As you can guess a $20,000 lens added to the list would be a bit iffy but then hey - Rollei's most expensive is less than $8000. Canon lists five lenses exceeding this price. Rodenstock's large format range has only one lens in the $8000 range, the next dearest is less than $6000 it's a stupid argument if one wanted to throw comparisons backward and forward - but looking realistically at a good kit, LF and MF kit prices are not so much more (if at all more) than a good 35mm outfit nowhere did I see MF as tremendously more expensive . karl
