Most Overkill Camera Setups?

[DavePlays]

I have gear acquisition syndrome... so I'm constantly broke. But it's fun to look at the gear sitting on the shelf going unused. What is your most over the top camera rig?

 

Here's my submission:

 

It's a Pansonic AF-100. Max resolution is 1080i60, but it does shoot native 1080p30 and 1080p24 so it's perfect for filmmaking. Does have 2 xlr inputs. I've adapted a Canon B4 lens onto it  Totally overkill for this camera, but it makes it look like a beast. Gonna fashion a shoulder rig for it at some point

[Bombastinator]

I’m not sure this counts, as it’s film, but I had a poloroid press for a while.  Poloroid film with limited movement view camera options.

[Blue4130]

My 10x12 inch camera. Way impractical to shoot with, but damn is it fun to have such a big negative. 

[Bombastinator]

18 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

My 10x12 inch camera. Way impractical to shoot with, but damn is it fun to have such a big negative. 

Is there any movement other than focus on that thing?

[Blue4130]

6 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Is there any movement other than focus on that thing?

I've added tilt and swing to the back, but this it strickly a portrait camera, so I rarely use the movements. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Blue4130 said:

I've added tilt and swing to the back, but this it strickly a portrait camera, so I rarely use the movements. 

Yeah.  No real point unless you need to do something like straighten a building.  Which you aren’t doing.

[Blue4130]

. 

[Blue4130]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Yeah.  No real point unless you need to do something like straighten a building.  Which you aren’t doing.

Yea, for that I use a Chamonix 4x5. 

[YellowJersey]

I once saw a dude casually walking around downtown with a PhaseOne medium format digital body slung over his shoulder.

[atxcyclist]

43 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

I once saw a dude casually walking around downtown with a PhaseOne medium format digital body slung over his shoulder.

I would do this if I had $50k sitting around for camera gear. I love dragging my Bronica ETRSi setup around, because with the speed-grip on it looks serious, especially compared to everyone getting their smartphone out of their pockets to take a picture; Lots of staring and sometimes questions.

 

Maybe some day medium-format digital will be accessible for hobbyists...

[YellowJersey]

15 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

I would do this if I had $50k sitting around for camera gear. I love dragging my Bronica ETRSi setup around, because with the speed-grip on it looks serious, especially compared to everyone getting their smartphone out of their pockets to take a picture; Lots of staring and sometimes questions.

 

Maybe some day medium-format digital will be accessible for hobbyists...

The Pentax 645Z can be had for less than $5000 USD. Same with some of the Fuji medium-format cameras. While still pricey, it's not totally unobtainable. Hell, it's less expensive than the launch price of a D5 or 1DxMkII.

 

[Bombastinator]

16 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

I would do this if I had $50k sitting around for camera gear. I love dragging my Bronica ETRSi setup around, because with the speed-grip on it looks serious, especially compared to everyone getting their smartphone out of their pockets to take a picture; Lots of staring and sometimes questions.

 

Maybe some day medium-format digital will be accessible for hobbyists...

I got driven out of photography by digital.  It was just to damn slow. With film it was just the shutter. Clickbang. With digital it was like firing a musket click, swish, fwoop, bang.  I need that “no just this bare 1/60th of a second”.  I needed to catch that fleeting smile, or that momentary look away or that bit between blinks.  I just couldn’t do it.

  I went looking for digital cameras and saw it had gotten better but it still wasn’t there yet.  Maybe it will someday and I can take real pictures again.  Right now I got my phone for documentary snaps.  It’s not photography though.

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I got driven out of photography by digital.  It was just to damn slow. With film it was just the shutter. Clickbang. With digital it was like firing a musket click, swish, fwoop, bang.  I need that “no just this bare 1/60th of a second”.  I needed to catch that fleeting smile, or that momentary look away or that bit between blinks.  I just couldn’t do it.

  I went looking for digital cameras and saw it had gotten better but it still wasn’t there yet.  Maybe it will someday and I can take real pictures again.  Right now I got my phone for documentary snaps.  It’s not photography though.

I love digital for a lot of reasons, but I cannot afford objectively "good" digital photography equipment. I have a second-hand Canon Rebel 10.1MP DSLR, which works fine but it is obviously limited in features and resolution compared to a modern DSLR or mirrorless. My used 120 format Bronica setup costs about what I have into the Rebel, but it's a significantly better camera. I do wish I had a metered prism for it, but my phone (heh) has an app that does decent spot-metering.

 

I have a Minolta SRT-100 that's kick-ass and takes wonderful photos. My father has a SRT-101 that he purchased for classes in college and has been using it for over 40 years; His was the first film SLR I ever used so whenever I pick one up it falls into place. I will always love film photography.

 

Of course, I'd love to digitize some of the 120 and 35mm frames I've taken, but don't have $20k sitting around for a drum scanner either. Just a hobby for me, I take photos but I'm not a photographer, so I make do with what I've got. My next move is getting my 4x5 up and running and taking some photos with it, but of course sheet film is a much more complicated beast.

[Blue4130]

23 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

I love digital for a lot of reasons, but I cannot afford objectively "good" digital photography equipment. I have a second-hand Canon Rebel 10.1MP DSLR, which works fine but it is obviously limited in features and resolution compared to a modern DSLR or mirrorless. My used 120 format Bronica setup costs about what I have into the Rebel, but it's a significantly better camera. I do wish I had a metered prism for it, but my phone (heh) has an app that does decent spot-metering.

 

I have a Minolta SRT-100 that's kick-ass and takes wonderful photos. My father has a SRT-101 that he purchased for classes in college and has been using it for over 40 years; His was the first film SLR I ever used so whenever I pick one up it falls into place. I will always love film photography.

 

Of course, I'd love to digitize some of the 120 and 35mm frames I've taken, but don't have $20k sitting around for a drum scanner either. Just a hobby for me, I take photos but I'm not a photographer, so I make do with what I've got. My next move is getting my 4x5 up and running and taking some photos with it, but of course sheet film is a much more complicated beast.

The developing gear needed for 4x5 is less than a hundred dollars. As for shooting and the actual developing, it's no more complicated than any other camera. Just slower. 

 

Film photography now a days is very romaticised. Basic dslrs will out shoot 35mm film cameras any day. Medium format is still slightly ahead in terms of resolution and dynamic range, but in low light there is no contest that digital is the way to go. 

 

(this is coming from a guy who started with film, graduated photojournalism on digital, did a stint as a digital photographer in both studio and newspaper, then sold all his digital gear and went wholesale into film - nostalgia got me) 

 

They each have their place. I can't imagine shooting sports on film. Vice-versa, I can't imagine shooting portraits on digital. 

[Blue4130]

. 

[Bombastinator]

45 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

I love digital for a lot of reasons, but I cannot afford objectively "good" digital photography equipment. I have a second-hand Canon Rebel 10.1MP DSLR, which works fine but it is obviously limited in features and resolution compared to a modern DSLR or mirrorless. My used 120 format Bronica setup costs about what I have into the Rebel, but it's a significantly better camera. I do wish I had a metered prism for it, but my phone (heh) has an app that does decent spot-metering.

 

I have a Minolta SRT-100 that's kick-ass and takes wonderful photos. My father has a SRT-101 that he purchased for classes in college and has been using it for over 40 years; His was the first film SLR I ever used so whenever I pick one up it falls into place. I will always love film photography.

 

Of course, I'd love to digitize some of the 120 and 35mm frames I've taken, but don't have $20k sitting around for a drum scanner either. Just a hobby for me, I take photos but I'm not a photographer, so I make do with what I've got. My next move is getting my 4x5 up and running and taking some photos with it, but of course sheet film is a much more complicated beast.

They still use drum scanners?  That’s some 1980’s tech.

 

i don’t need resolution, clarity, or even f-stop really.  All I want is clickbang.  Anything else I can work with.

 

is there such an animal these days?  I went looking about 5 years ago but I couldn’t find it.  The guy at the shop blamed it on autofocus.  I could care about autofocus.  I can focus a lens.  If it’s blurry it’s my fault. I can even work with fixed focus.  Just give me speed.  He couldn’t do it.

[Blue4130]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

They still use drum scanners?  That’s some 1980’s tech.

 

i don’t need resolution, clarity, or even f-stop really.  All I want is clickbang.  Anything else I can work with.

 

is there such an animal these days?  I went looking about 5 years ago but I couldn’t find it.  The guy at the shop blamed it on autofocus.  I could care about autofocus.  I can focus a lens.  If it’s blurry it’s my fault. I can even work with fixed focus.  Just give me speed.  He couldn’t do it.

Don't really know what you are going on about. Nikon D5 or whatever the latest is will outshoot any film camera. But it's digital so it is inherently worse (Tongue in cheek) 

[Bombastinator]

49 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Don't really know what you are going on about. Nikon D5 or whatever the latest is will outshoot any film camera. But it's digital so it is inherently worse (Tongue in cheek) 

Not quality.  I want to touch the button and have it grab an image immediately.  No delay.  That’s it. Digital should in theory be even better at that than film.  I don’t care about film.  I don’t want to develop stuff.  developing chemicals are dangerous and smelly and enlargers suck.  When I did film my favorite film was poloroid 35mm b&w slide.  It was instant and there Was do development crap.  I just could never find a digital camera that would take a picture fast enough to do good candid portraiture with.  You know how you avoid people having their eyes closed when you take a picture?  You take the picture when their eyes are open.  That’s what I want to be able to do.  I used to be able to do it.  Then it stopped being possible.

 

jow do I explain this?  I liked viewfinder cameras better than SLRs, and I liked them because there was no ponderous mirror to move out of the way.  It wasn’t the shake from the moving mirror, it was the time it took to move.  The best camera I ever use was a craptacular Japanese 1960’s medium format dual lens reflex.  The negative were juicy.  I didn’t care.  The thing was gigantic, I didn’t care the optics were near fun house mirror, i didn’t care.  What I cared about was there wasn’t anything to move away from the front of the shutter.  There was no process between hitting the button and a picture being taken.  Better clickbang.

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, Blue4130 said:

The developing gear needed for 4x5 is less than a hundred dollars. As for shooting and the actual developing, it's no more complicated than any other camera. Just slower. 

 

Film photography now a days is very romaticised. Basic dslrs will out shoot 35mm film cameras any day. Medium format is still slightly ahead in terms of resolution and dynamic range, but in low light there is no contest that digital is the way to go. 

 

(this is coming from a guy who started with film, graduated photojournalism on digital, did a stint as a digital photographer in both studio and newspaper, then sold all his digital gear and went wholesale into film - nostalgia got me) 

 

They each have their place. I can't imagine shooting sports on film. Vice-versa, I can't imagine shooting portraits on digital. 

Having to load sheet film in a darkroom or changing bag is a little tricky, but then again it's not really a general use kind of camera. I don't consider my Bronica 120 camera general use, but it's small enough I can put it into my motorcycle topcase and go somewhere with it.

 

My current DSLR won't, unfortunately. Not enough resolution with only 10 megapixels to work with, and having a maximum ISO equivalency of 1200 is a bummer as well. I do want a ~24 megapixel Canon body at some point, something APS-C so my lenses will all work. I'll probably just buy an SL2, SL3, or a 77D body.

[Blue4130]

2 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

Having to load sheet film in a darkroom or changing bag is a little tricky, but then again it's not really a general use kind of camera. I don't consider my Bronica 120 camera general use, but it's small enough I can put it into my motorcycle topcase and go somewhere with it.

 

My current DSLR won't, unfortunately. Not enough resolution with only 10 megapixels to work with, and having a maximum ISO equivalency of 1200 is a bummer as well. I do want a ~24 megapixel Canon body at some point, something APS-C so my lenses will all work. I'll probably just buy an SL2, SL3, or a 77D body.

I teach film photography as a weekend hustle. After 10 minutes, students are loading sheet film solo. It's easier than loading 120 on developing reels. 

 

I want digital solely for high iso. It destroys film for high iso.