My eyes are still o.k., but they were way better years ago. I would often opt for medium or large format cameras because I could see the difference over 35mm. One of my favorites was a relatively inexpensive Mamiyaflex 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. Shot a Roliflex some when I was in the newspaper business, but couldn't tell much difference. Best image back then was probably 4x5 Speed Graphic. Talking mostly black and white. I had my own darkroom at home for years.
Only thing left now besides modern digital cameras is a Minolta 35 with several lenses. Haven't used it in a number of years.

There’s a guy by the name of Ansel Adams that did some great landscapes with a medium format camera.

Ansel Adams is a god among photographers ... he would camp out all night at places to get the first light of day for some photos ...

This is expensive ( 2.500.000€ in Holland)

https://www.bugatti.com/chiron/

but it is beautiful

Impuls

His originals are hard to find and sell for big $$$.

If I could still make $$$ in photography...this would be my next camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1394217-REG/sony_ilce_7m3_alpha_a7_iii_mirrorless.html

I have spent $10,000 plus lots of times for lenses. The standard for fashion is medium format. Quality is a function of the chip for digital and size of film-need a good lens-for film.

For magazine covers, a medium format 2 1/4"x 3 1/4" is the exact proportion of the printed image area. That is important for critical field shooting of cover art; especially if there is lots of copy. A 4"x5" is ideal. You use a negative of the masthead as a back plate mask and compose around that. Problem is, the image is upside down and backwards and you don't see the image as the shutter goes off. A full blown 35mm" neg results in an 8 12"x 12" image...not "what the Dr. ordered for print, generally, and must be cropped for even less precision.

With Cannons, there is nothing wrong with little Rebels, except the size of the chip. Depth of field is critical to many types of photography, and you need a full size chip to get the desired results.

With lenses, the smaller the f stop, the narrower the depth of field. Likewise, the larger the f stop (say, f 64), the better the depth of field (the distance in focus). Cheap digital lenses don't stop down nearly enough. None are wide enough for world class portraiture.

Parallax, or the converging (not parallel) edges on architecture and rectangular products is a massive "no-no".
If the taking section (film or chip) is not parallel with the lines of the subject, you get unwanted distortion. We don't notice it on TV or "grab shots"), because you can't correct that on a video camera.

For amplifiers, refrigerators, etc. you have to straighten out the images; usually with tilts and swings on a view camera (the old looking things with bellows). I bought a new one a few months ago. Camera (a Toyo) was only $3900.00, but the two lenses were almost $17,000.00.

Mot expensive lens I ever bought was for one shot for a print piece for Hill AFB, about environmental clean-up. The shot was from a very high supersonic fighter. Camera and lens cost over $50,000.00 and has never been used again.

Necessary tools of the trade. My day rate is $2600.00-$3200 with an assistant. I rarely contract to just do photography. Most of my work is for my own projects (I write, design, key-line, etc.). That means I get a higher rate for the photography.

Projects are usually politically or commercially significant, but boring (think staircase kits).

Just like studio (music) work, the fun stuff is not what pays.

Anyone want photos of metal parts melting? How about Truck music? I do it all the time, Dammit!


R.

Last I looked, I had spent $15,000 or more on Canon equipment which I paid off with photo jobs after I retired. Took me close to 10 years to pay it off through jobs.

What a blast it would be to have a day with a medium format camera.

Yeah, it is beautiful but where would you drive it. Here in Atlanta it would be gone 30 seconds after you parked it. And even at the very best club or restaurant would you entrust it to the car jockeys that park your car? And what if the drop-dead gorgeous blind date you just picked up asks you to drive-thru a MacDonald's and 'is it okay to eat her Big Mac, supersized Coke, and greasy fries in the car'. Yep, owning that Bugatti does have some downsides, but I could suffer through them .

chas

Man, I could send you an extra Pentax medium (2 1/2x3 1/2) to use for a week. You'd have to get film, because I need the digital back for the other unit.

I have a Russian copy of a Hassy...the whole system, actually...but never used it. It's 2 1/2" square.

Speaking of costs, I have lot's of guitars worth $10,000, $20,000.00; even some worth $100,000.00 or more. Arrangers are generally way less than collectible guitars.

The good news is, unlike keyboards, guitars gain in value if you know what to buy.

Russ

I might have to visit you to figure out how to use a medium format camera...never shot one. Tx for the offer.

All in all, arrangers are pretty reasonable $$$ wise for what you get and can be paid for through gigging.

Speaking of guitars, back in 1977, a buddy of mine bought an original, near mint, 1959 Les Paul standard. Playing it on stage made him nervous so he sold it.

Craziest thing I knew about was this bluegrass mandolin player. He traded a guy a house he had in New York valued at $225,000 for an original Lloyd Loar 1923 F style mandolin.

I read that Bill Monroe’s Loar mandolin(rebuilt) sold for over $1,000,000.