Here's a great article I found over at largeformatphotography.info. If you haven't been to that site, check it out. This goes into how you should go about getting into large format photography. What format should you be looking at? 4x5? 8x10? Also has good information on selecting either a field or studio camera, wood or metal, etc. And it give some tips on some of the better cameras if you're on a budget. I hope this is useful.

Think first about your intended application. 35mm cameras are universal, MF cameras and LF cameras are really more specialized. What kind of work are you going to do, and in which conditions ?
Which format to use ?
* 8x10 and larger These formats gives you beautiful contact prints. Contact printing is required for some alternative process (like Platinium). The marginal quality over 4x5 or 5x7 obtained in enlargements is probably noticeable only for the extreme enlargements. The drawback is the size and weight of the equipment, as well as its cost. Older 8x10 cameras can be have for (relatively) cheap, and a Philips camera is not much heavier than some 4x5 cameras. However larger formats (sometimes called Ultra LF) require a considerable amount of work.

* 5x7 The equipment is not really heavier than for 4x5: the lenses are most of the time the same, there are 6lbs cameras. It is mostly the holders which are bigger: they produce an image which is almost two times as large, but is more rectangular, in a format homothetic to 35mm and 6x9. It is large enough to produce decent contacts. but still small enough that it is relatively easy to enlarge. The only significant drawback comes from the scarcity of the film (as of summer 96, the only slide film available in the USA are Kodak EPP and EPR. Euro or Japaneese photographers have Fuji emulsions). One thing that I am really missing is the possibility to use Polaroid film, and quickloads. Processing and printing is more difficult to obtain with labs, and if you want a new color enlarger, you might have to buy a 8x10 enlarger. However, all these problems do not affect b&w photographers.
* 4x5 This is in practice the smaller format where you can use sheet film (2x3 sheet film exists but is marginal). It is by far the most popular format, with lots of cameras, lenses (from 45mm to as long as the bellows will accomodate), film, different type of holders (including roll-film, polaroid, preloaded). For most people that's the format of choice.
* roll-film Shooting roll-film with a view camera is an interesting combination. There are cameras and backs which let you shoot 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17. Compared to 4x5, you don't have to deal with sheet film, the cost is very low (lower than for 35mm actually, if the surface is considered), and there is a very wide choice of film. If you chose a 2x3 view camera, it can be actually cheaper than a lot of MF systems, and might not be heavier, especially if you buy lenses with small coverage. However, compared to convenentional MF systems, you gain "only" camera movements (their effect is not always very easy to judge on the small image area) and you loose a lot of ease of use (this might be a plus for folks willing to "slow down"). Another option that I find more interesting is to use a roll-film back with a 4x5 camera. There are 4x5 lightweight cameras wich are not much more heavy than 2x3 cameras. Then you can have the option of doing 4x5 if the opportunity looks very good. Speaking from my own experience and that of other folks, when you come home the 2x3 images will look a bit small if you have shot 4x5, and you will probably think that given the burden of carrying and operating a view camera, you'd rather have the big image. If you use a panoramic format like 6x12, this comparison might not apply.
What features to look for in a camera ?
Here are a few things to consider. There are more discussions about the various trade-offs (wood vs metal, monorail vs flatbed, etc...) elsewhere on the LF page. Remember that YOU have to find out what your priorities are first, and that not every camera, no matter how highly praised, is for everyone.

o Long focals. A camera with bellows which are too short will not allow you to use long lenses, or to do close-ups. The cure for this problem are very limited. You can use on some cameras a combinations of front tilts, or get an extension board (opposite of a recessed board), but this will give you only a few additional centimeters. Here, again monorails are more flexible, since you can usually purchase a longer rail and extension bellows.
* Enough movements for your type of photography. The monorails have all the movements, whereas some type of flat bed cameras have almost none. Studio photography usually requires a great deal of image control, architecture requires shifts to maintain correct perspective. Landscape require the less movements, although to obtain adequate depth of field due to the fact that longer focals are needed for a given field of view, some tilts are often necessary.
* Rigidity and precision of alignment This is all about sharpness. To shoot in windy conditions you need a camera which is rigid enough so that the standards won't move (resulting in unsharp pictures). The locks have to be strong enough so that the standards don't move when you insert the holder. Misalignements between standards or within the back standard to the film plane might cause misfocus in some areas of the image (although this is critical for reproduction work, I doubt that for real shooting it matters). Generally speaking, the metal cameras are more rigid and precisely aligned than the wooden cameras. The lighweight cameras are more likely to have problems here.
* Ease of operation. Geared controls, positive and well placed locks, spirit levels, various scales, zero detents, smooth operation, rear focussing (very important for macro work), etc.., all help. If complicated adjustments are used, a yaw-free design might help. This feature is not relevant otherwise.

* Portable enough. Whereas all the folding cameras are portable and have a reasonnable weight (3lbs - 7 lbs), some monorails are too heavy and bulky to be used in the field. There is a tradeoff here between portability and and versatility (possibility to use many focals and movements), and also rigidity. Usually, for the same features, a wooden camera will be lighter, but often less compact than an equivalent metal field camera.
* Allow you to use your focals of choice All the cameras do what they are designed for with a normal lens. However, with shorter and longer lenses difficulties might arise:
o Short focals. Some flatbed cameras have very limited wide-angle abilities, due to:
+ large minimum extension,
+ fixed bellows (the bellows compression will make movements impossible unless you have a wide-angle bellows which is shorter and more flexible)
+ beds showing in the field of view
A recessed lensboard can make up for some problems by allowing a larger lens to film distance than the focal length of your lens. However, they are expensive ($150) and the controls of the lens become hard to reach. A monorail is usually more flexible, since all of them have a small minimum extension, wide-angle bellows. Depending on the nature of the tripod mount attachment, the rail showing in the field of view might or might not be a problem, but there are sometimes optional short rails.
Which is best, wood, or metal ?
The main advantage of wood (besides being cheaper to work) is that it is lighter. A consequence is that for the same weight you can make a bigger camera, which in turn will provide you more movements and more extension. A typical example are the Wisner and Canhams which are quite bulky (for 4x5 cameras) but offer more movements and bellows than any other field cameras. A metal camera using the same design would weight more than 11 lbs. Wood is also much better at dampening high-frequency vibration than any metal or metal alloy.

* Cheapest. A Speed or Crown Graphic press camera (at the expense of movements, not a good choice if you are interested in perspective control or depth of field control. A basic monorail like Calumet CC-400, Omega, Graphic View II (at the expense of portability, at about 8 lbs., they are a little heavy and bulky for hiking), Bender (if you like woodworking). A Burke and James (good movements, more portable than a monorail, might be a bit ratty). $250.
* Cheap. A new Calumet Cadet (a monorail camera). $400. Toyo 45cx. $450. A used lightweight wood-field (such as the Tachihara). $400-$500. A Technika III (metal, flatbed, adequate movements). $600.
* Still reasonable. A new lightweight wood-field (around $700), a used Wista, a used Zone VI. The new Arca-Swiss discovery (maybe too recent to find used) and the Sinar A1 (monorail cameras).

Which cameras to consider to get started on a budget?
It is best to buy used equipment. Shutterbug (dealers advertisements, classified, swap announces) and the net are good sources. Some recommended used stores with knowledgeable and honest people are Midwest Photo Exchange and Lens and Repro. There is not much which can go wrong on a large format camera which has not been seriously abused, since there are no delicate small high precision parts or electronics. Older cameras are well usable, but usually lack the convenience of more modern designs. Some of them are so beat-up that they lost their original rigidity. Another thing to watch for is pinholes in the bellows. A new bellows can always be installed, but the price might be a significant fraction of that of the cheaper cameras. Here are some suggestions (refer to the reviews for more details):
Metal has technically many advantages. It is more rigid, which result in less flexing and low frequency vibrations. This is good for long extensions. It is more solid, resulting in a more durable camera. If your tripod is knocked over by the wind, a metal camera is quite likely to remain functional with a few scratches, whereas a wooden camera could be totally destroyed. My reversible wooden back broke at the edge, which would have been unlikely to happy with metal. The stability with respect to environmental conditions like humidity and temperature is also better (one day my Canham would focus quite smoothly, one day it would be quite sticky). Last, it is easier to implement small features on metal. Therefore metal cameras tend generally to be more compact, and to offer greater accessory systems like reflex hoods, etc...