MF or 35mm for horse action photos???

Hello,

I am embarking on a career in photographing horse shows and ranches

for magazine/advertising work. I am trying to decide what equipment

I will need to invest in and can't decide if I should stick with 35mm

for action shots or if a medium format could handle these action

shots as well. I want the highest quality image, so obviously medium

format would be preferred, but i'm not sure if it could capture some

of the same shots. I would most likely be using a 200 - 300mm lens

and taking a variety of action shots mixed with posed type shots.

Any recommendations out there? Thanks!

 

Amy

I have not been very successful using my Bronica SQ-Ai on any sort of action shots. With a 250mm lens the camera is heavy. I've used a pistol grip but that made it very inconvenient to advance the film. I now have the speed grip with winding lever built in but it is still not a very fast camera to operate. I think any sort of fast moving action is the one (maybe only) place where a autofocus 35mm camera really belongs. You can fire a short burst of 3-4 frames to be sure you get the action at the right moment. You also have 36 frames to burn through before switching cameras or reloading. Compare that to 12 with a medium format system. With a quality lens and film a 35mm negative can give you an outstanding photo (if your technique is up to the challenge).

Hi Amy; Although I'm a big fan of medium format, and about half of what I do is on 120 film, I think this is definitly a job for 35mm. Considering your need for longer lenses it makes even more sense. I use a 645 for quite a bit of shooting, especially in studio, and with just a 150mm lens it is a bit unweidly and faily heavy. For outdoor shots of sports and other moving subjects a 35 is much more comfortable in use, especially with a long lens. Considering that you will probably be shooting quite a bit out of doors, with good light, you can use a slower film for finer grain. 35mm can't compete with MF for picture quality in very large enlargments, but with the finer grained films you can do very well, none the less. All this being said, I don't mean to say you cannot do what you want with a MF camera. I've shot high school football with a Mamiya 645 and even a TLR and a bigger neg is nice if you can manage it. I do think this is an area more suited to 35mm, though.

 

Best of luck on your career choice!

 

Dean

Hi Amy! I shoot snowmobile racing for my own entertainment and for my friends. I use 35mm. I also own and use a Mamiya 645 for landscape work. Obviously there are real pros out there that can comment "real world" situations, but here is my 2 cents.

 

How much $$$ are you willing to spend on MF equip? Realize that the price(s) are falling, but still is substantial compared to 35.

I would also consider availability of film processing. I wouldn't expect that you would take your high quality images to the corner drug store, but quality processing for 35 is probably somewhat easier to find locally than 120. After some experience, I'm sure that you could handle a MF camera as easily as a 35, but I think a high quality lens system on any 35 body, with really decent film and a PRIME lens (NO ZOOMS) would make more sense to me if you are just starting out. You can always upgrade later......Focus can be an issue. I'm sure there are lots of us out here that cut our teeth on MFocus cameras and challenge any modern AFocus, but for convenience I feel the AF is important. Are you willing to shell out the $$$ for an autofocus MF? Anyway, good luck on your endeavor! It sounds like fun....Mark PS...Post a question about film selection, that will be helpful to you too.

Haven't done this in years, but suggest a double approach. Shoot the action stuff that needs long lenses and fast apertures in 35mm. It's the only way that makes sense. Shoot everything else, awards, groups, area shots, etc., with MF. Or, just shoot it all with a high end DSLR for rapid turn-a-round.

Medium format is quite a different beast from 35mm. Bigger, heavier, slower to work with and fewer lens options than 35mm. That said, a medium format image will blow away a 35mm piece of film. I once read sombody on these forums write "Nikon and Canon are fighting over the same small piece of film" shoot once in 120 and you will understand.

 

I think the biggest issue you may find is hand holding. If your 35mm style is to handhold your shots, the bulk and size of 645 may not work for you. So for sure go hold one someplace.

 

Some things to consider, size of equip, lens power, af

 

Size- 35mm is easily handholdable, medium format is not. I have a Mamiya 645E, great camera, but I always use a tripod and mirror lock up. Maybe a Pentax 645 NII or a Mamiya 645AF are better, but a good tripod is a must, especially with telephoto lenses.

 

Lens power- Remember that a 300mm lens on a 645 is like a 180mm in 35mm terms. You do neither many zoom options nor any third party lenses to choose from.

 

Auto focus- For action, AF if probably a good choice, that puts you with two good options (Mamiya and Pentax).

 

I would say go look at a Pentax 645 NII and a Mamiya 645AF or AFD. both are very good systems. Both have excellent lenses. Neither will disappoint. Mamiya has interchangable backs (including a digital). Pentax lenses can be used on Pentax 35mm bodies, so if you got a *ist-D you still have a digital option. The Pentax is less expensive, but both are great cameras.

 

BTW- Mamiya will send you a good free DVD about the 645AFD where you can see it in use. Check their website at www.mamiya.com and it will be in within a week.

I completely disagree with the other answers. I started recently as assistant doing this kind of photograph (horses jumping over obstacles). You don't need at all a long-lens, a wide angle or a normal (better a zoom) is preferred because the perpective you can obtain moving near the obstacles. In fact if you take the picture from a distance with a long lens you obtain a flat image; with a normal or wide angle the horse seems to "jump out from the picture"!! We use a Canon EOS 60D or 10D with a 24-70 zoom lens. You need to stay placed at an angle of 45° from the obstacles, 4-5 m away so that you can see the horses. In fact if you are at one side the horses is behind the obstacles, if you are in front you can't see the shape of the horse. You don't need autofocus because you have to pre-focus on the obstacles and shot at the exact moment when the horse start detaching from the ground. This is the only moment when the horse have an elegant shape. You don't need multi-frame capability because the action is so rapid that you should not obtain the exact moment in no-one frame. You need a little practice to learn when the moment is right to shot, but one frame only. If you intend to shot horses jumping over obstacles you must choose a place that allow you to move near 3 (4 is better) obstacles so that you can take 3 or 4 picture for each horse. Definively you don't need a 35mm camera or digital camera at least if you don't want sell the picture (as we do) immediatly after the race printed with an ink-jet printer, and I think you are not interested in doing this if you want the maximum quality. Therefore, surely you can take this kind of picture with a MF camera and if you want the maximum quality this is the way to go. I have taken some excellent picture with an Hasselblad and 80mm. The only thing you need is the permission to go in the field near the obstacles. I think that if is possible (and it is) to take this kind of picture with a MF camera without autofocus and without winder, is possible to take all the other kind of horses picture with a MF. I hope I explained sufficiently well with my bad english.

Hi, Amy.

 

I'm not a professional, but I've shot a fair few horses while they've been going over fences as several friends are into the equestrian thing. I've met a few pros at horse shows, and none of them ever shot medium at a show.

 

I started shooting with 35mm, tried with my Mamiya twin lens and the biggest note I got out of it was that 1/500'th wasn't fast enough to properly freeze the horse over the fence. I'm sure it would be fine for slower-moving equestrian activities such as dressage, but wouldn't be good enough for, say, barrel-racing or chuckwagons.

 

Something to keep in mind about these cameras also is the noise level. It wouldn't be an issue if you're always going to be a fair distance away, but if you're close, the whir-chunk of a 645 mirror (and shutter and motor drive!) may be enough to spook a nervous thoroughbred... They spook often enough at things we can't see, as you likely know. You'll catch seven kinds of hell from a rider who believes that your presence and activity cost her/him that vital 10th of a second. Most 35mm cameras would be more discreet, noise-wise.

 

So, I'd say for the action shots: Stick with 35mm or even digital as suggested. If you need to do slower-action stuff, well, there's always slow film which should allow you to do fine 11x14's or perhaps larger. If you decide you need more quality for your slow-speed stuff, why not consider 6x7 or 6x8 rangefinder to complement your 35mm gear? Such a camera would have it's strengths where 35mm is weakest.

 

Please take this all with a grain of salt, as I say, these are only my own observations from shooting to amuse myself and my friends. I'm no pro. Definately try to beg/borrow/rent a 645 SLR to try it out for a show or two, and compare it to your current benchmark.

 

-Scot

I used to own a Mamiya 645 for a purpose similar to yours.

 

The main reason I chose it was because of fast optics. The 200mm 2.8 is an absolutely stunning lens.

 

If I was going to do it again I would look real hard the the 645 Pro TL. With the powergrip and dedicated flash it handles as well as any 35mm.

 

The faster Mamiya optics will allow you to shorten the depth of field with those long lenses.

My guess is the money lenses for that situation are the Nikon AFS 300 2.8 lens or the Canon 300 2.8 IS lens.

It seems to me that the decision needs to depend on how large you want to print and how close you can get.

 

If you you don't want to print big, stay with 35mm.

 

If you can get close and you want to print big, go MF.

 

If you can't get close and and want to print big, take a good hard look at the P645N (or NII). If you can handle a lens long enough to put a bigger image on the film than you could with 35mm, you will be able to enlarge more.

 

I would certainly consider Diego's and Scott's responses carefully since they've done exactly what you intend to do. My action experience has been with auto racing and hockey (35mm) and some children's sports (P645NII).

 

At a distance, pre-focus works better than auto: you simply learn to shoot as the subject moves into focus. By using a slower shutter speed (125?) you may lose a tiny bit of sharpness, but the relatively greater blur of the background will impart a sense of motion. I recall shooting race cars at 1/1000 of a second: they looked like they were parked on the track.

 

If the subject is close and moving fast, the servo autofocus on the 645N works wonders. I simply couldn't fill the frame with a 12 year old on roller blades by pre-focusing and timing the shots, but servo auto-focus saved the day.

Thank you everyone for your helpful responses. I think I am leaning towards a high end 35mm system after reading all your responses. I am not shooting horses over fences, but rather faster paced Cutting, Working Cowhorse, and Reining. I believe that the faster shutter speeds and quietness of a 35mm will suit my needs best. I do have a Mamiya 6x7 rangefinder that I can use for my posed shots, so that is a good idea to interchange the two systems based on the type of shot. I think I will also rent the Mamiya 645 for a weekend just to see how it handles, as it sounds like it would be the one medium format that could work well for my needs. Thanks again everyone!

 

Cheers,

Amy

FYI, probably the most famous shot in the history of Horse Racing, Secretariat coming down the home stretch, 31 lengths in front in the 1973 Belmont Stakes, was shot with a Pentax 6x7. I don't know what lens was used, but it appears to be a moderate wide angle, perhaps the 75mm.

 

http://store5.yimg.com/I/secretariatcom_1788_4842375

Amy, since you have narrowed it down to working horses, I'd favor 35mm strongly over MF. I had in mind, from your original post that you would be shooting horse shows. I have shot a few cowboy style events, (the town I live in hosts Idaho's oldest rodeo each year), and working horse events are very fast paced, especially if you get into roping and barrel racing. Cutting horses are very quick too, plus you may find yourself in a situation where you need to run! You don't need 14 pounds of MF gear weighing you down when you have a 400 pound steer headed your way!

 

Again, best of luck,

 

Dean

Hi Amy,

It is my general feeling that MF is slower than 35mm, in that it takes me a longer time to get a shot. Obviously this is undesirable in the sort of situation that you describe. However, you may be quicker with your MF gear than I am. I use an old manual TLR; perhaps you have one that winds automatically, meters, autofocuses, and sets exposure with aperture priority. These are the time-saving devices that my 35mm has that I miss in MF. On the other hand, I find that I can shoot from my TLR (MF) without looking more efficiently than I can with my SLR (35mm). This seems to be more a function of the layout of the camera than of the type of film that it takes, but having a waistlevel viewfinder is sometimes desirable if I simply want to watch the action and casually take pictures while doing so. This is probably not what you are going for if you are embarking on a career, but thats just a consideration I often find myself making..