Cheapest way to scan MF film / best portrait lens?

I am an enthusiastic amateur photojournalist, and I have been angsting to get

back into film photography via Medium Format. However, the price of MF film

scanners has been too prohibitive for me to make the jump. My ultimate goal is

to have a working MF portrait camera and scanning capabilities for under $1000.

 

My question is twofold:

 

1 - How capable are high-end flatbed scanners of making print-quality scans of

6x7 slides and negatives? I would ultimately like to be capable of printing up

to 11 x 14" from my medium-format negatives, and I do not wish to sacrifice too

much dynamic range or resolution by skimping on the scanner. I currently use a

Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV for my 35mm film; is there a competent enough

flatbed to provide scans that are not vastly inferior to what the Scan Dual IV

can do with 35mm? Anyone here who relies on a flatbed scanner for their MF here?

 

2 - I want a 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 MF camera - TTL metered or otherwise, I don't care -

that can be had with a phenomenal portrait lens for under $1000 with the

scanner. I have considered a Pentax 6 x 7 w/ the 165mm f/2.8 SMC, a Bronica

ETRSI w/ the 150mm f/3.5 MC, the Mamiya RB67 w/ the 180mm F4.5 KL L-A, or a

Bronica SQ/SQA/SQAM w/ the 150mm f/4 PS.

 

In terms of application, I want reliable camera I can use outdoors w/ a short

telephoto with a wide aperture to take advantage of the short DOF offered by the

larger negative. I also want usable digital copies of all my photos.

 

What do you guys think? What's are some good scanner / camera combos from the

choices above?

 

I appreciate your time - thanks in advance for your help.

 

-Francis Bartus

www.francisbartus.com

Regarding 2: Mamiya RZ67 with Sekor Z 150mm f/3.5. The RZ offers the opportunity of using the fast Sekor 110mm f/2.8 long-standard lens, which is also fine for portraits. Very reliable and focuses pretty close for tight headshots. The rotating back is very, very handy when it comes to portraiture. If you shoot on a tripod, I would also consider the longer teles, but that depends on your shooting style, of course.

 

Another option is using a focal plane shutter camera with the inexpensive but fast Soviet Caleinar 150mm f/2.8 or East German Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 portrait lenses. They are available for the Kiev 6x6 cameras, but I'd rather get a more reliable body, although I don't know for which cameras there are adapters made besides the Mamiya M645 line (Bronica, maybe?).

 

By the way, if you have a digital workflow, I'd get a good digital single-lens reflex camera instead of wasting my time with scanning medium format negatives. There is little to no quality improvement with a medium format camera in comparison to a modern dSLR when you use a non-professional or flatbed scanner, but you are stuck with the inconvenience and the high processing costs, while the scanning itself takes a lot of time and hassle till you get the most out of your pictures. Just sayin'...

Francis,

 

We'd all like the things we want to cost less, but that's life isn't it? Medium format costs about 3x as much as 35mm for gear, materials and infrastructure.

 

A flatbed "film" scanner would fall in your price range, such as an Epson V750. Unfortunately, medium format film scanned on a flatbed isn't quite as good as 35mm on a dedicated film scanner (e.g., Nikon LS-50).

 

Medium format cameras, particularly 6x7 camera, are not known for Wide, Telephoto in the 35mm sense, nor "fast" apertures, unless you consider f/2.8 or f/4 "fast" or the equivalent of 28mm "wide". Yet people work with these cameras, have fun and occasionally make a profit. Just don't go overboard with your expecations. The strength of medium format is the extra real estate on film compared to 35mm, backs that can be changed mid-roll and flash sync (with lens shutters) up to 1/500 second.

The scanner that you want is the Nikon Coolscan 9000, but it costs double your whole budget. What everyone says about the flatbeds is right on. I do use an Epson 4180 with my MF, and the results are fine for enlargement up to 8x10 but that's about it.

 

I have recently bought into the RB67 system with the camera, a couple of backs, the 50, 90, and 180 lenses, and the usual accessories; that plus a $200 flatbed scanner will come in right around your budget. It's a fine system except that the scanner will just be something to tide you over until you get the Coolscan.

In regards to point #1:) you already know what you are getting from a dedicated film scanner in 135. The same is true for 120 as well. If you are extremely lucky, you will find a used Nikon 8000 or 9000 or Minolta Dimage multi pro for under $500. I use Dimage II. Its older version with less max resolution that fits my requirements. But seems like everyone is holding onto his/her scanner and these models are rarely listed in the auction sites in the said price range. There are more than thousands of posts here discussing the good points about various flatbeds and accessories and techniques to achieve the max from the scanner. And obviously all these flatbeds do a decent job. Yet, most of the learned and experienced contributors agree that dedicated film scanners are a better choice. So, if you find one, go for it even if it is slightly above your overall budget.

"I do use an Epson 4180 with my MF, and the results are fine for enlargement up to 8x10 but that's about it."

 

The same goes for the Epson 4490.

 

For what it's worth, don't bother with MF if you can't pair it with a scanner that'll do it justice. I'd pull the trigger on a Mamiya 7 in an instant, if I can only justify the additional $2.5k for a CS9000...

The RB67 is a great portrait camera with the 180mm, however I have to agree with Robert Lee - if you are going to skimp on a scanner there seems little point.

 

I shoot with an RB67 and use an Epson 4490 just to proof. I then send out any scanning to a place that uses a coolscan 9000 and charges ?4 a scan. This is the most cost effective route for me and I still get the full benefit of 6x7

I will second the above posts. I have scanned MF with an Epson 750 flatbed, but the results are not much superior to a well scanned 35mm.

For me, your solution is a first class, and I mean FIRST CLASS portrait lens for a 35mm film camera. Search for an f1.4 85mm lens like Zeiss Planar (for Contax) or an 80mm Leica Summilux, or even the 100mm makro lenses from either Zeiss or Leica. I've heard also the Pentax 85 1,4 is something of a legend. A second hand 35mm film camera can be bought for peanuts these days.

 

Read about the new slow speed b&w films like Adox, (go to Erwin Puts site) or use Velvia.

 

This will give you MF like quality in 35mm with all the versatility of a smaller and lighter camera.

There's one big caveat about thinking you can get MF results with 35mm gear: You might get similar results if you get a good drum scan or dedicated scanner with a lot of tweaking. And similar, that is, to a mediocre MF scan. You can't get even close to a good sharp MF shot properly scanned. Simply, the huge neg/slide requires a lot less work, blemishes and dust show LOTS less (I use 6x9 Velvia and grain shows in an 80x60cm print of a sharp scan, with 35mm your sharpening possibilities are far more constrained by that), it's like trying to get F1 performance out of a street car. You might kill yourself over painstaking technique and spend hours and hours of work, but applying the same to the bigger frame will blow your 35mm out of the race, and the results will be far better every time.

<i>For what it's worth, don't bother with MF if you can't pair it with a scanner that'll do it justice.</i><p>

That's only true if you think you are going to die next year.<p>

Your MF negs/transparencies will be around a long time. Just because a scanner that'll do it justice isn't in your budget <i>now</i>, doesn't mean it won't be some day. And when that day comes, you will be glad you used that MF film years ago.

Thanks so much for all the responses, everyone.

 

I am disappointed to hear that the flatbed scanners (as I suspected) really don't stack up to hyper expensive USB or older SCSI MF film scanners. However, the one factor that drives me toward medium format regardless is that I do have access to a LF enlarger and a darkroom, and I wouldn't mind getting back into developing my own film. Hell, maybe I'll dedicate my MF camera to B&W only until I can save up enough to buy an MF film scanner.

 

Marek, thanks for your advice on the portrait lenses - I will definitely look into those lenses you suggested. I have considered an 85 f/1.4 for my Minolta film gear, but haven't bit the bullet or spent the cash yet.

 

Beuh, thanks for your advice on the RZ67 and the lenses available for the Kiev. I am always trying to save money, so the Kiev might be worth a look if I can get one cheap and in decent shape online...

 

Also, re: a DSLR, I own a Sony A-100, a Minolta 800si, and a number of prime lenses, so I have been able to tide myself over on the portraits. My main portrait lens for the 35mm film camera is the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro - the sharpest lens I have ever owned.

 

Mark, where do you send your MF film? What's the turnaround on scans? Are they color balanced and dusted off properly when they're returned, or do you have to spend time tweaking and PP them?

 

How well do the Epson flatbeds render the dark areas of Black-and-White prints? I had a cheap flatbed at one point and it did a worthless job with B&W prints...

 

Thanks again for all your time and assistance, everyone.

 

Cheers,

Francis

Okay. So I'll go ahead and break the pattern here.

 

First, the RZ. The 110 lens really doesn't strike me as that sharp. My Nikon 28-105 was sharper on a digital, even without sharpening. I was very surprised by that. And I was certain of focus. It's good, but not amazing. I think I am spoiled looking at my friend's Hassy photos. But I know many other RZ lenses are excellent. I'd snap up that system no question. Unless you intend to run around a lot in which case get used to the weight.

 

Second, about flat beds. If done right, I can go 4' x 3' on a regular basis off my 4490 and a 6x7 (or 6x6) slide. Seems to be happier with slides, even though the reduced dmax struggles more. There are few situations where I have run into problems. Now, could it go sharper? Sure. Could I spend $65 and get an ICD drum scan? Sure. But it's pennies on the dollar at this point with my 4490 due to use, and the quality is right there for the cost. It's well beyond the cost, actually.

 

allan

Don't believe everything you read on the open forums. Especially when they say that 35mm digital is sharper than medium format.

Yeah, thanks Vital. Nice cheap shot there.

 

Medium format is a film format. There is nothing inherently sharp about a film format. You put some medium format film in a Holga and you're going to tell me that I can't claim that my Nikon D80 is sharper?

 

I didn't make a massive generalization - not in the vein that you tried to dismiss my _entire_post_ through something as petty as focusing on just one part of what I said. I was speaking about the 110 lens. I am allowed to have my opinion. If I had said "I didn't find it as sharp as I had hoped" would that have been better? Just because I compared it to output from my digital SLR doesn't make my opinion irrelevant. It just makes you a judgmental person who had a knee-jerk response to the word "digital." Sad.

 

allan

well... i've used canons and mamiyas. Just don't believe it. Can i disagree with you? Nothing personal. No need to call me jerk either.

You discounted my entire opinion. Rather judgmental to me, and considering I'm trying to _help_ and _contribute_ you should consider your words more carefully.

 

And "knee-jerk" doesn't mean jerk.

 

allan

francis, anybody who says that a zoom nikon on a digital is more sharper than a prime Mamiya 6x7... don't believe it :) Nothing personal.