Switching Systems....Time To Move On

<p>I shoot MF with a C220 TLR with 80mm and 135mm lenses... in theory... I haven't shot a frame in over a year, but I plan to very soon after our renovation project is done.</p>

<p>With a daylight tank and a room-that-is-dark to load it in, processing MF B&W at home is super easy and cheap, and I get good enough (up to 16x16 prints) results with my Canon 9950F scanner and vuescan. Unfortunately drywall dust and wet film or scanner glass don't mix.</p>

<p>It's a good point but I see this as lossless. I will be fine with my current flatbed scanner for initial scans, and I figure in terms of printable stuff, I will end up with 20-30 images a year on a good year (not a bad # considering this will not be my only format). I will send those off and pay the money for a good drum scan.</p>

<p>Is anyone actually using a scanner that cost more than a few thousand dollars? I would think the cost of outsourcing would be far less short term (say 4 years or less). The Nikon 9000 which is a dedicated MF film scanner is barely $2200, and can be had for less used ($1500).</p>

<p>Unless MF has more issues with processing, I've been very lucky over the years with 35mm. I also don't shoot the Velvia, and 100VS films that tend to have more processing issues (it seems) as well as be less consistent. Provia 100F seems to always come back as it should, it's also consistent to shoot, and even when pushing 1-2 stops it comes back looking pretty good.</p>

<p>I really don't know if film is more work. Currently, I shoot everything in RAW, and it takes considerable time to get my images from click to printable. The only difference is I elminated scanning (not that I miss scanning, but I'm not sure it is much worse than digital editing).</p>

<p>Finally, worst case is I take a loss on the 645 body which I can always use for star trails, and long exposures IF nothing else. While digital FF might surpass film MF fully in the next generation, digital long exposure still sucks compared to film. And like you said, I can still simply use the 645 system for film black and white, which as I noted above, still has a following in the wedding industry to say the least. I enjoy converting color images to black and white, but even good conversions still seem to lack a little something. Finally, I can still use the lenses on my digital 35mm or film 35mm setup. I can use them on several systems (including canon) with adapters.</p>

<p>So to me this is a small investment with only upside. That said, I readily admit I am moving into uncharted territory, the plus of course is I think I've worked out the pros, cons and cost issues to the point where I won't say, "holy crap, this was a really dumb idea!"</p>

<p>Justin,<br>

Yes, I've found film to be more work than digital. For color, you still have to drive back and forth to the shop to drop off and pick up the negatives, and then you have to scan, or send them out. Unless you're doing B&W, the time horizon is much longer before seeing the finished product. Digital is instantaneous by comparison, no matter how much work the image needs. I've often put in an hour or two just cloning out dust or scratches. The images always need something.<br>

However, once you start using MF, you might never go back. There's something about the click of an actual aperture ring. And of course you'll feel superior, because when you encounter the guys with the $5000 Canon and red-ring lens rigs, your own equipment will tell them "this guy actually knows what he's doing."<br>

Scott</p>

<p>I don't know that the AF lenses are particularly worth their premium but I figured they'd hold their value OK, they come with petal bayonet hoods, and the 645N body has no split/prism finder either.</p>

<p>Having just got back from a few-days trip, I'm catching up on p-net and thought I would have to write an obituary of sorts for you Justin. I mean, what type of a title do you think that is!? Almost gave me a heart attack...</p>

<p>Please don't do that again, OK?</p>

<p>It's all about buzz of the title...I was wondering where you were. I know you got some travel in but we haven't seen you much around here.</p>

<p>Welcome back, and no, I'm more committed to Pentax than ever now if you think about it but I am adding a new system! Finally get to see if all the hype of how good Pentax MF systems were is true. So far, I'm amazed by the camera but I have nothing else to base it on so we will see!</p>

<p>AG,</p>

<p>I don't have the lens yet for my 645N so I can't really comment on the finder. From what I understand it is big and bright compared to the 645 and is the same as the 645NII which supposedly is mainly firmware upgrades including the unneeded MLU. Apparently the Pentax mirror setup is so good on the 645 that there is really only a benefit with really long teles.</p>

<p>Assuming MLU isn't actually needed, the biggest advantage to NII vs. N is the custom functions can be set by the user at home. However, I am not really sure how important this is, most (all but ISO) of the settings on the 645N have a knob and direct access. I think most of the custom functions are minor things like film counter (you can change it to count up or down for instance).</p>

<p>You can change the screens though on the 645 (all 3) though, I will probably put a grid screen in.</p>

<p>I like the robustness, and manual focus of manual focus lenses (especially primes), but I'm not opposed to AF, I don't really see a major benefit to it though for what the camera will be used for.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Justin et al:<br>

I read this forum as I'm a long time Pentax user (back to the Spotmatic) and I do own a K20D but as I am primarily a film shooter (645 and 67) I don't post here often. You will enjoy the 645, it feels good in the hand and is built like a brick (you could proably use it to pound tent stakes). The 645N is in almost every way an improvement over the original 645. The one advantage the 645 has for trekking is that the grip is easily removable, turning the camera into a small cube which is much easier to pack. Should you decide you like the 645N, consider buying a 645 for a few hundred dollars just for those times pack space is at a premium. The 35mm is a very good lens, in partiular the FA version, but you will have a hard time finding one, it has achieved some fame with users who have adapted it to Canon and Nikon systems. See here:<br>

<a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html</a><br>

Here's a quote from the above site: "<em>This is simply the best way to obtain maximum shift movements on a Canon digital body. The Zörk Panoramic Shift Adaptor permits movements of up to 22mm, and is the only system designed for DSLRs to accommodate parallax-free stitching. The lenses I'm selling with it have been chery-picked for ultimate performance: the Pentax FA35 is just the greatest medium format retrofocus wide angle ever. The SMC-A 55mm f2.8 is a cracking manual focus Pentax 645 lens that outperforms the Hasselblad 50mm CF. And the butter smooth manual focus 150mm f3.5 is even better at distance than the Hasselblad, Mamiya and Pentax Macro 120mm lenses. In my opinion (and that of Zörk in Germany), the Pentax 645 range is the best array of MF lenses ever, with a beautiful, Zeiss-like drawing style and bottomless resolution. Until a digital Pentax 645 option arrives, this remains the best way to unlock that potential in the digital realm</em><br>

The 120mm macro is the sharpest, most substanial lens I own, but it suffers some at infinity and is very heavy; it is not my first choice for packing unless macro photography is the point of the trip. The 150mm f3.5, on the other hand, is no larger than a 35mm lens; it's small and sharp (see the site above). The 200 is ok, but not great; however, the 300mm ED is outstanding. I'm sure you know this, but a 300mm on the 645 has about the same view as a 200mm on 35mm.<br>

The MLU is really not necessary, I'll refer you to:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml</a><br>

So enjoy your camera.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Resolution issues aside, we all know Justin could take decent scenic shots with a cheapo P&S... Why? Because (a) he knows what he' s doing, and (b) he actually gets off his arse and goes up mountains and stuff.</p>

<p>True story.</p>

I've used the Pentax 645N(II) since 1998. I found it just as portable as a top end Nikon or canon (like the F5) but far more suitable for the outdoor nature photgraphy I'm doing. Most of the images in my portfolio is shot with the Pentax 645 system. Excellent system that now will se a digital slution and a bright future...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=266609

<p>Keep your lenses Justin.. ;-)</p>

<p>Using 120 roll film is a viable option only in North America. In most other places supplies are drying up. However, there is no denying the quality of 6x4.5cm negatives. Tempts to me consider an overhaul of the Ikonta 521.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3946431">Paul Wilkins</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Apr 04, 2009; 11:57 a.m. (<a href="../bboard/admin-edit-msg?msg_id=00Sy7X">edit</a> | <a href="../bboard/admin-delete-msg?msg_id=00Sy7X">delete</a> )</p>

 

<p>Resolution issues aside, we all know Justin could take decent scenic shots with a cheapo P&S... Why? Because (a) he knows what he' s doing, and (b) he actually gets off his arse and goes up mountains and stuff.</p>

 

<p>True story.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Paul, made me laugh! In some ways true though, I always say the best shot is the one actually taken. Problems arise when two people get off their ass and hike up the mountain, then you do need to know what you are doing! Or at least know more than the other guy!</p>

<p>And an update, the 55mm 2.8 is here right now. The VF is big....really big. It's bright too. I'm looking at Caney indoors with just muted rainy window light behind closed blinds and I can focus the camera!</p>

<p>Next thing, the more I look at the features, the more I realize how simple this camera really is. It even has an auto bracketing feature. But you could, if you wanted to (and I'm not sure why anyone toting a 645 would want to) shoot this in full auto. Just line up the green highlighted #s and have at it.</p>

<p>Well I'm all set, I'll be toting this guy out to the Finger Lakes, or VT this weekend for a little photo camping trip. Spring is about to bust out on the forest floors up here. I saw some flowers up in Bennington this weekend. I'll also be taking the a DSLR since I currently don't have the wide lenses that work well in the gorges of the finger lakes, the upside is the finger lakes are really conducive to carrying 2 systems because of the easy of travel. So I can shoot them side by side.</p>

 

<p>Workflow is simple, just keep an eye on eBay for a Noritsu QSS-3011 with a 120/220 mask and you'll be all set. It'll run high enough resolution that you can see the grain on Portra 160, built in Digital ICE, and a nice 10" printer on the side to boot!</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170294499170</p>

 

<p>Nothing to do with thread, but as a confirmed "butterball" I've got to defend the butterballs found many miles from the road, at least we're out there. I've met many fine, fit, clean, good looking people leaning on there cars at the trailhead as I come dragging back dirty, sweaty, and gasping. The desire to see whats around the bend gets me out there, but its the cooler of beer in the truck that gets me back!</p>

<p>hey robert,</p>

<p>when I meet new climbing partners, I always say, look for the guy dressed in cheap outdoor wear with the couch potato physique.</p>

<p>And I'm pretty sure my original ortho surgeon didn't want to do my ACL surgery because he was convinced I was a lazy sack of...based on my build. "it's a very hard rehab without 100% success." We'll I agree hard rehab, but 2 years later 100% success! I sent him a slide show this year, and noted maybe he should listen to his patients concerns.</p>

<p>That said, my family just isn't graced with the Adonis gene, even lifting weights daily in my early 20s and running a 15 miles a week in addition to cycling 100+ I never had the build of some of my friends.</p>

<p>Point of course is don't take it personally, more a general statement than an indictment on all of us with "couch potato" physiques!</p>

<p>no offense taken, just had to jump on the huffing gasping butterball thing, it was to good to pass up!</p>

<p>It is a beautiful system. I have been toying with combinations to come up with my ultimate kit. So far, I have settled on a couple of 645N bodies, 55mm f/2.8 (need to find that reverse adapter), FA 75mm f/2.8 (low light ability, small), FA 80-160mm (I like it a lot better than the manual focus version - with the hood on you can rotate a filter through an innovative lens rotating dial right on the lens barrel), FA 150mm f/2.8 (just gorgeous, shallow depth of field). I am likely to break down and abandon my dream of the FA 35mm and "settle" for the manual focus version and use the saved money for an eventual FA 300mm f/4.<br>

The grid focus screen is a welcome addition too. That viewfinder puts a smile on my face everytime I use this system.<br>

<br /> Somewhat off topic, but has anyone picked up the new 120 Ektar? I read that it is ideal for scanning.</p>

<p>Yuri,</p>

<p>I am in the same boat. The FA 35 is almost impossible to find. I will likely add a A 35mm before May (2 weeks). It seems like the FA was a vastly improved lens, so I'm now on the fence as to just adding a 45mm 2.8 and holding out, or buying a 35mm A and regretting it.</p>

<p>I will also add a 80-160 (FA most likely thanks to John Odoms recommendation), and I think a 200mm f/4 should round things out nicely. That gives me 20mm to 150mm or so and should cover all my needs with this system. For longer glass I'll stick with 35mm or APS-C digital.</p>

<p>Justin,<br>

Have you considered the FA 45-85mm? I have read that many consider this better than the 45mm prime. I had one and kick myself for selling it. It was quite big, although not as big as the FA 80-160mm - which is a big beautiful beast.<br>

I sat back a year or so ago and watched a couple of FA 35mm sell for around $600 USD. I read the market incorrectly and held off. Oh well. It does not seem like the A 35mm is a real stinker or anything of the sort, only that the FA 35mm is such an outstanding lens that others pale in comparison. My feeling is that I have never used either, so I will likely go with the A 35mm and be happy with what is likely a very nice lens.</p>

<p>I think the FA35-55 zoom was supposed to be pretty good too but it ain't easy to find cheap either.</p>

<p>I've got a Pentax 645N with manual LN in original Box (was am backup camera gear)<br>

1 - SMU Pentax-FA 645 1:2.8 150mm (IF) LN in original box<br>

1 - SMU Pentax-A 645 1:2.8 75mm LN<br>

1 - 120 film insert, 1 - 220 Film insert, & 1 film insert case<br>

I bought the camera new a number of years ago from KEH as a backup camera which was rarely used. My primary camera was a "Greflex Supper D" which never failed me in over 30 years of shooting personal and Corporate subjects. I used the photos to as reference material in create life size oil portraits of the subjects. I would average 6 to 10 photo appointments a year. Eric</p>

<p>Rest of message!<br>

I've got a Pentax 645N with manual LN in original Box (was my backup camera gear)<br>

1 - SMU Pentax-FA 645 1:2.8 150mm (IF) LN in original box<br>

1 - SMU Pentax-A 645 1:2.8 75mm LN<br>

1 - 120 film insert, 1 - 220 Film insert, & 1 film insert case<br>

I bought the camera new a number of years ago from KEH as a backup camera which was rarely used. My primary camera was a "Greflex Supper D" which never failed me in over 30 years of shooting personal and Corporate subjects. I used the photos as reference material in creating the life size oil portraits of the subjects. I would average 6 to 10 photo appointments a year.<br>

In my senior years I'm beginning to let go of some of my equipment. Let me know if any of you are interested.<br>

Eric</p>

<p>My 645n is on the way!</p>