Nikon F6 or Move to Medium Format

<p>Definitely move to medium format. I still shoot 35 mm slides, but also 6x7, mostly landscape or still subjects. Each format has some limitations and advantages, but the image quality of the medium format is rewarding. I do not regret having invested in the equipment and these days it is available quite cheap.</p>

<p>I think Andreas Feininger said it best in Total Photography. Dynamic subject (moving stuff) - use 35mm; static subject - use MF or larger. If your subjects move you will lose too many opportunities using the slower, less flexible mf cameras (few zooms for instance). For static subjects if you don't use MF you'll suffer too much loss in image quality that the eye will know is there (small details like leaves in landscapes).<br>

Digital has changed this somewhat. A good full frame digital SLR with a good lens will produce an 11x14 to a 12x18 which is pretty indistinguishable from a medium format film camera. A 35mm just can't (well maybe a Leica with a state of the art lens and a tripod). If you are doing this for image quality I would stay with FX digital - cheaper than a MF camera and MF scanner. If you like the film experience get any high quality 35mm and limit yourself with 8x10.<br>

Oh - isn't it interesting how many people feel Ken is a jerk but they sort of agree with him.</p>

<p>I use both. Yes, medium format produces higher quality output, but it's not always practical to lug around. If you limit your photography to only those times when you can bring along medium format gear and take your time to set it up on a tripod for maximum quality, then you will miss a lot of opportunities. I do just that on landscape photography trips, but there's always a 35mm or digital camera hanging around somewhere just in case. Other times, I carry just a 35mm or dSLR and maybe a monopod.</p>

<p>I'd skip the F6 at first unless you have already tried 35mm and really like it. Get an F100 or N80, or go manual with an FM2. Any of those are far cheaper than the F6, so if you find you don't like them or the format you have taken very little financial risk. I'm personally partial to my F3HP and FM3a. OK, I love my T90 too.</p>

<p>As for the Pentax 645 system, I started with a cheap 645 with a few lenses, then moved up to a 645NII and more lenses when I found I liked the system. Again, it's good to dip your toes in first before plunging in heavily. </p>

<p>I shoot with F4s and few MF systems such as Bronica, Mamiya, Pentacon 6 - to name a few.<br>

If I'd spring for a brand new 35mm camera, that would definitely be for something coming from digital world. You can beg to differ on quality and details and dynamic range but to split hairs in favor of film you'd be needing quite expensive scanners such as imacon...</p>

<p>However, with medium format it's quite the opposite, even scans from cheap flatbed scanners such as canon or Epson eat DSLRs for breakfast. I'm not talking about plain thing such as resolution or file size, I talk about the details, dynamic range and other "quality imprints".<br>

I say, go for MF - it's completely different approach to photography but well worth it.</p>

<p>I shoot with 35mm film and also a Mamiya RZ67. Every time I do a photo shoot, whether it's a studio shoot or special event, the top ranked shot(s) ends up coming from the RZ67. However, I took it to a 4th of July parade last month and I felt like I was a juggler in the circus. The images that come from a medium format are amazing but I've never seen an instance where posting images on a forum for comparison to other formats do the argument any justice. The true justice is when you see the images on a print. Just MHO.</p>

<p><em>However, with medium format it's quite the opposite, even scans from cheap flatbed scanners such as canon or Epson eat DSLRs for breakfast. I'm not talking about plain thing such as resolution or file size, I talk about the details, dynamic range and other "quality imprints".</em><br>

If 16x20 inches is the largest print, an inexpensive Nikon D90 (12.3 MP) will give medium format a run for the money (and leave 35mm in the dust). It will deliver nearly 9 stops of dynamic range, which is equivalent to color negative film, and give excellent results at ISO 1600. Medium format film is better than a DSLR only if you have a dedicated film scanner and good technique throughout the entire process, and the time to set everything up and use it. I do both, and if it weren't for MF digital, I wouldn't be using the Hasselblad much.</p>

<p>Here is my take. 35mm film is good for 11x14, even 12x18 images when scanned, and big time overkill for viewing images on a monitor or even huge plasma screens. We are talking high detail images too, like landscapes with a lot of intricate and important detail. For portraits and general shots, you can go basically as large as you want with todays upscaling algorithms, and still look great. Check out Rockwells shot of a guy standing in front of a drag racing image printed out larger than the guy - all from a simple 6mp image. Testimony to the great fractal based upscaling we now have.<br>

Now, for landcsapes printed larger than 11x14, definitely Medium format is better. Also, bokeh is better due to reduced depth of field. But, the trade off is weight and speed of use.<br>

Personally, I would recommend the F6 as you will be able to use it much more often and you dont need larger than 11x14 prints. Now, I have many cameras, including a Contax 645 and Zeiss lenses. I love photographing my kids and our activities and events, but I often find myself thinking how much more often I choose to use my 35mm's over the Contax. My Minolta Maxxum 7 (the most advanced film slr ever-until the F6 came along;) and Contax N1/NX are consistently chosen over the 645 because they are lighter and easier to carry around when out and about, and much faster to focus. Makes me wonder why I invested so much $$$ in the 645 system. But then again, I do love using it too, love the more squared up format 4/3, and love seeing the prints with such dreamy bokeh...</p>

<p>You can read what other people say and think they know, but the only true answer is for you to try MF and find out. Would you ask 20 people what sex is like, or would you find out yourself truly by participating ?<br>

Get a mamiya RB system with a 127 lens and shoot some film.</p>

<p>In my experience even a fairly modest priced medium format camera will beat the pants off the most expensive 35mm film SLR for photo technical image quality, and there's no way round it.</p>

<p>Quality issues aside, getting and using a MF or larger format camera will bring twice the excitement than the other possiblilities.<br>

Just my opinion of course.</p>

<p>Here are my 2 cents, I attach a comparison of basically the same scene photographed with a 35mm Canon and a 17-40 F/4 L and Pentax 67 45mm lens, both at f/4. The focal lengths were not completely equivalent, the 35mm shot was done at about 20 mm, 6x7 shot was done at about 22 mm in 35 mm film terms. You can notice that the area of the 35mm film frame is about 4 times smaller than the 6x7 frame. I leave it up to you to make a conclusion.</p><div></div>

<p>I have to say, on the outset that I'm one who does not get the reasoning behind posting images on a computer to make comparisons between fomats. In this case, what conclusion can I draw since the images were not shot with the same focal lengths? Common sense tells you that a larger format will give you more detail so what's the point in postin those images. I just don't get it. </p>

<p>Eric, the equivalent focal lengths were quite similar, but that is not the point. I merely reacted to Ben's comment, to illustrate the difference visually.</p>

<p><em>"If 16x20 inches is the largest print, an inexpensive Nikon D90 (12.3 MP) will give medium format a run for the money (and leave 35mm in the dust). It will deliver nearly 9 stops of dynamic range, which is equivalent to color negative film, and give excellent results at ISO 1600."</em></p>

<p>can't agree on that one completely. I happen to own D90 also. the details and dynamic range I get from MF systems is far beyond what D90 and other 12mp CMOS sensors available on the market can deliver. with ISO capabilities it's different story, DSLRs are much more capable, at least for exposures under 5 seconds.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Interesting thread. The OP never came back with additional details or a response.</p>

<p>Not sure how to answer this query since we don't have a clue what the OP shoots. What subjects? How will the camera be used? Color or B&W or both? Where and when does the OP like to shoot? Everyone is layering on what they shoot and how ... which may have no bearing on what the OP may do ... documentary, landscape, nature, travel, portraits, street, weddings/events, macro ... one, two, or all ... what? </p>

<p>35mm film has a look and feel that is unique. The usage can be more spontaneous, less conspicuous, more utilitarian with a vast array of lens choices and accessories. The F6 is the last, and arguably the best, iteration this principle. However, film is film, and the same lenses can be put on a F100 with no penalty in IQ. </p>

<p>MF film is obviously a step up in IQ no matter how you define it. That comes with penalties which have already been discussed here. However, it can be over-kill depending on the OP's intent ... which is an unknown.</p>

<p>The one <strong>opinion</strong> I can add is that if one "returns" to film, one should at least consider following that path to the end ... which is analog prints from negatives (unless MF reversal film is used for studied subjects like landscapes or something).</p>

<p>Scanning is okay but it loses the one advantage film has over digital which is realized in a darkroom, not on a computer screen. This is based on my direct experience using a Nikon F6 and nano-coated optics or select Zeiss manual focus lenses, and a 203FE with Zeiss FE lenses, all sacnned on a Hasselblad/Imacon 949 scanner ... or getting drum scans. Darned good results to be sure, but still a digital rendition of film grain that then has to be further reproduced on analog photo paper to realize any of the traditional look film provides ... which at best is still a simulation of the real thing and has been discussed to death elsewhere. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>My previous remarks were based on personal experience I once bought a brand new Nikon F2 and a few Nikon lenses, and I was very happy with the results until a few months later I bought a second hand Yashicamat 124G from a friend, and and after having shot a roll of the same film in each ( Kodak Ektachrome) of the same subject in the same lighting conditions I found the resultant slides on the 120 film on projection had much finer grain greater tonality, stronger purer colours and generally blew the 35mm slides out of the water. After spending a fortune on the Nikon system I was very peeved that a camera I had paid about a twentieth of the price of the F2 for gave so much better results.</p>

<p>In the good ol' days when I had money, I purchased over several years an F6 and Hassy 501CM. Like others have said, 35mm and medium format are night and day. It is always clear to me which one to use, depending upon my subject and environment. If you don't shoot sports or fast moving subjects, or need an extremely robust camera that can handle dust, etc., then medium format is a great option. The price of medium format gear is very low. And you can get good scans of 120 film without the need to go to a high-end scanner. For example, an Epson V750 Pro should be fine for 120 film, and it comes with SilverFast. Remember, it is the scanning which is the "tricky" link in the chain of getting a good image. I say that because most consumer labs do a poor job of scanning, but scanning at a pro lab gets expensive. Best to go up the learning curve, and do yourself. I don't even use Photoshop, just SilverFast studio edition, scan into raw images, then process later. On the other hand, shooting slide film and projecting can be fun.....which would suggest 35mm as an option. Yikes, there is always an "on the other hand".</p>

<p>The important thing is....have fun with film.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Thanks to everyone who has written. I realize there's no one answer to this question - what equipment you use depends on what you want to shoot etc. I was just interested in getting people's viewpoints on 35mm and medium format in general. As for me, I am interested in shooting portraits, environmental portraits, and urban architecture. I don't do that much landscape stuff. I'm looking at getting the Pentax 645N or NII (it seems difficult to find a good NII- anybody with any ideas on where to get one?) Other cameras I have seen which look good are the Mamiya AFD or Mamiya AFD II (however I'm not sure how good the AF is), and the Rollei 6008Af (however that seems very expensive).<br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>Jonathan</p>

<p>Jonathan,</p>

<p>Interesting that you mention the Mamiya AFD - I have one. I also have various film-only MF cameras. The AFD is getting by far the most use these days since I got a digital back. I rarely use the film back with it: really only for the things my old digiback can't do (long exposures > 30 seconds, and full coverage of the 645 focal plane with the 35mm ultra-wideangle). That will tell you a lot about film vs. digital - when you can shoot both with exactly the same camera and lenses, which configuration do you select?</p>

<p>All the cameras you mentioned have a high degree of automation and are more "35mm-like" or "DSLR-like" in use for that reason, compared to many of the other MF recommendations you received so far. So I presume that this automation is a "must have" for you.<br>

These cameras differ from each other in several regards, including flexibility and upgradeability.<br>

The Pentaxes are film-only. You need a digital-only Pentax 645D to for digital (but it will use the same lenses).<br>

The Mamiya 645 AFD series, as I've said, can shoot both film and digital. (The very latest Mamiya/PhaseOne 645DF is digital only, however).<br>

The Rollei 6008AF can also shoot both film and digital, but the digital back options are more limited, and this is essentially an orphan system now.<br>

If you are attracted to the Rollei for its WLF option and Zeiss lenses, consider also the Contax 645 (also orphaned) and Hasselblad H series (alive and well but bloody expensive!). These all take both film and digital backs.</p>

<p>Lenses matter more to me than any other one thing about a MF camera system. Mamiya's 645 lens range is the widest and fastest in MF. It's also one of the most affordable, along with Pentax; anything comparable with a Zeiss or Schneider label costs more but doesn't necessarily deliver more.</p>

 

<p>Why not keep shooting digital? A d700 or d3 should compare favorably with 645 film and work with the nikon lenses you presumably own if you're considering an f6. If you're set on film, I'd take a used f4 or f5 over the f6. You can save thousands and get basically the same camera.</p>

<p>I started shooting 6X7 and I'm not sure it's worth it over digital. Seems like unless I get drum scans there's little advantage over aps-c digital and that landscapes are best with full frame digital or large format. However, 6X7 is still worlds better than 35mm film (and sufficient for portraits) to the extent that I think my nikon gear is going to remain neglected for a very long time. I don't think even the slowest color film has 25 megapixels of resolution. Fine film grain (not "blotchy" digital noise) increases perceived acutance at low magnification. So fine grain 35mm printed at 5X7 should surpass digital in terms of perceived sharpness. Beyond that, digital is much cleaner than film so it will look much sharper at virtually any magnification, especially with a little usm and print-size-specific fake grain added. It doesn't matter how much resolution film may-or-may-not have because it enlarges poorly beyond a set size due to grain. Though with black and white, film grain can look nice as part of an image's texture and can be quite small at slow speeds. 6X7, however, I would feel comfortable enlarging to 11X14 if I had a good scan and I bet it would even surpass aps-c digital.</p>

<p>If you already have a set of nikon lenses, get the nikon slr or full frame dslr. If you're starting again from scratch, demo a bunch of stuff and then decide. Your decision should be made based primarily on what focal lengths you prefer and how a system handles. Unless you have an aversion to digital (which is valid), a full frame digital system will provide the best prints (on par with but aesthetically a little different from the best 6X7 film scans) and also offer by far the most versatility. If you're worried about how "professional" something is, skip film entirely. I think only digital and large format are still considered "professional," but I'm happy for now with 6X7 slides as a beginning amateur. As soon as I can afford it I'm upgrading to a toyo field camera, though, and keeping medium format for portraits only.</p>

<p>I haven't used pentax lenses but my mamiya lenses (110mm f2.8 and 65mm f4 m l-a) are much better than I expected from cheap Japanese gear. I assumed the worst from their relatively unimpressive mtf ratings (compared with the newest zeiss lenses) but they're quite good except that the 65mm has more distortion than any good medium wide angle should.</p>

<p>Wow...lots of moving parts with this question.</p>

<p>My own personal experience:</p>

<p>I went from an F6 to a D700 for image quality.</p>

<p>I bought a Leica M6 for the "thrill and enjoyment" of 35mm film.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell misquoted when he said 35mm was an amateur format. The original is that 35mm is a "miniature" format. 35mm is totally professional...look at any photojournalism or documentary photography pre-2000...some very nice work.</p>

<p>As far as size...it really depends upon how much you want to spend. Galen Rowell, another 35mm shooter, got terrific enlargements (Cibachromes) from his Fuji Velvia and Kodachrome. But remember, he worked often from a tripod and remote shutter release.</p>

<p>A Coolscan 5000 will scan a 35mm frame of film to the equivalent of 24- or so megapixels. This is large-enough for a large wall print, way over 11x14 (which would be a cropped-format enlargement from a 35mm frame).</p>

<p>Now...will you be happy? My dilemma, and end result, was based upon the fact that an investment in an F6 and a Coolscan 5000 was enough money that I opted for paying a bit more and getting a D700. The end result is a camera body which handles very much like the F6, does the heavy lifting of the Coolscan, and is a cleaner result with mostly better color. And (the medium-format guys HATE to hear this), my big enlargements from the D700 (and even my D2X in good light) were smoother with as much detail as scans and prints from my Mamiya 645AF.</p>

<p>So...for ME...D700 is an F6 with medium-format quality and industry-leading low-light ability. And as I said, when I get the itch to run some Tri-X or other film, I plop it into the Leica and go stroll the streets.</p>

<p>There are a few examples of each format on my Flickr stream... http://www.flickr.com/photos/davids_silvershots/</p>

Just thought I'd add...

 

Steve McCurry just shot the last roll of Kodachrome in a Nikon F6.

 

When he's shooting on assignment, though, he shoots a D700 and a Hasselblad digital MF rig...Hassy for portraiture, and

D700 for everything else.

<p>One option that no one mentioned yet is maybe consider picking up a Nikon FM100 AND the cheapest RZ67 Pro II for your MF 6x7. This gear is very cheap on e-bay. One word of caution about e-bay... make sure you buy from a reputable seller that has a return policy and is in the US. After getting the two camera rigs just go out and shoot for a month or so and then decide. You might very well keep both, but if not just put one of them back up on e-bay and repurpose your money to more lenses/gear for the rig you decided no. I shoot with a Nikon D3S for my event, sports and wildlife work and can't imagine using any other camera for this work. For my landscapes I use a RZ67 Pro II and can't imagine using anything else. For fun when I just want to have a camera with me I use a Canon G10 and just picked up a new Nikon P7000 so that I can have that manual control over a compact type of camera. Some of my best photos have come from the 14.7mp little Canon G10 because I simply had a camera in my hand at the right time and fortunately I knew how to use it within the context of my scene. I just recently got a 4x5 view camera to explore using for landscape and some architecture work. The view camera is taking my photography skills to a new level and I am also having a blast developing my own b/w 4x5 sheet film and then scanning it in on my Epson V750-M scanner. Long story short...if you stay in photography long enough you figure out that cameras are just tools that help you accomplish the vision you have in your mind. My only real advice is to invest in the best glass you can and not worry too much about which camera as they will continue to change over time. Case and point I have Nikon glass from MANY years ago that I mount on my new D3S and I get excellent results. The D3S will eventually see its end but I will still have the lenses. Good luck in your journey.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One word of caution about e-bay... make sure you buy from a reputable seller that has a return policy <strong>and is in the US</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How does that make any difference?</p>

<p>Steve, you asked why I mentioned to be cautious about e-bay and for the seller to be in the US. I was just trying to caution him and put him in the best possible position of getting any gear returned for refund if he gets it and it is not as described or advertised. Assuming the seller has a return/refund policy the time and expense of shipping something back to the other side of the world might not be something he wants to get into or risk. We all have our own risk tolerances and my only point was to just be aware and consider my points of caution before buying at e-bay. Case and point I bought a RZ67 Pro II body, 220 back and AE prism finder from a seller in Taiwan and it turns out the prism finder the seller included with the shipment was not compatible with the camera. Whether the seller knew or not doesn't matter because the hassle factor and the process of working through a refund was a huge pain, not to mention having tied up $1,000 for weeks. He also may want to look on his local craigslist for gear so that he can go look at it in person before buying. My two local pro camera shops rarely have anything film related but it is worth a shot to look there too. </p>

<p>Tim</p>