F100 + 85mm 1.4 or Pentax 645 + 150mm 2.8

Hello everyone. I realize this is not an apples to apples comparison, but all things equal, lighting, subject and conditions, which will

produce better results for portraits.

<p>Medium format wins, all other things being equal.</p>

<p>Things are never equal. :)</p>

<p>If your eyesight isn't great, a manual focus camera like the Pentax 645 will lead to many more missed shots. I own both these cameras and if I was doing portraits in dim light, I'd expect a higher percentage of keepers from the F100. A lot too, depends on the delivered output. Are we talking digital web proofs? 8x10's? Bigger? The bigger the output, the more you need the 645. That won't raise the number of keepers, meaning you'll have to bracket more to be sure of good results.</p>

<p>Another factor involves scanning. Right now there are several decent, reasonably priced dedicated film scanners that can do 35mm. That can't be said for 120. A dedicated (non-flatbed, that is) scanner that can do 120 film will set you back a minimum of $1300. </p>

<p>Film cost has to be taken into account too. 120 film is much more expensive on a per shot basis than 35mm. Look at a 5 pack of Portra. In 35mm that's 180 images (36exp per roll) whereas in 120, you get 75 images (15 per roll with the Pentax 645). </p>

<p>The Nikon kit is brilliant, but the limits of 35mm are too great to really overcome. You can maybe get close, but at great effort.</p>

<p>Shoot the tightest grain film (Ektar or an old roll of BW400CN) and have it scanned on a Flextight or drum scanner, and you will be pleased. But medium format achieves similar results with a wider range of film and more pedestrian scanning.</p>

<p>I shoot both 35mm and medium format, about equally. Primarily Pentax for 35mm and Bronica for 645. Importantly, both systems have lenses that give results I like. I have also shot Nikon, Rolleiflex, and Fuji 6x9.</p>

<p>Sometimes having a quick-handling portable camera and/or zooms are important. 35mm does the job. Sometimes absolute resolution and tonality are important. For that, medium format is called for. Absolute resolution and tonality can't be invented after the fact. All things being equal, for portrait work, I choose medium format.</p>

Thanks for the input� Patrick, I should have mentioned the Pentax 645n ( autofocus) and currently I use the Epson v500

and it does ok with 35mm but pretty darn well with 6x6. I was asking because I've been considering the f100 for a while

and then came across the Pentax. I'm a street/social documentary shooter and love my mechanical cameras, but I have

been doing more portrait and event work as of late and wanted a automated camera that would give me fantastic results.

At the price you can get these now, it wouldn't require much effort to save up for both. Love how digital has made these

wonderful cameras accessible to all.

<p>I'd use 35mm for street/documentary kind of work (more mobility, faster), and MF for portraits - if you can get and handle both (in terms of availability of film, processing, scanning etc.). I didn't get to MF shooting (yet?), but with portraits, for me, the additional quality of the larger negatives just becomes hyper-obvious - more maybe than with other types of photography.<br>

If I'd get a AF Nikon SLR, it'd be a F100. Just is the sweet spot between the too-heavy F5 and the too-plastic consumer cameras, though the F80 is a really nice alternative. But as it is, I prefer manual cameras, and basically the FM2 just has it all, for me.</p>

<p>The Pentax. </p>

<p>HOWEVER, with the current bargain prices for an F100, I would certainly have one in the stable. The 85/1.4 wide open is very nice. </p>

<p>I agree, the world is full of once "out of reach" cameras. Even digital ones. I still have and use a Canon 20D that I paid $1300 for new. Got my son one, for his birthday this year, and it cost about $150 with a lens.</p>

<p>"If your eyesight isn't great, a manual focus camera like the Pentax 645 will lead to many more missed shots."<br /><br />Obviously everybody's eyesight is different, but personally I find manual focus far more reliable than AF when it comes to portraits.<br /><br />In a portrait situation with the subject seated and me in a fixed position, I can focus once and be done with it, then shoot as many frames as I need to catch the right expression, etc. With AF, I have to be constantly checking that I've got the AF sensor on the right spot or doing focus-and-recompose over and over again. The camera is inherently refocusing on every single shot and I have to check to make sure it's focused where I want it. Most of the time it's fine, but there are those mystery shots that are out of focus because of something the camera decided to do. I don't get mystery shots when I shoot with manual focus.</p>

<p>The F100 has s focus mode.<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f100intro.htm<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f100specifications.htm</p>

<p>I have both setups you listed and use both. for studio portrait shooting, the pentax every time. that being said, I wet print all my negs, so that makes a big difference. not saying the F100 is bad, just that the extra real estate given from the larger neg makes all the difference. and the pentax 150mm lens is a spectacular lens. for portrait shooting with nikon cameras, at 85mm, I prefer the F2 ai-s lens over any of the modern auto focus lenses</p>

<p>Curious, why do you prefer the 85 f2 John? I have a 100 2.8 series e that i love.</p>

<p>Medium format film has much less grain for the same magnification, which lends a sense of transparency to prints up to about 11x14". There is less tendency to block in shadows too, which has the effect of increasing the apparent dynamic range. The depth of field is shallower by about a stop compared to 35 mm film, which enhances the subject against the background.</p>

<p>When focusing on a ground glass, make sure you are focused on the ground surface, not through it. Any lines on the screen should be in sharp focus to your eye. In lieu of grid lines, the borders of a rangefinder insert or the Fresnel lens work too. Focus and re-compose doesn't work well at close range and shallow DOF. The plane of sharp focus changes when you re-compose off-center. Rely on the GG instead, especially the subject's eyes.</p>