Choosing a film format FD EF or MF

My appologies if this is not the right forum to post in but since it is mostly

processing related I thought I'd drop it in here.

 

I currently shoot EOS digital with 1 series bodies and L lenses.

 

I am moving away from surf photography into surfscapes, surf lineups similar to

landscaps and surf art.

 

Firstly I need to know how big can a 35mm neg be enlarged is 1mx1.5m posssible

with perfect technique and slow films and sharp lenses. I'll be using MLU cable

release heavy tripod etc.

 

This is where it gets tough.

 

I can buy either a FD range of lenses and a mint AE1 programme for around $1000

to shoot wide angle surfscapes and scenic surf locations knowing I have the

abillity to use a longer lens if needed. Or I can get medium format with not so

long lenses but have the abillity to crop those negs to compensate for the lack

of length in the lenses. (but I don't think it will work that way)

 

Or I can stay with digital and buy maybe an 5D and keep my range of lenses. Now

my understaning is that the very best of Canons FD lenses are on par with

todays L lenses??? I'd prefer to go back to film and actually create the photo

rather than have a digital body do it all for me, there is no skill or art in

that i am also keen on scanning my own film.

 

I know that I will only be shooting maybe 6-8 times per year when conditions

will be perfect so having 15 grand AUD in EOS lenses and digital bodies doesn't

seem viable when I can buy a system for a fraction of that price and get close

to the same results.

 

 

Given that I will be printing large generally minimun width of 60cm am I better

off with film from FD system, medium format but lacking the focal length

needed, or staying with digital at a high cost when depreciation is factored

in, plus I'll have to buy some more prime L lenses $1000+ each even staying

with film in the EOS system will still cost me plenty.

 

 

I have done some 20x30s from Kodak 400asa film about 8 years ago with consumer

grade lenses hand held and with no real idea of photography and they came out

more than satisfactory I can only imagine with what I now know and how to

shoot "properly" they would be very sharp.

 

 

What would you do? Weight and portabillity are not factors, dollars are not an

issue unless I stay with EOS or digital I know nothing about MF little about FD

other than its a do it your self setup.

 

Help.

I don't have any definitive answers for you, as I think camera choice is a very personal thing (eg, fondle one for a bit, take it for a spin, see if it handles the way you want it to).

<p>

However, I will say as medium-format goes you're in luck - a lot of people have (or are) getting rid of their kits, and a lot of the systems are selling for peanuts on the dollar. You can get, say, a Pentax 67 (sometimes known as 6x7) body with a variety of lenses for very little these days (relatively) - it handles like an SLR, you can get a variety of lens focal lengths, that might suit your purpose (produces 6cm x 7cm negatives).

<p>

If you think you might want to go wider to 6cm x 9cm negatives, there are a couple of rangefinders that will do it (the Fuji GW690 comes to mind), but if you want to try it out first, many older "folder" rangefinders came in that format - you can get a refurbed 6x9 Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta for a couple of hundred $$, depending on options/lenses - see <a href="http://www.certo6.com/buy.html">Jurgen Kreckel's site</a> for more info (I've bought from him, very reliable).

<p>

As for 35mm, I have no experience with Canon kit, but if your primary intention is wide-angle, large negatives, but you still want "normal" focal lengths, one option might be the Hasselblad Xpan or Xpan II - in panoramic mode produces 24mm x 65mm negatives (but normal 24mm x 36mm negatives in "regular" mode), only 3 lenses available (made by Fuji). Not cheap these days, but by many accounts worth it.

<p>

Best of luck with your decision.

Lots of questions here!

FD lenses are very good but why bother if you have EF lenses already? Get an EOS film body. Modern ISO 100-160 films are very sharp and grain free, but don't under expose negative films. Size of enlargement will probably be limited to the quality of the scan.

For really good quality have you considered large format? It is perfectly viable if you are not in a hurry and would be using a tripod anyway.

All of my experiances with the a1 and ae1 programs are positive hard to beat film from 35 can be printed to 30 x45 if the neg is good but since you have an eos system why not stay in the family and get something like an elan or eos.1 and use the lenses set you have now. The fd L series lenses are some of the best ever produced. I will put in a plug for the 500 series haselblad.

Main reason for dumping EOS is that I have about 10-12 grand in lenses that I simply dont need and if I sold them I could put alot of money in my pocket but still get the results needed by purchasing a different system.

 

Shooting 6-8 times a year when all of the weather elements combine sees me holding alot of money in glass that is not used often enough to justify owning that system.

 

I am almost certain that I will get out of EOS.

Darryn, I retain "big enlargements" from your discussion. For what its worth, my

personal suggestion would be to reconsider the 35 mm format vis-a-vis MF. If you

don't need the Canon for other shooting, you might consider selling those expensive

lenses you don't use and purchasing a used or new Mamiya 7, or a used Mamiya 6.

One or two lenses with either camera bodies of these systems would cost about

$2000 to $4000 depending upon lens choices. They are light and fast reacting

rangefinder-viewfinder systems, with the only major disadvantage for landscapes of

not having autofocus, which might not be necessary for surfside landscapes (if that is

not a contradiction in terms). The lenses are excellent and the big negative or

chrome slide a lot better for blow-ups.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will confess to being strictly a film guy, and mostly large format, at that. However, if your mindset is 35mm film, I'd stick with digital. I think the state of the art is that for enlargement, digital has surpassed 35mm film. It's a different story, as you go to larger film formats. I use a Hasselblad for my medium format, but the 6x6 format is not ideal, in my view, for surf landscape. You might want to think about having a 6x12 or 6x17 camera in your arsenal for the panoramas you might want to do. Cropping film or digital isn't in the same league as designed for pano cameras. If you're going with medium format, I'd suggest the 6x7 format for the larger negative and ability to do horizontals. I don't care for rangefinder cameras, so I'm not a fan of the Mamiyas. You've got a number of good choices, and budget can be the decider. As others have suggested, many people are abandoning film cameras for digital, so there are some great values around on top grade cameras and lenses. I suggest you start with what you want to accomplish and work backwards toward a camera/lens decision.

I am reasonably confident that I am now going MF. I've had a good look at the Pentax 67 and it has some versatillty in that it has longer lenses which are quite cheap and reports show they ar every sharp at F11+

 

I looked at the Hassleblad CM series and am leaning more toward Pentax as it is more SLR orientated.

 

is their a compelling arguement that I should use a blad??

 

Now for an even dumber question can you scan MF negs at home and isfo what sort of scanner is going to produce quality scans or should I get them done professionally.

Epson V700 scanner. Ok i found that one myself.

For landscape-type work, I would think the Pentax 67 would work better, with the negatives having a "squat rectangle" orientation, vs. the 'Blad's 6x6 square. However, I think (and I haven't done an exhaustive search, to be honest) that the "SWC" 'Blads came with a 38mm lens (equivalent to approx. 22mm on a 35mm camera), whereas I believe the widest lens for the Pentax is 40mm (and thus you might be able to crop the 'Blad negatives to a slightly wider perspective - but then again it might be negated by the extra cm of the Pentax).

 

Also, most (all?) 'Blads use a waist-level finder vs. the regular SLR prism of the Pentax, so you might be more comfortable with one or the other (I've just started to use a TLR, which of course has a waist-level finder - definitely an adjustment if you're not used to it, but a good experience all the same).