How would you spend $6,000 in medium format

<p>I've read about all of them, from the $300 bronica to the $40,000 H4D. 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 and 6x4.5.<br>

Rangefinders, SLRs, TLRs, and everything in between.<br>

I own a nikon f100 and 1 nikon d200. I want to get into medium format photography. I am looking for advice on what is the best way to spend $6,000.<br>

I love wide angles, will probably need a normal lens, a nice portrait lens and maybe even a macro lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can't go wrong with Hasselblad. Get a 503CW body with a prism finder and an A-16 back, CF lenses 40mm f/4, 60mm f/3.5, 50mm f2.8, 150mm f/4 and a 120mm f/4 Makro. you will be very pleased.</p>

<p>Before even thinking about the camera system, start by placing an order for a Nikon 9000 scanner and the glass carrier. This will blow $3k of the budget. </p>

<p>This single purchase is the largest determinant of the technical image quality coming out of whatever MF system you end up buying into. Don't bother with Epson flatbeds, not even the 750.</p>

<p>Buy a nice Epson wide carriage inkjet. Price varies (a lot.)</p>

<p>Buy into a camera system with the budget left over. Look into the Mamiya RB and RZ, and start with the standard 90mm or 127mm lens. The system is flexible; the bellow focusing is a big plus. The 6x7 film gives large amount of usable film area without cropping. </p>

<p>Don't go crazy buying lenses. You won't truly know what appeals until you've significantly used a camera.</p>

<p>Nikon CS 9000 with the glass carrier is the first step. Then, a Hassy CWD with a 60mm ,120mm and 150mm lenses, if you will still have cah to spare, buy the Hassy SWC/M or 903 0r 905, that's all you will probably ever want. or need.</p>

<p>A good scanner makes sense unless you just want to do darkroom work? Anyway, I wouldn't look for an MF zoom as I haven't seen any that are really very good, including Hasselblads.</p>

<p>If you can swing it, Hasselblads are nice, but so are the RB's. I recommend an RB over an RZ because it is all manual and you don't lose any functions because of a battery. The quality is every bit as good and the minor differences in the use is easy to learn (extra stuff with RB and a bit closer to large format). And RB's are dirt cheap, I know, I sold a whole system--RZ & RB's--and cried at the prices! You will also like the big negative and hate the fact that you can't get a roll in a single film sleeve that fits a normal binder! But they are big and beautiful!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The main problem is that the Nikon 9000 scanner doesn't exist anymore. Nikon has all but abandoned film users so the only real option is to buy it used. That is if you don't mind spending more money for something used then it cost when it was new! So it's your choice if you want to spend $2500+ on a used scanner from ebay that might up and die on you in a month leaving you stranded!<br /><br />I'd buy a Nikon in an instant but as they don't exist anymore I was forced to buy an Epson 700. It's perfectly fine for this as long as you also upgrade your film holder to a betterscanning holder. I've heard the most absurd statements from people here who really should know better. Statements such as, "A MF scan on an epson is no better then a negative from a 1930s folder" and "a flatbed MF scan is worse then a high quality 35mm scan" are completely absurd and are the ramblings of people who are more techno-geek then photographer, which you shouldn't be listening to them in the first place.<br>

I have a Minolta 5400 35mm scanner, which in reviews and tests was even higher in IQ and Color Accuracy then any Nikon scanner and the MF scans I get from my epson 700 blow away any high quality 35mm scan I've gotten from my minolta. I'm sure the Nikon 9000 does scan better then the Epson, but a lot of the posters here have the attitude that if you aren't going to spent $2000+ dollars on a 6+ year old used scanner then you have no right to be shooting Medium Format. Don't let those people discourage you. An epson should be fine for at least up to 11x14 prints and let you get in the game. And don't let people tell you different - you WILL see a difference between MF and 35mm using an epson. Even my 4x5 prints I make from MF using the epson to scan blow away any 4x6 I've gotten from 35mm.<br /><br />Anyway, if you take a photo that you want to enlarge to a huge amount like 40x50, common sense would dictate that you would get a drum scan and do it right. Even the Nikon isn't good enough for super-huge enlargements. Unless you want to use a home scan for a $300 or higher mounted print. But if I'm going to spend that amount on a print, I'd rather spend an additional $100 or so on a scan as well and get the highest quality I can. <br>

If you can find a brand new Nikon scanner, with a warranty for $2000 or so, I'd say buy it but I wouldn't advise you to spend half your budget on a used scanner. <br>

I do hope eventually that Nikon gets its head out of its ass though and starts making these scanners again as Nikon and Minolta were the only real makers of high quality consumer MF film scanners. Although the probability of Minolta coming back from the dead and Nikon getting its head out of its ass are practically nil. Maybe a 3rd manufacturer will come out of nowhere and fill in this gap with some product.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The main problem is that the Nikon 9000 scanner doesn't exist anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon CS9000 is currently available new from B&H, Adorama, and Freestyle for $2200. It's available from other sources as well if for some reason you don't like the Big 3. </p>

<p>This scanner is basically a build to order item, and has been that way for years. Mine came in from Adorama maybe two months after the order went in. This was just prior to the latest $200 price increase toward the fall of '09.</p>

<p>Unless the lead time is unacceptable, do not pay above list for a used 9000 at the moment.</p>

<p>I use a Nikon CS5000 as well as the CS9000 for film scans. The 5000 is a 135-only scanner but is otherwise identical to the 9000 in digitization result. </p>

<p>It's instructive to see what actual, unretouched scans looks like. First, this is a crop from the 5000:<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00J/00J1d6-33809484.jpg" alt="" width="497" height="497" /><br>

Second, this is the same frame scanned with my Epson V500 flatbed.<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00J/00J1dA-33809584.jpg" alt="" width="497" height="497" /><br>

The Epson V700/V750 scan quality is between these two.</p>

<p>Practically, much depends on the target print size. With 6x7, the V500 yields a real 20MP. This gives excellent 8x10 prints. Keep in mind, however, the same negative nets 80MP from the 9000: 16x20 prints from the 9000 (and the RB-67 system) are simply gorgeous. This is particularly the case with high resolution, sharp, fine grained film like Fuji Acros.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Couldn't agree more with the above posts about getting a Nikon scanner. I'll only add that a used 9000 or even an 8000 may be viable alternatives. I got the 8000 when it first came out, it works perfectly, and would currently sell for about $800-$1000. Find one like that and you'd have a great deal.</p>

<p>I'd buy a used 'Blad with a lens or two, and bank the other $4K.</p>

<p>Although the Nikon 9000 does make better scans, I'm not convinced that actually buying one is the most cost-effective way to go. Most photographers will find that they do NOT need that type of quality for every frame. In fact, just a few frames per year may need that kind of scan. And in that case, one may be better off farming it out. Epsons are perfectly suited for proofing, making small prints, or scanning for the web. The example scans above are very tight crops. I have example of 11x17 prints from both the Nikon 9000 and Epson, and the problem is that the Nikon is not an order of magnitude better. The Epson can get 80% of what the Nikon gets, and that extra 20% is very expensive. Unless the poster knows he is going to be making a consistently large quantity of large prints--and those kind of photos that require hi-res scans--I would put the $2500 into something else.</p>

<p>In Canada, Vistek has one in stock.</p>

<p>If I could forget macro, or leave that to my 35mm SLR, the top MF system for me would be a Mamiya 7-II RF 6x7 camera, a 43mm very wide angle lens, an 80mm and possibly a 150mm lens. Unless I bought second hand mint quality, there might not be enough left over for a Nikon CS 9000 scanner, but the complete combination would be a good choice for the highest quality (short of drum scanning) MF system. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>... and the problem is that the Nikon is not an order of magnitude better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pretty much the way these things go. However, the V500 is $120 to the V700 at $500: neither is the higher end Epson flatbed 4x better than its cheaper stable mate.</p>

<p>What it really comes down to is how best to apportion the purchasing budget. The choice of scanner shows, and rather obviously, through to (a sufficiently large) print. </p>

<p>The camera system almost has no bearing on technical image quality. Be it Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax, Fuji, Contax or Bronica - these were all truly professional systems that photographers depended on for a living. A specific model or lens might be superior in some way and in some applications, but it's frankly hard to go wrong with any of these.</p>

<p>Rather than selecting by make, decide first instead on the specific MF format. A prime reason to use MF is the relatively large film area. The resolution and tonality improvements over 135 film compensates for the additional hassle, so it's worthwhile keeping this in mind.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer 6x7. The aspect ratio fits the common 8x10 and 16x20 print sizes almost perfectly: meaning all that delicious negative area makes its way onto paper. 645 is just a bit too small in absolute terms. 6x6 is really no better once cropped down to fit. 6x8 and larger roll film cameras tend to be a bit more rare and esoteric.</p>

<p>$6000??</p>

<p>Myself, I'd spend $50 and get a late 1950s German 6x6 folder with Solinar or Tessar lens, a hood and a second-hand light meter. Then, I'd spend a couple of hours to get new grease on the focus threads, and re-collimate it. Then I'd spend about $80 on film....</p>

<p>...and then with the rest of the money, I'd head to...I don't know...Portugal...or maybe go back to Sweden...or Transylvania...or Taiwan...or....</p>

<p>Hope you're kidding. With the price of used MF stuff you'd have to work pretty hard to spend $6K.<br>

I sold my 645N package, worth 8K-9K new for $1500.<br>

I would buy a used Hassleblad and a lens or 2 for $1000 and the rest on good lenses for the digital bodies.</p>

<p>Do you want to be shooting film or digital? I wouldn't advise trying to get a whole digital system for $6K or even basing it on the Hass V which is not so suitable for digital use. For one thing, if you like shooting wide I believe you will need the 40mm lens and the good ones are several thousand dollars. It still won't be very wide due to the crop factor. A decent back, even used, will be $5K and up. There are many more reasons but I hope this has already made you reconsider. You just don't have the budget for a full working digital system. If you want to shoot film and have no digital ambition, $6K should get you a very decent system regardless of the platform. To answer the question as to how I personally would spend it, I already did. I got a Rollei 6008AF with 40, 80, 110, 150 and 180 lenses.</p>

<p>I did not ask for advice on scanners but thanks anyway. I'm planning on getting my films developed at a local lab then scan them on a V500 and select which ones I will print manually (not digitally) myself and which will be outsourced. Probably do black n whites myself. I have printed 35mm negs before. I would like to print a few wall sized prints per year but mostly 8x10 and 16x20 I don't know if I will be able to do 16x20 at home. Also I have no idea of what the cost of decent enlargers are.<br>

I am planning to get a contax with a 35, 80, and 120makro. I like that it is a very flexible system, easy to use, has autofocus which I might find helpful for street photography, and it is compatible with digital backs if I ever decide to go digital. I like the 645 format because I might be able to shoot hand held. Mamiya RB/RZ 67 cameras are huge and Mamiya 7 is not very versatile. I agree with Robert on the 6x6.</p>

<p>Excellent choice of format and camera. Those Contax Zeiss lenses ought to be capable of out-resolving any of the above-mentioned scanners including the 4K dpi Nikon, so when outsourcing the best work look for a drum-scanner operator with an 16-bit Aztek, Howtek or ICG scanner capable of non-interpolated resolution of 5K or more. (Tangos won't do better than a Nikon 9000, and are 8 bit.)<br>

Except for the digital back-swapping limitation, you might find that the Pentax 645N and NII system also meets your needs. I discovered the Contax to be much less available here in the US, and the system is typically 4X-5X pricier used. The Pentax lenses are also stellar and relatively common and therefore tend to be better bargains (not so with the 35mm f/3.5 SMC-FA, a rare beast that costs as much as the Contax equivalent. But I'm delighted with the superb optical quality of my $300 manual focus version, that I most often use at hyperfocal distance).<br>

If you've done 16x20's on an enlarger from 35mm you'll find 645 easier: less of an enlargement, less light loss, fewer dust and reciprocity problems. Same enlargers with different neg carriers, and these are as inexpensive now as they've ever been.</p>

<p>You might check it out, but there was an issue with the Contax when it first came out. I considered it myself, at that time, but a friend who was also a pro got one and had issues with that AF system with b/w filters. It just wouldn't focus at all and I think it was with a red filter, but don't remember for sure--long time ago but I know he returned it. I do think it was fine except in that case, ...for what it is worth!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Before even thinking about the camera system, start by placing an order for a Nikon 9000 scanner and the glass carrier. This will blow $3k of the budget.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What has scanning got to do with it?</p>

<p>You can get fantastic prints from film, but the scanner is another option the OP might want</p>

<p>Ivan Eberle asserts</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tangos won't do better than a Nikon 9000, and are 8 bit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think either of these statements are correct.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You definitely need to keep those equipment costs under $2000. $6K is not enough to get the top-end digital everything accessories, so you're aiming mostly for film and its conversions. For under $2K, you should be able to get some really good optics and a film body from someone who has moved on to something else.</p>

<ul>

<li>Equipment below $2K, maybe <em>well below</em> $2K</li>

<li>$2K on supplies</li>

<li>$2K on follow up costs like travel on a big trip, printing up a small book, framing a collection of prints, or paying fees and costs associated with art fairs or small shows. </li>

</ul>

<p>I would encourage you to spend maybe a maximum of a third on the hardware. <strong>Spend more than half on utility.</strong> You'll thank yourself later.</p>

<p>The year that I purchased my Pentax 645 I paid out a lot of money in equipment, by my standards. Within a calendar year, those <strong>hardware costs were below 10% of what I had purchased</strong> (photo related stuff). <strong>Fuel</strong>, even though I didn't often go very far, was an unforeseen radical expense increase. I made<em> a lot</em> of day trips with the camera.</p>

<p>It's up to you: how you spend your money. How you budget things out. Yet, I recommend you budget to unleash the beast. $6K means keep those equipment costs down. </p>

<p>Pay to unleash the beast. You want bricks of film and buckets of Dektol & fixer. You want a thousand dollar flight somewhere. You want two grand in gasoline, oil and vehicle maintenance. You want to go to the grocery store so that you can save out there to stay another day if you want. Well, your version of this is your version. Maybe you would have chosen differently on the particulars. </p>

<p>Pay to unleash the beast. Budget for utility. Every item you buy is money that can't be devoted to using the other items. </p>

<p>Dave, I've thrown away considerable money on Tango scans only to figure this out. To wring everything that's there on a small format neg, 35mm and 645 call for more critical scanning-- higher res than a Tango can muster-- because these formats are not as lens-limited or diffraction-limited in resolution as are larger formats. They're film-limited, but only when the scanner itself doesn't become the bottleneck. If one is going to bother with the recurring film costs of MF, might as well achieve better final results than what can be achieved with digital-capture gear for the same or lesser money.<br>

I was already making cropped 16x20's from my best 35mm transparencies and negs off my Minolta DMSE 5400 (as in 5400 dpi) that were quite satisfactory. Excellent tonality but could see in my macros there was a level of detail I was missing and perhaps room for improvement in resolution. Two of the reputed top Tango operators returned numerous scans that were not better resolving, and which were posterized.<br>

One of the lab owners--old prepress guy who's been in this since dirt was invented-- admitted to me that above 2800, the Tango hardware interpolates. At a hardware level, it's also an 8-bit conversion.<br>

I deduced that this is the reason Tangos do so poorly with negs.<br>

Tangos are repurposed cheap magazine and ad layout scanners (yes, back in the day $50K was cheap) but they're not particularly well suited to fine-art photographic needs.<br>

The best 35mm and 645 format lenses resolve close to 110 lp/mm on Velvia, Astia and Provia. Nyquist frequency calls for doubling that when sampling. There's a reason why the highest end scanners don't quit at 4K dpi.<br>

So for my money the best $6K one could spend on 645 would be to buy a ubiquitous and cheap camera capable of high res (Pentax) and an 8K dpi Aztek (barring that, scans from one). </p>