medium format for concert/pj/documentary work

hi guys!

i am recent graduate, majored in photojournalism and documentary,

and was considering switching to medium format for my work. i just

like the feel of it, and the abundance of detail. i was wondering

what cameras i should check out? i don't really want a rangefinder,

because i want to be able to see the depth of field. i also

(obviously) want a camera that is easily hand-holdable. thanks for

your help!!!!!!

645 format seems the obvious choice: small, light, fast-handling, AF capable. Why not search among available brands for feature/cost parameters that suit you, then come back with specific questions?

Have a look at the Mamiya 645. It has a very good reputation for reliability and ease of handling.

Mamiya 645 is nice and if you have really deep pockets you can try the new Hasselblad H1. I own the H1 and for a 645 its very versatile and very fast almost as fast as some of my SLR's but at a premium price tag. The Mamiya is a little slower in autofocus mode but has a great selection of lenses available and both will take a digital back if you find yourself going down that route. The H1 is still quite new and your selection of lenses are less and pricey. Both camera are fairly light for a 645 format, and as for the Mamiya pricing is very competitive for a 645. Good Luck in your search.

Also, consider the Contax 645 if you need 'speed.' i think it's the only MF camera with

an f2 'normal' lens (80mm). But, battery life may be an issue without the additional

grip.

 

In general, though, there are many reasons why PJs DON'T use medium format.

Although you're interested in "the abundance of detail," you probably should consider

whether it's more important just to GET the shot, versus having it rendered with the

most detail. MF cameras are generally have much slower lenses, focus more slowly,

and are large and loud. Not exactly inconspicuous, either, since most people have

never seen such gear. You will stand out, and become a bit of a curiosity yourself,

rather than becoming part of the environment and observing.

 

You say you just like the feel of it (MF). So, you have already had experience with it, in

these situations? What did you use then? Were the results consistently and predictably

satisfying?

 

Maybe you could consider the Pentax 645? I don't usually recommend it because it

doesn't have interchangeable backs, but you won't need them in this context unless

you need to switch between colour/b+w. The lenses are kinda nice (great bokeh), and

this camera looks a little less high-tech than the others. It might even look like a

large digital to some folks....

Just a thought here: For photojournalism you will frequently work where it is crowded.

 

I think it would be quite useful to have access to a waist level finder (as well as a prism, surely) so that you could do a "hail mary" shot. This means that you hold the camera upside down with your arms fully extended and compose using the image you see in the w.l.f. This way your camera will be over the heads of the crowd and you are still capable of composing a decent shot.

I have some comments on your assumptions..

 

1. You won't be able to evaluate depth of field with an SLR taking concert pictures. If you stop down, it will be too dark. For many cameras the ground glass will have fresnel lens effects which will hinder evaluating focus outside the center. I think you could learn about DOF, zone focussing, etc. MF SLRs tend to be noisy and MF setups are generally appropriate for very deliberative work.

 

2. Telephoto lenses are prohibitively expensive and not very tele- or

very fast for MF.

 

If you do get a MF camera, I suggest you bring along a small

35mm rangefinder camera, because that will probably be more

useful, and you may end up using that more than MF. Or even a

decent --gack-- digital camera, especially for concerts.

 

 

You do, of course, have the potential for startlingly better

quality from a larger piece of film. Do people expect that in

photojournalism or concert photos? Good luck.

Hi Nora-

 

Give a thought to the Mamiya 7 and/or the Mamiya 6. These are rangefinders, and very quiet. The lenses are slow, but if you use Ilford 3200 BW 120 film (rated at no more then 1600) you can gain some speed. The Mamiya lenses are the finest anywhere and the image quality is stunning. A Mamiya 7 body (used) and a 65mm lens can be had for a pretty good price.

 

Chris

Oops, just re-read your post about not wanting a rangefinder. I don't get the dof issue. Take a look at these cameras (Mamiya 6/7) they are easily handholdable, aadn will give you images that rival any MF lenses on earth.

As someone who's recently gotten into MF, I had the urge to bring a 645 for jobs where a 35mm is the more popular choice. I've gotten over it because if you shoot the way most do at these events, the results won't be any sharper (handheld, shooting fast to capture the right instant...) keep in mind that most paper that PJ is printed on won't show all your pains for tonality and sharpness.

 

BTW, Mamiya has a 80mm f1.9, the fastest MF lens.

My main interest in photography is photojournalism, and I have noted your wish to see depth of field whilst also wanting a camera that is easily hand-holdable.

 

I've been a Leica rangefinder user for years, but wanted to get into medium format because I wanted big prints. So I bought a Hasselblad 501cm, but I found it difficult to use quickly (even with a PM 45 viewfinder attached) and not particularly good for handholding. And so I bought a second hand Mamiya 7 + 80mm.

 

The Mamiya 7 is:

 

1) extremely fast to use and very hand-holdable - good for photojournalism,

2) has no shutter bounce (which adds to sharpness at "normal" speeds, and also means you can hand-hold it in tricky light at slower shutter speeds - good for photojournalism), and

3) from my experience, it takes much sharper HAND-HELD photos than I could achieve with my Hasselblad. I recently came back from Mexico, and hand-held street photos of the local people are now on my wall .... all printed to 20"x24", with such stunning sharpness that I wish I had bought this Mamiya rangefinder in the first place.

 

At 16" x16", my Hasselblad photos when hand-held looked better, unsurprisingly, than what I could achieve with the Leica. However, in my view, the Mamiya 7 prints are in a league of their own (in terms of remarkable sharpness), and give me the quality I had hoped for but never really attained when hand-holding the better-built Hasselblad.

 

I have not ignored your comment about not really wanting a rangefinder, but would advise you to question which is more important to you? 1) Depth of field (it's tricky to predict depth of field on the Mamiya lens barrel), or 2) hand-holding (where the Mamiya excels to take the sharpest hand-held photos I have ever seen from medium format).