Move to medium format

<p>I started with a Canon AE and after that with a Canon Elan. Now i have a Canon 300 D (REbel XT) with a 18-55 Kit lens, a Canon 5D with a 24-105 L and a 50mm 1.4, and i have also a compact Fuji 30 D.<br>

As i'm on a budget, i'm thinking to sell the 5 D and the 50mm 1.4 and buy a Mamiya 654 Pro (the lens,maybe a 80mm 2.8) and a Epson 700V scanner to start my medium format adventure. I don't know if it is the wright way to do it. It's a bad move or not?<br>

I hope you can help me with your advice.....as always!<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I wouldn't sell the 5D. I considered at some point selling my D300 and expensive 2.8 zoom for a hasselblad but I'm glad I didn't. I can use the D300 for a long time to come. You can get a nice TLR for pretty cheap. I'm constantly switching back and forth between MF film and my DSLR. Both are great but in different ways. I guess you would still have the Rebel, but I think you might regret it. </p>

<p>Paulo,<br>

Can you tell us why you're switching from 35mm format to medium format? What is driving your decision? Different MF systems seem to work better with specific applications - studio, street photography, landscape, etc. - and there are many long time users of various brands, models, technologies, etc. in this community. </p>

<p>For example, I added a Mamiya 6MF to my kit because I wanted to try the rangefinder focusing, get a bigger negative for landscapes, and discipline myself with fewer choices of lenses! I do have the Epson 700 scanner and am pleased with the digital results for both negatives and slides. </p>

<p>Sure, the 645 is a great kit and the V700, while not as good as a Coolscan 9000, gets the job done. Bad move? That depends on what you want to get out of it and what you're going to shoot with it. </p>

<p>Well,i'm not convinced with the B&W results with digital. I'm an all-purpose amateur. I like street photography, landscape, portrait, people expressions,animals,etc and i hate use the flash.<br>

I'm triyng to find a better picture quality than i have with 5D. It's possible?</p>

<p>I wouldn't sell your digital either...you might need it at some point. I don't know what you could get for the 24-105 but I'd let that go before the body...<br>

You might check around at labs you like and find out about their scanning. I personally hate to scan so I'd rather pay to have things scanned when I develop them. Good luck :)</p>

<p>You can get better B&W tone from film, but there are ways to improve your digital B&W in software as well. And medium format cameras are great for landscape and other still, deliberative types of shooting, but they're not as quick to use as digital and they're pretty big, so they're not as good in many street, candid and action (e.g. a lot of animal shooting) situations. I'd take it one step at a time - I wouldn't sell your Canon stuff quite yet because a 645 camera might not fill all those needs.</p>

<p>The image you get with your Canon 5D will be better than the image you get with a MF camera and the V700. You'd have to get a Nikon Coolscan 9000 to get in the same ballpark.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you want to move up to medium format film, and I can't think of anyone who wouldn't, :-), you will definitely need a negative scanner to digitize the images, unless you plan on printing the negatives the old fashioned way and then scanning the prints, which I still do quite a lot actually. Some people swear by the Epson V700 as a medium format scanner. I had one and I am here to tell you I am not one of them. I used a V700 for about a year and a half until I used a friend's Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000. The Nikon absolutely blew the doors off the Epson. If you do not plan on printing your MF negatives any bigger than 8 x 10, 11 x 14 at the most, then you would probably be happy with it. I often enlarge my 500CM scans to 16 x 20 and even largetr, and I am here to tell you, at enlargments like that, the difference is <em>marked.</em> I would not unload all your digital stuff though. Digital certainly has its place, especially when it comes to convenience and its ability to preview images. Although it has come a long way in the past few years, it still has a way to go before it challenges MF film, especially black and white.</p>

<p>If you are going to print digitally then don't bother and stay with the 5D. If you do it properly and do it yourself in a darkroom I would take any film camera over a digital. There is something about the digital look I don't quite agree with. Real FB prints are also much nicer than digi prints.</p>

<p>I plan on printing the MF negatives 297 x 420mm (A4) and i can't spend more than Epson V700 cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Real FB prints are also much nicer than digi prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unqualified statements of that sort are simply ridiculous. Whether they are "nicer" or not for Chuk Tang is a question only Tang can answer, but generalizing it to a universal principle is either pure and simple trolling or a result of a confidence born of ignorance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paulo, MF film is a lot of fun, the gear is great, and the prices are low. I've been using a couple of MF systems, including Mamiya Press at 6x9, with great lenses and a nice big negative. I've done side by side tests with my DSLRs.</p>

<p>Here are some conclusions:<br>

- MF film certainly has a potential image quality advantage, but a) it will take good craft to get it, and b) it will take excellent scans.<br>

- I think my 6x9 scanned on a V500 (your V700 would be a bit better) is about equal to 35mm scanned on a 4000 ppi Nikon Coolscan which is about equal to good 12MPx DSLR. You're talking about 645 which is half the negative area. Others may feel differently, but this is where I come out. <br>

- In terms of image detail and resolution, you'll only see differences with very good craft, care, and equipment. In particular, only if shot from a tripod.<br>

- Film has a different look. Not better or worse... Just different.<br>

- Digital is very convenient. When I'm doing family pictures, I use my DSLR.</p>

<p>Some months ago I started a thread here about "Why are you shooting MF film?" I expected people to say "Image quality." But, what was said most often was, "Because I love the camera." Here is the thread:</p>

<p> <a href="00W6XX">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00W6XX</a></p>

<p>Given what you've said... I suggest keeping the Canon, buy a MF camera and a $200 scanner, and give it a try. You can buy better scans of your keepers and see how you like it. There are several threads here about the MF camera choice.</p>

<p>To reinterate what almost everyone else has said:<br>

if you're looking for greater sharpness or finer grain then you'll be going backwards by switching from a 5D to any MF 645 film camera scanned on a flat bed. With 6x7you might get a little better at low ISOs but not at 400 and above (unless films have really improved since I last used them). The way I see it you have three different ways to improve your IQ:<br>

1. buy a high quality scanner or send out your 645 neg to be scanned professionally<br>

2. switch to 6x7, 6x9 or 4x5 for best quality and use a flat bed scanner<br>

3. buy the 5D II</p>

 

<p>Selling a 5D to purchase a MF SLR? Seems like overkill to me? Last I looked 5D's cost a lot, and Mamiya's cost a a little. You can get an entry level Pentax, Bronica or Mamiya 645 kit for a song now days. I've seen them go for as little as $150.</p>

<p>Unless you're a high-volume professional, there is no reason to go out and buy a Nikon scanner. Prices have shot so high that you're much better off to have a scanning service do it for you. An Epson is great for B&W to at least 10x10, though I haven't much liked color from it.</p>

<p>I'd add a fourth to Mike's list: buy a medium-format camera and print optically. Don't dismiss this option-- if your motivation is to improve your black-and-white, this may give you a lot of bang for the buck. (In other words, I think part of what Chuk Tang said is right.) But you would need to improvise space for a darkroom, and there would be a learning curve.<br>

<br />Medium-format cameras are undervalued now, and second-hand darkroom stuff is almost given away, so this could be a solution that doesn't require you to liquidate any of your current gear.<br>

<br />Keep the 5D, no question. At this stage of history, film is a complement to digital photography, not a replacement.</p>

<p>I think the definition of the word "nice" implies that what was said was an opinion?<br>

I also think it is reasonable to assume that since I said I find digi unagreeable in terms of look, I also don't like the prints from digital? I don't know about you but I like looking at photographs in a print and not as a bunch of pixels on a screen or some other medium.<br>

Anyway, I am open to your ideas and as such, I would like to ask you to recommend a system/paper/workflow, whatever, that you think is nicer than a real FB print done well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you will definitely need a negative scanner to digitize the images, unless you plan on printing the negatives the old fashioned way and then scanning the prints</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would the prints need to be scanned? I consider a print to be the final product whichever way it is created.</p>

<p>Save yourself some $$$ and buy the Canon Canoscan 9000F. Looks to have the same optical resolution of the V700 for less money. Honestly, I would flatbed scan for smaller prints/proofs, but send out for large prints.</p>

<p>Oh, and keep the 5d. I would think you would want a good digital every now and then.</p>

<p>Don't look for below 6x6 sized film negatives. </p>

<p>Of course, these are my opinions, yours may vary.</p>

<p>I've been in similar positions before myself, and the advise I've had from here is generally that if you're trying to do it on a budget, perhaps it isn't the best time. By that I mean, the initial outlay is only the start, film, processing, takes up a lot of money over time. If you're on a budget, you might find yourself frustrated that you can't always do what you want to, but that is just one side of it, if you have enough time and money in the long run then go for it.</p>

<p>I would be with those that say 'don't sell your 5d'. It would be a waste, you can get great prints from that too.</p>

<p>I recently invested in hasselblad V system to compliment my Nikon digital set-up. Id never consider only having a film workflow. for a start if your subject has any movement you want digital (unless you are looking for a soft focus effect). macro is a pain with MF so i still use the nikon for that. I dont even have a scanner... i pay for my film to be digitised (the cost of a Nikon9000 buys a LOT of scans)<br>

In short I find im using my MF for more 'considered' work. stuff I spend a lot of time thinking about. and yes just using the equipment is pleasing in itself. Having shot with only digital in my career I now find im totally in love with the look and quality of film. i guess if id started with film i might feel differently..<br>

.. dont sell the Canon ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>I plan on printing the MF negatives 297 x 420mm (A4) and i can't spend more than Epson V700 cost.</em></p>

<p>I'm not at all sure you can substantially beat your 5D at A4 size regardless of scanner, and I'm not at all sure you can substantially beat your 5D with a V700, regardless of print size. In short, this is step sideways, not up, in picture quality, with a lot more hassle (buying film, getting it processed, and scanning it). But I should point out that 297 x 420mm is <strong>A3</strong>, not A4, which is 210 x 297mm, although for purposes of this question I doubt it makes much difference whether we're talking about A3 or A4.</p>

<p><em>You can get better B&W tone from film . . . .</em></p>

<p>Maybe <em>you</em>, Andrew, can get better tone from film--and frankly, maybe I can, too--but this is a weakness of our ability to do the converstion, not in the 5D. As long as you apply a custom curve to each color channel (R-G-B) during raw conversion, you can get whatever tone you want. Granted this requires some expertise. But there's a variety of software, and a variety of techniques using standard digital darkroom software, that can do a pretty good job.</p>

<p><em>Real FB prints are also much nicer than digi prints.</em></p>

<p>There are a number of places that will print digital files on silver-halide, fiber-based paper, the same paper you'd use in a wet darkroom. They are not cheap, but for a really special picture that you want to frame and put on your wall, the cost is not prohibitive. Also, there are fiber-based papers for inkjets, and whether really good inkjet prints are better than, equal to, worse than, or just different from silver-halide prints is a subjective question that depends a lot on who is making each and who is deciding which is better!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>297 x 420mm is <strong>A3</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, I missed that. I should mention that I've had loads of prints at A3 from my 12MP camera (APS-C, while yours has a much larger sensor) that have came out really well. No question over detail<strong> unless you sniff ;)</strong> and even then it all holds up really well. I've sold many of thse too, so it's not just 'my opinion'. I don't know exactly what you're after with this set up, but I would suggest giving your 5D 'another go' and, perhaps experimenting with different processing and printing methods.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Well.....first i want to thanks all of you,for your friendly help and helpful advises.<br>

So i think i will do the following:<br>

1-I'll keep the 5D and try to process the raw files in a better way at Photoshop<br>

2-If i buy a MF it will be a Mamiya 456 1000 S (if possible,with prism an hand grip) with a 80mm lens or 55mm<br>

3-I will use it for landscapes,cityscapes and portrait. (B&W)<br>

4- I will pay for my film to be digitalized by a professional store,saving the scanner money<br>

5- I will print myself, no bigger than A4 and i'll use my photosmart7660 with the B&W ink<br>

Ps- Some one told me that i can use the Mamiya lens with Canon 5D buying a ring adaptator. It's an improvement or not<br>

Please fell free to give me your opinions about this.<br>

Thanks</p>