Which medium format camera should I buy?

<p>Hi :]<br>

I'm a documentary/fine art student, about to enter the final year of my degree. I'm dedicating my final year project to making a photographic documentary of the Illegal Rave scene in the UK. I will be photographing raves and doing location and portraiture work.<br>

My personal tutor suggested I use a medium format camera, particularly a Rolliflex twin lens reflex, which I felt was a little out of my price range. <br>

I was just wondering what medium format camera you would all suggest? My project will feature a lot of work in unpredictable situations where there is little to no light, but I will also be using the camera to create location and portraiture shots. I also need to bare in mind that I will not be able to use a tripod in the environment in which I will be shooting. I also want the camera to create really colourfull and interesting, unique photographs, but I do not want to use a Diana or Holga.<br>

Does anyone have any suggestions for me? Im looking for any information on cameras and any accessories you think I may need for this project, and any film that would be good for my project. <br>

If you need anymore info just ask me :]<br>

Thankyouuu!<br>

Emily</p>

<p>Obviously you want a fast lens. I think the Mamiya 645 cameras have an 80mm/f1.9 and might be within your price range. Contax also has a fast 80mm lens, but the Contax is way out of your price range. Fast lenses for medium format are few and far between, unless you consider f2.8 to be fast.</p>

<p>The Bronica ETRS (or ETRSi if you want mirror-lockup) is an excellent camera. Get one with the speed grip and the AE Prism II. They even have one with a motor wind, but that might not be the best thing for you. I bought one in 1996 for $1300 complete with body, back, TTL prism, and 75mm lens. Now you can get the same thing for $300.</p>

<p>Why medium format and not 35mm?</p>

Um...illegal rave scene? Are you a time traveler from 1995? Anyway, I think you might have been given bad advice on the camera. 35mm handles low light better and is a lot less conspicuous at a gathering like that.

<p>Thankyou for your responses :] I'll give them all some research.<br>

I have been doing some experimentations for the project in digital and found that shakes and blurs were inevitable whether I used a tripod or not because of the vibrations of the bass. I also found using a tripod in such a fast paced environment limiting. I don't mind the slight shakes and blurs though as it added to the slightly pyscadelic feel to illegal raves. </p>

<p>I'm also concerned about focusing in such a dark environment. On a digital camera I can use the auto focus, however on a medium format camera I'll have to manually focus it, which I may find difficult when it is so dark??</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think my tutor suggested medium format as the negatives are much better for printing and enlarging?? But at the end of the day, if I felt 35mm would be best for this project, it's my decision :] What would you all suggest? Im really confused about the whole thing! I would love to use film in some way if possible though, rather than digital. <br>

The illegal rave scene is still massive in the UK, but is very underground. I did a small project on it just before christmas and my tutors loved it because it introduced them to something that they didn't even know existed anymore!! :]</p>

<p>What's a "Rave Scene?"</p>

<p>Low light, no tripod and descrete operation argue against medium format. If you don't get the scene on film, it doesn't matter how easy the negatives are to print. At best, medium format will produce less grain, but grain may actually enhance the secretive nature of your endeavor.</p>

<p>Will you need to pawn your gear to make bail?</p>

I used Bronicas in my business for several years. Also 35mm. I have a full array of Canon digital now. Get a full frame or even a 1.6 crop digital camera used, either Nikon of Canon. Full frame high ISO performance is way beyond what the Bronica would do. The best I could do at a wedding was 800 ISO and you could see grain in enlargements. My full frame does well at 1600 and passes at 3200 ISO. I had my own dark room and could push process B&W but when you push it gets grainier. I also have done newspaper work. I would not use MF for this assignment. My digital printing is:

 

-quite high quality

-retouches much more easily

-produces a more flexible output

-you don't have to sweat in a hot darkroom and spend hours making prints.

-saves more marginal prints

 

I have some very nice MF prints made from both transparencies and negatives. It just takes much more work to get them processed than digital and unless you are going very large the human eye cannot tell the difference from two feet even on an 18x24 print

 

If you want to cut your workload go to digital. Even an older body. The quality is in the talent and knowledge of the photographer not in the equipment. BTW my Bronicas made wonderful pictures but they were a lot of work or money in processing and printing the film.

<p>While out of your price range a full frame DSLR is the way to go as you can shoot at ISO 3200 or even 6400 and (with care) get great quality. I think you will find film too limitng unless you want to shoot high ISO B&W and live with a lot of grain. Something like a Canon 5DII or Nikon D700 with a fast lens like a 50 F1.4 will probably be the best option but still very expensive. You should be fine with one of these DSLRs as you can shoot ISO 3200 and F1.4 which allows you to get 1/60 at a light value of 2. Even if the bass vibrations mean you have to use 1/125 you still can shoot in EV3 at these settings. By contrast a Mamiya 645 with ISO 800 film and an F1.9 lens at 1/125 needs EV6. In terms of quality for large prints I find that my 5DII is about the same as a Nikon 9000 scanned Velvia 50 slide from a Mamiya 645. If you compare the Mamiya on ISO 400 print film and the 5DII at ISO 3200 the Canon wins. Don't get me wrong I own lots of film cameras, use them and love them but a good full frame DSLR with fast 50mm or 35mm lens is the way to go for discreet shooting in very low light. The DSLR will also allow you to experiment with settings and get instant feedback.<br>

You can see plenty of quality test with film vs DSLR but these days a good DSLR will beat 35mm film and produce results on a par with 645 format. At the moment my Fuji GX680 (6x8) scans still beat a DSLR at low ISO. <br>

This is a crop of a pair of hockey shorts taken with a 5DII in low light at ISO 3200. The image has not been processed and the shorts are 0.76% of the total image. On my screen they display 6 inches across which means that this is like looking at a section of a five feet wide print! This is why you see lots of DSLRs at sports events but why a large format camera still wins for outdoor fine art from a tripod!</p>

<p>I wonder if your tutor has tried to use an MF camera (or DSLR) handheld in very low light! By the way you can always rent a body if you cannot afford to buy.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry I posted the wrong crop - the above is an EOS 7D which is not a great low light camera. Here is the 5DII</p><div></div>

<p>when I worked previously documenting illegal raves I used an entry level canon digital SLR.<br>

You can see my photos here :</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilyjaynegriffin/sets/72157623443197942/</p>

<p>This may give you a better idea of my subject matter and environment in which I am shooting. My tutor suggested a film camera as he said there is more weighting in the bottom of the camera making it easier to shoot on a long exposure with no tripod and hold the camera steady?</p>

<p>I am so confused at the moment about whether to shoot on medium format, 35mm or digital?! I really want to convey strong colour but also be able to capture my subject clearly. I just do not no what to do!!!</p>

 

<p>I don`t know why your tutor adviced you to use MF, it certainly has its advantages related to image quality but ask for a technique and shooting style that looks to me against your purposes. Better for enlarging? Better for handholding? I`d say it doesn`t. His suggestion (Rollei) makes sense, as a light photojournalistic tool designed to be used hand held... but to focus with a waist level finder into that dark "rave" scenarios could be a nightmare, thought.<br /> If you want color and low light settings, definitely my choice would be a DSLR. Color film at high ISO is ugly to my liking.<br /> Maybe I`d use a SLR or even a MF with highly pushed b&w film, looking for that special look, but I suspect it`s not what you`re looking for.<br /> Medium format will provide more detail and better tone gradation, at the expense of spontaneity, speed, comfort... and other technical issues. If you can manage it, that`s ok but I suspect you want speed, to go unnoticed, etc.</p>

<p>I just can not envision use of a MF 12/16 shot roll film camera to shoot a fast paced club type event. Since it's a an illegal Rave, the less obtrusive you can be the better.</p>

<p>My first preference would a DSLR with a crop sensor, not FF. Reasoning is that the smaller sensor would give a wider DOF than a larger sensor. This may help the number of keeper shots where the lens is wide open for low light shots and focus is more critical. Probably use primes, something like a 28, 35, and a 50 or 85mm with an aperature of around f/1.4-f/1.8. Wider lens would be less susceptible to shake and any longer FL in low light with slow shutter speeds might be difficult without a tripod. With a good lens the AF in most DSLR's built today is pretty good in low light, but as an aid, some flashes can emit an "IR" pattern that can be used to aid AF in low light without having the actual flash operate. A DSLR will allow better options for metering and focus point selection. Shoot in RAW so some tweaking can be done later if the exposure is off a bit. Where you might use a tripod, instead just brace your camera holding hand/arm against a pole, a wall, or other structure to get stability for a shot.</p>

<p>Second option would be the DSLR above with an additional 35mm film body loaded with high ISO B&W film so you'll have the feel of real film. it can also serve as a backup for the DSLR.</p>

<p>Third option if it has to be film would be two 35mm camera bodies, preferably with AF, one for a high ISO color film and second one for a high ISO B&W film. Same lens pick as above.</p>

 

<p>Emily---</p>

<p>In documentary photography, the subject matter weight more than the technical aspect of photography. I can't see your flickr but I'll advise you that you don't have to rule out flash and blurs. Flash, like second curtain sync and shake/blurs can help you show (e)motion of your subjects or/and ambient party scene. </p>

<p>Secondly, I like digital over film because I can keep track of what I shot and see if I captured what I wanted: big advantage over film...ask any PJ or Doc photographer. Instant ISO changes, don't know about others but I love it. Sudden lighting changes, no problem. </p>

<p>Lastly, your tutor's suggestion is no good. No one can handhold a camera (large and heavy or light and small) a long exposure. Use a VR/IS lens if the subject isn't moving, of course. It will help a little...maybe 2 or 3 stops when you can lucky.</p>

<p>There other forums here on Pnet that might get more viewers than this medium format forum. Try the Street and Documentary forum. Canon/nikon are also good if you decide to go with one of those... </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Emily, This kind of photography is the domain of 35mm (or dslr's of that style) particularily a crf such as the Leica (fast light and high speed lenses) If that is beyond your means, then digital may be the answer. Considering the low light and the need to maintain quality, I recommend that the camera be attached to a Leica table top tripod with small ballhead.<br>

With this setup, you can use much slower shutter speeds than without support.Two legs are spread across your chest with the downward leg of the tripod in the centre. The ballhead allows for vertical orientation if needed. You maintain unlimited mobility.<br>

Really enjoyed the pictures. Bought back memories; I was actually born at the Hackney Hospital in London.<br>

Good luck with your project.</p>

<p>As everyone else said, MF is a bad idea. The cameras are heavier/clunkier then 35mm and slower to operate. Walking around an environment such as the one you plan on going to with a MF camera will be hard from the weight of the lenses and camera. Not to mention the rolls and rolls of film you will need.<br>

Digital would be a good choice. It allows instant preview, you can change stuff in photoshop, the cameras are a bit chunky but not so bad, they perform well in low light...<br>

However I would go with a 35mm film camera, my first choice being a Leica rangefinder (probably out of your price range) or second, an SLR. Something cheap and light with fast prime lenses would be good. Cheap is good because you don't want to worry about your camera getting broken while you are running around in the dark. Light is good because you can be more mobile or even carry 2 bodies.<br>

Being a Pentax guy, I would get 2 MZ series bodies. Something like the MZ-5. Its autofocus and cheap. Stick high speed colour film in one and high speed B+W in the other as mentioned above. Get some fast AF prime lenses, something like a 35 or 50 for the up close people type shots. Maybe an old wide angle zoom for the more scenery type shots. You can add a long lens like a 85 too for portraits. That should be a small and perfectly workable kit that you can carry for a long time without getting tired.</p>

<p>Emily the advantage of a DSLR is that you can shoot at higher ISO than with film. A high ISo allows a faster shutter speed than a lower ISO so you need atripod less. With a fast lens and a good DSLR you should not have any issues with this type of light. While a film camera may be a cheaper option you will find that colour films above ISO 400 are pretty low quality for large prints (they will work fine for small web and print shots). <br>

If you cannot afford a good DSLR (or to rent one) then get a film camera with a fast lens (at least F2) and buy 800 ISO film.</p>

<p>Also agreed, your tutor gave you bad advice. An entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR will outperform a medium format film camera when it comes to low ISO performance and will still provide excellent quality for print reproduction.</p>

<p>If it must be medium format and handheld, the Pentax 6x7 is the easiest to hand hold, and should be among the lower priced choices. It does sound like 35mm film would be a better choice. Unless you need unusually large prints, a film like tri-x will give you excellent results. The advantage of 35mm is ease of hand holding, much lighter, less expensive, and considerable savings on the film over 120. And the lenses available are both faster and less costly. I would suggest a Nikon FM2 or FM3, probably with an 85mm lens.</p>

<p>I am also in the 35mm/Digital camp here. If it must be MF, I'd suggest a Mamiya 7II. As a rangefinder, you can hand hold slow speeds and I would humbly submit that the 7 is the easiest MF to hand hold and travel with. Either way, stopping action will be difficult without ISO 6400 and extremely fast lenses. Enjoy!</p>

<p>Emily, I have a Rolleiflex TLR which I use and love but it's the last camera I own that I would take on an assignment like yours. Size, difficult to focus in poor light, (relatively) slow lens, 12 shots before having to change film - I could go on, but believe me it's the wrong camera for this. Portraits and landscapes, yes.<br>

I don't even think that MF is right for the type of project you're undertaking - a 35mm-sized camera, whether film or digital - would be much more practical. And auto focus would be a huge help in the environment you'll be operating in.<br>

I'd choose my Bessa R3A Rangefinder with the 1.4 lens if I was using film, but would have to get high speed film in colour or b&w and accept there was going to be a lot of colour shift, grain and a fair few failures.<br>

But what I'd probably do is take my m4/3 Panasonic digital which is relatively small, put it on auto everything, and go for it! It has the EVF (electronic view finder) so I wouldn't have to be trying to frame and focus using the screen on the back of the camera. I'd set it to capture the images in both RAW and JPEG so I could judiciously edit and adjust the final images. And I wouldn't have to stop to change film halfway through some action.<br>

Now, I don't know what your budget is. There are a lot of quite inexpensive film SLR's around due to people switching to digital, and there are SO many choices in digital across a huge price range that it's hard to advise you further. Many people will put forward suggestions based on their own particular favourites or foibles but we photographers tend to get a bit myopic when it comes to equipment choices, so sift the advice carefully. I personally can't cope with viewing a screen on the back of a camera, and I don't like the weight and bulk of a DSLR which is why I waited until the GF1 came out, but that might not be within your reach.<br>

The other thing you might want to consider is whether you want to use a zoom lens or a fixed focal length lens.<br>

The Rolleiflex is fixed at the MF equivalent of a 50mm lens on 35 mm. My choice in a crowded party scene would be a much wider angle lens. Most digital P&S cameras start at 35mm equivalent and my feeling is that this would not be wide enough. Try something with 28mm equivalent or even my favourite 25mm - the vibration and movement around you would make anything longer than a 50mm lens problematic and the wider the lens the less problem you'll have with focus. If you saw something happening a little distance away, move to the spot rather than try to use a telephoto lens. Likely as not in a crowd people would get in the way of a clear shot if you tried to take it at a distance.<br>

Now most zooms except the huge and expansive ones, have apertures that are two stops smaller than prime lenses and it gets worse as you extend the zoom range until you're likely to be trying to shoot in dim light at f5.6 when f1.5 should be more like what you'll need.<br>

So in the final wrap up, I'd suggest having a look at the Panasonic GF1 or the Olympus EP2. They're relatively new on the market but both offer an EVF, they're both cameras you could keep and use for many years in all sorts of situations and there's a reasonably good range of lenses available, although Olympus have a better range of wide angle zooms that might be a good choice for you. <br>

If that's way outside your budget then I'd be having to decide between a compact, unobtrusive, digital p&s with as many good features as I could afford, or a second hand DSLR and a suitable lens or lenses - a couple should be enough.</p>

<p>Many years I have used 35mm SLR and DSLR. In last four years I have been using Pentax 67 and 67II medium format camera and two prime lenses including 55mm and 45mm. I just love it. The dynamic range of medium format film is still nonparallel. Pentax 6X7 format SLR is very easy to use, just like 35mm SLR camera. Many readers will surely agree with me. You may try this out.</p>

<p>Since you will have a limited number of days shooting this project, rent a good DSLR for your shooting days. For low light, a Nikon D3s would be a good choice with a 24-70 f/2.8 VR. Make sure you carry full insurance on the camera/lens package.</p>

<p>Another option would be shoot the whole thing in black and white, use ISO 3200 film or push Tri-X three stops and embrace the grain - this is an "underground" rave is it not? Gritty and grimey may be the way to go... or not. </p>

<p>You may not be able to use a tripod, but what about a monopod?</p>

 

<p>Having reviewed the photos you took previously on Flikr I would say, forget B&W - you need the colour and mono would just get too drab on its own. And I'd support the use of a DSLR digital or Micro 4/3rds digital + EVF with auto focus and the best zoom you can afford or a couple of fast prime lenses - but better if you don't have to change lenses - you might drop one or the dust might get onto your sensor.<br>

I think my choice would be an Olympus EP2 with their 11-22 / f2.8-3.5 Zuiko WA zoom, or better still their 14-35 / f2 Standard zoom. If you can afford it. That combination would be a kit that will serve you well for many years' photography in all sorts of situations and if it's a bit of a stretch now, consider calling up family and relative favours and mortgaging your birthday and Christmas present for a couple of years and get them to club together to get it for you.</p>