MF + Photojournalism Question / Opinions watned

[melissa_cacioppo]

Hello - i'm a 3rd year student at SVA in manhattan.

I'm in the middle of getting back a loan check towards some new

equipment.

For a while i was pretty set in my decision to get a Mamiya 645

pro outfit (with winder / reflex finder ) and a wide angel lens.

 

I also like the mamya 7II but i don't think it is as versitile as the

645.

But - I want to persue photojournalism and documentary work.

 

I know so many papers/magazines are going digital now - but i

still want to buy a MF camera (most of these places can

sometimes supply ditital cameras, etc) also the 645 is ready to

accept any new digital back technology that may come along (in

a realistic price range) in the future.

 

my main questions are -

-what good quality, somewhat light medium format (NOT 6x6

square - preferably rectangle) can i find used for a reasonable

price ?

 

-opinions about the 645's versatility when it comes to journalism

and documentary ?

 

i personally think the 645 is great, the only negatives are how

big it is, but if you put in the winder and an automatic prism its

pretty fast.

 

generally, since i cant predict how my future in this industry will

be , i want the most versatile system but one that is good for

photojournalism as well.

 

i think i'd be making a sound decision on the 645

but i'm also curious what kind of used MF systems with good

availability are out there.

 

just trying to get some last info before i shell out the money!

thanks

melissa

[les_campbell]

I've worked for newspapers and magazines on the "art director" side of the equation; here's my 2 cents (if they're worth that).

 

I think 35mm (cameras, whether film or digital) still rules the day for photojournalism. I've run across a few folks who use MF, but consider the trade offs for that big chrome/negative. The 35mm body itself is lighter, generally (the Mamiya 7 II may be a little lighter than an F5). Then there's on-camera flash -- you can easily get by with a dedicated flash for 35mm instead of the monster Metz you'll need for MF (and you will need to use a flash at some point for photojournalism). For the most part, there is a greater variety of 35mm lenses (ultra-wide to supertelephoto), they're lighter as well, and more important, usually faster than the MF counterparts. Cheaper, too.

 

And you're going to be able to shoot much more quickly with 35mm gear (once in a while the steel-drivin' man beats the steam machine, but John Henry died after he did). Even if you're envisioning slow set-up, environmental portrait documentary stuff, your West Virginia coalminer subjects might be a little less put off by an F100 with a 17mm lens (since you mentioned wide angle) than a large MF setup that you will be more or less sticking in their faces.

 

And yes, more and more of photojournalism is digital. You're wisely reluctant, as a poor student, to sink the big money into a D1X or EOS digital at this point, which will be obsolete in a few years. But 6MP, full-frame sensors are starting to arrive, and boy howdy will the bandwagon get even more loaded down. Consider that if you buy a Canon/Nikon system now, you may toss the body in a few years, but the lenses will still work with your digital body.

 

On the other hand, digital backs for MF have a much larger sensor, so are a lot more expensive and a lot slower. Resale values on MF equipment have gone down quite a bit in the last year or two, as well, cuz many of the pros who used it (especially wedding photographers) have switched to 35mm digital.

 

I could go on, but, hey, who wants me to.

[roger_michel]

strong second for 35mm for all the reasons mentioned above. should also mention that MF pic quality advantage is laregly irrelevant in low res reproduction world of newspapers. you are rite to be concerned about investing money in digital rite now. however, if you buy into the nikon system, you can be fairly confident that there will always be a state of the art digital platform for your nikkor lenses when you do decide to take the plunge (or if you are given a body to use by your employer). i see that kodak now offers its current generation of digital cameras in only a nikon lens mount (they used to produce canon AND nikon versions). good luck.

[melissa_cacioppo]

i definetly agree i should always have a good 35 system. i've

actually been looking at everything lately - and medium format.

which i definetly want to get, if not for newspaper/magazine work

i'd like to do - for myself and other projects.

 

i have 2 35mm cameras - however, they are older, and not

completely automatic (manual focus, but they can both go auto

exposure) - and im sure auto focus comes in handy for

journalism.

 

for 35 i have a cannon AE-1 program and a minolta (don't know

the model)

 

im taking out a loan for equipment so i can get student discounts

if i decide to buy new - and im kind of curious if i can get an extra

1,000 bucks from them or not, im sure its worth finding out

because i might be able to find a decent used 35 system - what

do you think of that?

 

ok so i'm still going to go MF - but i am also curious of what 35

systems you reccomend for proffesional photojournalism, and

price ranges they fall under?

 

Thanks for all of your input

-melissa

[oliver_sharp1]

If you look at the cameras that professional PJs use, you will discover that there is an almost perfect absence of medium format. This is because the cameras are slower to operate, heavier, need to have the film changed more often, and there are virtually no facilities for sending MF images electronically wherever you go. Also, newspapers etc are not set up to get and process MF film. And finally, the improved image quality is irrelevant for almost all uses of news photos. For a newspaper, it is not even close to being an issue, and even magazines do not benefit much. Remember that the great majority of shots are grabbed on the run and hand-held so even the capacity of 35mm is not being fully exploited by any means. Finally, the lenses are slower as a general rule which will cut way down on the low-light shooting you can do.

 

MF is great, and I am a big fan of it, but it truly makes no sense for PJ work in my opinion (and more importantly in the opinion of the industry). Get it if you want to shoot larger negs and enjoy the quality you get, but don't expect your gear to be useful in your professional work.

 

Cheers.

[nolan woodbury]

Oliver makes some great points. In the newspaper world MF isn't even a topic of conversation anymore...its all 35mm and digital. I've been a working photo journalist (or moto-journalist, for motorcycle magazines) for over 10 years, and I've found if photo quality is important to the magazine, then they are usually receptive to paying for and processing medium format images. That said, I'm shooting more 35mm now then ever; it is very hard to work a crowded convention center with my MF TLR's, although it would be easier to do that kind of shooting with a 645 Mamiya. For sunset portraits and pretty pictures that I can pose and direct at my leisure MF is wonderful. For most other assignments and jobs, 35mm is where it is at.

[ellis_vener_photography]

melissa,<P>For general photo ournalism work, 35mm rules the

day for many reasons: cost per image, lens selection choice

especially with regard to ultra fast aperture optics, telephoto

lenses and ultra wide angle lenses, autofocus, general spped of

operation, compatability with other staff photographers

equipment, scan speed, compatability with existing equipment in

a staff darkroom.<P>

No doubt about it though, medium format is a technically better

medium than 35mm<P>As faras medium format goes I do

suggest you reconsider your decision to pick 6x4.5 over 6x6. After

17 years of professional work with editorial and corporate and

advertising clients is that the square format is more versatile.

Sure you'll have to crop it to get an 8x10 image, but you can move

the crop around in ways you cannot wit ha 6x4.5 image. Once

you start cropping a 6x4.5 image the issue of the qualitative

difference between a 35mm image and the originally large 6x4.5

image diasppears rather quickly.

[Spearhead]

<i>I want to persue photojournalism and documentary work.

</i><p>

 

All of the responses address newspaper/photojournalism type shooting. There are people working in the documentary area with meidum format, typically because of the ability to print larger. Mariana Yampolsky comes to mind, although she is fairly old now.

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Melissa, I have off and on struggled with the same issue. In what almost seems like a previous life I have worked for ten years as a photographer and editor for a local newspaper. I had several Minolta bodies, SRTs, XM, X-500, and roughly about 20 lenses. Particularly the X-500 series was unbeatable in terms of robustness and reliability. They survived virtually anything, falls, rain, dumping in water, you name it. One of them has started to have electronic failures from time to time, but only after 30 years of most strenuous usage. The old Minolta Rokkor lenses (MC/MD) were extremely sharp and had a beautiful bokeeh. As others pointed out before, there was never a problem with image quality for newspaper use. Only when I wanted to use those images for something bigger and better, 35mm wasn't always enough.

 

At the end of my newspaper career I decided to add medium format. From a PJ point of view, Rollei's SLX appeared as a logical choice at that time. At other places on the internet I have dumped my complaints about their unreliability which also included their 6006 successor and the earlier non-PQ lenses. But from a logical point of view, the Rolleis were the obvious choice: built-in motor winder, automatic exposure control, exchangable viewfinders, exposure control also with waist level finder, the integrated concept, and the large palette of lenses available.

 

Now with my third generation of electronic Rolleis, the 6008i is somewhat a way out of the dilemma, mostly due to its improved reliability. Due to its integrated concept, Rollei clearly wins over Hasselblad, at least if you think about PJ. As mentioned above, the 6x6 cameras are more flexible than the 645 alternative and only slightly increased in weight, size, and price.

 

I still haven't come to terms with the issue of wide angle lenses in medium format. Neither the 50mm nor the 40mm feel as satisfying as a 28mm or a 20mm lens in 35mm photography, at least in my opinion. Here, 645 might feel better. From time to time I have looked at the Mamiya 7 and even contemplated getting one, but its unsuitability for telephoto photography have scared me away. The twin-lens Mamiyas are another alternative, but not so fast and not so suitable for Macro. Thus, I am left with my 6008i. Currently, I am using 4x5 for some wide angle applications, but I might get another medium format system at another time.

 

You also want to keep in mind the significant mirror slap in medium format SLRs, increasingly from 645 to 6x6 and to 6x7. At another posting related to this issue I have received a lot of attack for a study on average longest hand-held exposure times, and there were many who had the desire to tell everybody that they could still shoot their 6x6 SLR at 1/15 second or so. I can also do that from time to time. As much as I can shoot 1/4 of a second in 35mm, from time to time. But my point, which kind of got lost, was that in 6x6 SLRs you should think about having a 1/125 to 1/250 of a second longest exposure time if you shoot handheld compared to a 1/30 or 1/60 second in 35mm. There are individual variations and everybody can talk about their trophy shot using 1/4 of a second, but overall you need to calculate a much shorter exposure time if you are shooting medium format SLRs in comparison to 35mm.

 

Long story short - I do believe the Rolleiflex 6008i is a good medium format tool for photojournalism/reportage style photography.

[robert_landrigan]

I you _really want to shot MF for PJ and documentary work, you

might want to look at the Contax 645 AF lineup - very fast and

responsive for MF gear, and small enough that it won't break you

back carrying it.

 

That being said, a solid Nikon or Canon setup, with a good

group of lenses, is likely to be the better investment. The lenses

are going to be usefull far after the bodies change, and a digital

Nikon or Canon body is going to be cheaper than a digi back for

any MF gear. You could add a used Mamiya 7 to said system for

a quick handling, lightweight MF option, and be well set-up.

[mark_hubbard]

Melissa, since you've stated emphatically that you plan to buy a medium format set-up whether you ever use it for photojournalism or not, then I'll address that part of your question rather than trying to talk you out of it.

 

You seem to be striving for a sensible balance among factors, including size, weight, speed and ease of use. One of the Mamiya 645 systems is probably just right for you. My suggestion would be to buy the set-up used, so that if you change your mind or want to try something different down the line, you'll have a good chance of reselling it without taking a major loss. I'd also strongly suggest that you not borrow money to buy equipment.

 

Alternatively, you might consider a twin lens reflex. The Ferrari of twins is still the Rolleiflex 2.8F with the 12/24 back. To get one in great condition, you will have to pay somewhere between $900 and $1200, depending on who serviced it and how recently it was done. It is lighter and smaller than most MF cameras, and if you take care of it, it will serve you for a lifetime. If I could own only one MF camera, it would be a Rolleiflex.

 

However, my favorite system camera is currently the Mamiya C330S and C330f, which have seven lenses available (all used) to fit them, ranging from 55mm to 250mm. Nothing comes close to this set in terms of flexibility and quality for anywhere near the price. But they do weigh quite a bit, and they are not as elegant as the Rollei. You could get into a C330f with two lenses for about $700.

 

For spontaneity, old folders can also be fun, because they can literally fit in a largish jacket pocket. Imagine being at the park or museum, seeing something wonderful, and in addition to catching the image with your 35mm or digital camera, you reach into a pocket, open the bellows of an old folder, and capture a glorious 6x6 or 6x9 of the scene as well. You can get a Bessa I or Perkeo II with the Color Skopar lens for less than $300, if you're patient.

 

Keep medium format as part of your dream, but consider buying only what you already have the money for.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark H.

[melissa_cacioppo]

Thanks again for all your input.

 

A few more points to bring up (based on responses)

 

-How close is Nikon/Canon comming to making a digital body compatable with current lenses? What systems do you think/know they will be compatable with(what models/lenses, etc)

 

-How good of an idea is it to get an auto-winder for my current 35mm equipment versus start a new dedicated 35mm system?

[i currently have a Canon AE-1 Program and a Minolta X-370

 

-What 35mm systems have the option between AutoFocus and Manual?

(not a fan of 100% auto)

 

-I'm going to need a better flash, i'd like something you can control the flash output on - whats a good system that is capable of covering wide angel lenses and isn't too too pricey?

 

-With all of the advice i'm getting here i'm seriously reconsidering the choices I was previously going to make. so i'm glad i came around.

-Now I'm thinking of getting some (newer) used 645 or other MF equipment, as well as a used pro. 35mm equipment that could accept a digital body.

 

I'm really going to pick all of your brains so i don't end up with expensive equipment and no work to pay it off with!!

Thanks again

-melissa

[roger krueger]

Probably not an overriding advantage, but I've found my old Mamiya Press, when fired off the lever on the lens and not the grip, has a shorter reaction time than anything except maybe being the same as the fixed mirror canon bodies. I tried getting a golf ball coming off the club head once. I was 0-for-80 with my E-10, 0-for-15 with my Minolta XD-5, and 2-for-4 with the Mamiya.

 

 

For low light, the 100/2.8 (not the 100/3.5!) is dead sharp, and used with Delta 3200 pushed to 25,000 gives 6 x 9 negs that have the print grain of 35mm Tri-X at 400 and much better detail. Comparing to a 35mm 50/1.0 it's much cheaper, sharper, and three stops faster (correcting for max lens speed) No mirror means you can handhold for very slow speeds: 1/8 - 1/15. Good for unruly crowd situations - I have two experiences to verify that it doesn't break when you drop it on concrete, and even if it does, it's cheap. Downside: no automation, no meter, an eternity (3-4 seconds if you're really good) between shots, big, heavy, ugly.

[chuck_greene]

Melissa,

 

The current Nikon & Canon digital SLRs are compatible with their 35mm lenses same as their 35mm SLRs. Were you referring to the issue of CCD size relative to a 35mm frame and cropping of the image?

 

All the AF 35mm SLRs I'm aware of let you turn off autofocus, I wouldn't own one that wouldn't. Autofocus is useful for photojournalism in many situations, but it's like autoexposure: the camera doesn't know what you're photographing so you can't just blindly rely on it. An AF camera will autofocus (or try to) on whatever you have the AF sensor(s) aimed at, which may not be the point you want in focus. It helps to learn to autofocus on the point you want in focus then recompose while holding down the shutter button or the AF lock button (if your camera has one). Manual focus still works best in some situations.

 

For cheap flash-Vivitar 283. If you go out and buy a modern AF camera consider a powerful dedicated TTL flash unit. TTL wonderflash is great and I'm spoiled by it.

 

Canon FD mount lenses won't mount on an EOS camera (I had an AE1-P, great camera) so I don't know if I'd sink more money into Canon manual focus gear if you really want to go AF. If your Minolta lenses work on AF Minolta SLRs you might consider sticking with Minolta. Otherwise the standard advice is to look at Canon and Nikon when buying into an AF system.

 

I would suggest borrowing or renting an AF SLR and lens(es), you might find that you're happier with your manual focus gear.

[les_campbell]

Hi again, Melissa.

 

Chuck gave good answers to your last set of questions. I would throw in that you would be much better off (IMHO) getting a new AF system instead of an autowinder for your current gear -- AF works pretty well in most circumstances (and you'll learn when to ditch it), and the modern advantages can really make a difference. Using matrix metering, AF and rapid autowinding greatly improve the odds of a usable shot in borderline situations (e.g., "look over there -- that's guy's doing something!").

 

I'll echo Chuck's advice to rent some gear. Canon or Nikon are your most viable alternatives; trying each to see which one you're more comfortable with is the best way to decide which to buy.

[_____133]

Do you really need the advantages of a digital camera at this stage of your nascent career? Digital prices are sure to come down and if you cannot make that acquisition pay off in a short while, it may be an expensive doorstop in the near future.

 

Whatever you can shoot on digital, you can shoot on film. So, I'd leave digital for the future when the job really demands it. You can always rent! By the time you are ready to consider digital backs, the goal-posts would have moved on.

 

Since this is an MF forum, I'd leave 35mm systems out of the discussion except to say that you cannot go wrong with either N or C.

I'm partial to C at this stage of my life.

 

Third, how do you see? What I mean to ask is, what is your preferred angle of view? If you see mainly wide-angle, then please consider the Mamiya 7 II rangefinder system which allows you to steal moments. The L crowd will disagree but happily, this isn't its forum.

 

Take advantage of the Mamiya PEPP programme for students. Other than Mamiya, I am aware that Bronica and Contax also have some great prices for students.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Hey, check out this website for the professional's take on this:

 

www.dirckhalstead.org .

 

There is only one correct tool for every job.

[_____133]

Don't get into debts that you cannot get out of. But you attend SVA so perhaps my comments are moot.

 

Give yourself a chance to work with medium format especially for work in which MF is not traditionlly used these days, like PJ. Hey, PJ used to lug the Speed Graphic around. It did not stop them then. Guess it has to do with how well you adapt to your equipment rather than let convention tell you what is right. I must admit that I own and like the Mamiya 7 II. I like the shape of the 6X7. Makes great prints.

 

If you develop a way with the 67, that could be your unique selling point as a PJ or documentary photographer.

 

Think out of the box.

[frank_scheitrowsky]

Melissa,

 

Opinions are common -everyone has at least one. Here's mine: If you're interested in photo journalism, and thinking about medium format, the Mamiya 7 (or the discontinued 6) would be a great choice!

You aren't going to be doing much macro work or extreme telephoto in PJ, so an SLR design isn't necesary. The M6 or 7 is as fast to operate as a 35mm slr (minus the motor) and the MF negatives are amazing! The box MF slr's like Mamiya 645 or Hassy or Bronica, simply are not as quick to use in fast moving situations as a rangefinder. With the m6 or 7, you get the the ease of 35mm and the quality of MF. And that was my opinion. You need to try both cameras, maybe rent, and go to an event and test it out for yourself. Cameras are different, and people are different too.

Frank

[melissa_cacioppo]

Thanks for the info , once again.

 

-I use the different MF camera's SVA has to check out whenever i can get there early enough and they aren't all swiped up already!

here's what i have found from my experiences using them -

 

-i love the 645 system. its very versatile and has a huge system of components, lenses, etc. its a camera that can take on just about any assignment/project i might do in the future. i think its a good step up to MF if you really want a MF system - one because, being as young as I am, i can only say what i'd like to do and try my hardest to reach those goals, but i could end up shooting many different kinds of things along the way in life, i think this could handle any type of photography.

 

-i really love the mamiya 7II - light, good size, takes 120 or 220. very quiet! what i dislike very much about this camera is the focus - you have to look into that small yellow box and line the blurred image up. it can be tricky in fast situations and in low light situations (im asuming this is a focus system you're stuck with on this camera? yes?no?) also - this camera system is much more $$ than the 645 (i suppose i could try to find it used). with the PEPP program i can get the 645 body, auto winder, metered reflex finder, 50 lens and a wide angle lens for 2,740 dollars. if i wanted to get the M7II with a wide angel lens it would

get closer to 3,700 (if im remembering correctly). but i really do love this camera. and im sure after using it id adjust to the focus.

 

-i do tend to see more in wide angel.

 

-i'd like to get a recent 35 system - what are the opinions on the Canon EOS elan 7? just curious.

 

- i love my 35 MF gear. i dont use the minolta much because right now the battery is dead and the mirror is stuck up (any ideas if this is just the battery being dead or something else?) But - my canon system is a workhorse. im sure its one of the camera's ill always carry around with me.

 

 

thanks

-melissa

[bkpix]

Melissa:

 

About half the photographers at the daily paper where I work have MF systems ('Blad, Bronica, Mamiya TLR among them). ALL of them, though, have full Canon or Nikon 35mm systems and all of them shoot nearly all their work in 35mm, even though we recently bought a MF scanner.

 

While I love MF, the truth is it doesn't add much to newspaper work because of the poor reproduction of images on newsprint.

 

Nikon still offers old-fashioned manual focus bodies if you want one in your bag. My own 35mm gear is all Pentax, and I frequently use the all-manual LX because it's quieter and smaller and feels better in the hand than auto-everything bodies. If I were starting over I'd get Canon because I shoot some wildlife and their IS lenses can't be beat.

 

(I am, by the way, a writer at the paper, but do a lot of photo freelancing.)

[_____133]

Do what Leica M6 photographers do: zone focus. Put a cable tie around the barrel of the lens and use it as a focussing tab. Moving from an SLR to a rangefinder takes a revision of shooting habits but the effort to re-learn will be well worth it.

 

You will find that you can focus the Mamiya 7 II faster and better with hours of practice. Get to know your camera.

 

The PEPP price for a Mamiya 7 II + 50mm f4.5 lens is about $2500.00, if I am not mistaken. Otherwise, you may shop at Robert White UK and forgo USA warranty as many in this forum have done.

 

Good Luck.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Photographs for photojournalism should be rough, to give the impression that you had difficulty getting them.

 

If you (want to) work for people who tolerate 35mm or digital, then why spoil them?

 

If you want to graduate to serious picture creation, get a serious camera - preferably one with serious lenses: Hasselblad do a 645 back, but it they are not designed for easy use verticle. The 555 ELD is digital-ready, which may be handy for trial shots, but MF digital backs do not give better results than 35mm (do not expect everybody to agree with me, but do not get sucked in by the hype).

 

My gadget bag weighs 15kg - I would not wan to apear sexist, but this might be significent.

[melissa_cacioppo]

I'm used to lugging around lots of heavy bags by foot/public transportation in NYC - between full portfolios, equipment, photo. paper, etc. and that kind of thing isn't an issue for me. although I can admit that something might be heavy - i don't think many women who are in this field or a serious photographer is going to bitch and whine about "this is soo heavvvy " and so on.

 

 

the two MF camera systems im considering is the Mamiya 645 and the M7II - the thing about both of them is i want to get a wide angel lens as well as the standard. they come in kits and i do get more for my money with the 645 - but im still deciding. not the easiset decision to make. I love the results of both camera's - i might try out the 645 one more time sicne using the 7 is fresh in my mind.

 

i'm reluctant to go into a new 35 system when mine works fine and i'm happy with it - all of those features on the new ones are starting to sound irrelevant by what some of you are saying.

if its the final image that matters -since its going to be so small, does it really matter if i make it with an old canon AE-1 or a new canon EOS?

i'd like to hear what you think about that side of it , too.

 

thanks

-melissa

[duncan_ross1]

I don't think you will see a difference between the AE-1 and the EOS as far as exposure and image quality are concerned. I used to own an AE1, now I have an EOS system. I need the eye focus and motorized film advance for fast action photos. If I didn't need this, I would still be using the AE-1 - it is a great camera. Of course the negative is dinky on either of these.

 

regarding the M7 or 645, it really comes down to your comfort with a rangefinder system. If I were you, I would rent a 7II and see if you like it. I use the M7II for landscape (90%) and candids (occasional) and I love it. You won't find a system with sharper lenses in 6x7. I even use grad filters with it (via a ground glass andd bracketing, which is not easy, but can be done). I use an RZ SLR for portraits because the M7 can't frame tightly enough for a headshot. In either case, you'll want to check out Robert White's pricing on Mamiya systems - especially with the current exchange rate.

 

Digital backs are at least 5 years away from being affordable and capable of taking full advantage of the MF image size. By then you may have worn your camera out!

[david_payumo1]

I am a little late but I will give my two cents. Look at all your great pictures. Could you have taken them with a MF camera? Did you really need that bigger negative to get the quality in the final print size? Did you really need a fast handling 35mm to get that moment? What do your favourite photographers use? My favourite guy uses Leicas. If you like a smaller cash hit, you could try the Fuji rangefinders. I have the GA 645i. Its good but I prefer 35mm or 4x5 more. The camera is a little to slow to use and the quality is an improvement over 35mm but the images I make with the camera aren't that good. It doesn't feel right to me. There is the Fuji GSW 690 III 6x9 wide angle and the GW 670 III 6x7 rangefinders. Checkout Robert White for some good prices. The Mamiya is really nice but its very pricey and the telephoto doesn't focus close enough. The mamiya 645 is nice but I find that I also crop my 645 images smaller than full frame and my negative gets too small. That is why I like doing documentary with 4x5. You probably bought your camera already but remember its about the image not the neg size. Its really important to have a great tripod that could help your images but then is it really PJism?