Switching to Medium Format-which camera?

[squareframe]

but Todd, oh wise one, if you started with a piece of paper that was 10x10 inches, would you still want to trim your negative? and what should I do with a new Epson 4000 with roll-paper option? couldn't I just print square? must I constrain my artistic sense of dimension to a pre-ordained constant? may I break the rules and print in a format I feel works best for the image and its conveyance?

 

wouldn't my 6x6 negative print perfectly square with no error at all? is this a good thing Todd? I am so confused.

[thomas_sullivan]

hmmmmmmmmmm....learn something new everyday.....

[thomas_sullivan]

heh..........actually Daniel, I too prefer 6x6 to stay square, if at all possible.

[__stu_evans]

<<Different people have different opinions of what "looks great" and what range of image resolution is acceptable.>>

 

Yes.

[simonpg]

I trust that you mean to move into MF rather than get out of 35mm altogether.

 

I did the same thing a year ago. Best advice I got was to take a structured approach or else you can make expensive mistakes despite how economic it is now to get into MF through quality used gear today. I selected Hasselblad for reasons of my intended use and then it's technical characteristics.

 

You're best to plan by deciding the following main issues: 1. main use - eg landscapes / portraits etc; 2. format - eg 6x4.5; 6x6; 6x7 etc. 3. other detailed considerations like - need for in-built metering or TTL flash; motor winder and other handling preferences (too many to mention here); 4. how the equipment feels in your hands (no point having kit that meets your planned purpose if you hate how it handles). 5. Other issues like the overall system - range of lenses and accessories. Eg if you're into serious macro work, best to forget Hasselblad and look at Bronica in stead. 6. Budget - I always treat that as a last consideration and only in terms of planning purchases over time - rather than let budget steer you into a bad decision you'll later regret.

 

So, for me it worked like this: I have a 35mm system, my MF purpose was for creative work in portraits and landscapes etc. I decided on 6x6 - square format is fascinating, creatively challenging and gives an image of significantly larger size - I can also crop 6x6 to 6x4.5 if necessary.

 

Three choices? Bronica, Rollei and Hasselblad. Then I wanted to be sure the system would likely give me backward and forward compatability - a big investment requires a manufacture's commitment to that. Hasselblad has achieved that very well and protected professional's investment.

Hasselblad system? - a strong range of lenses (but narrower than Bronica); sensational optics and tonal characteristics I prefer (my requirement, but generally all the MF lens manufacturers build excellent stuff); totally modular equipment - removable/interchangable everything; proven reliability, safe used values and a large used equipment range available.

 

Then which Hasselblad? - leaf shutter for flash synch at all shutter speeds (500 series); focal plane shutter (200 series); etc etc. Then which model in that series? Keeping it simple: a 501 is an updated 500 (main feature is the gliding mirror system that enables full picture view); a 503 is a 501 with TTL auto flash capability (eg use a dedicated connector with a Metz).

I Decided on 500 series. Which 500? Do I need motorised (no), do I need TTL flash as in the 503(no), so it was a 501 or similar earlier model. I looked at specs for 501CM and its predecessors and decided I wanted the acutematt screen and gliding mirror (as well as a slightly newer body anyway). Only then did I let price come into the decision, ootherwise it confuses the issues.

 

A very sensible way to first try out MF is to buy an older Mamiya TLR. They are very cheap, offer excellent optics and you will get a very good introduction to the format and its nuances.

 

As far as price goes, a kit should always mean savings on buying individual bits. Price meant 501CM kit (with 1 back and 80mm CFE f2.8 lens) for cheap money (used 2 year old student kit) and just hold off buying more lenses. Then planned what lenses and other kit I'd like to end up with and prioritised buying them (spare film back, light meter, filters and Metz flash, 50mm CF fle f4 and a 180mm CF f4).

By the way, it is sensational - I'm delighted by the results and choice as it suits my purposes very well.

 

Wide angle lenses - you'll need to do some conversions of 35mm focal lengths to 6x6 to decide the angle of view you're after but remember that the impact is different even if the angle of view is the same due to the square image!! The Zeiss wide angles are 50 and 40mm (35mm equivalent of about 28mm and 23mm respectively). The ultra wide is 38mm (about a 21mm equivalent) but this is a seriously expensive lens.

 

I hope this helps because I've seen some buyers in second hand equipment stores get totally confused and shy away from making a decision or unwisely jumping in without a plan. Happy hunting.

 

Is it worth moving into MF? ABSOLUTELY yes!! I have learned more about composition and light than ever before. It is an absolute joy and hugely rewarding when I see the film, trannies and prints.

[peter_white2]

Indeed. Make an 8x10 print from a 35mm negative and a contact print from an 8x10 camera. Next, tell a six year old that the enlargement looks just as good as the contact print, and that there really is a Santa Claus.

[Sandeha Lynch]

The main reason I bought a 500CM Hasselblad a while ago was to have a <i><b>smaller</b></i> neg - that is to say, smaller and more convenient than the 4x5" I've become addicted to. (645 seemed far too small :)

[todd_schoenbaum]

boy, this is getting out of hand. First, I think 6x6 square is a great format and the cameras handling it are usually some of the best out there. And if you have 10x10 paper, then great. Shoot 6x6 and now the sucker with the 6x7 is going to be the one sacraficing. Even if you dont have square paper, shoot 6x6 anyway and print it square. I like it too. And big deal if there is some paper to trim off, that needs to be done anyway. This wasnt meant to be so controversial, maybe a little sarcastic though. I get tired of people be so quick to jump on other members without knowing what they are talking about. Ignorance and agressiveness are excusable on their own, but paired together they are abhorrent.

 

But really, I dont care. Shoot whatever you want. Print whatever format you want. I was merely explaining the reason for spending all that money on a new system with big negatives, and the advantages and disadvantages of the different formats. And as for your fancy Epson printer with the built-in microwave and toilet paper option, throw it in the garbage. No one likes digital.

 

todd schoenbaum

 

PS: 645 is actually 2.92 times the size of 35mm, not 4.

[andre_noble4]

Medium Format is Dead. Long Live Medium Format!

 

(I don't know the exact meaning of this saying, but based on the current state of MF, it's sounds right for the question)

[johnmarkpainter]

Todd,

 

I stand corrected.

 

A neg that is 2.92 times larger than what Daryl is used to seems hardly worth the trouble

:)

 

jmp

[thomas_sullivan]

geez Todd, simmer down. It's not the most obvious thing on the face of the earth that they would not make the negative the size that they call it.

 

a pound of meat.............errrrrrrrrr, gee, its really only 15.658 ounces. Only becomes 16 ounces with the packaging.

 

so I questioned your statement..........I dont think I was rude about it in any manner. Just totally puzzled.......you, on the other hand.........jeez.

 

Ok, so the 5.6 X 6.98 camera wins out..........well, if were gonna call it ideal, we should at least make it obvious why it is better that the 5.6 X 4.15 I suggest we call all formats by what they really are.

[neil_forster]

strange thing that many people feel the need to make the picture fit the paper, rather than other way around, i usually want to print all of the 6x6 image that i 'cropped' in-camera

[mark liddell]

I've recently moved into medium format since 35mm didn't give me the quality I was after in bigger print sizes. I think first decide what type of shooting you do most, then on what format you want.

 

For me I knew I wanted 6x7, it fitted with minimal cropping to the print sizes I wanted if I'm going to use medium format I might as well go the whole way. I just cannot deal with square formats, hardly anything fits in a square. It was betwen the rb and the pentax 67.

 

I got an rb67 pro s in the end since:

 

It has interchangable backs (pentax doesn't)

?200 cheaper used here in the uk than the pentax

doesn't have to crop much at all to get print sizes I want

Flash sync at all speeds (pentax in 1/30 max)

Rotating back is a godsend

Most of the fashion pros seem to use the RZ (electonic version of the RB)

I use a tripod on almost every shot anyway

Sensible prices lenses

Price, mine was <?500 with 90mm c lens and back etc. *still boxed*

 

Costs have got high with only 10 frames on a 120 roll but the quality is great. Don't sell you 35mm!!! My nikon FM is great for informal stuff and for shooting inexperianced models since I can shoot loads of film and its still cheap and can work handheld. I use it almost as much as my MF gear.

 

Moving to MF has really made me think about the shot I'm taking and about exposure with just 10 frames on a roll, and I'm a better photographer for it. 77mm filters are getting pricy though...

[johnmarkpainter]

Just to add more useless information to this thread....

 

I think it is a mistake to put Film Format above the Camera in the decision making

process. Shooting style, lens speed, Focal length, portability, Focus range-speed should all

be considered before Neg size.

 

jmp

[photom]

To John and others above: Going back to consideration of final output format, cropping etc., if cropped to .80 (= 1.25:1), 645 diagonal divided by 35 mm diagonal is 1.85 times bigger. 6x7 is 1.25 times larger than 645 and 2.32 times largr than 35 mm. My reason for being hesitant to go with 645 is it is so close in quality to 6 to 8 MP DSLRs. At least with 6x7, there is some minor improvement over this class of DSLR if you can get a good scan.

[johnmarkpainter]

Tom,

 

Understood....but I generally print Full-Frame unless I am cropping to a standard 8x10

headshot. I print lots of squares as well.

 

I also don't agree with your assertion that 6-8 Megapixel DSLR is close in quality to 645. I

have a Nikon D100 and it looks good, but I still prefer my Leica 35mm shots....aside from

the obvious convenience issues of shooting Digital.

 

Then of course there is the price.....$3k-$5k for a nice Digital vs less than $1k for a nice

used MF rig.

 

The only reason I have a 645 camera at all (Mamiya) is because of the KILLER yet affordable

Lenses.

 

I actually bought it specifically for the 35 3.5. Also, the 'normal' 80 is fast and

cheap....something you can't get in larger format Lenses.

 

jmp

[thomas_sullivan]

I hate to ask another question, after the last one, but how do you figure that a 6-8megpix dig 35mm equiv cam is close to a 645 scanned neg?

[madwand]

I'm not going to pretend to have the answer for you, nor even to have a good sense of all the choices and their relative merits. I would like however to mention that I got a Contax 645 after using 35mm for a long while and that I've been satisfied with it. It's probably lighter than many (though not all) other choices, and also more like a 35mm SLR. The auto winder and rewinder are a bit noisy. The autofocus is accurate, but not fast. There are several digital backs theoretically available. It's pricey, and the accessories are pricey. But you might get a relatively good deal these days.<p>

 

The claims that the film size is hardly bigger are laughable. Sure, there are much bigger sizes, including vintage 6x9's and large format that can be affordably obtained. But it's already much bigger than 35mm. The image size is also significantly larger than current DSLR's, and even lower-end digital backs are said to out-perform the Canon 1Ds.<p>

 

One thing that I actually missed when I first switched over was the film advance crank. I missed a bit of the interaction with the device, probably much in the way that an average driver who's used to a stick-shift & doesn't really use it any better than an automatic gets attached to the mechanics. For this simple reason, I recommend going to stores and handling the various cameras, trying to judge the view, and other aspects for yourself. BTW, I no longer miss the horizontal crank, and actually find that they get in the way of continous photography.<p>

 

I am not saying that 645 is all you need and that the larger formats are inconsequential. Some of them are much larger. But so is 645 in comparison to 35mm.<p>

 

The following are some links to a decent site IMO that talk about some of the camera options sensibly.<p>

 

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-medium.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-medium.shtml</a><p>

 

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml</a><p>

 

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/contax645.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/contax645.shtml</a><p>

 

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml</a><p>

 

I realize that I've included more on digital than was originally mentioned, and nothing so far on printing. I actually do think that if darkroom work is your main goal that you should consider small large format. But if you want a larger general-purpose camera that serves many more ends and has a chance of surviving into the film dark ages, then you should probably look at the 645's seriously.<p>

 

However. Since I opened up that can of worms. If you want to hedge your bets the best, then you should probably spend little on a MF camera, and keep the major investments in the 35mm line -- I reluctantly agree that that has a much better likelihood of surviving into the film dark ages, and you really can do MF photography and enlargments for not a lot of money taking a TLR or vintage folder route.

[todd_schoenbaum]

I want to apologize if I seemed to harsh or judgemental, I especially want to apologize to John and Thomas. There is negativity in these forums without me contributingto it.

 

Actually, I am impressed and pleased with anyone that still dedicates themselves to film based photography. Keep up the good work everyone, keep shooting and printing the ways that work for you. Keep doing the things that make you love photography.

 

todd schoenbaum

[thomas_sullivan]

no problem Todd...I understand how hard it is to tell who is just asking a question, in there own way, and someone who is looking to pick an arguement, even face to face let alone monitor to monitor.

 

On your second paragraph here, dont know if you were actually referring to me, but its not so much that I'm a film devotee...I would love to go digital SLR...it's just even $1500 for JUST the body, for my finances, has got to be significantly better than what I presently have. And when they compare a DSLR in RAW, against a medium format negative scanned at 3200 dpi thru the scanner software, and then make detailed ananlysis of it..........well, they are not only mixing apples and oranges, but also testing the scanner software. I would love to see a comparison between a digital slr in RAW, against a medium format 4000 dpi film (not flatbed) scanner in RAW, and both run from that point thru Photoshop (or equivalent). The best of both worlds, consumer oriented of course....drum scans could be addressed as a side-bar, but not the actual test....just to make it more "real world" for the amateur hobbyist, or budding professional. To date, I have not seen this test, and yet people are claiming that a DSLR rivals medium format film scans.