Re: (a) Medium format vs. 35mm and other subjects (long!)

[win_robins]

Full title:

<b>Re: (a) Medium format vs. 35mm; (b) 6X7 vs. 6X4.5; © Mamiya 7 vs.

Pentax 645; (d) Pentax

645 vs. Pentax 645N </b>

 

<p>

 

I paid my first visit to this website a few weeks ago and have been

overwhelmed at the responses. So, first of all,

thanks to those who did respond, with most of whom I have had further,

illuminating correspondence over the

Internet. You have helped immeasurably. What I am trying to do in

this message is to utilize all of your wisdom

and at the same time to distill all of the competing considerations

into one series of questions prompted by all that

you have written and all that I have read in this and other sites.

 

<p>

 

First, in order to answer, I think you should know where I'm coming

from. I am a serious amateur and content to

remain one. However, I hope to retire within the next couple of years

and wouldn't mind if the occasional

purchaser helped to defray some of the costs of my photographic

passion, so I might try to interest galleries or

stock houses in some of my work.

 

<p>

 

My specialties are landscape photography and flowers. I am a very

happy owner of an F5, but autofocus is very

much a secondary advantage to me, except when I am around my

grandchildren. I am especially happy with the

Micro-Nikkor 60mm, which has produced excellent results in flower and

other close-up pictures. I had owned an

F3 and an F4 before my wife gave me a surprise present of the F5.

This is the first camera whose metering is so

good that I never walk away from a scene agonizing over exposure. I

hardly bother to bracket anymore.

 

<p>

 

This year, I purchased a Nikon LS2000 scanner and an Epson PhotStylus

EX printer and I have had a marvellous

time enlarging old and new slides. The pictures go as large as 11X17.

The quality of the reproductions is, to my

eye, outstanding compared to regular lab enlargements of the same

sizes. In the 8 months that I have had the

equipment, I must have made two or three hundred enlargements.

 

<p>

 

From time to time, I make 16X20s. I used to try to do my own

Cibachromes, but it became more and more of a

hassle, so I got rid of my enlarger and now have a lab do the

occasional 16X20 or 20X24, either as a regular

enlargement or as a computer-generated picture. Even more

occasionally, I will have an Iris-print made for

framing. But, unless a miracle occurs and a gallery or stock house

expresses serious interest, I don't expect to do

very many 16X20s each year.

 

<p>

 

From the foregoing, you might ask, why should I even bother to go to

medium format? The fact is that I look at

the photo magazines and books and see the results that come from MF.

I would love to have landscapes that are

as "tack-sharp" (to use the phrase that everyone seems to like) from

foreground to infinity as the ones I see

pictured. Although I have seen exhibits with incredible blowups to

30X40 and above, I note that the magazines

and books are never larger than 11X17, and, therefore, I assume that

MF is not a waste if most of the

enlargements will be at that size or at 8X10. So that brings me to

the first of my questions.

 

<p>

 

(a) MF vs. 35mm. The investment in an MF system is not insignificant.

Not only will I have to get a camera and

lens(es), but I will also have to get an additional scanner, which

will certainly cost in excess of $2000. Given what

I want to do in photography, do you think it's worth it?. (This

question is also explored a bit more specifically in

©(4) and (d) below.)

 

<p>

 

(b) 6X7 vs. 6x4.5 Assuming that the answer to (a) is "Yes," then,

given the same underlying facts, does it make a

difference whether I go to 6X7 or 6X4.5?

 

<p>

 

© M7 vs. Pentax 645 Assuming that the answer to (b) is that it

makes no difference, I am torn between the two

alternatives, without knowing which will be better for me. (Here, I

should note parentheticlly that I have rejected

the Pentax 67 as being simply too heavy a camera to lug around.

Happily for me, my wife has taken up serious

photography in the last 10 years and we love to take phot trips

involving long as well as short hikes. If for no

other reason than chivaly, I often find that I am carrying her tripod

as well as my own along with a backpack with

my equipment in it. The F5 is heavy enough. I don't think I want to

add too much more to the load. Incidentally,

I would not expect to give up my F5.)

 

<p>

 

I have rented an M7 and will also rent a 645, but I'm not sure that a

test roll or two will answer the question. So I

look for further advice and in particular answers to the following

subset of questions:

 

<p>

 

(1) Lenses. I have read all of the encomiums about the M7

lenses. The only rating that I have seen in

Photodo.com is for the Pentax 75mm, which is rated a lot lower.

However, I have been told that the Pentax 45-85

is a fantastic lens and it covers the range of three M7 lenses. From

the standpoint of economics alone, this makes

sense. Does it make sense from the standpoint of quality? I should

say that I find that zooming is a tremendous

advantage in some circumstances, but I often turn to my 24mm or my

wife's 20mm for my pictures. Please see

(d) below for a further question concerning the 45-85..

 

<p>

 

I note that the 645 presents the addition option, should I decide to

use it, of a 120 macro lens, which one of my

correspondent friends says is unbelievably sharp. This is a

significant future consideration, but is not really a

present consideration.

 

<p>

 

(2) Metering. I said above that I was not happy with a TTL meter

until the F5. My wife's N90 consistently

outperformed the F3 and F4. How much, if anything, will I be giving

up with the M7 meter? With the 645 meter?

With the 645N meter? Do I have to (buy) and carry a hand-held meter?

 

<p>

 

(3) Polarizer and Grad ND. I have already asked this question.

Clearly the 645 has it over the M7 here. But I

don't really use the Grad ND as much as I should and not having it

with the M7 will not result in a deterioration in

my work. It will simply mean that I don't improve it where that

filter would be useful.

 

<p>

 

(4) Price. Money is at one and the same time important, but,

within limits, not the absolute deciding factor.

On the one hand, if this is a one-time indulgence which I hope to

amortize over the next 10 years or so, so that

$1,000 either way will not decide the issue. On the other hand, the

thought of getting 3 Mamiya focal lengths in

one 45-85 at a saving of more than $2,000 is something that I find

hard to resist.

 

<p>

 

(5) Are there any other considerations?

 

(d) 645 vs, 645N I have read the review of the 645N in Pop

Photography and Phil Greenspun's critique (as well

as the responses). None of what I've read deals with the following

narrow question: since AF is not really

necessary for me, certainly not in taking landscape pictures, I can

save almost $1,000 with the 645. On the other

hand, are the advantages in terms of metering and the other features

which Pentax has introduced into the 645N

worth the investment even if I use non-AF lenses? In this connection,

I ask the following two questions:

 

<p>

 

(1) Has anybody compared the 45-85 non-AF with the 45-85 AF lens?

I really don't think I need the AF lens,

but, given my desire for ultimate sharpness, is there a noticeable

difference between them?

 

<p>

 

(2) I mentioned the 120mm macro lens above. If it's as good as

they say, I'm not losing anything by it being a

non-AF lens.

 

<p>

 

Well, ladies and gents, there is is. I've asked very question I could

think of. I'm sure that there are many that I

should have asked and, out of sheer ignorance, I omitted. So answers

to the above and any other comments you

may have will be most welcome.

 

<p>

 

Happy holidays to all.

 

<p>

 

Win Robins

[ellis_vener_photography]

a.) If you are happy with your F5 you should stick with that. maybe you should think about that new 70-180 macro zoom: a great lens.

 

b.) If you really want to go medium format I think, based on a lot of what you say say thourghout your post, you will be happier with the control and versatility of an SLR camera, either 6x6 (Hasselblad) or the Pentax or Mamiya 645 cameras over a rangefinder camera. Personally I would choose a Hasselblad over any 645 camera but that is just personal taste.

 

<p>

 

c1.) For a 645 camera the equivalent of a 20mm is a 35mm, for 6x6, the equivalent is a 40mm. Macro sounds important to you and it is not an option with any rangefinder (well not an easy option.)

 

<p>

 

c2.) I honestly don't know but I suspect the pentax 645N and the mamiya meters are very good. A hand held meter meter is always useful.

 

<p>

 

c3.) this question answers itself, but you can use polarizers and positionable grads with the rangefinder, you'll just have to train yourself to previsualize the effect and be prepared for some surprises at the lighttable.

 

<p>

 

c4 & c5.2.) The equivalent Mamiya lenses (for the bigger 6x7 format) are likely to be the 65mm, the 80mm and the 150mm. Anything longer than a normal lens is best utilized on an SLR camera.

 

<p>

 

c5.) Updated meter for sure, maybe better, brighter viewing system?

 

<p>

 

c5.1) Can't answer cause I don't know.

 

<p>

 

To clear up a couple of misconceptions on your part. Stock houses don't want prints, especially 16x20 prints, they have no way to deal with them. What they want are transparencies or slides. Having said that, given the choice of two images of the same subject matter, a bigger tranny will sell better than a smaller one. perhaps you should skip through medium format and consider a 4x5 field camera? virtually every lens can be a macro lens, and they are not that much more difficult, or necessarily heavier or clunkier to use than a manual 35mm or medium format camera. You can use a LF camera with a 6x7 or 6x9 or even 6x12 roll film back, everything will be manual but the results will be worth it as you will have infinitely more control over the image than you will with any rigid-bodied camera. I like the Canham DLC 4x5 field camera, but there are at least 10 other field camera manufacturers in business today.

 

<p>

 

The important thing with any major equipment choice is that you base your decision on fulfills your needs most AND on which tool feels best in your hands and not on hypotheticals and on what you read in magazines or on what you read on photo.net. All of the equipment you mention is first rate so don't worry about some review you read (unless they are all negative.) Good luck!

[scott_eaton]

>>My wife's N90 consistently outperformed the F3 and F4<<

 

<p>

 

For some odd-ball reason older SLR bodies have superior TTL metering

capabilities than virtually any other SLR out there. My trusty FE-2's

TTL system is far more accurate than many other decade + 1/2 newer

bodies. I've actually tested this. Regretfully, I haven't been able

to compare the 645 TTL systems you mentioned. I would guess they

aren't as good as the N90, but better than a blind range table.

 

<p>

 

Have you considered a Fuji Rangefinder? For the price of a good SLR

and brand name lens you can have 6x7 capability with a fixed lens

that is better optically than the 45-85.

 

<p>

 

Be aware that scanning MF film is no easy task. Few labs have this

capability, and far fewer to a decent job of it but always charge a

higher price. Minolta's Duo scan with MF capabiity is a decent

scanner for $2,500.

 

<p>

 

//scott

[rapfoto]

Win,

 

<p>

 

I agree with the above posts for the most part. However, I feel it

will be a fruitless search to try and find an F5 clone in the MF

world. I would suggest that you find a camera that compliments your

existing gear, and then you'll have the best of both worlds.

 

<p>

 

It sounds as though you are quite happy with the "automated" results

that your 35mm gear is providing, so why not step in the other

direction and get a camera that is "less" technical, and "more"

instinctual? Instead of trying to find a "do all - end all" system,

(that is non-existent anyway!), try to find something that will

either help make you a better photographer, or make being a

photographer better.

 

<p>

 

I have recently added a Mamiya M7 to my arsenal, and love it! For the

record I own and use: RZ67PII, 4x5-rail camera, and a F4s (in

relative order of use) so I'm not a "Technophobe". I find the natural

shortcomings (don't frag me for this!) of the rangefinder design to

be very refreshing from my Monday-Friday commercial photography. I'm

sure you would find the basicness of a rangefinder equally valuable,

as I have.

 

<p>

 

The M7, and all other MF rangefinders for that matter, are very light

weight by design, so one wouldn't add considerably to your load, and

for the most part the M7 is about the same physical size as your F5.

 

<p>

 

I chose the M7, over the Fuji's, because of the availability of inter-

changeable lenses, and the fact that the M7 just plain fit my hands

better.

 

<p>

 

Just my opinion, and good luck on your quest.

 

<p>

 

RA

 

<p>

 

 

P.s. I feel it is never a mistake to get as large an image as

feasibly possible on a shoot, so I would opt for 6x7 if your

situation allows. The old saying that editors and clients

(potentially, stock houses in your instance) love big tranny's, is

TRUE!

[chris_patti]

Given your photographic priorities, here are some things to think

about before moving to MF:

 

<p>

 

(1) Moving from 35mm to MF makes it harder, not easier, "to have

landscapes that are . . . "tack-sharp" . . . from foreground to

infinity." The depth of field of a given focal length lens is

unaffected by film format; 45mm super wide angle on 6x7 has about the

same depth of field at equal aperture as a normal lens on 35mm. Put

another way, at equivalent apertures, the hyperfocal distance depth of

field of lenses of equivalent angle of view is much narrower in MF

than in 35mm. You cannot get a MF wide angle way in close to your

foreground and keep infinity in focus the way you can with 35mm.

(View cameras compensate for this by using camera movements to shift

the plane of focus.) Although the greater enlargeability of MF

partially compensates for limited depth of field, at equal angles of

view and equal sized prints, 35mm still has a depth of field advantage

over MF. So, comparing equal sized prints of foreground-infinity

scenes taken from the same position with lenses of the same angle of

view, the MF may have more detail and better tonality than the 35mm,

but the MF foreground (or background) may be less sharply in focus.

 

<p>

 

(2) If flower photography (I'm assuming by this you mean close up) is

a priority, forget the Mamiya 7. You really can't do macro

photography with it. Even moderate close ups (less than 1 meter)

require a fussy Rube Goldberg-like attachment that works with only one

lens and at only one distance.

 

<p>

 

(3) Macro photography in MF brings its own set of complications. In

addition to the depth of field issue mentioned above, you have to get

higher magnification to fill the larger MF frame with an object than

in 35mm. This means more extension (and perhaps faster shutter

speeds), thus more light loss, thus wider apertures, thus even

shallower depth of field.

[michael_heal]

<p>First, your comments about meters lead me to believe that you

prefer the camera to determine the exposure entirely on its own.

Older cameras often have very accurate meters, meaning that after

using them a little you can be sure what they are measuring and that

they do so consistently, but you may have to point it at particular

objects and use your brain to interpret the results.</p>

<p>As to your choice of camera, you seem in a dilemma. If you want

excellent enlargements in the 8x10 to 16x20 range, a medium format

camera is fine. If you want 30x40 enlargements of the same quality,

you need to buy a large format camera instead. 4x5 inch field

cameras are popular among landscape photographers. You can control

your plane of focus by tilting the lens with respect to the film

plane. Apart from necessitating a tripod, a 4x5 system is not

necessarily larger or heavier than a medium format system, partly

because the lenses require much smaller and less complicated mounts.

A large format system can also cost less. The downside is that you

must give up all automation, always use a tripod, learn to use a

separate meter, and compose with an upside-down image on the ground

glass.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I am not sure you would feel comfortable

without automation. 6x4.5 cameras, and particularly the new Pentax,

offers many of the features found in your F5. If you like to work

fast and sometimes without a tripod, it would be a natural choice.

It would also be a much less dramatic change for you.</p>

<p>Lens quality is not as important in MF as in 35mm because

generally you must stop at least two extra stops to obtain the same

depth-of-field. That also means longer exposures and, usually, using

a tripod. At f11 or below it is hard to distinguish lenses of

relatively modern optical design using actual photographs. The

quality of your pictures is determined more by your technique. Buy

the camera that fits your style.</p>

<p>Consider the price of the complete system, including all lenses

and accessories, that you wish to own. A medium format camera can

last you much more than 10 years, but will you have to live for years

without the lenses or accessories you want?</p>

<p>If you have not yet done so, you might read <a

href="http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gindex.html">http://www.smu.edu

/~rmonagha/mf/gindex.html</a>.</p>

[photodr___]

After reading your questions and the answers following, I'm not sure why you think you need a medium format camera. If you want landscapes that are sharp from foreground to infinity, use a tripod with your 35mm, lock up the mirror, and stop down to 1-2 stops less than the smallest on that lens (doing this limits diffraction from the iris). If you carefully choose your films, you should be able to make 16 x 20 or even 20 x 24 very high quality prints that are extremely sharp.

 

<p>

 

Now, there is a quality to prints made from larger format film that cannot be duplicated with 35mm and I will call it "presence." The larger the format the more of the small details that are rendered visible so you get more of a tactile quality from the print. There is a huge difference between medium format and 4x5 and the same kind of difference between 4x5 and 8x10. Think of it this way. If you are photographing a tightly framed landscape of a sand dune with a 50mm focal length lens on a 35mm - will you be aware of the individual grains of sand? Probably not unless you get very, very close to the sand. The same photo framed the same way with an equivalent lens focal length (210 mm) on an 8x10 camera will make you aware of the individual grains of sand, giving the photo a texture and tactile feel. This is what I mean by "presence."

 

<p>

 

If that is what you are after then you should consider moving to a larger format. But, as pointed out by others, the depth of field available is directly related to the focal length of the lens, and not whether it is a wide angle or telephoto for that format. The depth of field at any f/stop for an 80mm lens on 35mm (moderate telephoto) is the same as an 80 mm (normal focal length) on a 2-1/4 square camera. So ultimately, you will end up using a tripod with the medium format in order to stop down far enough to get your "tack sharp" (I hate that phrase) photograph. Hence, my suggestion that you try using a tripod with your 35mm, lock up the mirror, and stop down.

 

<p>

 

Finally, as far as magazine photographs. Many, of the best photographs have been and still are done with 35mm. Most all of the National Geographic photos are 35mm. Look carefully, they are very sharp. 1). because the film choices are very carefully made. 2). Because the photographers generally use tripods or monopods and stop down. 3). If there is not enough light available they will use fill flash whenever they can so that they can use a smaller f/stop. Chuck O'Rear regulary carries 2 Vivitar 283 flashes on assignment and, I swear, that man could figure out how to light a football stadium with them.

 

<p>

 

If you want to do portraits, product or advertising photography; or you want to get the presence that a larger format film gives you; or what the heck, you just want to try a different size film and can't wait to buy a new camera - by all means switch to medium format. But, it is not a panacea for instantly making "better" photographs.

[jeff_drew]

I've enjoyed this discussion! I've been taking mediocre pictures for

over 35 years, and regarding this topic, trying different formats is

really fun, and an added benefit is no need to worry about money

'cause there never is enough!

I've used 4X5 to Minox and finally it dawned on me, I really need to

focaus less on equipment and more on the art and composition. Each

format has advantages and compromises. So, when I recently traveled,

I specifically took my Fuji GW670II and Minox C to learn them (all

over again!) and I bought lots of film. I forced myself to carry less

and shoot more. Selling my autofocus stuff was the smartest move,

even for these old eyes.

I can honestly say, that minimalism works best, for me - at this time

and in this location. I've used most all formats, auto everything to

manual everything. I've finally accepted the facts that:

A) The best camera is the one I used to help produce a truly gorgeous

picture.

B) A great photographer can make a P&S camera result look great!

C) I can never have enough gear :-) !

D) I'm always learning and having fun when I can interact with others

on this subject!

 

<p>

 

Happy New Year!

[d_daine]

>>enough! I've used 4X5 to Minox and finally it dawned on me, I really

>>need to focaus less on equipment and more on the art and

>>composition. Each format has advantages and compromises. So, when I

>>I can honestly say, that minimalism works best, for me - at this

>>facts that: A) The best camera is the one I used to help produce a

>>truly gorgeous picture. B) A great photographer can make a P&S

>>camera result look great! C) I can never have enough gear :-) ! D)

>>I'm always learning and having fun when I can interact with others

>>on this

(above post edited)

 

<p>

 

Yes! Unfortunately, for some of us the hobby is the equipment itself

and not the photography. Perhaps the equipment today is so easy to

use and of such high quality that we have become lazy and don't bother

to think. I'll admit that I too am a recovering equipmentaholic and

pledge to think more and buy less in the new year.

 

<p>

 

"In a clutter of equipment lies the way to aesthetic, as well as

economic bankruptcy. Nothing can so distract one from the main issue

in an art as the piling up of incidentals that go along with it. In

photography this mania for equipment has gone to the most absurd

extremes" A quote from William Mortensen sometime in the 1930's.

Mortensen was a minimalist. When I get the "itch" for more equipment

I sometimes buy more books, the above quote was from one I'm now

reading.

 

<p>

 

cheers and best,

[brian_c._miller]

I must admit that I am always puzzled when people refer to "trying a

different format". When you are using a box camera, it's all the

same. Hasselblad, Canon, Minox, Pentax, Bronica, Fuji, whatever,

it's all the same: a box camera. After that, you're talking about

design, features, and price.

 

<p>

 

Yes, there's a real difference between an Olympus Pen-F and a 6x7.

Put 400 speed film in both, and look at what you get. One is sharp

with a softness from the grain. The other is sharp and wonderfully

detailed.

 

<p>

 

Of course, if you blow up from a crop the size of a half frame, then

no difference. :)

 

<p>

 

<b>Metering</b>: There is nothing as good as a 1-deg. spot meter.

Nothing. I use the Pentax Spotmeter V, modified by Zone VI. Zone VI

will modify either the Pentax or Soligor, both available from B&H

Photo. A spot meter takes maybe 10sec to use in practiced hands, and

is applicable for any camera.

 

<p>

 

<b>Zoom Lenses</b>: These don't make a great deal of difference on MF

cameras as they do on 35mm or smaller. These are made mainly for the

wedding photographers. I recommend that you buy two prime lenses

rather than one zoom. (If the zoom was 45 to 150, I'd reconsider.)

As for AF zoom vs non-AF zoom, I would guess no difference. The real

question, is there a perceptible difference between the zoom and

prime lenses?

 

<p>

 

<b>645 vs 645N</b>: If you like the features, buy the 645N.

Otherwise buy the 645. The 645N metering is great, the film imprint

data is great, the controls are improved, and you'll love it. I also

hope you read the reader's comments about Phil Greenspun's comments.

 

<p>

 

<b>35mm vs 645 vs 6x7</b>: It's just film size. The larger the

print, the better it is to have the largest negative.

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately, there is a glut of landscape and flower images on the

market. Getting a gallery interested in your stuff may be tough.

Have you ever had someone in the business look at your stuff? Your

best bet may be having a web site, and selling your stuff that way.

Look around, you will find a lot of well designed commercial sites.

(Just remember to put price tags on the pictures! :)

[e.ung___]

I have also seriously considered MF several weeks ago, but I

tempoarily withold the idea now. I rented M7 and Pentax645N from my

local store, after seriously tried them for two weeks, I found that I

don`t suit the requirement of shooting MF yet. I am a amateur

photography lover, like you, I shoot mainly landscape, Macro, animals

and some portarit. I learned from M7 that I can`t survive with

rangefinder, problems from using filters, metering with different

lens with different focal length and the presence of the front part

of the long lens inside the rangefinder window annoyed me very much.

For the 645N, it was too far from perfect when you compared with a 35

camera. I intially planned to rent the Hasselblad but I have used too

much patience and energy when I tried the above two, I need some

rest:) Like you, I also like scanning films into computer then

printing them out. If A4 is enough for you, I highly recommend the

New Epson 750, it is close to perfect when compared with my old Epson

600 especially printing people.

[win_robins]

Sincere thanks to all who answered my questions.

 

<p>

 

After much soul-searching, I have decided to stick with the F5 for the

time being. My reason is entirely to do with the comparative lack of

difference between 35mm and 6X4.5/6X7 images when scanned and printed

as 8X10s, which is what the vast majority of my work is and will be.

 

<p>

 

I concluded that the investment in a camera and a scanner simply

wasn't worth it, in view of the fact that I just am not likely to go

to larger size enlargements.

 

<p>

 

Again, my thanks to you all. I hope that I haven't wasted your time.

As I wrote to one of the correspondents, it is extremely gratifying to

know that there are so many people out in cyberspace who are willing

to take the time to try to help others.