What is Best Value MF System for Calendar Work & Prints to 20x24?

[daniel_erwin]

I've been shooting sports action with a Canon EOS 1v and 70-200

f/2.8L on an avocational basis for the past several years with the

goal of eventually becoming a full-time pro when I retire from my day

job, and have been published a number of times in magazines (largest

image to-date with this combo and Kodak 100VS was 10x13 at 300 dpi

CMYK). I also recently began to publish calendar images shot with

either a 35mm prime or my Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I'm finding that as

much fun as I've had shooting sports action that I really enjoy

calendar type image making even more. I feel I have been very

fortunate to have sold any calendar images, given most of my

competition are full-time pros shooting 4x5, 6x6 or 6x7. I would like

to expand my calendar submissions and feel that I'd be more

competative with MF (some calendars require at least 645), and would

also like to sell prints of my best images to 16x20 or 20x24. I am

particularly interested in scenics and travel locations without

people (cliched as this genre may be...LOL) and will be shooting from

a tripod using Velvia 50 Professional (but will try the newly

announced Velvia 100 Professional when it becomes available) or Kodak

100VS. I will do some walking around with the MF gear in a camera

backpack to scout out the area after driving to the location but

won't be backing in miles with this MF gear. I have no need to use

flash.

 

I've been doing a tremendous amount of research on MF and have

narrowed it down to three options:

 

(1) The "el cheapo" route with something like the Mamiya 645e and

55mm f/2.8, 80mm f/2.8 and 150mm f/3.5 lenses, but the "plasticky"

feel seems cheap compared to the quality of my Canon kit and a

significant number of reviewers seem to have experienced problems

with issues like the film winding mechanism not working reliably,

film flatness (weak springs in cheap film inserts was cited by one),

and the 35mm f/3.5 and 210mm f/4 lenses don't seem to enjoy the

sterling reputation for edge-to-edge sharpness as the three initial

choices I mentioned (the 200mm f/2.8 APO seems too heavy for this

body and is rather pricey even used). One intriguing lens though is

the 50mm f/4 shift lens, which would come in handy for shooting

architectural images from time to time.

 

(2) The Pentax 645N II or Mamiya 645 AFD. Although the N II doesn't

have the capability of "going digital" I'm not planning on being in

the market for a $10,000 "645NIII" (concept announced recently by

Pentax) or similarly priced Mamiya "ZD" back or "ZD" body any time

soon (I don't shoot a high enough volume of film to justify it), the

Pentax line has by far the most comprehensive lens selection

(including five zooms to choose from and the fantastic 35mm f/3.5

FA). Tim Fitzharris has been demonstrating the utility of this lens

lineup in his wonderful calendars for some time now, and his website

indicates that he offers prints to 20x24 and beyond, and my local

independent camera repairman says the Pentax 645 and 6x7 cameras are

among the most reliable in his experience. Still, the possibility of

adding a digital back (should they come down in price significantly)

with the Mamiya 645AFD is intriguing. However, the Mamiya 645AFD

strikes me as more of a studio camera and the Pentax more ruggedly

suited for field work. This is due not only to the higher weight of

the Mamiya but also because I'm not aware of any pros who are using

the 645AFD in the field like Tim Fitzharris does with the Pentax 645N

II. Being able to use Pentax 67 lenses means I could use the 75mm

shift lens for architecture too, but the Mamiya 50mm f/4 shift lens

would work on the 645 AFD so that's a draw. Interestingly, that big

on-line auction site always seems to have plenty of Mamiya 645e and

645AFDs being offered, while there are hardly ever any Pentax 645N

IIs. I'm not sure whether this represents wedding and portrait

photographers who want to get a Canon 1D Mk II or 1Ds Mk II,

respectively, or simply because Mamiya has more units in circulation

than Pentax. I am concerned that if Pentax isn't able to launch a

viable digital 645 body that there will only be two MF companies left

standing (Mamiya and Hasselblad) now that Contax recently announced

the 645 AF line will be discontinued in the near future.

 

(3) Pentax 67 II. I've been advised by a landscape pro I know who

shoots mostly 4x5 but also some 6x7 that a Pentax 67 II is really the

way to go. However, a view camera is too slow to set up for me, and

is difficult to use when the wind is blowing compared to a MF SLR.

While the 6x7 would obviously have the advantage at 20x24 (and

perhaps even at 16x20 assuming scanning and commercial reproduction),

my biggest two concerns regarding the Pentax 67II are obviously the

considerably higher weight of both the body and lenses, and more

limited depth of field (with no tilt movement to help) than the

Pentax 645N II.

 

While the latest high end DSLRS may be nipping at the heels of 645

image quality according to some, I could buy a decent NEW MF system

for the price of a 1Ds Mk II alone. (The Nikon D2X would appear to

have an advantage for my type of image making given its smaller

sensor gives greater DOF but at $5k it is hardly a compelling reason

to jump ship to Nikon). The final factor is that I would prefer to

buy at least the camera body new, particularly if I go with the MF AF

option. This eliminates the H1 and Contax 645 AF from further

consideration (not to mention the recent announcement that production

of the Contax will cease shortly). I take very good care of my

equipment and am not very comfortable with "rolling the dice" on used

electronic equipment on some on-line auction where suspiciously most

is listed as "mint" condition with "only a few rolls run through it."

 

Instead of driving myself mad in trying to weigh all of these

competing factors any longer, I thought I'd put them out here and

request the assistance of anyone who would care to provide their

perspective, particularly if he or she has experience with several

(or all) of these MF systems. There are few things I enjoy more in

life that capturing my vision of the essence of a place and sharing

it with others. It is great to be able to communicate with like-

minded photographers through the marvel of this internet forum. My

sincerest thanks to those who took the time to read through this long-

winded description and even more to anyone who replies. Best regards.

[tom_gross1]

I'm not really responding to your request for assistance in deciding which camera system to get, but on one rather minor point in your analysis. You mention you are not willing to "roll the dice" for a used camera .with that auction company. There are a few good reliable, trustworthy places to buy used. KEH is probably one of the best. If you read many of the comments in this forum, you will see that most people are very high on KEH and their conservative rating of equipment.

 

I personally have bought a couple of lenses from them and have been very satisfied.

[johnmarkpainter]

Get a "Bargain" Pentax 67 rig from www.keh.com

 

P67 are built like TANKS and easily serviced. You don't need a new one....get an

"Excellent" one if you are worried. You probably want one with Mirror Lockup.

 

Start with a 55 (the f4 w/77 filter size is the one to get) and a 105/2.5 and see if you like

it. If you do, pick up an extra bargain body as a backup and also as a "Film Back"

 

jmp

[francois_gauthier]

For lanscape, Pentax 67II would probably be the better solution if you have the courage to carry it with an adequate tripod.

 

The 55mm has a good reputation but i would rather have the 45mm and the 105mm (and maybe the 75mm to fill the gap).

 

That said, the Pentax 645 NII will probably bring you a more enjoyable experience and is good enough for the job.

[bill_green2]

For what you are considering, a used Canon 1Ds or new 1D mark II seems like a good

answer to me.

 

If you are looking at these cameras from a professional view point, you need to consider

workflow, i.e. how do you get the image from your camera to your client? If the answer is

sending out the film make sure you have enough dupes (in camera or lab) around. If the

answer is buying a scanner, that needs to get factored in as well. If you are getting drum

scans made consider that as well.

 

I came very close to buying a Pentax 645 or Mamiya 7. These are both light weight

systems capable of beautiful images. With the Pentax, I am at $2000-$3000 with a 35/

3.5, 55/3.5, 150/2.8, 300/4 and a 1.4x, assuming some very diligent and lucky shopping.

This covers the 35 mm equivalent of 24, 35 and 180 and 250.

 

I will estimate film costs to be about $40 per roll. That includes $3 for film (short dated on

eBay), $7 for processing, and one drum scan at $30. A used Canon 1Ds sells for about

$4000. When I subtract the cost of the Pentax system (we'll go with $2000 to be

charitable), I have $2000 leftover for film/process/scan. That buys me 50 rolls of film.

While you might be thinking you don't need one in 16 pictures scanned on a high-end

drum, I'm sure you will find 50 images in 800 worthy of a drum scan. If not, you might re-

consider this venture.

 

So by the time you shot 50 rolls, you could have bought a high-end digital Canon and

used your existing lenses. 6x7 may have an edge on the 1Ds, but a new model will come

out soon enough and the 1DsII will be selling for $4000.

 

Life is about compromises and photography is no exception. The Pentax 67 has a low

entry cost, but is heavy and has a high maintenance cost when you consider film. It is

heavy, though lighter that some.

 

The Pentax 645 is the lightest system (including the Canon) and most inexpensive. Film

cost is half of the 67, though not inconsequential by any means. You still have to buy a

scanner, pay for drum scans or send your film to a client (some people consider this a

positive, not a negative). If prices can't fall too much farther on this gear, so you can

probably get out without much of a loss.

 

The Canon has equal image quality of the above, is more client friendly because they have

smaller files to work with containing as much detail and no film grain. The Canon will

allow you to migrate into shooting wildlife as well should you choose to go there. It has

the lowest operational cost, but because of the rate of technological advancement, resale

will not be high. While the 1Ds seems like a no-brainer, there is one wart -- there are no

really great very wide angle lenses for the Canon. The 24/1.4 is quite good, but below that

you have to go with Zeiss and an adapter. On the upside, you do have three wonderfull

tilt/shift lenses to get the whole image in focus and fantastic telephotos for extracting

detail or compressing distance.

 

For about $8,000 you can also get a Mamiya 645AFD with a couple lenses and a used

Kodak DCS ProBack, though you will still need to shoot film for wide angle shots.

 

Do I sink my money into film and processing and equipment that will likely be used as

paper weights, or plan for the future and invest in the best lenses that I can get because

the cameras will demand it?

 

For the time being, I am sticking with digital because I don't think I can afford to shoot

film. In three years digital will have better resolution than medium format slide film and

dynamic range equal to neg film.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There are alot of folks generating images for calendars. A fine printer may demand a 400 ppi image at full size; to allow some cropping and some headroom in quality; or just 300. An old 4x5 Speed graphic or a modern high end DSLR both can create a fine image for a calendar. I feel you are getting bogged into the pixel versus film morass. The "Look: of the two radically different formats can be totally different as to DOF; and the up front starting costs; and work flows..Is there a live an well MF lab near you; or is it all mail order? A 6x7 or 6x9 roll film camera will make a fine calendar image; sometimes the 6x6 format is ok too. What is the aspect ratio of your target calendar's images? MF equipment has dropped in costs radically in the last few years.

[thomas_janik]

Hi Daniel:

 

You clearly have done your homework. All the options you mentioned will produce good images, so your choice becomes one of economics and feeling comfortable with a particular camera. I have a few comments based on my own experience:

1. You seem to leaning towards auto focus lenses. If you are shooting landscape, AF seems an unnecessary expensive (and it could be argued counterproductive in composition).

2. You are hesitant to buy from an on line auction. It is a gamble, but I have purchased 6 cameras and various lenses (don't tell my wife) and only once have I gotten a camera that needed repair. Even so, the cost of that camera plus a complete repair at Pentax Canada was about the same as it would have been to purchase at B&H or KEH.

3. I use the pentax 67, 645, LX and *ist DS. I can recommend them all. Each has its own strengths and applications and as you know, the larger format lenses can be used on any smaller format body. I don't shoot hundreds of rolls of film, so the film cost savings of a high end digital does not apply. The money I would have spent for a body I have used for bargain Pentax lenses.

 

Regards

[daniel_erwin]

Thanks everyone for your helpful responses!

 

To respond to Tom Gross' comment, yes I have considered KEH but their prices sometimes don't seem low enough (especially for equipment in the top condition categories) compared to just buying it new from New York. To answer Kelly Flanigan's questions, yes I am fortunate to have a fine pro lab within driving distance and the aspect ratio of most of the calendars that I would be interested in submitting to are similar to 645 or 6x7 dimensions. (Again please note that I've ruled out 4x5 due to its' many inherent limitations including setup time, needing virtually still conditions for the very slow shutter speeds used and that I frequently work from 24mm to 200mm+ (in 35mm equivalent FOV) on a single shoot).

 

Although I didn't consider the digital option in my initial analysis (other than mentioning that one could get a nice MF system for the price of a pro DSLR body alone) I'm glad a few of you did factor it into the options. I have also thought about the Canon 1Ds but think that MF has much better wide angle lenses than a 35mm system and the traditional 35mm aspect ration means that I have to mentally crop everything I shoot for calendars (at this point the Olympus 4/3 system doesn't have nearly enough resolution for my applications). Also, please remember that I want to be able to make at least 16x20 prints (which the 1Ds owners I know say is reasonably achievable) in addition to calendar images but sometimes 20x24 as well, both at 300 dpi CMYK (I'm confident the 1Ds Mk II can do that but it is way out of my price range). However, one issue that is becoming increasingly apparent from many on-line reviews that I've read about the 1Ds Mk II is that the 24-70 f/2.8L has CA issues when placed in front of this mercilessly demanding 16.7 MP sensor and lots of these photographers seem to be switching to Zeiss wide angle primes to get edge-to-edge sharpness (something even the present crop of consumer Canon WA primes seem incapable of achieving and price-wise the 'L' primes are out of the question). Speaking of workflow, since I already have a f/t job I wouldn't have the time to spend hours and hours optimizing every image in PS acquired with a DSLR that I choose to submit, though I could see giving extra time to a few great images to make 20x24 prints. The 8 MP 1D Mk II is really a sports camera optimized for fast capture but since I don't have any interest in getting into wildlife the higher resolution of the 1Ds would be of more benefit for me at the same price. Also Canon only released the 1Ds Mk II last fall and Canon seems to be on a two year update cycle for their pro DSLRs so the only hope for a sooner price reduction would be if they announced an 11MP full frame sensor in a 20D body for around the price of a 14 MP Kodak DCS PRO SLR/c, in which case I would probably get that instead of a used 1Ds since the new model would likely have DIGIC II (or maybe III by then?).

 

To answer Bill Green's question yes I shoot in-camera dupes (including bracketed shots) whenever possible, though I hate the waste of film inherent in this approach (score a point for digital on that account!). For my calendar and magazine work all they need are the trannies and they do the hi rez scanning and post-processing themselves. Of course, for making my own prints I'd be on my own for scanning. Another major advantage of digital is that once the image is safely captured (which itself isn't a 100% sure thing) I can make backups and submit the original quality image to as many places as I want without staying up nights worrying about my trannies being damaged from the time they leave my possession to the time I get them back. However, while the MF may have film costs, this is counterbalanced by the rapid depreciation of the DSLR into the equation. This is because while film is a mature technology digital is still evolving (who knows if we'll even be using Bayer interpolated sensors in five years!). So like Thomas Janik, I don't think that I shoot enough film to justify a high end DSLR based on the cost savings of film and processing (the highest image quality at the lowest cost while being able to use lenses ranging from 20mm to 200+ (in 35mm equivalent FOV) are the most important factors for me).

 

Regarding AF, I wish Pentax made a manual focus version of the 645NII (I'd even forego the film winder to get the weight down further) but I still want MLU so that rules out its' predecessors. So in the final analysis it appears to come down to what is working now (most calendar companies still prefer the traditional film approach) vs. the future (as digital continues to improve some traditional calendar companies are starting to actually publish some digital images too). If all I wanted were a few focal lengths I would just get the Pentax 67II but since I find I regularly use 24mm to 200+ with my 35mm gear (and would love a 20mm) that really brings me back to the two MF AF choices (Pentax 645NII or Mamiya 645AFD or 35mm digital (e.g., Canon 1Ds). The biggest issue of all is that I need to make up my mind soon since it?s almost spring here and I want to be out shooting in a few weeks!

 

P.S. Hopefully this analysis will be of interest to others who are also grappling with similar decisions.

[andrew booth]

> If all I wanted were a few focal lengths I would just get the Pentax 67II

 

You're thinking with a 35mm mindset.

 

Remember that with Medium Format you can crop easily and still retain print quality,

especially on 6x7. You don't need the wide range of lenses that you use with 35mm,

because this possibility is usable.

 

I would go for the Pentax 67 if I were you. 6x7 gives you a big quality advantage over

35mm and 645. I'd also consider a used Mamiya RZ67. The bellows focussing is fantastic

for close up work, and they're really not that heavy.

[joseph_albert]

Consider that you can carry two formats if the cameras are well chosen:

 

Fuji GSW690-III for landscapes or other wide-angle shots.

DSLR with 50/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 200/2.8 + teleconvertor for everything else.

 

The Fuji is supportable on any tripod that will hold a DSLR + 200/2.8.

Pentax 67 is a superb camera, but it needs a much heftier tripod than a

Fuji 6x7/6x9 rangefinder on account of vibrations.

 

If your wide-angle needs are just for moderate wide-angle, a Mamiya C220F

with 55/4.5, 105/3.5DS, 180/4.5 Super might be had for around $600. If your

favorite lens for 35mm is a 20/2.8, this probably won't be satisfactory, but if

you can shoot all of your landscapes in 35mm with a 28/2.8, it might work.

 

Cheers,

 

Joseph Albert

[daniel_erwin]

Andrew-Thanks for your reply. I plan on doing a lot of coastal scenic work and find the reach of my 35mm 70-200 essential (there are times when I also use it with the 1.4x converter to extend its' reach out to 280mm). The 300mm Pentax 67 lens doesn't have nearly enough reach and one pro I know who uses one regularly says there is considerable vibration issues around 1/8 sec shutter speed even with MLU due to the large focal plane shutter. Michael Reichmann's review on The Luminous-Landscape confirms this characteristic. Also, I find the long Pentax 67 lenses much larger and heavier than I'm used to. I really don't have a need to do macro work and also find the Mamiya 67s a lot heavier and bulkier than the Pentax 67 II. So it appears that I neglected to consider weight as a critical factor (I find my 1v, 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L) plus tripod heavy enough to lug around for a few hours at a time). I suppose one option would be to have more than one system but that would be more expense than I could justify at the present time. I'm leaning towards the conclusion that the Pentax 645N II system is close enough in weight and price to my Canon kit plus having the widest lens selection to be the best value now, but I'm not sure this conclusion will hold in a few years when "high end" capture technology of DSLRs today trickles down to more reasonable price levels.

[superia400_junkie]

For a DLSR have you calculated updating your computer, memory, software? Then time spent in the digital darkroom.

 

I think all that is a wash. Convience yes, cost savings probably not over the course of 3-5 years. I think the DLSR makes me prone to shoot far more than I normally would with my manual SLR. I'm sure the same holds true for MF if not slower and more thoughtful approach.

[robert_potts1]

If you are after telephoto effects for landscape photography, 645 is the only game in town. Pentax makes four 300mm lens models. There is a very good reason for this. It seems like nobody mentioned the Mamiya 7II. Which is odd. For images that will be blown up large, this system is superb and easy to use.

[dermot_conlan4]

There's no magic bullet out there you pick your poison and go with it...John

Shaw is all digital D2X and Jack Dykinga shoots 4x5 both making a living

having work published every day. I've used nearly every Medium Format

system out there and have my work publised to poster size regularly

22x28....when I show these posters shot with Mamiya RZ, Hassey and Pentax

645N nobody can pick which system was used, the printing process seems to

be the limiting factor. I ended up keeping my Pentax 645N with lenses from

35mm to 300 plus 1.4, I know I can get publishable results forn it , because I

have and I can print fine prints to 20x24...but I don't get much of a call for this

 

I have recently been working with Canons 1D yeah only 4.1MP but I've made

some 13x19 prints that really stunned me...what I could do with 11 or 12 MP.

I 've found most publishers are looking for an image, if you have it they will

buy it, if it's a choice between 35mm and 645 image of course they'll pick the

larger image. ...they never ask what type of camera I used, I used to make

70mm dupes to submit now I make 8x10 print's on my Epson 2200 and submit

those....no squinting or computer required.

 

Noone can make this decision for you but you...I think you'll find it's more

about the image than the gear.