Medium Format/ Landscapes

[randy_lovejoy]

I am looking for suggestions in choosing a new MF system primarily

for landscapes. In the past I have used a Mamiya RB. However, I need

a system that is lighter -Im tired of feeling like Im dragging around

an old Buick. I think that I would like to stay with an SLR because I

use graduated ND filters pretty often. Im also looking for a system

that is relatively quick to setup. Its more important for me to be in

the moment rather than to spend a great deal of time setting up.

 

I would like to hear what systems are working for others. If you had

to choose again would you still choose the same system?

 

 

-Randy

[matt_sallis]

Randy, you may find more responses if you post this in the Medium Format forum, where there will be far more people who can offer advice on that subject.

 

Cheers,

Matt

[photomark]

Hi Randy,

 

I still drag the venerable Pentax 67 around with me. I have been tempted by the lightness

of the Mamiya 7 many times but have never been willing to give up the advantages of the

SLR to say nothing of the expense. I'm not sure how heavy the RB is but it looks a lot

bigger than the pentax from what little of it I've seen. When I'm backpacking I replace the

prism with the waist-level finder and (of course) remove the wood grip which makes the

camera relatively light. The lenses are still larger than their 35mm counterparts but it's not

too bad.

 

One thing I love about the camera is that it is very trustworthy--I've never had one fail. It

does require a battery to operate, but uses is it very slowly (unless you are doing very long

exposures on cold nights) It is also very quick and easy to use. Some people have trouble

loading film, but with a little practice it becomes automatic.

[guytal]

If weight is a concern to you, I would avoid 6x7 SLRs altogether. For a quick lightweight system, you may want to look at an older Hasselblad V series (500, 501, 503 etc.) although you will find that working with the square format is very different from what you're used to. Some compositions lend themselves to it while others will require cropping.<br>

If money is no object, I would probably opt for one of the modern 16-22 megapixel backs on a lightweight body (Mamiya or Hasselblad).<br>

That said, a lot will depend on the type of scenes you like to shoot. If your compositions require a lot of depth, I would avoid MF altogether. There's any number of 4x5 systems that are lighter and not that much more complex to set up that will serve you much better.<br>

If I had to choose again, I would stick to my 4x5 for general landscape work, add a good DSLR for times when I need to work fast or travel light, and a Mamiya 7II rangefinder for times when I need the large film size but for whatever reason can't bring the 4x5 (e.g. business travel, climbing trips etc.)<br>

Just my personal opinion, which I'm sure many will disagree with.

<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild Photography</a>

[david_henderson]

I've always been very impressed by the set-up speed of the Pentax 645n. Three reasons. First reliable autofocus. Second a superb automatic exposure system that seems to get it right in all but the most extreme conditions. Third, good zoom lenses means less lens changes. I don't use one of these because I prefer either 6x6 or 67 rangefinder; but I've shot many times with a guy who uses this camera and it is notably faster than I am with my manual focus prime lenses and hand-held spotmeter.

 

Incidentally I do use a ND grad of sorts with the mamiya 7. After giving up on the possibility of positioning even soft edge Hi-Techs remotely accurately, I bought a screw-in Heliopan two stop glass ND. There are clearly some inflexibilities that go along with this, and the build quality isn't perfect (Heliopan are much overrated on this dimension in my experience) but its a long way better than nothing.

[qtluong]

Another idea to consider. Many MF shooters have switched to high-end 35mm digital. Some claim that results are close or equal to MF. That would certainly help with the weight and ease of set-up. I know that this would be my choice.

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Photography</a>.

[guytal]

QT: I have done the same thing and my impressions are that while high end DSLRs are an improvement over 35mm, they are no match for 6x7 or larger when it comes to detail. I also find that my Canon 1Ds is much heavier and bulkier than my old Hasselblad 500cm.<br>

I do like the economics and convenience of digital photography though (and of small/light zoom lenses) so for me it's generally a better choice for many subjects. For large prints I still go the film route for now.<br>

More in here: <a href="http://scenicwild.com/sw/newsletter/Issue8/index.html">August Newsletter</a>

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild Photography</a>

[stemked]

Randy,

 

The Pentax 67 although large is very manageable unless you are planning to use more than 3 lenses. I have hiked extensively with two lenses the newer 55mm f4 (certainly not the f3.5) and 135mm f4 and a Gitzo carbo fiber leg-set. However I wouldn't exactly call it light. I understand your issue with filters, but medium format just isn't that light unless you are willing to consider rangefinders. The Pentax 67 sets up fast, but film changeing is pretty slow. This is because you can't pre-pack film in a film back unlike the modular medium format systems.

 

You might even consider large format; some of those systems are as heavy as a largeish 35mm system and certainly a lot lighter than medum format.

[hakon_soreide]

If you hadn't specified that you use grey grads, the choice would have been easy: Mamiya 7 or 7II would have been a great choice, but using neutral gradient filters with it - which I haven't even tried - is rather challenging.<p> If, however, your post-production includes scanning and digital treatment, there's no need for grey grads as you can merge two or even more exposures, one for the sky and one for the foreground for instance (using a tripod and no movement between exposures). In that case, there's few things lighter and faster to set up than a Mamiya 7II, a great and light snapshot camera even.<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

[bob_cook]

Randy - I've used virtually all of the medium format systems over the years. Longest span was probably 8 years with the Pentax 67. Then Hasselblad, Mamiya 6, and a short stint with an RZ67. I now use the Hasselblad with the standard 50-80-150 lenses, and a Hasselblad Xpan with 45mm and 90mm. Great combination, lots of flexibility in format.

[andrew robertson]

The only MF cameras I would consider at this point are the Pentax 67 system, a Fuji 6x9 RF,

or a Rolleiflex. Seems to me the Rolleiflex would be the most compact.

[ken_dunn1]

I wonder why no one has brought up the Mamiya 645? The newer ones have interchangable backs unlike the Pentax models and the lenses are great and much less expensive than Blads and much more flexable. The weight it also much less than the 6x7 slrs and the negative size is almost 300% larger than 35mm. To me its really the only camera that makes sense if you are having to hike any distance at all and want medium format, nothing else really has all the options and features a good nature camera should have.

[Two23]

Ken--

 

The Bronica ETRSi (645) system certainly does, and is more than affordable on eBay. They are very rugged too.

 

 

Kent in SD

[photomark]

<i> The weight it also much less than the 6x7 slrs</i><p>

I'm not so sure about this. The pentax body weighs in at 42.7 oz. The mamiya 645AFD is

61 oz. (the finder is built-in if I'm not mistaken) the mamiya 645 pro-tl (manual focus)

comes in at 34.08 oz for the body and 120 film holder--if you want bells and whistles you

will probably be adding the AE prism 11.5 oz more (pentax 67 II AE prism is about 16oz.

but the waist level finders for both cameras are tiny and light--about 4oz). All said I think

the weight is comparable although it looks like you can take a bare-bones mamiya and

save around 10 oz which could be significant, but at the expense of loosing the options

and features which you were praising.

<p>

I know everybody likes and needs different things from their gear, but for me the lack of

technology in the pentax (and large format cameras) is an asset. I prefer not to be messing

with more buttons and dials than required or thinking about batteries and for landscapes

I've never really missed the autofocus. I suppose since I shoot a fair amount of 4x5,

focusing a camera by simply turning the lens almost seems like autofocus.

[stb]

I considered the Pentax 645n II to the point of nearly ordering it to complement my 6x9 view camera. I couldn't find a problem in it, until I realized that I would need quite an expensive scanner in order to exploit any superiority it could have compared to digital.

 

In the end, I got an Olympus E-300 with the 14-54/2.8 and 11-22/2.8 zooms. It gets much much closer to my 6x9 scanned at 2000dpi than I would have expected. And I'm talking B&W. And I use APX25 in the view camera.

 

There is probably more in a 645 film frame than in the 8Mpix of my Olympus. But the equipment and time to go and get it made the 645 a losing proposition for me.

[randy_lovejoy]

Wow, thanks so much for the quick responses! I find all of your experiences invaluable. It really helps in making an informed decision. I have definitely ruled out rangefinders. Although I think the Mamiya 7II rangefinder is a great camera I just doesn?t fit all of my needs at the moment. Might be a good stocking stuffer though! I think Stephane brings up a good point that the digital quality is close enough to the 645 to lean in favor of digital. So, for the moment I think the Pentax 67 and a digital might be the best choices for me. Maybe renting a couple of systems might be the way to go?? Thanks everybody for the guidance. I'll post my decision in the future for those that might be interested.

 

-Randy

[always_wanderlust]

I would second the advice given by Guy. For landscapes, a 4x5 is very good choice. The old Tachihara I had can be setup in a matter of seconds. You can get a very light 3lbs Field Camera and a few lenses and may even be lighter than a Digital SLR system (Like you, I used to carry an RB System on 7-10 mile hikes). A digital SLR is really not that much lighter, I've owned an S2 Pro and a Kodak 14n with a few lenses (not light by a long shot).

 

Some people may consider this strange, but I'm moving back to film and have recently sold off both my Digital SLRs (I acquired a Drum Scanner cheap!). I currently have a Wista 4x5 Metal field camera & two lenses, Mamiya 645 Pro, and soon a Fuji GA645 zi (not a real rangefinder and has autofucos/autometer). I plan to carry the Fuji zi (it's only a few ounces) with the 4x5 to be used as backup for some of those circumstances that a 4x5 may miss.

 

Renting is a way to go, but that depends on where you rent. Places I can rent here in California charges $300 for a week's date with an outdated D1x! I could buy a Speed graphic with that money.

[ken_dunn1]

Kent- I don't think that the Bronica had all the accessories that the mamaiya offers nor the lens lineup best I can remember. Besides it is now an orphaned Also is it not leaf shutter? Great for weddings, but added weight and slower lenses in the field and also less reliable.

Mark-on paper the weights seem to be not that big of a deal, but you start adding a couple of ounces here, half pound there and before you know it the thing is pretty heavy. The lenses are much heavier not to mention bulky. I backpack and ounces matter. Also the Pentax does not have backs, which I like to have that option.

[dermot_conlan4]

II've used pretty much everything out there from Mamiya RZ to Pentax 67,

Hasselblad, Mamiya 7ii and finally setteled on a Pentax 645N...cheap and

sharp lenses, a range of zooms noone else can match, primes from 35mm to

600mm, a great metering system and look at the used lens prices (in the U.S)

sometimes less than Nikon and Canon. I've tried to find faults with it but I can't

it just suits me. Not having interchangble backs was never a big deal for me I

usually carry a 120 and use a 220 when traveling . There are plans for a

digital model in '06. Rent a system on Friday afternoon and use it for the

weekend, you pay one day rate.

[andre_goforth]

You mentioned you are tired of carrying around a Buick.

 

The fact that someone is compelled enough to carry gear with them at all to take pictures

indicates there is some willingness to be burdened. The question is how much

compromise in quality in image, performance, and in the personal control of the picture

taking process do you tolerate and remain satisfied with the results? Here is what I have

favored in moving from 35mm to medium format for quality reasons. I still use 35mm but

for roughly the same flexibility that the form and fit that 35mm has, the Pentax 6x7

delivers more of what my mind's eye desires.

 

Having been a 35mm user I've found it much much easier to view the effective DOF with

the Pentax 6x7 II. When it is difficult to use the horizonal finder( one eye viewing only and/

or straining of the neck), I pop it off and use a loupe for critical focusing and tuning the

DOF range. Usually with landscapes the reaction is to crank to infinity, stop down to one's

preferred f-stop and then fire and forget. IMHO there is a significant range of subtly in the

visual impact of DOF. The ability to monitor the DOF easily with the Pentax 6x7 is close to

the experience I've found with 4x5s.

 

The issue of weight versus features is a tough call when it comes to hauling gear in the

outdoors. The Pentax 6x7 is very similar to my favorite 35mm system, the Olympus OM

series. All my reflexes from use of the 35mm system have transferred to the Pentax.(The

lens focusing is opposite on the Pentax but this was easy to get use to because the change

in focus is so much readily apparent. Film changing is still taking some getting use to.)

Taking the Pentax out of the backpack, slapping on the desired lens and either mounting

it on a tripod or hand holding/bracing is equivalent to the moves I make with 35mm. The

only changes I've made from 35mm to 6x7 in my outdoor rig is upgrade to a ARCA B1

ballhead and added a Kirk custom L bracket. (This is not a paid advertisement but

indicaton of how critical and important for quality this kind of equipment is. Next to the

caliber of the lens, the tripod setup the most important.) This allows me to switch between

horizontal and vertical easily. I have had no camera shake issues across all shutter speeds

with this rig. Obviously, there is a strong personal preference for 6x7 versus 6x6. Dunno

why but I shoot a lot of verticals and unfortunately cropping down is also not preferred

which could be argued in the case of the use of a square format.

 

The same dicussion could be repeated for moving from medium format to large format

where control of perspective is acheivable. On occasion I wish I had perspective control

even when doing nature and macro picture taking. But I haven't made this transition yet

which brings me to my last point. Quality is a matter of personal taste and judgement. I

believe you can squeeze a lot out of 35mm. Look at what Galen Rowell and others have

done. But it is always a matter of squeezing. Just how much do you want to do?

 

One of the hidden gems of medium/large format is the experience of viewing chrome

transparencies. There is something magical about it for me. I don't know if many folks

who feel this way, probably not a lot, but looking at a large chrome is hard to beat. It is as

if you are transported back to the moment the shutter fired. While digital is quite

impressive and is all the rage now, I would not be surprise that the value of chrome

transparencies will endure because it will be easy to take advantage of their latent

properties and quality by advances in digital scanning and reproduction.

 

Good luck in your selection of gear!

 

Andre

[thomasbeaman]

I carry a pentax 67 with 3 lenses (I also carry a canon digital rebel for instant feedback) and a heavy tripod and I never have a problem. After a few hundred yards you forget you are carrying it. The larger negs are so worth the weight of the 67 and a few lenses. (not as bad as a lot of people say).