Downside to All MF kit?

[abram]

As some of you may know, i am currently selling ALL of my 35mm canon gear, to switch to

an entirely Hasselblad outfit. I currently own the H1, and im going to get a 503cw kit, along

with the 80 CFE and the 150 CFI.

 

is there any severe downsides to shooting just MF?

 

aside from obvious Hassy price extortion, and getting a good scanner.

 

in my head it just made sense. what do you say?

[lance_couzens]

For those of us who don't know you, what kind of shooting do you do? Also, is your photography for business or pleasure (or both)?

[troyammons]

Yes. Telephoto, autofocus, basically all of the 35mm goodies. Also film is more expensive, processing is higher, scanners are more expensive, but its still less than LF. Also DOF is hard to get used to for some people.

 

The trade off is superb image quality from MF. The downside i can see for Hassy is the cost of the lenses if you go for a full set. Same for something like a Contax 645, but then again 35mm ED or L AF lenses are not that cheap either.

 

One thing I really like a lot with 6x6 is shooting a chimney finder. I had a Kowa a while back and I loved to shoot that camera.

 

I guess more than anything to me its most important what and how you shoot and how big you want to enlarge.

 

I dont really shoot much 35mm film anymore, so for me it shakes out like this.....

 

The telephoto big time winner for me is a cropped dslr with a lot of MP. A 600mm lens on a 20D equates to 960mm lens on a film camera.

 

Second up for telephoto but better on quality would be a 1dsmkII or a 645 camera. A true 600mm on the 1ds, but with something like a Pentax 645 that drops to 340mm, so just the switch from a cropped 35mm camera to a Pentax 645 cost you almost 2/3 of your zoom power.

 

Those are the decent telephoto options for me.

 

Now jump to a 6x6 or 670 format. The telephoto advantage drops more and a 300mm lens that gives you 480mm on a 20D gives you 135mm equiv on something like a Pentax 67, or around a very long portrait length.

 

All that really depends on how you crop your photos and 6x6 is a little different. If you crop 6x6 to a 2/3 format its almost identical to 645.

 

My ultimate setup that i am still working towards...

 

8mp x 3 1.7x crop foven camera for very long telephoto if they ever build it.

 

A Pentax 645nII for film telephoto and 645 general shooting with AF etc. Its like a giant 35mm AF AE camera and i like it so far, but i am having a problem getting lenses that are up to my standards from a certain used reseller.

 

A 645 670 or 690 RF landscape camera, for more rez without the weight of a P645 system or a 4x5 system or when there is not time to setup a 4x5. Just a lightish pack camera.

 

A 4x5 and a 8x10 for the best quality for huge enlargements.

 

Of course all of that depends on final print sizes and if you never print more than 30x30 a Hassy is more than enough. That gives you a lot of film real estate advantage over 35mm.

[mike_earussi1]

Lack of speed, spontaneity and inability to photograph moving subjects in low light, just to name three. It's always nice to have access to both formats.

[ilkka]

Downsides for MF film: higher cost of film, less exposures per film requiring frequent changes, larger size of film containers especially when previous point is included, larger size and weight of body and lenses, larger cost of body and lenses (these previous two points make especially backups a more difficult proposition), smaller selection of lenses (especially zoom lenses), no image stabilised lenses, limited or no selection of tilt/shift lenses, slower lenses (requiring faster film for equivalent shutter speed partially removing MF quality advantage), slower operation of equipment (focusing, metering, etc.), less automated operation of equipment (film loading etc. depending on camera model), simpler (or no) exposure metering, simpler (or no) TTL flash automation, slower speed of film advance, more extension needed for macro, smaller apertures needed for same depth of field, heavier tripod needed to hold everything steady, larger cost of film processing, larger cost of scanning equipment, larger storage space (Gigabits) required for scans and their backups.

 

Of course, these same factors are the downsides of large format over medium format. And the reason to select either of these formats is the image quality.

[robert x]

Dear Abra,

 

I would suggets you keep at least *one* little canon and a favorite lens. You surely wont regret it and you will find that it's a real joy to bring it out and play with it occasionally and have those totally different types of pictures. You don't need everything to be Hassie sharp and blowable to 20x20.

 

I use an old 500C/M and occasionally pull out my almost as old A1,normally with a lovely 24mm FD attached and really love the different feel.

 

Plus it is very useful as a lightmeter sometimes as I find the A1's meter is sensitive to very low light that I can't get in a handheld without spending the farm.

Robert

[stephen hazelton]

The idea behind MF is higher quality. That would be totally wasted on a lot of the stuff I shoot. So that's one drawback.

 

Fewer frames/ roll, higher film/processing cost, fewer choices of film, can't stop off at wallyworld when you run out of film, would be others.

[spanky]

For what's it's worth, I found that because of some of these downsides my own photography has improved beyond measure. I don't mean just the obvious improved image quality gained by the bigger negs but because MF forces you to adopt a different approach then you would use with 35mm or a digital camera. Fewer frames per roll means you are more selective about what and how you shoot. I had no problem burning through a 36 exposure roll with 35mm because I had plenty to shoot before I had to change rolls. Same with digital. People shoot massive amounts and sift through it all looking for the one that meets their expectations. With MF you have to know before hand that when you press the shutter it's exactly what you want. How can one ont improve when this is the case? Before I would be happy with a couple frames out of 36 or a few shots from an enourmous amount of files in a digicam. However, with my RZ just about every frame of a 10 shot roll is a keeper because I already know when I press the shutter how it's going to look. Since I do my own developing and printing I know that my negs will be at least printable based on decisions made when I loaded up the camera.

[cosmo_genovese]

Cameras are tools and it's always nice to have the right tools for the job. Hold on to the 35mm stuff.

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Depends.

 

If it is EOS stuff, you ought to hold on to it. You can use it on their digital bodies which are the best in the business. A 39 megapixel digital back for your H1 will cost you $40,000. Now, if it is FD, well, imo might as well dump it. It's not bad gear, but will you use it? For me, with digital, it's hard to see what I would do with 35mm film.

 

Medium format though, is just plain fun.

 

Do what you like and don't worry about it, just enjoy yourself. But, if you have not tried digital SLRs like the EOS, that are now available very cheaply, I would give that a try before buying more gear.

 

As for the H1, I was very underwhelmed with the ones I have seen here in the stores in Tokyo. I would have picked up a second hand Contax 645 for that kind of cash. At least you still get Zeiss lenses.

[michael_bach2]

You can have a 35mm camera from 1$ and up so why not have one.

 

www.micbach.dk........"Photography workshops in Spain"

[tom_westbrook]

The downside of only an MF outfit is no large format ;^)

 

Seriously, it really depends only on what you shoot. From the images you have on photo.net (nice work, BTW) I'd say MF will serve you well since I don's see a lot of action shots there. One thing you might consider is a 6x9 or 4x5 view camera--there are plenty used on that auction site. It will likely increase quality of your images--the movements available allow a lot of depth of field manipulation.

[emmett_rowell1]

" As some of you may know, i am currently selling ALL of my 35mm canon gear,"

 

If it's FD, fine. If it's EOS, sell the bodies, keep the lenses. In a couple of months you'll be switching to digital and having EOS lenses will be a leg up, since Canon's really out in front in digital.

 

 

"I currently own the H1, and im going to get a 503cw kit"

 

Why on earth would you want both? Keep the Hasselfuji since you've already spent on it, forget the V-series which though tempting because of their low prices, are all but discontinued by Hasselblad and in the future will not be supported by digital backs.

 

"is there any severe downsides to shooting just MF?"

 

All those that have existed for ages (weight, slow lenses, no long telephotos, slow framing rate, expense of film and processing)plus those created by the vanquishment of film by digital (disappearing emulsion choices, fewer stocking retailers, disappearing labs).

 

"aside from obvious Hassy price extortion"

 

I agree that the price of the re-badged Fuji H1 amounts to extortion, but the prices of second-hand V-series are quite keen these days.

 

"and getting a good scanner"

 

Epson 4990 is quite keenly priced. However you do need to learn a bit about what you're doing in order to wring the best-possible performance from it, which means disregarding the frustrated naysayers on the internet crippled by their own lack of initiative or cognitive ability, and seeking out the counsel of those who have learnt to make it sing.

[donald_brewster]

There's a down side? ;-)

[abram]

wow lots of responses!

 

its all eos gear actually, with a few L lenses in the mix. an eos 3 body, and a 10D body.

i see both sides of the fence, but i think right now getting into my own business, the

quality of MF will outshine 35mm in the studio type environment i will be in. The client im

working with right now is having me do a whole bunch of food photography for their trade

show display, ( =big prints )

 

obviously i see the benefit of having a 35mm dslr around, but right now im not sure if i

have that luxury. im sure down the road when the money is coming in, ill get another one

im sure, and by then the 5D replacement will be out, and maybe even a 12+MP 1D mkIII.

 

instead of typing everything i have, here it all is on the FS board - http://www.photo.net/

gc/view-one.tcl?classified_ad_id=638274

[abram]

oh and for the record -

 

i do have a 4x5 :) an older Horseman LE with a 210mm Fujinon Lens.

[paul_sauer]

Downside is size, weight, lack of speed in the lenses and a motor drive. I recommend you

hang on to your 35 body, a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, and a couple of other primes. If you need to

cash in, sell the L lenses.

 

Of course, the upside to MF is quality of the prints, which are undeniable. I just went to an

exhibition where a guy blew up his 35mm photos to 11x17, and they looked horrible.

[gaius1]

The Contax 645 AF, which I own, has nearly all the convenience of a 35mm body. With the 80/2 normal prime lens it will fit comfortably into the same size pouch as my Nikon F6 + 28-70/2.8 zoom and might even weigh a bit less (it is certainly smaller and lighter than if I use the F5). It has autofocus (with full-time manual), motor drive, built-in metering - none as advanced as Nikon's, but good enough. The H1 is basically the same, as I understand it, tho' I've never used one.

 

Unless I am shooting action, in low light, or need the flexibility that 35mm lenses give (like proper wide-angles and telephotos), the Contax does everything a 35mm SLR can do, with a 3x bigger neg - what's not to like?

[emmett_rowell1]

"instead of typing everything i have, here it all is on the FS board"

 

Your prices are somewhat optimistic. Best luck.

[jtk]

The big disadvantage to MF is the ongoing, near total demise of most pro color labs that do good work with the film.

 

And of course, there's the demise of the film itself.

 

However, my own greatest present concern is my own MF portraiture.

 

Did you notice Hasselblad's new 39MP DSLR? Merely $37,500.

[jtk]

Paul, when somebody can't produce good 11X17 from 35mm it's a measure of his personal failing, not a problem with 35mm.

[douglas_green1]

---> "is there any severe downsides to shooting just MF?" <--

 

Well, for starters, you won't be able to carry your camera in your pocket.

[hugh_sakols]

I mostly use 6x6 and 6x9 but over the weekend I just used my trusty nikon f100 to get

some backcountry ski images in stormy, fridgit cold weather. I really don't think I could

have captured the shots I did without a flexible system that includes auto focus and zoom

lenses. It would have been great to have had a high end digital but that is out of the

question until my scanner dies.

[scottl]

Downside?

 

Heck, when I look at the polaroid before slapping on the film back, I feel like I'm CHEATING. You digital people must feel downright EVIL.

 

Anyway, speed seems like the most obvious downside. I can't imagine using MF at a fast paced sporting event. Then again, if you had the money to spend, it could be done, I guess.

 

Scott