Another young guy looking to do some MF - Looking for suggestions

[chris.sager]

I currently am virtual devoid of photogear after a theft in Febuary. I have a

bit of cash now and will have more come summer time. I am an advanced amature

and am pretty darn comfortable behind a lens. I've shot using a old pentax

manual focus SLR, a Canon DRebel XT, ELan II, A2, Elan 7N, and a few range

finders.

 

 

I am looking to build essentially two kits, but before i buy anything, I am

hoping to see if I should be coordinating the two, or just keeping them

seperate.

 

 

From a DSLR perspective, for snap shots, travel, quick and easy stuff I am

inclined to buy into the Canon system once again. I like a lot of the lens

choices and am sold on Canon CMOS technology - BUT i understand that some of

the other systems have their own advantages. I would likly start with a cheap

body (rebel XTi) and a couple of good primes and a zoom or two. I find ymself

wanting low light abilities a lot lately - thus the primes.

 

 

From a medium format perspective, for some portrait work, photo's of my god

daughter, landscape, wedding work (non-proffessional) I think the Pentax 645N

system looks to be perfect for me. I am comfortable with manual focus for the

most part, and can even see myself using a manual advance system but I

definitly want a camera with a viewfinder & built in metering. These two

features are must haves.

 

The bottom line in all this - would the 645N steer me towards a Pentax DSLR

system? Is there another MF system i could start with in the $500 price range

(cost of a used 645) that would be a better choice given my above needs? It

looks like i could interchange a flash between the two pentax systems, would

anything else work on both? Does anyone out there have an inexpensive MF

system and a DSLR system that share components?? Thanks everyone!

[tmcleland]

Christian,

<br><br>

For starters, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JSp8" target="_blank"><b>check out this thread.</b></a> It

looks like you could use Pentax MF lenses on one of their DSLR's, but you might not be happy with the results.

<br><br>

Inexpensive, when you throw MF into the mix, becomes very relative. I did see a Mamiya 645AF Kit with a Leaf 11MP Digital back on Adorama for

$3,000, used, but needless to say it didn't last very long. I suppose if you scour the internet, you might be able to find one MF system with a digital

back for a reasonable price, though I wouldn't expect it to cost less than two decent camera outfits. From what I've seen and based on what you

describe, coordinating digital with MF can be done, but at prohibitive expense.

<br><br>

The Canon Rebel XTI and the Nikon D40X are both good cameras, and I thought the images were excellent, especially for the price (I went with the

Nikon, just because I already had some lenses available), but I could have gone either way. Truthfully, the Pentax Sample images I saw didn't do it

for me, but of course, that's all a matter of taste.

<br><br>

For MF, I'm partial to Mamiya. The used availability of lenses and accessories on line is pretty good, and still reasonably priced (compared to say

Hasselblad or Rollei). The 645 outfit I got from Adorama was $450, in very good condition (the shutter dial was scratched, that was it), 120 back

and 80mm/f2.8 lens, and I've been very happy with it. It has a metered eye-level finder, allowing the camera to operate in "A" and "AEL" modes, so

you can either dial in the shutter yourself or let the camera do it based on your aperture, and a basic hot-shoe flash on top. <b>Here's your

coordination too!!</b> I use the same flash on my Nikon that I do on my Mamiya, so that's something.

<br><br>

Hope this is helpful!

[kelly_hughes]

I don't think a 645N will necessarily steer you towards Pentax for your DSLR. I own a 645N myself, and don't use Pentax for my DSLR. Any lens sharing between the 645 and DSLR will be pointless -- too small an image circle to use DSLR lenses on MF, and MF lenses too big and no auto aperture on DSLR, I suspect. Double check that, though.

 

That being said, if I had to start over with DSLR shopping today, my two choices would happen to include Pentax, as Pentax and Sony are better bang-for-the-buck due to built-in anti-shake technology, which you won't get in Canon or Nikon (because they charge $xxx extra for it in their lenses).

 

Sony DSLRs use the A mount they inherited from Minolta, and all the old Minolta glass on eBay works perfectly with Sony DSLRs. Lots of old Minolta glass is very good and very cheap. Same with Pentax, I believe. I'm not as versed on Pentax since I migrated to Sony from Minolta.

 

Sony's current crop of cameras are on par or better than Canon for low light capabilities, and low light without anti-shake is silly in my opinion, since it's basically free outside of Canon and Nikon. Sony just came out with three new models that are [i think] all under $800, and they all have anti-shake and good high ISO performance that rivals the D40. You just can't get f1.4 and anti-shake on Canon/Nikon for under $1000 including the body, but you can with Sony and Pentax.

 

Anandtech had a buyer's guide article not long ago, and you might find this page from it interesting: http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3160&p=5. Sony didn't have the A300/350 or A200 out then, so you should consider them as superior choices to the A100, since A100 was poor at ISOs above 400, and the issues have been addressed in models that arrived after A100. The current models (A700, A300/350, A200 even) have usable ISO 3200. Not sure about A200 through A350 having ISO 6400 or not, but the A700 does, and it's about like ISO 1600 was on DSLRs from 2 yrs ago.

 

Also, considering how well they improved the image quality of their 4/3 sensors in their latest releases, I suspect Olympus may have a good candidate soon, too.

[dougmiles]

Christian, I think your choice of a P645N would not steer you toward a Pentax dSLR, except as you suggest with an "intelligent" flash. I'm not into flash, myself, but I do have a K100D and a pair of P645NII (and a pair of P67II).

 

One other point of connection would be lenses... With an adapter the P645N accepts P67 lenses while maintaining diaphragm automation but not autofocus (though the AF system will confirm manual focus). One can also adapt the P645 lenses to the Pentax dSLR but it's a "dumb" adapter with no electrical or mechanical interactions. So, no more convenient than using M42 screw-mount lenses on the dSLR.

 

The P645N would be a nice system for you, and I think typical of 645 format cameras in having minimal commonality with any dSLR.

[mike_earussi1]

Based on many of the tests I've seen a good DSLR in the 12mp range is equivalent to 645, so why do you want a MF system in addition to a Canon/Nikon? http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html

[chris.sager]

In respone to Mike Earussi's post - is this really true? Would a Canon Rebel XTi with 50mm lens really capture as much detail as a Pentax 645M with 120 film? I have a hard time believing that based on previous MF experience, but if that is in fact the case, i suppose I should just skip the MF all together. I found the concept quite appealing actually, nostalgic also, but if the end result (the photo) is no better than I can get with a $500 DSLR then i can't see myself walking down that road.

[christopher_graham1]

The only swapping would be in flashes I would say. The Pentax K20D looks like a sweet camera and people who have them love them.

[mike_earussi1]

Christian, there have been many tests showing that DSLR's can equal MF in resolution:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

But many find that the "look" isn't the same. The chief complaint about digital is that it has a "plasticy" look about it, or that it looks 2D instead of 3D like a good slide film does. This is a matter of debate and taste and depends on the individual photographer. My suggestion is that you rent/borrow a MF camera and double shoot it against a good DSLR to see if you can tell any difference before spending money on a MF system.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Be careful when reading those tests though. For instance, take a look at the one the first link leads to. They haven't tested both film and digital to their respective limits, just compared digital images to images captured on film, using the same framing (good) and the same final image size (bad... that way you only know how they compare upto that size. Not that the one can "equal" the other, or not).

[mike_earussi1]

Another thing to consider is the price of a good scan. One of the major reasons MF and DSLR's come so close in quality is that few can afford to get the maximum quality from their MF slides that can only be extracted by a drum scanner. This can run about $1 per meg., and a 6x7 can easily create a 30-60mb file size depending on what dpi you want it scanned at.

 

Here is another test using the Mamiya 7 , which supposedly has the best MF lenses ever made, vs. the Nikon D200:

 

http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html

 

The Mamiya proves itself better than the D200 but only when the Mamiya is scanned with a good (read expensive) scanner.

[nickc1]

for what they are worth my thoughts follow those above - there is no point in trying to link your MF kit with your digital SLR, but as regards the MF stuff I am a bit concerned regarding your experience with film has not been in that area so far, and I should hate to see you drop loads of money into a system, and not, in today's market, be able to recoup it if you found it was not for you, or it stayed in its case. My advice would be to go down the bronica ETRS route - plenty to choose from, reliable and reasonable enough prices so you can afford an outfit and not a single camera and lens. The price of a pentax or mamiya 645 with standard lens and one back/insert will set you up with a bronica, lens, back, metered prism, a spare back and a second lens at least. A wedding photographer I know used Bronicas and sold his 'blads because he found them more reliable in use!

[tmcleland]

Mike and Nick bring up very good points. I think something you need to think about for yourself is what are you really after with the medium format camera, whichever

you choose. It doesn't sound like you're a complete stranger to film, but even still there's a learning curve, and of course the expense associated with it. $10 or so for 15

images (from photo store to light-table) can rack up pretty quickly, and I "shutter" to think about how many DSLR's I've spent in film and processing!

 

Having personally cranked out miles of large prints, about 5 years ago, what I blew up from slides smoked anything that I got off the digital cams of the time. However,

the tides have started to turn on that. At 10MP, I'll do 14 x 20 prints from both 120 film and digital, and truthfully, the difference from a resolution or clarity standpoint

is at most negligible. About 24" x 18" is where I start to see the difference, but I'm pretty picky.

 

If you're after the character and qualities of film as it's own medium, then whatever you go with (short of a Holga or something) I think you'll enjoy MF. Truthfully

though, as a pretty vocal film advocate, unless you're doing really large prints, you may find the whole move to medium format isn't worth the hassle; in fact the extra

$500 or so you spend just getting started could be used for toys for the digital!

 

For what it's worth...