Want to try medium format.

[derek_thornton1]

<p>2 years ago, at the age of 38, I jumped into digital photography. Since then I have fallen in love with nature photography. I have always liked critters and spend days treading through swamps looking for snakes and gators. Adding photography has given my lifelong hobby new meaning. Anyway, I love lanscapes too and can not get over how detailed and sharp a 6x4.5 can produce. I would like to try it. I have no idea what to get and how much it will cost. I can say that I would like to start with great equipment. In digital I started with the lower class stuff and quickly had to upgrade to get what I wanted. It ends up costing more starting at the bottom.</p>

<p>The one system I have been eyeing is the Pentax 645. I just want one lens strictly for landscapes. So, if anyone here could tell me what it would take to get started I would appreciate it. I see all sorts of euipment and have no idea what it takes. Backs, films? A couple years ago I had no idea about digital stuff and was asking questions on that board.</p>

<p>Thank You,</p>

[WJT]

<p>Frankly, I think we are entering into a new Golden Age of medium format photography. All of the Pros are going digital and are unloading their MF gear at really affordable prices. The Pentax 645 is a good system but, comparing to other brands, it does not have interchangeable film backs. If you like the Pentax line I would go the next step and get the Pentax 67 (which is what I use). It has its own set of drawbacks but the much larger film size makes it worth it, in my opinion. Regards.</p>

[tree]

<p>You can find the Mamiya 645e pretty cheaply, but as with the Pentax 645 you don't have interchangeable backs (though you can get 120 and 220 inserts for it.) The 645e was my first MF camera and it was a great introduction into the medium. It's relatively light (I sold a couple of years ago, but I don't think it's much heavier than a Nikon F100 with a moderate zoom) and quite user-friendly.<br>

Now I use an RB67 Pro S which you can also find at good prices, and I swear by it. Granted, it's a cumbersome beast that weighs in around 7lbs once you add the back and finder and lens --- that is probably a consideration for you if you are tromping around the wilderness --- but it really is a joy to use. You'll definitely need a good tripod for this though.<br>

Another possibility, depending on how much you want to spend, is to get one of the MF range-finders: much lighter than the SLRs but with fewer configurable options. There's also the Mamiya C220/C330 TLRs --- interchangeable lenses in a smaller package.<br>

I'm afriad I've raised more questions than I answered for you, but the choices are multitudinous. If you decide to go down the RB67 root, feel free to contact me with questions.<br>

Good luck!<br>

Tom</p>

 

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Also ask yourself if you want to shoot with wide angle lenses. Wide angle lenses for SLRs can be very good, but not as good as those for non-reflex cameras. I own a Hasselblad, a great SLR, but sometimes I wish I had instead bought a Mamiya 7. It, too, has interchangeable lenses, but is a rangefinder. Its wide angles lenses are considered to be second to none (as well as its normal and longer lens). There is no mirror in the way, so designers can make the wide angle lenses close to symmetrical, with their rear lens element close to the film, so that there is virtually no distortion and aberrations. But if you are looking for a great deal, you can't beat the prices of some used medium format SLRs, like the mamiya RB67, or the Pentaxs. They are almost being given away. But if you really want to shoot landscapes, take a stroll into the large format forum. With the perspective control that large format offers, a photographer can really do justice to landscape and nature. But medium format is better if you want to quickly "capture" animals and other moving subjects.</p>

<p>Most of all...have fun. There has never been such a great time as now to buy used medium format cameras.</p>

[kelly_hughes]

<p>The Pentax 645 cameras are very nice, IMO. The 645N and 645NII have autofocus capabilities, which can make the experience of using the camera very similar to what you're used to in digital (built in metering, spot/matrix, etc), yet you can still go manual and get that old school feeling and enjoy manual focus on those HUGE viewfinders whenever you want. Also, the AF of the N/NII will give you LED and/or beep confirmation for focus, even on the old manual-focus-only lenses.</p>

<p>I prefer the 645N because it gives me the wheel, rather than up/down buttons of the 645, as well as the AF mentioned above. It lets me go full auto if I don't feel like putting on my serious amateur photographer hat (or if I hand the camera over to a friend to take a shot or two.) The 645NII is substantially more rare and expensive, and the Luminous Landscape test showed that mirror lockup wasn't really necessary (see <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml">this link</a> ), so I wound up with the 645N. There are alternate focusing screens that can give you microprisms and such, in case the standard matte one doesn't thrill you.</p>

<p>Be aware that the 645 backs are not interchangeable mid-roll. I don't find this to be a problem because most of my 645 stuff tends to be outside in decent light, so whether I'm shooting ISO 100 or 400, I just use the roll that's in there.</p>

<p>Speaking of ISO, there are some differences between medium format and digital/35mm that you need to be aware of:</p>

<p>1) with much larger sized negatives, film grain is smaller in terms of percentage of size compared to the image, so it's less noticable than in 35mm. Thus, you can use ISO 400 and expect about the same grain of ISO 100 in 35mm. </p>

<p>2) Just as the jump from crop digital sensors to 35mm makes the lenses cover more area and changes the effective zoom level, so is the jump to medium format. Where 85mm is the usual portrait lens on digital, and 100mm on 35mm film, the usual portrait lens is around 150mm on medium format.</p>

<p>3) Depth of field will be different, but I'n not technical enough to explain this in great depth. Just know that you'll get shallower DOF on medium format than you're used to in digital, so you may have to stop down and shoot longer shutter speeds across the board than you'd expect.</p>

<p>4) All the Pentax 645 lenses are well regarded optically.</p>

<p>There's probably lots more I'm forgetting, but that will give you something to chew on until others chime in.</p>

 

[bueh]

<p>If you work tripod-bound, get a Mamiya RZ67 and the 50mm lens. The larger 6x7 format is an improvement over 645 and the RZ is a very versatile camera with its rotating back, awesome close focusing capabilities and excellent system. Tons of them are available on the used market as they were (and are) the workhorses of professional photographers for the last couple of decades. So for starters you would need the body, a WLF, a 120 roll film back and the battery, plus the lens you desire (the fast normal is the Sekor Z 110mm f/2.8, the widest rectilinear wide angle the Sekor Z 50mm f/4.5). It can also use all older lenses (Sekor C, non-C and K/L) for the RB67 cameras, which are also very good and usually much cheaper (except for the latest K/L).</p>

<p>But if you strictly want landscape and panorama, why not stay with digital and get a robotic camera set-up? Take a good look at the <a href="http://www.gigapansystems.com/"><b>Gigapan</b></a> system -- it is very affordable and delivers stunning results, even better than the best MF cameras (when handled correctly in the right conditions).</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>645 may not give you that much over digital as all modern dslrs in the 12 mp range will equal 645 in quality unless the 645 is scanned on a high quality scanner like a drum scanner, which can cost a lot. 6x7 will give you higher quality and can be scanned on a flatbed scanner that you can do yourself at home. That said 6x7 slrs cameras are big, bulky and heavy and so no fun the backpack but are fine if you just plan on photographing out of your car. That's why so many use the Mamiya 7 system, it's light weight, compact and sports the highest quality MF lenses ever made, but also why their prices have not dropped like most other MF cameras have and so are still very expensive. But if you can afford them they are the best for landscape, though, of course, being rangefinders you can't easily use grad ND filters on them.</p>

<p> </p>

[fred_rooks]

<blockquote>

<p>645 may not give you that much over digital as all modern dslrs in the 12 mp range will equal 645 in quality unless the 645 is scanned on a high quality scanner like a drum scanner</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many people, including me, will disagree with this claim entirely.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Many people, including me, will disagree with this claim entirely.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Add me to the list of people who disagree too. My reasons may be different though as I do my own printing with an enlarger. A scanner does not have to be involved at all.</p>

<p>There is a good choice of medium format equipment available. In 6 x 4.5 format there is Pentax, Mamiya and Bronica ETRS. In 6 x 6 there are the TLRs from Rollei and their clones and the larger versions from Mamiya and the Bronica SQ and if you want to go up to 6 x 7 there is the Bronica GS, Mamiya's RB and RZ series and the Pentax 67. Add to that the folding cameras in formats up to 6 x 9 and you have quite a choice.</p>

<p>So which of those are good? Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your way of thinking) they all are.</p>

<p>You need to try a few out if possible to see what suits you ergonomically. Then buy one... or two... or three... etc.</p>

<p>No reason why you should limit yourself to just one!</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Fred, you can disagree with me all you want too, but I've seen too many comparison tests, and they all seem to revolve around the quality of the scan. Now if you have your own tests that show otherwise I'd be more than happy to see them.<br>

Some of the comparisons I've seen:<br>

<a href="http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html">http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html">http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml</a><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml</a></p>

 

[link]

<p>Mr or Ms Thornton,</p>

<p>Going to medium format film is a great route for landscapes!</p>

<p>I would strongly suggest getting a format bigger than 4.5x6 though. Once you've gone to all the trouble to shoot with a camera that's not as flexible as a 35mm sized SLR, you might as well use the largest piece of film you can.</p>

<p>There have been some good suggestions above for the Mamiya 7, as it is 6x7 with interchangeable lenses. It's a really nice camera, but, unlike other medium format cameras, quite expensive still, even used. I wanted one, but opted for the Fuji GW690 rangefinder cameras as they are far less expensive, though not quite as nice to hold, they take superb images of 6x9cm. The lenses can not be changed, but there are two models: GW has a 90mm lens (like 40mm on a full frame 35mm camera) and GSW which has 65mm lens (like 28 on a 35mm camera). These cameras are still a little pricey, but go for about 1/2 or less than the Mamiya 7.</p>

<p>For landscapes with these size cameras, a tripod is a must for truly sharp and detailed images. If you do choose some kind of SLR model, make sure it has mirror lock-up so that the camera doesn't shake too much when mounted on the tripod.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your medium format journey!</p>

[fred_rooks]

<p>I know these tests and I think they are all fundamentally flawed, sorry.</p>

[link]

<blockquote>

<p>645 may not give you that much over digital as all modern dslrs in the 12 mp range will equal 645</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From my experience shooting medium format film and a Canon 5d, I.... agree completely. Hard to believe, but true depending on the type of film you shoot.</p>

[fred_rooks]

<blockquote>

<p>From my experience shooting medium format film and a Canon 5d, I.... agree completely. Hard to believe, but true depending on the type of film you shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depending more on who you are, what you shoot, which image properties you hold as important and what your intentions with the images are rather than on the type of film, I would say. Oh, I bloody hope that this thread will not turn into another ugly and pointless digi- vs. filmhead battle...</p>

[link]

<blockquote>

<p>Oh, I bloody hope that this thread will not turn into another ugly and pointless digi- vs. filmhead battle...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point was that as the difference in image quality is debatable, it makes sense to use the larger medium format sizes to take full advantage of the film capture.</p>

<p>I do shoot my fuji 6x9 using negative films for the advantage of capturing a wider range of light vs. digital, while the size of the film means I'm capturing at least as much detail as the DSLR.</p>

[fred_rooks]

<p>Even 35mm film usually captures at least as much detail as any<br /> DSLR. Of course, a bad scan won't let you see it on screen. Anyway, I<br /> do recommend the Pentax 645 for landscapes. I use mine with great<br /> satisfaction and find the results technically (and especially<br /> esthetically) far superior to anything I've seen from a DSLR. But I<br /> mainly shoot slides, look at them on a light table and project them<br /> with a Rollei projector, which is probably what, to a degree,<br /> determines my attitude.</p>

[danny_wong2]

<p>BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION<br>

When I take my Pentax 645N with one lens out on hikes to do landscape shots it has the FA33-55 on it.</p>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>If you want the ultimate in landscape, you ned a panoramic camera. It delivers a 6 x 17 shot.<br>

Bye,</p>

<p>Dirk.</p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p>"There is no mirror in the way, so designers can make the wide angle lenses close to symmetrical, with their rear lens element close to the film, so that there is virtually no distortion and aberrations."<br>

People always seem to throw this out at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, it's not true. Expensive, well-designed SLR lenses are just as good as expensive well-designed rangefinder lenses. Many postings I've seen of even new Leica lenses exhibit linear distortions. It just depends on the individual lens.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I didn't read everything above; but, I am a big fan of the Pentax 645. I think in the long run, I will feel for a long time that this is a camera that has changed my life.</p>

<p>I was able to purchase a full kit from a local dealer on consignment. I paid just under $2000; I think if you hunt around, or cut components, yours might be cheaper. I've seen 645 bodies go for as low as $110, depending on model and condition. There are basically three classes of the Pentax 645; watch out for those model number specifics; they will translate into pricetag bracketing. I own the oldest and cheapest of the models, and am 100% completely satisfied. In fact, I think I got over; I love my equipment.</p>

<p>I have a 645 35mm lens. It is a very good wide angle lens. I use it a great deal. All told, I have five lenses for the camera, but use the 35mm wide angle and 80 to 160mm workhorse telephoto most frequently. I have a Pentax Adapter K, so I use these same lenses on my 35mm equipment.</p>

<p>It's gotten to the point that I have to "bring along" another lens, so that I will make better use of the equipment on hand. Those two lenses would hold you for most anything.</p>

<p>I strongly recommend the Adapter K; exceptional conservation of resources by using it with Pentax 35mm. Also, I recommend using manual lenses; the other body styles have an autofocus feature; really not necessary. There are, to my surprise, autoexposure functions in the 645; There's a Program and an Aperture-priority and a Shutter-priority; to get the menus to turn on these functions in their full effects, you have to rotate the aperture ring on the lens assembly to "A".</p>

<p>The camera is exceptionally sturdy. Exterior coating is reportedly 1.7X thicker than similar cameras. I had one drop out of a knapsack whose zipper broke; the camera fell from shoulder height onto a hard packed dirt trail, narrowly grazing a rock. I did have to dust it off and put the battery carrier back in before using it again.</p>

<p>The rock was unharmed in the making of this durability field test.</p>

<p>It takes inserts in 120 and 220; you cannot interchange films in mid roll with the manufacturer's standard procedures. No matter; but, it's mentioned all the time in write-ups like this is a big deal. It's not.</p>

<p>Many of the photos in my portfolio were taken with the Pentax 645; not much can be gleaned from that; but, you will see that I take the pictures from landscape to simple tabletop still life setups. The camera is fantastic to use, and I have nothing but shameless praise for it. I am always glad to answer questions or talk about the Pentax 645. In my opinion, it is THE medium format for me to have. I carry mine daily; although, I should shoot more. Pentax 645 is a great camera. J.</p><div></div>

[jpo3136b]

<p>You mentioned landscape photography. I forgot to mention the 55mm wide angle lens. In landscape, I find myself alternating between the 35mm and 55mm a fair amount. It, too, is a good lens.</p>

<p>I wrote, Autofunctions to my surprise because I operated the camera for nine months without bothering to use them. The camera does not need the computer functions built in; and, could only be improved by fitting it with a manual speed dial, maybe a fat one, but similar in design to the one on the K1000.</p>

<p>Also, I found a technical error about ISO settings in a review of the 645 posted on a website written by Ken Rockwell. I would recommend getting technical advice about this camera from the pool here at photo.net instead. Some of the popular websites featuring information about this camera are little more than sales brochure copies; there are several users of this camera model here who can help you along if you have questions about it. I approve of this camera model. J.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I think that medium format can do something for you, provided that you like its qualities. Maybe you first need to decide on a format; 6x4.5 is very convenient, but 6x7 is much larger if you really want to pump up the quality. I like 6x6 myself, since square compositions are a nice variation after doing a lot of 35 mm and it suits me. 6x7 is not much wider but can be more useful. Then there are the somewhat more rare formats. I don't want to start a quality debate, but I have a latest generation 12 mpix DSLR and I do still regularly shoot MF.<br>

You should be able to pick up a 2nd hand 6x4.5 system pretty cheaply nowadays. I think Mamiya has better future proofing than Pentax due to their digital cooperation with Phase One. Find out also what focal lengths you need. It's usually good to have interchangeable backs, but since you're new to this, it's probably best to use a reputable dealer for a start, 2nd hand equipment could have mechanical problems. A basic setup would be one lens, one camera and one back. Add another lens and you have flexibility.</p>

[cha_hoa]

<p>I did the same thing, wanting to buy some cheap MF gear at this time, when there are so much offers on the bay. I already have a rolleicord III, but I just bought a Rolleiflex 2.8E for a steal. I would recommend that camera of a 2.8F in good working condition. Those are the REAL THING.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>645 and 6x7 are both great formats. But, a person doesn't have to buy an old folder to shoot 6x9. The Mamiya Press cameras, can shoot in 6x7 and 6x9. Some people convert their Mamiya Universals to shoot wider than 6x9. Since, it is desiged to also shoot the Polaroid pack film format.</p>

<p><a href="http://bigcamera.com/articles/Mamiya%204x5x6x12.htm">http://bigcamera.com/articles/Mamiya%204x5x6x12.htm</a></p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>On http://nealcurrie.com/t-comp0.html, I compare 35mm to 645 to 67 with detailed examples, and discuss the differences. It's a real world test.</p>