Which medium format camera should I buy?

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Emily,</p>

<p>I had assumed that your budget was under £400: many of the suggestions would be miles over your funds. That is why I suggested the Nikon f90x kit. Do a search on the f90x - you will find it is very high quality and for no money. </p>

<p>The f1.8 50mm af Nikon lens will perform even fully open. The sb28 gun is superb.<br>

Have a look at Ffordes site and London Camera Exchange.<br>

Mervyn</p>

[emily_jayne_griffin]

<p>I've already researched your suggestion and have found a few possible purchases on ebay :] I'm going to email my tutor tomorrow though, just to check it out with him before i buy anything. Just in case! haha! I've searched the Nikon f90x on Flickr too to see an example of the images it produces, and I'm very impressed! Could you suggest a film to me that would allow me to capture vibrant colours? And what film speed would you recommend? I will possibly need to work with two film speeds as I will be working at night with very little to no lighting, but also in broad daylight.</p>

 

[r_dolfs_putni__1]

<p>Hmm... Kodak Portra 800 anyone? Colour film, in my opinion, gets very nasty at high sensitivities or when pushed. BW film just gets grainier but colour films lose colour and tend to look downright awful at high ISO's. Portra 800 might be an exception and still it isn't to everyones taste. Looks a bit crossprocessed and colours tend to pop- could be useful in capturing that rave mood You might be striving for. Though the 800 in colour is rather humble compared to the boundries of BW films.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>I've had some very good buys on ebay, but there is always the risk.......<br>

You can often buy from a dealer for little more, and sometimes for less!<br>

Ffordes, at present, have an F90x at £79; a 50mm f1.8 at £69, and a SB28 at £79. Remember, you usually get a six month guarantee. I haven't checked LCE, but they often have comparable prices.</p>

<p>Certainly worthwhile consulting your tutor.</p>

<p>I've had good results from Fuji Superia 400, 800, and 1600. But others will, no doubt, recommend others. I don't usually push it very much.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>leica m3 with 2/50mm - $1000.</p>

<p>medium format is beautiful, but the 35mm r/finder is the tool for the job.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>Emily, if you want cheap (but not bad quality) 35mm, Pentax is the way to go. Nikon lenses are expensive and the bodies in my opinion are hard to use. At LCE, there are a multitude of decent autofocus Pentaxes now. How about a MZ-30 for 29 quid!? Or a MZ-5n and 28-80 zoom lens for 55? On the bay, it is likely even cheaper. At that price, you can get 2 bodies, a 50/1.4 (a must have lens), a wide manual zoom like a 24-35 and a longer lens like a 85 or a zoom that covers that range. If you don't mind manual focus then you can get even more cheap lenses. You can also use the lenses on the MV-1 you have :)<br>

The body is not really important as long as it holds up to the job and it provides the controls you need. I would also opt for a smaller and lighter body (which Pentax is the best at doing) so you don't get tired carrying all the stuff around.<br>

I don't know how picky you are about lenses but I own a Nikon system and the lenses are sharp and contrasty but they are harsh. My Pentax kit though is also sharp and contrasty but they produce more refined and smooth pictures. Its a personal choice though.</p>

[allan_f.]

<p>Emily,</p>

<p>As lots of other people have recommended, a 35mm form factor camera in film or digital is probably a better choice for this project. So far no-one has recommended an older (non Leica) 35mm rangefinder camera. Most of these cameras have a moderate wide angle lens (35mm to 40mm) which would be a good choice for photos in a dark, crowded environment. Canon made several Canonet models with lenses as fast as f1.7. These have somewhat collectible but a working camera should be available for around 70 Pounds in the U.S. (maybe a bit more in the U.K.). Rangefinders are reasonably compact, sturdy, have manual controls, and may be easier to focus in low light than an SLR. The leaf shutter doesn't make much vibration and syncs at any speed if you use flash. You may also be able to pre-focus at about 2 or 3 meters as recommended earlier. Of course you have to shoot film which has some disadvantages compared to newer digital SLRs. Considering the environment, and risks to your equipment, it's another choice to look at.</p>

<p>Whatever camera you choose, consider carrying a small tabletop tripod. These can be pressed against walls, columns, vehicles, or other objects. If the vibration from the bass speakers isn't too bad they will help with sharp pictures at slower shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Good luck with your project. The initial images look promising.</p>

<p>Allan</p>

[chris_bell4]

<p>Hi Emily,<br>

Ive tried taking some shots a DnB rave in australia with D70 and SB600 flash. The flash didnt go down well at all. I guess you would know how this feels but I felt like I was intruding with that thing going off all night.<br>

I own a Rolliecord (cheaper flex) and the f3.5 lense would definately be way too slow.<br>

I agree with the suggestion of an autofocus slr. The contax G1 or 2 would be awesome but i think a bit out of your price range (and mine). Like other people have said there are heaps of cheap autofocus slrs out there and it might come down to the price of the lenses available. Fast primes, around the 28mm mark would be the go when working in crowds.<br>

Ive never used colour film over 400 but have pushed HP5 to 1600 quite a bit. You could probably get away with the grain if you didnt go over 8X10.<br>

Maybe short list a couple of slrs, get on ebay and see what fast prime lenses are available for them.<br>

Would love to be able to use 'study' as an excuse to go raving (once wore a heart rate monitor to one while studying sports science. Didnt show the tutors the results of that one)</p>

 

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Emily,</p>

<p>I fear you may be getting confused, rather than helped, and I'm sorry if I've contributed to that.</p>

<p>All systems and formats have things to be said for and against them. I have several twin lenses reflexes including 2 x Rollei, a Bronica ETRSi system, a Mamiya RBSD kit, film slrs by Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Fuji, Yashica and Contax, etc, etc. And yes, I have used them all. There's an old Leica in my armament, plus two or three other rangefinders. I also use a Nikon dslr and a couple of Nikon compacts.<br>

At the end of the day there is compromise and choice. I based my Nikon suggestion on "horses for courses", quality and value for money. You been told that Nikon cameras are too complicated. They are as complicated or as straight-forward as you choose to use them. If, at 67, I can find my way through, I'm sure you can. Furthermore, I'm sure there will be someone not too far away who would be glad to help you. Also have a look at Thom Hogan's review of the f90x (<a href="http://www.bythom.com/n90.htm">www.bythom.com/n90.htm</a>).</p>

<p>My further advice is is this. </p>

<p>First, if you get any sort of potentially complex camera, make sure you get one of the independent user guides, such as the Magic Lantern one on the F90x (F90s in the USA).</p>

<p>Second, get a couple of films, say a 400 and 800, and run a trial, keeping a reasonable record of how you used the camera. But don't worry too much at that stage - regard it as the first component of learning and something to be enjoyed rather worry about. If the results are good or better, then you are well on your way. If disappointing, review with someone with experience, and try again. We all make mistakes and learn all the time.</p>

<p>Third, choose a good processor. There are excellent ones in the UK, but some can be rather expensive. I've usually had very good results from Club 35 even with their basic d&p service, but look specially at their mix'n match scheme when you are exposing in difficult lighting circumstances.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>If you have a digital Rebel already I would get a 50 1.8 for it and and cheap canon film body that will work with it. Or try the 35mm you found in your attic and see how you like film. If you want to try MF, get a Yashica TLR or something similar. It's fun to experiment, but my experience is that it doesn't really matter which camera I'm using, I basically get the same thing out of them all, though the experience while shooting them is quite different. But with your low light requirements you may have a strong preference for one or the other. In black and white film high ISO looks better than color.</p>

[leigh_youdale]

<p>Hi Em,<br>

Some of the suggestions flying around here reveal the masochistic nature of some of us but are at the same time sadistic when offered to others as sage advice. We tend to think our own preferred gear is the only way to do things and I really do question whether some of the contributors have ever experienced the conditions in which you'll be operating, considered your budget constraints, or the wisdom of purchasing a camera type you've never used before, before rushing into print. There are some good suggestions mixed in amongst it all and in the end, I think you should probably follow the suggestion to grab a couple of cameras and/or lenses (beg, borrow, steal) and a couple of rolls of film of the type you might use and just go and experiment in an environment that isn't too far removed from your intended shooting locations. You'll soon see whether colour film suits you better than digital, whether you prefer to work close in with wide angle lenses or a bit further away. And you might start to form an opinion about the relative merits (for this type of shooting) of Medium Format, 35mm SLR or RF and digital SLR.<br>

It seems you've got a little time to experiment so use it before taking the plunge.</p>

[jodys]

<p>Your tutor is right, for several reasons, not least of which it will be a lot easier for you to 'fit in', be a part of this group, with a 50 year-old TLR in your hand than with a recent-model DSLR that could very well make you appear to be a journalist rather than an art student. With the super-fast ISO films now available, and the ability to crop a 2" square negative creatively, I see no reason why the lack of autofocus alone should turn you against a TLR, say and old Rolleicord, Yashica, or even Seagull (being limited to 12 shots before reloading could be a challenge as well). Remember please that we're a bunch of camera buffs as much as we are photographers, we take almost as much pleasure from owning our favorite gear than we do from choosing an appropriate camera for a given assignment.</p>

<p>One of the little secrets of medium and large-format cameras is that the larger the negative, the less 'camera shake' is a problem. Simply from the physics of the ratio of the actual movement of the camera lens/film combo to the size of the image projected onto the film. But I'm not suggesting you try this assignment with a 4x5 and a pocket full of Fidelity film holders. There's a trade-off between this effect and the size of camera you can easily hand-hold, and on top of that you avoid the camera shake problems of having a moving mirror assembly if you use the medium-format TLR. If you want the best possible image quality, and the ability to go from a wide-angle to a modest telephoto, all for you budget of L 300, the only way you can do this (IMHO) is with a Mamiya TLR and 2 or 3 lenses. Beautiful camera, takes awesome pictures, you can resell after the assignment for exactly what you paid for it.</p>

 

[BernardMiller]

I'm on record as being with Jody on this! I think the Mamiya TLR is the way to go, if you're determined to use medium

format. I know...because I have done it! With good results.

 

But the Mamiya has several advantages: (1) the camera and a lens are within the budget, (2) interchangable lenses *and*

unlike an SLR, there's no mirror issue (blackout at moment of exposure, mirror slap - a problem indeed if you're shooting

handheld at slow shutter speeds), (3) it will take 220 film, so more exposures without reloading (too bad medium format

ProZ is no longer easily available in the UK), (4) you really need a wide lens for this and with the TLR you can go wide

cheaply - the 55 is not very expensive and the 65 can be had for peanuts, and (5) you could throw a prism on it but, even

easier, zone focus and use the sport finder.

 

There are disadvantages, true. But there's no perfect camera for this brief and a Mamiya TLR fills it as good as any and

far better than most.

[emily_jayne_griffin]

<p>Thankyou everyone for the responses and idea's you've given me!! I've now got a massive list of cameras and equipment to research further! I am definately going to do some experiments in a similar environment with my 35mm, just to see how it works before taking it to a rave. I may also do some medium format experiments too, based on my budget. I may even be able to borrow a medium format off someone to do some experiments with before I think about buying one.<br>

I really appreciate the help you've all given me! Thanks again!! :]</p>

[vel_ziliuse]

<p>Hi! Very interesting subject! You've got plenty of great suggestions but I would like to add my personal 2 (euro) cents. Depending on your shooting style you maybe looking for an old Canonet QL17 IIIG. It's a rangefinder with a leaf shutter so it's small and discreet (but I guess the latter doesn't really matter). It has a (very good) 40mm f1.7 lens so it should be reasonably suited for low-light environments. Moreover it's well within your budget (~100$). The disadvantages are that (if you acquire one) you may have to send it to a repair shot good CLA (the foam in the back tends to get sticky with age). Also, as all rangefinders, it has a rather large minimum focusing distance (0.8 m) and it has film speeds only up to 800 ASA (you'll have to compensate).<br>

Some links:<br>

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?CanonCanonetGIIIQL17.html~mainFrame<br>

http://pbase.com/cameras/canon/canonet_giii_17<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ql17/pool/<br>

Good luck!</p>

[panos_voudouris]

<p>Hi Emily,<br /><br />If I had ONE thing in the world to shoot, which was dark places with no tripods, then digital is what I'd use. Your DSLR will shoot ISO 1600 easily. You can even shoot 3200 with not much loss of quality, given the subject matter. Just run it through Lightroom or Noise Ninja or something and the colour noise disappears very nicely.<br /><br />You can buy a Leica or a F90X or a TLR or whatever, but the simple fact is that the best a film camera can do is what the film you put in it can do. 35mm film above 800 is grainy. The colours get a bit washed out. The detail get a bit muddy in the grain. You can fiddle the print and the exposure to get something better out of it but there is only that much you can do. I honestly don't know why your tutor suggested film for the one thing digital clearly does better...?<br /><br />You can try a MF camera with 800 film. This will be much better, compared to 35mm but if you buy a cheap MF TLR or MF SLR, you have other issues. For £300 you can get a cheap TLR or MF SLR (<strong>other please note, the used market in the UK is nothing like the US. £300 buys you not that much</strong>). But the cheap ones have dark viewfinders/waist-level finders. And I mean dark. You won't be able to see a thing in a warehouse. Plus a waist-level-finder in a club will be lit up like a Xmas tree from the reflections. And you will have no way of doing some trickier shots, like holding the 400D high up and randomly shooting. Not just that, but MF cameras in the £300 range are limited at best to f/2.8 lenses. So 800 film and f/2.8 lenses is not good at all for handheld shots in a dark warehouse.<br /><br />I assume you have the 400D and 18-55 kit lens (looking at your flickr photos). I'd just add a Sigma 10-20 or something like that. You should be able to find one of them for less than £300 on ebay. Or if you don't want something as wide get a Sigma 20/24/28 (the f/1.8 ones). Or you might as well just use what you have and there is no harm in using flash with a bit of shutter drag. In fact, you might want to spend the money on a 420EX or something like that to give you more power. Gel it with some colour gels on it and you can get some really cool effects.<br /><br />You can also buy a Diana F+/Holda and use that in parallel. I shot a party with my DianaF+ and got some groovy shots by keeping the shutter open (you just hold your finger down on the shutter) and firing the flash manually using the test button. Unpredictable and some shots were really cool.<br /><br />If you really do want to buy a 35mm film camera in the end, get an AF Canon one. Why? You already have a Canon digital SLR so any lenses you get for the film Canon you can use on the digital one. Besides, the thing with film cameras is that they are all pretty much the same! The film makes the difference. So, if you really must buy a 35mm camera, get a EOS 3 from ebay. I bought one for £67. You get the best AF a film camera (of any brand) can have which is something you need in the dark. You get a tough body and high FPS. Get yourself a used Sigma 24/1.8 or Sigma 28/1.8 and then you have a fast wide lens to play with which you can also use on your 400D as a fast "normal" lens. Or get a 50/1.8. It becomes a fast normal lens on the EOS 3 and a very good short-tele portrait lens on your 400D.<br /><br />Just my thoughts. Hope it helps and good luck with your studies. :)</p>