6x7 Medium Format or 35mm Digital SLR

[andrew_ito]

Mamiya 7, Pentax 67, Bronica GS-1 or one of the new Canon

1Ds or Kodak 14n digital SLR's.... All of the above cameras have

something great to offer, but I'm not sure which to choose.

 

First, let me say that I have a Fuji GA645zi, an Ebony 23s view

camera, and a Canon SLR set up. I want a compact camera that

I can take hiking and backpacking, but with a bigger image area

and more lens choices than the Fuji. I mostly shoot landscapes

and love the Ebony for this purpose. My fianceé doesn't really

enjoy sitting around when I'm adjusting focus and tilts on the

view camera though. So, speed of set up and shooting is a

factor. I also would like a camera that can be used for weddings

and portraits.

 

With the advent of the new 11-14 megapixel SLR's I'm not so

sure that I should get another film camera. Eventually, I'd like to

go completely digital for the ease of transferring files to digital.

Drum scans can get pretty pricey and digital seems to have

more latitude than Velvia or Provia. Having a digital camera

seems like a good option, except the prices are way above my

budget.

 

The Mamiya 7 draws me because of it's light weight and

extremely sharp lenses. This camera could replace my Fuji.

However, it's very expensive and I've heard some troublesome

news about the rangefinders going out of focus and inability to

focus close ups.

 

The Pentax 6x7 has a great group of lenses, but it's very heavy,

has issues with mirror shake and only flash syncs at 1/30th of a

second. Hmmm..... maybe this isn't so great of an option.

 

The Bronica has a good price point and is an SLR, but uses leaf

shutters which is compelling. However, is the camera too big to

lug around for backpacking and hiking? Are the lenses sharp?

I've heard some varying opinions on this.

 

If anyone has any good options to the above or

recommendations it would be highly appreciated. Again, I want

something primarily for landscape, but with the ability to be used

for portraits or weddings. Or, would the switch to the new 14

megapixel Nikon based Kodak 14n be the best option. How

about the Fuji S2? This camera is much cheaper, although only

6 megapixels. It's tough to pay so much for technology that

becomes obsolete in a year or two though. Thanks for your help

and patience for this long post.

[morwen_thistlethwaite]

My experience may not be relevant, because I have a Rollei. However, I have no problem hiking with body + three lenses + tripod; also, setup is very easy. I don't think that digital SLR's rival 6x6 yet, even the 11-14 megapixel ones. Out of a 6x6 slide and a 4000 pixels/inch scan, after downsampling I end up with a 20 megapixel image that's of high quality even when viewed at full resolution.

[nick_albano]

You'll find plenty of discussions regarding medium format cameras here. The Pentax 6x7 seems to be popular with landscape photographers, but it's at a serious disadvantage in portrait and wedding work because of it's flash synch speed (1/30). [i'll leave the discussion of the digital stuff for someone else.] You might want to consider a Hasselblad or an RZ as a compliment to the 4x5. Either one is faster to use and very useable for the protrait and wedding work. Of course, the RZ gets heavy and it's hardly compact. It does, however, sound like you are ready for a medium format system camera and, IMHO, those are the top two choices. I don't know if you're considering new gear or used gear, but you might want to check the prices on KEH.com or e----.

 

Happy shooting,

 

Nick

[mark_davidson]

Andrew,

I have wrestled with this same question.

 

I like the Pentax 6x7 a great deal because of it's ease of handling and tack

sharp lenses. The flash sync issue is relevant for those using flash. If you are

using it primarily for landscape I doubt it would come up too much. Mirror

shake on any of those cameras is not a concern if you are going to lock up the

mirror. As you seem to be agreeable to lugging a tripod this seems to answer

that concern.

 

With regard to the Bronica, I feel that it is an overlooked camera. As you can

see it is arguably a 6x7 Hasselblad type camera with all the benefits that go

along with that. The drawbacks being more expensive lenses. I have no idea

about how well their lenses perform but I assume you will be hard pressed to

see any flaws.

 

With regard to the high pixel count digital SLRs, no one can make

pronouncements as to whether they will match 120 quality until they are in the

hands of users.

That said, the samples I have seen and printed are better than 35mm film! The

plain fact is that a good digital capture will exceed the quality of film because

no matter how fine grain the film, their is still the grain of film. I have seen

small files from Kodak cameras that , when printed small (so res was not an

issue) the prints looked like MF proofs because of the tonality and the

smoothness.

 

Not to ramble, but for the money you can get some mighty fine MF equipment

used that will give you years of quality performance. Then you can decide if

the digital cameras of thefuture measure up to your expectaions.

[matt_m__toronto_]

a 6x7 neg will knock the socks off of one of those digi cam pics any day.

[jay_.]

The 1Ds is expected to street at around $6000 and it is not yet up to the ultimate resolution of ISO 100 35mm film (no matter what the "review" website(s) say) as that would require about double the megapixels (or pixel size)...let alone equalling MF.

 

You say you'd rather use the Ebony for landscapes but your fiancee doesn't like waiting while you fiddle with focus and tilts...so rather than spend money on a new system which has no tilts, why not just set the view camera to the null marks and it'll be a lot faster to use. Or let her use the Fuji to make some photos of her own while you're occupied...give her plenty of encouragement. Keep the Fuji for weddings and portraits, unless you're planning to go pro at it.

It's a great camera, I've got one along with a full Hasselblad system and I love it.

[wayne_crider4]

I shoot 4x5, 6x6 and 35mm in that order. I wanted to shoot a little

faster and still get a good size neg, so I decided to move down

from the 4x5 to a RB6x7 which amazingly accepts my 6x9 rollfilm

back and 2x3 Grafmatic of all things; I have the 6x8 back adapter

to do so tho. I also like the rightside up viewing and incorporated

waist level magnifier. I don' t think that I'd use it for any fast

moving stuff such as wedding work with that big honking mirror,

but for landscapes and portraits it's just what I need. For the

faster moving stuff nowdays 35mm does alot of weddings, but if

the money is there a 6x6 is nice. I say put a figure down on paper

and see how much you can buy with it. The Mamiya 7ii is nice

but the lenses are pretty expensive.

[godfrey]

My shooting kit has rapidly become a Sony F707 digicam for people, candid

portraits, etc and a Hasselblad 500CM or 903SWC for landscape/still life/

more portraiture/etc.

 

No one camera does it all to best advantage.

 

A Hasselblad 903SWC with A12 or A16 back makes a fantastic wide field

landscape camera, a 500CM with 80-250 lens superlative in narrower FoV

work; you will not be able to beat what film can do in this area for a while,

even with an 11Mpixel digital camera. Film's responsiveness, the speed of

setup, the quality of 6x6 format images, etc have led me to invest further into

medium format even though I am getting excellent results with the digicam.

 

Think and consider carefully what works best for you. No one else can tell you

that.

 

Godfrey

[chris_patti1]

I've been very skeptical of the claims that digital cameras are "better than film." I have to admit, however, that the examples shown in Michael Reichmann's review (www.luminous-landscape.com) of the Canon 1Ds are pretty persuasive evidence of the superiority of the 1Ds over 35mm--and maybe even 645--film scanned on a high-end scanner. Lots of people have offered arguments about why this cannot be so, but the pictures tell the story. (But then, who are you going to believe, them or your lyin' eyes.)

 

Given the rapidly evolving state of digital, I'd find it pretty hard to justify spending thousands on a new film-based MF system right now. Use the Fuji for now and wait for prices on the digital cameras to come down.

[peza]

May-be it helps a bit:<br>

<a href="http://www.photographical.net/mf_vs_35mm_vs_digi.html">http://www.photographical.net/mf_vs_35mm_vs_digi.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro_res.html">http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro_res.html</a><br>

<a href="http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/tvs3/tvs3.html">http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/tvs3/tvs3.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/portres.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/portres.htm</a><br>

[jeff_mudrick]

I've just resolved this question for myself and decided to go the MF route with a Mamiya 6. It is no trouble finding a complete Mamiya 6 outfit -- camera with all three available lenses -- in the $2,300 - $2,500 route (e-bay or photo.net folks). The collapsible lens/mount system of the 6 seems perfect for your intended use also, and you give up little in quality to the new 7's. You could easily get by with a single 75mm lens as well. I figure I can live with this til the 12 megapixel cameras come down (a lot)in price. Best of luck.

[sonny_zin]

Andrew,

I second Morwen�s response. So far no digital SLR can match image quality of MF transparencies yet. I have Rollei 6008 MF setup, and also using Canon D30 for two years now. I have experience with Nikon D1X and Canon 1D as well. Images from none of these digital SLRs even come close to MF trans.

I find both digital and MF/LF have their own advantages.

Digital is convenient, you get instant result.

Whereas MF gives you quality image that you won�t want to stop looking at.

Why not consider compact and capable Canon G3 for digital and Mamiya 7 or Pentax 67 for MF combination.

[scott_eaton]

<I>So far no digital SLR can match image quality of MF transparencies</i><P>I agree.....now what the hell are you going to do with that 6x7 transparency? Mount it and frame it? Some of us sane types don't worship pretty chromes on a light table, but are more concerned with the final result.<P>Digital catches up as soon as you try to reproduce that piece of film, which is the entire point of eliminating a film scanner (a digital camera that takes pictures of film) and a conventional enlarger. <P>One inherent advantage of MF that hasn't been mentioned is the scan/price ratio drops dramatically with the larger film. A $400 Epson 2450 is capable of making superior scans from 120 film than a drum scanner with 35mm. Factor that in any equation and the it becaomes a matter of what you are doing and trying to shoot. The quality factor is rapidly becoming moot unless you are making 16x20's.

[koen_vandenbroeck]

Scott: Apart from the interesting applications you mention, there is one other thing you can do with medium format transparencies: project them and enjoy! It is fantastic! Forget about scanning. Projecting - not scanning - is the basic application for which transparency film was developed many centuries ago. And if you want prints, nothing can beat a glossy ilfochrome/cibachrome print.

[douglas_green1]

I just wanted to make a point about Pentax 67 systems. I agree that they are bulky, and have mirror shake issues (although, to my mind it's not too bad). However, the flash sync issue is addressed with the Leaf Shutter lenses that they make (Currently a 165mm f4, which is a great portrait lens, and there is also an older 90mm f2.8 Leaf Shutter lens. I own both of these, and they are IMHO, an indispensible part of any serious Pentax 67 kit that will be used in a studio or for portraiture). Extreme wideangles and Long Teles are not generally used in these applications, so these 2 lenses do cover the necessary range).

[roger___3]

I coincidentally have a similar camera collection and have gone through the same considerations. To the above, I might add that the choice is not so much one of quality, but of cost, and perhaps secondarily convenience. For a cost difference of several or even a couple of thousand dollars, I can easily over come the convenience issue. If you choose to wait until the cost difference is only a couple of thousand dollars to get the same digital quality as MF, I'm guessing the wait will be at least a couple of years. (Of course if you shoot a whole lot of film and do a whole lot of drum scanning, you need to run the numbers for your situation).

 

I find it interesting that everyone mentions the higher quality of digital cameras at probably lower prices, but no one has brought up the improvements and cost reductions in scanners. How long ago was it that there were only a couple of drum scanners among all of the labs and reasonably affordable quality flat bed scanners hadn't come along yet. How will the advances, costs, and availibility of scanners advance over the next few years?

 

As for camera advice, the issue at least with the P67 is not only mirror slap, but shutter vibration. There is a good article on the Luminous Landscape web site that reviews the camera and shutter vibration. In my mind (haven't owned one - just what I seem to read)the P67 will require a heavier and more expensive tripod for stability. An item to consider.

[fotografz]

The trick is to use some logic and hedge your bets. Let's say your budget

is what the Canon 1Ds will sell at ($6,500 or so). I assume from your

post, that you already have Canon glass. For $6,500 you can buy a

Hassy 503CW and 2 lenses plus a higher end flat bead scanner with a

film light box ( or for a more $, a Polaroid SpritScan 120). The 503CW

already accepts MF Digital backs which are dropping in price daily, so

your camera and lens investment are pretty secure. Later on you can get

one of "last years' MF D-backs which will be more than capable, and 1/2

the price or less. All the while you still can use film by just switching

backs. Believe me, a 16 or 22 meg MF back blows away any 35mm based

sensor which is limited to 24X36 framing size. The pixel "light wells" of

the larger sensor 4X4 MF D back are huge. It's like comparing a P&S

digital sensor to the one in a Canon 1Ds, which is no comparison at all.

Meg count isn't the only real measure.

[miles_hecker]

I was on a shoot with Michael Reichmann in the Teton.Yellowstone area over Oct 4-6. I own a Pentax 645N and various other MF and 35mm systems. I scan my film on a Nikon LS8000 scanner. The 645N is my camera of choice for landscape shooting over the last 2 years.

 

Michael brought some 11"x14" prints taken with the Canon 1DS with him. Straight out of the camera the 1DS womps 35mm Provia 100F prints hands down. Tonality of the images was such that it looked like they were shot with LF. They were slightly better than an unworked 645 Provia 100F scan. To get that level of tonality from my 645 trannies I work in PS selecting the skies and water reflections, carefully smart blurring them to remove the grain. I then carefully sharpen only the highly detailed areas of the image to bring out the detail. My best carefully worked 645 shots look to most people like LF at sizes up to and including 16"x20".

 

Bottom line, up to 13"x19" prints the EOS-1DS produces incredible results. This is enough for 95% of those at photo.net. At print sizes in the 20"x30" range I think MF, well worked by a expert PShop user will beat the limited 11MP detail of the 1DS. In other words 45 million good pixels beats 11 million superb pixels. If you need to print beyond 16x20, MF is still an option. If you print at sizes of 13x19 or less I wouldn't invest in a MF system now. Body + good scanner will cost you $1500 + $2500 = $4000. This almost the cost of a new 1DS and equal to the cost of Kodak Pro 14N body. Then add film and processing.

[sergio_spada]

I bought the CANON 1Ds.

Well... I have pre-press experience since 1990.

First -Look at a digital file from the 1ds at 100% magnification

(this is what you get)

Second- Look at the same digital file at 200% magnification

(this is what you get if you size-up in photoshop-and you can do

better in other interpolation programs)

No USM done yet!

Well this how is going to look your file on a well calibrated CRT

monitor.

The file at 200% is still astonishing.

If there were hair represented in the file probably I would't push

the file that far.... maybe 150-170% magnification top.

 

Anyway you can have a file of 70mb or more from the original

33mb and do fine USM to it. Getting gorgeous result.

 

For me.... GO DIGITAL

 

I am going to sell my contax equipment

 

CIAO

 

Sergio Spada

[doug_brightwell1]

Sergio...

 

Your posting sounds like it should have links to photos, but I'm not seeing any in my browser. Did I get the wrong idea?

[brian_c._miller]

A coworker bought a fancy digital camera, and then he dropped what I thought was a bombshell: Don't point the camera at the sun.

 

WHAT?? No Mr. Sun??

 

I'm aghast. Truly, I am. The sun figures in many of my pictures, and if I couldn't point my camera at the sun then it would be useless for me. There are many, many times I have had to put my thumb on the ground glass to block out the sun while I focused on something.

 

A camera which is destroyed by photographing a normal subject is not an advancement.