Affordable digital MF setup for MF newbit

[will_hall]

<p>That should be NEWBIE.. not NEWBIT.<br>

Hello.<br>

I've been doing DSLR photography for quite some time with Canon and Nikon systems and for the last year have been using the 22 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II. However, recently I've become interested in going into medium format photography, with a digital back, to take advantage of the larger sensor and MF lenses. Unfortunately, I don't want to break my bank and the digital back that I could probably afford would likely be less than 22mp (or equal). But of course, if I have the setup I can upgrade later if digital backs suddenly drop in price two years from now.<br>

Based on internet research, it seems like the most affordable system would be a used Mamiya 645 AFD II with the Mamiya 80mm F/2.8 lens and whatever digital back makes the most sense. I'm assuming that if I get it used, a system like this would cost around $5000 or less.<br>

If anyone has any advice for me- especially on what the most affordable digital back would be, possibly the one from Mamiya, I would greatly appreciate it. Or perhaps it would be good to just get some advice on whether I should stay with my 22mp DSLR as there won't be that much of a difference. I've been working with DSLRs for quite some time and also see this as an opportunity to branch out a little with my work.<br>

Also, I am not tied to the idea of getting a Mamiya and if anyone has other suggestions, please let me know. Again, I am a newbie for MF and am looking for any advice as this is a new area for me.</p>

 

[bob_sunley]

<p>Look at KEH.com for used equipment pricing.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Firstly, I think you're being very optimistic with your budget Will.</p>

<p>Secondly, my feeling is that the future will be with full-frame (35mm size) DSLRs. The image quality and pixel-count gap is closing with each new generation of DSLR sensor, and once 16bit capture becomes standard in DSLRs then MF digital will have little going for it. In fact the whole SLR concept will have to be re-thought soon, because the flapping mirror has had its day IMHO.</p>

<p>OK. Lens quality is generally better in MF, but the choice is far more limited (where's the MF equivalent of a 14mm wideangle or a fast 400mm telephoto?), and anyway Mamiya's own lenses aren't in the top bracket like Zeiss. Also, if you stick to using good quality primes on your full-frame DSLR then the difference in optical quality is very narrow as well. So unless your MF digital kit is going to be paying its way by earning you big bucks, I'd just stick with the perfectly good camera that you've already got, and maybe put some of that money into better glassware.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>[R]</em><em>ecently I've become interested in going into medium format photography, with a digital back, to take advantage of the larger sensor and MF lenses.</em></p>

<p>What advantage, specifically will you take? I think you need to answer that question first. And then you should find out whether the specific used equipment you're looking at would actually provide that advantage. Because I tend to suspect that a new, $2000 or $2500 DSLR is likely to give you overall image quality at least as good as an old MFDB, assuming equal quality lenses and equal technique.</p>

<p>On the resolution front, which is maybe the easiest thing to compare, let's assume you are printing US-standard-size prints with aspect ratios of 4:5 or thereabouts (4x5, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 24x30 inches). To get resolution roughly equivalent to your 5D Mk. II, with a MFDB with the common 4:3 aspect ratio, you'd need about 11 MP to equal your 5D Mk. II, so the really old stuff will be a step down, but even older stuff at 16 MP and a 4:3 aspect ratio should be a step up. Why (only) 11 MP? The 5D's anti-alias filter cuts linear resolution about 20-30%, and its 2:3 aspect ratio is not as close to the print's 4:5 as is the MFDB's 3:4. So a MFDB of 22 MP and a 4:3 sensor would provide a real increase in image detail--<em>if</em> your lens can provide 56 lp/mm at high MTF at the taking aperture, and <em>if</em> your subjects don't tax the available depth of field, and <em>if</em> you are printing larger than 16 x 20 inches.</p>

<p><em>I've been doing DSLR photography . . . .</em></p>

<p>I've heard of landscape, reportage, street, sports, portrait, event, fashion, and other types of photography, but what is DSLR photography? Because the best answer for you may be very different if you shoot mostly landscapes from within 100 ft of your car, versus portraits, versus sports, versus whatever. As a gearhead who would probably need a twelve-step program for it if my wife's tolerance didn't limit my purchaes, your statements make you also sound like more of a gearhead than a photographer. I struggle with this too. But seeing the camera as a tool for a specific job (or a few specific jobs) can certainly help you determine which tool is best (either absolutely or at a given budget).</p>

<p>(As a semi-OT aside, how do you get a 5D Mk. II being 22 MP? The pixel-count math--<em>especially</em> the manufacturers' math--always strikes me as, um, fuzzy. Insofar as the 5D Mk. II's reported maximum capture is 5616 x 3744 pixels, that's 21 MP, or 21.0 MP, or 21.026304 MP, depending on how far you want to carry it out--but seemingly you can't get to 22 MP.)</p>

 

[will_hall]

<p>Rodeo Joe: Thanks for the advice. Much appreciated.<br>

Dave: Your train of thought went in the wrong direction. I didn't know the megapixel amount as I'm the opposite of a gear-head and know little of the tech side of things. My 5DM2 is actually the only camera purchase I've made in the last four years. Not even a filter. Thanks for the tech notes on MFDB cameras.</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>Unless you're printing wall-size or want a particular look, the 5DII should be good enough to rival anything. My advice: get good lenses (t/s for landscape; fast primes or L zooms for portraiture) and maybe a tripod if you need one. The 5DII is awfully close to 6x7 film, probably close enough to old medium format digital systems, and certainly much more flexible (most MFDBs aren't great over 400ISO from what I understand and fast IS zooms and the like don't exist for them).</p>

<p>If you must go medium format, save up for a Pentax 645D and a few good lenses. Never used it, but the sample images are very impressive, easily rivaling large format film scans, and the camera's interface looks less hacked together than most MFDBs. An apparent steal at $10k.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Hi Will,</p>

<p>I went through this process nearly a year ago. My starting point was different though - I had no current DSLR, and a lot of medium format film gear, especially fast Mamiya 645 lenses. So for me, it made sense to stay within the Mamiya system. I bought a used 645AFD body + 55-110mm AF zoom ($1000), and a just-serviced, low mileage Kodak DCS 645M digital back (37x37mm, 16.7 Mpix; $2700). That is within your budget. I get excellent photos from it, to all intents and purposes as good as I used get from 6x6 film - apart from long exposures, where thermal noise and firmware limit it. I will shortly have access to a new 5DII to handle that aspect of my photography.</p>

<p>One really needs to have a sort of "hook" to get into MF digital - especially budget digital. For me, it was keeping my beloved Mamiya stuff and making it digital; plus the ability to switch to high-sensitivity IR photography and back to optical again in a few seconds (only the Kodak and Mamiya ZD backs can do that). For others, it's the choice of viewfinders, especially waist-level viewing (BTW this doesn't include the Mamiya AFD line, more's the pity); or the shallow DOF possibilities; or the colour response (Leaf backs are loved by fashion/portrait shooters); or the ability to use the back on a view-camera for movements even with short focal-length lenses. On a bigger budget, the incredible resolution of landscapes once you get to 40 Mpix and beyond is an obvious hook, but $5k won't get you there. It was not clear to me from your message what your "hook" is?</p>

<p>One other question - why are you aiming for an AFDII, when an AFD costs only around half as much?</p>