Medium format.

[RaymondC]

<p>I have been shooting digital and film with Nikons for a while now. I do scapes so I thought that larger format suited me as a roll of 35mm does take me 2 or 3 days to complete on a photography trip and I shoot mostly on a tripod.</p>

<p>Hasselblad has a lot of appeal and I thought I was set and planned on getting a own Christmas gift then I did an analysis with the other brands (Pentax, Bronia, Mamiya) and compared them. Hasselblad does cost at least 2x as much as others. I mean for everything, basic starter kits to each and every individual lens (!).<br /> <br /> I am surprised how affordable they are even compared to some manual 35mm gear. Certainly the Blad cost less than Leica but even a manual focus Nikon/Canon don’t cost much cheaper than many medium format camera but manual focus Nikon/Canon lenses might even more than many medium format lenses.<br /> <br /> Nor is it an easy decision to make. Other than finance, the Blad has a lot of appeal. Maybe it is what Leica or Nikon did in the film days or Linhof in large format.<br /> <br /> But .. has people found that a 40mm or 50mm lens wide enough on a 6x7 or 6x6 format camera? Many of them go no wider than that. (Again, the Blad does have a wider, ha).</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[john_golden2]

<p>my medium format camera is a mamiya, they are really cheap and very good, i was thinking of a hassey but really couldnt justify the cost.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>But .. has people found that a 40mm or 50mm lens wide enough on a 6x7 or 6x6 format camera? Many of them go no wider than that. (Again, the Blad does have a wider, ha).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use a 50mm on my 6x7 Mamiya RB67. 50mm is equivalent to around 28mm on a 35mm SLR. I believe Mamiya might have something wider but the 50 gives excellent DOF from closeup to horizon on landscape shots.Here are a couple of pictures with the 50mm straight out of the scanner with minimal sharpening. Good luck on whatever you decide.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Here's anther.</p><div></div>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>I have a Pentax 645N and a Hasselblad 503cxi. For me, the Pentax is much easier to use (it's like a 35mm on steroids). I can use it handheld (with the 75mm lens) or on a tripod. The Hasselblad is pretty much a tripod only camera. It's just kinda bulky for me. The quality is great from both. With all of the MF cameras, it comes down to what is comfortable for you to use. I know my website has shots from the P645 and there should be at least one or two from the 'blad. </p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>You might consider the Fuji GW 690 III with the EBC Fujinon 3.5/90 mm and a film size of 6x9 cm, or a Fuji GSW 690 III with the EBC Fujino 5.6/65 mm and a film size of 6x9 cm, or a Plaubel 69W ProShift Superwide with the Schneider Super-Angulon 5.6/47 mm and a film size of 6x9 cm. </p>

<p>All these cameras feature razor sharp lenses, a fantastic and contrasty color rendition, but they are rangefinder cameras.</p>

<p>The GW 690 III is equivalent to a 38mm in 35mm film, the GSW 690 III is equivalent to a 28mm in 35mm film, the Plaubel 69W is equivalent to a 20mm in 35mm film and offers vertical and horizontal shift up to 17mm.<br>

More information about these three cameras <strong><a href="https://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/category/photography/6x9-and-large-format/">here</a></strong></p>

[david_l3]

<p>For landscapes the larger the film the better. 6x9 is twice the area of 645, and this may make a difference to you. Much depends on your style. From my experience, the Pentax 645 is portable, has excellent lenses, and is great for macro shooting. It can do almost everything well on or off a tripod. But you live with smaller negatives. The Hasselblad does cost more, especially with each added piece of hardware, and the image quality is second to none. It too can do almost everything well, especially on a tripod. However it's heavy, a body with 2-3 lenses, a few extra film backs, extension tubes, lightmeter, filters, and tripod will make you wish for a pack mule after a long day. Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders have excellent lenses and larger film sizes, are fairly portable, and easily hand holdable. What you give up is macro capability with their typical 1 meter close focus distance. Lately I've been lusting after a Fuji 6x9 for its large negative size and portability. </p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Dollar for dollar. Well a nation wide camera chain is giving the following special on Hassy's they pay your sales tax =$875.00 and then they give you a coupon for apple for $499.00 so lets see here that is $1,374.00 dollars off retail price ? Now Pentax is Only 10,000.00<br>

I could list many of its attribute's here , But Pentax gives you some thing Hassy does not and that the ability to use its older lens which Hassy does not , If my info is correct, I know you hassy people can expound many thing's about the hassy system But there are other system out there that do as good a job as hassy, to me its just a name thats get you folks:</p>

[johnw436]

<p>You'll probably find that you shoot differently with MF than you do with 35mm. I think it can be misleading to think of MF as a big-negative 35mm. After shooting 645, a 4x6 print seems nearly panoramic to me. </p>

<p> </p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/smUQVmDrUVCGWbW_B64uhg?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Hyp8M_4eXzQ/RnXNbsdYsfI/AAAAAAAAAgw/a0BPPf1pK84/s640/File0064.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="522" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>This was shot with a Bronica ETRs, handheld, 75mm lens (normal).</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Not to get too philosophical, but why must landscapes be shot with ultra wide angle lenses? I shoot as many with long lenses as I do with wide lenses, and also use Hasselblad. A 100mm, 150mm, and 250mm are standard fare, and probably make up 75% of my landscape shots.</p>

<p>I think we often find vistas that are so beautiful we want to capture it all. In reality, isolating a portion of that scenic can be equally effective in conveying what you see. Just a thought. A 50mm on 6x7 is pretty wide. A 40mm is definitely very wide. (kind of a bad scan, but...)</p><div></div>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>The advantage of a wide angle lens is that you can crop the image to a ratio of 3:1. Though I'd like to have a dedicated 6x17 camera, I can't afford one at this very moment. So cropping is an alternative.</p>

<p>On the other hand a standard lens like the one of the Fuji GW 690 III or even a long lens like a 180mm on my 6x9 Arca are good for focussing on a certain part of a landscape as you said. Sometimes a smaller angle is more rewarding. It all depends on what you want and prefer.</p>

[stp]

<p>Speaking of what Michael posted, several of my recent landscape photographs have been done with 300mm, 400mm, and 500mm lenses. Frankly, it's a kick to search for a good composition from so far away and comprising such a small amount of the landscape in your field of view.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>It might be a kick, but the humidity in the air can ruin your image if the distance is too large.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>"but why must landscapes be shot with ultra wide angle lenses?"</p>

<p>I agree. I love your photo.</p>

<p>Seems to me, that if you're shooting with at 150mm, that it makes it easier to leave that telephone pole over to the left out of field of view. </p>

<p>PS Michael, do you burn the print, then scan? Or scan the negative, then burn the image? You don't have to share if you don't want to, of course.</p>