645 vs 67 vs 4X5 for on-tripod use

[jose_angel]

<p>... BTW, have you considered image stitching? (digital)</p>

[donbright]

<p>I'm going with, that the scanner is the bottleneck here. Yes, there are bad scans out there, but there are clean, on target drum scans that give the Photographer a starting point in finishing. I use 6x7, and 24x30 prints are achieved with stunning result. Great points made on this thread. Pentax 6711. Tango Drum scans. Landscapes. I treat my working process with medium format like 4x5. Methodical.</p>

[miesnert]

Make sure to get the 50mm ULD and

not the earlier 50mm, the older version

has got so much edge distortion I find it

to be unuseable.

[miesnert]

If you buy the 50mm make sure to get

the ULD version, the older lens has got

so much edge distortion I find it

unusable.

[jose_angel]

<p>... Maybe you want to mean <em>perspective</em> distortion?</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Minor corrections:<br>

- the Mamiya 35mm f/3.5 is a bit wider than RJ said: 22mm (rounded from 21.7mm) in 35mm terms. Every mm makes a difference when you get to the ultrawides.<br>

- the 50mm on the RZ is substantially wider than Marc said: 24mm (rounded from 24.2mm) in 35mm terms.<br>

- The "widest lenses for medium and large format cameras" can also be substantially wider than Edward said. Many traditional SLR or rangefinder 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 cameras have options in the 21-22mm area (35mm equivalent). Modular superwide units like Alpa, Plaubel, Horseman, and Gaoersi can deliver 15-20mm in 35mm terms on rollfilm, using large-format-style lenses like the 47mm Super Angulon, or the 35mm and 45mm APO Grandagons.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Just to throw out another 6x9 suggestion, have you looked into the Mamiya Press/Universal/23?....The widest lens is a 50mm f/6.3...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ryan, you beat me to it! I use this combination too. It gives a crisp, distortion-free 21.4mm equivalent image, on a very large 6x9cm negative, in the OP's favoured 35mm aspect ratio. (Think of it as a giant Leica M rangefinder with a 21mm Super Angulon [albeit slower], but with interchangeable backs and 5.4 times the film area). With a Polaroid back on the Mamiya Universal, it gives an even wider (18mm equivalent) image. It would come in under the OP's $1000 budget too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Also as many suggested, 35mm film with a good film scanner is totally capable of 18x24 prints. Understand that at the size you print, the bottleneck for 35mm is your scanner not the film or the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That very much depends on using slow, fine-grained film. At ISO 200 and above, the 35mm film format becomes the limit.</p>

[donbright]

<p> The result of Velvia 50 drum scanned from a 6x7 trans, tells the story. Very hard pressed to tell the difference between that and 4x5. Unless movements are used. Again, a scan done right yields awesome results. All other vibration techniques exercised. Tripod, Cable release, mirror up, hyperfocal focusing.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>Sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't expext so many responses!</p>

<p>With regards to a miniature LF like a 2X3" Crown Graphic, that is certainly an option, and one I hadn't considered to be honest. At this point in time, I think I would prefer MF over LF for the familiarity to 35mm process and control. I may go to large format eventually, and it is an area of interest, but I don't think it will be soon yet.<br>

Same response at the moment to Cambo Wide, though I've read about it used on Luminous Landscapes, and it does seem quite nice.</p>

<p>I've looked at the Fuji 680, but haven't been able to find much info on it, and KEH doesn't have much merchandise to put together a setup to see what I can really get into with it.</p>

<p>Regarding tilt-shift lenses on non-LF bodies: yes, I've considered this option as well. I've seen some awesome pictures done by stitching the images together, eliminating parallax errors, etc. I'm not sure exactly how much image quality you're losing by using the entire image circle, but of course it depends on the lens. To be honest, a TS lens alone is more than what I've been expecting to pay for an entire MF or LF setup, sometimes almost twice as costly.</p>

<p>I've been doing digital panoramic stitching myself for quite a while now (using a Nikon D90), using AutoPano Giga. I adore range of image size you can get from stitching, and the choice of how much or little of the subject to stitch. However, the biggest problems I'm having right now are with moving objects (even simply in windy situations), and objects close to the camera. I'm going to rectify the second with a panoramic head, but moving objects seem to be the bane of stitching processes, and one of the reasons I plan on moving to a larger format to capture similar printable quality.</p>

<p>@Paul: thank you for your offer, but right now I'm just doing my research to see what works best for my situation and requirements, and so won't be ready to purchase for a while yet. Cheers though!</p>

<p>Regarding the weak link discussion, it does make sense that a lower-quality scanner will give less precise renditions, but I would think that a well respected scanner like the Epson V700 should give good results; that being said, I will certainly consider a dedicated MF scanner.</p>

<p>I have not had personal experience photographing with a view camera, though I have been to studio shots with a friend using a 4X5" view camera. I do not have the experience to operate one, but know some of the differences between view, MF/35mm/digital.</p>

<p>@Rodeo Joe: I have not used film as an artistic implementation before, and unfortunately I do not plan on processing the film myself.<br>

I do agree that it's what you want the finished image to be that's the deciding factor on what type of equiptment to use. As mentioned before though, there are times where the situation dictates a single shot where a digital capture would limit print size.<br>

To be perfectly honest, I'll say that my ideal digital setup will be a Canon 5D with the 24/1.4L. This will certainly give better results than the D90 I've got now, and will be my workhorse camera. But I also want to use film in my work: and if the quality of the film will be similar if I use a 35mm camera, I'll use something larger (but not unwieldy).<br>

Right now the Mamiya RZ looks like the best of the several worlds to me, in terms of cost (under $1000), size/portability (much smaller than a view camera), image/colour/tonal quality, and running costs (where the view camera is unfortunately in last place).</p>

<p>With regards to end print size, I specified what I hope to achieve minimum from this setup: there are certainly instances where the project works best as a 30X40 or 24X48.</p>

<p>I also agree with the setup mentioned by Mauro for the Mamiya RZ, thanks!</p>

<p>@Ray: I've seen some of the results from those wide angle LF lenses, and they amaze me! Unfortunately the prices are an accurate reflection of their quality.</p>

<p>I'll look further into the mini-view camera idea, as well as the other 6X9 MF possibilities.<br>

Thanks for all the responses!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>There is clearly a relationship between the camera you buy and the scanner you use.</p>

<p>If , for example you have drum scans made at a good lab then you can print a quality 24" x 18" from any of the options you consider.</p>

<p>At the other end of the spectrum, if you're going to scan with a consumer flatbed you're going to need the 5" x 4" to make a good print of that size. I have a V700 and whilst it gets a fair amount of use, I would not personally use it to make a print larger than say 16" x 12" from 67 and say 12" x 8" from 645. No doubt others' limits will vary though I doubt whether many would go as far as you seem to wish if quality is a major factor- and if it isn't, why buy into medium or large format?</p>

<p>In the middle you have film scanners that some people ckoose to buy and others choose to buy-in scans from labs, dependent objectively on volume and subjectively on whether they just want it.. If you intend to buy or otherwise use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 then in my experience (I did have one but sold it as I wasn't making enough use of it) you'll be best with a 67, If you buy or use an Imacon, then either of your medium format options will give you a great 24" x 18" print. </p>

<p>I would also join others in suggesting that</p>

 

<ul>

<li>You could print to your selected size from a dslr- certainly my 5Dii will go that far. You don't actually <em>need </em>MF unless you want to get a bit bigger. If you choose to own a film scanner, then any scanner you buy will cost on its own, more than the 5Dii</li>

<li>If you can't or won't go further than a V700 scanner, and hence a 5"x 4" camera, just make sure you're au fait with the logistics and time taken to learn and use a large format camera. Some people love that sort of thing, but not everyone.</li>

<em></em>

</ul>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I have a gorgeous, scratch free RZ67 ProII that I would sell you, but I'd also tell you that it won't equal my FF Canon at the size you talk about unless you are shooting black and white. </p>

<p>I am very critical of print quality in large enlargements, and will admit that I am absolutely going to look at a 24" print from 2 or 3 feet. If you are really picky too then you really will have to go to 4 x 5. I have no horse in the race, as I have duplicate RZ systems, lots of perfect condition RZ lenses, several view cameras and lenses, and the Canon 1DsIII. I've compared them all and it takes 4 x 5 to get a top enlargement from color film that will compete with FF DSLR.</p>

<p>If one wanted to focus on black and white then it's totally different. The superior ability of black and white film to give that fantastic dynamic range is a very valid reason to look to film.</p>

<p>If you decide to go for film, but not to go bigger than medium format, the RZ is a great choice for many reasons, including generous neg size, rotating back, superb lenses (stay with the later units), great focusing system, rock solid build quality. I've shot with many, many brands of film cameras and the RZ is my favorite. <br>

</p>

[donbright]

<p>Before the Pentax 6711, I had a Fuji GX-680. Loved the concept, and the images were superb, but---It was heavy! How heavy? 11 lbs. heavy. I lugged that thing up and down hills and places. I was younger then, and even then it was tough. The Fuji GX-680 was made for the studio. I prefer the 67 frame. I have a habit of packing a frame. The 67 is it for me. I've used Hasselblads. The Square didn't work for me either.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I used Hasselblad before I went RZ. Now, I do love square images. 40% of my enlargements from the Hasselblad ended up remaining square. I would usually know at the time of making the image. But, what bothered me was that on the 60% of the images that ended up rectangular, by using an RZ I could have had the benefit of more film area. The Hassy "6cm" is really less than 56mm. The RZ is a full 72mm wide! That's 29% greater length. That means that I can get a 13 inch wide enlargement at the same enlargement factor as a 10 inch wide enlargement from the Hasselblad. For me, that's a big deal as I see a REAL difference between 10 and 13 inch wide enlargements from Hasselblad images.</p>

<p>This of course is assuming that the optics are on an equal plane. For the RZ lenses I selected (the later 50 ULD, the 110, the 210 apo) that is certainly true. So, if you stick with medium format, you really need to maximize your neg size for the enlargement sizes you are talking about making. </p>

[razzledog]

<p>You need to look at ALL the alternatives... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... landscape, long exposure ... I enjoy wide angle ... I don't expect to use these handheld ... I would like to be able to print very large, preferably 18X24 comfortably.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As others have already mentioned, the RZ (and less expensive RB) are good choices. I have a couple actually. Printing to 18x24 is no problem if you have access to a Nikon 9000 or better; 8x10 is about as large as I'd go if digitizing with a consumer level flatbed.</p>

<p>Having said this, you're much better off with a <a href="http://gigapan.org/">Gigapan</a> coupled to a P&S digicam. I've been using one since their beta release 5 years ago. The only limitation is that the scene must tolerate what amounts to minutes long exposure. When this constraint is satisfiable, this $400 combination lets you record images with unparalleled resolution and dynamic range.</p>

[rjpierrard]

<p>@Dean: thanks for that link, I hadn't seen it before</p>

<p>@Robert: I've already mentioned about the digital panoramic stitching. Just a recap: I do it already (need a pano head though); and enjoy the range of possibilities, FOV, etc; but given that stitching is non-optimal and often downright abominable for moving subjects (even just when windy), there are times I'll simply want a larger sensor to take that image in a single exposure.</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments!</p>

[andy andrews]

<p>I agree with Don Bright regarding the comparison between a good drum scan of a 6x7 chrome on RVP 50 and 4x5 chromes. After spending 50+ years carrying most of the top medium and large format cameras in the field, I reached the conclusion that there is a point of greatly diminishing returns when going above the 6x7 format. Budgetary concerns preclude even thinking about 4x5. The weight and complexity of film holders makes chasing fleeting moments during the Golden Hours of dawn and dusk an exercise in patience and serendipity. Even the greats of large format photography ended up with medium format rollfilm cameras for their combination of information capture and efficiency. <br>

The cost of the latest large format lenses puts your project out of the running. I know of no combination of lens and body with modern, multi-coated optics (not to mention aspheric) that you could put together under $1,000. I agree with the some of the others that the biggest bang for the buck would be the Mamiya Press or RB/RZ with 50mm lens. If you can find the ground glass back for the Mamiya Press, you can use the Scheimpflug technique by tilting the camera back and increase your depth of field without overly stopping down. The 50mm Mamiya-Sekor will cover 6x9 with modest movements. If you opt for the RZ, look into the 50mm L lens with its modern multi-coating, floating elements and ultra-low dispersion glass. An RZ with 50mm ULD optic and 120 back can be found for around $800 on the 'net.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Thanks Andy. At the risk of repeating myself, lets remember how important it is to find equipment that one feels is tailored to ones needs and method of working. Getting used to cameras that one is going to get rid of is a process that many of us has found to be expensive. Certainly our friend Robert want's to avoid that, and find a set up that will provide bang for the buck, and yield beautiful images too. As I've mentioned I use the Pentax 67 system, a few of the lenses they made were great, although not all. I've managed to make what I have work with for me, and that is what we have to do. Make the best of what we got no matter what the equipment is. When I was is the hunt for a field camera, as I mentioned I used a Fuji GX-680 for a while, then realized it is what it is, too heavy, but you see I knew that going in, but I thought a little pain would improve the pictures, NOT! I had my sight set on a Mamiya RZ67, but after the Fuji GX-680 episode, I was determined to lighten up, so thats why the Pentax 6711. Weight was the motivating factor at the time. Knowing that the Mamiya RZ was lighter that the GX-680, I went even lighter with the Pentax. I've seen results from the RZ67, and they are awesome, so if you're going that way with the RZ, I would say your on the right track. Not every lens is a home run within a particular manufacturer. In the case of the SMC Pentax 67 lenses, as I said there are a few good ones, the 45, 75, 105, and 200. Luckily these focal lengths cover it all, but there are a few more lenses that they made that may have given the Line a bad rep. So choose wisely. I think this thread has already provided the preferred lens for the RZ, I think it was the 50mm ULD, AND THE 110 2.8? <br /> Medium format film cameras are awesome. I think that the response that you have received from your quest has proven that. This has been an active and informative, interesting thread. Not often I re-read threads, but their have been good contributors here mostly because of the passion for medium format, and good taste for the <strong><em>TONALITY</em></strong> of a properly exposed piece of film.</p>

[david_mcniven]

<p>Hi, no time to read the whole thread, sorry if this has been covered.<br>

Have you considered the RB67 Pro SD with the 6x8 electric back? You said you preferred aspect ratio nearer 35mm. The electric back also means you only have to wind the body, as on the RZ; BIG bonus.<br>

For 4x5 check out the Sinar Wolf (in the UK), called the Alpina or A1 in other markets. Very light, standards fold close to the rail, same movements as any other monorail but not quite as rigid as some. Accepts any lens or Sinar part except rails (which on this model are flat not round). I've made a split-rail extension which, with an extra bellows & support, lets me use up to a 600mm. lens. <br>

You can use roll film backs in all formats to 6x12 and still have full movements, you can also easily adapt the rear standard to take a digital back/body and stitch multiple frames.<br>

I'm over 60 and can backpack this kit all day even without a tripod monkey. I do have other outfits but this little Sinar is what I take to the hills. </p>

<p> </p>

[swhiser]

<p>The Crown Graphic.</p>