Medium Format that supports Both Film and Digital Back

[vagabond_on_move]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>I am wanting to buy a Medium format, 645 or 67 for my personal use, I shoot Portraits, weddings and Landscapes and I travel alot.<br>

You are requested to please let me know which camera will be a better option and please consider that I would like to enjoy the Film back and Digital back.<br>

Many thanks for your inputs.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>A bit more information is needed from you.</p>

<p>What is your budget? $5k-$10k USD, or $30k-$50k USD?<br /> Are you looking for new or used equipment?<br /> Some digital backs need to be tethered to a lap-top. What capability is your existing lap-top?<br /> Are you experienced in using a camera with a WLF.<br /> Do you need a camera that affords TTL flash metering?<br /> Is the capability for auto-focus lenses a priority?<br>

You mention 645 and 6 X 7. Have you ruled out 6 X 6?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Although I consider a 6x7 the only worthwhile medium format (it's "true" medium format, half the diagonal of 4x5 "large format", twice the diagonal of 35mm "miniature format". That's what "medium" means, between small and large), it pains me to say you'll probably be happiest with 645 (the "medium small format" that killed all the medium format companies).</p>

<p>The "medium format" digital backs have sensors with 55-61mm diagonals, which is a 1.4-1.6 "crop factor" relative to 6x7, so your normals become portrait teles with ugly bokeh, your wides become slow, heavy normals with even uglier bokeh, and your teles put you too far from the subject. 6x6 is much the same situation. 645 is a lot better, and some of the camera companies even released new normals for the smaller digital diagonals.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Hasselblad and Mamiya both do this. Either one is fine. Hassy doesn't do 6x7.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Although I consider a 6x7 the only worthwhile medium format (it's "true" medium format, half the diagonal of 4x5 "large format", twice the diagonal of 35mm "miniature format". That's what "medium" means, between small and large),</p>

</blockquote>

<p>6x7 is much more than half the diagonal of 4x5. 89mm is not half of 153mm. Half the diagonal of 4x5 (76mm) actually falls between 645 (70mm) and 6x6 (79mm). If you want to define medium format in that way, 6x6 is a much more accurate dividing line. And since 645 is what you get when you crop 6x6 to a 4:3 aspect ratio for prints, then 645 is true medium format!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it pains me to say you'll probably be happiest with 645 (the "medium small format" that killed all the medium format companies).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've seen you post that theory before, Joseph. But how do you back it up? Do you have any evidence of a <em>causal</em> connection between 645 and the decline of medium format in general? And if 645 was the death of the sector, how do you explain that nearly all the surviving medium format cameras still being made <em>are</em> 645?</p>

 

[ondebanks]

<p>Anyway, back to the original question...</p>

<p>I'd recommend that you first decide whether film or digital back shooting will be more important to you.<br>

If your preference is for film, then I'd say a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II or Pro IID is the camera platform to get; you can later get a digital back for it (but it will be much less than 6x7 in format...under 645 in fact).<br>

If you see yourself mainly shooting digital, then I'd suggest either a Mamiya 645AFD or Contax 645. The sub-645 digital backs are a much closer match to the 645 film that these cameras and their lenses were designed for. </p>

<p>I myself use a Mamiya 645AFD, with both film backs and an old Kodak square-format digital back...although mostly the latter.</p>

 

[joseph_wisniewski]

Hey Ray. I'm 100% behind a nice used Mamiya for an entry experience into medium format, if you're emphasizing film.

 

I worded that awkwardly. There's a lot of factors that helped kill medium format. I'm putting together a root cause paper

on it.

 

I'm pressed for time right now, and will come back with a more thorough response later. But I'd suggest you recheck your

math. You applied a film gate size (120x96mm on a 127.0x101.6mm sheet, apparently, which I always found a bit

conservative) to the large format dimensions, but not to the medium format. The common gate for 6x6 is 56X56mm, 645

makes the most sense with a Pythagorean gate, 56x42mm, which puts the diagonal exactly at 70mm, but due to

sloppiness in film advance (another of the top ten causes of the demise of medium format, friction drive) 41.5mm is more

common. The real key is 35mm, because that's the format that "won". The diagonal is 43.3mm, and the gated diagonal of

6x7 is 86.8mm, by design. They didn't really factor in 4x5 at the time.

 

The other thing to take into consideration is that 35mm, 645, 6x7, and 4x5 are all cropped for a certain percentage of

shots, and it's a similar percentage, so you can compare diagonals directly. 6x6 is cropped for a larger percentage of

shots (approaching 100%, although you'll never get a 6x6 "advocate" to admit it) so in the real world, it's just 645 with

more film waste, heavier cameras, more vibration, and a longer backfocus.

 

So, the diagonals that matter are 43.3mm, because it's the winner, and 86.6mm, because it's twice 43.3, and you really

do need to double it to feel like you're actually shooting a different format. That goes back to Fechner, Zwicker, etc. and

explains the motivation for creating 6x7 in the first place. They needed a format that felt "different enough" from the

winner to compete on that difference. The advertising campaigns that emphasized how much 645 and even 6x6 "felt like"

35mm were another of the top ten reasons we lost medium format. That's one reason why Bronica and Rollei were the

first casualties.

 

Movie folk understand Fechner, that's why we had 70mm, 35mm, 16mm, and 8mm, four actual formats, and a lot less

dinking around with "in between" cruft like 645.

 

Large format only survived in a form that emphasized not just Fechner's psychophysical difference, but other differences

that came along with such a large size, like the aggressive marketing of contact prints, the experience from an AD's

standpoint, of 4x5 trannies on the light table, the ease of building a decent view camera without 12 mechanical controls

bring packed into too small a space, or requiring exotic construction techniques. Anything that didn't emphasize those

differences went away.,Roll film and 6 shot magazines died off, as did pretty much any form of box, aside from the

pinhole camera. LF survived as view cameras, field cameras, and technical cameras. So, they picked up some marketing

"difference points" from this, so being 0.17 stops short of the sequence established by 35mm and 6x7 didn't hurt them.

 

I actually see us heading into an age where Fechner may be inadequate, and only by being "gonzo different" from 35mm

(whether film or digital) can a larger format survive. 4x5 could well be the only available "larger than 35mm" film format in

five years.

 

That's it, in a nutshell.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Nut-shell.

[vagabond_on_move]

<p>Hi All,<br /><br />Thanks all for all the responses and the information you all shared, here are the answers to questions asked...<br /><br />I have not decided on the budget yet, but as I am new to this 645 / 6X6/ 6X7 Format, so will definitely like to invest the minimum, and hence go for a used camera.<br />As for the Laptop compatibility, I have no clue, I use a dell Insipor, with some intel chips inside.<br /> TTL is not a lot of matter for me, I wish to use it in day light most of the time, but please suggest if TTL will help.<br />Autofocus is not a big matter as so far eyes are fine so will be able to manage if that saves me some $$.<br>

Please suggest the camera and also from where can I get a used, as I am from India and will have to make online purchase please f anyone can help me pick one from online store after reviewing the body and needed accessories and lenses. Mainly to be used for Portraits and Landscapes.<br /><br />www.vagabondonmove.com</p>

[johncox]

<p>I would recommend a Mamiya 645 AFD (not the AFD2), the only downside over newer models is that the auto focus is considered a bit slow, (I've never had this be a real issue) I recommend this over the AFD II because the 2 had shutter lag issues, current generation copies are much better. You can use pretty much use any manual focus Mamiya 645 lens on Mamiya AF cameras and adapt Pentax 67 and 645 lenses to it also (you can even adapt hassy lenses). When your ready to step up to a new top end focal plane body you can carry everything with you to the latest body from Mamiya/Phase One.</p>

<p>Used, the body runs about 400, backs around 150, and manual focus lenses are dirt cheap (start at $90) a full af kit on eBay should run you around $600(film back).</p>

<p>Most of the digital backs these days are in 645 size and aspect ratio, there are a few smaller and a few still square. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to get a 67 to use a 645 back on if your starting from scratch unless there's something you need from that particular camera (IE depth of field, close focus).</p>

<p>I did hear that the 645 AF (non D)took digital backs if someone could confirm the extent of digital back compatibility that would be great because it could open up a much larger avenue, at a lower price point.</p>

[yuri_huta]

<p>look into the Fuji GX680 system... it (like most other medium format film gear) is cheap and is compatible with current digital backs (with adapter plates).</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A voice against the GX680:<br>They are just about unusable, because too big and heavy (even a Mamiya RB/RZ is a smal and lightweight camera, compared to a GX680).<br><br>And like most MF cameras bigger than 6x4.5 format, too big for digital backs: you will go nuts figuring out how to take a wide angle shot using the lenses made for that too-big-format camera. You can't.

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>The other thing to take into consideration is that 35mm, 645, 6x7, and 4x5 are all cropped for a certain percentage of shots, and it's a similar percentage, so you can compare diagonals directly. <strong>6x6 is cropped for a larger percentage of shots (approaching 100%</strong>, although you'll never get a 6x6 "advocate" to admit it) so in the real world, it's just 645 with more film waste, heavier cameras, more vibration, and a longer backfocus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph, if I want to shoot 645 on my Rollei I just put the 645 back on it. Why on earth would I shoot an entire roll of 120 and then crop the whole thing?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A voice against the GX680:<br />They are just about unusable, because too big and heavy (even a Mamiya RB/RZ is a smal and lightweight camera, compared to a GX680)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lol. Quoted for truth. I read that GX680 remark and a voice in my head screamed NOOOOOO! I would like one for studio work but that is just plain ludicrous to haul one of those things around.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And like most MF cameras bigger than 6x4.5 format, too big for digital backs: you will go nuts figuring out how to take a wide angle shot using the lenses made for that too-big-format camera. You can't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, true. The thing that sucks about medium format is the restrictions on the wide end. The better quality lenses get expensive. And if your normal lens on a 6x8 camera is something like a 135mm you are going to look foolish doing landscapes.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Totally off-topic, perhaps, but the GX680 sucks for studio work too. There are even bigger, yet far more agile cameras that do that much beter than those massive good for nothings.

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I use a Mamiya AFD II with both film and digital backs and I love it.<br /> With a 150mm f2.8 it's truly remarkable for portrait work or aerial photography (My bread and butter - see attached.).<br /> The wide angle lenses are rather disappointing, though usable, but the 120mm macro is an absolute delight for studio work.<br /> Overall I highly recommend the system.</p>

<p>(The jpeg attached, shrunk to 800 px wide, looks crappy. The original 22 megapixel version is great, I swear!)</p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>I shoot the same stuff you do.</p>

<p>My recommendation would be a Contax 645. Lots of these still around used for reasonable prices. Great Zeiss optics which give you the option of AF for stuff like weddings and more candid portraits. IMO, these lenses helped the Contax 645 punch beyond its weight class. Film backs available ... including a vacuum back to hold the film flat (if you can find one). </p>

<p>Digital backs were always made for them, and still are ... 1.1 X crop ratio for backs ranging from relatively inexpensive 22 meg "fat Pixel" backs, to 39 meg ... all the way to latest bankruptcy inducing 60 and 80 meg monsters with virtually no crop factor at all.</p>

<p>I traveled extensively with my Contax 645 ... and one distinct advantage over some other 645 cameras is that it is totally modular ... allowing you to break it down to fit a much smaller travel bag compared to those with a fixed finder.</p>

<p>I now use a Hasselblad H camera ... the H1, H2, and H3D, H2F cameras all accept film backs. The H3D camera is usually accompanied with a 22, 31 or 39 meg Hasselblad digital back. The H1 and H2 can be used with Hasselblad CF back, Sinar, Phase One or Leaf back. The H2F uses only film backs or Hasselblad CF backs with a H mount iAdapter. </p>

<p>The H camera is also modular, and can be broken down to fit smaller carry-on bags.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>