Medium Format for Handheld

[eric_duncan]

I take it that you are making enlargements onto photographic paper. If you are scanning and printing onto photo inkjet paper, then 6x4.5 scanned at 4000ppi would give 300dpi output at sizes up to 23x26 inches, or even 18x21 inches with a 3200ppi scan. So at 11x14 and up to the just-mentioned sizes, the paper design and not the negative/trannie size will be the limiting factor.

But if you use darkroom printing, then all this talk of pixels is blasphemy, and the rule of enlargement factors stands, and 6x7 will give finer grain than 6x4.5 at a given print size.

[jeffrey_haddock1]

Yes, I print on photographic paper. RC for proofs, and usually Ilford MG IV FB for the final print, just because I can't find any other FB paper besides Ilford where I live. As far as the reduced DOF when using MF compared to 35mm, I have come across this before on discussion boards like this, but haven't been able to understand why this is. Is it the longer lens that is is required for the same angular coverage on the larger negative that causes this? And if so, if one were to make the *same* size final print, would the DOF still be lesser on the one made from a 6x7 neg? Basically, is the DOF problem assuming the same linear enlargement on both 35mm and MF negs?

 

Also, as I stated before, with the longer lens required when using MF, all other things being equal, does the shutter speed have to be faster to compensate for increased effects on camera shake? When I say all other things, I am referring to the greater inertia of the larger camera brought up by a previous poster.

 

I suppose my understanding of the fundamentals of the photographic process is a little less clear than I originally anticipated. :)

 

One final question that has risen since I started shopping around for used RB 67s. My understanding is that there are three versions of the RB67. The Pro, Pro S, and the Pro SD. I am looking at the Pro S, not because for specific features, but as far as the used market goes, they seem to be in better shape than the Pros, by nature of their relative age. In any case, are all RB lenses compatable with all models of the camera? If so, I have seen some wildly different prices for them. Some at $1000 Canadian for a normal lens, and other times $1300 Canadian for a whole kit with normal lens, body, back, and WLF finder. Both were in about the same shape. Is there a certain series of RB lenses that I should be looking for, and others I should be staying away from? Specifically, any markings, like model numbers, different fonts, or aesthetic design changes that would tip me off?

 

Jef

http://inDigital.ca

[scott_walton2]

I regularly shoot handheld with the RB and don't see what the problem is... I

do shoot occasionally on a studio stand with it but I'm also 6'1" and 240lbs.

Granted, your arms will get built up using the RB and with the lens selection,

rotating back and all the acces. that are available, to me, it is a VERY smart

choice. The abilities of this camera and it's speed of loading and shooting far

out weigh the weight of it. I wouldn't want to shoot a wedding with it, carrying it

10-14 hours (my personal cameras are Bronica SQA's) but for commercial

work where you only have to carry it for several hours... it's not bad at all.

[Rob_L1664876404]

Jeffrey,

 

I know there are many who will "poo-poo" any response containing the name Kowa, but here goes. I have a "pistol" (on the left side) grip for my Kowa Six which makes it very easy to hand hold. Coupled with a prism finder or the metered chimney-style finder, it is only slightly less convenient than my 35's. This is mainly due to the fact that the camera is not AE and meter readings/exposure settings must be transferred to the lens manually. A similar configuration with a modern, coupled exposure MF should do well.

[robert_eastman]

"Is it the longer lens that is is required for the same angular coverage on the larger negative that causes this?"

 

Yes.

 

And if so, if one were to make the *same* size final print, would the DOF still be lesser on the one made from a 6x7 neg?

 

Yes. Standing in the same place a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera shot at f8 will give the same DOF as a 50mm lens shot at f8 on a MF camera. If you crop down the centre 24mmx36mm section of the MF image you will have two almost identical images. However the coverage of a MF 50mm lens is much wider, more like that of a 24-28mm in 35mm. So you have an angle of view much like the 24mm lens in your 35mm kit but with the DOF of a 50mm lens. Lets just say in the above example the image has two poles, one at the begining of the DOF at one at the rear. In both instances you are standing in the same place to take the photographs. Both images have the same DOF but the 35mm negative is a much smaller angle of view. The MF image has much more forground with the same DOF. You may have to read this a few times to get it but that is probably because I am poor at explaining things. I think all the details are there though.

 

Remember also that despite having a favourite film you can use faster film in MF than you would dare in 35mm. For instance I found the tonal range of TriX to give more pleasing portraits (to my eye) than my old favorite in 35mm delta 100.

 

Also despite the larger inertia of a MF camera remember the mirror is often as many times larger than that of a 35mm camera as a MF neg is larger than a 35mm neg.

[blueform]

The real issue with the RB is the method of support.

Take a look at the y-pod, it turns the RB into a lightweight.

You could shoot weddings far more effectively than with a monopod or tripod !