Med Format for Portraiture,Arch,Scenic-All rounder

[jack_sheild]

I have used a 35mm K1000 Pentax for many years and wish to upgrade to a

Medium format camera for architectural, scenic and indoor portrait

photography. I am confused about what sort of camera is suitable for

the aforementioned and one which is economical and can provide me with

quality images for picture libraries?

 

Many thanks

[richard baznik]

Jack: Your question doesn't specific your intended use for these images or your price range, but the list of applications you offered suggests that you might need a camera that includes adjustments for perspective control. There are several threads in the archives section of this site under "Format" that address related topics.

 

Good luck.

[patrick_drennon]

Most of the popular MF systems offer shift lenses. The arch work I've done would be difficult to do with an MF rangefinder (doesn't mean you can't, I would have struggled with it). That would limit your choices to the various SLR options.

 

Your description of use would not take advantage of MF's best qualities, that being portability and speed. If I had the same description of use I would be looking at large or medium format view cameras. The best of MF system movements available pale in comparison to view camera movements. You also pay a huge premium for that flexibility (a Pentax 67 shift lens is more expensive than a basic sinar with a good 210 f/5.6 lens). The cut film pain can be helped with roll film backs. Just a suggestion. If you have your heart set on MF there are a gazillion threads on each system in the archives.

[stephen_poe]

Maybe what you really need is 2 cameras (works for me)- I have a Century Crown Graphic that I use for architectural and senic - and some close-up work. It was not all that expensive, gives pretty decent movements, and with a 65mm Angulon, 101mm Ektar, and 135mm Xenar (all older and much less expensive lenses) can handle a wide variety of situations. For my portrait work I have been using a Mamiya C330 with a 135mm lens - and have been very pleased with both the way the camera handles and the results. With some care and patience you could get both outfits for well under $1000. I think with your range of interests it is going to be hard to find one camera that will do it all.

 

Stephen Poe

[stephen_poe]

Just realized that I had forgotten to note that the Century Crown is a 2 1/2 by 3 1/4 with a Graflok back that allows you to use 120 roll film holders - I use 6x6, 6x7 or 6x9 depending on the application - the 6x9 Horseman back is very nice and flat to use for senic work - with a 65mm it is getting sort of panoramic - and all the time allowing you to stay with the 120/220 format.

 

SP

[jeff_drew3]

Since you want an "all-rounder", I would strongly recommend the 6x6cm square format! It's great for portraiture and interiors. Pick up a Hasselblad quarterly, or a book specializing in 6x6cm format pictures and you'll see my point. Yes, it's a compromise in many areas, but that is what you want. You can start for a relatively reasonable investment, too.

[ggg_ttt]

I've been through trying to do things in MF on the cheap --- in my

view, it is false economy -- especially if you are considering

shooting a lot of film (look at the cost of 100 rolls of 120 e-6 and

processing - consider shooting that over a period of 1 year and

suddenly those cameras don't look so expensive.). If you are

considering shooting pictures for picture libraries (is this for stock

photos?) I might just stick with a good quality 35mm and prime lenses.

Most of your end users of stock photos don't need a bigger

transparency than a 35mm anyway.<p>

The aforementioned crown graphic seems like a good deal --- but a LOT

of the Graflex cameras you see for sale at camera shows need a little

bit of work -- including sluggish shutters, rangefinder adjustment,

etc. It is true that they offer slight perspective controls ( a

little bit of shift, tilt and rise all on the front standard - 35mm

users will rejoice when they pick up the Crown Graphic, LF users will

feel limited...) but only with the longer lenses --- the shorter

lenses like the 65mm can only offer a slight bit of upward rise. I

replaced the lens on my 2x3 crown graphic with a lens for a Linhof 2x3

camera --- the results are better, but it drives up the cost too. I

like using the crown graphic, but don't think it is a good camera for

a business venture. It's better for my art photos and my personal

amusement. And the camera cant take conventional polaroid backs like

the hasselblad or similar cameras which means that in tricky lighting

situations you end up bracketing more. A lot of people complain about

the cost of polaroid --- I realize that in the last three years since

I started to use it, my film costs have actually come down.<p>

There are older MF cameras like Kowa and Bronica s-2 that cost a

fraction of the newer cameras like Hasselblad, but for a lot of these

cameras, spare parts may be unavailible and so savings in purchase may

be more than lost in cost of ownership over time. I decided it was

not a risk I could afford to take.<p>

In your place, I would try to make my stock photos with 35mm. It will

take you a while to build up a library of saleable images and to find

clients to buy them. If your clients want larger film, then look into

MF. If you must get a MF camera, I would take the plunge and get an

expensive system camer