Medium Format Autofocus

[lee_saxon]

Looking to move into medium format, need some advice. Currently own a

Nikon F5 & D1x, still in utter shock about phrases like "ultra fast

1/500th of a second top shutter speed" and "extensive lens system"

meaning 7 lenses made for the camera - and the seemingly most modern

systems like the H1 and 645AFD have the features of a Nikon N75 but

cost triple what my F5 did!

 

Anyway, I was looking at the Rollei 6008AF cause it seems to actually

be at least sort of in this century with an LCD instead of LEDs and

actual in-camera AF & AE and (painful to hasselblad purists) a

battery. I read a post on the forum saying that the Hassy H1

autofocused slower than an F5 but faster than a D100/N80 - I'm

looking for a similar sort of comparison for the 6008AF from anyone

who's used one.

 

Thanks for the advice

[guytal]

I predict your attitude will set you up for failure. Think of it this way - a Formula racecar doesn't have a fraction of the conveniences of an RV. You need to decide if you want to cruise in comfort or win races. Sometimes you can't have it both ways.<br>

Yes, it's probably possible technologically to produce a MF camera with all the bells and whistles of a pro 35mm, but the demand for it will likely not justify the production costs. Most MF users don't need to freeze a speeding bullet, don't trust computers to tell them the "right" exposure, and can't come up with more than 5 well-thought-out compositions in a second to need a high speed motordrive.<br>

If you're more concerned with creature comforts and theoretical numbers than image quality, you may want to consider moving to digital rather than MF.<br>

<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

[marbing]

You should look at the specs for the Contax 645.<P>

<a href="http://www.contaxcameras.com/645/system/specs.html">Contax 645 Specs</a><P>

Not only would you find it handling more like your 35mm SLR but you would get to use the excellent AF Zeiss lenses that are available as well as the MF Hasselblad Zeiss lenses (with a mount adapter).

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Try using the nice quick focusing set-up features of the Sinar system (with a 617 MD MF back) for a month or two - would five or ten pictures an hour be fast enough for you?

[dale_dickerson2]

Bob Shell talked about the speed of the focus in his review in Shutterbug.

 

The 6008AF is the more advance electronics in MF.

 

As for shutter speeds remember the size of the film image is larger. A larger size shutter needed on a MF focal plane shutter camera means greater problems with things.

[ilkka]

Bob Shell also reviewed the Kodak 14MP SLR body recently. The only thing he could complain was that it ate a lot of batteries.

 

If you read the review at Luminous Landscape, for example, you can immediately see that some reviewers are more critical than others. And when you actually even just look, let alone try, the camera in question, you will quickly see who is right.

[richard_cochran]

Those systems that cost triple what an F5 did also have

about triple the film real estate, and they sell to a

much smaller market. What did you expect?

<p>

You also won't find many zoom lenses available for medium

format. The reason is much the same -- the market is

tiny and much of it is populated by people who don't

want those gadgets, or at least who aren't willing to pay

the price in dollars, weight, and sharpness.

<p>

If you really love fast motor drives, fast autofocus, wide

selection of lenses, and LCDs, don't switch to MF. No medium format

system will ever give you those things as well as 35mm does.

Even if the market size were the same,

the physics of moving larger film area and larger lenses

doesn't permit the high speeds of the fastest 35mm cameras.

There are plenty of grab-shot situations where 35mm is clearly

more appropriate than anything bigger.

Keep your 35mm gear, but perhaps you may want to add medium format to

your arsenal for use only in those situations when you're

willing to give up a little in electronics for a gain in

enlargeability. If you don't ask it to do everything, you

may find that it handles its appropriate niche very well.

[dmanthree]

I use a Pentax 645NII and a Nikon F100, and can offer some thoughts:

 

-The Pentax isn't nearly as fast as the F100

-There aren't as many lenses and accessories available for the Pentax as the Nikon.

-The AF isn't as fast in the Pentax as the Nikon, but it's fast enough for everything except very fast sports. Accurate, too.

-The controls on the Pentax are more logical and useful (IMO) than the Nikon. The Pentax system of slides, knobs, and levers is very easy to master, and seems more intuitive than Nikon's buttons, wheels, and LCD screen.

-Pentax has an excellent selection of lenses, and you can use the lenses for the 67 series, as well. I have three lenses (33-55, 55-110, and 150-300), all zooms, and all three are excellent.

-If daylight flash is important, Pentax is weak, and relies on special leaf shutter lenses to fill the gap. But they do work well.

 

 

In short, you won't replace your Nikons with any MF system, but you may find yourself shooting MF in place of 35, and actually using less film. I tend to think through shots more with MF than 35, for whatever reason. Also, the cost of competing systems was restritively high. Also, before you plunk down money for a Rollei, make sure you understand how they work. Do they still have those stupid rechargeable batteries that are never ready?

 

I think before you plunk down what it takes to buy a Rollei, you might first try to rent one and shoot a few rolls. You may love it, you may hate it, but at least you'd know.

[lee_saxon]

Everyone focused on paragraph 1 of my post (guess I struck a nerve) but noone really answered my question. I did find out that the Pentax is slower than an F100, but that wasn't my question.

 

One person did elude to a review which answered my question, but since I don't subscribe to the magazine, I must ask again - how fast is the 6008AF, can anyone tell me that?

[lee_saxon]

Oh forgot to mention, in response to other things some said - I'm not an idiot, I'm not trying to REPLACE 35mm or MOVE TO medium format. 35mm is better for sports (although most of the time DSLRs are even better - why do I even have a 35mm camera if I have a D1x haha) most of the time, whereas in the studio, you can sacrifice speed for the bigger negative size. I want to have the best of all three worlds (which would in my opinion be the F5, the D1x, and for MF I'm not sure yet).

 

BTW, if there's any AF cameras out there besides the Rollei (excluding 645, I want 6x6 or 6x7) - someone please tell me cause I've missed them. I don't really HAVE to have AF I guess, but what kills me is the lack of metering - I'm not some dummy 'trusting a computer to set aperature and shutter' as some implied, but I like to have the meter guiding me. How could you possibly do it without one? Buy a light meter which btw is also a computer?

[dmanthree]

Lee,

 

Guilty as charged. I haven't shot with the Rollei, and given the cost of that system, I'd bet most haven't. I just tried to make a comparison between an AF MF system and the Nikon. If it's useful, good, if not, oh well.

[hendrik]

Hi Lee,

Just some of my thoughts.

Your 35mm equipment is at the top of the food chain in what they do.

The H1 is the same in 645.

 

Most people answering you would become a little irate when talking about the "fastness" of MF systems but I for one don't mind the AF systems, build-in meters or even modern zoom lenses.

Everything has a place.

 

Yes Hasselblad is expensive, Contax is better and also has the Zeiss factor (which is pricey) and would be my personal recomendation - it's not up to the F5's 1/8000 shutter but at least 1/4000.

 

Last but not least - it may be tripple the price but it also is tripple (or better) the quality.

 

Good luck, enjoy!

 

Hendrik van Rooyen