davidgarth

I have a somewhat different view of this. The answer to the question "Which format is large enough to produce high quality prints of 24x30 size" has too many variables to be meaningful.

 

First, eveyone seems to define "acceptable" or "high" quality at a different place. I tend even to define it differently myself on different prints depending on the subject matter, amount of detail, and desired feel.

 

Second, what _can_ be accomplished with a given format may not be achievable by any given photographer on a given day depending on field conditions, skill level, quality of lenses, etc.

 

Lastly, even when the prints aren't sharper, good prints made from larger format films have a different "look" compared to good prints made from smaller negs. Different doesn't always mean better, but it usually does to large format users.

 

My advice, look at hundreds or thousands of good or great pictures in books, or better yet, in galleries. Most of the time, the photographer has made it know what format he/she used. Decide for yourself if the quality meets your standards. For example, Galen Rowell uses 35mm almost exclusively. His double truck 11x17 reproductions in his books look great to some people, and soft to others. Remember, you probably won't be able to meet these quality standards, at least for a while.

 

FYI, Robert Glenn Ketchum uses 645 and 67, and his books show off the potential of these formats nicely.

 

Good luck.

Here's another way of looking at this...

 

With any tilt/shift lens I know of, you must use a tripod to use it properly. How else can one carefully compose the picture, keep the film plane vertical, ect. And then there's the question of focus. Most people use lens tilt to tilt the plane of focus. They need extra magnification to see on the ground glass what's in focus and what's not. This is very difficult with a small fixed SLR viewfinder.

 

So bottom line, if one is going to lug a tripod and set up carefully (which one must to properly use a T/S lens) then why not use a 4x5 camera which is lighter and more versitile. Need roll film, then use a 120 back.

 

The proof of how small a market this would be is the small market penetration of the Fuji 680.

 

T/S on 35mm makes more sense, IMO. There are a number of applications which must be shot on 35, so there is no choice as to format. (One hour processing, small scanners, photo CD, etc.) So a T/S gives a photographer some flexibility, albiet with a loss of convenience.

This is an issue I am dealing with right now. It's very complicated and there are no easy answers. Here's my experience so far--

 

I shoot transparencies for stock and for an annual high quality soft cover book. I shoot both 35mm and Pentax 645. In the "old days" (2 years ago) our printer would scan transparencies with his $100,000 drum scanner. The larger the format the better from his point of view.

 

Now, both the printer and our graphic artist wants us to have Photo CD scans of the tranparencies. With anything larger than 35mm, you need a "pro" photo cd, which is more than twice an expensive as a regular Photo CD. (A Pro Photo CD full of images costs us over $1,000.)

 

Theoretically, a Pro Photo CD scan is not supposed to be as good as a high quality drum scan. We did many, many head-to-head tests this year, and all of the graphic arts pros viewing the comparisons felt the Pro Photo CD output (after PhotoShop manipulation) equaled the drum scan.

 

Once we have the digital files, sending them electronically is easy from either format.

 

No editor or other buyer of my stock work has complained about getting a large Pro Photo CD digital file. The 645 work looks only slightly better than 35mm in sizes less than 8.5x11. In anything larger, the 645 really shines.

Carl,

 

I use a B+W thin circular polarizer which has no front threads. It works fine with the 35 with no vignetting.

 

David Garth

Lev, your understanding of a free market and manufacturing costs is weak. Quoting you: "...it [Fuji 690] consists of the lens/shutter, light tight body with film advance and a rangefinder. It should cost $15 + cost of the lens and not $1500..." If a camera body is so easy to build for $15, why don't you go into business building them--you could make a cool $1000 on each one! BTW, your description of a $15 camera also fits the description of a Leica.

 

A camera takes thousands of hours of research, design, engineering, production, prototyping, testing and manufacturing. Also, to sell them, each has it's share of sales and marketing, advertising, dealer support, shipping, and customer support.

 

Medium format cameras typically cost more because 1) they make fewer units, so they have to spread the cost of development and overhead over fewer units and 2) Medium format cameras are typically designed for professional, heavy duty usage. They aren't much more expensive than professional quality 35mm gear. For example, a Pentax 645n costs about the same as a Nikon F5.

These subjective questions are the reason photography stays so interesting. These personal observations are affected by a person's experience, skill, expectations, eyesight, and final use of the photography. There is no right or wrong answer, nor a format that best for everyone, or every assignment.

 

I primarily make 11x14 and 16x20 b&w prints using Ilford Delta 100 and chromes with Velvia for publication. Although through the years I have extensively used everything from 35mm to 4x5, I now do 99% of my work on 645. For me, the difference between 35mm and 645 is much more obvious than the difference between 645 and 67 or the difference between 67 and 4x5.

 

In B&W, the differences are less grain, more sharpness, and, most important, a smoother, creamier look to the tonality.

 

Make sure when you make your comparisons that your technique is excellent. A sturdy tripod, perfect exposure, film processed correctly (not over developed) first class enlarger lens and glass carrier are essential. If you are comparing color or B&W prints made by a consumer lab, their bad technique will mask any differences in format. If you don't have a darkroom, use a pro lab.

 

As another test, go to a large book store and compare the photos from one of Galen Rowell's fine books (who uses 35mm) to the photos in one of Robert Glenn Ketchum's books who used only 67 and 645, or one of the Alaska books by Fred Hirshman (Bush Pilots of Alaska is my favorite.) He uses only 645. To me the differences are obvious and worth the trouble.

I have owned both cameras. The Pentax 67 with a wood handgrip is marginal as a handheld camera. (It worked well for aerial work at high shuuter speeds with a need for very little depth of field.) The Pentax 645 handles as well as almost any pro-level 35 and is excellent for handheld work. The 645n with autofocus and matrix metring is especially well suited. The camera induced shake is MUCH LESS with the P645n than the P67II.

In general I agree with the previous posters. I, too am very happy with this camera and wouldn't change very much about it.

 

However, I also use a Pentax 645n for wildlife photography with a 600mm f5.6, sometimes with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. Mirror lock up would usually not be practical for these pictures. That being said, the sharpness of my chromes slightly but noticeably improved when I bought my Gitzo 1548 carbon fiber tripod. I can't say if the if the very slight unsharpness I was getting was caused by the mirror flap, the shutter, wind, my clumsiness, or a combination of these but, I suspect most people who think long telephotos aren't razor sharp would be surprised at how much of their problem is their tripod and their shooting technique.

 

David Garth

I have owned both of these cameras. Thay both have superior lenses and are easy to handle. The autofocus and exposure measuring work very well.

 

The 60mm is approximately equivalent to a 35mm lens on 35mm film. The 45mm is eqivalent to a 28mm. Which lens to you use most often and enjoy in your 35mm work? Probably, the one that's closest to it in view angle will be the one to buy.

Set the knob on the back to "m" (manual).

Hold the "Tv" (time value) button down while you turn the main adjustment know on the top. The shutter speeds read out on the top LCD panel.

Your price comparison isn't a fair one. A nice used 645n can be bought on ebay for around $1,500.

IMO, the 645n keeps all of the best features of the 645 and then adds some very significant ones. In addition to auto focus, there is focus confirmation (both visual and audible) with manual focus lenses, much improved metering with matrix and spot, much improved handling with knobs instead of push buttons, a much brighter viewfinder, improved bracketing, exposure data imprinting on film outside of frame, etc, etc. I certainly wouldn't call these features hype, but, in the end only you can decide if these features are worth anything to you.

Personally, the choice was easy for me when I bought the camera, and, now having used it for 6 months, I feel even more strongly that the 645n is worth the difference in cost.

I totally agree with Don. Adorama and CameraWorld.com are also excellent, but their prices are usually very close to B&H.

 

The other places who advertise significantly cheaper prices use bait and switch, inflated shipping and "handling" and other cons to make sure you'll NEVER get anything at the price they advertise.

I use Delta 100 and 400 exclusively in my 645. The difference between them is noticeable even in an 11x14. At that size the grain isn't that different, but the smoothness of the tonality is. At 16x20, grain is obvious (to me) with the 400, not visible at all with 100, with big tonality difference. At 20x24, the 400 shows very obvious grain, the 100 slight grain; the 100 looks a lot better. They both look very sharp. Hope this helps.

Before I started using the Pentax 645n I would have said that there was always a place for 35mm...wildlife with long lenses, sports, macro, and slide shows. Because I love to use this Pentax 645n so much, I'm not as sure now as I once was.

 

I have been doing some very "35ish" stuff lately with it and find it quite acceptable. I've shot with the 600mm f5.6 on some wildlife where I would have used my 400mmf3.5 Nikkor. The results were great.

 

For slide shows, I've been scanning the transparencies and showing them at 1024x768 with a computer. Very nice, bright, edge to edge sharp results, but the projector costs $6,000

 

For the normal landscapes and nature work I do for publication it really excels.

I don't really want to get into the fray of whether the "sunny 16" rule works in all parts of the world. However, for those who do really care about this, my advise is don't use Velvia for your comparisons. Even Fuji admits that almost everyone prefers to shoot Velvia at ISO 40 or even 25. Fuji explains on their website very clearly the technical reasons why this is so. (It relates to the fact that the ISO specifications take only gray scale into account, not color saturation.)

 

In any case, this quirk with Velvia could explain many of the differences you are reporting. I would suggest using a film like E100S which most people shoot at 100, and then use a camera (like an Nikon F5) where the shutter speed can be accurately set at exactly 1/100 of a second, and then use only a prime lens. Under these conditions I think you'll find that the sunny 16 rule is pretty darn close.

Jim,

 

I live in a small city of 50,000 people, and our pro lab (which does mostly weddings) does 6x9 for the same price as 6x7. So I would suggest checking further.

 

David Garth

If most of your pictures are cropped to a rectangle, you might be very happy with the new Pentax 645n. Very reliable, great lenses, selectable exposure modes, auto focus if neeeded, and a quick motor drive.

A camera to most serious photographers is more than just a tool; it can be almost an extension of yourself. It can be as personal a decision as to what car to drive or clothes to wear. When one finds a camera that "fits" we all feel that everyone should own that camera. But, it may not be as good a fit for them. So, recommending a camera is not always very productive.

 

But there's another problem: we can't know what camera you'll need because you don't really know yet what kind of photography you'll be doing. You know what you like to do now. Your photography will evolve, based on income potential, your style, your ability, and what you like.

 

I have been a part time professional for 30 years. I have shot 4x5, 6x9, 6x6, 6x4.5 and 35mm for nature, wildlife, some interiors, and other stock (No studio work.) I don't have an art director breathing down my neck, but some pressure is still always there. I have found that most of my photos in the last 6 months have been shot with my Pentax 645n. I agree with almost everything else that's been said, except:

 

1. Samy's camera in L.A. lists lot of Pentax 645 gear in their rental catalog, so it is available, at least there. I would suggest renting, at least for a day.

 

2. Mirror lock up is NOT needed with this camera. I have shot both macro and with the new autofocus 400mm with outstanding sharpness.

 

3. Film inserts are not as convenient as backs, but they make the camera cheaper, lighter and less complicated. Is it worth the trade off? For me it is.

 

The autofocus, metering, lenses, and handling of this camera are superb. I love it. But, I am not going to say it's for everyone.

I was told today by Pentax tech support that the 1.4 converter will only work with lenses 200mm and over because the converter goes partially inside the prime lens and with other lenses would mechanically interfere with the the rear element when the lens is focused on infinity.

Don,

 

If you are considering going to a manual focus camera like the P67, why not just manually focus your 645n? I have one, and I find it very easy to manually focus, especially with the audible focus confirmation.

My GA645 does not have an auto time off. However, it appears that if the shutter release is not partially depressed, none of the camera functions are actually "on" so battery drain is nill. Mostly, turning the camera off prevents unwanted exposures (or battery drain) from the shutter release being depressed accidently in your bag.

If the commercial lab you are using is not a pro custom lab, you are probably getting poorly devloped film and machine made prints. Neither will allow you to ever know the beauty and power of good black and white photography. They usually develop all film for the same time, and then print all prints with the same contrast paper. Dodging and burning is impossible with machine prints. While this may work OK for color, it hardly ever does for B&W.

 

If you want to learn B&W, see if your can borrow or rent a darkroom and learn to develop and print your own work. If that's impossible, try to find a pro custom lab (there are several good ones who do mail order.) They're not cheap, but it's worth it.

I shoot 645 and 6x9 and keep all of my 120 exposures in archival pages.

 

B&W negatives, which are not in sleeves, are stored in Vue All Vertical orientation pages for 6x7. (No number on them) They work fine for 645 with four on each row and a total of 16 per page, or for 6x9 with two exposures per row, or 8 total. Both are perfect for one roll.

 

For color transparencies in sleeves there are fewer choices. Many pages will not fit transparencies in sleeves. They will be so tight you'll go crazy trying to slide them in. I use Print file "Ultima" series (70-3HB). Transparencies slide in easily. But they are only 3 rows, so it takes more than one page per roll.

Does anyone out there have any first hand experience with the new

Pentax 645 autofocus 400mm f5.6? How are the results with a 1.4

multiplier. Are there any test reports out there yet on this lens?

 

I have been told that the 300 f4 is a * "star" lens of higher quality?

Is this true? Are there two quality levels of Pentax 645 lenses? Is

the 300 of better optical or mechanical quality than the 400?

 

Thanks,

 

David Garth