glen_johnson

There are four reasons to shoot slides. To what extent they apply to you, is up to you.

 

1. Slides are unforgiving. You have to nail the exposure. Shooting slides successfully proves you've mastered exposure issues.

 

2. The quality of a slide is independent of any printer. You can have them printed (often at great expense), but you don't HAVE to have them printed to enjoy your result. No one wants to sit around and look at negatives (although you can do this if you have a decent scanner and you scan them in).

 

3. Slides are a whole lot of fun to project. Medium format projection is expensive (minimum price of admission appears to be around $400 for a Rollei P11 on e-Bay), but the results are stunning compared to nearly any other form of viewing.

 

4. Many clients are used to looking at slides, and this is the format they want you to use. If you want to sell your images to these clients, you really have no choice.

Or not seen.

The Epson Photo Perfection 2450 is a very nice scanner, and it has a film holder that will handle medium format up to 6x9, as well as holders for two 6-frame 135 strips, up to four at a time 135 mounted slides, and a single 4x5 frame. The transparancy adapter (lid light) is actually quite large, so you can do transparancies larger than 4x5 if you want. I would expect such transparancies to lay flat enough to eliminate the need for a special holder.

 

The 2450 comes with Photo Shop Elements, Twain, and Silverfast FE. It can be connected to your computer via firewire, or usb. I was scanning within an hour of opening the box, and this was my first venture into film scanning. I have been quite impressed with this little package, especially since it has been available for $350 to $400. Some folks have criticized it since it doesn't have either ICE or FARE software (the Canonscan 2400 has FARE, for example). If you want to scan stuff that's damaged, ICE or FARE would be indispensible. For clean undamaged slides, a Static Master brush will do the trick, and if you've got stuff that's just dirty, PEC 12 and PEC pads will go a long way toward eliminating the need for special software.

 

I'm running it on a 1.5 Gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 with 256 Meg of memory and Windows XP.

Answering Rodger's question - if I were on a $1500 budget and wanted to get a nice used medium format system, I would definitely look at the manual focus Pentax stuff. I really think that I would probably migrate toward the 6x7 with two second hand lenses. You won't have easy mid-roll change capability, and you probably won't have a metering prism at this price point, but you can add a metering prism cheaply enough later, and you've already said that the ability to change rolls easily mid-roll isn't a requirement. A lot of folks have done beautiful landscape and portrait work with this genre, and used bodies, lenses, and accessories are plentiful.

Bob Chong makes the point that 35mm SLR users have never had a camera that took interchangeable backs, and yet they think that this is a very important feature for medium format cameras. He implies that this is a silly behavior.

 

Well, FWIW, in 35mm many of us have multiple bodies in order to juggle different film types in the middle of assignments. Some of us have even gone to the trouble to dedicate a polaroid back to a 35mm SLR body to have some proofing capability too.

 

In medium format, since backs are generally cheaper than whole bodies, it seems like a nice feature if a system allows you to juggle film types mid-assignment, or allows you to proof, without the expense of adding another body. When I chose a medium format system, I liked the idea of being able to change backs, and I especially liked the availability of a modestly priced (read non-NPC) polaroid back.

 

At this point, I still think multiple bodies beats multiple backs - its faster to just grab another body. Maybe that explains why so many event shooters who use medium format systems that have multiple backs end up with multiple bodies, or maybe its just the desire to have the backup for the odd emergency. I dunno.

 

I do know that, as a 135 shooter, the solution to no interchangeable backs is to have extra bodies - and I've done this dating back to 1972.

I think instead of taking a percentage of sales as the right figure, it would make more sense to consider how frequently you would expect to turn over your equipment. For example, I think that in a successful pro business you could plan to turn your equipment over every 5 years. If you had $20K invested, then setting aside $4K/year would give you a good budget for repair and replacement.

 

It really depends on your business, and the image of your business. Some pros pride themselves on never buying anything new. Others have clientele that expect to see the new colored Hasselblad bodies just as a fashion statement or a statement of newness. I know one pro who seems to spend nearly every nickel he makes from his business while he lives off of other investments. To each his own.

I don't know that it matters, but I guess what I should say about digital camera use is that I have been "digital camera free" for the past three years. We used a digital SLR based on the Nikon N90 for data collection before then, but I've never carried a digital SLR around with me to photograph events, or take studio style photographs. I am definitely NOT up to speed on current digital cameras... except to say that the results my various friends are able to get with them just keeps getting better and better and better. It is an exciting time for photography. We are living in what I would have to characterize as a golden age for films, and maybe even a golden age for film based camera systems. Sort of the same phenomenon I noticed back when CD's came in for music. We had a golden age for vinyl and a golden age for turntables, tonearms and cartridges for about a 5 or 6 years immediately following the introduction of the CD. Maybe there are more stubborn film lovers than there were stubborn vinyl lovers, or maybe vinyl really was fatally flawed for the average user, and maybe film isn't.

I still shoot film. I own no digital camera at the present time. I've only recently begun scanning my negatives in 135 and 645, so I'm low on the learning curve for digital photography. I posted above about the idea that many film backs weren't really an issue for digital because you don't need multiple ISO films, multiple types of film (b&w, C41, E6). What I forgot to mention was the Polaroid factor. The greatest advantage of a digital back over my film backs is the fact that with digital I have instant proofing, and if the proof is good, it can even become the primary image. With my film based system, I can use my polaroid back for proofing, but colors aren't exactly the same as they will be in my primary image, and neither are the expressions on the people's faces, or other things that are time dependent. With digital, I could proof in the field with NO extra gear, and that's one fewer back I have to keep in my bag, and one fewer film type I have to keep up with. Man, this thread is really making me move the price point where I might take the plunge up.

Frankly, I looked at Ralf's tests too, and the results for both the Canon and the Epson were not as good as I've seen in person. I think this is another one of those "your milage may vary" deals. These units are actually cheap enough to buy them both and return the one that you don't like. The quality of scans seems to be strongly influenced by the person doing the scanning.

 

FARE would seem to be of great value if your archive of negatives includes important ones that have been scratched or damaged, or if your processor was the sort of boob who let emulsions dry in an area where dust could get stuck in the emulsion. If your negatives are pretty much scratch free, and if your dust is just routine surface dust that can be taken off easily with a Static Master brush, and if your negatives aren't so "dirty" that you can't clean then with PEC 12 and PEC pads, then the presence or absence of something like FARE or Digitial Ice could be a deal clinching issue.

The Hartblei stuff sells frequently on eBay. The Kiev importer is the one who puts them up for sale. Frankly, if you actually go to their web site and check out the image quality, it is substandard - even for internet publication. I know that there is a possibility that these lenses are higher quality than what the images taken with them show on their internet site, but caveat emptor. I was tempted to buy one of these, but lost interest quickly when I saw what they were promoting as their good examples of work with the lens. These images made my old Yashica Mat 124 G look like a Rollei.

Aside from having one backup back, I'm not sure why one would need a whole slew of digital backs. You don't need to worry about running out of film in mid-shoot, you don't need to have one back with b&w, one with tungsten, one with color negative, one with transparancy film, one with ISO 100 and one with ISO 400, etc. This is a serious shortcoming of film compared to digital. I will predict digital backs with on the order of 6 to 10 Mega Pixels at a price of $3k, within five years. At that price point, I'd just as soon have a couple of digital backs as a whole drawer full of 30 year old backs loaded with film that has to be refridgerated, and has to be stocked in five or more flavors, not to mention the costs associated with processing, archiving the end result, etc. At this point I'm still happy to use film because of cost issues, but costs are changing rapidly, and I'll bet that 10 years from now I'll probably wonder why I stuck with film for so long.

I'm not sure why we should worry about our medium format investments. I think that medium format digital backs will eventually come down to the same price range as high end digital SLRs in the 135 format - at least for comparable file size capabilities. Medium format backs that offer things like 2 to 3 times the number of pixels will certainly continue to be more expensive, but they also offer more to the user.

If there's significant ambient light, you're going to get ghosting when you have a slow synch speed, unless you run the aperture up to the point where ambient light is irrelevant. Unfortunately, when you do this, the background goes dark, and the image looks like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

I have a Porter hard case, and I love it for travel. It holds a fairly extensive collection of gear (not as much as a Tamrac 614, but more than a Domke J-1). The best part is that it converts into a baggage truck, i.e., the body folds down and the handle extends, and you can actually mount a couple of suitcases and roll the whole thing from your car to the baggage check in. Once you've ditched the suitcases with the baggage gorillas, you can then fold the Porter case back into a configuration that is more compact, and still rolls through the airport. It is carryon size, and the grip is the most comfortable grip I've ever had on any bag.

They're both good for modestly priced scanners. They probably represent a "next" generation. These are the first two flat bed scanners of modest price that have actually been recommended by anyone for film scanning.

 

FWIW, the Epson has a fire wire port, a larger transparancy adapter, and slightly better specs according to some. The Canon does not have fire wire, is reportedly slow, but does have the FARE program for automatic correction of dust and scratches during the scan, and also according to some has the same specs as the Epson. In the US the Epson was available at the Sam's Club web site for $350. The Canon from B&H for around $460.

 

After looking at both, I ended up buying the Epson, and I'm very pleased. I am a longtime wet darkroom person making my initial forray into digital. It has been a pleasant experience so far. Shutterbug reviewed both of these scanners during the past few months, and both reviews were positive (surpise), but the Epson review was more positive. Also, the Fare software is cited by some as a reason to go with the Canon, but my own experience so far suggests that unless your slides are damaged, the simple precautions associated with normal dust control on negatives during enlarging is adequate to avoid problems. Static control, Static Master brushes, PEC pads and solution, etc. are all part of normal habits that need to extend from wet to digital.

I use Kodak's chemistry, rather than Tetenal, but the 3 minutes 15 seconds sounds about right. I have followed Jobo's recommendations on times and temperatures (I don't have them here in front of me), and I've been very pleased with the results. FWIW, the Jobo importer in the USA has been very helpful with specific questions whenever I've needed advice. If you are in the USA, perhaps you could give them a call. If you are in another country, you might want to try your own local importer.

One last thought for Paal. If I lived in Norway (as I think I recall that you do), I'm sure I would change many things about the way I shoot, and the way I pursue the photographic hobby. I would be watching the budget much more carefully, and like you, I think I would probably end up picking the Pentax as the best choice for medium format (if for no other reason that to deprive the Swedes the satisfaction of another Hasselblad sale :-)). Jeg elsker dette landet. Takk for sist.

Paal, we'll have to disagree on whether or not I can use even a Pentax 645 in the style I prefer for events and sports. I believe that the Pentax 645 meets your needs very well, and I also believe that it is an excellent camera, and an excellent system.... I still would not want to lug two of them around with lenses, nor would I trust them to do the job when I need/want 5 frames per second with continuous focus tracking at Churchill Downs, or at a joust, or at a hockey game, or .... I would agree that the Contax AND the Pentax 645 are better, more flexible, easier to use tools than the old 35mm SLR's that are held in such high regard by so many, but compared to modern Nikon or Canon 35mm systems, they're sorely limited.

 

Ha det...

The Contax 645 won't shoot at 2 frames per second in spite of B&H ads to the contrary. The Contax specs indicate 1.6 frames per second. Really, I love this camera and this system FOR MEDIUM FORMAT. It is not a substitute for a Canon or Nikon SLR based system for general PJ style event shooting, sports, action, etc. It may look and act like a high end 35mm SLR, but the Pentax 6x7 did this too back in the day, and many people who lusted after these and eventually bought them soon figured out that medium format must be respected for what it is, not for what it isn't. Medium format is a professional medium for folks who shoot stuff that can be shot with patience and care. It is not a format for the 35mm style "shootist," even when manufacturers build stuff like Pentax 6x7's and Contax 645's.

I dunno. I hear about the idea that these Yashica Mat 124G's are real sharp from a lot of folks, but the one I bought new back in 1976 was a modest performer at best. Folks are giving advice about the focusing lens being out of synch with the taking lens... and maybe that's true - you'll have to check. But come on guys. How much could it be off? From 20 feet to infinity at f/8 or smaller aperture, don't you think the depth of field ought to give you a little leeway on this? Maybe if its only soft for stuff under 5 feet or at large apertures I could buy this idea. These cameras were not expensive when they were new. They were the "poor man's" TLR, holding a market niche similar to the Seagull today. The fact that some of them (maybe a lot of them) weren't that sharp shouldn't really be a surprise. I'll buy the idea that some of them are pretty sharp, but I'm sure that there were some dogs in the pile too.

FWIW, I've bought stuff from Anthony, and I've been very pleased with his service. He describes things honestly, and he ships things quickly. I would buy from him again.

 

Regarding the US prices, actually the markups on many of the items is not that great. Maybe the importer is making the money. The retail prices are high, but no one can charge retail since there are so many places where sub-retail prices are advertised.

 

I once went through Canon and Nikon price lists with a local dealer and the regional Canon rep, and we compared the dealer's cost to the actual selling prices at B&H. In some cases (like for F5 and 1N) the B&H actual selling price was lower than what the local dealer could buy at quantity discount from Canon or Nikon. It was easy to understand the frustration of the local dealer.

 

The Canon rep insisted that the volume price discount for the dealer was the best price available to any dealer, including B&H. Later another rep suggested that what happens is this: The price to the dealer is correct, but if the dealer (like B&H) buys a gajillion of them, they also receive a whole bunch more "for free." I don't know if this is true or not, but it would explain how Canon could state that the lowest dealer price is the same to all, while B&H can keep from going out of business while selling below the published dealer volume price.

 

I know that I would not want to be in the photo equipment sales business. I tip my hat to the folks who can make a living at it, whether they're in the US, or overseas. The margins look pretty small to me - at least on Nikon and Canon. Maybe the margins on Hasselblad are better. Certainly Hasselblad seems to do a better job of controlling price to avoid steep discounts from authorized dealers in the US.

For Bob Chong:

 

No, the 35mm frame is 24mm x 36mm. This is the same format as 4x6. The 645 is closer to the format ratio of 4x5, 8x10, etc.

This whole diopter adjustment requirement is a red herring. It makes no sense at all. As for the autofocus on the Contax 645, it has trouble with low light, and it has trouble with strong patterns compared to a 1N and a 50 f/1.4. Compared to a 1N and a f/3.5-5.6 zoom, it actually seems to do at least as well.

The cost of the batteries is hardly the major difference between the Contax and the Pentax. The Pentax is modestly priced, as are its lenses and accessories. If someone is worried about the battery cost for the Contax, they will find even greater shocks when they go to add lenses and accessories. Yes, I suppose it would be nice if the batteries lasted longer - but when you look at all of the expenses associated with medium format photography, the cost of the batteries just doesn't seem to be that significant to me.

Mega Vision has had one that was compatible with the Contax 645 for some time. It retails for around $15K. Maybe it will come down to compete with the new Kodak. And, of course, there's the Contax N1 Digital body with the 6 mp and 24mm x 36mm ccd as well as the adapter that allows you to use your 645 lenses. Has anyone been able to get ahold of one of these yet? I haven't checked in the last two weeks, but they hadn't shipped the last time I did check.