mediumformat

<p>For as cheap as radio triggers are, why not just get a set from ebay for $40? Will work with any camera that has a hotshoe or pc connection.</p>

<p>As a recent user of Bronica equipment (SQ-AM with 80/2.8 and 50/3.5 S lenses), I see no difference to 80/2.8 Zeiss Planar from the Hassy I used to shoot. These are all looking at transparencies on light table with 6x loupe.<br>

Here's a chap on the Kiev list that has done a lot of comparisons of medium format lenses, including Zeiss and Bronica. I just don't see any difference in the 80/2.8 Zeiss compared to 80/2.8 Bronica:<br>

<a href="http://kievaholic.com/LensTestsNormal2/index.html">http://kievaholic.com/LensTestsNormal2/index.html</a><br>

For the most part, sharpness will be more affected by use/non-use of a solid tripod and mirror-slap than apparent lens sahrpness. In the real world, it's a wash.</p>

 

<p>One of the best cameras ever! Just can't be beat for the combination of ease of use, features, and performance.</p>

<p>"Don't forget that preserving film archives of any kind for time immemorial is hardly straightforward."</p>

<p>I think this is a much bigger issue for digital than for film. The archival properties of film are one reason why it is still so valuable. Will we be able to see the digital 'files' we made 100 years from now, like we can routinely see in film-based exhibits (often work from 100 years ago or more) in museums around the world?</p>

<p>So far, the only progress made in the digital sphere on any practical basis is the DNG format, but even this will face extinction as more possibilities are developed.</p>

<p>While film is "outdated" compared to digital in most user convenience measures, it remains to be seen how well digital files will survive even the next twenty years. Which brings us back to the only real archival method for digital files, which is, quite ironically, the creation of actual prints.</p>

<p>And while anyone can use the exact same camera used by a photographer 100 years ago and produce similar results using the exact same methods, will anyone be able to use a 5DMkii or D700 in even 20 years -- it's doubtful these will even exist except on collector's shelves and in pop culture museums.</p>

<p>The big ergonomic advantage besides the film size of the RB/RZ is the rotating back, which means no turning the camera for portrait vs landscape. That's also true for 6x6, but OP is asking about 6x7.</p>

<p>Here's some more fuel to the fire posted by a real wedding photographer comparing a 5DMKII to Ektar 100:<br>

<a href="http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html">Digital vs. Film - Canon 5D Mark II vs. Kodak Ektar 35mm </a></p>

 

<p>In looking at the wedding images you linked to above, note that in the forest images, many have a very shallow depth of field, probably shot wide open or near wide open with a DSLR and pro zoom lens. Note how the backgrounds are completely "blown out" in some of those images.</p>

<p>To get that with an RB, you'll need to shoot at wide aperture as well, but note that you can only go to 1/500th (I think), while a DSLR can shoot as fast as 1/4,000th if needed. The best you can do with the RB is shoot a longer lens at a closer distance so you can blow out the background. On the plus side, you can flash sync at max shutter speed, and I don't know of any current DSLR that (without tricks) can sync at 1/500th.</p>

<p>It's hard to tell from those images, but I'm pretty sure fill-flash was used. You can tell by how blown out the bride's dress is in many of these images. I don't know that this technique is flattering, as many brides have spent a lot of money and time on their dress, and would love to see how beautiful it is in their wedding photos. IMO, there's not enough detail left to see in the dress.</p>

<p>Also note that nearly every image shows emotion on the faces -- surpise, joy, etc...Don't waste exposures that don't show some emotion in some way.</p>

<p>Please don't try to shoot this wedding with that gear without thoroughly testing your exposures first. Use the setup you plan to take, and start shooting at set f-stops, set distances, and set flash settings. Process film and closely note your results.<br>

By doing this, you can go to the wedding knowing what your exposures should be without having to re-meter anything. Then, you can devote your attention to content, composition, and emotion, and not on technical issues. If your images are boring, it doesn't matter how big the negative.<br>

Please bring two backups -- a digital SLR would be best, but if not that, a quality 35mm film SLR will also work. Get or rent a Nikon F5, a couple low-light lenses (50/1.4, or 85/1.4, pro zoom with VR).<br>

Preparation is key!!</p>

<p>Nikon F4 (brought 35mm SLRs into modern era by almost any measure) and Contax Rx (smooth as silk manual focus SLR with automation). Perhaps the two most capable "modern" film cameras that could do it all, and were superbly engineered.<br>

Canon T-90 has also already been mentioned -- yes to that as well -- the multiple-spot meter reading capability should have become standard on all SLRs.<br>

The Nikon F6 only because it represents the end of 35mm film SLRs. Steve McCurry used an F6 to shoot that last roll of Kodachrome...</p>

<p>The RC is a great camera! I'm always amazed at the quality it delivers, and how easy it is to shoot. How can you beat being able to see both shutter speeds and aperture setting in the viewfinder all the time...flash sync at 1/500th...hot shoe and pc connection...very accurate auto exposure. It really is a great little camera.</p>

<p>I'm brand new to Contax as I just got an Rx. I did not have any C/Y lenses, Zeiss or otherwise. Fortunately, the local pro shop that has a good amount of used gear had a Panagor 24/2.5 for $13! It's now on my Contax and I'm having great fun with it. Will see how sharp it is when I get the Provia back.</p>

<p>Absolute marketing garbage...to naive youth that have no knowledge of photohraphy.</p>

<p>Yet another view. I also handled a CLE at a local pro shop several months ago, intrigued by the information I saw online. Overall, I did not really like the handling of the camera.<br>

I dropped the interest completely when I saw that it had a cloth focal plane shutter with flash sync at a measely 1/60th. If you want to do any significant fill-flash or more sophisticated lighting, 1/60th just doesn't work.<br>

Overall, I think the Olympus 35SP is a better camera, unless you're 100% wed to Leica lenses. The lens on the Olympus (7 element five group 42/1.7 Zuiko) is great. Has both center-weighted and spot metering, and flash sync from 1 second to 1/500th since the electronic shutter is in the lens.</p>

<p>The only Lumedyne Ringflash I saw on ebay recently sold for about $800. At that price, I would still buy a used Profoto for $500 or so, send it to Flash Clinic in NYC to convert it. I also use a Lumedyne system, and while their ringflash looks nice, it seems way overpriced to me, and there are very few available used...<br>

R.J.</p>

<p>The X- series are so inexpensive and useful. I have two X-570 bodies, one of which always has a Soligor 135/2 mounted, and the other body 50/1.4 Rokkor-x. Even when a body fails, you can get a fine replacement for $20! </p>

<p>If you're shooting 120 film, then as Kelly has noted, you better pack your own! I shoot 120 travelling all the time, but I have my own stash at all times.<br>

I agree with the others so far: best optics performance, ease of use, etc. Mamiya 7 or 7II. If you are going to make large prints as you say, and expect to see best quality, then 6x7 is the way to go.<br>

Next best choice also mentioned: the Fuji GS rangefinders. Still readily available, not the $$ of the Mamiya, and excellent optics.</p>

<p>Dave Carroll -- that's one of the most beautiful hi-key portraits I have ever seen -- just fabulous lighting.<br>

My medium format most-used is for portraiture:<br>

Rolleiflex 2.8C Planar (still an amazing camera and lens)<br>

Graflex 3x4 Super D with rollfilm backs (if you haven't looked down through the chimney of a Super D you don't know what you're missing. Also has auto stop down!)<br>

Norita 66 with 80/2 (super fun giant SLR with great lens)<br>

There are others but these cameras/lenses consistently produce awesome results, really different from digital.</p><div></div>

No way! I just recently acquired a mint in case Voightlander Vito IIa at a thrift store for $10. Has a beautiful color-skopar 50/3.5, and full-featured Prontor shutter with pc-sync. The Prontor shutter purrs perfectly at all speeds. I've shot 2 rolls of film with it and I love it.

 

R.J.

Get one of the Canon SD series as suggested, because these are inexpensive, work well, and you can install the Canon hack application that will add RAW capaibilities and a bunch of other useful features, all for free.

 

R.J.

I also love my Norita 66 too. I have the 55 and the 80. The 55 is surprisingly good - it's slow at f4 but is quite sharp. Would love to have the 40.

 

What I really like about the Norita is how easy it is to handhold slow shutter speeds - very light mirror movement, while the camera is solid and heavy. It's a real film gem.

 

 

RJ

Many people miss the fact that most Rolleiflexes made in the 1950s and beyond came standard with a grid viewing screen which has two vertical and two horizontal lines intersecting perfectly to apply the "rule" of thirds. It's no coincidence.

 

I love 6x6 framing -- it can bold and strong or softer and more oblique as needed.

 

R.J.

No need really for the specialized metal Mamiya hood. Just purchase a simple, $6 rubber screw-on hood for the taking lens. It will do just as well as the giant metal hood.

You'd be crazy not to get into medium format now! Prices are lowest in history, and selection is wide, whether you want 6x6, 6x7, other size, TLR, SLR, etc.

 

Look, I have and shoot a Fuji S3 Pro, which is 12MP with extended dynamic range, etc etc. The best images from this are still not really comparable to a 4800dpi scanned transparency from my Minolta Autocord TLR, a camera which cost $80, plus $25 for a new viewing screen that I installed.

 

Roll film will be around for along time to come.

 

R.J.

Danee,

 

Ellis was being kind -- don't ask for Alien Bees ringflash as you would probably be laughed out of the shop. Profoto is the way to go, and be prepared -- the battery pack is going to weigh a lot. Note that you need to be tethered to the battery pack to use the ringflash.

 

You should also do some testing prior to the event or you will need to adjust exposures quite a bit depending on how much power you run into the flash. Also test the pack with you as subject so you understand the power of the flash that the ring will put out.

 

R.J.

Why go digital? Pentax 67 cameras and lenses are incredibly cheap right now, and can deliver superb images. Some fashion photogs still use them. Why not shoot the Pentax and scan the slides/negatives? You will have digital image that far surpasses digital.

 

R.J.