graham_meek

<p>Thanks everyone for your contributions.</p>

<p>I'm not going to rush things, but mull it over over the next few months, especially the ££ factor! </p>

<p>I'm right in thinking that the basics I will need (for colour film/slides) is camera, lenses (90 mm and 150mm perhaps), dark cloth, focussing loupe, film holders (3), spot meter, lens boards, scanner, film tent for loading sheet film and umbrella/i-pod whilst waiting for the light? Anything obvious I have missed? Hoping that the current Manfrotto 055MF4 + Arca Swiss Z1 ballhead will be stable enough with a Tachihara/Wista/ShenHao/Chamonix 45n?</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Graham</p>

<p>Thanks David for that.<br>

I already have a contemplative approach I reckon!<br>

How about blowing highlights with slide film? I read that slide film is preferred for 5 x 4...is this so? Maybe easier/better to scan?</p>

<p>Graham</p>

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>First time post on this forum, so please be gentle with me!</p>

<p>I've been seriously interested in photography for around 5 years and over that time realise I like to photograph landscapes, people and places. I heavily focus on landscapes and the other subjects when travelling. For the type of photos I take, probably best to view my website: <a href="http://www.meekymanphotogpahy.co.uk">www.meekymanphotogpahy.co.uk</a>. Photography is a hobby for me and I generally take time out for photo trips by myself, be it one day, a weekend or more every now and then. Obviously holidays are with my wife and not normally photo orientated.</p>

<p>I have gone through the upgrade/upgrade path and now use a Nikon D700 with quality primes, some manual focus and some autofocus as well as two zooms. When out taking landscapes I use the manual focus primes and am happy with what I make but wonder if I am really being silly here. After all I am using a full frame digital for it's supposed higher quality images (large sensor and all that). But then I am slow and methodical when out landscaping...being selective over the subject, always on the tripod, waiting for the light and frequently a weekend away means I come back with no more than 4 photos. I don't want to be on an endless path of "upgrading" a digital camera and am wondering if it's worth transitioning to a 5 x4 view camera for my landscape photos. I'd then sell the D700 and several lenses, to fund the move and buy a simple crop sensor digital for photos of people and places when travelling for non photo specific holidays where a 5 x4 would be impractical. </p>

<p>What I like about digital are the histogram (I usually manually spotmeter landscapes), the ability to change iso and white balance. Are the lack of these a restriction on 5 x4? Seems to me I have seen many photos taken with a view camera where they are not exactly catching the light at it's best. For landscapers out there, is it possible/easy to use a view camera when "chasing the light"? I guess it comes down to predicting the light? Also, lets say the conditions needed for taking waterfall photos, overcast light, with a digitial I can alter the iso to get the shutter speed I want for the desired effect in the water and a large depth of field. Yet with a view camera I get the impression that you'd be talking multiple second exposures for these situations..right?</p>

<p>I know I should take a workshop using a view camera before leaping, and I will, but just wanted to gather opinions.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Graham</p>

<p>Thanks once again to everyone who took their time to contribute. <br>

I thought about it and realised that the expense of the mamiya 7 meant it would be an expensive experiement, whilst the bulk of a mamiya/pentax 6 x7 camera would lead me to loath it. From personal experience I was recently in the outback of China at 4000m elavation trekking with my crop-DSLR and a few lenses/food/clothing/tripod and I can only imagine how much more painful a bulkier camera outfit would be! Also, my life is changing at the moment...new house, getting married, hopefullly start a family after that and ultimately I see time being a challenge.<br>

So, in the end I've bought a used Nikon D700. I will throw a few quality primes in the bag (not wanting to start a prime/zoom war now!) and enjoy that. I can always think about film as I get older and wiser !!<br>

Cheers,<br>

Graham</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply.<br>

I take on board the argument for going for the biggest negative size possible, which to me means 4x5 and large format. But experience tells me that I'd not carry all that weight very often and probably likewise with a 6x7 camera (e.g RB67) and a mamiya 7 seems not the most practical to use, to me.<br>

I think in the end I'll buy a Nikon full frame DSLR (D700), some quality prime lenses and then, as suggested, in time a film Nikon camera and see if I like all that goes with film. If I do, then maybe MF in the future. But the devil's advocate in me is whispering "for a few hundred pounds, buy a MF camera, try it and sell it quickly, at little loss, if it's not for you"! Ah, indecision :-)<br>

Cheers,<br>

Graham</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

I'm thinking of buying a MF camera, Mamiya 645 manual focus with a few lenses. I'm quite a keen hobbyist and take mainly landscapes, the odd portrait when travelling and some studio sessions for family/friends etc. Better to see my website, <a href="http://www.meekymanphotography.co.uk">www.meekymanphotography.co.uk</a><br>

I learnt photography using digital camera's and I've never used a film camera. So, I've "grown up" with ISO flexibility, histogram analysis, photoshop, exposure blending etc. and use a tripod, wait for the light, use Mirror lock-up, cable release etc. I currently use a Nikon D200 and would like a full-frame camera, but then the more I think about it the more I reckon a MF camera would offer me the detail that I just can't seem to get with a Nikon D200. I'd like to be able to print to A3 and A2 occassionally. Looking at secondhand prices, I can pick up a Mamiya 645 Pro TL with 3/4 manual focus lenses, prism, a few backs and an Epson V750 scanner for the price of a Nikon D700! Then I would consider a 2 camera strategy.....MT for patient landscape sessions, Nikon D200/D90 with a few lenses for all else. The alternative is to buy the D700 with some good (Zeiss) prime lenses and convenience says D700, quality says MF!<br>

But, I fear that I would make a right mess of using a film camera! A few serious questions then,<br>

1) How good are Mamiya 645 manual focus lenses(35mm, 55mm, 80mm, 150mm)?<br>

2) How does film differ to digital in terms of exposure latitude......my camera seems to burn highlights easily. Does film capture more contrasty scenes better than digital? Do negative and slide film differ in this regard?<br>

3) What scans better....negative or slide film?<br>

4) Will the detail from a 645 scan blow me away in terms of detail against a digital file from Nikon D700? I realise there's a difference in terms of flatbed/drum scanning quality.<br>

5) Anybody have experience like me...from learning on digital to using film MF and have good/bad comments to make?<br>

I work slowly and do not produce a large quantity of images, so the slowness of the capture/process/scan would not be a killer. <br>

Cheers<br>

Graham</p>

<p>Thanks once again for everyone's contributions. Thanks for your comments Ronald...made sense to me.<br>

Cheers<br>

Graham</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your contributions.<br>

As always I imagined that such a question would provoke responses such as "upgrade the photographer" and expected that. I am grateful that other people chipped in with other opinions as well. I have attended classes, have a good grasp of the technical aspects of photography and am starting out on the journey of the artistic aspects. I do travel a few times of the year solely for photographic purposes. Having "better" equipment alone will not make me a "better" photographer...I am not stupid to think that. But I have been frustrated by several aspects of the equipment I use at the moment and hoped to garner opinions on which way to move.<br>

Medium format would be great, but unfortunately is out of my reach financially. I have looked into MF camera's for landscape photography, but the need for a good scanner again sends the costs escalating.<br>

Cheers<br>

Graham</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

First time post on here. I am a hobbyist who uses a Nikon D200 with a bunch of Nikon and third party good glass. I mainly take landscape photos and people photos when travelling (www.meekymanphotography.co.uk). Also, the odd studio portrait session as well. So, a mixture of tripod/low ISO/small apertures and patience combined with occasional handheld, large apertures, large apertures. I've always though lens first, camera second and am not particularly bound to Nikon. <br>

I'd like up my game and am thinking of moving to a D700 and match that with some primes (Zeiss 25mm, 35mm, Nikon 50 f1.4 or Voigtlander 20mm) and zooms (28-105 for studio&wandering/Nikon 80-200 2.8 I already own). I see that the full frame sensor will offer me more dyanamic range in my landscape photos and less depth of field in portraiture. The Zeiss primes (at least) will offer me quality and hopefully cope well with any megapixel camera of the future. I am aware of the Zeiss 25mm's field of curvature issue but can not see this being a problem the way I would use the lens.<br>

Then I was thinking, what the hell for landscapes more detail really matters and I could easily use Canon's 17-40 for landscapes with the 5d mark 2 camera. Then add on other lenses as suited for my needs (e.g 70-200 f4, 35mm f2 etc.). I'm aware that the Canon has less autofocus points and that these could help whrn using a manual lens in terms of focus confirmation (if I also used Zeiss 35mm for example with it.)<br>

So, what would be the better choice....Zeiss primes and D700 or Canon 17-40, 5dii...for upping my game? When it comes to printing, well A2 is in mind, but good quality A2.<br>

Cheers<br>

Graham</p>

<p> </p>