simon_hill1

<p>@Craig, thanks for coming back to this point. I prefer many of 645 images on the Internet. My web browser should be lower quality than an email attachment, so it still comes across on a PC. Also, in terms of DSLR, I don't think I'd be happy with anything less than a Canon 5D Mk II. That's a £1,000 camera and lens vs £300 to £400 for medium format. I'm not convinced I'll need a scanner, but if I do, then admittedly it's another £200 - £300 which closes the gap down. Lastly, film will help force me to slow down and think more about what I'm doing. If it doesn't work out, then hopefully I won't lose much money in the process.</p>

<p>@Dani, thanks for the meter suggestion. You're right, I'd would prefer to use a spot meter.<br> @Jim, Thanks for the feedback. I called the lab, reference their scanning. Their package service includes very basic scanning, sufficient for small prints only. They can do high res scans, but it's quite expensive, and that's per negative. I'll have to see what they're like, but will probably end up buying a scanner as you suggest. The Epson 4990 and V750 look within budget.</p>

<p>@ C Watson, thanks. So the 645e would be better? They are still great value. I've read similar reports that the 1000S is very old and many are failing. I'm speaking to a guy tomorrow that has various MF items for sale, so hopefully make some progress then.</p>

<p>@Craig, thanks for the tips. I don't think I need AF either. Point taken on the prism finder.<br> I've been scouting the web for medium format photos, especially when compared to full-frame DSLR. I 'really' like what MF can achieve, so I'm going to go for it. It's more fun too (he says, not having actually tried it yet!)</p>

<p>@Rodeo Joe, thanks for all the feedback. I will stay away from the cameras you mention and take another look at some you state are reliable.<br> That's very interesting ref your DoF comment, especially as a 5D is within budget. So, it will depend if I want the involvement of film and perhaps some better colour/texture (anyone agree/disagree?) or the convenience of digital. I fear the only way to really know what's best is compare DSLR against medium format film. I will keep searching the web for good examples, but you don't always know what processing work has gone into them. I'm not sure what to do now.<br> Ref the zone system, I have to disagree. I took way better photos with film once I started using it, even though I never developed myself. It really helped to focus on what the main element of the photo was and then work from there. OK, I agree, I didn't have end-to-end control, but even so, the results were way better. That's my 2 pence anyway.<br> Thanks for the light meter recommendation - very useful.</p>

<p>@Ray, thanks. That's really helpful. I will focus on these two. Pricing for a pro lab in London to develop and scan 120 roles of film is quite reasonable, so I think I'll stick to the medium format approach.<br> @C Watson, thanks. I will check out the archives more thoroughly now that I've got a steer from yourselves on my specific requirements. My fear was I'd misinterpret something or make an incorrect assumption.</p>

<p>@Ken, I like your advice to get a starter kit like the Yashica. Never tried sunny 16, but all my cameras have had some form of metering. I will definitely try it - thanks.<br> @Ray, I'm looking for a handheld camera. I would prefer eye-level viewing, but not entirely against looking down. I quite like the look of the Pentax 645. It looks reasonably small and not too intimidating. I can always move onto a 67 and tripod, if that's how things progress in time.<br> @Jochan, I'm not interested in making my own prints. I was going to use a pro-lab since I didn't anticipate shooting that many rolls of film. Maybe you're right and I should buy a 35mm camera again, but I'd been reading that you need to go medium format to better digital these days. When I look at online comparisons, digital often looks very crisp, but somehow a bit flat and lifeless.<br> @Rick, Do I need a tripod for these though? Good news about the cost. I'm pleasantly surprised by medium format prices.<br> @Barry, sounds a bit expensive for me right now, but I'll bear it in mind<br> @Chris, thanks. They do look nice.<br> Gents, I'm only intending to produce small prints for family and send as email attachments. Does medium format really make sense for this? Perhaps a DSLR or 35mm film camera would be better. The problem is that 99% of DSLR's leave me cold. They look and feel like junk and I can't afford the ones that don't. I could go back to a nice 35mm manual camera, but I like the results of medium format with it's ability to blow out the background so easily when using an 80mm lens, which is harder to achieve on a 35mm film camera. And a non-full frame DSLR is going to be even worse in this respect.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi, I've just joined and hope you can help. I did have a browse through the forum beforehand.<br> I'd like a film camera for portraits. I don't need flash or AF. I'm happy using the zone system to set exposure. However, I know little about medium format cameras. I prefer the SLR form factor, but am not entirely against a TLR. I've seen shots taken with a Mamiya 645 AFD and 80mm lens at f/2.8 that look great to my eyes, but this camera is too expensive right now. My budget is ~£500 / $750USD. Many thanks.</p>