| Author | Message | ||
     Slowride |
I have been into photography since I was 8 and now at 34 I have a full digital rig. I have been shooting with this format for 5 years now. I truly am completely comfortable with the digital age, but for some reason that I still can't identify, I am drawn like a moth to flame when it comes to medium format images. I tried to overlook this constant obsession by picking up an old Nikon FE 35mm film camera, but it is just not the same thing. I can be super artsy if I choose to with the old Nikon, but the quality is just not there. I have even gone as far as using an algorithm within Photoshop CS2 to enable all my digital prints to enlarge without a hint of degradation, but it just seems my high dollar DSLR and High End Glass doesn't represent an image like the Medium format film. So, with that said, I am going to take the plunge and pick up a medium format rig. I have it narrowed down to two makes... Bronica & Mamiya The question is... Which make will be the most user friendly to an experience photog that has no medium format experience? Second question, Is there a preferred make/model among the experience shooters? Observation, I have seen volumes of pics from the Bronica compared to a few dozen from Mamiya and I would have to say I like the soft to hard to soft composition of the Bronica compared to the High detail composition of the Mamiya. Anyone else have anymore observations? | ||
| Xl1200r |
All I know if I have a 40-year old dual lense Yoshica-MAT that I have yet to use, but the guy in camera shop tells me everything works perfect and the shutter timing is spot on. One of these days I'll pick up a roll of film. | ||
| Elf |
I am a HUGE medium-format fan ! I used to shoot a Mamiya 645 when I did portraiture, and had a Hasselblad 503c for everything else (hated cropping that 6 X 6 square negative. Seemed like such a waste! Zeiss glass was SUPER sharp...). I sold them when I got divorced. I still have an older Rollei TLR that I'll never part with! I don't shoot it as much as I'd like to. I like the Bronica as well. I remember a LOT of wedding photogs using them for the exact reason you describe. It's flattering to the subject. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard that Bronica is made up of old Mamiya engineers that left when Mamiya wouldn't let them build great cameras (not to a price point)! Do you like the 6 X 4.5 negative size? Fuji used to make a cool automatic "rangefinder" type camera that was as close to a medium-format "point-n-shoot" as you could get. I believe it was called the GA645 (there were variants on it as well. One with a wider-angle lens. Google it.) Built in flash, zoom lens and everything! It had the ability to take bigger flashes, but you couldn't change the lens. Price was nice, too. Also take a look at Pentax. The 67 looks and acts like a giant manual 35mm SLR! 6 X 7 negative size, though (less shots per roll). Tons of lenses and parts available for them at good prices! Remember, the bigger the negative, the better the enlargement.  Film is becoming sort of a lost art anymore. All my old skills at developing and printing (dodge & burn, baby!!) have gone to crap. There are digital backs available for most m-f rigs. Price is up there, though! Expensive hobby, photography. I would do it more if I could afford it (motorcycling is the only expensive one I can have right now!)  | ||
| Slaughter |
Consider a Pentax 67 II. Seriously. Good metering, ease of operation. I own 2 of them with a selection of glass. You can do amazing work with available light. Spot metering enables PERFECT exposure in odd lighting. The 6x7 cm format is (in my perverted opinion) - BETTER than the "smaller" medium format. I still do all my own film processing (JOBO) and have a medium format film scanner. Your'e NOT ALONE out here!!! The images were taken on stage at the Kennedy Center during rehearsals using available light. TriX Pan (400) pushed 3 stops!!! (shot at 3200) The printed image actually looks much better. The image was used by Jennifer Tipton - lighting designer - to illustrate her lectures at Harvard (she also teaches stage lighting) - because the image actually SHOWS the lighting effect she tried to give to the audience. Pentax 67II has some features that the earlier 6x7 Pentax does not - mostly metering and mirror lock-up. (images scanned from negatives)   | ||
| Hexangler |
If your thinking about buying used equipment, these guys are reputable: http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/BrandTableOfContent.aspx I shoot Hasselblad myself. I like the square format, and compact size. But they're expensive. Soft, hard, soft images (selective focus?) has more to do with the minimum f-stop of a lens than a particular camera format. f/1 - f/2.8 on a slightly telephoto lens for the format (85mm and up on a 35mm camera, and 150mm and up for the square medium format cameras). With these wide open f-stops will get you that shallow depth of field effect even in digital. Film is a pain in the ass, and digital is very convenient. With film, you have to select your film type and load your camera before you shoot. With digital and the RAW format, you can shoot color or B/W, and any asa-iso. Just change the camera at the time of the shot, or the RAW image later in photoshop to suit the need, or make 100 different variations of the same original RAW image. The square medium format film camera is about 200Mpx of information when scanned on a high-end drum scanner (I used to be a scanner-dude in the printing industry). 35mm film cameras capture 33Mpx and the best digital SLR is 22Mpx. No amount of fractal enhancement will ever change that fact. Consider that the lens is a limiting factor. Film evolved to surpass lens resolution, digital is still evolving (it's not there yet).  If you use the same lens to project an image on each one of these formats above. The final maximum print enlargement will be exactly the same proportion. So, big prints with gobs of detail=medium or larger format. Here's your next dilemma (every choice is a compromise): With medium format you are still stuck with developing your entire roll of film one way. You can Push it (over develop), Pull it (under develop), or go normal development times. But every shot is different unless you are using studio lighting. So one shot may be high contrast, and the next shot may be shot in fog and have low contrast. Each of these shots will need different developments but you can only develop one roll one way. So 4"x5", 5"x7", and 8"x10" single shot large format cameras are the ultimate. With the large format film you can practice Ansel Adams' Zone system, and get amazing results. Hex (Message edited by hexangler on July 31, 2008) | ||
| Hexangler |
A solid tripod is a MUST for all photographers. The slightest jiggle will blurr even the best camera. | ||
| Davegess |
solid tripod is a MUST I agree, sticks are good. I shoot a bit with an old Rollei TLR and love the detail you get out of the larger image. Digital is cool, I have a nice XTi but film is still better just not as convenient. Bigger film is even better, I haev yet to a digital print that can match a large format (8x10 up to 24 x 24) contact print done on old fashioned printing out paper. Neat stuff. | ||
| Court |
Went to Nikon school last week to bone up on the new D700 and the SB-900. The new digital have amazing, like up on the ISO 32000 range with little noise. My current D100, although it goes to 6400, is pretty much useless beyond 800. The stuff I do of Manhattan at night works well with digital and the Nikon VR system but there is nothing like a tripod for maximum crispiality. I even have started carrying a mini (a pain in the ass to be sure, better than nothing) in my briefcase. | ||
| Bbbob |
I love medium & large format. For me photography is "alone time" therapy. I load up the saddle bags, ride to a quiet scenic location, shoot a few rolls, then head home. "User friendly" is really up to you to define. Your equipment choices really are going to depend on the type of photography you do. Will you want to change lenses? Need a flash? Using external light meter or want built-in metering & programs. For me the simpler the better, I like doing everything manually (like I said, for me it's therapy) My favorite camera (any format) is a Rolleiflex TLR 3.5 Zeiss Planar lens. For me, it just naturally feels like it is a part of my body. All the controls are such that when I cradle the camera in my hands I can use every control without looking & just moving my fingers. I also have a Rollei SL66 SLR, not as intuitive, but more flexible, can change lenses & backs, more flash options & many more accessories. Were I you, I'd put together a list of what you want the camera to do, then list the pluses & minuses of each model you are looking at. If you have the opportunity, go "play" with each camera for a few minutes, I think "feel" of the camera is so important. |
