Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Neurotic Photographer and the Medium Format Dilemma  (Read 4149 times)

Melodi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://
The Neurotic Photographer and the Medium Format Dilemma
« on: March 31, 2009, 06:55:03 pm »

I have been using a Nikon D70s for years.

I love the experience of photography and using the view finder to “feel a photo” is enjoyable to me.  I would like to move to a camera with a view finder that has an aspect ratio that is not the traditional 3:2 ratio.  Of course most people ask, why not just crop in Photoshop? My simple answer: I don’t enjoy it as much.

I have read about the various options with medium format in both digital and film and digital backs.  I'm not necessarily looking for the latest and greatest, just what works for me.  

Some of the cheapest options I’m seeing are as follows:
* Nikon D3 that has a 4x5 masking option in the view finder
* Canon 1Ds MkII (yes, the older model) with a 6x7 focussing screen mask as seen here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4022...k_Focusing.html
* Used Mamiya 645 with an Epson V700 film scanner
* Used Mamiya 7 with an Epson V700 film scanner

Some of the more expensive options I'm seeing are as follows:
* The Canon 1Ds MkIII has a lot of masking options but the price is high.
* The price of Digital backs seem a bit high to me as well.

Has anyone used these alternative focusing screen masks like that for the Canon 1Ds?

Thanks a bunch for any feedback.
Melodi
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
The Neurotic Photographer and the Medium Format Dilemma
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2009, 09:18:43 pm »

In the old days, I used black gaffer's tape to mask the focusing screen on my Canon F1. I needed a 4:5 ratio so when I shot groups I could print 8x10's without cutting off anyone. (As a news photographer I had the unfortunate tendency to fill the frame.) Worked pretty well, actually. I suspect one could do the same thing with any camera that uses interchangeable screens (you might want to mask the LCD display, too.) It would mess up the metering (the Canon screens do this), but that's not a big problem.

Medium format: the two cameras you mention are very different in feel. The workflow of film > processing > scanning has been around a while, of course, but it's slower and more expensive too.

Good luck.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
The Neurotic Photographer and the Medium Format Dilemma
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2009, 10:17:48 pm »

I'm a big fan of film, but the problem with anything larger than 6x6 is that the cameras are kludgy and heavy and you almost need a tripod for every single shot.  IMO, 6x6 because there are a lot of good old 6x6 film cameras out there for not a lot of money.  3.8lbs for the Mamiya 645 bit rough.

This is assuming you want an auto-focus camera - if a rangefinder or manual focus is fine, then the options expand greatly.  In any case, you probably want something that can potentially work in a few years with an older and more affordable DB.

Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Logged
Marc McCalmont

Melodi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://
The Neurotic Photographer and the Medium Format Dilemma
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2009, 07:41:35 pm »

Thank you all so much for your feedback and the additional information.  

I think that I do need to research the digital options a little more since I'm not quite clear on the full frame aspect ratio as with the Canon 5D Mark II or Nikon D700.  With the full frame, does this mean that with no cropping in photoshop, the length x width ratio will be different? I thought that it was still 3:2 and that 3:2 is what I have now with the D70s.  I was told that a print from a full frame digital would enlarge to the 8x10 ratio with no cropping.  

It's nice that the focussing screen option can be such a small hit to the pocket book.  I know there are "bigger and better" cameras out there; however, I'd also like to be sure I don't  fall into the consumerism trap if I can use what I have.

I'll continue to research and weigh the benifits and drawbacks of each option for a bit before making a decision.
Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
The Neurotic Photographer and the Medium Format Dilemma
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2009, 10:06:47 pm »

Quote from: Melodi
Thank you all so much for your feedback and the additional information.  

I think that I do need to research the digital options a little more since I'm not quite clear on the full frame aspect ratio as with the Canon 5D Mark II or Nikon D700.  With the full frame, does this mean that with no cropping in photoshop, the length x width ratio will be different? I thought that it was still 3:2 and that 3:2 is what I have now with the D70s.  I was told that a print from a full frame digital would enlarge to the 8x10 ratio with no cropping.  

It's nice that the focussing screen option can be such a small hit to the pocket book.  I know there are "bigger and better" cameras out there; however, I'd also like to be sure I don't  fall into the consumerism trap if I can use what I have.

I'll continue to research and weigh the benifits and drawbacks of each option for a bit before making a decision.

No the sensor is 3:2  so the output will always be 3:2  (4x6 8x12), medium format cameras are 645, 4.5:6 (9x12) and large format cameras are 4:5 so they will give you 8x10 16x20 etc without cropping. I have had all three and you get used to each aspect ratio and tend to crop in photoshop based on the image. My opinion is 4:5 is comfortable in portrait orientation because we look at magazines so much and 3x2 is comfortable in landscape orientation because of the field of view of human sight.
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont
Pages: [1]   Go Up