Can someone hold my hand into MF?

[Brammers]

Hi all,

I've been looking at an MF system for a while now.  I've had a very good crack with 35mm in film & digital and I like it a lot, but I've recently been reading through some photography books and some of the stuff shot on MF is really quite special.

I'm not interested in MF for the resolution and will probably be using it handheld, saving the high res stuff for my 35mm camera on a tripod.  The shots that I've been interested use the tones and DoF of MF rather than the sheer size of the negative - I particularly love some of the stuff in Li Zhensheng's Red Colour News Soldier where he used MF in a reportage role.

I very much doubt I'll be wanting to go the whole hog and trade in my 35mm stuff for MF.  Instead I'm looking for a small amount of kit for when I feel like doing something different.  

Although I can't imagine myself going for MF digital for a very, very long time due to the cost, it would be nice if the body I chose had the option to mount an MF back from the off - mostly for the ability to rent one from time to time without having to rent a new body to go with it.

I'd like autofocus - I'm not going to be shooting sports but a solid central AF point would help with what I'm trying to do.

I'd like a fast 35mm equivalent which I'll use wide open or close to wide open a lot of the time.  I believe that on a 645 format I'm looking for a 50mm 2.8ish?

I'd like to shoot B&W - I'm a huge fan of Ilford's Delta 3200.  

Finally, I like to work with my film digitally.  The first thing that I'll do is scan.  I'll learn to develop B&W myself to save costs, and I'd like to scan myself for the same reasons.  What do I need to spend to scan MF images, bearing in mind that I'm not going to be using it primarily for the resolution, but equally not wanting to throw that resolution straight out the window...  I have a KM Dimage Dual Scan IV for 35mm which I love when dealing with B&W negs, so I guess I'd prefer to upgrade that to a model that can do both 35mm and MF rather than adding a flatbed.

My initial research has pointed towards the Mamiya 645 system and the Contax 645 system.  Pentax seems dead because their MF bodies don't have interchangable backs and their new MF digital will be a new, Japan only release and far beyond my budget for a bit of an experiment.  I'm unaware of any other MF systems with AF.  

The Mamiya looks a better bet than the Contax - the Contax Zeiss lenses are probably a bit OTT for what I do and still work on micro-motors, ableit inside the lens rather than the body.  No SSM/USM/HSM anywhere in the MF world?  

Out of the Mamiya 645s, there's a lot of versions.  Could anyone tell me which version will serve me well for predominantly shooting B&W film with the option of adding a back.  Would a 55mm f2.8 be a good choice?  Is there anything else I should be looking at?  And finally, a question which should show you how new I am to the whole MF thing - 645 cameras take 120roll film yes?

Many thanks for any replies!

[mcfoto]

Hi
Go for the Mamiya AFDII  or a AFDIII body. The previous models are OK but I feel the shutters have been improved from the AFDII body. The 55 mm is a very good lens. I do really like the 55-110 zoom & use it more than any of my other lenses. ebay is a good place to check out used equipment.
Cheers Denis

[Graham Mitchell]

My initial research has pointed towards the Mamiya 645 system and the Contax 645 system.  Pentax seems dead because their MF bodies don't have interchangable backs and their new MF digital will be a new, Japan only release and far beyond my budget for a bit of an experiment.  I'm unaware of any other MF systems with AF.

Rollei 6008AF, Sinar Hy6/Leaf AFi, and Hasselblad H series all have AF and digital options. The Rollei/Hy6/AFi lenses are fast too (e.g. 50mm f2.8, 80mm f2, 110mm f2, 180mm f2.. It sounds like you have a lot more research to do

[Brammers]

Rollei 6008AF, Sinar Hy6/Leaf AFi, and Hasselblad H series all have AF and digital options. The Rollei/Hy6/AFi lenses are fast too (e.g. 50mm f2.8, 80mm f2, 110mm f2, 180mm f2.. It sounds like you have a lot more research to do

The Rollei 6008AF sounds excellent - am I correct in thinking that it takes 6x6 and 645 backs?  The 50mm f2.8 would be great to start with, what EFL would the 110mm f2 end up as?  Something around 85?  I know the 80mm works out to around 50mm, that's a focal length I'm not interested in.  From an intitial glimpse it looks a lot more expensive and rarer 2nd hand than the Mamiya offerings - is this the case?  I'll certainly be looking to pick something up 2nd hand.

Hasselblad H I'm not keen on as I've heard the lenses are a lot more and hasn't the company producing the Sinar/Leaf backs just gone bust?  


Mcfoto - I don't understand this:

Mamiya AFDII body & a AFDIII body

Do you mean 'or'?  Will both the AFDII and III take digital backs?  Renting a P65 would be an interesting experience - I'd like to be able to take advantage of such an opportunity.

[Graham Mitchell]

The Rollei 6008AF sounds excellent - am I correct in thinking that it takes 6x6 and 645 backs?

Yes.

The 50mm f2.8 would be great to start with, what EFL would the 110mm f2 end up as?

Are you shooting 645 or 66? Anyway it should be equivalent to around 80mm but this also depends on what sensor you are using. If the sensor is 48mm wide in landscape format, then the horizontal FOV would be equivalent to 83mm. The shorter side of the 4:3 ratio would have equivalent FOV of 73mm on 35mm format.

From an intitial glimpse it looks a lot more expensive and rarer 2nd hand than the Mamiya offerings - is this the case?  I'll certainly be looking to pick something up 2nd hand.

Not as plentiful, yes. More expensive? That really depends on the particular item. I picked up my 6008AF body with film back for $1K used. How does that compare to Mamiya?

Do you want/need a waist-level finder? It is available on the Rollei but not the Mamiya. Do you need fast flash sync? Again on the Rollei and not the Mamiya. Do you need shutter speeds greater than 1/1000? Then the Mamiya offers this but the Rollei doesn't. There are a lot of small differences which might add up to a clear answer for you. Just do plenty of research and try and use this cameras in person before deciding.

hasn't the company producing the Sinar/Leaf backs just gone bust?

Bust? No. They are in talks with investors and creditors while production goes ahead as nomal. I'm fairly positive there will be news of a restructuring soon but don't rely on that yet!

[Doug Peterson]

Do you mean 'or'?  Will both the AFDII and III take digital backs?  Renting a P65 would be an interesting experience - I'd like to be able to take advantage of such an opportunity.

The AFD, AFDII, AFDIII will all take digital backs.

Since I've shot Delta 3200 and I also did my company's test of Sensor+ (the high ISO mode unique to the P65+) I would be very interested to compare the P65+ ISO3200 to Delta3200. I have not tested them head-to-head, but based on shooting both at different points of my life I feel they share a good amount of characteristics.

Any Phase One dealer should be able to arrange a demo of a P65+ or other Phase One digital back. The dealer that I work for has offices in Miami and Atlanta and rent nationally.

There is a LOT of research left for you to do. Your post's topic made me smile, because in fact you surely can have someone hold your hand into MF: any decent dealer. A good dealer will not only answer any questions you have, but will also make sure you're asking the right questions.

By the way: I know it is a very minor point, but the P65+ allows you to view your images in B+W mode on the LCD.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

[Geoffrey]

Each system has its pros/cons and its feel. It will take you some time to get a handle on this - as the subtleties of each are not readily apparent in a quick handling, or even an hour or two of usage.

The best advice is to rent a system(s) you are thinking of and see if you like it.

Small story: for some time (years back) I had a Hassy 500, and liked the whole Hassy approach, but found I never was comfortable using it. I traded it in on a Rollei system, and never looked back. Only then learned that the Hassy was not the camera (for me) with one kind of shooting only by trying it for a long while. The Hassy 500 is still a great system....

Once rented a Contax 645 camera (great system, great lenses), but the ergonomics just didn't work out. Again, rent it, borrow it, use it.

The easier-to-get-into systems (Mamiya) have much appeal, and for some they work. Others, not. Some people love one, not another. Its in the usage that you learn what works for you.

[Dick Roadnight]

Rollei 6008AF, Sinar Hy6/Leaf AFi, and Hasselblad H series all have AF and digital options. The Rollei/Hy6/AFi lenses are fast too (e.g. 50mm f2.8, 80mm f2, 110mm f2, 180mm f2.. It sounds like you have a lot more research to do

The poster wants to use film on the system and eventually, perhaps, MFD... and I thought that the Hasselblad H cameras were not film compatible

[Graham Mitchell]

The poster wants to use film on the system and eventually, perhaps, MFD... and I thought that the Hasselblad H cameras were not film compatible

All the cameras I mentioned have film backs AND digital backs available, including Hasselblad H.

[Brammers]

Ok, thanks for these.

If a Rollei won't shoot faster than 1/1000s then I can rule that out pretty quickly, again I'll be using this like a very big SLR with 35mm f2 so no need for the leaf shutters or fast flash synchs either.  I also don't think I want a waist-level finder, but I should probably try one on something other than a box-brownie before ruling it out...

I'm not sure that the dealer would appreciate spending his time answering my questions either, only for me to promptly walk out of the store and onto ebay/KEH, with only a couple of rentals worth going into his pocket.  Seems slightly rude and a waste of his time to me.

Still not keen on a Sinar - mainly because it's incredibly new and that's going to limit the 2nd hand bargains.

The mamiyas + 55mm f2.8 are looking most tempting right now - while I do research into them could somebody please give me rough prices for each body 2nd hand?  A scruffy but functional body will do me just fine.  Most of the mamiyas  I'm seeing come with the 80mm f2.8 - is there any market for that 2nd hand (I really hate that FoV!) or is it just not worth the effort selling it?

[Guy Mancuso]

Your only choice to go focal plane shutter and Digital back down the road are Contax 645 and Mamiya 645. Contax is no longer made so you have to buy used pretty much. They both have there advantages and disadvantages. Narrowing it down is what you should be looking at first to see what type of system appeals to your needs.

[Dick Roadnight]

Your only choice to go focal plane shutter and Digital back down the road are Contax 645 and Mamiya 645. Contax is no longer made so you have to buy used pretty much. They both have there advantages and disadvantages. Narrowing it down is what you should be looking at first to see what type of system appeals to your needs.

Why do you eliminate the Sinar P3/M from the list? (with the HY6 for hand-held if required?)

[Guy Mancuso]

Are they not leaf shutter.

[Daniel Browning]

The shots that I've been interested use the tones and DoF of MF

I think there are many good reasons for getting a MF kit, but I'm not sure that DOF is one of them. Generally, 35mm is capable of thinner DOF than Medium Format. The widely available f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses from wide angle to short tele on 35mm is more than enough to get thinner DOF than typical f-numbers on MF, even with typical bellows factors. For example, the widest-aperture 35mm lenses for 35mm:

15mm f/2.8
20mm f/1.8
24mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
80mm f/1.2
135mm f/2.0
200mm f/2.0

Given the same horizontal angle of view, the 645 lenses have the same angle of view at 1.56X longer focal length. Here's the lenses you'd need on 645 to get the same horizontal angle of view and DOF:

23mm f/4.4
31mm f/2.8
37mm f/2.2
55mm f/2.2
78mm f/1.9
125mm f/1.9
210mm f/3.1
310mm f/3.1

Unfortunately, at most of the focal lengths, MF does not have an f-number wide enough to get thinner DOF than 35mm. Depending on the specific manufacturers under comparison, there may be some focal lengths where MF may have lenses with slightly thinner DOF. At the wider portrait focal lengths (wide, normal, and short tele), the DOF is noticably deeper on MF and thinner of 35mm. Generally, for any given field of view, the fastest MF lenses usually have only about the same DOF as 35mm. Here's how Mamiya stacks up, for example:

24mm f/4 (thinner)
35mm f/3.5 (deeper)
45mm f/2.8 (deeper)
55mm f/2.8 (deeper)
80mm f/1.9 (same)
120mm f/2.8 (deeper)
150mm f/2.8 (thinner)
200mm f/2.8 (thinner)
300mm f/5.6 (deeper)

If you crop the sides off the 35mm so it matches the 4:3 of MF, DOF gets a little closer, but the 35-50-80 focal lengths on 35mm still have thinner DOF. Another factor is lens price/aberrations/MTF; it's possible that a f/2.8 MF lens may provide fewer aberrations and higher MTF than a similarly priced f/1.8 35mm lens, even though both will have the same DOF; however, I would guess that economies of scale cause 35mm to be favored slightly.

So while I don't think thin DOF is a good reason to get an MF kit, there are many other things to enjoy about it, including the tonal gradations, viewfinders, grain, etc. Kind regards,

[Leonardo Barreto]

I have a Mamiya AFD/PhaseOne, -and shoot a lot with a Nikon D300-, but I recently got a Hasselblad 500 C/M and a 80mm to use exclusively with film.

The advantage of a square format is that makes it possible to use a waist-level-finder (such finder is almost impossible to use in portrait orientation on a rectangular format system, unless it has a rotating back like the RZ or AFi/Hy6). What you gain with this finder is that the camera is a lot smaller and lighter. I would have to check, but I think that a Mamiya AFD is probably heavier than a Hasselblad 500 C/M -my camera has arrived to my ap. in New York, but I will only go there in July)

The perfect lens for you would probably be a Distagon 50mm f: 4

Of course if you want to shoot in the classic way with all manual controls, no battery etc etc...

[EricWHiss]

My understanding is that the rate of change from in focus to OOF is faster with MF than with 35mm. This causes the viewer to see less DOF and cause the subject to pop out more.    The larger the film plane or sensor the more this effect is seen.   DOF is a convention and is effected by the magnification factor and also sensor pitch (albeit to a lessor extent).

I'd be surprised if my leica 80 lux shows less DOF wide open than my Rollei 110/2 for example.  

6x6 and 6x7 numbers will be different than what Daniel laid out for 645 below in the event that the square format Rollei 6000 series, Hy6, AFi, Hasselblad, or Mamiya 6x7 format RZ cameras are considered.  

I also thought that the 1/1000 shutter would be limiting with the Rollei but in practice I rarely shoot at 1/1000.   My experience is that medium format takes about 3 stops more light than 35mm cameras for the same image.  So if you were shooting at 1/8000 with your DSLR at ISO 100 then you'd probably be shooting at 1/1000 with MF (especially if you use a digital back since most of them have a base ISO of 50).

I think there are many good reasons for getting a MF kit, but I'm not sure that DOF is one of them. Generally, 35mm is capable of thinner DOF than Medium Format. The widely available f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses from wide angle to short tele on 35mm is more than enough to get thinner DOF than typical f-numbers on MF, even with typical bellows factors. For example, the widest-aperture 35mm lenses for 35mm:

15mm f/2.8
20mm f/1.8
24mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2
80mm f/1.2
135mm f/2.0
200mm f/2.0

Given the same horizontal angle of view, the 645 lenses have the same angle of view at 1.56X longer focal length. Here's the lenses you'd need on 645 to get the same horizontal angle of view and DOF:

23mm f/4.4
31mm f/2.8
37mm f/2.2
55mm f/2.2
78mm f/1.9
125mm f/1.9
210mm f/3.1
310mm f/3.1

Unfortunately, at most of the focal lengths, MF does not have an f-number wide enough to get thinner DOF than 35mm. Depending on the specific manufacturers under comparison, there may be some focal lengths where MF may have lenses with slightly thinner DOF. At the wider portrait focal lengths (wide, normal, and short tele), the DOF is noticably deeper on MF and thinner of 35mm. Generally, for any given field of view, the fastest MF lenses usually have only about the same DOF as 35mm. Here's how Mamiya stacks up, for example:

24mm f/4 (thinner)
35mm f/3.5 (deeper)
45mm f/2.8 (deeper)
55mm f/2.8 (deeper)
80mm f/1.9 (same)
120mm f/2.8 (deeper)
150mm f/2.8 (thinner)
200mm f/2.8 (thinner)
300mm f/5.6 (deeper)

If you crop the sides off the 35mm so it matches the 4:3 of MF, DOF gets a little closer, but the 35-50-80 focal lengths on 35mm still have thinner DOF. Another factor is lens price/aberrations/MTF; it's possible that a f/2.8 MF lens may provide fewer aberrations and higher MTF than a similarly priced f/1.8 35mm lens, even though both will have the same DOF; however, I would guess that economies of scale cause 35mm to be favored slightly.

So while I don't think thin DOF is a good reason to get an MF kit, there are many other things to enjoy about it, including the tonal gradations, viewfinders, grain, etc. Kind regards,

[Daniel Browning]

My understanding is that the rate of change from in focus to OOF is faster with MF than with 35mm.

The only difference I've learned of is due to the bellows factor, which greatly depends on the focus distance. At a distance of 1 and 5 meters, the difference in bellows factor between 35mm and 645 is very small according to my calculations:

645 80mm f/4 @ 5 meters = 47.6mm DOF
35mm 50mm f/2.5 @ 5 meters = 45.2mm DOF
645 160mm f/4 @ 1 meter = 9.9mm DOF
35mm 100mm f/2.5 @ 1 meter = 10.1mm DOF

Do you get the same results as me using your DOF calculator?

Your point about 6x9 DOF is also very good. There is another factor that I didn't mention in the last post: if the resolution on MF is higher (a convolution of lens, diffraction, capture medium, processing, etc.) , and the print size and viewing distance (etc.) is large enough that the resolution difference is visible, then that will make DOF thinner.

[Graham Mitchell]

I think there are many good reasons for getting a MF kit, but I'm not sure that DOF is one of them. Generally, 35mm is capable of thinner DOF than Medium Format. The widely available f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses from wide angle to short tele on 35mm is more than enough to get thinner DOF than typical f-numbers on MF, even with typical bellows factors. For example, the widest-aperture 35mm lenses for 35mm:

They are not all on the same mount, so does it make sense to list them together as a system? Anyway, point taken and I agree. Leica is worth a look if you don't need huge resolution or high flash sync, etc.

[paratom]

.....
I also thought that the 1/1000 shutter would be limiting with the Rollei but in practice I rarely shoot at 1/1000.   My experience is that medium format takes about 3 stops more light than 35mm cameras for the same image.  So if you were shooting at 1/8000 with your DSLR at ISO 100 then you'd probably be shooting at 1/1000 with MF (especially if you use a digital back since most of them have a base ISO of 50).

I agree, havent found the 1/1000 to be limiting. Not even the 1/500 of my 110/2.0
What I found more limiting is the limited higher ISO of MF backs, or the reduced image quality if you rank up the ISO.

[Graham Mitchell]

I agree, havent found the 1/1000 to be limiting. Not even the 1/500 of my 110/2.0
What I found more limiting is the limited higher ISO of MF backs, or the reduced image quality if you rank up the ISO.

Yep, medium format needs high ISO more than 35mm!