Can someone hold my hand into MF?

[paratom]

Ahh, one more thing.
While its easy to get shallow DOF with 35mm format, I personally believe that the transition from sharp to unsharp is different with MF sensors.
I think the transition is smoother with a larger sensor. I cant explain why though.
Thats why I still think the110/2.0 with a MF-sensor looks different than lets say a 50/1.4 pre-asph on a M8 or a 85/1.4 on a D3(x).
In case one focuses manually: The larger viewfinder of a MF-camera doesnt hurt for manual focus.

[Anders_HK]

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!

Hi Brammers,

Since you are interested in renting digital back also, perhaps the Mamiya 645 mount backs are more frequent to find.

You could buy a 645 AFD camera for cheap on Ebay. I had one before, now AFDIII. AFD worked fine also, AFDII to AFDIII each add some AF focus speed, and AFDIII a better grip. For lens perhaps the Mamiya non AF 80 f/1.9. Its very shallow DOF is on magnitude of a 50 f/1.0 on 35mm or less... but medium format and the lens is amazing light for medium format! With a non AF lens you will need to do step down metering, which is not bad at all when shooting wide open or near open, or simply use a hand held meter which works even better in controlling exposure. That combo is a low price option, but also good. You might find that you can get 645AFD, 80 2.8 and film back in a package price on Ebay. The 80 f/1.9 is one of my favorite lenses, along with 28mm, the cheapest and priciest in my Mamiya 645 system.  

If you were not looking for renting a digital back, perhaps a rangefinder would match. It is more portable and lighter weight. I use Mamiya 7, but they tend to be overpriced also used. Alternatives are the Bronica 645 RF and Fuji 6x9 rangefinders (both discontinued but available used).

Regards
Anders

[Doug Peterson]

Hi Brammers,

Since you are interested in renting digital back also, perhaps the Mamiya 645 mount backs are more frequent to find.
Anders

Completely true, and if anything a bit of an understatement. Mamiya mount backs are MUCH more frequent to find in rental than Contax mount backs.

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

[EricWHiss]

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.

Yes agreed!  Need higher ISO capability.  That's the limit of the MF systems - not getting thin enough DOF because its there, but not being able to get big enough DOF when you want it.  I'd like to have a usable ISO 1600.

[Brammers]

Thanks again for this discussion.

To refer to the DoF comment - you may well be right that 35mm and ultra-wide aperture lenses offer thinner DoF, but there's just something about the MF shots I'm seeing.  I'll go back to Li Zhensheng's book, he shot the Cultural Revolution using a Leica M3( presumably with a 35mm lens - his shots look wide) and a Rolleiflex.  All of the shots in the book are published uncropped with the frame-lines intact, so it's easy to verify which shots came from which camera.  However you don't need to - the Rolleiflex shots just stand out, even amongst the Leica ones.  Whether this is down to the film used, the lens, the format or something else, I'm just really taken by his Rolleiflex shots.  There's one here for you to have a look at:



and a book review here:

http://weblogs.larazon.com.ar/fototeca/arc...n-cultural.html

with more shots.  The differences are even more perceptible with the book in your hands.

This isn't something I've only seen from Li's book, it's something that I've seen time and time again and it's something that I miss from my attempts with 35mm film and digital.  Paratom may have it right when he says it's something that's hard to measure - just going up a sensor size seems to increase the quality.  I've noticed that from digicams to bridge cams to APS-C to 35mm DSLRs and I'm now being allured by it in MF!  Eric's comments make sense too.

As to the choice, Mamiya looks more and more tempting - I like the way the system is still living with the phase1 partnership.

Could I ask for a very quick summary of the differences between the 3 AF-D bodies and the rough price I should pay for each with a 120 film back?  And does anyone have any experience with the 55mm f2.8 I mentioned earlier?  Any other reccomendations?

[lisa_r]

Here are a couple shots (35mm) showing a look of shallow DOF with 85mm lenses:

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/98739838/original

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/98739836/original

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/98485911/original

[Brammers]

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for that response but I think you've somewhat misunderstood.  While shallow DoF is possible on any format, I particularly like the look of the shallow DoF shots I've seen on Rolleiflex and other MF equipment.  This is why I'm looking at an MF + 55 2.8 combo instead of simply getting myself a 35mm f1.4 or f2 for my a900.

[Gandalf]

Ahh, one more thing.
While its easy to get shallow DOF with 35mm format, I personally believe that the transition from sharp to unsharp is different with MF sensors.
I think the transition is smoother with a larger sensor. I cant explain why though.
Thats why I still think the110/2.0 with a MF-sensor looks different than lets say a 50/1.4 pre-asph on a M8 or a 85/1.4 on a D3(x).
In case one focuses manually: The larger viewfinder of a MF-camera doesnt hurt for manual focus.

I think that is really the issue. On larger formats, the rate of change from in focus to out of focus takes place over more of the media (film or digital). You see this going from aps to 35 to mf to 4x5 to 8x10. Any of them can give you a little or a lot of DOF, but they look different because of the how much "film" surface is used to make the change. In my view, the transition in MF is longer, which gives it the smooth look, were 35/dslr the transition from in to out of focus is very abrupt. It is a personal preference and style that really only photographers notice, but I think a lot of pride in our images comes from small things like that.