in search for advice

[fredjeang]

Hi,

I am looking for advice(s),

In French we use "old fox" (vieux renard) to qualify a person who has a lot of experience, who knows the tricks and bargains, etc... I'm not sure it means the same in English, maybe as risky as cats photography in the forum, but ... : unsure: I take it.

I want to start with medium format and have many doubts.
My only experience with large format was many years ago in Paris with Mamiya for a while until I quickly embraced Nikon F system, so it is close to zero.

Now that I plan to move to medium format, I both have the enthusiasm and the doubts of the beginner and would be grateful if experienced users of this forum could give me some good advice on the following points.

1- In the digital age, what gear would you recommend for starting to a beginner, considering that the cost is important (we are in crisis aren't we?), but also that it has to be a good investment for the future (no dead end systems).

2- I've always been fascinated by the Pentax 645 philosophy, I've been offered an entire system for a very low price, but I'm not sure. Do you really think that shooting film still make sense when starting from zero? The special film texture that does not have digital in big prints, is it still true now or is it just a myth? Also, having seen the Michael evaluation of the Pentax 645 here in TLL, it seems that it clearly under-performs compared to modern 35mm dslr in terms of IQ. Is there any current Pentax 645 user that could give me his thoughts about his system in the nowday context?

3- Considering that a higher number of users in medium format still use film, does the cost of film at the end is not higher that investing in a digital system? What are your thoughts about the real cost of film against digital. (films+developpement+scans). Why film is still so popular in medium format and what would you recommend to a beginner.

Thank you so much to the old (and young) medium format foxes for your answers.

Fred.

[DanielStone]

Hey Fred,

I can only comment from personal, film-shooter only experience, but I'll try to tackle some of your points here:

my questions to you(trying to clear my fuzzy brain up)

1. When you say "IQ(image quality)", what are you meaning exactly? I've found that for my work style, color negative films work very well for what I'm trying to achieve; the "look" I guess you could say. I personally like the Portra line of films from Kodak.

2. "Texture" (your Q #2), when you say texture, are you referring to film grain as opposed to digital noise?
Also, how large are you looking to print, and how many of those prints will you me printing/have printed for you?

3. From my experience with the Pentax 645 system, I like it.  The only thing that irks me is that you don't have film backs, so you can't say carry a back with b/w in it, and another back with color. You'd have to carry 2 separate camera bodies, which can get bulky.


other than that, the lenses(mostly the most current Pentax designs) are great! They aren't as sharp as say hasselblad v or h-series glass, but if you're worried about longevity, and system stability over the longterm, I'd say look at hasselblad V(500 series bodies, 501 and 503cw). the lenses are super sharp(cfe,cfi and cf glass), and all the digi back manufacturers have the possibility of mounts for the V-system. lenses are super plentiful on the used market, and if you want to shoot film(lots of film+dev costs to cover the cost of a digi back, even one that's used).

I figure that over the last 2 years since I've gotten serious about my work(I'm 21 btw), I've probably shot about $2-3k worth of film(b/w, c-41 and e6) in 120/220 and 4x5(with some 8x10 occasionally). I develop ALL my b/w myself at home(easy if you haven't done it before), and c-41/e6 I have a line for cheap dip-n-dunk processing.

so, if you develop yourself(b/w, and even color), your costs can be very low.

shoot film, its great, you have something TANGIBLE that you can hold(if you're like me, I like things I can hold), and you can scan it at whatever res. you want!

Hasselblad V would be my best recommendation if you're looking to shoot film as well. Great system, no adapter plates to worry about(like with the RZ/RB's from Mamiya)

I shoot with an RZ67 btw, you can put a back on them, but you need an adapter plate.

-Dan

[BernardLanguillier]

I want to start with medium format and have many doubts.

Fred,

I am just a slightly aging fox but have already gone back and forth twice between 35mm and MF, with some stops in LF on the way.

As somebody focused on 4 season landscape awar from the roads, my current choice is 35mm digital FX. I wouldn't use anything else even if it were given to me free of charge.

If I may ask, why do you want to go MF? A clear answer to that question will help the older fox on this forum give you a clear cut answer.

Cheers,
Bernard

[mmurph]

I am old and tired.  Not much of a fox any more.  

I used to shoot a Mamiya 7ii with 6x7. Pro color film and developing came to about $1 per frame.

I was spending more than $5,000 a year on film and developing for personal work. Then you have the scanner, lab travel time, file folders and cabinets, plus scanning and retouching.

At that volume I could save money with **any** digital solution. I settled on a Canon 1dsII at the time at about $1,500 depreciation per year. Big savings!

I also had a Pentax 645, which I enjoyed. But the incremental size over 35mm did not give me the quality I was after.  

I still shoot about 100-200 sheets of 4x5 a year - at about $5 per sheet (pro color film and lab again.)  I have a Mamiya 645 that I never use. Digital gives me everything I want at that "image level." Film just isn't worth the cost or workflow hassle for 645 quality - to me.

Best,
Michael

[fredjeang]

The main reason why I want to go MF is that I now want to express myself in big format, color and B&W. I come primary from painting, photography has always been my passion but my "real nature", if I can say, is to express myself in big sizes. In fine arts I use to work with Balthasar Burkhard, a Master of large formats. We used to develop with enormous rolls of ilford paper, rolling them in a poultry feed. That was all an experience of coordination! The works I'm planning to acheive in photography are 1.8mx3.00 approx in 3 stripes for an art gallery. I've been trying 35mm full-frame for that purpose but I came to the conclusion that I need to work in MF-LF soon or later. So, my interest for MF is first based on the need of big sizes with maximum image quality that can afford my finances. But the finality is not directed to clients, it is for a personal artwork that as to developed in big size, so with all the time for post-prod etc... My second interest for MF is "organic", it seems to me "more camera". Maybe it is stupid or snob, but I admit to feel that MF and LF are "real cameras" compare to 35mm ( okay Bernard, I also admit to be a Nikon 35mm fan ) so MF attracts me,  tempt me, physicaly.

As Dan, I like something I can hold. I use to develop my B&W and slides many years ago, but it 's been such a long time with digital that I doubt if I want to deal with it any more, but I'm from that "school" so I guess I would feel home. About the Texture feel, yes, I was refering to film grain as opposed to digital noise.
I saw recently Rio Branco pictures made with MF, big prints in color and the film grain is really something!
I will look very closely to the Hasselblad V as Dan suggest. Thank you for your detailled description about the advantages of this system.

When size really matter, when huge prints are required, would you say than digital backs have an advantage to films? (for a same size format)

Cheers,

Fred.

[fredjeang]

I am old and tired.  Not much of a fox any more.  

I used to shoot a Mamiya 7ii with 6x7. Pro color film and developing came to about $1 per frame.

I was spending more than $5,000 a year on film and developing for personal work. Then you have the scanner, lab travel time, file folders and cabinets, plus scanning and retouching.

At that volume I could save money with **any** digital solution. I settled on a Canon 1dsII at the time at about $1,500 depreciation per year. Big savings!

I also had a Pentax 645, which I enjoyed. But the incremental size over 35mm did not give me the quality I was after.  

I still shoot about 100-200 sheets of 4x5 a year - at about $5 per sheet (pro color film and lab again.)  I have a Mamiya 645 that I never use. Digital gives me everything I want at that "image level." Film just isn't worth the cost or workflow hassle for 645 quality - to me.

Best,
Michael

Thank you Michael.
Mmmm... interesting calculation. That is where my fear was about film.

[BernardLanguillier]

My second interest for MF is "organic", it seems to me "more camera". Maybe it is stupid or snob, but I admit to feel that MF and LF are "real cameras" compare to 35mm ( okay Bernard, I also admit to be a Nikon 35mm fan ) so MF attracts me,  tempt me, physicaly.

When size really matter, when huge prints are required, would you say than digital backs have an advantage to films? (for a same size format)

One word comes to mind... stitching... you've got to love gettting mad because your favorite B&W plug-in cannot deal with images larger than 30.000 pixels on the long end.  Admitedely, stitching won't work for every application around. But if it does for yours, then forget about those smallish 8x10 negs...



For what it is worth, I am only a fan of 35mm Nikon bodies because I think that they are currently the best tool around for my applications. I admit to feeling lucky not to to be dealing with applications where a MFDB would be the best tool.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Morgan_Moore]

When I went diital I was spending $1000 per month on film/processing

I got a loan to go digital $800  month for three years

The thing about the film is I could stop buying it - step away

With the loan I was commited to my business

Now the loan is paid and I have no gear lust (happy at 22mp)

Im also in a better position than I would have been

S

[marc gerritsen]

I am an old dog but my wife is foxy!

start with an affordable slr
get paying jobs
get those jobs to pay for your next camera
either an upgrade slr or mf
get better jobs with a better camera etc
until you are happy with the level of quality

I believe in the thin end of the wedge!

[Terence h]

I am an old dog but my wife is foxy!

start with an affordable slr
get paying jobs
get those jobs to pay for your next camera
either an upgrade slr or mf
get better jobs with a better camera etc
until you are happy with the level of quality

I believe in the thin end of the wedge!

50th Birthday coming up too soon so qualify.
Totally with Marc on this one , avoid a long lease , buy a full frame SLR , something like the
5D MK11 or one of the new Nikons launching soon.
I still have just less than 2 years on my Leaf 75 , and these bills come steadily every month unlike
sometimes the work in this economy.

Best of luck.

Regards
Terence

[fredjeang]

Now I understand why old dogs have foxy whifes: Pragmatism.
If I make a balance from your answers I got:

1) Avoid film, unless you want your foxy lady leaves you for your banker.
2) Do not spend any stupid money in MF investement until your 35mm has paid the bills, and when you do, your bills
will increase exponentially.
3) Reconsider 35mm full frame as a serious option. (I actually loves very much the FF Nikons, and was considering also that option)
or if you insist in ruining your bank account go to Hasselblad.
4) or... try lottery.

I loved the pragmatism of many answers and thank the wises informations you all took the time to give me.
I will take in consideration all these points, even may reconsider for the moment a step in MF.

Cheers,

Fred.


ps: Thank you Bernard for this beautifull image.

[rueyloon]

a few points for you to consider

A) is film processing still going to be available at an affordable rate say... 2-3 years down the road ?

2 years ago I used to be able to send in a color slide in the morning and collect it in the evening. Today they only do
collections on monday nights and deliver on friday afternoons. Give it another 2 years, I might have to do my processing
overseas.

 

To answer your questions

1) Go with either Nikon or Canon
2) Read my point A
3) Don't waste silly money going to MF digital

cheers
rgs
rueyloon
http://www.36frames.com

[ddk]

Hard to advise people without knowing anything about them, what they shoot or what they'd like to achieve. Personally speaking, MF is a means to an end for me and nothing to do with file sizes. I use it because of the lenses, I just can't get the same look with any 35mm dslrs, but I also use a small sensored p&s camera at some of my shoots for the very same aesthetic reasons.

As far as pricing goes, you can get a mint Contax 645 system very reasonably, gorgeous cameras and the lenses are still amazing. The choice of digital or film is entirely up to you, these days you can find excellent new and used digital backs from about 2k to 6k. The only gotcha if you've never had MF experience is the learning curve which depends on your current level of expertise and experience. You really need very good technique if you want to see a jump in quality with MF over 35mm today, you just can't wing it with and get away with mistakes like you can with 35mm...

[fredjeang]

The only gotcha if you've never had MF experience is the learning curve which depends on your current level of expertise and experience. You really need very good technique if you want to see a jump in quality with MF over 35mm today, you just can't wing it with and get away with mistakes like you can with 35mm...

Yes DDk, I'm aware of that and was ready to humbly learn to get a better technique. Sometimes you have to do the step even if it chalenges you for years, but it is also motivating and exciting.

But I'm very surprised of the overall answers. I would have thought MF users to strongly recommend  embracing their format, but it is just the oposite, as most of you are saying "do not go here", "do not open the pandora box", 35mm FF Canon or Nikon is just the best rational choice.
I got your points and they are all interesting to take into consideration, that will help me to do a choice with better information.

just, surprising!

Cheers,

Fred

[Kirk Gittings]

Did I miss the crucial question? What subject matter do you shoot?

[Inanda Images]

I find this an interesting topic. I have just gotten a Contax 645 system after being a Nikon shooter for quite some time. I am not in a big rush to give up my Nikon gear and I think there some very valid points on going to MF digital or film. I started shooting as a teen with the Contax RTS system so I am already very partial to Contax.

Perspective is much different between the two systems and though my MFDB is one of the original Phase One 6.8 mp backs when printed side by side on my 9880 I find the Phase One images have a clarity that I am unable to achieve with any of my Nikon gear. I can also switch between film and digital in a couple of moments which is a big advantage though I haven't shot film through it yet, heck I don't think I can get 120 or 220 film locally but I guess that is why the net was invented, to find things not local.

So now I in a bit of a quandary, a new back or used back is anywhere from 2 to 8K for a 22 mp back or I could go whole hog sell the house and get a 65mp back for near 60K but that is only dreaming. I am in need of a new sensor and should it be a 22 mp Phase One new or used sits at about 8K. My other choice is a 3x which according to DXO labs is very close to the MF back which is close to the same 8K.

Going with the FF nikon I will have to invest in a new wide (12-24) and also a med tele to cover to the 70mm on my 70-200. So to move to the nikon body I need to invest in body and two lenses.

Going with a Phase One back I have the glass I need except a macro and they show up used for reasonable price and I can get by with my extension tubes on the Contax for now.

I have had the Contax system for over month now shooting daily tethered in studio, I invested in lights and slowly getting the feel for this camera though I suspect many months of work will be needed before I get comfortable shooting with it.

As I watch the changes in Nikon and how they and Cannon are pushing sensor development I think I am comfortable waiting to see that is new and exciting while continuing to work and learn the MF. I don't have the experience yet to say one or the other is better. For example PJ work needs higher iso's and I like the faster frame rate so I take my nikon gear. Other than that (I don't do sports) I tend to drag the MF gear out. Right now I am absolutely in love with the Contax and the images it produces.

Downside - old bodies, still serviced in the US and there is a good supply of parts. Lenses are no longer serviced period. Trash some glass you have to replace it. Upside - the glass, no vr no whistle and bells yet stunning images time after time.

Oh yes and the learning curve for Phase One Capture is steep. I have been converting raw images for the last six years or so which allows me to know what needs to be done, I just had to figure out how to do it in Phase One Capture.

I have pretty much sold myself on a new 22 mp back though that is a ways away till I can afford it. If I get really excited I can always go get a job that actually pays up on the ice for a month and then go buy a back. Who know what tomorrow holds, I do know my nikon gear sits idle these days while the Contax shoots at lot of frames every day. I note the site owner hasn't sold his Contax gear as of yet which I think is indicative of what may happen in the future of MF digital backs. Just where my thinking is these days.

Mark Prins
Inanda Images
Whitehorse YT



Panorama of large items from the Grand Forks Project
Contax 645 80mm f22 8x3 stitch

[fredjeang]

thank you Mark.
I used to work for awhile with Contax gear in my film age and loved it.
Interesting commentaries, so as the picture.
I like this work. Are you going to have this project on-line somewhere?

Regards,

Fred.

[fredjeang]

Did I miss the crucial question? What subject matter do you shoot?

Need 1.80x3.00m size for projects in photography, mostly B&W, it is about twice my standard size of my paintings ( I come from painting, I'm not a real photographer but always used photography for work or passion since my early age but no experience in MF ). I'm in conversation with an art gallery for the moment, so I'm evaluating lots of points to a possible move to MF.

[Plekto]

That's why I still use MF film.  Because while DSLRs are getting close to MF film for color, they are worlds behind good black and white.  And the advantage there is that it's dirt cheap(or nearly so) to set up and do your own developing for b/w film.  

I never bought into the half-frame 35mm or sub-MF nonsense.  I went straight to 6X6 and 6X7 and never looked back.  It does great things for a reasonable cost.  Sure, color is nice as well, but I'm spending hundreds a year at most on film and developing myself.  Color would be a magnitude greater cost, obviously.

1.8X3.0M means you should be looking at 6X9.  This will give you a nice "HD format" aspect ratio as well, or close to it, which people seem to be used to more and more these days. 6X7 also works, though you might have to crop it a tiny bit.  You also misght consider a large format camera at maybe 3.5X5 or so.(basically crop the bottom edge a bit) It still has its uses.  Black and white is one niche where film will always have a place.

Oh - interesting tidbit - B/W film scanned at a modest 2400DPI(I figure that's equivalent to 2000 DPI or so for color(b/w film is higher res than color) - way below what's considered "normal" for scanning film) nets a whopping 115 million pixels for a single 4X5 piece of film.  No dithering, no moires, no Bayer pattern nonsense - just amazingly clean results.  Even scanning on a flatbed scanner at 1200DPI yields almost 30MP.  But if you calculate in Bayer pattern losses, that's actually close to 6400X 8000 for a digital back to equal a DIY 1200dpi scan on a cheap scanner. (51MP)  But nobody scans that low resolution.  Just using that as a worst-case example.  And even in a worst-case DIY scenario, 4x5 film crushes digital for black and white.

Just comparing a sheet of 4x5 to 35mm side by side(heh) makes it obvious.  But then again, you don't need to move to 4x5.  Though, it would be tempting, since 4x5 cameras often cost less than good MF setups, thanks to their simplicity.

[fredjeang]

Mmmm...very interesting about B&W.
One of the reason why I started to seriously consider a direct move to MF without passing by the FF case, is after seeing a Rio Branco exhibition where I've been impressed by the quality and texture of some B&W (and also color) in big prints, asked the gallery if it was film and she anwsered somethink like: "Oh yes, what else!"
My doubts where if Digi in MF could rival and of course the cost aspect because it is important.  
Thank you Plekto.  

Fred.