Poll

Is MF worth the money and trouble?

Yes it is
- 64 (58.2%)
No it is not
- 23 (20.9%)
I keep changing my mind
- 23 (20.9%)

Total Members Voted: 108


Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is MF worth the money and trouble?  (Read 5452 times)

ndevlin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 676
    • Follow me on Twitter
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2013, 09:24:33 AM »

For me, yes.

No matter what other cameras I use, I always keep coming back to MF.  Whether in film or digital, MF cameras simply give me a user experience that I really enjoy, and which other formats do not provide. In particular, the subject viewing experience with my MF cameras (Fuji 690s, Mamiya 6, H4D) is particularly pleasing to me.

I won't use adjectives because that simply invites endless, pointless debate. But I will say that, when things go right, my MF cameras give me results which make me very happy - happier than 35mm.  Making it worth the time and not-insignificant trouble & money.

But this is a very personal thing.  No one can credibly suggest that MF is a professional or creative imperative nowadays for almost any kind of work (yes, there are exceptions).  One uses these cameras because (i) you can and (ii) you like it.

Happy hunting,

- N.

follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/onelittlecamera
Logged
Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera        www.nickdevlin.com

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2013, 09:20:17 PM »

As someone shooting a D800 and looking to move to MF shortly, yes. It is worth it for my needs.
It isn't about this vs that. I am sure the D800 suits a lot of people. Just that for my style of shooting, an MF camera is a better fit.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

tim wolcott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 523
    • http://www.galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2013, 11:13:27 PM »

I use the Phase One IQ280.  Is it worth it well yes.  I can use anything but nothing gives me the results or the 280.  And yes I have tried them all.  The quality, size of file, accuracy of image and nearly unlimited focal lengths which I have 3 zooms and 10 fixed.  Of course the magnificent Capture One to pair with it.  Surely its expensive but what isn't when you want the best.  If you want to race a car its expensive.  Tim
Logged

Carl Glover

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
    • http://www.alephstudio.co.uk
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2013, 09:06:03 AM »

It's worth every penny!

I do a lot of LP covers and a decent Medium Format file can fill a triple gatefold cover with ease.

I also use 35mm digital and film too, but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1310
  • guest
    • working
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2013, 02:28:35 PM »

It's worth every penny!

I do a lot of LP covers and a decent Medium Format file can fill a triple gatefold cover with ease.

I also use 35mm digital and film too, but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!



Whatever you shot this with I love.

http://www.alephstudio.co.uk/post/50410483973

Though I think it's more you than the camera.

I understand the slow and thoughtful approach and if a camera gets you there, it's worth it.  In fact it's always worth it if you like the process and the results.

Everybody comes at this differently, but it's always about the results.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 02:30:18 PM by bcooter »
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2013, 04:44:06 PM »

It's worth every penny!

I do a lot of LP covers and a decent Medium Format file can fill a triple gatefold cover with ease.

I also use 35mm digital and film too, but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!



Beautiful design work Carl, kudos.
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2013, 04:56:47 PM »

Quote
but the way I work with a medium format camera is far more considered - I think it's the chimney finder!

I think THAT is the biggest difference in the formats for most. Its the working approach, and the view you see. It allows for much better composition and idea of the overall image before taking it. If 35 had a way to show you the frame with bright large undsitorted preview, than you got yourself a winner.  I prefer looking through my RZ than I do the crop glass I have on the sliding back I have to use the loop with. Yes, I use the loop on the RZ too, but easier faster and larger. That mirror is huge!
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2013, 05:20:20 PM »

Hi,

I have three finders for my 555ELD. Waist level finder, which I find utterly useless. I also have a Hartblei chimney type finder. I have three issue with that one:

1) Make view position lower, so I need tripod legs short for comfortable viewing. Upsets balance and makes tripod top heavy. (I am a short person and the Arca Swiss D4 stands pretty tall)

2) The MF back is in the way, I need to bend over the camera to look in the chimney. I often stand on the side where I have a more comfortable viewing position.

3) I have problems with inverted view when using a ball head. The Arca Swiss D4 is OK, where I can adjust rotations one at a time, but using chimney on BH55 gives me nausea. No jokes.

What works best for me is the PM5 prism finder.

Best regards
Erik

I think THAT is the biggest difference in the formats for most. Its the working approach, and the view you see. It allows for much better composition and idea of the overall image before taking it. If 35 had a way to show you the frame with bright large undsitorted preview, than you got yourself a winner.  I prefer looking through my RZ than I do the crop glass I have on the sliding back I have to use the loop with. Yes, I use the loop on the RZ too, but easier faster and larger. That mirror is huge!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 06:16:50 PM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2013, 06:36:48 PM »

Funny  how we have these equipment ergonomic differences.

I too have another viewfinder on the RZ, the mirror with a flip loop. THis makes things dark and more like working with a 35MM, so the chimney style I prefer. True I too get frustrated with the slider and often I shoot level or down, and even at my 6+height, it is difficult and often results in getting the stepstool out.
Remote EVF !! I'm sure there already is one, but I rather do the step stool than drop $3K for one as I would imagine it.  I think Rollie had some device or focusing assisting tool...ahh, so many tools.  I really like the 5DM2 live view, although I have to change the setting in dark setups to see, which is a pain, but I think its in the right direction.

Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2166
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2013, 09:05:03 PM »

Medium format is great. 35MM digital is great. MFT is great. It all boils down to what is called for. I wouldn't use a ball-peen hammer to frame a house. I wouldn't write a check with a pencil. If I didn't have to schlep stuff around, I'd drive a subcompact instead of a crossover. If I wanted to shoot video, I'd use a $1,300 video camera instead of a $1,300 MFT camera. Tools are tools. There are lots of different types of screwdrivers. Some are better for some tasks, some are better for others. 

Is MF worth the money and trouble? Rent one and see what you think. And of course, there is always the cost to benefit ratio to consider. If you can bill out enough to pay for an MF back, camera body and lens within a year, great! If you are wealthy, don't lose sleep over the matter. If you are an enthusiast, that's a personal decision.

Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2013, 09:35:10 PM »

Quote
There are lots of different types of screwdrivers
I like this one!


I think all Members who have this understanding should copy paste Bob's post everytime it comes up...Who is willing to sign and agree to it? :-)

Quote
Medium format is great. 35MM digital is great. MFT is great. It all boils down to what is called for. I wouldn't use a ball-peen hammer to frame a house. I wouldn't write a check with a pencil. If I didn't have to schlep stuff around, I'd drive a subcompact instead of a crossover. If I wanted to shoot video, I'd use a $1,300 video camera instead of a $1,300 MFT camera. Tools are tools. There are lots of different types of screwdrivers. Some are better for some tasks, some are better for others.

Is MF worth the money and trouble? Rent one and see what you think. And of course, there is always the cost to benefit ratio to consider. If you can bill out enough to pay for an MF back, camera body and lens within a year, great! If you are wealthy, don't lose sleep over the matter. If you are an enthusiast, that's a personal decision.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble? The numbers say that...
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2013, 11:45:02 PM »

Hi,

The numbers say it is worth it.

My personal experience is that I bought a P45+ for Hasselblad V, much to find out. It doesn't feel like a good decision but I actually like to use the stuff. There is a gain in resolution over my Sony Alpha 99 (24MP). How it would compare to a 36MP Nikon or Sony, I have no idea.

High end MFD, like IQ180 makes a lot more sense to me, but comes at a much higher price.

Subjects matter more than cameras.

Best regards
Erik



This question keeps popping up. We all have an opinion, let's see what the numbers say.

Edmund

Richard Osbourne

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
    • Richard Osbourne Art Images
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2013, 08:42:25 AM »

It's totally worth it for me. Tried a D800e and didn't get on with it.
Can't do what I do with the P45+, Cambo and an old AFD on any 35mm camera. The Schneider lenses on the Cambo deserve a special mention here.
The more I use this system, the more gobsmacked I am at the image quality.
Ergonomically, they are a nightmare, but, you know what they say: you have to suffer for your art.

Go Go

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
    • New York Editorial Photographer
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2013, 02:03:17 PM »

Totally worth it, and I would miss it if it were not available.

mikeSF_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
    • Mike Oria Photography
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2013, 09:33:19 AM »

worth it!
trouble? what trouble?
Logged
Pentax 645Z & K3II www.mikeoria.com

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2565
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2013, 11:34:41 AM »

Logged
Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2013, 12:14:09 AM »

Hi,

I would be interested in your take on ultra wides and T&S. I don't know about the Rollei offerings, but the Hasselblad V series bottoms out at 40/4, Hasselblad H (which is 6x4.5) has lenses down to 28 mm. I have a flexbody for T&S but it is not really easy to use in the field. There are technical cameras, of course.

Best regards
Erik


+1

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 981
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2013, 07:38:14 AM »

Hi,

I would be interested in your take on ultra wides and T&S. I don't know about the Rollei offerings, but the Hasselblad V series bottoms out at 40/4, Hasselblad H (which is 6x4.5) has lenses down to 28 mm. I have a flexbody for T&S but it is not really easy to use in the field. There are technical cameras, of course.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

FYI, Last Photokina Hasselblad also introduced a 24mm:
http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/lenses/hcd-4824mm.aspx

Thanks, Joris.
Logged

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2013, 04:36:20 PM »

These threads do go on and on, don't they?  ;) :) :)

There isn't "an" answer. There's an answer for every photographer, though. And in my case the answer is yes, MF is worth it.

For me it is like asking if there is a "right" film stock. Of course there isn't. But one could absolutely have one's own favourite film stock. (It was Velvia, since you ask...)

Now, the combination of camera, sensor and RAW processing software forms the equivalent of the film stock. I happen to love the combination of Hasselblad H3D-31ii and Phocus. It gets me 90% of the way to where I want my photos to be and getting the final 10% is a pleasure (I usually run it through Aperture actually, but need Phocus' colour science).

I don't even like the way the shots look with Aperture's default RAW processing- and it is the same data from the same sensor! Sure, with a bit of work you can more or less match Phocus' colour science, but it is much better to start off with something very close to the final effect you want to capture.

Exactly the same way as it was easier to get a film stock that got you 90% of the look you wanted than it was to use subtle filtration and processing and lighting to pull a film stock into colour renditions it didn't really want to go to.

I use a wide variety of cameras and formats for different purposes: four thirds, small chip camcorders, APS-C, full frame. I might even have a film body or two around here still. All have their strengths and weaknesses and I use them for different purposes. My professional work is mostly gorgeous girls and for that the H3Dii- 80 mm lens leaf shutter- Hensel PORTY lithium powerpacks combo is unbeatable for me.

For blow-me-away impact when the pics come up on the screen, NONE of rest come close to the impact of the shots from the Hasselblad in Phocus, with the fine tuning on the day's thousands of shots being a little batch processing to add vignettes etc. in Aperture, plus the retouching. That's why it is worth it: impact and efficient workflow.

Those two things together mean shoots can be artistically satisfying experiences as well as a way to make a living :)

  Cheers, Hywel.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 04:38:59 PM by Hywel »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: Is MF worth the money and trouble?
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 04:51:16 PM »

Thanks,

I didn't know!

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

FYI, Last Photokina Hasselblad also introduced a 24mm:
http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/lenses/hcd-4824mm.aspx

Thanks, Joris.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up