Any Medium Format experts here

9designs2

9designs2

9designs2

Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2003
Posts
3,523
Location
Somewhere in the middle
Always wanted to have a play with medium format, big negatives, waist level finders and manual controls just seem like a good way to take a picture...... well stationary ones ;)

Still seems they are expensive to pick up, even in this digital age. Do many “Pro’s” still use them ?

I’d like to pick up a Contax 645, as it’s my brand, but still they command high prices. Looking around seems you can pick up a Hassleblad for less !!! ..... Perhaps because they are so plentiful ?
Any MF uses, any tips on the V series.... what’s good, what do you need.... (Do they only meter if you buy the eyelevel metering prism ? )

Processing B&W film is no problem for me at home..... printing/scanning would be... My enlarger doesn’t have MF neg carrier and I don’t have flatbed with transparency hood/lid..... Looks like I would need an Epsom flatbed V700 or similar.

All gets expensive for a “play”
 
I watched a Video of Med format Vs the D800e, The D800e was almost as good.. No difference in the quality of the shots, They were doing Landscape.
 
i don't know the contax at all but i use and have used a fair few mf cameras ,
buy a cheaper one to see if its your thing (a japanese twin lens is a good starting point),its a much slower pace of life than 35mm and dig .
flatbed scanners really don't do mf justice ,find a company with the correct kit to scan them in properly.
 
Read an article the other week about how many portrait togs for the magazines and billboards use MF as you just can't get the colour depth and detail on less than medium format. The short and thick of it was that if you are printing big (and spreads in fashion mags and so forth count as big) then you'll get a much better print from a medium format camera.
 
9designs2 said:
Always wanted to have a play with medium format, big negatives, waist level finders and manual controls just seem like a good way to take a picture...... well stationary ones ;)

Still seems they are expensive to pick up, even in this digital age. Do many “Pro’s” still use them ?

I’d like to pick up a Contax 645, as it’s my brand, but still they command high prices. Looking around seems you can pick up a Hassleblad for less !!! ..... Perhaps because they are so plentiful ?
Any MF uses, any tips on the V series.... what’s good, what do you need.... (Do they only meter if you buy the eyelevel metering prism ? )

Processing B&W film is no problem for me at home..... printing/scanning would be... My enlarger doesn’t have MF neg carrier and I don’t have flatbed with transparency hood/lid..... Looks like I would need an Epsom flatbed V700 or similar.

All gets expensive for a “play”
Click to expand...



Do you just want a film camera or a MF, is a digital MF an option, is it just the quality you want, if so a D800E gets you 95% there. If you want to shoot film then Nikon still manufacture film DSLRs with fairly modern exposure and AF (Nikon F6).


I have long had my eye on a fuji gx617 for 3:1 Panos at 100Mp+ with 14+ stops DR, but TBH, I think a D800/E with PC/TS glass and modern stitching algorithms will get me there and more and work out far far cheaper and more convenient.
 
I'd personally go for at least a 6x6 cameras over a 6x4.5. The negatives are much larger from 6x6 to 6x9 and the cameras are better too.

I own a Mamiya C330s that I bought for £250 a few years back, they're around £400 for a good one now and they're amazing. I have use of a Mamiya 7 which is what I'll be purchasing next.

Take a look at the Mamiya RB67. They're cheap now and the glass is amazing.

Personally, I'd stay film for MF if you're doing it on the cheap as the feel is so much better.

Xo7hn.jpg
 
Last edited:
I used to have a Mamiya 645 as part of my shooting gear. It was very nice to use, had a huge impression on the way i shoot. It allowed me to slow down, think more about everything before clicking away. Used it for shooting landscapes, even managed a 16min exposure!

It was rather expensive, i had to get a light meter, a epson flat bed scanner etc. However it was worth it if i ever get around to printing some at a nice decent size.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Read an article the other week about how many portrait togs for the magazines and billboards use MF as you just can't get the colour depth and detail on less than medium format. The short and thick of it was that if you are printing big (and spreads in fashion mags and so forth count as big) then you'll get a much better print from a medium format camera.
Click to expand...

Whilst technically true, its not the only reason. Photographers who do billboard work are only contracted if they own hassleblad MF bodies as the MP count is vastly higher in most cases than 35mm. Iirc, they do an 80mp model and a 200mp model (but it takes numerous images and stitches them as far as I'm aware, but could be wrong!)

They also do 16bit RAW files, giving a very hard to notice difference in skin tones, plus the dynamic range is also far better than even a D800. The ISO performance on them is utter turd though, thats why they are only ever used in studio work.
 
I think the attraction is using and experimenting with a different style of camera. The slow considered approach, composing on a big focusing screen etc.
MF Digital I believe will always be too expensive, film I can and do now with my Contax N1, so doesn't get much better for 35mm film quality.

The likes of the D800 and 5DMk3 (I have a Mk1) not really what I'm after or hold much interest to me at present. Just more tech won't make me take better pictures or give me more satisfaction and enjoyment.

Learning and working with something new and different like a MF is more tempting, bit of a challenge.
Photography is just a hobby, has been for 30 old years..... so the pursuit is more important than the end result, unlike a pro where the end result pays the bills !!
Will look up the RB67....
 
The DR range of digital MF backs are not that great (there is a tendency to more highlight headroom and less shadow detail as opposed to modern Sony and Nikon sensor that have large shadow depth) and the existence of 16bit pipeline is neither here not there because the data from a digital MF can still be encoded into a 14bit channel.
You could make it a 64bit read out but that wont change the underlying DR and the quantization noise wont be perceptibly different. The difference between 12 and 14bit on a modern DSLR is barely measurable except in extreme shadow details. Sony is rumored to have 16bit FF sensor prototypes but it is entirely a marketing tool.

MF digital do make very clean images but that is much more down to the large sensor area and optics rather than the sensors or the ADC channel depth.

Edit: the other thing to note is the best print can only hold about 5 stops of dynamic range, screens around 7 stops. D800 can capture over 14 stops. For a large amount of MF work in studios lighting is controlled at th scenes DR kept within a reasonable value for printed material after PP.
 
Last edited:
The Contax 645 is one hell of a camera, I've always wanted one. However, I'm quite partial to TLRs since I really like having 6x6 and Hasselblads aren't really suited for speeds below 1/80 due to their mirror slap (I shoot a Rolleiflex). Another option to consider would be a MF rangefinder, the Fuji GSW690 is pretty nice also the Mamiya RF's (the 6 and 7/7II) could easily be considered one of the best MF cameras available.

As for scanning, you don't need a V700, a V500 will do the job, although you won't be able to scan as many negs in one go - not really an issue since you can just buy a loupe and check which negs are worth scanning.
 
You're looking at £400-2500 for a decent, modernish film based medium format camera. So i bought an Agfa Isolette II for a tenner...If i get any spare cash i'm going to get a Bronica SQ-A with the prism finder, and if i win some money a Voigtlander Bessa III 667.
 
9designs2 said:
Always wanted to have a play with medium format, big negatives, waist level finders and manual controls just seem like a good way to take a picture...... well stationary ones ;)

Still seems they are expensive to pick up, even in this digital age. Do many “Pro’s” still use them ?

I’d like to pick up a Contax 645, as it’s my brand, but still they command high prices. Looking around seems you can pick up a Hassleblad for less !!! ..... Perhaps because they are so plentiful ?
Any MF uses, any tips on the V series.... what’s good, what do you need.... (Do they only meter if you buy the eyelevel metering prism ? )

Processing B&W film is no problem for me at home..... printing/scanning would be... My enlarger doesn’t have MF neg carrier and I don’t have flatbed with transparency hood/lid..... Looks like I would need an Epsom flatbed V700 or similar.

All gets expensive for a “play”
Click to expand...

Professional ad work is still largely dominated by medium format (digital, very few shoot film any more), though the 5DMKII did an astonishing smash and grab with huge swathes of the market, and continues to be very very popular. People like to get hung up with the science and quantifiable specs, but the truth is despite it's many flaws, the 5D2 still offers more than enough for a sizeable section of the market. There are better options but many people are choosing to just keep the extra quids in their back pocket.

The RB67 is a brute of a camera but wasn't a staple workhorse for nothing. There's something very satisfying about the overly mechanical nature of them, with nice big levers for winding the film and cocking the shutter. They also give you a massive negative worthy of bothering (6x4.5 just isn't the same IMO, I'd echo the suggestion earlier about 6x6 being the minimum).

I've got an old Zenza Bronica SQ-AM lying about if you want to make me an offer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom