medium Format Camera
Does anyone here use a Medium Format camera ? Just curious as I am thinking of a MFD over a Canon 1DS Mark III.... Same $$$ bigger area, better quaility? I like the quaility I have seen on the mamaiya 645AFII with the phase 1 backs... Just checking... luminous Lanscape has a forum but , alas it is closed to us newbies as I am in the world of digital... thanks...
0
Comments
A complete system is much more practical in the dSLR world with a more complete selection of zoom lenses, macro lenses, advanced TTL flash technologies, etc.
Medium format digital has a place in certain product, fashion and landscape photography, but it also requires much more discipline, money and time.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Buying films is easy and cheap, but when it comes to processing it's either time or money consuming. As I prefer the first option, I use the mail ordrer lab in my home country (Poland). The whole process takes three-four weeks, but here in the Netherlands you can only get so-so quality for very high price.
At this point in digital Canon & Mamiya have begin blurring the dividing line. The 1Ds Mk III is supposed to run about $8k from what I've heard. Mamiya's ZD back is $7k by itself, or $10k with a 645ADF II & 80mm lens (in other words, a kit ready to go). So, if you add atypical $1k L lens to the Mk III, you're looking at a $1k price difference between 35mm format DSLR and 645 format MF.
OK, for the pedantic out there, the ZD sensor is listed at 21.8MP on a 34x48mm sensor while the 1Ds Mk III is listed at 21.1MP on a 36x24mm sensor. So the Mamiya has approximately double the area for essentially the same number of photosites. Both are 14-bit capture.
Then, of course you could go with film MF, in which case things get cheap fast. My 645Pro was about $350 used at KEH ready to shoot. Film is about $2-$6 per roll, usually about $3 and processing near me is about $3 per roll.
Let's see, at an average of $6/roll that's about 1600 rolls before I hit the ZD price or 24000 shots. Not bad, at the rate I'm shooting the Mamiya that's probably about a decade before I hit the ZD price range.
Regarding the increased shooting discipline required by the film MF, IMHO that's a good thing. Like many of us, I got lazy with digital. Having to slow down and pay attention again has greatly improved my photography, both in film and digital. I'm even slowing down on the machine-gunning with the DSLR and doing a better job of selecting my moments. Fewer frames=less PP time=more time available per image.
If you haven't guessed yet, I'm quite pleased with my jump into MF. Not only did I get a 645Pro, but went ahead & splurged on a Holga, too.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I will give this though, take a look over at fredmiranda.com in the Alternative Gear & Lenses forum. There's a couple of guys who have looked extensively at the ZD (hubsand IIRC--no that's not a typo, that really is his user name) and have posted reviews. That might give you the information you're after.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
If you want a shortcut to the impressions of "hubsand" with regard to the ZD back:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mamiya_zd/zd_back1.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Up till early February this year I shot all my landscape and nature images with a Canon 1Ds II but knew I wanted more for landscape. I went to MF using a Mamiya 645 AFD II first with film then with a Phase One P30+ digital back. Since going to full digital I've sold the film backs and all the film stock I had on hand.
I use the MFDB for all my landscape work and some minor nature. Yes I still have the 1Ds II and use that for wildlife. My wife still uses her 5D as her primary camera for landscape and nature but will be switching to the new 1Ds III very soon.
There's a lot of good and bad to shooting medium format.
· It makes you slow down.
· You almost always want to shot on a tripod.
· Auto focus is very very very very slow
· Lens for Mamiya are plenty and can be had plenty cheap
· Lens for Mamiya can be very clear and sharp - don't let the price fool you.
· The camera body can be had for little money
· The digital back will cost as much as a new car
· The images will blow your socks off - better than anything I produced with the 1Ds II.
· Shooting MF makes you slow down (yes I said that before) but it also can make you a better photographer.
· You can use a combination of AF and MF lens with great results.
· You can expect to shoot wildlife with MF unless they're posing for you.
Sandy & I just returned from our second trip to Sequoia National Park in as many months. The first trip I didn't have the 1Ds and attempted to shoot some bears with a 300 f/2.8 (full manual lens) and got nothing but blurry splots. The landscape images came out great. The second trip I took the 1Ds but it never left the case. Again, the MF ruled the day.
We're headed to Alaska next year for a couple months of shooting and plan on using the MF for landscape and the Canons for wildlife.
Bottom line is that each has it's own special niche, MF will give you stunning landscape but sucks on "action" ie wildlife, while 35mm will give you great (not stunning when compared next to MFDB) landscapes and really great/stunning wildlife (think a full frame head shot of a very large animal running in towards you as you capture it with a long lens).
I do not have any remorse whatsoever in going MF for my landscape photography - actually I do - I wish I had done it sooner.
Iron Creek Photography
httP://www.Ironcreekphotography.com
Tucson, Arizona
Member NAPP; PPA
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
There's always dreaming...
As soon as someone manufactures a square sensor on a DSLR I will be attached to that camera like nobody's business.
At least sticking with DSLR I can still afford to pay rent... I would have to move into my car if I bought a digital back for my Hassy.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Slightly OT, but it seems eerily well-timed for this thread, yesterday's WTD
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
There is certainly an appeal to medium format and even 4x5, they have been the quality standard of the Pro and well heeled serious amateur for a long time. I've shot with both for 27 years as a Pro. Still have my 4x5 and a dozen lenses, but clients ask for it less and less. I just delivered my last case of Blad gear, a mint condition 203 FE system with a host of lenses and accessories to a gentleman in Columbus Ohio. $30K of like new equipment for five grand, ugh! That tells you where the market is on medium format film gear.
If you're considering film, the jury is in. A myriad of tests, comparisons, opinions on this subject can be found all over the web. The truth is, my Blads became superfluous when Canon introduced the 1Ds MkII. A well exposed file from that camera is indistinguishable from a medium format Velvia, even in final products up to 40x40" I regularly make 60 inch prints from my MkII files and they are beautiful. If you get six inches away from the print looking for dust spots, you begin to see some pixels, but you'll see plenty of grain if you view a film based print at that distance as well.
Another consideration with shooting film these days is that there are few labs that will deal with film, other than scanning it to digital (moving another generation away in quality) and then making your prints. This adds time and cost to every lab order too. The days of gorgeous Ciba prints direct from transparencies are all but gone, unfortunately.
Film or digital medium format comes with a price, both in $$$ and inconvenience. From a financial perspective, the cost of bodies, backs and lenses is pretty sobering, even for a Pro who ostensibly is going to produce revenue with them. A 39 megapixel Hasselblad with a few lenses and accessories will have you shelling out $40K in the blink of an eye, and the truth of the matter is, you might be buying something that won't be in production, or possibly even serviced, within a couple of years. Kodak pulled their $14K MF backs one day and their support shortly after, leaving the shooters who invested in them out in the cold. Needless to say, at these prices, medium format sales of any brand are not brisk and the future of all the brands is hardly a predictable thing.
While medium format cameras have come a long way since the non-autofocus, even non-metering versions, they are still somewhat cumbersome and therefore not what you'd call spontaneous tools. The lens selections are limited compared to 35mm and if you've become accustomed to shooting at more than 1.3 frames a second, you'll need to get over that.
Canon's 1Ds MKIII, if it performs as I've been told, will place another nail in the coffin of medium format. $8,000 for a body vs. $29,000 for a 39 mp Hasselblad certainly needs some consideration. Yes, there's a difference in megapixels, but the 21.1 Canon sensor is a year newer in technological prowess and preliminary tests are showing it to produce an equal file, if not superior.
You have to look at all the angles, cost, versatility, longevity, worth of your investment over time, and weigh that in light of what you photograph. If you're an absolute purist and still enamored with the film process, then buy some beautiful medium format gear for next to nothing and have a wonderful time mastering the craft. If the points I've made here resonate for you, then I'd say 35mm digital is your best route.
I don't work for Canon, and my client list is an enviable one so budget is not much of a constraint. When I say that MF digital is a decision that has diminishing returns for most shooters, Pro or amateur, I think I can say it's a relatively educated and unbiased view.
I still have twinges of nostalgia when I lay a strip of square Velvia's on my light box, or a crisp 4x5 chrome. Then I remind myself of the realities of the day and go on.
Sincerely,
Jim Wilson
www.Jimwilsonphotography.com
http://JimWilsonPhotography.smugmug.com/