medium Format Camera

D_C_NC · October 29, 2007

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...

ziggy53 · October 29, 2007

Medium format digital has some advantages over a dSLR, but a dSLR tends to be much, much more responsive and versatile.

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.

Pindy · October 29, 2007

Ziggy, you are one of the most even-keel people I have ever known. I'm calling you next time I need to be talked off a ledge!

Miguel Delinquento · October 30, 2007

So what are your using requirements? I know plenty of professionals who use medium format film gear. Consumables and processing services are very pricey and demand lots of shooting discipline, just the opposite of digital really. My friends are good, even great and they make a decent living using those big heavy things with a depth of field you can camp out in. That's about where my fantasy ends.

Havelock · October 30, 2007

For sure I'm not an expert, but I have Holga:D - medium format all plastic toy camera that makes totally unexpected, dreamy images.
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.

D_C_NC · October 30, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

Medium format digital has some advantages over a dSLR, but a dSLR tends to be much, much more responsive and versatile.

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.

Thanks for the feedback. You make a good point about the DSLR being more versitile.( when I shot for a living I had it all, 35mm to 8x10 , each had it's own purpose ) I am not sure what I want to do as of yet so I am going to hold off on any camera purchase for awhile at least until I learn the CS3 a bit more and the other programs that I have found for the digital darkroom. I will keep my trusty 717 sony at hand . I am basically approaching this as an expensive hobby that will allow me to sell some prints in the local area art stores , a few have made the offer if I were to pick up a camera again. Thanks again for you taking the time to respond. http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w43/Dirt11NC/sc003111e1.jpg

claudermilk · October 30, 2007

They're really two different tools for different jobs. Since you mention having everything from 35mm through 8x10 I'll skip the long-winded comparison between them--I assume you are already familiar with the differences.

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.

Now I want a folder to play with. It's a sickness.

D_C_NC · October 30, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

They're really two different tools for different jobs. Since you mention having everything from 35mm through 8x10 I'll skip the long-winded comparison between them--I assume you are already familiar with the differences.

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. Now I want a folder to play with. It's a sickness.

I have contemplated the idea of film and then scanning the image ( Good scanners are not cheap that will do 4x5 ) , as I do not intend to buy a whole darkroom and smell toxic poisions again. I have never had an auto-focus camera until recently , I bought a used sony DSC717 just recently and find it frustrating at times but , at my old age I do not see as well as I use to when I was a kid, especially when there is a lack of light and an acurate AF does not sound too bad . Thanks for bringing up the point as my serious commercial days are long gone most likely , this is going to be for my pleasure .Of course that is how I started out as a kid , I just was having fun and then it became a buisiness..... http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w43/Dirt11NC/sc003111e1.jpg That is me a bunch younger ...... Thanks again.....

claudermilk · October 31, 2007

:bash Duh, now looking at your avatar I recall the post with the larger version of that shot. Uh, you've probably forgotten more than I've ever learned in photography, much less me presuming to give any kind of little pointers in MF.

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.

ziggy53 · October 31, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

:bash Duh, now looking at your avatar I recall the post with the larger version of that shot. Uh, you've probably forgotten more than I've ever learned in photography, much less me presuming to give any kind of little pointers in MF.

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.

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

D_C_NC · October 31, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

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

Thank you very much for the link. Great reading and also a good explanation of the pro's and con's of the ZD. I guess , I will wait for the 1Ds MarkIII to arrive and let the people speak . His comments about the D3 were interesting also as I used to be an all canon guy in the past but , today I have no allegiance one way or the other as long as the glass in front of the camera is equal. Thanks again to one and all for their comments, all is very much appreciated...

Iron Creek · October 31, 2007

My two cents worth...

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.

Art Scott · October 31, 2007

As the pros and cons have been stated .....I am still shooting with a Kiev88cm and love it.....it is totally manual, does have a ttl meter but I still hand meter so I don't pay attention to built in meters.....I do wish i had the MooooLah or one of the great digital back s for that square format camera......

claudermilk · November 1, 2007

One thing that Iron Creek mentioned that probably wasn't completely clear: the 645AF(D) bodies can use any of the 645M lenses. Those manual lenses are dirt cheap--the standard lens BGN rated at KEH is $43, which is what I currently have as my sole lens. As far as I can tell it's every bit as good as my $1k L glass. Obsolescence can be a wonderful thing.

D_C_NC · November 1, 2007

Thank you Don , Art and Chris.... I am sure Don that you are a business with your gear and make $$$ just an observation after looking at your work. So to buy a P30 back is an amortization waiting to happen. I am afraid to start to travel down that path as I might really like it and then buy it and then the wife and the dogs leave and her lawyer moves in with me , been there done that... BUT , that is what is so enticing actually as I was one of the fools that carried an 8 X 10 into the world out of a studio to get the astonishing image , just because it was a larger negative. ( That was for my fun I did that, crazy I was ...) Now I can hold a hasselblad in my hand and have the same quality of information available , pretty neat to me . Now back to practicality , I have not held a real camera in my hands in more than 20 years . I went sailing for 10 of those 20 years and then met my now wife.No more sailing , she has a real job , so I have been floundering for quite awhile and have deciced to do something right or wrong. A 10K or even 20K investment I can get away with at this point in my life with out my wife heading for the lawyer , so that excludes the P30 back , for now... Art I get youur point as I had thought of that as an alternative except maybe a compact 4X5 that I could scan as that camera would do nothing but , scenery... Thanks Chris for clearifying the lens point... I would really love to pull the trigger on the Phase one systems but , Ziggy made the point earlier,that over all the DSLR is more versatile ,alas more practical and for 15K I can have a real nice system , of course for a lot less I can have a film camera and scan... RAW is enticing... I wish the Canon and NIkon would hurry up and come out with the new Gear.... Thanks again to one and all.... A side note I spent all day learning how to selective color , curves and layer masks , Black and white conversion and I did get frustraded on more than one occaision....

swintonphoto · November 2, 2007

I use to use a 6x6 Hasselblad 501CM before I switched to digital. That was a hard pill for me to swallow initially. However, I have really come to appreciate the flexibility of smaller feature packed gear. But, there is always this small voice in the back of my head that wants a digital back for my hasselblad. I am not sure if it is the square format, the waist-level viewfinder, or the Zeiss 80mm 2.8 Planar lens (Probably the best lens ever manufactured by anybody - EVER). What do you know... look at my dgrin photo with me standing beside my old trusted friend. Alas - I miss using that amazing camera. But, these new DSLRs are pretty sweet. I chose the Oly gear for the great compact size, and the 4x3 format - close as I could get to a square.
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.

claudermilk · November 2, 2007

You could get a KatzEye screen with the appropriate crop lines on it...

Slightly OT, but it seems eerily well-timed for this thread, yesterday's WTD

Jim Wilson · November 12, 2007

The Medium Format Dilemma

D_C_NC wrote:

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...

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/

medium Format Camera

Comments