Medium Format
- Thread starter scott916
- Start date
Shooting a Diana F+, wife has a holga. Not really the same thing :/ Unless your ritz camera shop is on the ball, or you have a serious pro shop near you - You must get film online.
processing 120 is at least a weeklong affair to send it out (or you must learn to do it yourself - C-41 or e-6 process for color, or b&w process.) - or maybe you got a pro shop that does it onsite overnight or in a few hours.
Even with the toy cameras I get amazingly good pictures. I don't get prints, I just scan the negs (epson v500) - which is plenty for fun stuff. If your looking to make money invest in a film scanner (dedicated). (coolscan V ftw)
processing 120 is at least a weeklong affair to send it out (or you must learn to do it yourself - C-41 or e-6 process for color, or b&w process.) - or maybe you got a pro shop that does it onsite overnight or in a few hours.
Even with the toy cameras I get amazingly good pictures. I don't get prints, I just scan the negs (epson v500) - which is plenty for fun stuff. If your looking to make money invest in a film scanner (dedicated). (coolscan V ftw)
Anubis
No Lifer
i have a Bronica (poor mans blad) its 2.25, its a fun lil toy. bobdole369 covered most things that are important. This is personal pref but i never liked the 645 format, 2.25 or 6x7 IMO
I think it's pretty much a waste of time and money at this point. MF is practically dead for reasons. I suggest putting it towards full-frame digital or, if you're really committed, considering large format instead.
Here's a pic of my "Ikon on a Nikon" for what it's worth. It's lovely, and once in a blue moon I'll get some pleasure in using it, but that's it. It and my other MF cameras are not really useful tools, and my darkroom's long dark, scanning is not fun, and investing money in expensive MF lenses is not productive until matching digital backs become affordable, which seems like never at this time.
http://i89.photobucket.com/alb.../Madwand0/Ikoflex3.jpg
Here's a pic of my "Ikon on a Nikon" for what it's worth. It's lovely, and once in a blue moon I'll get some pleasure in using it, but that's it. It and my other MF cameras are not really useful tools, and my darkroom's long dark, scanning is not fun, and investing money in expensive MF lenses is not productive until matching digital backs become affordable, which seems like never at this time.
http://i89.photobucket.com/alb.../Madwand0/Ikoflex3.jpg
Wow seriously? You don't use it so there must be no use huh? Can't think of any? Wow.
OP- Get that 645, it's a great camera and have some fun taking fantastic shots!
Don't listen to people who tell you to buy thousands of dollars worth of digital gear, when for $500 you can be cranking out shots that best a D700, D3, 1D 5D2, etc.
What retardedness (is that a word?) to suggest to someone who wants to pick up a Pentax MF off of craigslist for $100 to try some landscapes buy a full frame digital.
Anubis
No Lifer
Do it. Also, buy a film scanner. Scanned medium format film at high ppi has nearly endless capability. I still shoot with a Hasselblad 509 from time to time. Great camera, but I absolutely hate processing 120 film. I always end up screwing up the loading process.
Well, that's this guy's opinion, and many happen to disagree, most with their own dollars.
His alternative is not really any cheaper in the long run -- good MF scanners are not cheap, and neither are good MF lenses, darkrooms and materials, etc. on the long term, despite the fact that the bottom has dropped out of the MF market.
OP, go ahead and make up your own mind. I've given you my opinion, and it's honest, and based on real experience and plenty of cost and effort. Of course your experience and tastes might be different, and there's no way to really evaluate experience except by experiencing it. You asked a question, and I gave you a serious personal answer. Some others don't like it and blow up on the Internet. Yawn.
MF cameras are fun. Especially so when using positive films.
Though I prefer shooting 35mm digital 99.9% of the time, there're those 0.1% times when MF shines.
For $100, I suggest you buy it just because it's darn cheap even if you later find the camera useless. At least, it'll be served as a good decoration figure.
Though I prefer shooting 35mm digital 99.9% of the time, there're those 0.1% times when MF shines.
For $100, I suggest you buy it just because it's darn cheap even if you later find the camera useless. At least, it'll be served as a good decoration figure.
Originally posted by: scott916
I ended up not getting it. It didn't include the battery holder, and Pentax no longer carries that part.
Good to see you went and checked it out instead of running out and spending thousands on a full frame, before you have any lenses.
But then again who would actually take that advice seriously, since the person recommending you do that was too busy yawning to actually see you wanted to experiment with a MF?
Originally posted by: scott916
I ended up not getting it. It didn't include the battery holder, and Pentax no longer carries that part.
Well, you might be able to find the part on eBay or something, but on the other hand, I think you're lucky to find out that this is a dead end before having accumulated thousands of dollars of MF gear, as many others have.
An alternative if you really want to try MF film for fun is a vintage TLR. You only need to add film, photographic and some mechanical skills to such a camera, which you can easily find on eBay, etc., for around $100. The Japanese cameras such as the Minolta Autocord are generally better-priced, but not as well-built. The Zeiss I showed on the other hand is better built, but has worse ergonomics. Either can shoot very decent pictures with good film if you know what you're doing.
What you do after exposing the film is another pain-point with MF. I do not recommend spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on high-end gear to try to optimize the results. If you look around, you can sometimes find affordable labs which can give you inexpensive digital scans together with processing. Agfa machines perhaps. They're probably also disappearing. This is a good idea even if you intend to manually scan the keepers at high resolution, as it gives you a quick view and catalog of what you shot. Such services are hard to find, but can make a big difference. The next level I know of is a pro shop which will process and scan at a relatively high cost per frame. Perhaps some others here can advise about other mail-in options. There are no simple answers, but there are options here and there which can get you going if you still choose to pursue it.
I recommend NCPS for high quality scans. Get the film processed at your local Ritz/Wolf or Ritz like store.
Here is a link for those who don't know about MF cameras and film. The website is run by a well known and respected photographer and is generally spot on. As Madwand1 points out, MF has lost a bit of appeal with some folks. But it still has a large following... particularly with those who went the best possible image at a respectable price. There is a reason that almost all flavors of 110 that was made 10 years ago and yesterday, is still available today. They wouldn't make it if people weren't buying it. It's not old stock film that is still available either... this is new stuff. I love the fact that people are dumping their MF cameras. There has never been a better time to buy then now. Case in point:
I almost had a deal on Craigslist for 2 Mamiya RZ645, 2 prism finders (one auto), a 110mm lens, a 65mm lens, and a 100-200mm lens (all Mamiya Seko) 2 220 backs and a 120 back for $400. The only reason I didn't buy it.... somebody else beat me to it overnight.
Don't tell me it's a costly dead end. These deals are everywhere if you look.
MF
As far as film processing etc. you don't need to touch a developer or even consider that cost. I have never processed a roll of film, and never intend to. It's definitely a respectable art, but one I don't intend to take up, at least not now.
I almost had a deal on Craigslist for 2 Mamiya RZ645, 2 prism finders (one auto), a 110mm lens, a 65mm lens, and a 100-200mm lens (all Mamiya Seko) 2 220 backs and a 120 back for $400. The only reason I didn't buy it.... somebody else beat me to it overnight.
Don't tell me it's a costly dead end. These deals are everywhere if you look.
MF
As far as film processing etc. you don't need to touch a developer or even consider that cost. I have never processed a roll of film, and never intend to. It's definitely a respectable art, but one I don't intend to take up, at least not now.
Here's another article on MF from the Luminous Landscape, by its publisher and primary author:
Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format.
However, you still don't have to believe him or anyone else on the subject, and whatever they or I may say, you can still judge for yourself and choose to use film. In fact, many photographers who have gone completely digital for their work still use film from time to time for their own pleasure.
Cheers.
Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format.
However, you still don't have to believe him or anyone else on the subject, and whatever they or I may say, you can still judge for yourself and choose to use film. In fact, many photographers who have gone completely digital for their work still use film from time to time for their own pleasure.
Cheers.
That's a great article. If only it were relevant to the OP! He was wanting to buy a 645 for $100 to try out MF for landscapes. I stand behind my original statement that is ridiculous to reccomend a high end full frame camera as a better option.
Should I spend $100 on a 645 to try it out and shoot landscapes?
No! Spend over a thousand on a full frame digital....!
LOL
Not like I care, it's not my money. I just call them as I see them.
Should I spend $100 on a 645 to try it out and shoot landscapes?
No! Spend over a thousand on a full frame digital....!
LOL
Not like I care, it's not my money. I just call them as I see them.
Ok, we all got your point. You can stop repeating 'OMG!! thousands $$$ of digital camera over MF film!!!' parade.
I have a Bronica ETR-Si that I bought in 2000. 75mm (std lens), 2 120 backs, 40mm lens, speed grip, prism finder.
I love the act of taking TIME to shoot pictures. There is nothing fast about a MF camera. Manual focus, no in camera meter, usually on a tripod with a remote release.
MF shot
It's small, but I have almost nothing scanned. This was shot (wide open for sure) with Delta 3200 ISO, exposed at 1600 ISO, developed normally.
I sold most of my gear to buy this house, but still have a few pieces. Elan IIe and grip, Eos 3 with grip, 50mm f/1.8, Bronny and 75mm lens, 2 120 backs, Bogen 'pod with 3 way head, Bogen monopod, some Lumedyne studio lights.
I will continue to shoot the film cameras until I have no film left. I don't know what I'll do then.
I love the act of taking TIME to shoot pictures. There is nothing fast about a MF camera. Manual focus, no in camera meter, usually on a tripod with a remote release.
MF shot
It's small, but I have almost nothing scanned. This was shot (wide open for sure) with Delta 3200 ISO, exposed at 1600 ISO, developed normally.
I sold most of my gear to buy this house, but still have a few pieces. Elan IIe and grip, Eos 3 with grip, 50mm f/1.8, Bronny and 75mm lens, 2 120 backs, Bogen 'pod with 3 way head, Bogen monopod, some Lumedyne studio lights.
I will continue to shoot the film cameras until I have no film left. I don't know what I'll do then.
Ahh, good to see the official forum spokesperson has chimed in for everyone.
I'll be happy to end this discussion with my last post. But the show must go on.
I'll be happy to end this discussion with my last post. But the show must go on.
The others have given their calm opinions and you have given your rather furious opnion.
I don't know why you're so pumped up about this issue as if it's some sort of religious or political matter. What 'show' are you talking about? There's no show going on here but your parade.
I don't really see the need to continue a dialog with you in this thread. You took it from opinions on the topic (however heated you think it is) to your problem with me. If you don't have a problem, can it. If you do, take it to me via PM.
As I said once before I am more than happy to end my replies with the last thing I posted on the topic.
MF rocks, nothing is dead - in fact Kodak's film business is one of the few parts of the company actually making money. More and more I am disliking even DSLR's lack of dynamic range and fine details when compared to film. Also the entry point to very good digital cameras that approach films resolution is quite high. Nothing even comes close to 120 film in quality, the current gen of pro digitals are just now starting to match 35mm in resolution - but not in dynamic range. Now don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of digital cameras. Progress always marches forward.
To be honest - I'd like to just take a picture sometimes and not have to worry about camera shake, exposing for the highlights/lowlights, ISO range, then having to post process to add sharpness, adjust tonal range, levels, and all that jazz.
Choose film, set shutter speed, set aperture, compose, focus, CLICK. That's how it should be.
To be honest - I'd like to just take a picture sometimes and not have to worry about camera shake, exposing for the highlights/lowlights, ISO range, then having to post process to add sharpness, adjust tonal range, levels, and all that jazz.
Choose film, set shutter speed, set aperture, compose, focus, CLICK. That's how it should be.
This is very misleading. Here are some unbiased facts from Kodak:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ph...11&p=irol-newsEarnings
My interpretation:
18% decline in a single year is huge, and is not going to motivate Kodak to invest more in traditional photography. To the contrary, Kodak has been keeping profitability by slashing investment in this area for a long time, and this year's overall performance will have additional cuts as consequences.
Kodak's film business is also largely driven by the movie business, not by still photography.
Kodak's latest color negative film, the Ektar 100 (a name from around two decades ago and a film that was a tweak off movie film) is not available in MF, and is also slated to kill off UC100 and UC400, which were available in a limited fashion in MF. Whether or not a MF version comes out at all is an open question. Apparently Kodak doesn't yet see much of point in advertising their "latest and greatest" to the MF market. That still leaves the Portra films and Fuji though, but Agfa's also long gone.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter