Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,831   Posts: 1,582,304   Online: 1053
      
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 118
  1. #51
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,821
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Roger, have you ever held a GF670 in your hands? It will blow. Your. Mind.
    Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  2. #52
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,556
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by fretlessdavis View Post
    I'd say 645 is the best all-around format.

    Also, plenty of people claim they can't see differences between 35mm and 645 on small prints. It's pretty obvious to me on the 5x7's I proof with. FP4, D76, handheld with both, the 645 looks so much better.
    Well, if you stated these things as your opinion it would be a lot easier to digest. In my world 35mm is by far the best allround format, because up to 16x20" print size I get such good print quality that it doesn't really matter. I don't need anything better. Can you see finer grain and slightly smoother tonal transitions? Sure! Does that make it better? Well, that's a matter of taste, isn't it...
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  3. #53
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    279
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Well, if you stated these things as your opinion it would be a lot easier to digest. In my world 35mm is by far the best allround format, because up to 16x20" print size I get such good print quality that it doesn't really matter. I don't need anything better. Can you see finer grain and slightly smoother tonal transitions? Sure! Does that make it better? Well, that's a matter of taste, isn't it...
    Sorry. I didn't mean to come off like an ass. I assumed it would be taken as my opinion.

    645 can be small, handheld, and is pretty streamlined. You spend less time changing backs or inserts, and film economy is pretty high. If you print rectangles, you don't waste film real estate. Weight isn't a ton less than other MF systems, but it is less, and a bit more compact.

    For me, I start to see a level of grittiness up close that I don't like when I push 35mm past 8x10, and for detailed landscapes, I've found 645 the smallest format for acceptable smoothness and microdetail. My wallet hurts less when I want to bracket on 645, than if I did on anything bigger.

    Yes, my technical quality would be better using my 4x5, but I can't handhold that, and it's big, heavy, and requires more accessories.

    Yes, I'd have even more economy, a lighter and smaller kit, and even more hand-hold-ability by using 35mm, but I find the negatives a bit too small.

    /opinion

    that better for you?
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  4. #54
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,556
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by fretlessdavis View Post
    Sorry. I didn't mean to come off like an ass. I assumed it would be taken as my opinion.

    645 can be small, handheld, and is pretty streamlined. You spend less time changing backs or inserts, and film economy is pretty high. If you print rectangles, you don't waste film real estate. Weight isn't a ton less than other MF systems, but it is less, and a bit more compact.

    For me, I start to see a level of grittiness up close that I don't like when I push 35mm past 8x10, and for detailed landscapes, I've found 645 the smallest format for acceptable smoothness and microdetail. My wallet hurts less when I want to bracket on 645, than if I did on anything bigger.

    Yes, my technical quality would be better using my 4x5, but I can't handhold that, and it's big, heavy, and requires more accessories.

    Yes, I'd have even more economy, a lighter and smaller kit, and even more hand-hold-ability by using 35mm, but I find the negatives a bit too small.

    /opinion

    that better for you?

    Much better. And fair even!

    But you can hand hold a 4x5, particularly a Graflex SLR or something like a Speed Graphic.

    For a while I owned a Mamiya 645 and I've had Fuji 645 rangefinders - both cameras were fantastic, and I love the prints I get from the negatives. It's just that for the most part I couldn't shoot the way I wanted to. 35mm allows me the freedom to shoot in very difficult lighting (which I enjoy), and somehow I really enjoy that beautiful grain when I make big prints from ISO 400 film, or even something like Delta 3200 looks incredible at 20x24.

    I guess it takes all kinds. Thinking back to the original topic - awesome chromes - at 6x7 those things really come into their own as objects to just behold on a light table, which is my favorite way to look at them, exploring them with a good piece of glass.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    155
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
    Well, have you ever seen a photo/negative from the GF670? Why don't you show us some of your photos taken with your ultra-Hasselblad and your über-Zeiss lenses that clearly show their superiority over everything else. 12,450 posts of which many seem to boil down to "Hasselblad is the answer to all your photographic needs/questions/problems" and "square is the perfect negative shape". But not a single photo to be seen.
    Last edited by spijker; 03-05-2014 at 08:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #56
    fretlessdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    279
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Much better. And fair even!

    But you can hand hold a 4x5, particularly a Graflex SLR or something like a Speed Graphic.

    For a while I owned a Mamiya 645 and I've had Fuji 645 rangefinders - both cameras were fantastic, and I love the prints I get from the negatives. It's just that for the most part I couldn't shoot the way I wanted to. 35mm allows me the freedom to shoot in very difficult lighting (which I enjoy), and somehow I really enjoy that beautiful grain when I make big prints from ISO 400 film, or even something like Delta 3200 looks incredible at 20x24.

    I guess it takes all kinds. Thinking back to the original topic - awesome chromes - at 6x7 those things really come into their own as objects to just behold on a light table, which is my favorite way to look at them, exploring them with a good piece of glass.
    Going to have to try handholding by B&J Press Camera once I recalibrate the Kalart (and clean the fungus). I have shaky hands, so I don't know how it'll go, but it should be sweet.

    I spend a lot of time backpacking. For the landscape type stuff I do (not big scenics, usually cool rocks and formations), I just could't get the textures I want out of 35mm-- I spent a lot of time with Nikon, Pentax, FP4, Delta, and all kinds of things to get better detail. I had an 'AHA!' moment as soon as I tried MF. I considered a Pentax 6x7, Century Graphic, RB67, and sticking with 4x5. Basically, my conclusion was, that I could use a 645 rig for everything I do, so I wouldn't have to stock multiple systems. I'm down to nothing but 645 and 4x5 now.

    If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get the GA645zi-- And will still probably snag one, soon!
    New-ish convert to film.
    Pentax MX for 35mm
    Bronica ETRS for 645

  7. #57
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,821
    Quote Originally Posted by spijker View Post
    Well, have you ever seen a photo/negative from the GF670? Why don't you show us some of your photos taken with your ultra-Hasselblad and your über-Zeiss lenses that clearly show their superiority over everything else. 12,450 posts of which many seem to boil down to "Hasselblad is the answer to all your photographic needs/questions/problems" and "square is the perfect negative shape". But not a single photo to be seen.
    I also take 4"x5" photographs. The GF670 is convenient because it is a folder, however later it will not allow the user to use different focal lengths. Both the GF670 and the Hasselblad can be sold for about what it costs if the OP decides that particular camera is not for him/her.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  8. #58
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,200

    Should I go for a 6x4.5 system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Here we go again. 645 or any other format is not better than 35mm. It is different.
    Better in terms of grain, resolution etc. but if you want a grainy look, no. If you miss the photo you would have gotten with 35mm because your 645 was too big to bring along or lacked the right lens etc. then 35mm would have been better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,226
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Hardly. Have you ever used a H*A*S*S*E*L*B*L*A*D at 6x6? Now that will really blow your mind, as opposed to a GF670 virtual slightly bend your mind.
    My GF670 fits in perfectly inside my jacket pocket. That to me, is mind blowing. Medium format, 6 x 7 no less, in my pocket.

  10. #60
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Better in terms of grain, resolution etc. but if you want a grainy look, no. If you miss the photo you would have gotten with 35mm because your 645 was too big to bring along or lacked the right lens etc. then 35mm would have been better.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think what Thomas is getting at is that "better" and "worse" are not good words to use to describe formats, films, developers.....

    More or less might be better, finer/courser, .....

    Do you like big tomatoes or small?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin