Zeiss Ikonta 521/2 med format on a buget
I just picked up a very nice Zeiss Ikonta 521/2 for $30. I wanted to try med format on a buget and I don't like plasic Holgas so this seemed like a nice way to get started. I feel like if I don't use a well built camera with nice optics I'm wasting good film. I do have a Canon 20d and I shoot alot of digital and I like it better in alot a ways but I feel myself being drawn to larger formats of film because of the tone, contrast and feel of the images. It seems like film has a very special quality that digital can't seem to reproduce. I'd like to know others thoughts on this subject. Does anyone know why lager formts look so good, it's not a resolution issue it's somthing else. Here is a pic taken with a Zeiss Ikonta 521/2 to show what I'm talking about.
Good Afternoon, ZorkiRF,
One approach is to think of film simply as a recording device. If you shoot the same scene three times, once with 35mm, once with MF, and once with LF, you will record the same thing each time, but, with 35mm all the information has to be crammed into one and one-half square inches. With the larger sizes, the same information is recorded onto more square inches, allowing for the possibility that more subtle detail will be retained. A crude comparison (dating me back several decades, of course) is the recording of music onto tape at slow, medium, and fast speeds. The fastest speed, usually 7.5 inches/sec. used more tape to acquire the same basic information but was more likely to preserve more detail and sound better.
Anyway, you're obviously infected by the same disease many of us suffer from; LF is just around the corner!
Of course, one will not be enough... :-)
I really like the old folders - good results, and easy to carry. I now have a variety of 6x6 and 6x9 cameras, and my two favourites are Russian.
Give it a try handheld of course, but also stick it on a tripod to see what it really can do.
Absolutely, you'll be amazed. I have a 1928 vintage Voigtlander with Skopar that, on a 6x9 negative, can routinely produce negatives that are single-pixel sharp in 2400 ppi scans, which corresponds roughly to 25x enlargement (given a screen resolution of 96 ppi), or at least 8x for a print (18x25 inches, near enough), more likely 12x (27x38 inches, about) by the print ppi standards common for digital. When was the last time you saw a print in the 30x40 inch class that was sharp when you had your nose right up to the paper?
Now, imagine what that camera could do with a pressure plate...
Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.