Right on.We have to assume that the O.P. came here to get some info on film cameras.Why send him/her somewhere else?I use Mamiya and Pentax-6x6,6x7 and 6x4.5,all great,but the deals on RB's and RZ's can't be beat right now.Look 'em up-take your time.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
I shoot both film and digital. D40, D5100, D90, F100, Fm2n, etc. I also have shot MF, Pentax 645n and Yashca D. The medium format shots are head and shoulders above the digital (at least what I can afford), or the 35mm. Even simple snapshots on the 645 have a superior look.
I can highly recommend the Pentax 645 series. They are simple to use and offer a nice selection of lenses. Just a big SLR, like you are already used to.
The Yashica (twin lens reflex) take some getting used to, but are also great. Try to get a Yashica 124 or 124G if you go this route, they have the higher quality Yashinon lens as opposed to the Yashikor lens. My understanding is that it will be sharper to the edges - something that will probably be important to you.
Obviously, there are other cameras out there, but these are the ones I'm personally familiar with.
If the man comes on here to ask about film and particularly Medium Format, I think we should answer his questions. He is already familiar with digital, and has decided to give this a try. Best of luck.
Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
Right. Selling the idea of the earth as round can be a challenge around here.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
You guys are hilarious This is a great place. Glad I found it.
We can always say, "well, why bother with film?" but APUG is a place for people who have made that consideration can say, "yes, I know I can do it with digital, but if I want to try doing with traditional techniques, how do I do it?" and they should be able to get an answer without facing the ridicule they can expect on most other photo forums on the internet.
So to answer the question, 6x6 and 6x7 have traditionally been very popular for product shoots. They are flexible systems, suited to studio work, and rollfilm is less costly to process than sheet film. 6x7 is suited to many common print formats, so think about your output and work backward to decide whether it is advantageous to shoot a rectangular format. You might also think about the Fuji GX680 system, which offers view camera movements with a rectangular rollfilm format--very attractive for tabletop work. Medium format equipment in general is very affordable these days.
Medium and large format have been attractive for advertising work not only for the quality, but because the big transparencies looked good on a light table, and that helped to sell the images. Photo editors don't work that way so much any more, but if you have the opportunity to present some big transparencies in presentation mats with a portable light pad to an editor or art director who hasn't looked at any recently, they might be impressed, even if they think it's a bit quixotic to be doing commercial work on film except at the very high end.
Scanning is for the most part an off topic subject for APUG, but on topic for DPUG.org, so you might want to join DPUG, if you haven't already done so to discuss that part of your workflow.
I can get a 645 1000S for $250 with a few extras and a lens or a RB67 for about the same.
In either case, portability is not a priority. Sounds like I may be better to do 6x7.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well I meant no offense in my post I was just considering practicality. If you are willing to adopt the workflow and cost of shooting medium format then I'm all for it! The RB67 would deliver some amazing quality and a supremely reasonable price. In partial to the RZ67 myself but that just because I used to previously own and work with that system and would again if my needs were as such. The RB is largely the same thing so you can't go wrong with either one.
I wasn't trying to steer you away from film or even medium format I was just trying to better gauge what your needs were based upon your original post.
Now that I have more of an understanding, by all means, go for it!
It is a fair observation to suggest that if the OP intends to use the results for at least some digital purposes, it would be wise that he/she check into the availability to him/her of good processing and scanning options. At the very least it would be a good idea to have knowledge about the costs associated before proceeding.
I live in an area where there are good resources still available. If the OP either has local resources available, or can work with send-out and return resources, or can equip him/herself to do it themselves, then it's worthwhile examining the advantages.
I'll give you an example of what is available to me - I shot a roll of 220 Portra two weekends ago using my Mamiya 645 equipment. I had the 30 shots developed at my local pro lab and received "colour-corrected" medium resolution scans (2796 x 2048 pixels) and one set of 4x5 proofs. The cost was $5.50 for the developing, $24.95 for the scans and $17.70 for the 30 proofs, plus the 12% sales tax. At B & H, the film would cost $10.79 plus shipping to replace.
In my black and white work, I like the negatives I get from my Mamiya 645 equipment, and love the negatives I get from my Mamiya 67 equipment. I hate doing scans from them though.
Last edited by MattKing; 10-16-2011 at 09:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Despite the predictable knee-jerk snark from the crew here, you all might consider the OP has posted elsewhere about difficulty finding local processing, especially 120 and E6.
No offense taken. I figured with 6 posts I'd probably get some reality check type responses. So understood there =)
Originally Posted by agphotography
As far as reality check, I don't know for sure that I know what I'm looking for. That I have to admit. And that's why I'm asking here. I may not need to go film. I've never experienced the differences (in my work) between the D40, 35mm (just picked one up after years of digital and never bothered to compare), and Medium Format.
I am just learning as far as where to have the film developed and then what to do with it. I bought an Epson V300 (which may have to go back now) and found that it only scans 35mm negatives/slides. But then again, 35mm may be good enough. I really don't know since I haven't done the comparisons. I wish there was more that I could see for myself in examples.
As cost saving as I thought this may be, I'm starting to get the reality that scanning will get expensive whether I do it myself (high upfront cost) or have it done.
What got me started in all of this is a few 35mm prints I scanned about 6 years ago of my 1 year old (my first son who's now age 7) taken with an old manual focus Pentax MV that looked great. I've always thought there was something special about those scans. They were done on some cheap flatbed scanner but just had a feel to them that I liked compared to the past several years of digital.
Last edited by 777funk; 10-16-2011 at 10:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.
No, it's just that your idea of round is rather more cynical than a lot of others'.
Originally Posted by CGW
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.