The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is Medium Format Right for Me?

FredBGG

Not Available
Please be specific. That is rather a broad brush you are painting with. There is nothing about my Pentax 645D that is inferior in build to a Canon. And with a few exceptions like video and live view, functionality. Are you talking about Mamiya? Hasselblad?

You are right about the Pentax 645D. Very nice build, even weather sealed.
It's limitation is in the sensor size 33x44mm puts it barely bigger than a full frame 35mm DSLR. That said it's still not the build level of a Canon 1d series camera, but we are talking about two different types of cameras.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
The 645D sensor area is closer (proportionally) to full frame 645 than it is to 35mm.
The 645D, IQ140, and IQ180 are 1.68, 2.08, and 2.52 times the area of full frame 35mm, respectively.

Yes, bigger is better, as long as the lenses are up to the task.

--Matt
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The 645D sensor area is closer (proportionally) to full frame 645 than it is to 35mm.
The 645D, IQ140, and IQ180 are 1.68, 2.08, and 2.52 times the area of full frame 35mm, respectively.

Yes, bigger is better, as long as the lenses are up to the task.

--Matt
But 6 x 8 cm film has an area almost 3 times that of the sensor in the 645D and 4.8 times that of a 35mm sensor. If one is to take the debate about "sensor" sizes seriously, the largest medium format cameras must be considered a different class of cameras compared to digital MF. Having both probably makes sense for some.

From a financial point of view, unless one produces a very large amount of MF photos, a comparison to an IQ180 doesn't make much sense. The back alone costs ten times as much as a very nice GX680 or RZ with lenses and all. For the $40,000 change, there's room for buying enough film for many years of photography, if one has the patience to wait for the film getting developed and if one likes the "look" of film.

Where I live, I pay well under $10 per film including developing at the best lab in town. With 4,000 rolls of film (which can be almost doubled if I develop myself), shooting 10 rolls per week, that's 8 years of photography. Then, the IQ180 will of course be ancient history, and the IQ360, the IQ720 or possibly the IQ1.44k will be the "investments" to make.

Not anybody's cup of tea these days, but for some of us, it's an intriguing way into MF photography for a surprisingly moderate investment (Investment without quotation marks, since I'll probably be able to get back most of what I paid for the system, should I decide to sell it). And yes, I've put my money where my mouth is and bought a GX 680 III and some lenses, a camera than in many ways lives at the crossroads between MF and LF (I believe a Schneider tilt/shift lens for a Mamiya or Phase One 645 costs more than I've paid for my whole setup).
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Film is still a great medium. And if you value format size, there in no better way to achieve that. The Fuji GX680 is a remarkable system. I fell in Love with the Mamiya 6 and Horseman SW612. Both amazing cameras. And medium-format has the greatest range of formats around.

My transition came from the practicality of running my own color darkroom. The availability of supplies and the problems of disposing of chemistry. So I decided to invest in the largest sensor I could afford, or nearly so. I bought a 645D last year. it has actually proven to be very cost effective. Based on the number of frames I have taken with that, I would have spent approximately $5000 to $10000 on film and film processing (but not printing), depending if I were shooting 6x6 or 6x12. It most likely would have been closer to the $10K mark as I typically shot more 6x12.

It would be nice to see if sensors could get bigger--I really don't care for more pixels (my 645D files take enough space as it is). However, the reality of that happening and at a price a mortal might be able to afford is somewhere between slim to none.

The nice thing about the Pentax is the optics have been relatively cheap to get and they certainly can match the sensor. There are a few dogs out there, but for the most part, you have a great choice. Medium-format has never had the lens choice of 35mm, but then I don't think the folks using medium-format have a style that call for every focal length under the sun.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
(I believe a Schneider tilt/shift lens for a Mamiya or Phase One 645 costs more than I've paid for my whole setup).
Yes... The Phase One Schneider 120mm f/5.6 MF TS Lens is $4,990.00

and with that system you are limited to one focal length for tilt shift.

With your Fuji it's every lens from 50mm to 500mm.
 

mediumcool

Active member
You are right about the Pentax 645D. Very nice build, even weather sealed.
It's [sic] limitation is in the sensor size 33x44mm puts it barely bigger than a full frame 35mm DSLR.
I would not consider the additional 68% area of a 33x44mm sensor “barely bigger” than 24x36mm!
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I would not consider the additional 68% area of a 33x44mm sensor “barely bigger” than 24x36mm!
While I agree that "barely bigger" might not be entirely precise, the relative difference is much bigger than between 35mm and APS-C which is just over 100% in Nikon's case and more than 150% in Canon's. Still a vast majority of photographers, also professionals, use APS-C rather 35mm and most of those who upgrade would do so mostly for better high ISO performance, an advantage that doesn't apply to MF digital, some for more resolution, an advantage that doesn't apply to reasonably priced MF backs after the arrival of the D800, and then for things like "look", DOF etc.
 

bumgardner

New member
I'm surprised that this thread has brought out such strong opinions.

At the moment I am considering the following bodies
Mamiya DF or an AFD(insert version)
Hasselblad H except for H3 or H4
Hasselblad V say a 503 cxi or 555....
If I can find one in decent shape in my price range a Rollie HY6 I love these bodies....

I think I would consider a Fuji GX680 if using a back were simpler and it had more fast lenses....

Backs
P25
P30
DM22
DM28
Whatever back is on the H2D39...

I plan on seeing a H2D39, Mamiya AFD and P20, 555 and P30 locally. Then I will really start narrowing things down.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Look for Plus backs in the P series. I'll bet you right now on what you will buy after you get to narrowing things down some and look for the best value per sensor ability. My bet would be a P30 Plus, P40 Plus and Hassy H40 or leaf pick the same sensor as the the P40 which I think is the Aptus 8.LOL

I been down this road owned a ZD, P25+, P30+,P40+,P65+ for 2weeks waiting for my IQ160 and shot extensively the P65+, P45+, IQ 180 and now going back to a IQ140.

Best one all around performer best value for your money given your budget is the P40+ or if you went Hassy the H 40. Just something to keep in mind when doing your homework.

Hey don't tell my wife on these numbers. Lol

I know bold predictions but I really want to drive you looking at the P40 as your goal sensors it's a outstanding sensor.
 

mediumcool

Active member
I plan on seeing a H2D39, Mamiya AFD and P20, 555 and P30 locally. Then I will really start narrowing things down.
My experience:

I began haunting GetDPI and LL nearly three years ago, and started building a Mamiya 645 system around that time. First a 645AFD from Japan, then lenses when they came up at a good price (all on eBay except for the 110 from B+H): I now have 35 f3.5, 50 f4 shift, 80 f4 macro, 110 2.8 and 210 f4, plus a Vivitar 2x teleconverter ($5 for that one!), all C or N lenses, so manual focus and manual stop-down (that’s the killer). Also have two extension tubes and a spare battery holder.

My back is an Aptus22, bought on LL (from New York) for about $5K. Total cost of the system was about $6500AU. The Aptus is slow, but capable of fine results. I intend to upgrade to AF lenses as and when they turn up, and when I can afford them. But shooting on a tripod, as I mostly do, the current system works well enough.

Unless you are very lucky, a M645 system will be the most affordable solution, perhaps followed by a Hasselblad V system, but I wish that the Contax 645 had not died; it seems to have been a great solution, with excellent lenses.

I considered a 680 to replace my recently-sold Toyo view camera, but decided the weight would preclude use in the field, so will stick to M4/3, Pentax, and Mamiya systems. HTH
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Have you ever done manual focus for the kind of shooting you do? One thing I've learned using an 40 megapixel back is that there is the plane of focus which is 40 megapixels worth and every bit back or forward from that plane of focus you sacrifice serious megapixels. If you get the focus out when shooting with manual focus then even stopped down, you're shooting with far less resolution/contrast/micro detail or whatever than you should have.
 

dick

New member
Yes... The Phase One Schneider 120mm f/5.6 MF TS Lens is $4,990.00

and with that system you are limited to one focal length for tilt shift.

With your Fuji it's every lens from 50mm to 500mm.
This almost makes a Sinar P3 system look cost effective, as the movements are in the camera so you get a full set of movements with each lens, I think from about 35 to 210mm, or 480/600mm if you count analog lenses.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
While I agree that "barely bigger" might not be entirely precise, the relative difference is much bigger than between 35mm and APS-C which is just over 100% in Nikon's case and more than 150% in Canon's. Still a vast majority of photographers, also professionals, use APS-C rather 35mm and most of those who upgrade would do so mostly for better high ISO performance, an advantage that doesn't apply to MF digital, some for more resolution, an advantage that doesn't apply to reasonably priced MF backs after the arrival of the D800, and then for things like "look", DOF etc.
I hate blanket statements. I am a professional and I went for a 645D because of sensor size. The OP is also going to MFD. Another member has recently bought a 22/33MP MFDB while knowing of the existence of the D800. Personally, I think the "look" is the most important thing--pixel resolution is overrated. Look at all the Leica shooters that stay with their system basically for the "look." Except for a few photo geeks, the audience is going to evaluate on how your image looks, not because of how many pixels it has nor its high-ISO performance nor its price nor any other tech spec.

Economics is a practical consideration for anyone. But photography as an art is not a practical pursuit. An M9 is in MFD price range and it is really an old camera/sensor. Why buy one of those when you can get a D800? Certainly the 24MP 35mm sensors did not kill of the 22MP MFDB. 24MP APS cameras don't replace 24MP 35mm cameras. Any camera you buy is a series of compromises. Each photographer is going to define the compromises that are acceptable to them. Personally, I don't really need to shoot over ISO 1600 and that speed is great on the 645D (and marginally better on the D800).

The D800 is a fine camera. But my photography is not about technical product specifications nor price. It is about the end result, the "look."
 

mediumcool

Active member
I find it interesting how many folk here and at LL espouse film as a viable MF alternative; I don’t think working photographers can afford to shoot film, unless it’s for their own amusement/pleasure/art. And the OP is a working photographer … ;)

As has been pointed out, here and elsewhere, pro photography has become increasingly commoditised as cameras get more and more idiot-proof, so the cost of buying film, processing, scanning, and subsequent colour and tonal balancing cannot be worth it for most photographers struggling to survive in straitened times. There are of course exceptions to every rule!

Where I work, the capital of South Australia, I know of no pros who use film for commercial work—personal work, yes, a few.
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Have not shot film in at least 10 years. I would be out of business. I don't personally know of anybody as a Pro that still does for commerce. It's just not a option.
 

mediumcool

Active member
Have not shot film in at least 10 years. I would be out of business. I don't personally know of anybody as a Pro that still does for commerce. It's just not a option.
Another aspect is speed—clients know from their own amateur experience that pictures appear immediately on a digital camera’s LCD screen, and have been known to want copies there and then (one reason I do not shoot DNG+JPEG any more on the Pentax); they often don’t appreciate the time, investment in software/hardware, and skill that goes into post-production.

No client I have ever known would want to pay more for a job that would take longer to deliver!
 

Aryan Aqajani

New member
I hate blanket statements. I am a professional and I went for a 645D because of sensor size. The OP is also going to MFD. Another member has recently bought a 22/33MP MFDB while knowing of the existence of the D800. Personally, I think the "look" is the most important thing--pixel resolution is overrated. Look at all the Leica shooters that stay with their system basically for the "look." Except for a few photo geeks, the audience is going to evaluate on how your image looks, not because of how many pixels it has nor its high-ISO performance nor its price nor any other tech spec.

Economics is a practical consideration for anyone. But photography as an art is not a practical pursuit. An M9 is in MFD price range and it is really an old camera/sensor. Why buy one of those when you can get a D800? Certainly the 24MP 35mm sensors did not kill of the 22MP MFDB. 24MP APS cameras don't replace 24MP 35mm cameras. Any camera you buy is a series of compromises. Each photographer is going to define the compromises that are acceptable to them. Personally, I don't really need to shoot over ISO 1600 and that speed is great on the 645D (and marginally better on the D800).

The D800 is a fine camera. But my photography is not about technical product specifications nor price. It is about the end result, the "look."
Very well said! Unfortunately, some photographers have missed that point! Vision, imagination and producing a great photograph is the ultimate goal however, it seems the trend is digging the technical specifications, pixel peeping and corner sharpness! Who gives a damn about the mood, feeling and story of a photograph these days (including myself!)! Most iconic photographs are not razor sharp, noiseless (probably grain is the right word) or shot on the latest and greatest camera of that time!

Edward Weston could not have said it better! "The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."

Just learn your current gear in and out and when you find out it cannot meet your needs anymore, then you might want to upgrade to a different system!
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I don't think I could dismiss film as not a viable medium for a professional. There are certainly hurdles to overcome today. But if you can make it work and structure your work around it, then there is not reason not to use it--it certainly has a look that is not easily reproduced any other way. The category of "professional photographer" is so broad that it is hard to reduce the profession into one acceptable process medium. And some photographer define/separate themselves by offering certain processes--film and digital. I think if I were starting out today, I would probably find it easier with a digital workflow. But since when has photography as a career been easy. And going against the trends has certainly worked out for some.

I forget, what was this thread about?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I can't structure my work around it, NO ONE wants to wait for it. Most times i HAVE to take my laptop to process right on the spot for clients. Also here in Phoenix. There maybe 2 labs left outside of Walgreens and Costco and closest to me is 40 miles one way. I'm not going to deal with that. Here is my theory you want film my rate just doubled. I drew a hard line in the sand on it. They took my Kodachrome away so I'm done with it. LOL

I know others feel diffrent this is just my prospective and also my client demands. If I don't there is some guy that will.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Excellent photographers are searching for the right "look", but most photographers, even among professionals, are rather mediocre. I've been on the buying end of photography for many years, and it's more often than not difficult to find photos and/or photographers that qualify as excellent, from a technical as well as an artistic point of view. With surprisingly many photos, it's hardly possible to evaluate if they were taken with an iPhone or an MF camera.

I'm exaggerating, but not by much. One of the good things with this forum is that the creative as well as technical standards here are very high, so there's a lot to learn for people like me. But I do honestly think that there's often a conflict between the search for continuously improving technical standards and to improve one's skills and get the most out of the equipment already sitting on one's desk. So I've decided against a D800 for the time being because it doesn't offer enough improvement over the Nikon gear that I already have, at least not from a creative point of view. MF film on the other hand, is a totally different world. I will obviously produce less that way, but hopefully, long term, of superior quality. And when commercial clients need urgent results, I do have digital equipment to cater for those needs too.

It's not a question of either or, but to find a combination of gear that will solve the challenges that are present in each individual photographer's world.

Economy is often a limiting factor, particularly in this part of the world where many local photographers charge as little as $200 per day. But I've found that the only way to survive is to look beyond that and ask not what the client is willing to pay for a photo, but what he's willing to pay for my photo, and then ask myself: Can I create that photo with the gear I have or with other gear that I can actually afford.

So instead of looking for ever improving technical perfection, it makes more sense to look for creative development and a personal style, the "look". And if the price of that look doesn't pay for digital MF, I have to find other ways of creating it, be it APS-C or MF film or any other format available out there.

The gear is not the product, it's the tool needed to create the product, but we all know that, although we sometimes tend to get astray and create needs that don't really lead us anywhere in the real world.

Now, if I could only learn to live what I'm preaching :ROTFL:
 
Top