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!

Anyone shooting Medium Format Film

GregMO

Member
I shoot medium format film in 617. 617 and 5x7 are my most used cameras.
I rarely use my Fuji 690's and once a year use my 645 AFD to do the 1 time per year family group photo and pic of my baby nieces.
As long as you enjoy it..nothing else matters.
 

Attachments

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Some samples, Pentax 67, Velvia, Minolta Dimage Pro scanner

Hi,

Here are some sampes From my Pentax 67: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten

Most images are shot on Velvia with a P67. Some images are probably Provia, the last few are digital images shot with Sony Alpha 99.

Scanning was on Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro a 3200 PPI CCD scanner made for 120 film.

CCD scanners are significantly limited in Density Range. The Minolta was probably around 3.2 while the Max density of Velvia was around 4.0. These figures are log 10 units. Minolta's specs said 4.8, but that figure is just a marketing number.

To scan slide film really well, you would need a drum scanner using Photo Multiplier Tube technology. The Imacons are often said to be drum scanners, but they are definitively not. They have no drums, and they are CCD devices.

Best regards
Erik
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Re: Some samples, Pentax 67, Velvia, Minolta Dimage Pro scanner

To scan slide film really well, you would need a drum scanner using Photo Multiplier Tube technology. The Imacons are often said to be drum scanners, but they are definitively not. They have no drums, and they are CCD devices.
A well-done camera based film-scanning capture system will exceed a drum scanner at many many times faster; I know as I've done the tests myself.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Re: Some samples, Pentax 67, Velvia, Minolta Dimage Pro scanner

PHi Doug,

I would agree in part, as I have done tests like that of my own. But I have some reservations, too.

Foremost, it is not easy to set up a good film scanning setup. Yes, DT knows how to that, but I don't think folks looking into MF film have such a high budget.

Also, a CCD based system will never be able to match the Density Range of Velvia, late generation CMOS will do.

Some high quality drum scanners can scan at 10000 PPI, and I don't think that resolution can be matched by digital backs.

On the other hand, film has inherent grain, while digital is very clean. Also, film has a gradual drop of of MTF, while digital backs maintain MTF in high frequencies better than film.

So, if you have a a good digital back, it will be much better used for shooting the subjects digitally than going over film and doing repro of the film.

Best regards
Erik




A well-done camera based film-scanning capture system will exceed a drum scanner at many many times faster; I know as I've done the tests myself.
 
Last edited:
You're not a real masochist until you use a GX680...
Guilty!!
My hiking choice, though for now it sits in the case while I use my pocket camera RZ67..:)

I am shooting film still and I do love Delta100, FP4+ and HP5+...and on colour side I stocked up on Fujichrome Pro400x - it's a truly amazing film!
I still have one frozen roll of Astia 220 - it's absolutely unbelievable, and just as gutting that it's out of production.
Scanning on Epson 970 is a bit of a challenge, especially to get the settings right in the beginning, but I would love to think that I nailed it.

Velvia100


Pro400X


Reala100 (out of production)


Astia100 (out of production)


Film has certain character and its properties might be pleasant for some, and unwelcome for others.
Another thing that kept me shooting is the lack of instant gratification - there is something magic for me personally in waiting to see how results turned out.
But that's just me.

Ed. Maybe look at Fuji GW690 series? the lens is fantastic, and it's a light one. Only drawback is Japanese Engineering Genius that couldn't make shutter close on releasing the shutter cable at long exposures. "Brilliant work!"
 
Last edited:

Professional

Active member
Here are some images i did with film:


B&W [RZ ProII + 50mm + TMAX100]










Color [GSW690III + Velvia 100 or 100F]





I do have more photos from those cameras and also from Hasselblad 501CM and Holga 120N and Mamiya RB, wish my Mamiya 7II is working then i will have more from this one for sure.
 
For portraits, I would rather recommend a TLR or SLR, but no rangefinder like the Mamiya 7. An RB67 or RZ67 does not cost much these days.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Rollsman44...since you recently bought a Pentax 645D and will be buying lenses for it, you might give some thought to a Pentax 645 film camera, which of course uses the same lenses. I have a 645NII. They can be found in very good condition for about $500.

The Pentax 645 FA 150mm f2.8 would be an excellent lens for shooting portraits.

SMC Pentax-FA 645 150mm F2.8 [IF] Reviews - 645 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Or even the older, smaller and less expensive manual focus 150/3.5 lens.

SMC Pentax-A 645 150mm F3.5 Reviews - 645 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Gary

 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Seeing this thread again ... I really must pull out the Hasselblad SWC and take it for a photo walk! Perhaps tomorrow morning. :)

G
 

rollsman44

Well-known member
Gary, I decided to sell my Fuji and buy a Pentax 645N and 3 lenses. I also purchased today a Pentax 645Z and will sell the 645D I just purchased a few weeks ago. I really wanted the Z and should have bought it initially.
Anyway, these are the lenses I have for BOTH Cameras:
FA 75/2.8
FA 45/2.8
A 120 / 4.0 Macro
FA 80-160 /4.5
A 150/ 3,5
I will try them all and see which ones I will keep,
I never thought I would own this many lenses and MY DREAM Camera the 645Z

My 645D Is up for sale now. Thank you for your recommendations and hope to hear some more ideas/ suggestions for me with my NEW systems. Thanks Dennis
 

algrove

Well-known member
Congrats on the 645Z-wonderful camera. Surprised you don't have any wide angle lenses as you could be missing something.

The 150/2.8 was one of my favorite medium telephoto lenses. I liked the 75/2.8 and the 55/2.8 (very sharp on the Z) for mid/normal range work. Seldom used my 300. The 90 macro was often used and was blazingly sharp. I only bought AF lenses which I mainly used in MF mode, but used AF mode when I wanted to dial in a situation or just use AF only.
 

rollsman44

Well-known member
I was going to try the 45mm to see if its enough coverage for what I need. I will try all these lenses out this week and see if they all good enough for my work. I plan on using them along with my 645N as well. Thank you
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Gary, I decided to sell my Fuji and buy a Pentax 645N and 3 lenses. I also purchased today a Pentax 645Z and will sell the 645D I just purchased a few weeks ago. I really wanted the Z and should have bought it initially.
Anyway, these are the lenses I have for BOTH Cameras:
FA 75/2.8
FA 45/2.8
A 120 / 4.0 Macro
FA 80-160 /4.5
A 150/ 3,5
I will try them all and see which ones I will keep,
I never thought I would own this many lenses and MY DREAM Camera the 645Z

My 645D Is up for sale now. Thank you for your recommendations and hope to hear some more ideas/ suggestions for me with my NEW systems. Thanks Dennis
Congratulations on a terrific system for both film and digital Dennis! I really should consolidate my camera systems and pick up a 645Z, but I have a hard time selling off gear. I'm sure you are going to get some terrific images with it.

One other lens you might want to take a close look at on the wide end is the 35mm. I don't shoot wide very often myself, but if you do, by most accounts this is a very good lens.

Gary
 

rollsman44

Well-known member
Hi Gary, I was thinking of the 35/3.5 lens. I know its MF but read some good reviews. Have any knowledge on this one?
Thanks for your info. Dennis
 

algrove

Well-known member
Hi Gary, I was thinking of the 35/3.5 lens. I know its MF but read some good reviews. Have any knowledge on this one?
Thanks for your info. Dennis
I had that lens on my 645Z and it was superb. I used to leave the beep for on when in focus and once I heard that I would shoot. No issues.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I just got back from a trip to Maine where I actively avoided bringing a digital camera (except my iPhone for fun snaps). I shot with an R4a, an M6, a Rollei 2.8E, and a Chamonix 45N-2. I shot 7 rolls of Velvia and Provia, 3 rolls of mixed C41 neg, 8 rolls of 120 400H and Ektar, and 24 sheets of 4x5 Velvia, Provia and Ektar. I got back on Saturday and I'm already scanning some of the E6. Looks pretty fantastic! I can't wait to get to doing proper wet-scans of my 4x5 film. It was my first time using ND grads and that really helped with the chromes I think.

One thing that keeps me away from shooting digital for my serious personal work is that I just have no trust in the archival-nature of a digital file. I trust pigment inkjet prints, but that's a different story. No-one is going to find a box full of .NEF files in three decades from now. When I'm old and looking back on my work, will I open up LR CC version 106 to flip through my DNGs? Obviously not. Sure there are DAM procedures that work pretty well but you have to be so "on it". Knowing that I'm human I know I will make a mistake somewhere along the lines. Baring a fire, a child, or a very angry woman my negatives are fine in their sleeves.

Then there is the joy of using the cameras. They are objectively a different experience, and it's not just nostalgia. If sailing and horseback riding were just about transportation obviously no-one would still be doing either (and people don't say "look at all those hipster sailing enthusiasts"). My Rolleiflex elicits a very different response from both myself and my subjects when shooting portraits. If you can get over the fact that your film images have grain and will never beat digital for absolute sharpness, there is a lot to love in film photography. It's funny because every Photo 101 course in the world teaches students that 'sharpness isn't everything', and yet it still seems like that's what people talk about the most. Kind of a shame, really.

To answer the OP, you can't have AF in a small 120 camera that is good for portraits. The Fuji P&S 120 cams are good for many things, but not portraits. Get an H1 or Fuji GX645 for that, but know they're big. I recommend a Rollei or a Hasselblad. They're great all-rounders, and not too big. The Rollei has a more classic look generally and the Hasselblad lenses are far more modern and contrasty. I like the Rollei look and the speed of it's operation but more people that I know that shoot 6x6 prefer the Hasselblad. (They're wrong of course. :cool:)

Scanning really is still a problem though. Do people realize that Hasselblad has not changed the X1 or X5 scanners (which are not that different from Imacon 848 & 949s) for a decade, and the price hasn't come down AT ALL? They can't still be in production because Kodak made the CCD. Come on Hasselblad, there is no reason the X1 should cost more than an H5D-50c. For my negative 35, 120, and what pro work I do on film, I use labs that scan on Fuji Frontier SP-3000 scanners. They're great for up to about 11x14 and wedding albums. The colorists there are really good and the turn-around is great. I personally use The FIND Lab and Indie Film Lab.
 
Top