thanks alwang, you have made my day, lol. The great thing about medium format was that it seemed to spawn a large range of directions in design over the decades.
Gunzorro, no way does anything much go near matching the Mamiya rangefinders for camera 'stillness' (soft quiet low inertia leaf shutter, fine grip and excellent shutter button design) but the Pentax sure exerts a huge pull of gravity, so maybe that definition does it for 'stability'.
Now, no one post a photo of the Fuji GX680 please. It looks like a starter motor off a locomotive.
I have been thinking about delving into MF myself and was looking at the Pentax 67 II or possibly a Mamiya 7 but not sure I want a rangefinder, or if I do, maybe I want to go with a 6x6 TLR of some sort. I used to play around with these in my high school days, shooting my 5N from the waist is strangely enough what got me thinking about MF again.
So many options
What I really want to know is, what am I in for when it comes to scanning? Drum scans seem prohibitively expensive for routine use, do other machines do justice to MF images?...Show more →
Scanning is a pain, there's no question about it. I also scan with an Epson flatbed, and my personal experience is I get files with detail comparable to a 12MP digital camera (though the scanned file is much larger). Larger negatives definitely help for scanning, so I'd definitely lean towards 6x7 vs 6x4.5. The different cameras really all do have their own unique aspects, so they're very hard to compare. I personally shoot both with the Pentax 6x7 and a 6x6 TLR, and I would not be able to pick between them: they're just too different.
If you really do commit to shooting a good amount of film, the new Plustek 120 scanner should be a step up over the flatbeds, at about $2K.
Jacob -- I send mine out for develop and scan. Since I'm looking for economical results, $10 to $20 per roll, I don't get the highest quality scans, which can run around $25 per image.
The flatbeds aren't so great if you are going to use smaller 35mm film, but from all reports work increasingly well in larger sizes from medium format to 4x5.
I just got a 135mm Macro for the 67II, so I'll be getting out soon for a test run. The one "problem" with the Pentax tele lenses is long MFD in the common 120SF, 135M, 150, 165, and 200. The larger RB and RZ aren't such as issue with built in long bellows extension for most focal lengths. But the Pentax solution is easy (if you know in advance you are going to shoot close-up) with their excellent extension tubes. That is an advantage of the SLR (and some TLR), being able to go close-up with attachments if you desire.
That tiny compact next to it is an RZ67, the same size as the RB67 in the previous compare, more or less. Street photography with the Fuji:
Sadly, beloved as it was in film days, the lenses turned out to be just too soft for the duties of digital and modern expectations, and so in spite of a beautifully rendering set of lenses, they are now taking up space at pawn brokers.
If I were not a huge fan of 6x6, I would buy the RZ67. I might do it anyway. A bit heavy, but just think of the Fuji and those thoughts vaporise with a smile.
carstenw wrote:
If I were not a huge fan of 6x6, I would buy the RZ67. I might do it anyway. A bit heavy, but just think of the Fuji and those thoughts vaporise with a smile.
A Hasselblad is much easier to hand hold. That said, my biggest fear with the RZ was the weight, but if you use the WLF and the 110mm, it's actually not that much heavier than a 500 series. The biggest thing to get accustomed to is the bellows focusing.
luminosity wrote: What I really want to know is, what am I in for when it comes to scanning? Drum scans seem prohibitively expensive for routine use, do other machines do justice to MF images?
I've scanned more negatives with Epson flatbeds than I'd like to remember. I've made some great prints from files made using the V600 and V750. Recently, I've had a chance to use an Imacon Flextight scanner, which generally costs about $15,000. In some cases, the difference between my flatbed scans and Imacon scan is hard to detect on the surface, and to a point, the Epson scans make life easier because they don't pick up every bit of dust and every scratch in fine detail. There's also less visible grain. Having said that, the Imacon scans have their own strengths, including excellent resolution, autofocusing to ensure that each negative is scanned properly, and good controls. One big advantage to the Imacon is complete flatness of the negative, thanks to the film holder design.
I'm certain I could print at 16x20 (the largest that I personally want to print at, mostly because it uses 17x22 paper, which is the largest size the Epson 3800 series can print with non-roll paper) with scans from the Epson flatbed scanners. ...Show more →
I am using Epson v750 myself and am rather happy with the results. Except Silverfast refusing to scan in 16bit...
Sadly wet mount kit is not available in Japan. Wonder what liquid is used for wet mounting...
Thanks for all the infos about scanning. Sounds like the Epson flatbeds are a pretty popular/economic choice.
That Plustek sounds interesting (just read about it). Am I correct in understanding it produces ~120 MP files? That seems unreal. I didn't attempt to go download one, they must be massive. Have any of you looked at one? How do they look at full res? I was hoping I might be able to scan at high enough res to produce output that would be at least 24MP, if not more like 40-50 MP equivalent when working with either 6x7 or 6x6. Is that hoping for too much?
Al, what lenses do you use with your P67? Which 6x6 do you have?
Jacob D wrote:
I was hoping I might be able to scan at high enough res to produce output that would be at least 24MP, if not more like 40-50 MP equivalent when working with either 6x7 or 6x6. Is that hoping for too much?
Good luck - scanning is both an art and a science, and if you are looking for the type of functionality/resolution you get by shooting a digital camera, you will be disappointed. Heavy post production on even a decent scan will induce grain and can make your results look distended. However, after you learn the tolerances of whatever type of film you are using, you can get it right at the point of capture and be very happy with the results.
Drum scanning really brings out the full pixel-level (or atom level) awesomeness of a medium format slide or negative. Flatbeds and dedicated film scanners (like the Plustek) require a lot of time to learn to get the results you want, but can also give you satisfactory results.
Frankly, I would shoot some film and just send the rolls out to be developed and budget scanned at a place like NCPS. For posting a 1200x800 image on FM, a budget scan is totally fine. You can always go back and rescan if you get serious and want to buy a scanner of your own. Unless you have to own the best of everything, I would hold off a while before buying a $2,000 scanner.
Jacob D wrote:
Thanks for all the infos about scanning. Sounds like the Epson flatbeds are a pretty popular/economic choice.
That Plustek sounds interesting (just read about it). Am I correct in understanding it produces ~120 MP files? That seems unreal. I didn't attempt to go download one, they must be massive. Have any of you looked at one? How do they look at full res? I was hoping I might be able to scan at high enough res to produce output that would be at least 24MP, if not more like 40-50 MP equivalent when working with either 6x7 or 6x6. Is that hoping for too much?
Al, what lenses do you use with your P67? Which 6x6 do you have?
To me, they look comparable to 20MP in detail, but there are a lot of variables. To get much higher than that, I think you really need to get drum scans of select images.
I have a Rolleicord TLR, which I like a lot. I would really love to have a Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar, but the price difference is so extreme that I have a hard time justifying it- particularly since I hear the 2.8 isn't great WO.
I'm more curious than serious, as they say. If I had $2000 sitting around I think it would go first into my A99 fund, or toward the home we're about to purchase.
I found scanning relatively easy. Most annoying and tedious part is to clean up all microfibres and stray particles that tend to appear as massive blobs in a max res scans.
Toying with the thought of setting up a clean room for the scanning.
If you don't mind metering manually, then a Hassie is a very nice camera. Easy to use, and very satisfying. Composing for the square is also an interesting exercise, and will probably change you permanently if you get past the initial hump. And of course, if you decide that you don't like it, there is always a market for the stuff.
The NASA Hassie especially. Was for sale here in Japan for about 3.000.000JPY..
Just not sure about differences between different models. I recall Luminous Landscape blogged about Hassie changing the form factor so newer cameras wouldn't accept existing digital backs...not sure how relevant it is or how it would affect prices...
The 500-series is most popular, and they are all roughly equally good from the 500C/M to the 501CM. Don't get the 500C unless you can test it first, the focusing screen isn't interchangeable. The later models have some TTL flash support, ISO setting on the body (maybe for flash or digiback, since they can't meter), and the gliding mirror system which avoids slight vignetting of longer lenses.
The 2000-series should also be fine for a digiback. I guess the question is how best to combine a digital back with the advanced 200-series cameras. There are some issues there, but this is another price class anyway. I would recommend a nice 500C/M with the 80/2.8 CF T* and an A12 back.
alwang wrote:
I have a Rolleicord TLR, which I like a lot. I would really love to have a Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar, but the price difference is so extreme that I have a hard time justifying it- particularly since I hear the 2.8 isn't great WO.
it's at LEAST a stop worse than the Mamiya 7 80mm. ie at f5.6 it's still not quite where the Mamiya is wide open.
just my experience.
so if you have a nice 3.5 planar / xenotar I would keep that for sure.
