Shot Blads for 15+ years - square format is great for weddings - no flip flop brackets - awsome glass - 1/500 flash sync - 24 shots on 220 roll w/A 24 backs - all can be found dirt cheap!!! Scanning film a bit complicated, time consuming - suggest outsourcing to pro lab>
Mark_L wrote:
If you do be aware that despite size comparisons 4x5 is way way different to medium format, you are using a view or field camera which is just a frame with a lens on it and not an slr.
For ONE shot you have to:
Load an individual holder in pitch black without one single speck of dust landing on it (done previous to going out shooting)
Focus the camera with a cloth over your head and a loupe
Cock the shutter, stop down the lens
Slide in film holder and darkslide
Take exposure praying your subject has not moved
Put back in dark slide, remove holder
Then for developing you need to develop each film one at a time either in the dark with a tray (without scratches) or in individual tubes.
Large format is about 10x the pain in the backside 120 roll film is and the film is very expensive, so much so that I have not used my LF camera after the demise of quickload. You have to very seriously ask yourself if there is any advantage to 6x7. ...Show more →
Sounds like you are unaware that field camera's have range finders. You don't need to focus off the glass...for example:
They use to use field camera's in photojournalism...including shooting sports. Actually they still do...David Burnett photo:
jofoto photo wrote:
Only if you are or where shooting weddings and portraits with 6x6 or 6x7 MF film today, what system would you choose. I'm looking for optical viewfinder, possibly AF, decent metering with spot metering.
Also for digitising was thinking Epson V750 scanner
Your thought without breaking the bank please
I own 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5. I can't help you as none of them are AF and I use an external spot meter
All the rage right now in 6x7 are:
Fuji folder
Pentax 67II
Contax 645
RZ67
Pentax probably has the best glass. The 105 2.8 is crazy...and the 35mm equivalent is probably f1.1. Shoots like a monster 35mm.
The downside to Pentax is the massive mirror...the first time you fire it you'll crap your pants the slap is so loud Consider the later MLU version is you go with Pentax. The PII is lighter and not as vibration prone between 1/30 and 1/2.
The v750 is worth the price over the v600, however, if you are not shooting 4x5 then the 600 will suffice.
The v500 isn't your ball of wax if you are going to shoot 6x7...since the v500 can only scan 2 6x6 so you'd have to scan 6x7 one at a time on the v500.
When I moved up from 35mm to 6x7 I looked at the pentax but decided against it. The design, mirror slap and 1/30th flash sync were not at all appealing. The RB/RZ is much more of a system with interchangeable backs etc. the rotating back, leaf shutters and bellows focusing are great but you need to like working from a tripod.
For anyone looking to get the best out of film (and want to scan) skip the flatbed scanners for anything other than proofing and send out the scanning of the best shots to somewhere with an imacon.
I'm not sure why Silverfast makes a difference though...perhaps someone that has compared it to the Epson software and Vuescan will chip in. For the love of God I hope I haven't scanned thousands of photos with crap software
Square
5 dollar inserts (compared to contax's $250)
Inserts are smaller and quicker to load (they're also symmetrical, meaning no switching around the empty spool)
Not too much bigger than 645 cameras, much smaller than 67 slr's.
Entry price isn't too bad (6003 kit cost me 400, 6008 with pqs lens was 850)
Leaf shutters (many go up to 1/1000)
Ridiculously awesome Schneider glass available (at a steep price)
Fast fast glass (50 2.8, 80 f/2 (if you could find it), 110 f/2, 180 2.8)
Cheaper zeiss alternatives (also pretty darn good)
Ability to grow (upgrade each lens slowly, get the af system (which uses all the same backs, batteries, lenses etc).
Rotating 645 back!!
Usable waistlevel (compared to the Contax which is stuck in horizontal (boo) and costs an arm and a leg (ridiculous)).
1/3 stops on photo shutter speed and aperture (and, unlike the Contax, the aperture ring isn't an afterthought and doesn't start going places on its own).
... I'll do a write up when I've used it for longer.
Downsides:
Louder than the Contax, mamiya, etc.
Gets expensive.
Hard to find in North America
Huge expensive battery (no AA or other generic option). This is probably the biggest downside so far.
Long focus throw
If I don't need to work too quickly (ie dont need to be changing film quickly) the RZ67 is amazing, but has only one fast lens.
If I were just shooting adults I'd probably get the Pentax 67.
If I used long (over 200mm) lens I'd go with the Pentax (which has the most I ridiculous selection of fast long glass, but also has the bounciest shutter...)
The Rollei sl66 is also a darn fine camera but not the quickest (though easier to focus than the hassy).
D. Diggler wrote:
Now, is that just for black and white or for color, as well?
I do not really do color scanning because it is just not worth it for me. For BW I have talked to many people who scan and really everyone agrees that the Silverfast software is the only way to go with the Epson scanners.
Interesting reading all your experiences with MF film. I'm in the same place than the OP, looking for my first MF camera, inspired by the filmisnotdead book. For the moment I think I'll try to combine digital and film, cause I don't want to be limited to b&w once it gets really dark, though I've read portra 400 can be pushed to 3200 with not too bad results... bad I'd have to try that first and see how it looks like.
So I've been looking for a Mamiya 645 AFD, as it has 1/4000 max speed, and wanted to use it with a 80 1.9, but I picked one at a store and I'm not sure if the screen is good enough to focus manually all the time... Now I can get a 645 PRO with the 80 1.9 for 400€ like new, but the PRO only goes to 1/1000, which here in Spain in the summer is not going to be enough if I'm shooting portra 400 or fuji 400h, but also it might be cheaper to get that and ND filters than to go for a AFD (everything is cheaper for the PRO: backs, inserts... so it's not just the camera...)
Also love the looks of the Pentax 67, so I'm a bit confused on what to get...
Don't get me wrong I love that everyone wants to dive into medium format...BUT... I would caution anyone who has not shot MF/Film before to do a significant amount of experimenting before trying to implement it into your professional shooting schedule.
There are so many things that need to be dialed in first. The FIND book is amazing but the grass is not always greener (no pun intended) with film. Not everyones brand is setup to handle film work and without proper implementation you are just asking for major headaches with digital and film shot integration and also with clients not really getting "it" and wanting to know why your are changing things.
Def. cool to experiment or do a few shots here or there but give it time. It is just like any other new equipment. It takes time before you are at the "level" you need to be at to provide clients with the service they expect from you.
Also marcos portra 400 @3200 is doable but if not exposed right it will get weird. I do not have much experience with it but I am sure others do (Zalmy)... I am quite sure you have to expose it a certain way for it to turn out. If you just rate it at 3200 the results may not be stellar.
hardlyboring wrote:
I would caution anyone who has not shot MF/Film before to do a significant amount of experimenting before trying to implement it into your professional shooting schedule.
My biggest problem so far in implementing film into the days' shoot is to actually SHOOT the film. What happens is I am always shooting the "must have" shots, which I've been doing with digital, that I haven't found the time to work the film camera in. What happens is I end up bringing the film camera but not using it. If anyone has any tips how they've successfully worked the film camera in, I'd be happy to hear.
Diggler -- I would start on engagement shoots first. Working film in IS one of the hardest things to do. Over time our brand has specified to people that we shoot film so when we talk to people we let them know from the beginning that we are going to be possibly shooting film. For people that buy a film specific package we spend a great deal of time with them planning the time for pictures because you have a slightly shorter window for "making the magic happen" with the good light. The people that are willing to spend the money and who appreciate the film as well as good photography seem to be much more likely to go along with our somewhat stricter planning when we shoot the film.
For non film specific packages I just judge it on a per shoot basis. If the venue, weather, decorations, etc. lend themselves to film I will try my best to shoot the film.
For the large format stuff I just gauge the couples interest in it. If they are digging it then we do it. If we are crunched for time and feel that it will get in the way we don't.
Judging when to use film and when not to use it is hard. Being able to say "nope, it is to much to be worrying about right now digital will get us the shots we need and they expect with the least amount of hassle" ... that is the hardest part for sure.
So my advice is to start on engagement shoots. If you do not have another person shooting with you (my wife and I shoot together) I might bring someone so you can be worrying about the film and someone else can be backing your up digitally to ensure success based on redundancy of shots. That is normally how we do it. If we are shooting film 99% of the time I am taking the money shot and my wife is taking a similar shot digitally just in case something happens with the film. They may not end up with "THE shot" but they at least have something if my film takes a dump on me.
TRReichman wrote:
Hell just froze over and I just bought a Pentax 67. Handles just like a 35mm slr but gives the flexibility of a waist-level finder. It loads like a 35mm as well, which might be slightly slower than changing backs but is faster than loading a back. I figure if you're going bigger you might as well go WAY bigger.
- trr
DUDEWHATYES! That's what I'm talking about! Hard to beat those big negatives especially since I know it won't be your primary workhorse. Did you get the 105/2.4 lens? I've seen so many impressive results from that setup.
D. Diggler wrote:
What's the problem with using the V700 for color?
It's not the scanner in particular but self-scanning any color. It's a gigantic pain in the ass (slow and difficult to get good color, color consistency and dust free scans) and a big part of why so many people use labs or buy their own Frontier or Noritsu.
hardlyboring wrote:
Josh is right about the Contax and all its features but they are SOOOOO freaking expensive. There is almost no way I personally could ever justify getting one. Heck I do not even have a metering prism or winder for my Mamiya ProTL. Really don't need one. When shooting film I want to take my time and think about the shot not if all the electronic parts of the camera are going to work.
All of our film gear has no batteries and no electronics. It is nice knowing that if I pull the trigger it is going off.
Plus for the cost of the Contax system you could have a medium format system, scanner, AND a large format system with money left over for film.
Unless you shoot more than 75% of your stuff on 645 the Contax is just to expensive to justify in a business sense. Josh does mostly film work so it works for him but damn... those kits are pushing 2500$ or more these days IF you can find one.
The 6x7 cameras minus the Mamiya are just way to cumbersome to carry around. Your going to have to change the entire way you shoot and approach a wedding. With something smaller like a 645 system you can at least wear it around your neck for a while during the day.
Diggler- The color scanning on the V700 is fine. Is it as nice as the Noritsu or Frontier... No... but for a 500$ scanner it is pretty amazing. True film buffs can always tell the difference but someone who knows what they are doing on the V700 will be pleasing clients all day long.
With that said I would never scan color film on the V700 because I normally have so much and it is so cheap to have the lab scan it that it makes no sense to waste my time at home. Cost analysis says let the lab do it.
All BW stuff is done at home and scanned in with the V700. For certain applications I will even send out the negs to have them printed in the darkroom and then send the real prints to Renaissance for the album. ...Show more →
Doug is right about a lot of this. The reason I went with the Contax is because it's my primary workhorse. It was either Contax 645 or Hasselblad H1 or H2 645. I wanted medium format with the most frames per roll that I could get, I like the aspect ratio, I like interchangeable backs and inserts and the fact that they're relatively light compared to other medium format rigs so that I can carry it around all day. The only downside is the electronics and Contax bodies are known for being fickle sometimes but that's really not too big a deal if you keep up with it and don't shoot in pouring down rain or extreme cold. $2500 is really a drop in the bucket. I have around $3500 invested in my total Contax setup with upgraded focusing screen, grip and extra inserts. That's the price of a 5DmkIII body with no glass and it's my primary setup. Speaking comparatively a 5DmkIII + 50L would run me $5000 which makes $3500 not seem as bad (not to mention the terrible resale on digital gear and the great resell on film gear).
IF it were just for fun and/or if I were only shooting select things on a wedding day on film though I'd definitely be shooting 6x6 and 6x7 rigs only. Mamiya C330f, Rolleiflex 2.8, Pentax 67ii and Mamiya RZ67 Pro II would be what I'd be debating between using (would likely have both Mamiyas and likely the Pentax as well).
Mark_L wrote:
A well developed 6x7 neg from a film like acros with a good developer is easily knocking on 4x5 quality up to fairly large print sizes. A RB67 is literally "put on tripod, push button, recock shutter and wind film" and the RZ even quicker. If you are scanning on an imacon there is even less of a reason since an imacon can only scan larger film sizes at lower res.
Loading film holders in the dark after desperately trying to remove all dust then after all the pain having your best neg ruined due to one dust spot hurts lots
With the advent of proper b&w prints on fibre paper from digital files I no longer use film at all, D800 ftw. I can't even distinguish my film prints from digital rpints in colour or b&w - I guess I don't get people's fascination with film after shooting it for so long pre-digital....Show more →
It's not always about the destination. Sometimes it's about the journey. I much prefer the process of shooting film and how thoughtful of a photographer it makes me compared to the kind of photographer I am when I shoot digital. With one every frame is disposable and with the other every frame matters. I feel like I'm a better photographer when I shoot film, I enjoy the process so much more, it cuts down on my post time dramatically and I'm far happier with the end result. That's the beauty of it though. Film can mean so much to me and for you digital can be the right fit. To each their own.
