Ed Sawyer wrote:
Well, no. To get the best results you need proper printing. Which doesn't (shouldn't in fact) involve any scanning. Optical prints, particularly of B&W, are going to be superior to any scan. Unless shooting for some sort of production / publication, scanning doesn't need to enter the picture at all. (And if you are shooting for something like that, chances are you aren't going to be shooting B&W in a MF camera...)
The beauty of MF film is that it avoids all the computer-related nonsense and baggage that so pervades popular photography today.
-Ed
Agreed. I put my first roll of 120 Tri-X pushed to 1600 under the enlarger the other day and was just AMAZED at how fine the grain was compared to 35mm Tri-X. 100 speed actually had me double-take to make everything was on, grain was almost completely invisible. This seems obvious but once you experience it it's hard not to get excited.
If you have a local college that you can pay a lab fee (my school's is $25) to use the enlargers you really can't go wrong. Or if you have a closet that can be converted. Hand-made prints > pixel peeping on a computer monitor.
My opinion is still to go with a M645 or 500C if you're trying to do this on the cheap. Can't beat 'em, and it'll give you a much different experience than a 35mm camera.
cgiff wrote:
My opinion is still to go with a M645 or 500C if you're trying to do this on the cheap. Can't beat 'em, and it'll give you a much different experience than a 35mm camera.
The Pentax with a 105 will probably be cheaper than a 500C setup, while the bodies are cheap a decent condition Hassy 80 is going to cost a moderate amount, the only real deal in the Hassy line for lenses are the 150/4's. If you want to do 6x6 on the cheap get a Bronica SQ instead, the bodies are no more expensive than the Hassy's and the lenses are as cheap as the Mamiya 645 lenses.
I'm personally a M645 shooter (Original M645 then 645 Super) but that's more a case of I fell in love with the camera than any actual research into it. Got really lucky after a friend let me try his 645 Super, bought into the system and later bought my firend out of his setup. I'd probably go with a Pentax 67 or a Bronica GS-1 if I was buying today and get the benefit of the larger negs.
mawz, good reasoning. I like the M645 because of size and the 80/1.9 means it comes out in situations where a slow 6x7 lens would make shooting impossible.
I didn't even know of the Bronica GS-1; very attractive that it's lighter than an RB and the 100/3.5 is cheap! There's a body + a metered finder on KEH for $354, so <$500 for a full setup.
That I would consider over a budget M645 setup if low light isn't a concern. Good stuff.
I always thought it made little sense to move to MF and not take full advantage of the film real estate. That means full frame 6x6 or larger. To each their own I guess.
Tariq, that 80/1.9 makes 645 worth it if you're a bokeh junkie. Think about it, for the price of a Noctilux you get a lens with the same narrow dof (and also the camera to mount it on, scanner, a heap of film and developing costs, a female professional model and pocket money for alcohol ).
Beat that Noctilux
Is an 80/1.9 going to give more narrow DoF than 105/2.4 on a 6x7? I couldn't find an answer. That 105 blew me away though.
Personally, I'm really looking for a square format solution, and if I do another format, it would be larger, as mawz said. That pentax has cast quite a spell on me.
As far as printing solutions, I haven't gotten that far, yet. I was figuring if this sticks, I'll invest in a better scanner. I'd love to go the complete analog route, but I think that would be more of a treat than a regular occurrence, due to the time investment.
In real life 50/1 on 35mm, 80/1.9 on 645, 80/2 on 6X6 and 105/2.4 on 6X7 will give you roughly the same dof wide open at the same subject distance, and similar field of view. Check www.dofmaster.com.
Spyro P. wrote:
Tariq, that 80/1.9 makes 645 worth it if you're a bokeh junkie. Think about it, for the price of a Noctilux you get a lens with the same narrow dof (and also the camera to mount it on, scanner, a heap of film and developing costs, a female professional model and pocket money for alcohol ).
Beat that Noctilux
It's very close, almost a wash in fact, but you actually get less dof with a 105 2.4 on the 6x7 format vs that 80 1.9 on 645.
Spyro P. wrote:
Tariq, that 80/1.9 makes 645 worth it if you're a bokeh junkie. Think about it, for the price of a Noctilux you get a lens with the same narrow dof (and also the camera to mount it on, scanner, a heap of film and developing costs, a female professional model and pocket money for alcohol ).
Beat that Noctilux
It also makes low light shooting more practical. I've got the 80/1.9 and I've used it more than once to get shots that I simply couldn't have used MF for otherwise. If you do handheld candid work it's a nice win.
The one thing I really wish the MF rangefinders had is faster lenses. I am used to f/1.2-ish stuff or at least f/2 on Canon EOS. Going to the Mamiya 7 or the Fujis, where f/4 is as fast as they get, really cramps the low-light/shallow DOF options. But the payoff with the big negs is worth it.
Bronica GS-1 is a good choice, a lot like an RZ67 in many ways.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Bronica GS-1 is a good choice, a lot like an RZ67 in many ways.
-Ed
Except the GS-1 is hand holdable and does not have to live on a tripod like an RZ does. It is a nice camera and the lenses are very good. I think it's somewhat underrated.
RZ is larger due to the rotatable back and the bellows focusing.
GS-1 saves weight and bulk doing without the above. The only two things the cameras really have in common is that both are SLR 6x7's.
Spyro P. wrote:
In real life 50/1 on 35mm, 80/1.9 on 645, 80/2 on 6X6 and 105/2.4 on 6X7 will give you roughly the same dof wide open at the same subject distance, and similar field of view. Check www.dofmaster.com.
What about using a flash? I understand the Pentax is pretty difficult to use a flash with. It confused me that they put the shoe right behind the finder on the Mamiya. Is there a system better for using flash than the others? Do people use flash much with MF still?
Checked craigslist today, and the M645 prolly takes the cake pricewise, that I have seen:
I have 2 Mamiya 645 cameras. Comes with 4 lenses, 2 handgrips, all in a black tamaron case. $500 takes it all!
My opinion: just get an old Nikon or Vivitar flash (the ones that have a thyristor and auto mode) put it on the hotshoe (or off camera with a cable or cheap ebay triggers), copy the camera's ISO and aperture on the flash, keep the shutter within sync speed and the flash will do the rest. Old PJ trick, works with any camera with a hotshoe and it works well enough for PJ type work in normal distances. For very accurate exposures you should use an external meter anyway.
Brent Ward wrote:
I shot for years hand holding the RZ, so do lot's of people.
"Lot's of people" is a vast overstatement. The majority of people who shoot with an RZ do not hand hold it on a regular basis as it weighs a ton and is quite cumbersome off a tripod. To try to paint the RZ as an easily hand-holdable came is ridiculous.
joekraft wrote:
What about using a flash? I understand the Pentax is pretty difficult to use a flash with. It confused me that they put the shoe right behind the finder on the Mamiya. Is there a system better for using flash than the others? Do people use flash much with MF still?
Focal plane shutter cameras are limited to slower sync speeds vs cameras wich use lens leaf shutters.
So, Pentax 6x7 has a maximum sync speed of 1/30 sec unless one of the optional leaf shutter lenses are used. Most other focal plane shuttered mf cameras are limited between 1/60 sec to 1/125 sec.
The TLR can generally sync at any shutter speed useable (very early TLR's may not be able to sync at all.) as can a number of SLR MF cameras and rangefinders that use leaf shutter lenses. These would include the Hasselblad 500 series, Bronica cameras such as the ETR, SQ and GS series, Mamiya RZ and RB but NOT the 645 without leaf shutter lenses, and the various Rollei's.
This really only becomes an issue if you plan to use flash outside of the studio as you would be restricted to the highest shutter speed useable with flash (preventing synchro-sunlight flash in a lot of situations).
).