SLR vs Rangefinder vs MF vs LF

[roanjohn]

I am still confused on the difference between each systems.

Why is a Leica/Contax rangefinder more expensive than a digital SLR?? is it that much sharper?? And why is a Leica "prime" lens sooo expensive!!! I just don't understand.

Also, what is medium format?? large format?? Does it take better pictures than your average 35 mm. Is there a MF/LF digital counterpart?? Or is there one on the horizon.

I know there is a digital rangefinder coming up from Epson. Is anybody excited about this?? Is this a big deal??

I am lost..............

Ro1

P.S. I think I've read the b&h catalogue a little too much. :D

[Scottes]

P.S. I think I've read the b&h catalogue a little too much.

Yes, that's the problem.
ROFL

MF and LF are different sizes of film. I'm no expert, and right now I'm stumped on the sizes, but a medium format, like a Mamiya 645, takes film that is (I think) 6cm x 4.5cm. There's also 6cm x 6cm. Compare that to 35mm frame size. Then you have LF stuff, even bigger frames.

PhaseOne makes digital backs, as do others, for MF. They've got one that is something like 22 megapixel and takes true 16-bit pictures. I think the resulting picture is 132 meg TIFF. Luminous Landscapes has a review on it. $30,000 just for the digital back - no lens, no camera, just the digital picture-taking piece.

I want one so bad....


Leica is Leica. If you asked about the price then you can't afford it.

[robertwgross]

As a general rule, 35mm, or the smaller digital version of that size, makes a camera "small format".

Anything with a film size of about 2 inches, such as 2.25 square, is medium format. There is a digital version also.

Anything with a film size of 4x5 inches or 8x10 inches is large format. There is a digital version also if you have just robbed a bank.

Yes, reading the B&H catalog too much can get you into trouble.

---Bob Gross---

[CoolToolGuy]

To build on what scottes said:

In the medium format world, the film is size 120 or 220, which is 6cm wide. There are three popular formats that all use the same film: 645, which has a frame size of 6cm x 4.5cm; 6x6, which is a square format; and 6x7, which is 6cm x 7cm. 220 is basically a longer roll of 120 film. Mamiya is the most popular 645, Hasselblad is the most well-known 6x6, and Mamiya has most of the 6x7 market.

As mentioned, you use a digital back for these cameras, and you are talking mucho dinaro to get into digital in that world. In some cases you don't use a memory card, because cards that big were only recently introduced - so you are tethered to a PC (or Mac, I guess).

Larger than that is typically the realm of the view camera, and I don't know who is still in that game. I was ready to dabble in it 25 years ago, but the urge passed. At that point the image is fully under your control.

I wouldn't expect to see anything approaching a 'prosumer' digital in any of the MF or LF formats any time soon - the cost is just prohibitive. But if it happens, you will most likely see it come from Mamiya in the 645 format.

[G3]

To answer a couple more of your questions not necessarily regarding price differentials...

The difference between a Rangefinder and an SLR is that with an SLR (Single Lens Reflex) you are using the same lens that takes the picture for your view through the viewfinder. With a Rangefinder, you are looking through a separate (much smaller) lens, like a point and shoot camera, but the Rangefinder has some means of telling you the distance from the camera to whatever you are focusing on (hence the name "Rangefinder", and Rangefinders typically have interchangeable lenses..

There are a couple of different types of Medium Format Cameras. The film format has already been adequately explained. There is an SLR medium format camera, such as the Mamiya M645, and there is a TLR Medium Format Camera, such as the Mamiya C330, Rolieflex, etc. The TLR cameras use two identical lenses, one above the other, one of which you use to view through, the other takes the picture. Both are focused in synch. I have never used a TLR, but I use a Mamiya M645 Pro for formal portraits, etc. These cameras have interchangeable backs so you can switch between 120 and 220 roll film, polaroid film, 35mm film or one of the prohibitively expensive digital backs. I usually keep a 120 roll of black and white film in one back (or insert) and 220 color print film in the other back (or insert). As stated earlier, the 120 roll has half as much film on it as the 220 roll, and I typically don't shoot nearly as much B&W at a wedding, so I don't need as much film ready for B&W. With a 120 roll, I get 15 exposures, a 220 roll gives me 30. The backs are identical (for 120 or 220) and you can put either a loaded 120 insert in or a loaded 220 insert in. So, I keep 2 backs loaded, one with 120 and one with 220, as well as an extra loaded insert for each.

The quality of 6x4.5 format far exceeds that of 35mm for portraits, because of the larger negative, but to really get the quality, you have to have custom prints made, or own a rather extensive darkroom and be pretty talented at making your own prints. I don't have time for all of that, nor the inclination to do it, so I just use a custom lab.....part of the reason that wedding photography costs so much. With these cameras, you have interchangeable lenses, just like with 35mm SLRs or DSLRs. Zooms are available, but all I use is primes. I have a 55mm (wide angle), an 80mm (normal) a 110mm (short telephoto) and a 150mm (medium telephoto). The camera has a motor drive and can operate in Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority or Manual modes. There are no Program modes. It also has interchangeable finders, a Prism eye level finder with metering, A prism eye level finder without metering (manual mode only) or a waist level finder. Mamiya makes another model with TTL flash metering and another with autofocus.

As far as Leica and Hasselblad costing so much, well...you get what you pay for. The quality of build of these cameras and the quality of the glass is unsurpassed.

[CoolToolGuy]

Geez, if this collaboration keeps up, we'll have one heck of an article, or maybe even a book. Okay, who's going to pick up the ball next?

This is the best kind of stuff for a forum. :wink:

[BDM]

I am still confused on the difference between each systems.

Why is a Leica/Contax rangefinder more expensive than a digital SLR?? is it that much sharper?? And why is a Leica "prime" lens sooo expensive!!! I just don't understand.

Also, what is medium format?? large format?? Does it take better pictures than your average 35 mm. Is there a MF/LF digital counterpart?? Or is there one on the horizon.

I know there is a digital rangefinder coming up from Epson. Is anybody excited about this?? Is this a big deal??

I am lost..............

Ro1

P.S. I think I've read the b&h catalogue a little too much. :D

Leica - Contax price - well I think it's a combination of currency values, and labor (anything with German components will probably be high cost because of labor cost). In the case of Leica, much of it is assembled by hand to very high inspection standards. Leica is also marketing to collectors rather users and collectors will pay much more than is realistic. Most Contax stuff is made in Japan now but designed in Germany. Many of he Contax lenses are made in Japan under license from Zeiss. The is a lot of snob appeal at work here.

German Leica and Zeiss lenses are among the best in the world. They are assembled to very high standards and again, the high cost of German labor and materials is a factor in the price. Neither Leica or Contax is much used by pros these days. They are just too expensive for the features offered and they tend to be behind in the innovative technology field. Leica is way behind in digital development on the pro camera level and doesn't seem to care much. Leica is also so conservative. Last time I checked they still had not added autofocus to their SLR film camera!

Medium format is usually 120 roll film using cameras which make negatives (or transparencies) in sizes 6X4.5 cm, 6X6 cm or 6X7 cm. There are a few additional and odd sizes such as 6X8 cm or 6X9 cm but these are not common. There are also panoramic formats such as 6X12 cm or 6X 18 cm.

Large format involves cameras which use sheet film in sizes such as 4X5 inches, 5X7 inches or 8X10 inches. There are a few larger sizes such as 11X14, 16X20 and 20X24 but these are not common and are VERY expensive to use! Sheet film cameras usually feature adjustments which can alter the perspective rendering and/or the placement of the depth of field within a shot.

Generally speaking, the larger the format the better the detail in the pictures and the smoother the tonality. A large format negative enlarged to a large print size with good technique can just blow you away.

There are digital backs for some medium format and large format cameras but they are still VERY expensive. Generally they must be used attached to a computer because of the file size and for control purposes. There are two general types: the one shot variety and the scanning type where the sensor moves across the frame either three or four times to record the red, green, blue and luminous components of the scene. Those types of backs give incredible detail but they can't be used with moving subjects or electronic flash and so are really confined to still life studio shots.

Medium and large format digital backs range from $15,000 on up to close to $100,000. The medium format backs are usually in the $15,000 to $20,000 range while large format types are around $30,000 to $50,000. They really only make sense for a studio shooter who takes a lot of shots each year and needs to save on film and processing costs, scanning costs and/or has a lot of clients on very tight deadlines. Like everything else, new advances will make them more portable and less expensive but they have a way to go before that happens.

Bruce

[Tom W]

Yes, reading the B&H catalog too much can get you into trouble.

---Bob Gross---

You're $3500 too late. ;)

But that's OK, I'm enjoying the heck out of it. I could have wasted it on something stupid like, say, food.

[roanjohn]

WOW!!! So as far, this is what filtered through............

A rangefinder use a separate lens to judge the distance of the focus................???? but why is that important???.............with autofocus, aren't you able to get accurate focus without knowing how far the subject is??

As for MF and LF, basically they are more relevant on film cameras, as they can use a larger size film................Maybe a digital camera with a larger sensor is on the horizon that would qualify as MF/LF............??? yes?? no??.............anyways

A digital back is an attachment to a MF/LF film camera but is very expensive...........yikes!!!

Leicas/Contax are the sports car of cameras. They are there for show and they look good, but they can get you from point A to point B just as well as you're Expedition "aka 10D".

Whew..................So as far as I know.................there is "NO" medium format digital camera in the market....................there is though through a digital back, which is astronomical in price.

Does Canon venture in the MF/LF marker?? What about Nikon??

In any case.............just when I thought the digital SLR is as far as you can go with photography...............there are more exotic creatures in the jungle for me to discover:-)

Thanks for the replies guys!!

Ro1

[G3]

A rangefinder use a separate lens to judge the distance of the focus................? but why is that important???.............with autofocus, aren't you able to get accurate focus without knowing how far the subject is??

Rangefinder cameras are typically not autofocus.

As for MF and LF, basically they are more relevant on film cameras, as they can use a larger size film................Maybe a digital camera with a larger sensor is on the horizon that would qualify as MF/LF............ yes?? no??.............anyways

When you put a digital back on a medium format camera, what you have is a digital camera with a larger image sensor...and a MUCH larger price tag.

A digital back is an attachment to a MF/LF film camera but is very expensive...........yikes!!!

Yep.

Leicas/Contax are the sports car of cameras. They are there for show and they look good, but they can get you from point A to point B just as well as you're Expedition "aka 10D".

I guess that's one way to look at it.

Whew..................So as far as I know.................there is "NO" medium format digital camera in the market....................there is though through a digital back, which is astronomical in price.

I don't know of a dedicated digital medium format camera, although Hasselblad has just come out with a VERY sexy medium format camera that comes with both digital and film capabilities.

Does Canon venture in the MF/LF marker?? What about Nikon??

Not that I'm aware of.

In any case.............just when I thought the digital SLR is as far as you can go with photography...............there are more exotic creatures in the jungle for me to discover:-)

That's one of the myriad of really cool things about this hobby/profession, isn't it?

[roanjohn]

Thanks G3.................you should upgrade your name to PRO 1..........

ha ha ha

Just joking.

Ro1

[CoolToolGuy]

WOW!!! So as far, this is what filtered through............

A rangefinder use a separate lens to judge the distance of the focus................???? but why is that important???.............with autofocus, aren't you able to get accurate focus without knowing how far the subject is??

As for MF and LF, basically they are more relevant on film cameras, as they can use a larger size film................Maybe a digital camera with a larger sensor is on the horizon that would qualify as MF/LF............??? yes?? no??.............anyways

A digital back is an attachment to a MF/LF film camera but is very expensive...........yikes!!!

Leicas/Contax are the sports car of cameras. They are there for show and they look good, but they can get you from point A to point B just as well as you're Expedition "aka 10D".

Whew..................So as far as I know.................there is "NO" medium format digital camera in the market....................there is though through a digital back, which is astronomical in price.

Does Canon venture in the MF/LF marker?? What about Nikon??

In any case.............just when I thought the digital SLR is as far as you can go with photography...............there are more exotic creatures in the jungle for me to discover:-)

Thanks for the replies guys!!

Ro1

I'll take a stab at this:

One of the issues with the rangefinder is that you are not seeing the scene through the lens that takes the image, so errors in composition can occur. When you get close with a rangefinder, it becomes impossible to compose properly due to the location of the two lenses.

MF & LF cameras have always had film backs or film holders that could take different types of film including Polaroid and 35mm, so digital for them is all about the back. It is not likely that a digital format between 35mm and 645 will come along due to the cost of development for a whole new line of lenses, not to mention the consumer cost of those lenses. The size of the market could not support it.

Leica, Contax, and the other German makes are very high quality that, in some cases make Canon glass look poor (shields up). And the build quality is unbelievably high. When the Japanese began making cameras, they copied from the best German equipment, realizing they could make them cheaper. Manual film advance on a Leica is unbelievably smooth and quiet. Now, film is old technology, but that is the kind of difference you will see in a Leica.

Hope this helps.

[nosquare2003]

Is it too late if we've read the above? Do we need to save more money? Hmm, Leica vs Contax is still very attractive to me.

Well, one obvious advantage of MF (I have never used a LF) is a big viewfinder while the 1.6x crop DSLR viewfinder is comparatively a small and dim hole.

[hmhm]

A rangefinder use a separate lens to judge the distance of the focus................???? but why is that important???.............with autofocus, aren't you able to get accurate focus without knowing how far the subject is??
Ro1

With a rangefinder, you point the camera at the subject and you see a "double image". You focus manually by turning the focus ring until that double image becomes a single image. This is a very accurate method of manual focus, one that works well even in very low light, as opposed to the SLR method of "turn the focus ring until it seems to be in focus".

Rangefinders also eliminate the SLR mirror, which allows them to be built a little bit more compactly, provides slightly faster shutter response, and allows them to be quieter.

SLRs have through-the-lens metering and viewfinder and auto-focus and are generally more practical for a wider set of applications.


As for MF and LF, basically they are more relevant on film cameras, as they can use a larger size film................Maybe a digital camera with a larger sensor is on the horizon that would qualify as MF/LF............??? yes?? no??.............anyways
Ro1

Digital sensors become extremely expensive as they grow in physical size, which changes the economics a bit compared to film. There are digital backs that are larger than 35mm film, typically close to the smaller side of medium format (which is really a "range" of formats, typically 6x4.5 through 6x9).


Leicas/Contax are the sports car of cameras. They are there for show and they look good, but they can get you from point A to point B just as well as you're Expedition "aka 10D".
Ro1

The extra cost of a Leica has more to do with labor-intensive manufacturing, small volumes, and a traditional customer base that's not price-sensitive. Maybe thinking more along the lines of a Rolex compared to a Timex, both of which work just fine at keeping time.


Does Canon venture in the MF/LF marker?? What about Nikon??
Ro1

Canon and Nikon are small format guys. Medium format guys are Hasselblad, Mamiya, Fuji, Bronica, Contax,...
-harry

[roanjohn]

Now everything is crystal clear.

Thanks guys!!!

Ro1

[ggustafs]

While the Contax G2 is classified as a rangefinder....it actually uses auto-focus for each of its 3 prime lenses (and one zoom). So it technically isn't a true "rangefinder". Irrespective of that, the quality of the images on my Contax G2 are wonderful... and it is a very nice handling camera.
---------------
The other great thing about rangefinders, is that when you are looking thru the viewfinder, you have a much larger viewpoint than SLR. The frame is usually etched off in white, but you can see the area surrounding the actual frame that will be recorded on the film... that is one of the main reasons that street photographers love rangefinders....composition is much easier.

[CoolToolGuy]

Does Canon venture in the MF/LF marker?? What about Nikon??


This thread got me a little interested in what is out there in Large Format, so I checked B&H, and N*k*n is in the Large Format lens game in a big way! Over 20 lenses! Who'd a thunk it? :?

[Haifidelity]

They've been in that game for a while and the lens designs probably go back to the 60's. There's been very little change in the Large Format Systems for such a long time..

-hza

[G3]

Apparently Leaf (maker of MF digital backs) has teamed up with Mamiya and they have produced a Medium Format Digital camera for the masses. It is called the Leaf Mamiya Pro 6. I don't know a lot about it yet, but I think the base model Pro 6 is a 6 megapixel camera that retails for $6,999.00 in 6x4.5 format. It is a Mamiya M645 ProAFD with the Leaf digital back. They also are offering an 11 mp model as well as a 22 mp model, although I'm sure those are not quite as affordable.