Any Desire to Buy Other Formats?

[dpanicc1]

I have two Canon DSLR and shoot weddings part time. I find myself wondering around B&H's website looking at Rangefinder and 6x6 (<3K) medium format cameras and wonder if they can be beneficial in some way to the wedding business. I always seem to conclude the answer is no. The benefits that exist in these formats just doesn't seem to justify the expediture in terms of money, time and workflow. I am just wondering what others think.

tnx,
Dan

[Belmondo]

If digital medium format ever becomes affordable, I would really love to have a go at it. Until then, the current crop of Canon DSLRs and lenses seems to give me all the opportunities I need for spending money.

[Vita Rara]

Belmondo,

I'm right there with you. The new Mamiya ZD looks nice, but not yet.

Mark

[TimSchroepfer]

I am very interested. I don't have the cash to go digial, but I am looking for a used 645e or 645 pro tl. Listed on BH for 1399 used, but that seems a little high to me for just playing around. There is something about medium format that is calling to me and I can't quite figure it out. Perhpas I miss film a bit... but that is why I still use my AE-1 from time to time.

[msvadi]

if you want really smooth tones and amazing details even at huge enlargements, you have to go to the medium format. from the business point of you, it's probably not worth it. quality of images from digital SLRs is not even close to what one can get from film and medium format. but, there is no demand for such quality. that's what put Bronica out of business, wedding photographers switched to digital. but, if you feel the urge, you can start slow. for example get a Seagull (about $300 for a model with a good glass) and Epson 4870 scanner. and see where it takes you.

[gramps]

Way back when I was young (before dirt was invented) I wanted to have a 2 1/4 format camera. Back then color was pretty new for do it youself guys like me that had their own dark rooms. I was lucky in the 50's I was "given" a darkroom and in the 60's I was the photo editor at my high school so I had two b&w darkrooms to use. I would have loved to play with 2 1/4 then and if I had disposable $$$$ now I would give it some thought.

[msvadi]

by the way, for people who are curious about the medium format, I really recommend to check this gallery http://Naomi.photosight.ru The girl shoots with the Rolleiflex 2.8 GX and SL66. Even at the web-size, the smoothness is simply shocking. here's another gallery, even better, simply a work of art. the girl took most of the pictures with a Hasselblad http://www.zija.net/ or http://zosiazija.photosight.ru

[k2kv]

Many years ago, when I had a wet b/w & color darkroom, I owned a Bronica 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 camera, and eventually upgraded to the "new" Pentax 6x7. They were great cameras, but I eventually replaced them with a wonderful Leica M5 and 35/2.0. Had lots of fun, and eventually went the SLR route for all its incomparable versatility.

These days, I love my 20D, the variety of lenses, and the digital process, but have the most enduring hankering to get my hands on a Hasselblad XPAN II, even though I know I would have to start shooting film all over again (ugh - what's wrong with me?).

Just can't seem to shake the desire (story of my life), as I find that extra-wide view (and the camera itself) to be truly seductive! To make matters worse, Epson has recently released their F-3200 scanner which will accommodate the long negatives. It's a good thing the XPAN II is such a turtle compared to my 20D, or I'd have bought it long ago!!

If you haven't had the opportunity to view any images produced by this unique instrument, you should really do yourselves a favor and spend a few minutes looking around the 'Net. Just don't get hooked!

Well, maybe I should just pick up the 10-22, and get over it...

Good shooting,

Jeff
http://pbase.com/k2kv

[Persian-Rice]

I have a LF with digital back.(arca-swiss monorail & betterlight back)
I don't know about its practicality, they are big, complicated and take time to set up.

There is no comparison in image size/quality, The images are just stunning, it makes a dSLR look like a puppy. But I only use LF in the for studio and for landscapes. I have other equipment for regular use.

[timmyquest]

I wouldnt mind getting a nice medium format film camera.

For now my holga is the largest i got :-P

[ilcounican]

I won't lie and say that digital has been the answer to all my problems in growing a small photography company. As someone just asked me yesterday about the drawbacks, I say that there are still times when I'd rather be loading another roll of film for archival purposes. However, running a small business leaves little or no funding for medium formats, processessing, etc. I still have film cameras in the arsenal, but my pace (and budget) won't make room for buying medium format - be it film or digital.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nope :)

the 35mm format is the only option for birds.

[neil_r]

I went the other way, sold my medium format gear to fund the 1D Mk II, but now I miss it so much……….:cry: :cry:

N

[roanjohn]

There is certainly that allure with film that I never experienced.......the different color tones/grain/saturation. The possibilities are endless!! Maybe in the future, we can have interchangeable sensor to mimic certain films etc....

Look at this gallery: http://www.pbase.com/magus/hasselblad_503cw

All shot with a Hassy............just STUNNING quality and beautifully preserved highlights!!!

Ro1

[Deckyon]

I just picked up, for $300, a 4x5 monorail view camera, with focusplate, lensboard, lens, rails, and 5 film backs and tripod. It is a Omega View 45F (Similar to Toyo) I have not used it yet, but it was a hard to pass-up deal. Especially since the bellows is flawless. No, I do not know off hand what the lense is, but everything works. We tested it out in the store for about an hour.

[Jon]

Nah. Largest format I ever worked with was a 7x7 aerial camera (Fairchild F-56) with 5x7 sheet film magazine (you ever tried getting 7" roll film? Or loading it onto the reels?). Nice, if cumbersome, but I ended up donating it to a museum. I suppose that if I could get another Graflex XL, I might be tempted.

[Mike Panic]

i still want a pentax 67

[DocFrankenstein]

I feel unworthy of this forum

[mtnbiker1096]

My wife say's I am nuts, but I still shoot 35mm velvia and I really want to try medium format. I still love that old wonderfull Velvia and would love to see it in medium.

[ssim]

Every now and then I will break out my Pentax 6X7 and shoot a roll or two. I've also got a Mamiya RB ProS67 but haven't used it in years since I quit doing weddings. The Pentax certainly isn't much in the category for doing wildlife but it can turn out some pretty darned good landscapes.

[Mike H]

... if you want really smooth tones and amazing details even at huge enlargements, you have to go to the medium format ... quality of images from digital SLRs is not even close to what one can get from film and medium format ...

I disagree. I had a Hasselblad system for a few years, as well as the Pentax 645 and Pentax 645 AF (the autofocus version of their 645). I enjoyed them very much, but looking back over prints that I made from their negatives I don't really see a difference in image quality (in terms of sharpness and resolution) compared to my 1DM2. The tonality is different; there seems to be a smoother gradation of tones in some images. However, at that time I was shooting different subjects so it's a little difficult to compare. I'm confident that as my digital darkroom skills grow the tonal ranges of my images will improve.

I think that some of the difference that people notice, especially with black and white work, comes from the way that they are printed. I still love the look of fiber-based black and white prints, and don't get the same warm, fuzzy feeling from holding ink jet prints. Behind glass such differences disappear.

Overall, given all of the advantages and disadvantages of both media, I never regret making the change. I still feel that contact prints from large format cameras have a superior tonal range (compared to digital), and even better detail. But that won't last long. Digital is getting better much faster than film.

Mike H

[Mike H]

One more thought after looking over the Hasselblad shots linked above. I really do miss one thing about that camera: the square format!

I wish that Dennis Reggie or one of those other shooters that Canon seems to listen to would tell them to make a square format camera. (He shot Hasselblad for years.) I just like the look of a square format. It's also nice to not have to think about which way to turn the camera.

It's hard to visualize things in squares looking through a Canon DSLR. Sometimes I will crop an image that way, and I find the balance of that format so satisfying (when it works for a particular shot, anyway).

Mike H

[Mike H]

... that's what put Bronica out of business, wedding photographers switched to digital ...

I didn't even notice that they were gone. If you read dpreview, you'll know that Leica looks like it's all but done, too, apparently having missed the digital boat. I suppose Hasselblad is next. It's sad.

Mike H

[radar-eclipse]

I can vouch for the Pentax 6x7. It isn't too crazy in $$. However, you get spoiled with Canon metering system in comparison to the Pentax.

K2KV, as far as the Xpan, I bought one and have been only okay with the results. I don't have the version II. I have all three lenses, and I could swear the Fuji optics are lacking somehow. In landscapes the Pentax rules! For weddings, check out Pentax's 645.

[wintoid]

My "pocket" camera is an Ixus digital, but I muse about replacing it with a Contax G2 some day. I doubt it will ever happen, but I still think about it :D