Film Medium Format choice

[Tareq]

Hey,

If you have an option of 2 choices, which one you will go with?

1- Buy "New" film medium format body

2- Buy "Used" 2 film medium format bodies

1 New body = 2 Used bodies [approx.]

So your recommendations?

[RDKirk]

I would buy two used bodies, but of course, depending on their condition.

[Tareq]

I would buy two used bodies, but of course, depending on their condition.

And this is what making me worry about the conditions, and if the condition is great excellent then the price will be little high that making it not that much difference than one New body.

[yogestee]

How often are you going to use medium format?? And for what??

[RDKirk]

And this is what making me worry about the conditions, and if the condition is great excellent then the price will be little high that making it not that much difference than one New body.

Not necessarily. Used medium format film bodies are selling for absurdly small prices these days because of the demand for digital, while the new bodies are still at the same high end they've always been.

A new Mamiya RZ67 Pro II body is still selling for $2300 USD at B&H, while a used one in excellent+ condition from a reputable dealer like KEH is around $500 USD. That is an incredible depreciation--you could get four good used bodies and a lens for the price of one new body.

[mehran.mo]

get a used body. Buying a new film MF body is a little bit ridiculous

[Tareq]

How often are you going to use medium format?? And for what??

If i know this answer then i can answer you, the future can carry a lot of surprises, and the last 2 years i started to do photography more than often and growing or improving very fast that i can use any tool for that, and i really want to use film in my photography life, doesn't matter if i will shoot 100+ or 1000000+, my 350D i didn't use it that much but still i keep it.

Not necessarily. Used medium format film bodies are selling for absurdly small prices these days because of the demand for digital, while the new bodies are still at the same high end they've always been.

A new Mamiya RZ67 Pro II body is still selling for $2300 USD at B&H, while a used one in excellent+ condition from a reputable dealer like KEH is around $500 USD. That is an incredible depreciation--you could get four good used bodies and a lens for the price of one new body.

LOL, this is one camera i was looking to buy as a new or one of the 2 used.

get a used body. Buying a new film MF body is a little bit ridiculous

I was thinking this way as well, so i have to check where i can find a used body with excellent great condition/mint, otherwise i will regret to buy anything used.

[ssim]

get a used body. Buying a new film MF body is a little bit ridiculous
I wouldn't call it ridiculous. I still shoot many assignments in film, some at the request of the agency that I do work for. It is about ones own personal and business priorities and they may not necessarily coincide with yours.

I still have and use Pentax 6x7's, Mamiya RB67 ProS and Mamiya 645. They are all work horses and very little can go wrong with them as long as you look after them. With this thought I would go for the used bodies.

[collierportraits]

Used. But as with most things our opinions are based on our experiences. And my experience has been really good buying used. Most of my gear I've bought used and thoroughly enjoyed it for many years.

After all, as the old saying goes, "Everyone drives a used car..."

Or in this case, "Everyone shoots with used gear..." ;)

[Tareq]

Finally pulled the trigger and bought 2 film MFs Used for the first time, only 2 bodies and no lenses or magazine backs or something else.

OH, waiting, waiting waiting!

[Wilt]

A new Mamiya RZ67 Pro II body is still selling for $2300 USD at B&H, while a used one in excellent+ condition from a reputable dealer like KEH is around $500 USD. That is an incredible depreciation--you could get four good used bodies and a lens for the price of one new body.


Yeah, medium format suffered incredible depreciation in used market value, somewhat like a 1Ds that had $8k price and a current $1k used price (sold), and the 1D that had a $6k new price and $500 used price (asking)!:(

The difference is that the medium format film camera still has as much useful life as it ever did, while the older dSLRs are 4MP limited-by-noise high ISO almost dinosaurs.

[breal101]

Finally pulled the trigger and bought 2 film MFs Used for the first time, only 2 bodies and no lenses or magazine backs or something else.

OH, waiting, waiting waiting!

What bodies did you buy? What ever ones you bought it wouldn't be a bad idea to buy the lenses used and the backs new. Film backs were the weakest link in any of the MF systems I ever owned or used. If you bought Mamiya RZ and buy used lenses get newer ones which are excellent, some of the older Mamiya glass was pure crap.

[Tareq]

What bodies did you buy? What ever ones you bought it wouldn't be a bad idea to buy the lenses used and the backs new. Film backs were the weakest link in any of the MF systems I ever owned or used. If you bought Mamiya RZ and buy used lenses get newer ones which are excellent, some of the older Mamiya glass was pure crap.

Aha, i see.
I bought Hasselblad 501CM, and Mamiya RZ.
I will check which back for Hassy and for RZ [Hassy maybe i will go with A12], and i was lookingfor 50mm for Hassy, some recommmended me 80 and some 40mm if i want wider, i may buy only 2 lenses, one for each, mid-range for hassy and wider for mamiya.
And i was looking for the body mostly, so now i have the bodies used [still waiting] then i can buy new glass and new backs at least.

[Tareq]

I posted on flickr about which scanner i should go with and still i didn't read the answers yet if so, but i forgot to ask about which film media i should use as well.

[airfrogusmc]

The 501C/M is a good choice. You can find 500 C/Ms also still in GREAT shape. I would highly recommend the 50 CF FLE and also the 120mm or even the 180mm.

[Tareq]

The 501C/M is a good choice. You can find 500 C/Ms also still in GREAT shape. I would highly recommend the 50 CF FLE and also the 120mm or even the 180mm.

I was going to buy 500cm but many their on flickr recommended me 501cm as that GSM is not a harmful feature, it may help if i go longer than 150mm.
There is one guy on flickr would like to sell his 50mm CF FLE with 750euro, he said it is new,, not sure how new it is, i found this lens with $1219 "Like-New" and $919 "Excellent" condition.
What is that 120mm and 180mm equivalent to 35mm on those MFs?

[airfrogusmc]

I was going to buy 500cm but many their on flickr recommended me 501cm as that GSM is not a harmful feature, it may help if i go longer than 150mm.
There is one guy on flickr would like to sell his 50mm CF FLE with 750euro, he said it is new,, not sure how new it is, i found this lens with $1219 "Like-New" and $919 "Excellent" condition.
What is that 120mm and 180mm equivalent to 35mm on those MFs?

The 120 is I thought gave me a similar FoV to about 70mm, the 150 about 85 and the 180 about 100. Sump'm like that. And the 50 about the same as a 35 and the 80 would be about a 50mm. If you can get a 500 C/M and its cheaper I would go 500 C/M.

[Wilt]

Tareq, to compute how airfraogusmc came about with his equivalence rather than rely upon him to have to tell you...a way to compare FL equivalence is to simply compare lens FL to the short dimension of the frame. 6x6 medium format cameras have about 55mm side to the actual frame, so...

120mm is 2.2 * 55mm side, and 2.2 * 24mm = 53mm in 135 format
180mm is 3.3 * 55mm side, and 3x3 * 24mm = 79mm in 135 format

[airfrogusmc]

Tareq, to compute how airfraogusmc came about with his equivalence rather than rely upon him to have to tell you...a way to compare FL equivalence is to simply compare lens FL to the short dimension of the frame. 6x6 medium format cameras have about 55mm side to the actual frame, so...

120mm is 2.2 * 55mm side, and 2.2 * 24mm = 53mm in 135 format
180mm is 3.3 * 55mm side, and 3x3 * 24mm = 79mm in 135 format

Well, I was off a bit :lol: Though I never thought the 120 gave me about a 50mm FoV. It always seemed a bit longer to me. Heres what they had to say over at photo.net. The 80mm 6X6 is about equal to the 50mm on 35mm. They measured the long side of the 35mm.
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00O5wv

[Tareq]

The 120 is I thought gave me a similar FoV to about 70mm, the 150 about 85 and the 180 about 100. Sump'm like that. And the 50 about the same as a 35 and the 80 would be about a 50mm. If you can get a 500 C/M and its cheaper I would go 500 C/M.

OK Thanks!
You are late, i found 500cm cheap and i was going to pull the trigger on it, but instead, i pulled the trigger on 501cm, so should i order 500cm as well?

Tareq, to compute how airfraogusmc came about with his equivalence rather than rely upon him to have to tell you...a way to compare FL equivalence is to simply compare lens FL to the short dimension of the frame. 6x6 medium format cameras have about 55mm side to the actual frame, so...

120mm is 2.2 * 55mm side, and 2.2 * 24mm = 53mm in 135 format
180mm is 3.3 * 55mm side, and 3x3 * 24mm = 79mm in 135 format

I will use my mathematics skill if i can understand that, but for now it is un-understandable, i would like to see which formula and what factors/variables are there.
Thank you very much anyway.

By the way, i was looking for a diagram where it shows the difference in sensor sizes say from 24x36]full frame] or smaller up to larger formats [4x5, 8x10, 11,14,...], where i can find that diagram please?

[airfrogusmc]

Nah the 501 is also a great camera. I think that might be overkill if you're getting an RB/RZ.

I always went by the standard rule of thought that the 80 was about the same as a 50. 50 about 35. 150 about 80/85. It might be off as Wilt has demonstrated. I think the chart over at photo.net put it a bit closer to what I was thinking and had experienced.

[Wilt]

Well, I was off a bit :lol: Though I never thought the 120 gave me about a 50mm FoV. It always seemed a bit longer to me. Heres what they had to say over at photo.net. The 80mm 6X6 is about equal to the 50mm on 35mm. They measured the long side of the 35mm.
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00O5wv


I know, I have a similar immediate impression, too, that if 80mm is the 'normal' then 120mm is 'short tele' for medium format, and if 50mm is the 'normal' then 75mm is the 'short tele' for 135 format.

OTOH one has to consider that the short dimension of 135 format is 24mm and you would need to fit a portrait sitter's shoulders into that frame width, while needing to fit the same shoulder width into 55mm with 6xx format...
120mm lens on 6x6 format at 8' shooting distance captures 3.8' frame width, while the 50mm lens on 135 format at 8' shooting distance captures the same 3.8' frame width in portrait orientation! A good FL for couples portraiture, as one would use in weddings.

For a head and shoulders portrait of one person, the 180mm lens captures a 2.5' wide frame, just enough for most shoulders viewed frontally at a distance of 8'

[breal101]

Heres another comparison chart at photonet

http://photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion

You can't really go wrong with any of the Hasselblad lenses, I never found one that wasn't sharp edge to edge even wide open. The 50 is a great lens but the 80 would be the cheapest choice.

[airfrogusmc]

I know, I have a similar immediate impression, too, that if 80mm is the 'normal' then 120mm is 'short tele' for medium format, and if 50mm is the 'normal' then 75mm is the 'short tele' for 135 format.

OTOH one has to consider that the short dimension of 135 format is 24mm and you would need to fit a portrait sitter's shoulders into that frame width, while needing to fit the same shoulder width into 55mm with 6xx format...
120mm lens on 6x6 format at 8' shooting distance captures 3.8' frame width, while the 50mm lens on 135 format at 8' shooting distance captures the same 3.8' frame width in portrait orientation!

Yeah Wilt, the math doesn't lie does it. Well anyway, if you want a really killer portrait lens for your blad the 180 is about as good as it gets. The 150 is very nice also. As wilt has pointed out a nice normal would be an 80 or a 120 and the 50 CF FLE is a killer wide lens.

[airfrogusmc]

Heres another comparison chart at photonet

http://photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion

You can't really go wrong with any of the Hasselblad lenses, I never found one that wasn't sharp edge to edge even wide open. The 50 is a great lens but the 80 would be the cheapest choice.

Well I always shot square so it looks like Wilts math was pretty good.

[Tareq]

WOW, can't wait to buy a lens or lenses and start to use film.
By the way, i have a dream to buy Phase one digital back in the future [maybe 2 or 3 years], that is why i bought those film MF, my Hasselbald H3D is closed system as you know.

[breal101]

Well I always shot square so it looks like Wilts math was pretty good.

I never question Wilt's math skills.:D Math just makes my head hurt, must be my engineer training coming back to haunt me. :lol:

[Wilt]

Tareq, the 'math' is not hard!

Format1 frame width / FL1 = Format2 frame width / FL2

[Tareq]

Heres another comparison chart at photonet

http://photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion

You can't really go wrong with any of the Hasselblad lenses, I never found one that wasn't sharp edge to edge even wide open. The 50 is a great lens but the 80 would be the cheapest choice.

Thank very much!
Actually i was looking for a diagram in rectangular/square comparison to show the size differences, not a chart, but thanks for it anyway.

too bad i was comparing that 80mm to similar to my H3DII, but i forgot that my film MF are much larger than my H3D, so 80mm can be wider on film MF than my H3D, but i was looking for one wide lens and one long or mid-range or equivalent to 70-80mm, as with wide i will use it for outdoor and maybe landscapes and so, and the long or mid-range for portraiture, i don't want to buy many lenses to shoot everything, and also i am not looking to use more than 1 lenses for portraiture, still i have my H3D and DSLRs if i need something, film MF is just for fun and most portraits i will do by them are headshots and maybe shulders.

[Tareq]

Tareq, the 'math' is not hard!

Format1 frame width/FL1 = Format2 frame width/FL2/FL

I prefer to see that graph or diagram where they compares different formats to each other in sizes so i can see, from there it will help me to understand the formulas better.

[Wilt]

too bad i was comparing that 80mm to similar to my H3DII, but i forgot that my film MF are much larger than my H3D, so 80mm can be wider on film MF than my H3D, but i was looking for one wide lens and one long or mid-range or equivalent to 70-80mm, as with wide i will use it for outdoor and maybe landscapes and so, and the long or mid-range for portraiture, i don't want to buy many lenses to shoot everything, and also i am not looking to use more than 1 lenses for portraiture, still i have my H3D and DSLRs if i need something, film MF is just for fun and most portraits i will do by them are headshots and maybe shulders.

Tareq, medium format digital frame size is just like film's 645 format (actually a tiny bit smaller, in the case of the most recent digital back for Hassy!)

[Tareq]

What is Format1? and what is FL2?

[Tareq]

Tareq, medium format digital frame size is just like film's 645 format (actually a tiny bit smaller, in the case of the most recent digital back for Hassy!)

Yes, but my film MFs are not 645, they are 6x6 and 6x7.

[airfrogusmc]

I never question Wilt's math skills.:D Math just makes my head hurt, must be my engineer training coming back to haunt me. :lol:

I'm so non-left brained that college algebra 101 almost killed me. And the funny part I can't remember much of it at all. :rolleyes::lol:

[Tareq]

This is a diagram which i was talking about, but it is not complete or have more, so anyone knows something similar but with more formats including large formats?

http://www.magnachrom.com/articleimages/leica-s-system-camera-comparison.jpg

[Wilt]

What is Format1? and what is FL2?

Tareq, let me express that equation in words...


frame width of 'format 1' divided by FL of that format = frame width of 'format 2' divided by FL of that format

It does not matter what 'format 1' is or what 'format 2' is! I can do the same calculation to compare

135mm vs. 6x6
6x6 vs. 135
645 vs. 6x6
6x6 vs 645
135 vs. 4x5
4x5 vs. 135
and on and on and on and on...In the case of the 135mm vs 6x6 comparison...
24mm/50mm = 55mm/120mm

[Tareq]

Tareq, let me express that equation in words...


frame width of 'format 1' divided by FL of that format = frame width of 'format 2' divided by FL of that format

It does not matter what 'format 1' is or what 'format 2' is! I can do the same calculation to compare
135mm vs. 6x6
6x6 vs. 135
645 vs. 6x6
6x6 vs 645
135 vs. 4x5
4x5 vs. 135
and on and on and on and on...In the case of the 135mm vs 6x6 comparison...
24mm/50mm = 55mm/120mm

The numbers are making me confusing.
What is 135mm? why not 35mm
What is 24mm? and 55mm? is that 24mm width or the MF or 35mm format?

[breal101]

I'm so non-left brained that college algebra 101 almost killed me. And the funny part I can't remember much of it at all. :rolleyes::lol:

Calculus wasn't fun for me, it didn't help that the prof's name was James Bond and he talked like Elmer Fudd. His introduction to the class was "Dis is a course in caluwus and aniwitical geometwy", it went downhill from there. That's after the laughter stopped. :lol:

[Tareq]

Calculus wasn't fun for me, it didn't help that the prof's name was James Bond and he talked like Elmer Fudd. His introduction to the class was "Dis is a course in caluwus and aniwitical geometwy", it went downhill from there. That's after the laughter stopped. :lol:

Don't tell me, the only subjects i failed in university when i was studying civil engineering are the mathematics, 5 Mathematics, WOW, thats too much, i failed in 2, 1 of them i failed twice, lucky i could pass the physics and Chemistry, at least i love chemistry.

[Wilt]

Yes, but my film MFs are not 645, they are 6x6 and 6x7.

I understand... I was simply trying to resolve your digital Hassy vs. the film cameras, to point out the digital Hassy was simply like using a 645 format, so the lens FL chosen for it are shorter than what you would want to use in the larger formats.

[Tareq]

So wilt, you take the width [or length] of 35mm for example and the width [or length] of MF and see which FL on each of both can give almost equal result?
But ofcourse in 6x6 format the length is equal the width.
i was trying the formulas on different formats, like 6x7 vs. 35mm
6x7 vs. 8x10 ,.....

[Wilt]

The numbers are making me confusing.
What is 135mm? why not 35mm
What is 24mm? and 55mm? is that 24mm width or the MF or 35mm format?


'135' is the official name of the format which uses 35mm film! just 'cuz that's what the industry named the film. You would buy a roll of KA-135-36 (Kodachrome 36 exposure roll for 135 format) in the store, you'd buy KA-120 for the medium format stuff.

24mm is the dimension of the frame at one edge ... 24mm x 36mm frame for 135, now adopted also for FF digital.

6x6 format film has about a 55mm x 55mm frame (varies by brand of camera)

645 format film has about 43mm x 55mm frame (varies by brand of camera)...now compare that dimension with the actual frame size of your Hassy digital back!

[Tareq]

'135' is the official name of the format which uses 35mm film! just 'cuz that's what the industry named the film. You would buy a roll of KA-135-36 (Kodachrome 36 exposure roll for 135 format) in the store.

24mm is the dimension of the frame at one edge ... 24mm x 36mm frame for 135, now adopted also for FF digital.

6x6 format film has about a 55mm x 55mm frame (varies by brand of camera)

645 format film has about 43mm x 55mm frame (varies by brand of camera)...now compare that dimension with the actual frame size of your Hassy digital back!

I was looking for a chart where it shows all the dimensions of different formats from APC-s up to large format in mm, can you find it?

[RDKirk]

I know, I have a similar immediate impression, too, that if 80mm is the 'normal' then 120mm is 'short tele' for medium format, and if 50mm is the 'normal' then 75mm is the 'short tele' for 135 format.

There is no need for precision. Just compare the difference from normal between two formats. A 100mm lens is about twice the normal length for 35mm, a 180mm lens is about twice the normal focal length for 6x6. "About" is close enough--only the very simplest math is needed--and you're going to be restricted to the focal lengths that are actually available anyway.

[yogestee]

Do a little maths.. A "normal" lens is usually equivalent to the diagonal of the negative..

[Tareq]

Do a little maths.. A "normal" lens is usually equivalent to the diagonal of the negative..

Yes!!! bw!

[airfrogusmc]

Calculus wasn't fun for me, it didn't help that the prof's name was James Bond and he talked like Elmer Fudd. His introduction to the class was "Dis is a course in caluwus and aniwitical geometwy", it went downhill from there. That's after the laughter stopped. :lol:

:lol:

[Wilt]

So wilt, you take the width [or length] of 35mm for example and the width [or length] of MF and see which FL on each of both can give almost equal result?
But ofcourse in 6x6 format the length is equal the width.
i was trying the formulas on different formats, like 6x7 vs. 35mm
6x7 vs. 8x10 ,.....

You are simply using the ratio of a side of the frame: FL, and using that to determine the same ratio for a different format when using its side : FL. The FOV is proportional when you use that ratio.

[Wilt]

I was looking for a chart where it shows all the dimensions of different formats from APC-s up to large format in mm, can you find it?


These are approximations, simply because all manufacturers do not exactly follow the frame dimensions!

4/3 format: 12mm x 18mm
APS-C: 15mm x 22.5mm
FF: 24mm x 36mm
645: 43mm x 55mm
6x6: 55mm x 55mm
6x7: 55mm x 69mm
4x5: 90mm x 120mm

[Tareq]

These are approximations, simply because all manufacturers do not exactly follow the frame dimensions!

4/3 format: 12mm x 18mm
APS-C: 15mm x 22.5mm
FF: 24mm x 36mm
645: 43mm x 55mm
6x6: 55mm x 55mm
6x7: 55mm x 69mm
4x5: 90mm x 120mm

Thank you very much!
Are those numbers the dimensions of the sensors?
4/3 is it in inches? 645 is it in inches? 4x5 is it in cm? from where did they use 4/3 or 24x36 or 6x6 or 4x5?

[ruchad1]

I have a Mamiya 7 II i love it. Negs are so nice.

[Tareq]

I have a Mamiya 7 II i love it. Negs are so nice.

I am sure it is, i have a feeling that all medium formats are great, they are just tools at the end.

[Wilt]

Thank you very much!
Are those numbers the dimensions of the sensors?
4/3 is it in inches? 645 is it in inches? 4x5 is it in cm? from where did they use 4/3 or 24x36 or 6x6 or 4x5?


NO SENSORS...merely the opening size of the port to the film when the shutter is open!

4/3 is a ratio of the two w\sides, L/W

4x5 is size in inches of the two sides, L * W

24mm x 36mm is the size in millimeters, of the 135 format frame opening when the shutter is open.

[Tareq]

NO SENSORS...merely the opening size of the port to the film when the shutter is open!

4/3 is a ratio of the two w\sides, L/W

4x5 is size in inches of the two sides, L * W

24mm x 36mm is the size in millimeters, of the 135 format frame opening when the shutter is open.

I see, wondering what are those numbers referring to, thank you very much!