Anyone go from digital to a medium format?

I have some great digital gear, but am intrigued by some of these great deals on used medium format gear.

Back in the 90's I always lusted to have a hasselblad or mamiya.

Anyone get one of these for fun, and was it worth it? I have a feeling I'll be put off by the film and processing costs and the novelty will where off quickly.

Medium format film will knock your socks off. Seriously; pick up a Bronica SQ-A for $400 or so and prepare to be stunned.

edge100 wrote in post #16248970
Medium format film will knock your socks off. Seriously; pick up a Bronica SQ-A for $400 or so and prepare to be stunned.

Medium format for $400? Sign me up!!!

Would this $400 price include a lens? If so, would the lens be "good enough" to resolve detail at the same level that the MF film can resolve, or, for this price, would the lens that is included be a weak link in the chain?

I started on digital, then went MF. I still have a 5D, but use it rarely, only when I need something instantly. I didn't switch for fun, its the medium I choose for my work. Only you can determine whether it will be worth it, everyone has different needs/desires, if you think you'll be put off by the process, maybe stick to digital? Other then lusting after MF in the past, whats your reasons for considering it?

For $400 you can absolutely get into a great medium format kit, and that includes a lens that will capture all the detail you need.

Why settle for less than the best? Here's a clean Hasselblad C/M for $745 BIN. If you don't care about cosmetics you can find them cheaper.

http://www.ebay.com …meras&hash=item​3385010849

Nothing beats German glass. You can also find reasonably priced older digital backs for these.

iamascientist wrote in post #16249052
Other then lusting after MF in the past, whats your reasons for considering it?

For $400 you can absolutely get into a great medium format kit, and that includes a lens that will capture all the detail you need.

For me, the reason I am intrigued by MF is the (perceived) ability to resolve more fine detail. I photograph birds and mammals. These are made up of hair and feathers, respectively. I really like the images in which I am able to resolve each and every hair, and each and every feather filament, in a way that is clear and distinct.

My 15MP sensor (50D) often falls short of being able to resolve every single feather segment, especially when the birds are not large in the frame. If a $400 MF kit could accomplish this, then I would be very interested.

Tom, normally a $400 MF would have a normal lens, if you could get close enough to a bird the resolution is stunning. Especially for Hasselblad.

I had a 250 mm Sonnar for my Hasselblad system, it was sharp as a tack but magnification was only about 3X. It also cuts off about 20% at the top of the frame in the viewer, but gives you the entire frame on the film.

A >15MP scan is going to cost quite a bit of money. Up to and including $100 a frame for top-level quality drum scanning.

I read a blog where a guy shot MF film for a year. Just using standard processing and scanning (Noritsu), he spent enough in a year to buy a 1DX. That puts you in spitting distance of an older used MFD system.

chris_holtmeier wrote in post #16249119
A >15MP scan is going to cost quite a bit of money. Up to and including $100 a frame for top-level quality drum scanning.

I read a blog where a guy shot MF film for a year. Just using standard processing and scanning (Noritsu), he spent enough in a year to buy a 1DX. That puts you in spitting distance of an older used MFD system.

Crazy, thats not average. If I shoot 10 rolls of 120 a month, it comes out to roughly $750 a year, with home processing, add about $120. Add a used v700, thats a one time $400 fee. Its nowhere near the price of a 1DX.

Of coarse you can drum scan when necessary, no one needs every frame drum scanned. The V700 can produce a true 25-27mp image from a 6X6 neg.

iamascientist wrote in post #16249148
Crazy, thats not average. If I shoot 10 rolls of 120 a month, it comes out to roughly $750 a year, with home processing, add about $120. Add a used v700, thats a one time $400 fee. Its nowhere near the price of a 1DX.

Nowhere near the quality of a drumscan either. You're kidding yourself if you think different.

As a side note when I shot MF and LF my lab bill for chromes alone was $60,000 a year. The clients paid for that but add in film costs and scans it was lot of money. Now I charge a digital fee and the clients are happy to pay.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16249088
For me, the reason I am intrigued by MF is the (perceived) ability to resolve more fine detail. I photograph birds and mammals. These are made up of hair and feathers, respectively. I really like the images in which I am able to resolve each and every hair, and each and every feather filament, in a way that is clear and distinct.

My 15MP sensor (50D) often falls short of being able to resolve every single feather segment, especially when the birds are not large in the frame. If a $400 MF kit could accomplish this, then I would be very interested.

I think the problem you would run into with wildlife is that the longer lenses are much slower with MF, also much bigger, and mostly everything is manual focus. Also, with color film your options top out at 800.

iamascientist wrote in post #16249148
Crazy, thats not average. If I shoot 10 rolls of 120 a month, it comes out to roughly $750 a year, with home processing, add about $120. Add a used v700, thats a one time $400 fee. Its nowhere near the price of a 1DX.

Of coarse you can drum scan when necessary, no one needs every frame drum scanned. The V700 can produce a true 25-27mp image from a 6X6 neg.

That's home processing. I'm guessing the OP doesn't have a darkroom.

$6 for a roll of film, $23 for processing and decent scans. 10 rolls a month would be $3500 a year.

Once you start talking scans that beat a 15mp digital, the price skyrockets.

Also, if you think a V700 comes close to that res, you're fooling yourself.

breal101 wrote in post #16249164
Nowhere near the quality of a drumscan either. You're kidding yourself if you think different.

As a side note when I shot MF and LF my lab bill for chromes alone was $60,000 a year. The clients paid for that but add in film costs and scans it was lot of money. Now I charge a digital fee and the clients are happy to pay.

I'm aware of that, I was only speaking in resolution terms, a 15mp scan wont cost you $100.

And even if you wanted to get closer to drum scans, the coolscan 9000 is half the price of a 1dx.

chris_holtmeier wrote in post #16249173
That's home processing. I'm guessing the OP doesn't have a darkroom.

$6 for a roll of film, $23 for processing and decent scans. 10 rolls a month would be $3500 a year.

Once you start talking scans that beat a 15mp digital, the price skyrockets.

Also, if you think a V700 comes close to that res, you're fooling yourself.

You don't need a darkroom to develop film. And whether any scan beats a 15mp digital file is completely subjective, there's more to scanning then a scanner, I'm sure plenty of people, myself included, get results they're much happier with from film and a home scanner compared to any digital camera. Its not about beating digital. Also, the V700s true resolution is 2200-2400 ppi, do the math...

OP never said anything about developing and scanning himself. I'm guessing "intrigued by MF gear" and "processing costs" means they don't want to do it themselves.