 Calgarey Penn |
Getting into Medium Format Hello, I have been involved in photography for 25 plus years, mostly with 35mm format. Three years ago I started with digital tecnology using an Olympus C5050 and now have an Olympus E-Volt 300. I very much like digital technology but still would like to have a larger format such as afforded by medium format cameras. I know that film based medium format cameras are readily available across a wide spectrum of quailities and prices. I also know that digital medium format is very expensive. What is the thinking out there on how I might best combine medium format with digital technology without spending mega-thousands of dollars? Thanks. Calgarey Penn
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
Well I know a lot of people on Photosig that shoot MF but the professionally scan their negs. You could do that. I haven't had mine pro scanned yet but I plan on doing it soon. You should be able to have your negs/chromes scanned at the local pro lab. Try this, you can get great results. Search for "Dean Berty" on BP here and check out his stuff, he shoot mainly with an RB-67.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
Dean Berty at Photosig.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I shoot with a Pentax 645N and my lab (prophotoimaging.com) scans all negs. If I want a digital file, all I have to do is pay a small fee and I get them. As to which camera to buy, take your choice. Pentax and Mamiya make great cameras and they aren't too expensive, especially on the used market. Hasselblad and Rollei also make great cameras but they are expensive, new or used. Bronica and Contax have left the market but their cameras are really good and are readily available, some still new and plenty on the used market.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
My initial experience with MF (6 x 4.5, Bronica RF645) is revealing. For one thing, a 65mm lens may be the equivalent of a 40mm on 35, but a 65 acts like a 65, in that there's not a lot of depth of field. The 28 equivalent is a 45mm. If I want to do with DOF what I did with a 28mm at f8, I have to stop down to f16. Yes, processing is more expensive. The first roll of transparency film tells the tale; you will be hooked. The detail is amazing; the tonal range seems to me to be, if not wider at the extremes, to have more gradation in between highlight and shadow. If all we want to do is post jpgs on betterphoto, we may as well stick to 35mm or shoot first generation digital. MF makes me slow down, plan what I want to shoot, and think in terms of what I would like to see in a large print. My old enlarger has been shoved into a basement corner long enough. I will be doing much more B&W.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Greetings Cal: There's an interesting article on using MF in Shutterbug's January 2006 issue. It talks about the availability of (now) reasonably priced used equipment including bodies, film mags, lenses, etc., especially Hasselblad, Bronica and Mamiya. And it also discusses use of interchangable digital backs with MF equipment. You might also take a look at MF prices at KEH.com. They're quite reasonable IMHO, reliable, good warranty and return or exchange policies. In the past 6 months, I've purchased two addl. Hasselblad bodies from them, both in bargain grade, and some additional film magazines in the same grade. They're all in great shape and the prices were quite fair. Take it light.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
Don't go telling too many people about that. I personally am keeping it on the down-low. lol
|
|
|
|
||
|
Calgarey Penn |
Thanks very much for all responses. I have used KEH this past summer to purchase a lens for my ancient (but still great) Olympus OM-1. It seems the marriage of technolgies makes possible what I want to do. Now to search for a decent medium format camera! Thanks for all responses. Calgarey
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||