| Photography Forum: Medium Format Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. MF newbie
Asked by Mark Jones
(K=458) on 11/28/2004
|
I am wanting to get into medium format photography, but I have a couple questions.
1. What is the best entry level camera to buy? I have heard of Yashicas, and older cameras.
2. When prints are produced is it more expensive than 35mm? Are the prints larger?
3. I shoot mainly landscapes,animals, and some portraits, would MF give me sharper results or better resolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 11/28/2004
|
1. Kiev! :-)
2. If you do your own printing, costs are the same. If you go to a lab, I don't know. Prints are as large as you make them.
3. Sharpness depends on the lens and on the film+developer. As for better resolution, bigger negative size = more information captured, so I would say yes.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 11/29/2004
|
Kiev?s do make for good entry level medium format cameras but you do need to be aware that they are not the best built cameras. If you buy one be sure to get it from a dealer like Kievcamera.com, Araxfoto.com or Kievusa.com. The big selling points of Kiev are the lenses. You can get some very nice Carl Ziess glass for them. Now this is East German Ziess not the current W. German Company but the glass is almost as good. There are two models of Kiev, the 60 and the 88. The 60 looks very similar to a 35mm camera just bigger. The 88 looks like a Hasselblad from which it was copied. The 60 is less prone to failure because of less moving parts but it does not have interchangeable film backs.
Another good option is the Pentax 645, I use this camera and have found it very easy to handle and reliable. I am using an adapter that allows me to use the Ziess glass from my Kiev?s on it. I have to shoot in AE mode but that is normally what I use.
Another good option is the Mamiya 645e; this is a simple camera that handles good as well.
|
|
|
|
James McGinnis
(K=6045) - Comment Date 11/29/2004
|
Two weeks ago I would have cast my vote for a Bronica. But, with the latest news from Tamron, I'm not sure that this is still sound advice. They're great little cameras, rugged and not terribly expensive. But, replacement parts/accessories may become more difficult to find now that Tamron is out of the MF business.
Mamiya would probably be my next suggestion from a cost/construction standpoint. They're excellent cameras. A bit more expensive than the Bronny but built like tanks. Overall, a very well respected camera.
Then, there's the Hassy....
|
|
|
|
John Thomas
(K=62) - Comment Date 12/27/2004
|
This may be a bit late, but I entered the MF arena with a Mamiya 645 then quickly went to a Mamiya 645 1000S. I also use a YashikaMat 124 which is fun to "play" with. I like the square negative. Although the 1000S is older, it is "built like a tank" and works just fine. I like the larger negatives as they give me better image quality with larger prints. The costs are a bit more than 35mm, but worth it. To overcome the costs of having my negs scanned, I picked up an Epson Perfection 4180 PHOTO to scan my own. You'll find you have more fun with a MF as it "makes you think and act more slowly". Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
David Burckhard
(K=45) - Comment Date 12/29/2004
|
You asked:
1. What is the best entry level camera to buy? I have heard of Yashicas, and older cameras.
That's a loaded question. If you have to ask then you should stick with the simplest and most affordable. Many Yashica (Yashicamats) and most twin lens reflex cameras can be had for less than $200. You won't get the benefit of highly renowned lenses nor will you get interchangability and a lot of other benefits found on other MF cameras but it's a great and classic start for many MF shooters. I suggest to buy used.
2. When prints are produced is it more expensive than 35mm? Are the prints larger?
Yes, getting prints from 120 and 220 film will be more expensive. That's because there are fewer labs that can even handle the larger film. Those that do presume you are a more serious photographer with more discerning tastes and expectations. Any schmoe can shoot 35mm, is the reasoning, but shooting medium format is done on purpose and with a eye toward high quality. You won't be shooting snapshots on your MF camera and needing 30 prints every two weeks. Prints from MF film can be any size you want.
3. I shoot mainly landscapes,animals, and some portraits, would MF give me sharper results or better resolution?
The resolving power of MF camera lenses are arguably on par with those of 35mm SLR lenses. Why you shoot with MF is not because of better lenses but because of the larger film. The smallest common MF format is 6 X 4.5 centimeters (some call this 645 format). It has a an image area about three times as big as 35mm film. The largest common MF format is 6 x 7 centimeters (called 67) and is about 4.5 times bigger than 35mm. The advantages of using these larger formats over 35mm is that one does not have to enlarge as much which preserves the detail. Even the cheap Rolleiflex I used with its simple triplex (three lens elements) lens produced a sharper finished print than my best 35mm equipment and lens costing four times as much as the whole camera/lens Rolleiflex. It's just physics. Another great advantage of shooting the larger format is you get processed film, negatives or transparencies, that you can examine directly without the aid of a loupe.
Let me suggest that you shoot transparency film (slides) when shooting MF. You'll be able to evaluate your technique straight on without wondering if the lab screwed up. You'll be able to use the transparency as a guide for when you get prints. Transparencies are easier to understand. Negatives are always a hassle to figure out. Transparencies scan better than negatives because there are so many discrepencies between how negatives are printed and every lab has a different "color profile" for every type of negative. Slides are so what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
|
|
|
|
|
