Medium Format SLR or Digital SLR

nicholasfrost1

9

16 Jan 2003 - 11:35 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I am interested in progressing to medium format over the next year, after reading that alot of professionals are turning to Digital SLR's, which is recommended, how do they compare?

Any recommendations on a 2nd hand medium format?

mad-dogs

9

17 Jan 2003 - 11:30 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

It depends what you want it for. The mamiya 6*7 is a very good camera - but far too heavy to carry around the hills for landscape photography.

A decent medium format will last a lifetime, whereas digital cameras are limited by an everchanging technology, making it out of date as soon as it is released and the life span of the digital components. How long will an lcd screen last before it needs replacing and will the parts still be available in a few years time?

I have used a Bronica SQ-A for over twenty years and it has been excellent. it is light enough to carry on landscape / travel shoots and I can still get spares if necessary.

Professionals quite often pay for their digital cameras after one or two assignments and will no doubt generate further income to replace the camera / back when necessary.

Digital photography certainly makes life easier when you can view the finished product shortly after it has been exposed and the cost of digital is offset by the expense of film and processing.
The ideal option is when a medium format digital back is available at a price we can all afford, giving us the choice of both traditional and digital via one system.

regards

Dave
====

Franticsmurf

9

17 Jan 2003 - 8:36 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I'm using a Mamiya 645. I bought it new after checking the prices of secondhand lenses for it and its rivals. No complaints over the last two years.

As my namesake mentioned, 645 is easier on the back (and legs) when walking uphill. Yes, the 645 format smaller than the other medium format ones but there is still a vast improvement over 35mm (all other things equal). Add to that the cheaper accessories (backs, lenses, convertors etc) and there is a strong argument for going with this format.

Dave F

shooter

9

18 Jan 2003 - 12:30 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Nicholas writes: "Understand 6*7 is the recommended format for medium format photography."
No, it depends on what YOU are doing. What do you want to photograph? Why are you looking at MF/digital?
If it's for ultimate quality in landscape, 4x5 can be not only far better, but cheaper than MF.
If it's for products, an interchangeable back is important, so no Pentax 67. If it's for weddings, a 645 AutoFocus would be better. SO tell us what you want to do, without that our advice is useless.

J-P

9

20 Jan 2003 - 7:41 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I think you'll find 645 SLR best. Something like a Mamiya Pro TL handles even better than a 35mm SLR, it's light and will fit in a small backpack. RB/RZ but it's fearsomely bulky. You have to be a bit obsessional to carry it to remote locations. Great for studio stuff though. Mamiya's 645e is great value at 700 with metering head, LED finder and fixed back and standard lens. It has aperture priority and full manual.

If space really is vital also consider a Fuji GA 645zi -very compact, fixed zoom lens, AF, not too good for macro though. Also think about a Mamiya 7 as I said above. 6 x 7 quality in a very small body, again not good for macro.

dhphoto

9

28 Jan 2003 - 5:54 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I just couldn't disagree more strongly! As a pro who has owned RB67's, Hasselblads, Mamiya 645's and 5x4's I think digital is ABSOLUTELY the way. I do not know a serious professional who has not gone digital in some way with sinar backs etc. whilst keeping his/her traditional kit in the back office. I know I have. A good digital SLR, carefully used is EVERY BIT as good as a medium format camera, in my opinion. The benefits it provides MASSIVELY outweigh the cons: No Film, No Polaroid, No Processing, No reshoots due to bad film, show your client the proofs immediately, back-up your shoot instantly, no hair-in-the-gate suprises, instant -mid roll- light balance change, variable ISO, shorter focal length (smaller f-stop for same DOF), no dust, no scratches, no contrast shift when printing (especially R Type), no color batch changes, no scanning needed, easier to catalogue & file. Film is the old way (& I know it's painful when you own 000's of medium format kit) but it is not the future. I stsyed away form digital as long as I possibly could, buried my head in the sand..but the new cameras are SO good, you just have to give in and say..they just do everything better.

dhphoto

9

28 Jan 2003 - 7:06 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

(Secondhand medium format is cheap)...Don't agree AT ALL! Medium format is still taking itself SOO SERIOUSLY. Look at some of the prices Hasselblad are still trying to get,and the Mamiya 7! GAWD! Niceish rangefinder camera with good couple of lenses but, no polaroid, no interchangable backs. I've never met a pro who'd look at one..rich man's toy. Why, because they know their days are numbered! A good used digital SLR on Ebay...500-600 max - E-10, brilliant....and no film, polaroid, processing costs..ever..(and no built-in obsolescence)