Yet another photographer looking at switching to film

[don beach]

currently shooting nikon digital for weddings and on location couple portraits and adding studio to our offerings this year, and pondering film as an alternative. i have a friend offering a like new F5, but also considering medium format. i've read a previous post about suggested cameras and i'm looking at manual focus back to basics, but i'm not sure how versatile medium format equipment will be. we have many low light events, and often have to move around alot quickly in the course of our work, and i'm not sure bulky and unweildy this equipment is, or how medium format focal lengths translate from 35mm. i like alot of wide angle for couple shots in city locations, and for our small studio setup, would need something that doesn't require me to stand more than 8-10 feet away for a torso and head shot. thank you for any advise!

[TPF Sponsor]

[dxqcanada]

Medium format was never designed for speed ... so you will run into a very limited amount of fast lenses, or zoom lenses.

Medium format has various sizes ... 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7 are the most common.
645 cameras are the smallest/least bulky.

The film format will change the translation of focal lengths.
Medium and 35mm Film Formats - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB

[TwoRails]

I'm just curious, so please don't take it the wrong way, but why?

[don beach]

why? i feel that with digital, my photography has gotten less deliberate and sloppy. i remember back in the film days that i took the time to think about each shot and i miss that. we are transitioning from a beach wedding market and low price point set of clients (we lived near myrtle beach for the past 6 years) to a new england market that appreciates more thoughtful photography, and we are pondering how we grow now. we are wanting to offer dramatic old style hollywood lighting in our studio, coupled with more traditional softbox style as well, and we are looking at everything right now. i like B&W over color, and feel that i want to move up some.. be more creative. we will not give up digital... i love my D2xs and my D700, but maybe film might add something i'm looking for. that and i'm tired of the digital rat race to buy the next best gear and software that comes down the pike. a few good film cams will last longer that i will!

Oh, and that link is great! thank you.

[Mike_E]

I'd take a long look at a Mamiya RB/RZ67 system. You can probably print as large as you like with either a 645 or a 6X7 but where the RB/RZ67 comes into it's own is the rotating back. Not having to fiddle with a tripod and head to go from landscape to portrait is worth carrying all the extra weight over the 645.

If you want to really set yourself apart from the crowd though, look into the 4X5 format. (you could go 8X10 but that'd really be over the top) You can do work with these that simply can't be done with Photoshop or at least without 8 hours worth of work in PS. Plus, with the larger format you can charge a LOT more per print.

If you want to experiment look for a Speed Graphic and also be on the look out for a 6X7 and a 6X9 back (get the ones with the lever not the knob) and you can use 120 rollfilm along with 4X5.

[compur]

The Pentax 645N handles much like a 35mm camera and has autofocus as well.

The Contax 645 is similar

The Mamiya 645AFD is another with the added versatility of using both film or digital backs.

There are also several rangefinder medium format cameras such as the Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7,
several models from Fuji and other similar cameras that are relatively quick handling.

Also note that pros have used all types of medium format cameras for weddings for
many decades and did just fine with them. That includes TLRs, press cameras, bulky
SLRs, etc.

[don beach]

thanks, everyone! you are a great resource! last time i used film was with my trusty old OM-1 and OM-4. i dusted them both off and picked up some film.. now if it would just stop with the yucky weather.

[TwoRails]

why? i feel that with digital, my photography has gotten less deliberate and sloppy. i remember back in the film days that i took the time to think about each shot and i miss that. we are transitioning from a beach wedding market and low price point set of clients (we lived near myrtle beach for the past 6 years) to a new england market that appreciates more thoughtful photography, and we are pondering how we grow now. we are wanting to offer dramatic old style hollywood lighting in our studio, coupled with more traditional softbox style as well, and we are looking at everything right now. i like B&W over color, and feel that i want to move up some.. be more creative. we will not give up digital... i love my D2xs and my D700, but maybe film might add something i'm looking for. that and i'm tired of the digital rat race to buy the next best gear and software that comes down the pike. a few good film cams will last longer that i will! ...snip...

Sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for sharing!

[Derrel]

There is absolutely NO logic underlying the idea that says that digital capture means lazy and thoughtless photography, and film capture means thoughtful,deliberate photography. That's a load of delusional non-thinking. The end results of both capture mediums are only best realized when the photographer puts forth his or her best effort and uses the best available methods and techniques. One can easily churn out crap work on film. Or on digital.

[don beach]

digital made me (not necessarily faulting you or anyone else, nor the medium of digital) pay less attention to each image i took. we had an hour to get everything done, including the wedding ceremony itself, and i got in a rut of happily snapping away and going for quantity and numbers. after awhile i started to feel like a machine and getting burned out. we probably did 250- 300 beach weddings a year for 6 years, and something was missing. so, didn't mean to offend you derrel, or insult your logic. i found that digital allowed me a free pass to paying less attention to my work because every shot didn't cost me a few bucks, and i could saturate taking images until the card filled up. i'm not going to stop using the digital tools, i really love the workflow.... but i'm thinking that with film, i might be more focused on every shot to a higher level. i'm not even sure how to incorporate film right now. that's why i'm seeking out other film using photographers to discover if this might be beneficial to me.

[djacobox372]

You shouldn't have to resort to film to "slow down," just.... slow down.

But medium format film does offer benefits that can't be had with digital. Namely the resolution, dynamic range and tonal quality.

Of course the word "medium format" is a catch all for all film sizes larger then 35mm and smaller then 4x5. So there are a lot of options.

6x4.5 = about three times the area as 35mm (triple the "megapixels" in digi-speak), about twice the linear resolution of 35mm. The mamiya 645, and Hasselblad are the most common cameras in this category, which can be had in manual focus or autofocus varieties. These cameras aren't too big, just a little bigger then a large DSLR. The most common sized used by fashion photographers, as it's easy to handhold. These cameras also can be fitted with motor-drives which make them much faster to shoot.

6x7 = this is probably the most common size for "art" photography. Significantly bigger then 645. Cumbersome to handhold. The Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 are the most popular camera of this type.

6x9 and 6x12 = considered "landscape" formats for their wide format.

There are also some medium format rangefinders out there, like the Mamiya 7, which offer large 6x7cm format in a much more compact camera.

[dxqcanada]

Hasselblads are 6x6.

[dxqcanada]

Don, I think your problem is that you are shooting commercially ... time is money.

As Derrel said ... it is not the camera that made you lazy.
I can vouch for that, as I also blamed my DSLR for making me a lazy photographer. I also thought that because I am not paying $ per shot, that I don't have to think anymore.

It is up to you.

[Derrel]

Digital review allows me to INSTANTLY see how my exposure, focus, and lighting all come together. If you want to stop being lazy and machine-gunning, do what a smart professional sports shooter I know does: he shoots with 256 megabyte cards in his professional Nikons. The first time I shot a night time football game with him, I was shocked to find him loading up two D2h bodies, each with 256 megabyte CF cards. I felt kind of foolish with my "small" 2-gigabyte Sandisk Extreme 3 cards. If all it takes to make a guy think is to have a maximum of 12 frames or 24 frames between reloads of the camera, then simply use logic and STOP shooting on mega-sized CF cards...shoot on small cards.

Problem magically solved. Right?

[dxqcanada]

... and donate 50 cents for every shot you take to a charity.