What do I want??

Ms. Leah · Jan 4, 2006

I've done a few weddings for friends with my Nikon 35mm. Now I'm thinking of going digital. I've seen the difference between the pictures I took and what my photographer took at my wedding. She used a medium format camera. So Beautiful!! Is there a digital camera that produces pictures comparable to a medium format film camera? Is there such a thing as medium format digital? I'm so confused. I've been looking at the Nikon D2x, and the Canon Marks. Will they produce a picture that clear? I'd like to get the Canon 5D, which has 12.8 mps. Will that take the same picture as these other two cameras? What is the difference when considering the quality of the picture?

duncanp · Jan 5, 2006

i'd reccommend the 5D over the D2x as it has a full frame sensor and it will probably be your best option unless you spen an extra two grand... the picture quality wont be as good as a medium format. Mamiya have released a digital Medium Format camera but it costs around $15000

Hoped this helped..

Get the 5D

Big Mike · Jan 5, 2006

The best Digital cameras (under $12,000) are as good as/or slightly better than 35mm film, or so they say. People who use it are still saying that medium format film is still much better.

As mentioned, there are medium format digital cameras and even digital backs for older medium format cameras....as high as 22 MP (or more by now) but they are very expensive.

You can make nice prints up to 20"x30" with a 12MP, 8MP and maybe even a 6MP DSLR...so if that's what you're after...digital might work for you. Of course, prints that large probably look best when made from medium format film.

Ms. Leah · Jan 5, 2006

Thanks for the opinions. I kinda figured the 5D would be the best. I didn't think that the other two digital cameras would be comparable to a medium format. Such a bummer. I guess I was wishfully thinking. But it's good to know that someone else leans to the 5D with me. You two are a big help!

markc · Jan 5, 2006

One thing you might consider is using a medium format camera for the formals where mobility isn't such an issue, and digital for walk-abouts. Even though I am a heavy digital user, I still think formals deserve MF. It doesn't have to be an expensive Hassie.

Ms. Leah · Jan 6, 2006

Thanks for the advice! That sounds like a really good idea. The best yet.

Rob · Jan 9, 2006

markc said:
One thing you might consider is using a medium format camera for the formals where mobility isn't such an issue, and digital for walk-abouts. Even though I am a heavy digital user, I still think formals deserve MF. It doesn't have to be an expensive Hassie.

I agree with this entirely. When I used to do weddings I would shoot everything candid and not for large enlargement with my Nikon F100. I would then use a Hblad 500 for the formals and finally a Contax T3 for the reception. Now I hire a 1DSMkII for the candids and indoor shots and use my Yashica for the formals. Take every important shot with at least two different cameras.

This is where digital is great - you can instantly review for closed eyes / basic facial expression. Any digital SLR is going to do the job for 90% of the shots, but I believe that MF should be used for the ones which are the likely buyers - the group shots and the couple shots.

Rob

Ms. Leah · Jan 9, 2006

Sounds like you really know what you are talking about. I need to buy two cameras now. What do I look for in a good medium format camera? Is there anything I should know before purchasing? Thanks.

Rob · Jan 9, 2006

Yes. You want something heavy duty which was designed for abuse. You ideally want multiple backs or something which is EASY to load.

The Hassleblad 500CM is ideal, with the regular 80mm f2.8 lens and a perhaps two 6x4.5 backs. They can be had for under £500 now as a kit and are one of the world's best camera setups. Other models to consider are the Mamiya 645, Bronica ETRSi, Rollei 9009 (Is that right??), anything Hassleblad beginning 5xx... er help me out here... The Bronica's flimsy compared to the others, but you can get one hell of a good deal on a near brand-new kit (under £350 new in some places)

Don't use a TLR/folder for a wedding unless you're a strong personality ready to stand up to lots of bad mis-conception of what is and isn't a "real" camera. I can handle this abuse, but every interfering sod (and weddings are a breeding ground for "experts") will cuss you and your camera and look to see fault. This is never a good start, as the majority of a wedding is convincing people you know what you're doing!

I love the Contax T2 and T3 as they are world class compacts which take awesome images. They command quite a lot of money these days though.

I would recommend getting a mid-range Canon like the 20D or the 5D with a grip to make it look more "pro". This is enough camera to convince anyone - however, it's my opinion that a 350D is too small to convince people that it's "proper". Wedding psychology you see?

I would probably recommend a Hassy for wedding work. The cameras are bulletproof, they feel awesome in your hand and you can figure it out without a manual - it does exactly what you need.

Rob

markc · Jan 9, 2006

It's hard to beat a Hassy. You certainly shouldn't get Uncle Jim questioning your equipment choice.

The Koni-Omega Rapid (6x7) is a press-style rangefinder camera with changable backs and lenses (sharp!) that used to be popular with some wedding photographers. Though in this day and age, you may get people diving for cover when you advance the film. It can give the impression that you are throwing the slide on a semi-automatic pistol.

Mamiya C220 and C330 cameras (6x6) also were popular, but they are TLRs. They do have interchangable lenses.

If I had the cash, I'd probably go with the 5D and either the Hassleblad 500CM or Rollei 6000-something as first choice, with the 20D and Koni-Omega as second, though out of all of the above, I've only used the Koni-Omega myself (also own a 10D). And I agree with Rob about getting the vertical grip. It's a must for me.

Ms. Leah · Jan 9, 2006

You guys are really helping me out and I really appreciate it. I've decided I am getting the Canon 5D, but as for the medium I'm not sure. I'm just starting out, and I do have to say that I like photography because I'm a very visual person. When it comes to pictures I do well. When it comes to equipment, I know nothing. Guess I should have taken a course on understanding different cameras. Do they have those? Anyway, I'm a little confused. What does TLR stand for? Please don't be afraid to treat me as though I know nothing about different cameras. I don't. :wink:

I especially don't understand medium format camera talk. What's all this about backs? And special film? Anything you guys could let me know about these cameras is very appreciated. You're awesome!!

photoboy15 · Jan 9, 2006

Ill recommend the Mamyia RB67's. Tough, rugged, mechanical and 6x7 neg size with revolving back. Disadvantages - heavier & 10 shot per roll of 120 compared to 15 for 645 camera. But you'll be on a tripod for formals and 220 backs will give you 20 pick a couple of those and learn how to change fast your in good shape. Some people don't like the size of them but I shoot RZ's hand held so I'm used to it.

markc · Jan 9, 2006

MF film is often refered to as "roll film" even though 35mm comes this way. I think the reason is when it was first made there was no 35mm and to distinguish it from large format sheet film.

TLR means twin lens reflex. There is a view lens at the top which is reflected (hense the "reflex") up to a viewfinder usually at the top of the camera. This is similar to an SLR, but often there is not second mirror to send the image back horizontal, so you see it on a plate of glass on top of the camera. The mirror also doesn't move, so there is a second taking lens below which sends the image to the film.

Some cameras can have their backs, which store the film, removed. This allows a quick mid-roll change. It also allows you to have several backs preloaded, which is important since you only get 10 6x7 or 12 6x6 images on a 110 roll and 20 6x7 or 24 6x6 images on a 220 roll. 6x6 means 6cm x 6cm negative. It's quite a bit larger than a 35mm neg.

I'd ask some photographer friends if they have some MF cameras you could borrow, or see if you can rent some at a local shop.

Rob · Jan 9, 2006

There's a bunch of things with MF to know. I'm gonna have a crack and someone else can add more!

Film size: Referred to in cm e.g. 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 Some cameras have masking capability allowing a variety of sizes, some don't.

Camera types: Most MF cameras are fully manual, some have light meters, and a small number have fully auto features. Most, however, are manual. Folders have a bellows and can be fitted in a normal big jacket pocket. These are generally very old and not suitable for wedding work as they are percieved as wierd or toys. SLRs are the square jobbies which have a BIG mirror which goes kerthunk. TLRs have two lenses - a viewing one and a taking one. SLRs generally have interchangeable lenses, cos what you see is what you get.

Viewfinders: waist level (useful for hand-holding and wow a big viewfinder), or prism (like a normal 35mm SLR). Usually the prisms have a basic meter in them and cost a fortune. Prisms are handy if you're using a tripod - as you can see the picture without stepladders.

Backs: Most SLR MF cameras have interchangeable backs. There's what's called a dark slide, which is like a sheet of metal which seals the light out. Then there are two reels one with unspent film and the other with spent.

The most popular setup is probably a 6x4.5cm mask on an SLR with a waist level finder. It's called 645 w/level finder in adverts. Most of the big MF manufacturers have one of these on offer. It's not too far from the standard aspect ratio, leaving you a moderate crop. 6x6 if you think about it, is square and therefore you're going to lose a bit of the frame. However, it doesn't matter whether the camera is vertical or horizontal (maybe a consideration with weddings)

All the mainstream MF cameras take 120 roll film, which you can buy in colour negative (easy) or colour slide (slightly more tricky) or B&W and other variations. I personally find Fuji's 100 negative film the best and easiest to use as it has a massive exposure latitude allowing for major metering screw-ups.

The Hassleblad 500cm with a good light meter is very hard to beat and you can get 645 or 66 backs for it and this makes it very flexible.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hasselblad-500-...7578359911QQcategoryZ3351QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Hasselblad-500-...7579541684QQcategoryZ3351QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/HASSELBLAD-500-...7579205271QQcategoryZ3351QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Look very closely at them as they can be had cheaply, but they may have been battered by studio work. Make sure you ask about all shutter speeds working and that it's lightproof and fully functional with no brassing, fungus or wear to the lens mechanism.

Anything else?

Rob

Ms. Leah · Jan 10, 2006

You all know so much. I've got a lot to learn, and I really appreciate the help. I'll be trying to soak all of this in time and time again. Don't wanta miss a thing. And I'm sure I'll be coming back with some more qs. This forum is really a life saver. I'm so stoked about the information you've provided me. Thanks guys! :lmao:
Oh, and thanks for the great links Rob. That is so nice.