help finding out what camera this is

c.cloudwalker · Jul 3, 2009

tsaraleksi said:
nrois02 said:

ok thanks very much! is this tyoe of film easy to develope or get developed?

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that these are not strictly film cameras-- you can switch out the capture back on the body, so you can have a film back or a digital back. The digital backs for these cameras are capable of providing excessively high resolution, up to and beyond 40 megapixels.

True but at what price...

usayit · Jul 3, 2009

Also note..... you dont have to have a Hassy to shoot MF no more than one needs a Leica to shoot 35mm. There are other options that are just as enjoyable at a lesser price. Part of the deal with Hassy is that they hold their value. There are others that are argueably just as good at a lower investment cost (especially now);Pentax 645, Pentax 67, Bronica, Fuji rangefinder, etc...

120/220 BW development printing could be done at home by almost amateur

nrois02 · Jul 4, 2009

thanks for all the info! i didnt realize that there digital was 30,000. haha in my dreams. thanks to all that have filled me in! nice camera but way out of my leauge. lol

Dwig · Jul 4, 2009

c.cloudwalker said:
...
To be honest, with digital, I don't quite see the point of medium format. ...

What format is approriate for what use has changed several times over the nearly two centuries of photography. The most recent sea change has moved everything down one format.

The APS-C and similar "crop format" sensors are roughly the size of the old 35mm single-frame, or "half frame", format but exceed the quality of 35mm double-frame, or "full frame", film cameras.

Today's crop of "full frame" sensor DSLRs have sensors that match the size of 35mm double-frame but deliver image quality that requires at least the better range of medium format film cameras. These cameras, in many ways, are the "new medium format".

The so called "medium format" digital cameras, DSLRs like the Hasselblad H series and the Phase One backs used on technical cameras, have image sensors a bit smaller than the 645 film format but function as replacements for large format film. The performance of the Kodak sensors in these devices, including their own Leaf brand products that were recently acquired by Phase One, is beyond that of medium format film and easily in the class of "large format" film. They are, in effect, the "new large format" cameras.

My point is that there is a point to medium format today; it has the same use as large format had yesteryear (OK, I'm an oldster and grew up watching the Saturday morning westerns on TV in the '50s...).

rickruff · Jul 4, 2009

I have several hasselblads sitting in my office. I now use them as bookends. They used to be THE camera for professionals. I would take 3 hasselblads and six 220 film backs on each assignment. They never let me down and the quality was unmatched.
Now, however, my studio uses Nikon D2X cameras and they do everything the hasselblad did and they sure are a lot lighter to carry around, auto focus, auto exposure. Wow, photography used to be hard work. Not only did you need to know exposure, lighting and posing, you had to lug around heavy arm breaking equiptment for 8 to 10 hours. The high end digital cameras have make life alot easier. I find the Nikon D2X sharper than the hasselblad (doing groups of 100 plus people, it is fantastic).

c.cloudwalker · Jul 4, 2009

Dwig said:
c.cloudwalker said:

...
To be honest, with digital, I don't quite see the point of medium format. ...

Click to expand...

What format is approriate for what use has changed several times over the nearly two centuries of photography. The most recent sea change has moved everything down one format.

The APS-C and similar "crop format" sensors are roughly the size of the old 35mm single-frame, or "half frame", format but exceed the quality of 35mm double-frame, or "full frame", film cameras.

Today's crop of "full frame" sensor DSLRs have sensors that match the size of 35mm double-frame but deliver image quality that requires at least the better range of medium format film cameras. These cameras, in many ways, are the "new medium format".

The so called "medium format" digital cameras, DSLRs like the Hasselblad H series and the Phase One backs used on technical cameras, have image sensors a bit smaller than the 645 film format but function as replacements for large format film. The performance of the Kodak sensors in these devices, including their own Leaf brand products that were recently acquired by Phase One, is beyond that of medium format film and easily in the class of "large format" film. They are, in effect, the "new large format" cameras.

My point is that there is a point to medium format today; it has the same use as large format had yesteryear (OK, I'm an oldster and grew up watching the Saturday morning westerns on TV in the '50s...).

You are quite right of course. I don't know what I was thinking :lol:

Not as old as you are (next generation) but I used to shoot 8x10. It was wonderful to print nothing but contact prints. I also remember a 20x24 camera made by Polaroid. Never got to see the result though.

Things change...

Josh66 · Jul 4, 2009

c.cloudwalker said:
My problem is more: how long do I get to use it before there is nothing but digital?

I don't think that will ever happen.

It might get harder to find labs, but eventually they will come back.

(Have you noticed that vinyl is making a pretty strong comeback?)

Dwig · Jul 4, 2009

c.cloudwalker said:
... I used to shoot 8x10. It was wonderful to print nothing but contact prints. I also remember a 20x24 camera made by Polaroid. Never got to see the result though.

Things change...

There are some secondary advantages to using larger formats when shooting film. One is that mechanical flaws, primarily dust and scratches, are proportionally smaller on the print. This was one big advantage of shooting 120 for things like weddings even after 35mm color negative films reached the point that they could deliver equally sharp prints within the limited print size range required for most weddings.

Another is that they only way to improve the resolutioin limit posed by the film was to use a larger format, provided you were already using the sharpest and finest grain film appropriate. With digital, this is true only in that the highest resolution chips, measured by the number of megapixels, in any one format tend to have more megapixels the larger the format.

The greatest advantage, in my opinion, of large format film comes from the ability to produce usable print sizes when contact printing. When using purely silver based films, rather than chromegenic, there is a serious loss of tonality when you enlarge the image by projection. This loss is greater the greater the magnification. The problem can be significantly reduced by using a diffuse light source in the enlarger, a diffusion head or cold light head, but there is still some loss. The larger the negative the larger the contact print and the less the magnification when you do resort to enlargement.

I have had the opportunity to see original 20x24 Polaroid Land prints, most notably those by William Wegman. They have a very unique quality. The sharpness and detail is unmatched in any other color process that I've every seen. Only contact prints from 20x24 B&W images can match (I've seen a few of those also).

c.cloudwalker · Jul 4, 2009

Dwig said:
I have had the opportunity to see original 20x24 Polaroid Land prints, most notably those by William Wegman. They have a very unique quality. The sharpness and detail is unmatched in any other color process that I've every seen. Only contact prints from 20x24 B&W images can match (I've seen a few of those also).

Wow. Lucky you. I love Wegman.

c.cloudwalker · Jul 4, 2009

O|||||||O said:
c.cloudwalker said:

My problem is more: how long do I get to use it before there is nothing but digital?

Click to expand...

I don't think that will ever happen.

It might get harder to find labs, but eventually they will come back.

(Have you noticed that vinyl is making a pretty strong comeback?)

You may be right but you can't help and wonder when you're considering an investment in gear. As it is, even though I live in the second largest city in GA, when I went to get film to test my two 35mm cameras so I can sell them, I could only get 1 roll. That's all our local store stocks at one time :lol:

And ordering everything through the net becomes kind of a pain.

One I'll suffer gladly if rickruff wants to send me one of his bookends :lmao:

I don't worry about labs, though, since I would only use the stuff for B&W.

And no, I have not noticed that vinyl is making a comeback. There are barely any CDs in this town so, vinyl, I don't think I could have noticed

To be honest I buy about 90% of my music and 99% of my movies through the net. I even get my rentals through the net. This place is bad :grumpy:

Josh66 · Jul 4, 2009

c.cloudwalker said:
And no, I have not noticed that vinyl is making a comeback. There are barely any CDs in this town so, vinyl, I don't think I could have noticed To be honest I buy about 90% of my music and 99% of my movies through the net. I even get my rentals through the net. This place is bad

I think it's mostly because as audio equipment gets better and better, you can actually hear the digital breakup on a CD. No such thing on an analog medium.

I personally think that it's the same with film. Analog is and always will be 'better'. Hell, by definition, there is missing information in a digital system. Digital is much more convenient, and I do use it more for this reason though...

c.cloudwalker · Jul 4, 2009

O|||||||O said:
I think it's mostly because as audio equipment gets better and better, you can actually hear the digital breakup on a CD. No such thing on an analog medium.

I personally think that it's the same with film. Analog is and always will be 'better'. Hell, by definition, there is missing information in a digital system. Digital is much more convenient, and I do use it more for this reason though...

Just before we moved south a friend of mine closed his used music store and I bought 75% of the vinyl he had left. I love vinyl. At the same time, I have to admit discovering things I had never heard before in some recordings when listening to the CD version.

I do believe we should close this conversation though. What was the topic of this thread? :lmao: