I'm buying a camera: which format???

[apertureman]

Hey guys,

I am at a point that I want to get more equipment. I have never owned a medium or large format camera, but always wanted to explore that. I don't have too much money to spend, so what would you suggest: buying a medium format and a lens or two, or buying more glass for my 35mm?

I really like the idea of getting higher resolution and quality with a larger format system, but I already have a 35mm SLR, so..... I'm between a rock and a hard place.

Suggestions? please

 

[Buckster]

What's your budget?

What type of photography do you mostly do?

What's your goal with buying new equipment, other than to buy new equipment?

What's your priority - medium format or more glass for your 35mm, and why?

What glass do you already have for the 35mm, and what glass do you feel you need?

 

[apertureman]

My budget is $2000 (but can wait and save more)

I have a Nikon FM10 manual SLR, 25-80mm zoom and a 80-300mm zoom lenses, both of which are cheaper variable aperture, which kinda sucks sometimes.

The goal of buying more lenses: I would like a wider-angle (ie 18mm or 16mm) to expand the possibilities for creative composition when shooting landscapes and portraits. I also like shooting in low light and getting only f5.6 on the long end is really a pain, a steady f2.8 would be an obvious improvement, I would hate to use 800 film.
I am satisfied with 300mm since I don't shoot wildlife.

I want to explore medium or large format, because I would love to shoot more landscapes, nature and portraits, and I am impressed with how much resolution can be achieved using a larger format, but on the other hand it can end up costing me a lot more than $2000, providing I don't have any medium format cameras or lenses at all.

Would I like my pictures to make it to magazines and calendars and large prints later? Absolutely. But I don't know if 35mm will get me there.

I also want to shoot more weddings, but I am under the impression that it's becoming almost exclusively a digital photographer's avenue (correct if wrong). In this case, I would definitely need to upgrade my camera body to be able to shoot in bursts... and I am not sure 35mm will give me enough resolution to qualify as a good wedding photographer.

Note: I am only starting to pursue photography seriously. I have little hands-on experience and no impressive gallery to show yet. Most of what I know I read in books, bios, magazines, Flickr, and sites like these.

 

[Actor]

With $2000 I'd buy a large format lens. Then I'd build a wooden box (with a lid) and mount the lens in one end of it. Paint the inside of the box black. Tape sheet film to the opposite end of the box (in the dark). I'd build the box with a length that would focus at hyperfocal distance. Viola, I've got a start in large format photography.

 

[Soocom1]

First: As a shooter of all formats from micro to ULF I can tell you this.. You need to learn how to crawl before you can walk.
Get a med. Format set up first. It is closer to a 35mm system, and will give far far superior results, as well as get digital backs later on. I recommend a Mamiya 645, or RB/RZ 67 system. They are cheap enough to get, and the glass is about the same as the glass for Nikon.
Second: LF, VLF and ULF require some serious patience. You have to learn how to use a LF before using it properly. The systems shoot much differently than a SF, or MF.
Third: LF systems get expensive fast. Film is still the most common, unless you’re lucky enough to scam a good dig. back on a MF system. (But that defeats the purpose of LF) LF digital backs do exist in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. But you will pay very serious money for them. Even the old used units sell for around 2K-200K depending.
Forth: LF lenses are a much diff. beast.
I fully encourage you to explore ALL of them, but be prepared to go long especially on the LF stuff.. It gets heavy, and requires alot of time to use.

 

[Buckster]

My budget is $2000 (but can wait and save more)

You can pick up a MF camera and lens to get started for less than $300. Add another $100 if you need a meter.

That should leave plenty to get you some glass for the 35mm.

Would I like my pictures to make it to magazines and calendars and large prints later? Absolutely. But I don't know if 35mm will get me there.

Not likely. 35mm is pretty limited in terms of resolution, especially by today's standards.

I also want to shoot more weddings,

How many have you shot so far?

but I am under the impression that it's becoming almost exclusively a digital photographer's avenue (correct if wrong).

Quite right. The capabilities of digital cameras to be able to deal with a wide range of conditions, as well as be able to shoot bursts, have made it the wedding photographers tool choice, for the most part, according to the wedding shooters I've talked to and read about.

In this case, I would definitely need to upgrade my camera body to be able to shoot in bursts... and I am not sure 35mm will give me enough resolution to qualify as a good wedding photographer.

35mm is not recommended for weddings.

Note: I am only starting to pursue photography seriously. I have little hands-on experience and no impressive gallery to show yet. Most of what I know I read in books, bios, magazines, Flickr, and sites like these.

Maybe you should spend the money on a course in photography, rather than on gear.

 

[apertureman]

Thank you for valuable input, Buckster!

You can pick up a MF camera and lens to get started for less than $300. Add another $100 if you need a meter.

Where can I purchase a MF for this much? Would that be Mamiya 645?

How many have you shot so far?

One. With a borrowed DSLR, and I was glad at that point that I didn't have to crank the lever before every shot... shot over a thousand frames.

35mm is not recommended for weddings.

So you mean a MF camera with digital back, then, right? Or do you think a DSLR can compete with that?

Maybe you should spend the money on a course in photography, rather than on gear.

I was considering that, though I still do want to save some money in case I want to upgrade as I learn more about photography.

Thank you!

 

[Buckster]

Thank you for valuable input, Buckster!

You're very welcome.

You can pick up a MF camera and lens to get started for less than $300. Add another $100 if you need a meter.

Where can I purchase a MF for this much? Would that be Mamiya 645?

Ebay, for one. I just got a Mamiya RB67 for $157.75 that way. 645s are also readily available, as are a variety of TLRs and other medium format cameras. Have a look at KEH.com as well. A little pricey-er, but they have good gear, accurately described. Adorama and B&H have used gear as well. The point really, is that it's all over the place, and not terribly expensive.

How many have you shot so far?

One. With a borrowed DSLR, and I was glad at that point that I didn't have to crank the lever before every shot... shot over a thousand frames.

And did this experience teach you anything about what kind of camera you should be using for a wedding?

35mm is not recommended for weddings.

So you mean a MF camera with digital back, then, right? Or do you think a DSLR can compete with that?

All the wedding photographers that I've talked to are presently using high end DSLRs. Medium format with digital back is VERY expensive (like $20k), and is still a relatively slow system best suited for studio work and landscapes.

Maybe you should spend the money on a course in photography, rather than on gear.

I was considering that, though I still do want to save some money in case I want to upgrade as I learn more about photography.

Thank you!

You're welcome.

 

[Actor]

Would I like my pictures to make it to magazines and calendars and large prints later? Absolutely. But I don't know if 35mm will get me there.

Not likely. 35mm is pretty limited in terms of resolution, especially by today's standards.

If you want to submit your work to magazines you need to submit in digital, but it has nothing to do with resolution. It has to do with magazines being set up to print digitally and digital photography melds seamlessly with their gear, i.e., their people do less work, which in turn means their costs are less and their profits are higher. With the possible exception of National Geographic and a few others, the resolution of photographs published in magazines sucks and is well within the capabilities of 35mm.

In this case, I would definitely need to upgrade my camera body to be able to shoot in bursts... and I am not sure 35mm will give me enough resolution to qualify as a good wedding photographer.

35mm is not recommended for weddings.

Why not? I mean, who is making this recommendation? Or rather, not making this recommendation? To me it sounds like a pitch by a photographer who already has his money invested in digital equipment. If it were my daughter's wedding I'd try to find someone who shoots film.

 

[Buckster]

Would I like my pictures to make it to magazines and calendars and large prints later? Absolutely. But I don't know if 35mm will get me there.

Not likely. 35mm is pretty limited in terms of resolution, especially by today's standards.

If you want to submit your work to magazines you need to submit in digital, but it has nothing to do with resolution. It has to do with magazines being set up to print digitally and digital photography melds seamlessly with their gear, i.e., their people do less work, which in turn means their costs are less and their profits are higher. With the possible exception of National Geographic and a few others, the resolution of photographs published in magazines sucks and is well within the capabilities of 35mm.

I suppose if we're talking "snapshot of the month", or in crap-tastic low quality mags, then yeah, I agree. I thought we were talking about feature photographs in quality magazines.

Even product photography that will take up much less than a full page is done with medium or large format gear, for the most part. Glamor and fashion: Same thing. Landscapes: Same thing. I've read the submission requirements for quite a few magazines that specify resolution requirements.

Certainly, there's always the exception to the rule, but in general, 35mm is not recommended if feature photos, fashion, glamor or products in magazines is the market you want to push into.

In this case, I would definitely need to upgrade my camera body to be able to shoot in bursts... and I am not sure 35mm will give me enough resolution to qualify as a good wedding photographer.

35mm is not recommended for weddings.

Why not? I mean, who is making this recommendation? Or rather, not making this recommendation? To me it sounds like a pitch by a photographer who already has his money invested in digital equipment. If it were my daughter's wedding I'd try to find someone who shoots film.

It's just been my observation from talking with wedding photographers and reading what they have to say, and I've already stated why not based on those conversations and observations.

Maybe you're right though. Let's find out.

 

[Actor]

I suppose if we're talking "snapshot of the month", or in crap-tastic low quality mags, then yeah, I agree. I thought we were talking about feature photographs in quality magazines.

I was talking about why publications want digital, viz., because it interfaces with their equipment. The reason for their resolution requirements is also just to make their job easier. By automatically throwing out any submissions on film, or less than a certain number of megapixels, they reduce the number of photos they have to sift through. Of course if the photographer has something really valuable, like the Zapruder film, they'll bend over backwards to accommodate him.

OK. My comments about the quality of magazine photos obscured my point. Sorry about that. I'm writing a post for an internet forum, not an article for Annen der Physik, and I'm not going to revise it to death.

35mm is not recommended for weddings.

Why not? I mean, who is making this recommendation? Or rather, not making this recommendation? To me it sounds like a pitch by a photographer who already has his money invested in digital equipment. If it were my daughter's wedding I'd try to find someone who shoots film.

It's just been my observation from talking with wedding photographers and reading what they have to say, and I've already stated why not based on those conversations and observations.

Maybe you're right though. Let's find out.

The responses to your "Let's find out" thread only prove that wedding photographers do not recommend 35mm. That was not the issue. Rather, I asked "Why not?" and then proceeded to offer my own possible answer, i.e., it's economic. Those same responses support my thesis. They don't like 35mm (or film in general) because digital is better for their bottom line. One of them says "Also...the files look better coming out of the camera and that means less time editing." Translation: "I make more money."

 

[Mike_E]

Put weddings on the way-back burner for now. When the economy gets better you can start thinking about breaking into it but right now you can go broke quicker than batting an eye. If you are set on this, you'll want to start with a Nikon 700 or a Canon 5.

On the film front though, have you looked into a Graflex Speed Graphic? It's a 4x5 with enough of the movements to be useful. It can use either a shuttered lens or a barrel lens ( Speed Graphic/Press/View Lenses ). It can also use a roll back for 120 film. The RH- types are better.

So, if you went this way, for under a grand you could have a system that can shoot 4x5 and 6x7 with short, med and long (ish) lenses and the gear and chem to develop B&W.

 

[Buckster]

I suppose if we're talking "snapshot of the month", or in crap-tastic low quality mags, then yeah, I agree. I thought we were talking about feature photographs in quality magazines.

I was talking about why publications want digital, viz., because it interfaces with their equipment. The reason for their resolution requirements is also just to make their job easier. By automatically throwing out any submissions on film, or less than a certain number of megapixels, they reduce the number of photos they have to sift through. Of course if the photographer has something really valuable, like the Zapruder film, they'll bend over backwards to accommodate him.

OK. My comments about the quality of magazine photos obscured my point. Sorry about that. I'm writing a post for an internet forum, not an article for Annen der Physik, and I'm not going to revise it to death.

Actually, it's much simpler than that. It's nothing to digitize a 35mm negative, at any resolution you want to make it. The problem is that 35mm just doesn't look very good blown up enough to fill a magazine page or cover. It's simple physics; the more you blow it up from the size of the negative, the softer it gets. Been there, done that - it ain't pretty.

Why not? I mean, who is making this recommendation? Or rather, not making this recommendation? To me it sounds like a pitch by a photographer who already has his money invested in digital equipment. If it were my daughter's wedding I'd try to find someone who shoots film.

It's just been my observation from talking with wedding photographers and reading what they have to say, and I've already stated why not based on those conversations and observations.

Maybe you're right though. Let's find out.

The responses to your "Let's find out" thread only prove that wedding photographers do not recommend 35mm. That was not the issue.

That's entirely the issue. I said, "35mm is not recommended for weddings", and you chose to dispute that. Wedding photographers are now confirming in that other thread that, "35mm is not recommended for weddings."

And you can chalk it up in large part (again) to the fact that, as stated above, 35mm doesn't blow up to larger sizes very well, and some bride or parents are going to want one or more of those once in a lifetime photos large for the wall.

Beyond that, the fact that weddings go from a dark church with no flash photography allowed to the bright steps with people throwing rice means two cameras loaded and ready for those two scenarios in the case of 35mm, or one digital camera that can switch ISOs with the flip of a dial in an instant, as needed AND not have the grain of ASA1600 film.

Beyond that, there are a bunch more of the same kinds of versatility reasons for choosing a high end DSLR over a 35mm camera for weddings.

But hey, if your wedding photography business with 35mm is going great, good on ya. And if you want to hire a 35mm shooter to do your daughter's wedding, more power to ya. The freedom to choose is a great thing, and I wouldn't think of denying anyone of that pleasure.

 

[Derrel]

My recommendations on medium format are this: buy a copy of Shutterbug magazine at a newsstand, to get the phone numbers and e-mail/web contact information for dozens and dozens of smaller, real brick and mortar camera stores and dealers across the USA. Why? at walk-in, retail, not mega-web stores, deals like this are available: Bronica SQ-A body, wasit level finder with flip-down magnifier, 80mm f/2.8 Zenzaon-S lens, 50mm f/3.5 Zenzanon Pro Series lens Bronica 50mm f/3.5 Zenzanon PS Lens Sample Photos and Specifications
and a 12-exposure 120 rollfilm back which uses pre-loadable "inserts"...all this stuff in Mint condition, superb glass, lens caps....all for...wait for it...$299 in July of 2008. That's what I payed for a full body, two-lens Bronica SQ-A setup.

On a mega web site, the 50mm Pro Series lens sells for $275 alone...in places like Seattle,Portland, Ft. Lauderdale, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Kansas City,MO, or Columbus,Ohio medium format gear is CHEAP. On the web at big retailers, it is 2x to 3x more costly than in the real world.

I bought into the Bronica SQ system in the early 1990's because it can shoot 6x6 square, 645 , 35mm, and 35mm panoramic format, all with the same body and lenses, but different backs. Each lens has an electronically timed Seiko shutter in it, with superb accuracy, and unlike most Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, Bronica SQ series lenses have beautiful, creamy bokeh--some of the prettiest MF imagers are Zenzanon lenses. If you have a 6x6 back and a 645 back, your lenses are more-versatile; switching to a 645 back with the 80mm lens gives a slightly more telephoto look,since the capture area is smaller. The 6x6 format shoots a big square image; the 645 shoots a "tall image" with the camera held normally, making it good for portraiture which is usually shot "tall". A complete,and I man a complete set of Bronica lenses can be bought today for the price of a single lens back in the 1990's, that's how far the prices on medium format have dropped since digital slrs took over. At least if you shop away from the Big Five web sites.

The original SQ was designed to be a more-modern,simpler, more reliable alternative to the Hasselblad 500 series, which was often called the Hassle-blad, for its notoriously finicky winding/lens mounting sequence problems,and its notoriously unreliable film backs which had loads of spacing problems in real world heavy use. Any Hassy shooter worth his salt knows about carrying an un-jamming wrench at all times, in case the lens is removed from the body at the wrong time in between shooting a shot and winding...Bronica had 30 years to figure out how to design a simpler, more reliable shutter cocking/film wind system and a camera that didn't get jammed up so often that there is a special un-jamming wrench sold to this day everywhere Hasselblads gear is spoken.

BocaPhoto.com - Tools, Parts, General Accessories
recocking/unjamming tool for Hasselblad
$14.95
Large end recocks lens shutters
Small end unjams camera bodies
All steel and brass construction
A must for any Hasselblad user!
PhotoWeb Tech Data

 

[Actor]

Addressing your points in reverse order:

Forth: LF lenses are a much diff. beast.

Amen. In addition to the lens and an iris they include a shutter. That's almost a complete camera right there. The only other things you need are a way to hold the film the proper distance from the lens and a way to keep light off the film unless it comes through the lens.

Third: LF systems get expensive fast.

True. But then MF is not cheap either. LF may even be cheaper than MF if you control your GAS and get only what you absolutely need (forgo the various tilts and whatevers at first). Maybe buy a kit. Or, as I suggested, build your own LF box camera. A lot of LF stuff costs a fortune but, if you keep your eye on what you are trying to do, you don't need it. You are on your way once you have a lens. BTW I've seen some LF lenses on eBay for under $500.

Second: LF, VLF and ULF require some serious patience. You have to learn how to use a LF before using it properly. The systems shoot much differently than a SF, or MF.

Again true. But isn't that the reason for getting into it in the first place? If you really want to speed things up a little try getting an old press camera.

First: As a shooter of all formats from micro to ULF I can tell you this.. You need to learn how to crawl before you can walk.
Get a med. Format set up first. It is closer to a 35mm system, and will give far far superior results,...

On the other hand I went straight from a bicycle to a Harley Davidson 1200 Super Glide. The very fact that MF is "closer to a 35mm system" is reason enough to skip it if your ultimate goal is LF. Investing a lot of money in MF is not going to teach you much that is applicable to LF that you have not already learned from 35mm.