Why not start with Med. format?

[Ysarex]

When i see a complete Mamiya RB or RZ system with a back, lens viewfinder and body or a TLR that runs around $350-$750 with digital hitting the same if not more, I simply dont see that.
Especially given that Mamiya glass sells in most cases under $200 and the most expensive systems are still hassys.

but thats me.

Grandpa Ron is right about the cost. Check out this thread: Thrift shopping: Ya never know...

It's much less likely that you'll find a used RB or RZ like that. Today I passed on a good-working-order and very clean Argus C3 for $7.00. In the last couple months I've bought a very nice and fully working Nikon FE for $10.00. 6 months ago I picked up an immaculate Pentax 150mm Takkumar for $20.00. If you want it right now from a used camera dealer the medium format film gear will be considerably more than 35mm film gear. It's too easy to verify -- just go to KEH's website and browse. Medium format: less choice for more money.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

I realize that within a couple of years, I can shoot $69,000 worth of Ekatachrome equivalent from ANY digital camera...in fact, I DID just that with my Fuji S2, back in the early 2000's.

Film and processing and chemicals,printing and/ or scanning..all tips the COST factor way in favor of digital.

 

[Ysarex]

I realize that within a couple of years, I can shoot $69,000 worth of Ekatachrome equivalent from ANY digital camera...in fact, I DID just that with my Fuji S2, back in the early 2000's.

Film and processing and chemicals,printing and/ or scanning..all tips the COST factor way in favor of digital.

^^^^ Yes. When I first began the process of seriously switching from film to digital and had to start spending money on digital hardware I sat down and did some math. At the time I was still full-time teaching and had some perks like free chemistry for all film processing. I did my own film developing so my only real cost was just the film. I figured on average that I was spending per year between $1,100.00 to $1,300.00 on just film. We were still paying a mortgage and still getting the boy through college so I told my wife I'd stop the film purchases and keep any digital camera/lens purchases at or below $1000.00 per year. When I purchased a Canon 5DmkII and a couple lenses for $5,000.00 I was able to unbox them in front of my wife and say -- check it out I just saved us $1,000.00. Add in the cost of chemistry or lab processing plus inflation and I've saved thousands over the years. I could pick up a new Fuji GFX with lens tomorrow show it to my wife and just say -- still saving money dear

Joe

P.S. Yes I know, an enthusiast isn't going to shoot multiple rolls of film per week. But it still adds up over time. I've banked a new medium format digital camera in a decade and a half.

 

[Dikkie]

Making the transition from film to digital was hard for me, but as Derrel mentioned above once I became versed in digital, I'd be hard pressed to go back to film.

You don't have to go back.
You don't have to choose between film or digital.
You can just do both if you want.

I shoot digital but from time to time I like to shoot a roll in a random old camera I have here.
It's just nice, gets me out to the photo lab in the city, and it makes life more varied.

 

[texxter]

Is this a serious question? MF for a beginner? If digital MF we are talking thousands of dollars for a first camera. If film MF, we are talking about obsolete technology and processes. The way for a beginner to start is with a phone - learn to see photographically and produce better and more interesting photos with an iPhone without worrying about aperture, iso, or, horror, film chemistry. Graduate from that to a used digital camera with a couple of primes for a few hundred dollars. It is all about the images, and the easier the better.

Edit: iPhone images can be amazing when the photographer knows how to see, e.g., IPPAWARDS | iPhone Photography Awards | Winners’ Galleries

Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
But just tell me something.

Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.

 

[480sparky]

...... It is all about the images, and the easier the better........

If you truly believe this, then the medium used, nor how easy it is, is not relevant.

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.

 

[texxter]

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.

The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question. That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.

 

[Soocom1]

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.

The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question. That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.

There are many multiple people I know who knew how to drive large diesle trucks for farm and ranch use long before they had a lerners permit for a car.

Same equivilance.

The "complexity factor" is acadimic in argument. And yes it is a serious question because while the elitest pro end ohotographers argue such remember that most folks like Ansel Adams and the like STARTED with LF. There WASNT 35mm in those days.

 

[Ysarex]

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.

The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question. That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.

There are many multiple people I know who knew how to drive large diesle trucks for farm and ranch use long before they had a lerners permit for a car.

Same equivilance.

The "complexity factor" is acadimic in argument. And yes it is a serious question because while the elitest pro end ohotographers argue such remember that most folks like Ansel Adams and the like STARTED with LF. There WASNT 35mm in those days.

Famous photo of O'Keeffe taken by Adams using 35mm camera:

Joe

 

[Soocom1]

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.

The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question. That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.

There are many multiple people I know who knew how to drive large diesle trucks for farm and ranch use long before they had a lerners permit for a car.

Same equivilance.

The "complexity factor" is acadimic in argument. And yes it is a serious question because while the elitest pro end ohotographers argue such remember that most folks like Ansel Adams and the like STARTED with LF. There WASNT 35mm in those days.

Famous photo of O'Keeffe taken by Adams using 35mm camera:

View attachment 175797

Joe

did you read what I said?

 

[Derrel]

The modern smart phone camera is a pretty good tool...multi-format ( 4:3 1:1, 16:9 wide aspect, in most examples), panorama mode, burst mode, rapid fire still + low frame rate audio (Apple calls it Live photo, 14 fps still with audio mode),time lapse, HD video, slow-motion video, affordable, small, light, easy to use. In today's world, I think the smart phone camera represents Oskar Barnack's original light, small,fast-handling 35mm camera (the Leica), which back in the day of single-shot bellows and press-type cameras of 6x9cm to 5x7 inch, was scoffed at by many. After a little more than two decades, the name "miniature" was shifted the "35mm" camera type, and the rest was history.

I still own a medium format film system, but have used it only once or twice since 1991...it has for the most part, sat idle for the better part of three decades, except for a brief time in the summer of 2014.I personally see very few advantages to starting out with medium format film, as opposed to starting out with a cell phone cam or any other type of digital imaging device.

Of course, there are different reasons for doing photography: art, science, recreation, a simple desire to "have pictures", keepsakes, memories, documentation, and so on. The reasons and rewards are not universal..film presents challenges both logistical and technical, whereas most digital imaging is pretty easy, and we have HUGE technical advantages over film, which is of finite length (12,to 36 shots in most cases), fairly unforgiving of exposure errors, one time use, of one ISO rating for the roll or sheet,and increasingly difficult to locate at many retail locations... in the 1980's, almost any mini-mart or grocery store had at least a few rolls of 35mm color neg film for sale.

At the start of this thread, smoke665 wrote a pretty good rationale against starting out with medium format, at least for the "common person" who just wants pictures. For those looking for more of a rewarding hobby or craft experience, and who like a bit of a challenge, traditional "analogue photography" will never be beaten, IMO.

 

[Ysarex]

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.

The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question. That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.

There are many multiple people I know who knew how to drive large diesle trucks for farm and ranch use long before they had a lerners permit for a car.

Same equivilance.

The "complexity factor" is acadimic in argument. And yes it is a serious question because while the elitest pro end ohotographers argue such remember that most folks like Ansel Adams and the like STARTED with LF. There WASNT 35mm in those days.

Famous photo of O'Keeffe taken by Adams using 35mm camera:

View attachment 175797

Joe

did you read what I said?

Yep.

From Adam's biography (my bold):

"Adams taught himself the piano, which would become his early passion. In 1916, following a trip to Yosemite National Park, he also began experimenting with photography. He learned darkroom techniques and read photography magazines, attended camera club meetings, and went to photography and art exhibits. He developed and sold his early photographs at Best’s Studio in Yosemite Valley."

From History 35mm camera (my bold):

"The first 35mm camera to go into production was Jules Richard’s Homeos camera, which was sold between 1913 and 1920. However, very few Homeos cameras were produced during this time period and they never became very popular.

The first 35mm camera widely available to the public was the American Tourist Multiple, which was released in 1913.

The Tourist Multiple cost $175 in 1913, an equivalent to $4000 in modern United States dollars. Because of its high price point, the camera was not accessible for most people.

Oskar Barnack, a development engineer for Leitz, first created his compact 35mm in 1913 in order to use 35mm film for still photography rather than motion picture photography. However, production was delayed due to WWI."

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Specifically for film medium format or large format vs digital Not necessarily in order but:

• Initial outlay for the camera might be less, but film is expensive not only the film but the processing, unless you process yourself, and still it can be pricey.
• Lack of local processing and/or film. You're pretty much limited to mail order only.
  
• Lag time between snapping the shutter and seeing the result. For someone just starting out, it's easy to forget what you did between the shot and seeing the results.
• Fear of experimenting (see first comment). You hesitate to try new things, for because of the cost involved.
  
• Processing software and the skill required is the same for digital or film.
• Availability of accessories and glass.
• Availability of both Auto and manual mode. Someone new starting out may not feel comfortable jumping right into manual. Having the availability to shoot in Auto allows them to at least get a passable shot, building confidence and allowing them to work on other elements of the composition.
  
• Above all else, photography should be fun for someone starting out, and a learning process as they progress. They may or may not ever want to branch out into film, but regardless, digital will not hamper their progress in any way. Nor will it bog them down, in learning so much upfront that they get discouraged and quit.

Just a few that come to mind, I could probably think of some more with a little time. I first started in film, in the 60's and despite the nostalgic whim every now and then, I just haven't found a valid reason to switch back. I've got a roll of Delta 100 in a 35mm Pentax, that I've yet to finish up (been in there 6 months), and another half dozen in the refrigerator.

The very first reply to the OP pretty much said it all..

 

[Derrel]

• Lag time between snapping the shutter and seeing the result. For someone just starting out, it's easy to forget what you did between the shot and seeing the results.

 

[texxter]

I think it was Henri Cartier-Bresson who said “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.” There is truth to that. With an 8x10 view camera it will take 10,000 sheets of film and an enormous amount of time to get to enough volume of work to have some level of competence. The cost of film alone would be $100,000. Compare to getting 10,000 16 megapixel jpegs on a 64Gb SD card for $30. Shooting 10,000 images with an 8x10 on a tripod? Good luck, beginner!