Why not start with Med. format?

[Soocom1]

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.

You are making an assumption (ass-u-me) on cost. Film camera are thought to be cheaper because of all the used gear out there. But most of that used gear is 30+ years old and needs a CLA to be brought back in shape. The foam on my old SLR is literally falling apart. And 40 year old dried grease/lube means your shutter speeds are probably not accurate.
The cost of the CLA will kill your "cheaper" argument. Here is are prices from one shop's web site.

Hasselblad lens Overhaul = $185 + parts
Hasselblad 500c and 500cm overhaul = $175 + parts
Mamiya RB and Rolleiflex prices are not much different.​

So your cheap Hasselblad or Mamiya RB will cost you an additional $360+ to CLA/overhaul the body and lens.

Copal Shutter Overhaul (LF shutter) = $95-150 + parts​

And a 30+ year old LF bellows is likely to have pin holes in the corners of the bellows, so budget a $$$ bellows replacement.

If you use a dSLR in full manual mode, I see little difference than using a MF or LF camera, to learn exposure.
You have to understand and use shutter speed, aperture and film selection/ISO level.

done?

 

[Derrel]

For the 'beginner' with a film camera it used to cost $2.99 for a 36-shot roll of 100-speed, and $10.99 for developing 36 color prints. (1982-1987 retail price).


For the 'beginner' with a film camera, three to four "good pictures" per roll were expected...Maximum...


With a smartphone camera, 'the beginner' can practice,practice,practice, with VERY low costs compared to $13.98 per 36 frames (in 1980's dollars,no less).

 

[ac12]

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.

People have been asking for a true 6x6 MF sensor for the Hasselblad 500 series for YEARS, and nothing.

The only commercial sensors for the 500 series that I know of, were cropped sensors, never a full frame 6x6 sensor. And the crop sensors systems were EXPENSIVE. It is not just the cost of the sensor, but also the associated electronics.
​

The rules and reality of accounting, manufacturing and economics will prevent "affordable" MF or LF sensors.

The bigger the sensor, the less sensors you can make out of a single silicon wafer. You are limited by the physical size of the wafer.
The bigger the sensor, the lower the manufacturing yield. Here is a simple examples for a single wafer, with one bad spot on a sensor.

One bad spot on the wafer will ruin ONE FF sensor, but you will get 19 good ones.

Presuming you can make 20 FF sensors out of a wafer. This number goes up with the smaller APS-C and m4/3 sensors.​

One bad spot on the wafer will ruin the ONE LF sensor and you get ZERO good ones.
So in this example we yield 19 good FF sensors and ZERO good LF sensor.​

Can you make up for low yield? Yes, with HIGH volume and/or HIGH selling price, to cover the cost of the failures.

We will not get HIGH sales volume, so the other option is HIGH selling price (cost to us).​

 

[Soocom1]

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.

People have been asking for a true 6x6 MF sensor for the Hasselblad 500 series for YEARS, and nothing.

The only commercial sensors for the 500 series that I know of, were cropped sensors, never a full frame 6x6 sensor. And the crop sensors systems were EXPENSIVE. It is not just the cost of the sensor, but also the associated electronics.
​

The rules and reality of accounting, manufacturing and economics will prevent "affordable" MF or LF sensors.

The bigger the sensor, the less sensors you can make out of a single silicon wafer. You are limited by the physical size of the wafer.
The bigger the sensor, the lower the manufacturing yield. Here is a simple examples for a single wafer, with one bad spot on a sensor.

One bad spot on the wafer will ruin ONE FF sensor, but you will get 19 good ones.

Presuming you can make 20 FF sensors out of a wafer. This number goes up with the smaller APS-C and m4/3 sensors.​

One bad spot on the wafer will ruin the ONE LF sensor and you get ZERO good ones.
So in this example we yield 19 good FF sensors and ZERO good LF sensor.​

Can you make up for low yield? Yes, with HIGH volume and/or HIGH selling price, to cover the cost of the failures.

We will not get HIGH sales volume, so the other option is HIGH selling price (cost to us).​

so you have manufacturing experience?

 

[ac12]

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.

People have been asking for a true 6x6 MF sensor for the Hasselblad 500 series for YEARS, and nothing.

The only commercial sensors for the 500 series that I know of, were cropped sensors, never a full frame 6x6 sensor. And the crop sensors systems were EXPENSIVE. It is not just the cost of the sensor, but also the associated electronics.
​

The rules and reality of accounting, manufacturing and economics will prevent "affordable" MF or LF sensors.

The bigger the sensor, the less sensors you can make out of a single silicon wafer. You are limited by the physical size of the wafer.
The bigger the sensor, the lower the manufacturing yield. Here is a simple examples for a single wafer, with one bad spot on a sensor.

One bad spot on the wafer will ruin ONE FF sensor, but you will get 19 good ones.

Presuming you can make 20 FF sensors out of a wafer. This number goes up with the smaller APS-C and m4/3 sensors.​

One bad spot on the wafer will ruin the ONE LF sensor and you get ZERO good ones.
So in this example we yield 19 good FF sensors and ZERO good LF sensor.​

Can you make up for low yield? Yes, with HIGH volume and/or HIGH selling price, to cover the cost of the failures.

We will not get HIGH sales volume, so the other option is HIGH selling price (cost to us).​

so you have manufacturing experience?

Enough to know the issues of yield when making stuff from a silicon wafer. Which I why I do not understand your statement

a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.)​

 

[Soocom1]

FYI..

I worked in manufacturing for 10 years on various levels and exposed to R&D and also patenting and other layers of manufacturing D&D.
Making a silicon wafer and making one to fit 6x7 or even 6x9 is not only not difficult, but has been done with even larger sizes.

No not "stitching or "gluing" (whatever the hell that means) the wafers together, but actual single full sized wafers that would work with the 6x9 and even 4x5 LF.

its not done because the ATTITUDE of those in manufacturing dont think there is enough ROI.

In reality the cost isnt that high. its a simple matter of ROI and if people dont buy, whats the point.

but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I originally posted.

 

[smoke665]

The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.

Afraid this will never happen. People in general are to accustomed to instant gratification, and the cell phone makers are only to eager to oblige. One of my pet peeves is the constant posting of snap chat images with rabbit ears, whiskers, etc. Seriously????

For the 'beginner' with a film camera it used to cost $2.99 for a 36-shot roll of 100-speed, and $10.99 for developing 36 color prints.

I predate that to the time when for $3 you get a roll of B&W developed AND they'd include another roll of film. It wasn't till the late 50's, early 60's that color became popular.

 

[Derrel]

It is too bad there has been no "Yashica Mat 124" medium format digital.

 

[Soocom1]

The 44x33 is a size because it fits nicely on the silicon wafer.
The size actually is irrelivant in the manufacturing process.
There are wafers made that as stated before could cover a 4x5 or 8x10.
its almost exclusively based on ROI and maximum return on the wafer itself. The ingot made is a standard size and can be made to any diameter they want.

The big names right now are producing what you have because thats a "normal convention" for them.
IMO and based ont he manufacturing side of things I was involved with in my Decade long carrer at Motorola is that the actual cost is microscopic, and like Snap-on tools, your paying mostly for name.

When it comes to the digital side of things that everyone is stuck on, you can obtain a first class Med. Format setup for under 3K now. Granted used.
And it has been repeatedly proven that a 3, 5 and even 10 Mp image even in MF still blows away any small sensor 24-40 mp image.

Again its size, not Mp count.

 

[480sparky]

I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free. Just lying there for the taking. All ya gotta do is go get 'em.

 

[tirediron]

I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free. Just lying there for the taking. All ya gotta do is go get 'em.

The "air" fare to get there might be pricey though...

 

[Soocom1]

I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free. Just lying there for the taking. All ya gotta do is go get 'em.

mmmm.


dunno...

 

[480sparky]

I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free. Just lying there for the taking. All ya gotta do is go get 'em.

The "air" fare to get there might be pricey though...

There's precious little 'air' between you and them.........

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

But from a photographic standpoint, the only thing your doing is working with a larger area. The mechanics are the same.

The LF only gets diff. when your talking about adjustments and movements.
That requires a diff. approach.

I'm late to the party again...

A common misconception borne from a digital technician's viewpoint, one of understanding the numbers and how every camera can be made to take the exact same shot. That it can all be reduced to a simple total light/noise equation that somehow is the root of all photographic understanding...

Well you've got FP4 loaded in the dark slides and the wind is gusting 25+mph out in the landscape under leaden skies. Nestled comfortably in the boot of the camper van, in the bag next to the Linhof, is the trusted D600 and the normal three lenses.

So which will give you usable results? Which one will do it easily and give you an idea of what the image will look like and if you're wasting your time or not? I know which one I'd grab, or when I'm wasting my time. It's alright being a hipster on the hillside with your big camera swaying not so gently in the breeze declaring to the world that, "anybody with a rudimentary knowledge will be able to produce similar results..." And when you examine the thin, flat and blurred images you'd probably be right...

It's not a question of hard/easy but of limitations.

I personally do not think that there is a better camera than a modern digital SLR, in term of speed and ease of operation, and for ease of "getting the shot"

^^^^ This. The 35mm format has consistently proved itself to be by far the most versatile. From fashion to sport to landscape, from far away lands to a couple down Shepherd's Bush... It sits at a unique balance between compromise and capability which is why it was so popular in the film era and continues to be the benchmark in digital. I would go as far as saying that modern 45+mp FF cameras have largely made MF redundant. LF film still has a process and beauty that's unique, but it's so severely restricted by limitations of speed that I would hardly call it a beginners camera. Other than in the sense of, "I'm just beginning to be able to get an image out of it..."

 

[limr]

Why is the assumption that most people are going to learn the same way? Or that one tool is going to be used in the same way by different people?

The truth is that no single method to teach/learn photography is going to work for everyone. Some people do better if they are given a bigger challenge to start with than they would with building up to a higher level of difficulty. Others would get overwhelmed and would do better easing their way up.

Edit: Also, medium or large format film camera doesn't automatically mean 'more difficult' depending on what a person's natural inclinations are. For example, it's easier for me to deal with something that operates mechanically than something that relies on dials and menus, whereas others would feel more comfortable with electronics and software than with dark slides and Waterhouse stops.

For example, expanding on Tirediron's analogy of learning how to drive a Mack truck before a Chevy Cavalier: my father insisted that it was better to learn how to drive in a difficult vehicle. If we could drive a temperamental old car, we could drive anything. (Except never drive a Cavalier. They are as boring as watching paint dry.)

That method backfired hard with my oldest sister. It was too intimidating and she would freeze. However, it worked beautifully with me, because I generally retain knowledge or skill more quickly when I am thrown right into the thick of a challenge.

Quite frankly, I think it's more a matter of someone finding the gear that makes it all fall into place for that person. That gear and process is going to look different for everyone.