Crazy idea related to my hobby... what do you think?

Am I crazy thinking about buying a medium format film camera?

  • Yes - you'll spend £hundreds and quite probably get bored with the slow progress and dev costs

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • Half yes - you'd be better of spending the money on your existing DSLR/trips away to photograph

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • Neither yes nor no - you'll only find out by trying it!

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • No with a big but... you might end up regretting spending the money but it'll be fun doing it

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • No way - it'll complement your digital photography and allow you to explore a different side

    Votes: 14 32.6%

  • ... don't do it yet - maybe one day but you've still got so much to learn

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Total voters
    43
Velvia slide is beautiful in its own right and it exists as a physical thing, so.....no, slide isn't like digital, its much much better than that.
Film isn't for everybody, neither is digital, but you have to give it a good shot to know one way or the other.
You never know, film could be your calling...lol
 
pjm1 said:
1. I prefer B&W photographs!
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, I'd just recommend starting with the C41-process B&W films at first to keep costs down if you're using a lab for development.

pjm1 said:
2. One of the real draws of film is the crazy latitude you get with B&W in particular - I love very high contrast B&W images
Click to expand...

Colour negative has nearly as much, if not more in some instances, latitude as B&W. Check out the chart I included in one of my previous posts.

pjm1 said:
3. I'm actually less of a fan of the "look" of a lot of the colour film shots I see... ok, I do like Velvia but don't really want to be shooting slide for reason #2 (I may as well be shooting digital... almost)
Click to expand...

If you prefer B&W, then go for it, by all means. Keep in mind, however, that the look of any negative film, whether B&W or colour, is heavily influenced by the person doing the developing/scanning/printing. Consequently, don't be too quick to judge the look of colour negative or any other film based on other people's scans you see on the internet. The look of most photos resulted from choices by the photographer/developer/scanner and not the film choice.
 
Last edited:
Once you are set up to home develop your b/w film, then it costs pennies rather than pounds to process. Therefore, if you are to go for the cheapest option (in the long term) - then buying a developing tank, a film changing bag, a thermometer, a few jugs, and of course the chemicals makes B/W the cheapest route into film. Learn to look after your chemistry, develop regular, and it costs even less. It might appear to be too much of a challenge to some - taking on medium format photography AND home processing - but if you like B/W, then it is the cheapest option, as well as perhaps the most satisfactory.

Don't be put off from digitally scanning (hybrid photography). It allows you to enjoy using film, film cameras, perhaps film processing - but without the need for a fully dedicated dark room. IF you are aiming to produce images not just for print - but also for sharing online - then at some point you have to digitalise it, and this can arguably be done best at the film level. Ok, I know that they didn't use cheap flatbed scanners - but some of the most valuable (in sale price) photographs in the World are hybrid creations. Unless you have been brainwashed by the digital photography press - perfect sharpness is not the end all of a successful image. Film changing bags / film scanners are nothing to be ashamed of.
 
On the light meter side. I have to confess, I more often than not don't bother, but use the Sunny F16 Rule, sometimes backed up by a light meter app on a smartphone. Film can be much more forgiving of poor exposure, especially a rugged b/w.
 
I used an old weston meter for ages. Cost about £15 and was surprisingly good even with slide film but no good for flash metering I expect. This thread is making me think I need another trip out with one of my film cameras now! I have home developed 4x5 sheet film which was surprisingly easy, so home developing of BW may be a good way to go, but dust spotting was a complete nightmare so now I tend to have a lab do it as it saves hours on dust spotting afterwards.
 
Do it - but beware you won't get lattitude as shown above from home scans. Box speed or overexposed you can do, forget pushing digitally. I want a Medium Format Pentax so badly!
 
Andysnap said:
You are correct, however what they do show is twofold. Firstly what some medium format cameras look like and their size and secondly that film shots are in a lot of cases the equal of digital (and some times better) even when scanned in. They are of course even better when properly printed. (y)
Click to expand...



...and properly scanned. I've nothing against scanning film... just BADLY scanning film :)
 
pjm1 said:
Cheers for that RJ... I'm just west of Glasgow so we have some great stuff to photograph on our doorstep. My kit wishlist has now grown:

RB67 with the SD (120) back and 90mm lens (that will do me for a few months I think)
Sekonic L308 lightmeter
Epson V500 scanner (seem to be under £80 on fleabay at the moment, so will quickly work out cheaper than having negs scanned by the developers)

First two are essentials so I reckon I'm looking at a shade over £300 to get started. Oh, and some film - I think I'll be sticking to B&W for a while. Maybe a few rolls of Tri-X 400 as well for indoor work... oh and a PC sync cord if I want to use my flash(es).

Lots more research still to do!
Click to expand...
Good choices but if budget allows, I think the RZ is a better choice than the RB. There are various differences, the main one for me though is that with the RZ, when you rotate the back you see the correct shape. With the RB, there are just markings on the ground glass.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Good choices but if budget allows, I think the RZ is a better choice than the RB. There are various differences, the main one for me though is that with the RZ, when you rotate the back you see the correct shape. With the RB, there are just markings on the ground glass.
Click to expand...
The biggest practical difference in the fact that the RZ is a one shot action for film advance and resetting the shutter. On the RB you have to re-cock the shutter/mirror with the side lever, then advance the film with the winder on the film back. The RZ has a different back and they're mechanically linked, so re-cocking the shutter also advances the film. You have to "wind on" twice with the RB.

The RZ can take digital backs, and the RB can not.

The RB is still a great choice for first 120 camera though, as they're cheaper.
 
Thanks everyone... lots to think about! If I can pick up an RZ from fleabay or somewhere, I'll definitely think about it. I guess taking a digital back is heresy on this thread (but good to know if I ever have a spare £5k!)

I think my Christmas list is writing itself right now... ;)
 
I found David's comments above particularly interesting. The RB67 was my first medium format camera, and to be honest I didn't find the "double wind" much of a problem. I wasn't using it for speed, because I was photographing landscapes with the camera on a tripod.

My second medium format camera was an RZ67. The reason for choosing this (and I still have both) was the possibility of auto exposure (yes, I'm lazy!). The other differences didn't matter to me. In practice, I found the view through a pentaprism (for the auto exposure option) inferior to the waist level finder, so I didn't take that route. What drives me up the wall with the RZ67 is the 60 second time out when using mirror lock up. Possibly there's a way round this that I haven't spotted; but my normal practice is to set everything up, raise the mirror and then wait for the wind to drop or the clouds to move. Unfortunately, I only have 60 seconds waiting time allowed, presumably to prevent battery drain. To me, that's the biggest difference between the two. But that stems solely from the way I work.
 
I sold the pentaprism that I got with my RB67, it's heavy and I didn't feel it was adding anything so it never once left the house. Realistically I think I prefer the wlf on a tripod.
 
Thanks everyone for the advice and suggestions.

I've just pressed the button on an RZ67 Pro II. It was a really good price and I just hope it wasn't one of those "too good to be true" transactions. I'll see and there's always fleabay's dispute resolution process if I don't get what the description said...

It comes with a 180mm lens which should be ok for studio work (I have my eyes on the 110 f/2.8 but not for now...)

I will also be getting either the 50mm or 65mm for landscapes, the former being about twice the price of the latter (but still less than £200 - these lenses are crazily good value!) so might wait for a "bargain".

The question I have is regarding a light meter, partially aimed at @Pookeyhead . Given I do want to use this for landscapes (about half the point of getting it!) I'm assuming I need a light meter which has spot functionality so that I can use the Zone system. Am I right in thinking the L308 doesn't do this - so I'll need to get a 558 or something? Are there cheaper options which still do 1 degree and incident?

Thanks everyone... I now have you all to blame for getting into this film world!!
 
Do your clients ask for MF?

Do you not want digital MF, not high consumable cost film anyway?

Can you not print your dSLR files at A1+ anyway?

Do you envisage film as a part of creative process, i.e. you do something artistic in the development stages?

Considering you're in landscapes, should you not consider getting large format instead? Costs should be comparably high.
 
daugirdas said:
Do your clients ask for MF?

Do you not want digital MF, not high consumable cost film anyway?

Can you not print your dSLR files at A1+ anyway?

Do you envisage film as a part of creative process, i.e. you do something artistic in the development stages?

Considering you're in landscapes, should you not consider getting large format instead? Costs should be comparably high.
Click to expand...

I'm not a pro - in any way... this is just a hobby so I decided that c. £300 isn't too much to "invest" given I should be able to get at least that back if/when I come to sell the kit.

The decision to go film was more about the process, less about the output. I'm sure I could stick a £10,000 digital back on the RZ but not sure Mrs pjm1 would approve that transaction ;)
 
Hi, Paul, I've been thinking the same for a while now.

@Southdowns bought one and having had a look at it on a few meets its cracking camera.

If you buy one keep me updated and I can blame you when I get one ;)

Cheers.
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks everyone for the advice and suggestions.

I've just pressed the button on an RZ67 Pro II. It was a really good price and I just hope it wasn't one of those "too good to be true" transactions. I'll see and there's always fleabay's dispute resolution process if I don't get what the description said...

It comes with a 180mm lens which should be ok for studio work (I have my eyes on the 110 f/2.8 but not for now...)

I will also be getting either the 50mm or 65mm for landscapes, the former being about twice the price of the latter (but still less than £200 - these lenses are crazily good value!) so might wait for a "bargain".

The question I have is regarding a light meter, partially aimed at @Pookeyhead . Given I do want to use this for landscapes (about half the point of getting it!) I'm assuming I need a light meter which has spot functionality so that I can use the Zone system. Am I right in thinking the L308 doesn't do this - so I'll need to get a 558 or something? Are there cheaper options which still do 1 degree and incident?

Thanks everyone... I now have you all to blame for getting into this film world!!
Click to expand...


The L308 has no spot facility no.

There's a whole lot more to the zone system than just metering though. With B&W film, unless you're also going to carry it through to development and printing, it's just all a bit pointless. You can't just point a spot meter at something and decide "I want that bit zone 5" and that's it. Deciding that something lighter should be darker, or vice versa, and then doing nothing about your negative development to compensate will just result in over, or under exposure and therefore potentially degraded highlight, or shadow detail as a result..

Go buy the book "The Negative" by Ansel Adams. (This is actually book 2 in a series.... The Camera, The Negative, and The Print)


If, after reading that you still decide that you want to use the zone system, THEN think about a spot meter.


daugirdas said:
Do your clients ask for MF?

Do you not want digital MF, not high consumable cost film anyway?

Can you not print your dSLR files at A1+ anyway?

Do you envisage film as a part of creative process, i.e. you do something artistic in the development stages?

Considering you're in landscapes, should you not consider getting large format instead? Costs should be comparably high.
Click to expand...

Do your clients ask for images shot with £3000 lenses?

No. You still buy them though :)

Each to their own. Spending a fortune on lenses to squeeze the last drop of quality out of a tiny toy format is your way... going with a bigger format is his way. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Thanks David - that makes sense as I was struggling to understand something about the Zone system which is probably just my way of reiterating your point: lets say the "classic" mountain scape in front of me has snowy peaks (which I want as Zone 7) and the areas in shadow I want in Zone 3 but when I'm metering there's 5 or even 6 stops of difference... If I'm shooting digital I'm likely to expose for the peaks to be Zone 7 and then pull back some shadow detail in post (ok, I might be able to get away with pushing the peaks to Zone 8 but that's where chimping comes back in to see if anything blows).

I'm assuming the only way I could achieve the same effect with film is to develop myself - I need to have control of my own contrast range? The same argument (in reverse) applies when I have a very flat, low contrast scene in front of me that I really want to stretch into a high contrast B&W with full tonal range...
 
pjm1 said:
RZ67 Pro II with 180mm :)
Click to expand...

@posiview ... And as of yesterday, at 50mm which should arrive more or less the same time as the camera (i.e. for Christmas day). Outside of the very long the lenses for this camera are ridiculously cheap when you're used to seeing FX lenses in the four figure price range... Every focal length up to 250mm (so that's only 125mm in FX terms) seems to be available second hand for £100-200 depending on where you want to buy it from. If you go fleabay then sub £100 is easily possible as well, it appears.

The 50mm I've ordered is the cheaper non-ULD version which does have poorer sharpness/resolution than the more expensive, newer model. But because it's all second hand, if I decided I want to upgrade I can just sell the one I have for probably the same as I paid for it and get the other one...
 
With negative film you can be fairly lazy, expose for the zone 3 rocks by placing them at 3; meter from them and open up two stops. Negative film has tremendous latitude for over exposure so the 4 stops for the highlights probably won't be a problem.
 
Thanks @steveo_mcg - my gut feel was with digital to expose for the highlights (Zone 7) and with film expose for the shadows. I saw some examples of Portra (I think) over and under exposed by 3/4 stops and it was still useable (in the case of under) and even better than that with overexposure...
 
pjm1 said:
I'm assuming the only way I could achieve the same effect with film is to develop myself - I need to have control of my own contrast range? The same argument (in reverse) applies when I have a very flat, low contrast scene in front of me that I really want to stretch into a high contrast B&W with full tonal range...
Click to expand...

Apart from making the correct choice of film for the situation, getting more contrast is largely at the printing stage (assuming wet printing of course) - you can use different "grades" of paper to get more or less contrast out of the print - plus all the dodging/burning fun you can have waving your hands or lollypops over the image (or masking certain areas of the image) - just like photoshop really, only slower, smellier, and a lot less predictable - oh - and the only "undo" is to throw the paper away and start again. Its wonderful, and I really miss having a proper wet-darkroom for that part of the process.

Some film developing chemicals can enhance or cut contrast as well, as can different "styles" of developing process (say "stand developing" as opposed to "agitation") but the REAL magic of film only really happens in a darkroom IMO
 
Last edited:
pjm1 said:
Thanks David - that makes sense as I was struggling to understand something about the Zone system which is probably just my way of reiterating your point: lets say the "classic" mountain scape in front of me has snowy peaks (which I want as Zone 7) and the areas in shadow I want in Zone 3 but when I'm metering there's 5 or even 6 stops of difference... If I'm shooting digital I'm likely to expose for the peaks to be Zone 7 and then pull back some shadow detail in post (ok, I might be able to get away with pushing the peaks to Zone 8 but that's where chimping comes back in to see if anything blows).

I'm assuming the only way I could achieve the same effect with film is to develop myself - I need to have control of my own contrast range? The same argument (in reverse) applies when I have a very flat, low contrast scene in front of me that I really want to stretch into a high contrast B&W with full tonal range...
Click to expand...


The zone system is not really effective unless you take developing into account. As you say... if you juts meter for one, the others fall where they will. Only by controlling the contrast of the negative through development times and dilution will you retain control of where the other zones fall. Metering alone will not do this.
 
I've always rather liked Roger Hicks irreverant look at the Zone system myself

With a MF camera you are unlikely to lose out to much if you later decide to sell it, I do think if you want to do more with landscapes 5x4 is a better option as has been mentioned decent scans can be a problem and with a larger area of film it can be less of a problem if all you have access to is the prosumer flat beds.

With regard to scanning if you get serious do look into getting your own pro flat bed or drum scanner if you have the space if you are prepared to do thre research and some mucking around then they can often be had secondhand for less than the cost of the better epsons new and certainly for less than the Nikon scanners that will do MF now sell for.

I often see references to what people will print their DSLR files upto I'm sure everyones favourite Ken Rockwell says a metre wide myself I stick to A3+ and would point out that viewing distance is a commercail printing / addvertising industry concept if you want it sharp you want 300dpi which is why I'll happilly print a 10x8 scanned at 1600dpi at 40" but wouldn't want to look at a DSLR file that size.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The zone system is not really effective unless you take developing into account.
Click to expand...

It's also much more convenient when you are dealing with single sheets of film. Irrelevant if you use roll film unless you expose the whole roll to require a particular development.


Steve.
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks @steveo_mcg - my gut feel was with digital to expose for the highlights (Zone 7) and with film expose for the shadows. I saw some examples of Portra (I think) over and under exposed by 3/4 stops and it was still useable (in the case of under) and even better than that with overexposure...
Click to expand...
Yeah portra is a bit nuts in that respect.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's also much more convenient when you are dealing with single sheets of film. Irrelevant if you use roll film unless you expose the whole roll to require a particular development.


Steve.
Click to expand...


Quite. Although with 6x7 you only have 10 frames.. which is conceivable that you'd shoot a roll per subject. With a 36 roll of 35mm, that becomes less likely.
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks @steveo_mcg - my gut feel was with digital to expose for the highlights (Zone 7) and with film expose for the shadows. I saw some examples of Portra (I think) over and under exposed by 3/4 stops and it was still useable (in the case of under) and even better than that with overexposure...
Click to expand...


It may still yield an acceptable exposure, but the zones will still not be exactly where you want them to be, and THAT is the point of the zone system, not getting a "correct" exposure. Also, manipulating development times to achieve the zone system is almost impossible with colour film due to the strict development times that also control other factors such as colour.
 
@pjm1

Where is it then, wanna see....(y):D
 
pjm1 said:
Ha ha! It's currently sitting in a post office in Scotland waiting for me to collect. Unfortunately I'm currently working in London...

:mad:

I did manage to buy a roll of 120 Ilford while I'm here though :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a shop in London that will sell you another one to use until you get home :D

Which film did you go for??
 
Well, back home now... customs charge paid and delivery tomorrow :)

Obviously I'm going to have to try it out to make sure it works before Mrs pjm1 packs it back away again and wraps it up for Christmas.

My cheeky roll of HP5 has to be used, purely for testing purposes though! (And yes, I'll have a sniff of the film just for you, @ianp5a )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top